Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pre-natal Parent-Offspring Conflict: Human pathologies explained by Ev. theory
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 1 of 24 (296094)
03-16-2006 9:08 PM


A fascinating article in the NY Times illustrates beautifully how evolutionary theory can help explain the ”why’ of apparently anomalous and otherwise unexplained biological phenomena including the origins of specific human medical problems. (Oh that any alternative to evolutionary theory could prove so useful!). You can find the complete article here
In 1970 Dr. Robert Trivers put forward his rather controversial theory of Parent-Offspring Conflict. Essentially, he pointed out that, from a Darwinian ”selfish genotype’ standpoint, offpsring should be selected to demand from their parents more resources than it is in the parents' best interest to provide. An ornithologist by training, he pointed out that this effect leads mother birds to drive fledged chicks from the nest and deny them food once they are capable of fending for themselves. The effect is most simply explained by the fact that the fitness functions of parent and offspring are not identical. It is in the offspring’s best interest to extract the maximum resources possible from the parent (little parasites !), while it is in the parents' best interest to successfully raise the largest *number* of offspring possible and, at some point, this means limiting the resources they provide to each individual offspring.
Recently, a Harvard evolutionary biologist has extended Triver’s theory to pre-natal conflicts and the inferences are currently being borne out by a plethora of genetic evidence that molecular biologists were at a loss to explain without the insight of this evolutionary reasoning. The implications are proving useful in understanding the root cause of many of the complications of pregnancy suffered by mammalian mothers.
For those averse to news subscriptions, here are some excerpts from the article:
Pregnancy can be the most wonderful experience life has to offer. But it can also be dangerous. Around the world, an estimated 529,000 women a year die during pregnancy or childbirth. Ten million suffer injuries, infection or disability.
Dr. David Haig argues that a mother and her unborn child engage in an unconscious struggle over the nutrients she will provide it. Dr. Haig's theory has been gaining support in recent years, as scientists examine the various ways pregnancy can go wrong.
In the 1970's, Dr. Trivers argued that families create an evolutionary conflict. Natural selection should favor parents who can successfully raise the most offspring. For that strategy to work, they can't put too many resources into any one child. But the child's chances for reproductive success will increase as its care and feeding increase. Theoretically, Dr. Trivers argued, natural selection could favor genes that help children get more resources from their parents than the parents want to give.
As Dr. Haig considered the case of pregnancy, it seemed like the perfect arena for this sort of conflict. A child develops in intimate contact with its mother. Its development in the womb is crucial to its long-term health. So it was plausible that nature would favor genes that allowed fetuses to draw more resources from their mothers (than their mothers should be selected to give ABE - EZ).
A fetus does not sit passively in its mother's womb and wait to be fed. Its placenta aggressively sprouts blood vessels that invade its mother's tissues to extract nutrients.
“We tend to think of genes as parts of a machine working together," Dr. Haig said. "But in the realm of genetic conflict, the cooperation breaks down." In a 1993 paper, Dr. Haig first predicted that many complications of pregnancy would turn out to be produced by this conflict.
Dr. Haig also made some predictions about the sorts of maternal defenses that have evolved. One of the most intriguing strategies he proposed was for mothers to shut down some of the genes in their own children . . in the past 15 years, scientists have identified more than 70 pairs of genes in which the copy from one parent never makes a protein. Scientists do not fully understand this process, known as genomic imprinting.
One of the most striking examples is a gene called insulin growth factor 2 (Igf2). Produced only in fetal cells, it stimulates rapid growth. Normally, only the father's copy is active. To understand the gene's function, scientists disabled the father's copy in the placenta of fetal mice. The mice were born weighing 40 percent below average. Perhaps the mother's copy of Igf2 is silent because turning it off helps slow the growth of a fetus.
Dr. Haig's work is now widely hailed for making sense of imprinted genes. "Molecular biologists had it worked out in exquisite detail, but they had no idea why it existed," said Kyle Summers, a biologist at East Carolina State University. "Haig just comes in and says, 'I know why this is happening,' and explained it."
Dr. Haig has recently been exploring his theory's implications for life after birth. "I think it can influence all sorts of social behaviors," he said.
Scientists have found that some genes are imprinted in the brain after birth, and in some cases even in adulthood. "Imprinted genes and behavior are the new frontier," said Dr. Lawrence Wilkinson of the University of Cambridge. In a paper to be published in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Dr. Wilkinson and his colleagues argue that the evidence on imprinted brain genes ” preliminary as it is ” fits with Dr. Haig's theory. They call it "the most robust evolutionary hypothesis for genomic imprinting."
Dr. Haig has enjoyed watching his theory mature and inspire other scientists. But he has also had to cope with a fair amount of hate mail. It comes from across the political spectrum, from abortion opponents to feminists who accuse him of trying to force patriarchy into biology.
"People seem to think, 'He must have a political agenda,' " Dr. Haig said. "But I'm not talking at all about conscious behaviors. I'm just interested in these mechanisms and why they evolved."
So I would like to know how creationists might explain this remarkable coincidence between evolutionary theory and previously unexplained medical conditions. Do they have an alternative explanataion? Better still, how do ID proponents explain the 'design' of such an apparently conflicted biological system?
Biological Evolution seems the most appropriate venue for this topic.
Have fun, EZ.
[edited for typos]
This message has been edited by EZscience, 03-16-2006 08:11 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 03-18-2006 10:20 AM EZscience has replied
 Message 18 by Redeemed, posted 03-22-2006 6:02 PM EZscience has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 24 (296378)
03-17-2006 7:47 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 24 (296453)
03-18-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EZscience
03-16-2006 9:08 PM


So I would like to know how creationists might explain this remarkable coincidence between evolutionary theory and previously unexplained medical conditions. Do they have an alternative explanataion? Better still, how do ID proponents explain the 'design' of such an apparently conflicted biological system?
As a firm evo and opponent of creo and ID, all I can say is... why would this pose a problem for creo or ID?
All that was discovered is that genes are set which allow for a growing being to try and get as much nutrients as possible, and that the mother's system might have mechanisms to deal with such issues. It seems to me that makes sense from any aspect.
Essentially this "brilliant" guy applied economics to a system of supply and demand, and that would be true no matter who came up with it, or if it was the result of a system. There would be no need for alternatives to be speculated at.
I guess the question is where in this "research" is there anything which discounts any of the other possibilities for their existence? Why couldn't or shouldn't gods or designers have introduced such mechanisms?
Triver’s theory to pre-natal conflicts and the inferences are currently being borne out by a plethora of genetic evidence that molecular biologists were at a loss to explain without the insight of this evolutionary reasoning.
That is hyperbolic commentary. That it was brought up from an evolutionary theorist using an evolutionary "setting" does not mean that was required at all. It is pure economics of supply and demand.
If you were going to build creatures that need to grow, and do better with more nutrients, wouldn't you give them mechanisms to get as much as possible? And to avoid overtaxing the host, give hosts mechanisms for limiting nutrient taking? They discuss that the result is a tug of war with a line that neither side crosses. That could just as easily be manufactured.
If ID theorists had come up with this, which they easily could have, and to some extent have suggested in some vague ways in their literature, would you have agreed with their exhortations that it was only possible through viewing the system as having been designed?
Indeed I was taken back by the rather "active" terms used in this article for why these systems exist. They aren't "selected" to do something, rather they have survived because they have produced results which don't compromise reproductive capacity.
Lets say for instance that certain genes were not "deactivated" and so children grew larger or smaller than is the norm right now... would that have ended the human race? Unlikely. It merely would have changed exactly how the struggle for nutrients are dealt with today in humans. Look at the facts, nowhere was there a suggestion that the experimental knockout mice would have experienced catastrophic birth problems nor such weakling children that they would never reproduce. There was merely a difference.
This was a shell game and a good example of the kind of circus environment I see science turning into. It starts with some ominous ref to complications in pregnancies, then walks us through one item which connects genes involving cell damage/repair to complication in pregnancies (which makes sense regardless of evo theory), to suggestions that eventually there might be an explanation for behavior.
Not only do they avoid discussing material directly related to "imprinted brain genes", that subject has nothing to do with complications in pregnancy. But they sure got people hooked with that didn't they?
Here are some telling quotes...
In a paper to be published in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Dr. Wilkinson and his colleagues argue that the evidence on imprinted brain genes ” preliminary as it is ” fits with Dr. Haig's theory. They call it "the most robust evolutionary hypothesis for genomic imprinting."
Doesn't that sound exactly like ID commentary? Just because some explanation fits does not make it a sound, much less a "robust" hypothesis, especially when it is this preliminary. Otherwise the latest deductive theory will normally be the most robust.
Normally, the mother's copy of Nesp55 may encourage the mice to take more risks on behalf of the group, whether that risk involves looking for food or defending the group. "It's a possibility, but it needs to be proved," said Dr. Wilkinson.
Well it was nice that he admits it still has to be proved, but I have serious questions about the sentence before that. "On behalf of the group"? I could just as easily have said encourages mice to take more risks for self-preservation whether that involves looking for food or defending against enemies. I might add that if the above is true, it actually acts as a counter to the "selfish gene" theory. I guess it will become "male genes are from mars, female genes are from venus" theory.
There is no surprise (at least to me) that genes might play a role in pregnancy complications due to various resulting issues (including resource conflict) between a mother and fetus. There is no surprise (at least to me) that genes may result in different levels of drive and so difference in levels of behaviors. Or (their closing attention getter) that genes may be responsible for some mental disorders.
The only "surprises" would be which are being activated or deactivated and so what specific benefits/deficits we see. These would not in any sense challenge a creo or ID theorist who can use the same theatrics to make the case for their theory, nor prevent them from making predictions based on a designer using economic models.
AbE: Sorry if my tone is angry. I am not mad at you. But that article is garbage which may be a result of how journalism is treating science these days, though the commentary by the scientists (if correct) suggests they are taking such an "active evolutionary" as well as "popEvoPsych" approach. I don't think the answer to the bad science of creo and ID is to have bad science from the evo side. Very frustrating to me.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-18-2006 04:28 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EZscience, posted 03-16-2006 9:08 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by EZscience, posted 03-18-2006 2:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 4 of 24 (296498)
03-18-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
03-18-2006 10:20 AM


Holmes, I am always impressed at how effectively you can defend the other side's point of view without actually subscribing to it.
holmes writes:
why would this pose a problem for creo or ID?
Don't you think if you were going to 'design' or 'create' something as biologically complex as pregnancy (internal fertilization followed by gestation) you would do so without designing into it conflict and antagonism between mother and child before birth? It seems a good designer or creator could do a lot better.
holmes writes:
this "brilliant" guy applied economics to a system of supply and demand, and that would be true no matter who came up with it... It is pure economics of supply and demand.
It goes a lot deeper than that. What about the parental gene conflict within the developing fetus, the mother's genetics essentially battling the father's genetics and trying trying to turn off paternal genes that are trying to extract more resources from the mother? Don't tell me that is a simple extension of economics theory - it has to do with differntial genetic representation in the offspring and disparate fitness functions between mother and father. And don't pretend that creation or ID theory could have predicted such effects 'a priori' before the molecular evidence was produced to support it. Not buying it, sorry.
And many good scientific insights have exactly that quality you complain of - they tend to be true no matter who comes up with them, and infuriatingly obvious once revealed.
holmes writes:
where in this "research" is there anything which discounts any of the other possibilities for their existence? Why couldn't or shouldn't gods or designers have introduced such mechanisms?
1. because the inherent conflict and antagonism they entail that seems to contradict the inherent 'perfection' implied by ID and creation.
2. because ToE predicted what was observed BEFORE it was observed - what in ID or creation 'theory' could possibly have predicted the existence of this type of conflict?
holmes writes:
They aren't "selected" to do something, rather they have survived because they have produced results which don't compromise reproductive capacity.
That is pretty much natural selection you are describing. Many characters and mechanisms are tolerated that may be less than optimal, or represent some sort of compromise, but their predominance and persistence in a population implies that they were selectively adavatageous *relative to alternatives*.
holmes writes:
nowhere was there a suggestion that the experimental knockout mice would have experienced catastrophic birth problems nor such weakling children that they would never reproduce. There was merely a difference.
But on a larger (population) scale (larger than a few dozen mice in an experiment) this type of conflict *does* lead to serious problems for some individuals. The differences measured in the experiment merely point out the function of the genes. The whole point is that many, many pregancy complications stem from this conflict and that mother and offspring DO lose their lives in some cases because of them. This has nothing to do with species extinction or the end of the human race.
holmes writes:
This was a shell game and a good example of the kind of circus environment I see science turning into...
It is hard to explain complex scientific inferences effectively in popular articles. I assist journalists from time to time trying to write publicly accessible articles explaining the results of our research. It's not easy, believe me, and I am not always pleased with the results. But this is an example of sound evolutionary reasoning that not only explains otherwise puzzling observations, but also helps us understand and anticipate other physiological and behavioral consdequences of genomic imprinting. I also disagree in that I think all this makes sense ONLY in the context of evolutionary reasoning.
holmes writes:
doesn't that sound exactly like ID commentary? Just because some explanation fits does not make it a sound, much less a "robust" hypothesis
Taken out of context the way you are doing, perhaps. But you ignore the whole body of scientific observations in various fields that people were having great difficulty explaining before these inferences were made. It is 'robust' in the sense that many different lines of empirical evidence all seem to fit very well.
holmes writes:
I might add that if the above is true, it actually acts as a counter to the "selfish gene" theory.
You have touched on a very salient point here. What is implied is a form of group selection or kin selection effect, and we recognize these types of selection only when they run counter to selfishness - otherwise simple individual fitness is an adequate explanation of behavior. But the evolution of altruism could be a whole new thread topic.
holmes writes:
These would not in any sense challenge a creo or ID theorist who can use the same theatrics to make the case for their theory, nor prevent them from making predictions based on a designer using economic models.
No, I think that this would prove a very flawed line of argument. Neither ID nor creationsism made any a priori predictions regarding the observed phenomena and neither appear very compatible with their existence.
holmes writes:
Sorry if my tone is angry.
Not at all. But as you are someone who believes in evolution, I do find your frustration puzzling. This may be a somewhat superficial piece of journalism, but it's is definitively NOT bad science. The scientific reasoning is sound and the insights are proving to have value to medicine. When have ID or creationism *ever* provided insights useful to understanding medical phenomena? I don't think I even need to answer that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 03-18-2006 10:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 03-18-2006 3:12 PM EZscience has not replied
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 5:38 AM EZscience has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 5 of 24 (296503)
03-18-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by EZscience
03-18-2006 2:41 PM


First a comment on the OP. My initial reaction was that it is the kind of "Just So" story that give evolution a bad name. Maybe this isn't a problem for the scientist, but is just the nature of how the press reports (or misreports) science.
I take Message 3 as holmes saying about the same thing, and expanding on it.
Don't you think if you were going to 'design' or 'create' something as biologically complex as pregnancy (internal fertilization followed by gestation) you would do so without designing into it conflict and antagonism between mother and child before birth?
Some sort of antagonism is inherent in the problem of reproduction. It necessarily introduces a conflict over resources.
1. because the inherent conflict and antagonism they entail that seems to contradict the inherent 'perfection' implied by ID and creation.
Why this emphasis on perfection? The idea of ID is supposed to be an extrapolation from observed human design. And we do not see perfection in human design. Rather, we see pragmatic solutions to problems. Complaints about lack of perfection seem to be weak arguments against ID or against creationism.
2. because ToE predicted what was observed BEFORE it was observed - what in ID or creation 'theory' could possibly have predicted the existence of this type of conflict?
The old testament predicted the coming of Jesus, before it happened, but this was not recognized till later. Or did it so predict - see Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7 where this is being debated.
Don't we have the same problem here? A rather vague prediction, which is later construed as having predicted what is observed. I'm not against vague predictions. But we shouldn't read too much into it when evidence shows that the predictions seem to have been confirmed.
holmes writes:
I might add that if the above is true, it actually acts as a counter to the "selfish gene" theory.
You have touched on a very salient point here. What is implied is a form of group selection or kin selection effect, and we recognize these types of selection only when they run counter to selfishness - otherwise simple individual fitness is an adequate explanation of behavior.
Group selection has always been controversial, and rightly so.
But the evolution of altruism could be a whole new thread topic.
Try Kin Selection & Altruism.
Not at all. But as you are someone who believes in evolution, I do find your frustration puzzling.
Holmes is critical of weak and unconvincing arguments. I don't see anything puzzling in his reaction here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by EZscience, posted 03-18-2006 2:41 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 24 (296563)
03-19-2006 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by EZscience
03-18-2006 2:41 PM


NWR did a good job responding to the points you raised, as well as describing my position. I will try to add information, though if pressed for time you could equally answer his as mine.
I am always impressed at how effectively you can defend the other side's point of view without actually subscribing to it.
Most positions have some logic to them, the questions raised are how rigorous is the logic and how much evidentiary support do the premises have. It has been my displeasure to be consistently disillusioned by scientist and superstitionist alike on these matters. This phenomena is growing more so as science becomes popularized such that the populace feels it can understand or "do" science without any knowledge base, and the press (aided by popconscious scientists) deliver information in that same model. Rhetoric and correlation are replacing logic and rigorous methods to uncover causation.
I do not view that my criticizing this particular article and the theories within, nor my pointing out how creo and ID are not challenged by the theories or findings within, as defending creo or ID. I am defending really good science by showing how even evolutionary theorists can make the same errant claims that creo and ID do.
It seems a good designer or creator could do a lot better.
I'm not sure that is the case and both creos and ID theorists do not have to claim our bodies are perfectly engineered, just suitably engineered. Despite the stats on childbirth problems, we are more than prosperous. It is a strawman to say they must prove the best design possible... especially ID theorists who do not necessarily claim a perfect designer.
I might add that we do not know if the systems in play also effect other parts of the system. Part of this article discusses that the genes involved are with cell damage/repair, which is a body global issue and not solely pregnancy. It may be quite genius that a single gene sequence deals adequately with both pregnancy issues and other health issues. Simpler coding.
And of course the creo can point out that part of the Fall was most explicitly stated as increased issues in pregnancy. They have an added advantage of claiming the "theoretical" that once it was a perfect system of child and woman in harmony, but God made them competitive systems because she decided to compete with her creator.
What about the parental gene conflict within the developing fetus, the mother's genetics essentially battling the father's genetics and trying trying to turn off paternal genes that are trying to extract more resources from the mother?
Look at the article again and then look at the facts. While presented as being some battle, all the actual evidence shows is that some sets of genes are turned off. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is some aggressive process by any particular system, nor that its nonexistence would critically damage humans.
All we saw was change in birth weight... not even a suggestion it altered pregnancy problems for mice, much less have catastrophic consequences. Again this is part of my criticism, the "active" evolutionary descriptions. We are not being honed over time to perfection by some evolutionary machine. All we know is that we have been shaped by processes which will act to remove problematic issues for any environment, while retaining any countless numbers of characteristics which while helping define how we work are superfluous from an "evolutionary" or "survival" standpoint.
And don't pretend that creation or ID theory could have predicted such effects 'a priori' before the molecular evidence was produced to support it. Not buying it, sorry.
Why couldn't they? Have you read Darwin's Black Box? I don't see any bar to imagining genes effect competition for nutrients, and some genes may be deselected.
Look at the actual prediction, and see how much it needs evolution as its basis.
because the inherent conflict and antagonism they entail that seems to contradict the inherent 'perfection' implied by ID and creation.
This is a strawman. Creos readily state that humans (and this world) are no longer perfect, and ID theorists never claimed systems must be perfect. Moreover, I see no suggestion that existence of conflict and antagonism are incompatible with a perfect system. I suppose it all depends on how you view perfection and what a system is designed to produce.
because ToE predicted what was observed BEFORE it was observed - what in ID or creation 'theory' could possibly have predicted the existence of this type of conflict?
This cannot answer my direct question of why couldn't they have made such a prediction. that they were not the first does not mean they couldn't have. And that you do not see what basis their theory would have does not mean it does not. This is exactly the same argument that ID has used against evo in the past, and it does not hold when evo uses it against ID.
That is pretty much natural selection you are describing... their predominance and persistence in a population implies that they were selectively adavatageous *relative to alternatives*.
I was describing natural selection. But the latter statement is false. Predominance and persistence implies nothing other than it existed in a base population which has survived for whatever reason. Note that they were working on mice with the same characteristics. Thus this was not even a "human" issue. For all we know some small population of mammals destined to produce humans gained this mutation which survived because it did nothing detrimental, and they survived because they happened to be fast or good at hiding or their section of the world did not become uninhabitable (lets say drought), unlike others.
But on a larger (population) scale (larger than a few dozen mice in an experiment) this type of conflict *does* lead to serious problems for some individuals... The whole point is that many, many pregancy complications stem from this conflict and that mother and offspring DO lose their lives in some cases because of them. This has nothing to do with species extinction or the end of the human race.
There was no suggestion of data that there were any additional birth problems for mice, and thus discussions of what would be seen on a larger scale is meaningless. Don't you see that this is the same thing as mentioning Iraq, terrorism, and 911 together enough times that one thinks a connection was made? Look at the data, you saw NOTHING.
You didn't even see how many of that large number of problem pregnancies (though low by population standards) are caused by this "conflict". Again, it was a shell game. The mention this and show you that, and soon you don't know what you are actually looking at.
This has nothing to do with species extinction or the end of the human race.
It would have to be catastrophic for individuals not to have this system, or it would get weeded out right? I mean that is the scenario they are painting, correct?
But this is an example of sound evolutionary reasoning that not only explains otherwise puzzling observations, but also helps us understand and anticipate other physiological and behavioral consdequences of genomic imprinting.
Though certainly internally consistent with evolutionary theory, it is merely a possible explanation (from an evolutionary standpoint), and doesn't help us any more or less to understand what we will find next.
Note that it was not "mutation followed by selection" which produced this prediction. It was simply viewing pregnancy as a form of conflict game theory. About the only thing that could be said, or asked, is why were evolutionary theorists thus far looking at pregnancy as a harmonious communal issue, rather than as a parasitic competition of resources?
Just thinking of pregnancy in such terms one can begin devising strategies using genes. Depth of time is irrelevant, as is what did the shaping of genes.
It is 'robust' in the sense that many different lines of empirical evidence all seem to fit very well.
That is a very weak use of the term, especially when they data is at best in a "preliminary" state. I'm not sure where you are seeing that a designer could not have made the system as is, just as much as evolution, and that the only difference would be there is no evidence of design, period. That's why this causes no problem for ID or Creo, and adds nothing to evo. Its just a story which fits, and is less excluded than ID or Creo for reasons beyond anything this data involved.
By the way, you suggested I took them out of context. By all means show what context there words were used such that I was incorrect. I really don't believe I altered the meaning of their statement. They were boosting their theory, plain and simple.
Neither ID nor creationsism made any a priori predictions regarding the observed phenomena and neither appear very compatible with their existence... When have ID or creationism *ever* provided insights useful to understanding medical phenomena? I don't think I even need to answer that.
ID suggests that we can think about biological systems from a design-engineering standpoint in order to postulate how a system works, prior to investigation. That is almost EXACTLY what occured here, only instead of saying a designer made it, an evo said a natural process made it.
All you saw was that a scientist looked at pregnancy as a model of resource competition involving two separate systems, one geared to take nutrients and another geared to prevent overtaxing of self-resources. Apparently, and to my surprise, this had not been investigated as a model before? The rest follows, by theorizing how systems could manage either via genes or gene control.
I agree with ID that we could benefit from viewing biological systems as various types of engineered systems, and then retro-engineer them. My problem (with ID) is believing that because such ability is possible (which has been done), that a system actually was designed.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by EZscience, posted 03-18-2006 2:41 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by EZscience, posted 03-19-2006 1:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 7 of 24 (296601)
03-19-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
03-19-2006 5:38 AM


This reply for homes and NWR
I think you have stated your position in detail and I don’t want to belabor too many points on which we apparently have entrenched positions, but I have to take issue with some. You apparently see this as a poor application of evolutionary theory, and a poor attempt to popularize science. I see it as a good application of evolutionary theory, albeit a superficial article.
And NWR, just because so many popular science articles are necessarily superficial and often fail to do justice to scientific topics doesn't mean we should discourage the popularization of science. We need to try and help journalists do bettter, and help the public understand more about science. We can't just throw up our hands and say to heck with it.
holmes writes:
I am defending really good science by showing how even evolutionary theorists can make the same errant claims that creo and ID do.
I don’t think the science is bad. Incomplete and preliminary certainly, but not ”errant’. You have correctly pointed out that the inferences presented do not exclude alternative explanations, but you haven’t presented any evidence to suggest they are errant, nor a more constructive way of viewing the conflict. I know from previous posts your position on the application of evolutionary thinking to behavior and psychology, and yes, there are some poor and speculative applications out there, but that does not mean we should not seek careful ways to extrapolate evolutionary thinking to these disciplines. There are still plenty of incorrect hypotheses to be weeded out but I don’t think this is one of them. Elimination of incorrect hypotheses is part of the scientific process and we don’t have a better framework than ToE for examining the underlying causes of biological phenomena.
holmes writes:
It is a strawman to say they must prove the best design possible...
Fine. But why ”design’ a conflict?
holmes writes:
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is some aggressive process by any particular system
Maternal genes turning off paternal genes, and paternal genes modifying the expression of maternal genes within the developing offspring? You don’t see that as a genetic form of aggression ?
holmes writes:
All we saw was change in birth weight... not even a suggestion it altered pregnancy problems for mice, much less have catastrophic consequences.
The point here is only to demonstrate the functions of these particular genes not to imply a cascade of consequences beyond what was observed. The mother wants to partition resources to maximize her fitness and this includes raising other litters. Paternal interests only extend as far as the current litter, hence paternal genes exist that atttempt to extract more resources for the current litter than it is in the mother’s best interest to give. Since so few such genes have been identified and studied to date, it suggests that many other genes may exist that act to further the interests of one parent over that of the other in the fetus. You don’t find that interesting and worthy of further investigation?
holmes writes:
Look at the actual prediction, and see how much it needs evolution as its basis.
Come on holmes, the prediction was BASED on evolutionary reasoning, reasoning that gave rise to a series of inferences that are proving consistent with diverse genetic observations from different fields of medicine. If you read Triver’s original article on parent-offspring conflict published in 1970 you will see how this is a really a good extrapolation of his hypotheses. (The only serious shortcoming of Triver’s original hypothesis was an assumption of equal parental care resources in male and female.)
holmes writes:
that they were not the first does not mean they couldn't have (posited the prental conflict) <- context.
They couldn’t have because they do not have any mechanistic framework for predicting or expecting to observe anything - by their own admission in most cases.
holmes writes:
Predominance and persistence implies nothing other than it existed in a base population which has survived for whatever reason.
We are going in circles here. I accept neutralism, and a lack of selection against something doesn’t equate to selection for something, but a lack of selection against something isn’t going to make it the rule rather than the exception when alternatives exist.
holmes writes:
And that you do not see what basis their theory would have does not mean it does not
I wouldn’t descend to term either ID or Creo’ism ”theories’ in the scientific sence because neither produce testable hypotheses. By extension, they make no meaningful predictions about anything. Here is an example of ToE making predictions that are slowly being borne out by new sources of evidence. Just because the evidence is scant to date is no reason not to seek more of it or to try and smear the effort as bad science.
holmes writes:
thus discussions of what would be seen on a larger scale is meaningless.
Why? Thinking beyond the current evidence is the best way to figure out where to find more and better evidence. You can’t seriously liken that to propagandizing for political purposes. You seem to have a very cynical and jaded perception of what motivates scientists.
holmes writes:
You didn't even see how many of that large number of problem pregnancies (though low by population standards) are caused by this "conflict".
The point is there is reason to suspect many - and therefore reason to look for more evidence of the same sort to help understand other unsolved pregancy complications.
holmes writes:
It would have to be catastrophic for individuals not to have this system, or it would get weeded out right? I mean that is the scenario they are painting, correct?
Not at all - it is simply an outcome of competing genetic interests between mother and father. There is no suggestion that the ”system’ (of conflict) has any adaptive value to individuals or groups. So no, you are wrong here. The point is, in the vast majority of ”normal’ pregnancies a genetic ”truce’ is reached within the fetus and there is no apparent evidence of any conflict. But the conflict lays a foundation of inherent instability and problems can arise when things go wrong, as they inevitably will in some cases.
holmes writes:
it is merely a possible explanation (from an evolutionary standpoint), and doesn't help us any more or less to understand what we will find next.
Yes to the first - a categorical no to the second. I will go out on a limb here and venture that you probably are not a research scientist yourself or you would see just how potentially powerful and useful these insights are. They tell us we need more efforts to identify paternal genes that produce products selectively targeting the expression of maternal genes and vice versa if we want to better understand the molecular basis of a lot of pregancy complications. That’s what we should find if we look for them. Time will tell if further evidence accumulates or not, but there is every reason to expect it will. Unless you have a reason to expect otherwise?
holmes writes:
Note that it was not "mutation followed by selection" which produced this prediction. It was simply viewing pregnancy as a form of conflict game theory.
You have a far too narrow definition of evolutionary reasoning. The evolutionary *origins* of these phenomena are not the point. It is an understanding evolutionary *process* - how evolution can be expected to shape things - that gives us the insights. And BTW, game theory has been an integral part of evolutionary reasoning ever since Maynard Smith’s seminal paper on the application of game theory to evolution of behavior in the mid 1960’s. ID and Creationism are useless for this because they posit no mechanistic processes - Evolution does. Evol. Theory tells us why to expect conflict between mothers and fathers when it comes to investing in offspring. Neither ID nor Creo’ism have ever made use of game theory to explain anything. Evol. biologists have.
holmes writes:
Its just a story which fits,
It doesn’t only ”fit’ - it offers a logical explanation and points to specific avenues of empirical research. You can’t seem to grasp this.
holmes writes:
ID suggests that we can think about biological systems from a design-engineering standpoint in order to postulate how a system works, prior to investigation. That is almost EXACTLY what occured here, only instead of saying a designer made it, an evo said a natural process made it.
Holmes, I think you are doing science a great disservice here. ToE isn’t being used as arbitrarily as you claim. No simple assertions are being made. Rather, inferences from evol theory about how the system should be expected to perform are proving useful to help us determine what sorts of genetic interactions we should be looking for. How could ID theory tell us, a priori, to start looking for exclusively paternal genes that try and amplify the transcription of particular maternal genes?
holmes writes:
Apparently, and to my surprise, this had not been investigated as a model before?
Because few doctors in medical research are thinking in evolutionary terms. It took an evolutionary biologist to point them in the right direction. No one else did. That was my point with the OP. Creation scientists didn't suggest these interactions might exist - and neither did ID - although by their very nature they can be made consistent with almost anything after the fact.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 03-19-2006 12:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 5:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 03-20-2006 9:53 AM EZscience has not replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 10:16 AM EZscience has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 8 of 24 (296761)
03-20-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by EZscience
03-19-2006 1:08 PM


Re: This reply for homes and NWR
And NWR, just because so many popular science articles are necessarily superficial and often fail to do justice to scientific topics doesn't mean we should discourage the popularization of science.
I agree with that. If I gave a different impression, then I apologize for doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by EZscience, posted 03-19-2006 1:08 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 24 (296765)
03-20-2006 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by EZscience
03-19-2006 1:08 PM


Re: This reply for homes and NWR
Sorry, wanted to make sure I had time to write an appropriate response.
We need to try and help journalists do bettter, and help the public understand more about science. We can't just throw up our hands and say to heck with it.
I don't think nwr or I suggested anything different. If your thread was "how can we improve this article" then I might have been more clear on that subject. Your OP appeared to be boosting the article and the science within it, and specifically argued that it would pose a problem for ID and creo theorists. I disagreed and tried to explain the problems I had with your analysis.
I agree the article may have made the science appear worse that it was. But if the quotes from the scientists are to be believed then they are still suffering from a boosterism, and certainly their suggestions that evolutionary theory helped them (and no one else could) is bogus.
Fine. But why ”design’ a conflict?
Before I answer that, let me point out something. Originally scientists, who are based in evo theory, had not come up with the model that the scientist proposed and which bore fruit. It appears that they had a nonconflict model of evo going. So any ID and Creo could just as easily ask why do evo mechanisms create a conflict scenario? Clearly evos had not been using such a model in this case, thus neither are inherent to evo theory itself.
But to answer your question, in a world of limited resources where a designer would want as many "units" to survive, conflict programming would be better than cooperative programming. The former would allow greater independence and possibility of survival for each unit should something fail, whereas the latter would more likely become compromised as it would rely on a sort of charitable symbiosis.
For example imagine you want to send a multi robot "team" to mars. You have several independent explorer units each capable of recharging using some local resource, and a central unit with its own power source and recharging capacity that they may return and dock with if their power supply/recharger fails. You would want a system where an explorer tries to get as much as possible, but the dock to treat each explorer as a potential threat so its own integrity or energy supply is not threatened. Making them too friendly could compromise both systems.
You don’t see that as a genetic form of aggression ?
No, there is no intention and could not have been an intention in the development of whatever mutation caused that situation to be a part of our gene system. As far as I could tell it was a routine function built in (that is it always happens), rather than something which allows the female's body to actively switch genes on and off based on internal conditions.
The mother wants to partition resources to maximize her fitness and this includes raising other litters. Paternal interests only extend as far as the current litter, hence paternal genes exist that atttempt to extract more resources for the current litter than it is in the mother’s best interest to give.
Paternal genes are what decide male or female, does this suggest anything more than this is how the coding happens to go? You cite a perfect example of reading past data to some possible correlation. Indeed I see no reason to look past the more obvious associations.
the prediction was BASED on evolutionary reasoning
No it wasn't. It combined evolutionary theory with a new way of viewing reproductive mechanisms. Honestly, couldn't you remove evolutionary portions and reach the same idea? If not, why not?
They couldn’t have because they do not have any mechanistic framework for predicting or expecting to observe anything - by their own admission in most cases
I loathe ID, and yet I find that an unfair accusation. All one needed was to posit that how these systems work is as competitors for resources with genetic strategies to obtain or deny resources. Even the idea of which set of genes might show the expressions could have been made by ID, based on observations of male/female behavior (which is exactly what these authors did).
It could have been tested the exact same way as was done here. Why wouldn't it?
The researchers here did NOTHING to tie it to some evolutionary mechanism using evidence, only filling in the gaps of how it came about with evo.
but a lack of selection against something isn’t going to make it the rule rather than the exception when alternatives exist.
Yes, yes it can. That is a very important point to understand. Selection on a population based on one characteristic may coincidentally allow for another characteristic to be or become the rule within a population.
Let's use a very simplified example. A rampant virus is wiping everyone in a population out, eventually a mutation occurs which allows an individual (and offspring) to survive. It just so happens that the individual has an extremely bushy head of bright red hair, and it happens to be a dominant trait. Red hair was never selected for yet becomes the rule in all descendants (until a gene mutation occurs to allow for another color).
I wouldn’t descend to term either ID or Creo’ism ”theories’ in the scientific sence because neither produce testable hypotheses. By extension, they make no meaningful predictions about anything. Here is an example of ToE making predictions that are slowly being borne out by new sources of evidence.
I would agree if you limit yourself to producing testable hypothesis regarding ID or Creo. However, they most certainly can use nonevo based models to figure out and predict natural phenomena, including biological phenomena. Especially ID argues for reverse-engineering principles to be applied to biological structures, to make predictions.
Science can and sometimes does use this, and I thought this was a very good example of that. The scientist created a model of competitive units using genes to vie for resources, with observed gender needs showing up as strategies stamped on the relevant genes.
The problem with ID is that they then suggest we should use the success of such techniques to INFER that that is exactly what did happen. Someone engineered it to be the way we see it. Well there is no logical reason to make that leap. Neither is there a reason to INFER it happened the way an evo theorist says just because he was they first one to make a specific prediction.
Why? Thinking beyond the current evidence is the best way to figure out where to find more and better evidence.
Yes, but without statistical evidence, one cannot just "think beyond" to what may be. We saw increased or decreased birth weights. The original issue mentioned was pregnancy issues. Where any of these seen? There isn't one mention of that. No one can simply say birth weight difference, means nutrient difference, and since nutrient issues can cause problems, therefore birth weight issues would or did cause problems (and so selection).
That is pseudo-science.
You seem to have a very cynical and jaded perception of what motivates scientists.
Only ones that move away from good methodology. Perhaps my habits come from having worked to ensure quality data and methods within labs for the federal gov't, catching many problems including some pretty rotten data and scientists. I think most scientists are on the level, but bad habits are easy to fall into.
it is simply an outcome of competing genetic interests between mother and father. There is no suggestion that the ”system’ (of conflict) has any adaptive value to individuals or groups. So no, you are wrong here. The point is, in the vast majority of ”normal’ pregnancies a genetic ”truce’ is reached within the fetus and there is no apparent evidence of any conflict. But the conflict lays a foundation of inherent instability and problems can arise when things go wrong, as they inevitably will in some cases.
Snap! Now without resorting to hyperbolic statements that ID theorists can't come up with ways to test any predictions they make, explain how the above could NOT have been predicted by an ID theorist.
I will go out on a limb here and venture that you probably are not a research scientist yourself or you would see just how potentially powerful and useful these insights are.
That limb would break. At this time I am not a research scientist, and have been out for a number of years (though I may be moving back into it shortly). But I have not only trained/worked as a research scientist, I was employed in oversight of labs, lab procedure, and lab data.
Now back to the point. I am looking at the data and the predictions and am telling you I see no mandatory evolutionary scheme to have come up with this, and despite believing that what we see is a result of evolution, I am skeptical that they have anything close to a theory of how or why we see what we do.
The only thing I see necessary here is belief in reproduction and that genes underlie controls regarding resource acquisition and maintenaince.
And BTW, game theory has been an integral part of evolutionary reasoning ever since Maynard Smith’s seminal paper on the application of game theory to evolution of behavior in the mid 1960’s.
Great. That ID theorists haven't used it yet doesn't mean they can't or won't, particularly to make predictions of mechanisms with no bearing on ID, just as this research has no direct bearing on evo.
Its nice that an evo came up with this breakthrough, and used a evo "environment" for his thought experiments, but that simply does not make this support for evolutionary theory, nor something IDers and Creos could not have come up with.
it offers a logical explanation and points to specific avenues of empirical research. You can’t seem to grasp this.
I grasp that. You seem to want to avoid the main thrust of my criticism. You cannot use this research as an example of something IDists and Creos couldn't have come up with, that their theory could have explained "logically", and so point to specific avenues of research.
Ironically, what if they had suggested something which did not pan out... would that have been a strike against evolutionary theory and for creo or ID? No. That's how little this has to do with actual evo theory or its competition with creo/ID.
Holmes, I think you are doing science a great disservice here... Rather, inferences from evol theory about how the system should be expected to perform are proving useful to help us determine what sorts of genetic interactions we should be looking for. How could ID theory tell us, a priori, to start looking for exclusively paternal genes that try and amplify the transcription of particular maternal genes?
I don't see how my being more strict with logic and evidence could hurt science, but uh, okay. Now I want you to look at what you said.
People working in this field were presumably educated in evo theory, but had not arrived at this answer before. Evo theorists themselves had (apparently) not embraced or used such a concept before for this topic. And these scientists did not race to suggest looking at paternal genes for anything based on "mutation followed by selection". Thus there is no sense that this was something inherent to evo.
Looking at what it says in this article, they used a model regarding pregnancy which was different. Suggested that genes may be responsible for problems based on the new model. And looked to differences in male female roles to suggest which genes may be effected.
Why couldn't a scientist who believed in ID come up with the same predictions, using the above?
Because few doctors in medical research are thinking in evolutionary terms. It took an evolutionary biologist to point them in the right direction.
Doctors usually do have an understanding of evolutionary theory, and this does not explain how evolutionary theorists had not conceived of this before... and indeed this article suggests had been running with/accepting of another model.
No one else did. That was my point with the OP. Creation scientists didn't suggest these interactions might exist - and neither did ID - although by their very nature they can be made consistent with almost anything after the fact.
That is an extremely small hook to try and hang your hat on. Okay, an evo theorist came up with something first. Do you know how many successful theories in science were made by creationists/religious people, and so had a connection from what they found to what they believed? That didn't make creationism/religion more correct.
The evo angle here is superfluous. I mean its nice to have around, but nothing here actually refutes or impedes ID or creo.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by EZscience, posted 03-19-2006 1:08 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by EZscience, posted 03-20-2006 1:24 PM Silent H has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 10 of 24 (296804)
03-20-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
03-20-2006 10:16 AM


Re: This reply for homes and NWR
holmes writes:
Your OP appeared to be boosting the article and the science within it, and specifically argued that it would pose a problem for ID and creo theorists.
I wasn’t trying to boost the article, I found the concepts discussed interesting, consistent with evolutionary theory, and a potentially useful extension of it. Time will tell, I suppose, if this proves to be the case or not. If it doesn’t pose a ”problem’ for ID, it at least illustrates how constructive use can be made of evolutionary reasoning to address practical biological problems. I continue to hold that there is no such parallel applicability in ID. There is no framework to help anyone think in useful ways about how the world works.
holmes writes:
. their suggestions that evolutionary theory helped them (and no one else could) is bogus.
I disagree. No other line of reasoning led to these inferences. It was thinking about how indivdual fitness interests compete on a genetic level that led to the insights - not how they might have been designed to compete.
holmes writes:
It appears that they had a nonconflict model of evo going.
You have no evidence for this. None. It is far more likely to my mind that evolutionary reasoning had never been specifically applied to this particular topic.
holmes writes:
conflict programming would be better than cooperative programming.
Accepting for a moment your analogy, there is a serious problem with extrapolating it to the situation at hand. This is not a system that has evolved because it is the best way to allocate resources to offspring. It has evolved as a compromise that reflects competing genetic interests of the parents. It reflects selection acting differentially on maternal and paternal strategies at a genetic level that has resulted in this compromise. The ”system’ is not under selection itself - it is simply an imperfect consequence of selection acting differentially on individuals of opposite sexes - something ID gives us no framework for understanding or reason to expect.
holmes writes:
Making them too friendly could compromise both systems.
I hope you realize you are making a group-selectionist argument here, when selection acting at the level of individuals is entirely sufficent to explain the phenomena.
The ”system’ is a consequence of selection on individuals - there is no reason to believe it is under selection itself as your analogy implies.
homes writes:
No, there is no intention and could not have been an intention in the development of whatever mutation caused that situation to be a part of our gene system.
Maybe this is just a bit of hasty writing, but your use of the word “intention” seem inappropriate. Evolutionary changes have no intent, nor do mutations. I would also contend that the situation is not so much ”a part’ of our genetic system (in the integral sense) as it is a consequence of it. Besides, don’t you believe in passive aggression?
holmes writes:
Paternal genes are what decide male or female, does this suggest anything more than this is how the coding happens to go?
Sorry - sex determination has nothing to do with genomic imprinting. Completely different genetic mechanisms are involved. Even if sex determination were environmental, that should have no effect on the phenomenon under discussion. Theoretically, the only prerequistes should be (1) iteroparity (multiple reproductive events for each individual) and (2) internal fertilization with extended gestation, the latter implying disproportionately high pre-natal investment by the mother.
holmes writes:
Honestly, couldn't you remove evolutionary portions and reach the same idea? If not, why not?
If you want to argue this you need to provide a convincing line of reasoning that arrives at the same a priori conclusions WITHOUT any evolutionary inferences. You can’t do it without using evolution because selective forces acting differentially on individuals of opposite sexes, as predicted by evolutionary theory, are the reason we expect to see maternal-paternal competition for directing resource allocation within the fetus. No other ”theory’ gives us a priori reasons for expecting this. Your argument that this ”system’ could just be the most effective means to the end, regardless of how it came to be that way, falls flat on its face because it hinges (erroneously) on the assumption that the ”system’ is what is under selection when that is not the case, as I have explained above. In fact, I would predict that with the appropriate molecular tests we could probably measure ”costs’ of this genetic competition that are probably shared, equally or unequally, between both sexes, making this conflict inherently sub-optimal. It has simply evolved as a rather inefficient compromise between competing parental interests.
holmes writes:
The researchers here did NOTHING to tie it to some evolutionary mechanism using evidence
Well the evidence is just beginning to be collected, but I am starting to doubt whether you truly understand the mechanism.
holmes writes:
A rampant virus is wiping everyone in a population out, eventually a mutation occurs which allows an individual (and offspring) to survive. It just so happens that the individual has an extremely bushy head of bright red hair, and it happens to be a dominant trait. Red hair was never selected for yet becomes the rule in all descendants (until a gene mutation occurs to allow for another color).
There are a lot of implicit assumptions in your scenario that are highly unlikely.
Even if your gene was dominant (red hair is recessive, so bad example), it would have to be tightly linked to the resistance gene to piggy-back on its selective advantage. Any reason to expect why that might be the case ? Ever hear of independent segregation? The tendency is for all gene associations to be broken apart every generation. Linkage disequilibria (long considered evidence of gene linkage on chromosomes) have turned out to be quite rare. No, predominantly expressed traits in a population are usually those optimal under prevailing conditions. Various neutral traits may be equally frequent as one another, or may *temporarily* rise to high frequency through bottlenecks and founder events (such as your analogy approximates) but they cannot be *sustained* at high frequency without confering selective advantage. But this is an OT digression.
holmes writes:
However, they most certainly can use nonevo based models to figure out and predict natural phenomena, including biological phenomena. Especially ID argues for reverse-engineering principles to be applied to biological structures, to make predictions.
It would be nice to see one concrete example of how ID has provided insights for anything useful in applied biology. Haven’t seen one yet. And your example of their use of ”reverse-engineering’ is actually just a ”reverse-engineered’ version of evolutionary engineering - where technologists have developed self-correcting algorithoms to ”evolve’ optimal designs for things like multiple airfoil wings.
holmes writes:
. one cannot just "think beyond" to what may be.
If you don’t, you are never going to design a novel experiment or develop a novel concept.
holmes writes:
We saw increased or decreased birth weights. The original issue mentioned was pregnancy issues. Where any of these seen?
Holmes you are flogging a dead horse. I already explained that this experiment was only to verify the function of a particular gene specific to the father in this instance. You are trying to equate it as some sort of a test of the full range of medical implications of the theory, which it isn’t. It is merely an indication that paternally derived genes *can* target specific maternal genes controlling resource allocation to the fetus and that, in this particular case, their function is to amplify the products. Your criticism is totally mis-directed.
holmes writes:
explain how the above could NOT have been predicted by an ID theorist.
I have done this in a dozen different ways now. Sorry, the burden of evidence is yours to show why any ID interpretation *would* predict it. I have better things to do than to work out why pseudoscience is unable to replicate real science.
holmes writes:
despite believing that what we see is a result of evolution, I am skeptical that they have anything close to a theory of how or why we see what we do.
Perhaps you are not fully appreciating the unique nature of the genetic mechanisms that are emerging. The links to evolutionary processes appear very obvious to me and I don’t see any better interpretations being put forward. You certainly haven’t put any forward - all you have done is challenge me to do your job for you.
holmes writes:
You seem to want to avoid the main thrust of my criticism. You cannot use this research as an example of something IDists and Creos couldn't have come up with .
They didn’t though, did they? Their dogma is so tautological that they can make anything fit their interpretations *after the fact*. You still haven’t explained what in ID would predict any of these types of conflicts a priori - and to top it off you want me to engage in that futile exercise in reverse.
It doesn’t have a lot to do with ID but it has everything to do with how useful evo theory can be when it comes to predicting how living things work and interact. At this point, I am at a loss to explain your failure to grasp the link to evolutionary thinking, so I give up. You can claim it would have been discovered some other way - but it wasn’t. You can claim other lines of reasoning *might* have predicted it - but they didn’t. And you certainly haven’t produced a shred of evidence to suggest how thinking in ID terms would have predicted any such phenomenon, although you repeatedly demand I do the reverse.
holmes writes:
Doctors usually do have an understanding of evolutionary theory,
What planet are you living on!! Most MD’s I meet wouldn’t even know who Haldane or Fisher were. The only continuing education they seem to get around here after graduation is in the form of brochures from the pharmaceutical industry. Your generosity astounds me.
homes writes:
Do you know how many successful theories in science were made by creationists/religious people, and so had a connection from what they found to what they believed?
Yes, but they used established scientific reasoning and procedures to make these advances - their reasoning wasn’t directed by their religious convictions, even if they felt they were ”doing God’s work’. Religion might have motivated them or been inspiring to them, but it didn’t guide their reasoning or their discoveries. Good science theory did.
Take your time - I got a half day off because of the weather here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 10:16 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 6:53 AM EZscience has not replied
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 5:51 PM EZscience has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 24 (296999)
03-21-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by EZscience
03-20-2006 1:24 PM


Re: This reply for homes and NWR
Take your time - I got a half day off because of the weather here.
This is to let you know that I will be replying soon. I keep having stuff interrupt my writing a response, and have two known and potentially very large interruptions today and tomorrow.
I hope to have a response later today or tonight, but I can't say for sure I'll have something ready until Thurs. This one takes a bit to write because I have to be very careful choosing between length and accuracy.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by EZscience, posted 03-20-2006 1:24 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 24 (297116)
03-21-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by EZscience
03-20-2006 1:24 PM


conflict perspective not problematic for id/creo
Let me start by saying that I am not a biologist, microbiologist, geneticist, physician, or evolutionary biologist. That means there could very well be terms or background info within those fields of which I am not aware or mistaken about. However I can speak to what is directly stated in your OP and the article you presented...
I wasn’t trying to boost the article, I found the concepts discussed interesting, consistent with evolutionary theory, and a potentially useful extension of it.
That appears inconsistent with the following statements from your OP...
A fascinating article in the NY Times illustrates beautifully how evolutionary theory can help explain the ”why’ of apparently anomalous and otherwise unexplained biological phenomena including the origins of specific human medical problems.
That quote not only seems quite positive of the article, it builds a picture of evo theory's relation to data and phenomena well beyond "interesting" and "consistent". In your last reply you continue to make statements which suggest evo plays a vital role in explaining the phenomena, beyond just consistency.
You have no evidence for this. None. It is far more likely to my mind that evolutionary reasoning had never been specifically applied to this particular topic.
While it may be true that no one had tried to explain this phenomena from an evolutionary standpoint, you miss my point that evolutionary theory would not inherently suggest a conflict model, and concepts tended to genes being complimentary rather than conflict. This means that evo theory was neutral to the new model and predictions. This view is born out by the quoted article...
“We tend to think of genes as parts of a machine working together," Dr. Haig said. "But in the realm of genetic conflict, the cooperation breaks down."
... as well as writings by Haig himself, an example being this abstract from his 1996 article on conflicts of pregnancy...
Pregnancy is traditionally viewed as a harmonious collaboration between mother and fetus. From this perspective, viviparity poses a series of problems that maternal and fetal genes work together to solve and the many complications of pregnancy are interpreted as evidence of the malfunctioning of an evolved system or of the failure of natural selection to achieve an adaptive goal. This view fails to recognize aspects of genetic conflict that lie at the heart of gestation. At least three interrelated sources of conflict can be identified:
That quote from Haig is very clear in suggesting that complications in pregnancy had been explained from an evo standpoint and suggests how that particular evo view fails. Thus the switch Haig is arguing for is from one evo explanation to another. From failure to achieve an adapted goal, to natural result of adaptations regarding genetic conflict.
I already explained that this experiment was only to verify the function of a particular gene specific to the father in this instance. You are trying to equate it as some sort of a test of the full range of medical implications of the theory, which it isn’t.
Not even mentioning how the article itself keeps trying to rhetorically tie it together, you had a much more strongly worded connection within your own OP...
evolutionary theory can help explain the ”why’ of apparently anomalous and otherwise unexplained biological phenomena including the origins of specific human medical problems. (Oh that any alternative to evolutionary theory could prove so useful!)... So I would like to know how creationists might explain this remarkable coincidence between evolutionary theory and previously unexplained medical conditions.
If this had nothing to do with potentially effecting medical conditions, what was the point such that it would be the main reference point for the article and the point of the blade you were wielding against ID?
Sorry, the burden of evidence is yours to show why any ID interpretation *would* predict it.
I already did. An ID theorist could have used a conflict model of pregnancy, arguing complications are a result of a natural competition between fetus and mother, with genes regulating the nature of the conflict. And then using observed roles and so needs of different genders, predict that they will contain "strategies" of imprinting that enforces those roles (or provision of genes which highlight those roles). As I have already shown evo theorists could or did incorrectly assess the situation before, so that ID might fail to predict such a thing at first is not somehow unique.
You can claim it would have been discovered some other way - but it wasn’t. You can claim other lines of reasoning *might* have predicted it - but they didn’t.
That first sentence is incorrect and both show poor logic. I did not say ID or creos WOULD, I said they COULD. There is no logical bar for them to not have come up with this, especially as data from the field accumulates. That another system hasn't predicted something, or more accurately that theorists using another system have not addressed and/or predicted something, suggests nothing about whether they could or could not have. That you cannot imagine how they could have does not add any weight. Neither does your repeated claim that they have made no other predictions.
Most MD’s I meet wouldn’t even know who Haldane or Fisher were... Your generosity astounds me.
Intriguing that first I am underestimating scientists, and now I am overestimating doctors. I also find it intriguing how often I've heard IDs and creos suggesting medicine does not require knowledge of evo, only to have evos suggest modern medicine works directly with such an understanding and would be hampered without it. Nevertheless I would expect molecular biologists to have an understanding of evo theory and as your article explained...
"Molecular biologists had it worked out in exquisite detail, but they had no idea why it existed," said Kyle Summers, a biologist at East Carolina State University. "Haig just comes in and says, 'I know why this is happening,' and explained it."
That does raise some question as to why these people could not have come up with Haig's theory if it is the ONLY theory which evo could produce. And I might add that this suggests that all Haig did was produce a story to tie the evidence together, rather than make such a specified progressive theory as you seem to be hinting at.
Now let me address the article more directly as well as Haig's theorizings. You may have some background knowledge which allows you to fill in missing portions of this article or defend Haig's position. If true that's fine, but all I could go/comment on is what is explained in the article and this is what they set out...
1) Pregnancy is described as "not seeming to work well". Haig's assertions regarding this and his analogy to fully developed organs seem hyperbolic and stretched, though the observation that fetus and mother are two separate entities makes sense.
2) Haig is described as adopting a conflict model of resources in social settings, to that within gestational settings. As I pointed out earlier in this post Haig states in this article as well as his writings that a conflict model had not been used previously to view pregnancy problems. Thus the novelty is not the use of evo, but the use of a conflict model. There is no bar for ID or creo to accept this, nor to postulate this. They generally believe in reproduction and micro-evolution, which would certainly allow for these kinds of relational models to work through genes.
3) In 1993 he made a general prediction that complications would turn out to be related to such a conflict and more specifically that e-clampsia would involve chemicals injected from the fetus to the mother. Later research has shown that that is the case, though the underlying reason why is not known. Haig's theory is that it could be to increase nutrients, which could be true but there is no evidence for this. Thus what we have is a pretty general prediction, which is not barred by ID or creo theories, which happens to have gotten some support. The PREDICTION was given evidentiary support, but that does not in any way confirm any background theories he may have used to concoct the specific prediction. Conflict theory does get a help up from this for sure, but not evo.
4) He also made predictions about mothers possibly shutting down genes in their children. The science involved is very poorly described, both how it occurs and what mechanisms he is predicting. What you have stated here is results of investigations into imprinted genes where a specific result would be consistent. Of course what is not mentioned is that imprinting comes from mothers, fathers, possibly other sources, and... much more important... that any specific imprinted gene may be correlated with many other issues, specifically health issues, than just interplays between fetus-mother. This makes any "consistency" as much "coincidence" as anything else. That goes double when the "consistent" findings listed here were in no way related to actual problems in child birth. The Igf2 gene could thus have had imprinting rules set due to issues related to problems caused later in life (or lack of problems), rather than what it happens to produce in the fetus, though it may have a measurable effect on the fetus.
5) The article then moves on to his predictions relating post birth behaviors to conflicts set in/controlled by genes and gene imprinting. Yet these predictions are less likely, if ever able, to be tested. They include dubious assignments such as "maternal genes may favor behavior that benefits the group" to a discovery of a gene which drives exploration of new environments, because that "may encourage...more risks on behalf of the group, whether that involves looking for food or defending the group". Looking for food and defense are both important for an individual as much as for a group, so that is pretty self-serving, and I'm not sure what exploration has to do with defense. Thankfully this was pitched as relatively speculative, but its pretense of any suggestion of support was errant.
6) The article then mentions possible connections between imprinted genes and mental disorders. Given that we already posit that genes might effect mental disorders, a system which disables genes would obviously also potentially have an effect. Thus there is nothing new here, and nowhere is it mentioned how this relates to Haig's conflict theory. If anything one might ask, as I did earlier, if those effects might play a much greater role in the creation of imprints, than any embryonic or simple behavioral correlation the genes or gene imprinting might have. And of course ID and creo would have no bar for this either. Perfection of the individual is not demanded in ID, and creo states that humans at this stage of the game are not perfect. Genes and gene imprinting could very well be related to mental disorders, and have a relation based in some level of ancestral development according to roles.
That was it.
As far as any criticism you have for ID, although some do suggest no common descent that is not necessarily held by the majority of theorists and is NOT inherent to ID. Their main arguments are that by finding systems which could not have been evolved, we know some pieces have been designed, and so there is a designer. Unless you are positing that they would claim gene imprinting mechanisms are "irreducibly complex" I remain baffled by your insistence that this would pose any problem to that theory or all of its adherents.
Now let me end by pointing out some things about genetic imprinting. This was new to me but I found it interesting and in doing some research have found articles of interest.
This article is a popscience look at gene imprinting, which discusses in part the array of imprinting sources, and a novel (almost lamarckian) way imprinting can be altered in a species by exposure to chemicals.
These two articles... Weidman-2004 and Killian-2000... champion cross species comparisons to research the development of imprinting itself in order to understand its environment or origin/development as well as how it would be maintained in humans. These are examples of research that are evolutionary in nature and would not be accessible to ID or creo theorists to the degree that they discount common ancestry. Now I could be wrong, but the last article suggests a possible problem for Haig's conflict theory as much as it seems to hinge on maternal-fetal conflict. From that article...
Imprinted gene identification in animals has been limited to eutherian mammals, suggesting a significant role for intrauterine fetal development in the evolution of imprinting. We report herein that M6P/IGF2R is not imprinted in monotremes and does not encode for a receptor that binds IGF2. In contrast, M6P/IGF2R is imprinted in a didelphid marsupial, the opossum, but it strikingly lacks the differentially methylated CpG island in intron 2 postulated to be involved in imprint control. Thus, invasive placentation and gestational fetal growth are not required for imprinted genes to evolve. Unless there was convergent evolution of M6P/ IGF2R imprinting and receptor IGF2 binding in marsupials and eutherians, our results also demonstrate that these two functions evolved in a mammalian clade exclusive of monotremes.
Hope this helps.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-21-2006 11:54 PM
{AbE: restored complete abstract, to make its reasoning clearer.}
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-22-2006 12:45 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by EZscience, posted 03-20-2006 1:24 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2006 6:10 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 17 by EZscience, posted 03-22-2006 8:49 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 03-26-2006 1:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 13 of 24 (297119)
03-21-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
03-21-2006 5:51 PM


Re: conflict perspective not problematic for id/creo
The way you have edited the abstract it now makes no sense whatsoever, without the bit about the opposum their conclusions just seem to come out of thin air.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 5:51 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 6:35 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 24 (297125)
03-21-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Wounded King
03-21-2006 6:10 PM


Re: conflict perspective not problematic for id/creo
without the bit about the opposum their conclusions just seem to come out of thin air.
I figured the conclusion itself was more important (for why I was citing it) than why they reached it. If that was wondered at then someone could read the abstract at the link, as well as the article. I was worried its technical jargon might be confusing and take up more space than needed.
But if you want me to I can edit it in. You think that'd be better?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2006 6:10 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 03-22-2006 5:50 AM Silent H has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 24 (297221)
03-22-2006 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
03-21-2006 6:35 PM


Re: conflict perspective not problematic for id/creo
I would say that just the conclusion would be better in that case. The fraction of the evidence you have left in would seem to support, rather than undercut, Haig's theory.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 6:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2006 6:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024