Pre-natal Parent-Offspring Conflict: Human pathologies explained by Ev. theory

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? 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... 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. 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)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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)

Sorry, wanted to make sure I had time to write an appropriate response. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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 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)

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... That appears inconsistent with the following statements from your OP... 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. 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... ... as well as writings by Haig himself, an example being this abstract from his 1996 article on conflicts of pregnancy... 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. 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... 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? 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. 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. 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... 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... 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)

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)

message received and complied.

---

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

Well that would be correct. I didn't have to show superior inferences, so I didn't even try. Are we discussing the article and the hypotheses presented in that article, or are we now discussing all of science? I feel that things are shifting here. This makes no sense, particularly given the evidence that I provided. The point I made is that evo theory had been applied to the system under investigation. Evo did not suggest conflict or cooperation, and indeed that is because evo does not suggest either.You are correct that evo can refine and in this case it did. Predictions based on cooperative evo models failed to produce results, so someone tried a conflict evo model and it worked.In this case the same thing could have occured in ID, and you still have not shown any bar to this except your own incredulity. Ironically if ID had made this claim first it would have been pointed out (by evos) that that would not have discredited evo. That evo did fail the first time is no strike against it, and if this new theory doesn't pan out totally evo will still carry no strikes, yet if ID failed at any point it would. That is a non sequitor. What else could he possibly have been discussing? Really, this is getting a bit thick. He specifically used the term adaptation within his discussion on this point. Your condescending and willfully ignorant act, is actually making me feel sorry for ID. This is the last time I am telling you that your incredulity does not change a thing. That is completely fallacious logic. Ironically the same logical fallacy ID commits in certain areas.As far as my "superimposing" an ID argument, I am really getting the idea you have little knowledge regarding what ID claims. That I have asked you what would stand in its way and you continually dodge the question does not help. That I have explained ID accepts evolutionary models and this seems not to have registered, leaves me scratching my head.Let me say it again: ID can accept and use evolutionary mechanisms. Only when a system is deemed "irreducibly complex" would it not. Do you have any reason to believe it is NOT reducible? Have they said this somewhere? If not then they could have made the exact same claim.Futhermore, assuming for sake of argument they found it to be irreducibly complex, they could still use a conflict model with observed social roles to predict how the "designer" engineered the system. WHAT IS THE BAR? I don't care if YOU find evo to be more satisfying. Your point is that this would present an unmeetable challenge. It isn't, especially if given the leeway to adapt to incoming evidence and "fail" when they first don't get something right. Well that is patently false. Some scientists who are ID theorists make testable predictions all the time. Some are quite good in their fields of study, including bio. They only fail when trying to argue for design based on "complexity" of certain natural phenomena.If you are trying to argue that they could not prove this to be irreducibly complex, I'd agree but then note (yet again) that nothing within your cite gave us enough info to go on. Well I don't know what science you are doing, but mine could handle it if scientists discovered a patent mark within the gene sequence, or some obvious sign that it was manufactured. The explanation of how they operate together would remain the same, a system of individuals vying for nutrients, with just the story connecting how they came to be changing.Evo was not, and does not, remain critical to understanding what is going on there. It doesn't seem to play a role at all. Only the research I pointed to regarding development of gene imprinting itself involves a whole evo approach (though I will again have to note that most IDists and some Creos might not have a problem with that). Narrow? I'm the one saying that evo could have gone either way on this. Sometimes a coop model might be more useful than a conflict model. As evidence comes in we'll change the theory regarding the system.That's how it would be in ID as well. I didn't say it was a problem, I said it suggests a possible problem. You can't admit it sets up some issues which could be problematic for Haig's theory?That said, his own commentary in the article was one which emphasized invasiveness of the placenta. We now see that imprinting may exist outside that relationship. Lets suppose for a second that it is found that the genes which ultimately trigger high blood pressure in human mothers during, exists within mammals without such aggressive implantation. That couldn't cause a problem?

---

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