Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 55 of 149 (532013)
10-20-2009 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
10-16-2009 8:54 AM


Re: Needs more information
But the fallacy here seems obvious. The fact that resistance "only" evolved four times is not an indictment of the failure of mutation to produce the necessary alleles, but rather a testament to the efficiency of natural selection in spreading it.
Haven't read the book, but I suggest Behe was referring to P.Vivax and not P.Falciparum. The latter has achieved widespread resistance to Chloroquine, to the point that treatment is ineffective unless combined with other drugs. P. Vivax, on the other hand, has shown only sposmadic resistance to Chloroquine. This does not reflect effective natural selection, but rather the strain's difficulty in mutating and fixing resistance.
Behe's argument is somewhat weakened, however, if he is using P Vivax to establish a beneficial mutation rate and then extrapolating that to Man/Ape divergence. The counterargument is simply "Why not use P. Falciparum?"
A far better argument has been conveniently provided by Richard Dawkins in his Greatest Show on Earth. He crows long and loud about a 20-year laboratory experiment in which E. Coli were able, through a double mutation, to absorb Citrate. Having pronounced this to be clear evidence that Irreducible Complexity has been overcome and genetic information increased, he then deftly shoots himself in the foot by pointing out that the extreme rarity of the double-mutant suggests two simultaneous mutations.
Oh dear! Simultaneous, not serial mutations. So the mutant was just a mathematically improbable fluke, not the result of incrementally increased fitness. Someone should point out to Richard that to overcome Irreducible Complexity, you really have to reduce the complexity...

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2009 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2009 8:23 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 56 of 149 (532041)
10-20-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by bluegenes
10-17-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.
Indeed. And if the 1996 Yankees had wandered around aimlessly on a baseball diamond and wound up winning the World Series, that would have been caused by evolution.
If we assume a possible million siblings who could have been born instead, then apply the same to his 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, etc., we'll find that the probability of his existence would seem to be negligible even taken from a point just 200 years ago. Something like 1 in 10^500.
But nature without targets doesn't have to face such apparent improbabilities, and Colin, I'm happy to say, is with us.
Same problem. Someone had to win the 1996 World Series, so the chance that it would be the Yankees was quite large. Equally, given that Colin's forebearers were fertile and liked children, the chance of a child being born was 1. The fact that it was Colin is just as likely as any other result. To be analagous with evolution, Colin would have to be the only individual out of the trillions possible to be born with the specific genetic novelty needed to preserve the human race at that particular time.
Fine chap though he undoubtedly is, I don't think Colin will lay claim to that...

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 10-17-2009 9:05 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 10-23-2009 2:32 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 57 of 149 (532042)
10-20-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Modulous
10-17-2009 8:27 AM


Re: Joe Thornton
If the initial mutations have no negative effect on the ancestral function, they can arise and hang around in populations for substantial periods of time due to genetic drift, creating the background in which an additional mutation can then yield the new function and be subject to selection
Notice how the theory has evolved? I particularly like the phrase "creating the background". It's kinda like joining up the dots, isn't it?
The ToE used to be simple random mutation followed by natural selection. But over time, evolutionists realised that this process wasn't going to get them very far in molecule-to-man evolution. Where were all the new genes going to come from, for Heaven's sake?
So now we have this new element. The current theory appears to be: "Random mutation, followed by the fortuitous assembly of necessarily complex genetic structures courtesy of some very convenient neutral mutations, followed by natural selection."
Hard to believe it's all the work of a process that has no purpose or target, isn't it?
In fact, it's impossible to believe.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 10-17-2009 8:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Wounded King, posted 10-21-2009 2:32 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2009 7:01 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2009 8:25 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 60 of 149 (532071)
10-21-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Wounded King
10-21-2009 2:32 AM


Re: Joe Thornton
Things like drift and neutral theory were not considered sources of new genes, but they do explain genetic features which aren't explained by adaptive evolution alone.
Can you tell me more about these genetic features?
The fact that these changes have subsequently been found to have an effect on adaptive evolution is incidental.
Again, really interesting if you can verify it or provide a reference.
A genetic background is simply a common technical term for the genomic state to which a mutation is introduced.
What's wrong with good 'ole junk DNA as a background? No the writer's intention here was to try and give evolution a much-needed helping hand with a few lucky neutral mutations.
Thornton's work is one of the most joined up examples of molecular evolution we currently have.
Try not to make that widely known.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Wounded King, posted 10-21-2009 2:32 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 10-21-2009 8:14 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 61 of 149 (532073)
10-21-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
10-21-2009 7:01 AM


Re: Joe Thornton
19th Century and early 20th Century conceptions were good but weren't quite right.
Care to elaborate on where they weren't quite right?
I mean really - neutral mutations having an effect on a genome later down the line?
Which particular effect did you have in mind?
What are those researchers trying to do - make creationist's life difficult??
With a single shred of empirical evidence, the could make our lives impossible. So far, nothing- other than just-so stories, this-looks-like-that, speciation to equal or lesser levels of complexity, mutations that do nothing or damage and an embarrassingly contradictory fossil record.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2009 7:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2009 8:24 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 66 of 149 (532089)
10-21-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Needs more information
I have the book in front of me. He says no such thing.
No, the rarity of citrate metabolism suggests that we are looking for something more like the ‘irreducible complexity’ of creationist propaganda. This might be a biochemical pathway in which the product of one chemical reaction feeds into a second chemical reaction, and neither can make any inroads at all without the other. This would require two mutations, call them A and B, to catalyze the two reactions. (pg. 129)
Emphasis added.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2009 8:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 10-21-2009 9:23 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2009 10:41 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 67 of 149 (532090)
10-21-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2009 8:25 AM


Re: Joe Thornton
That's probably why the passage that you have presented in quotes is not actually a quotation from anyone other than you.
Did I suggest otherwise?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2009 8:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2009 10:48 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 68 of 149 (532092)
10-21-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Modulous
10-21-2009 8:24 AM


Re: Joe Thornton
Seriously? We could start at the beginning: Darwin didn't know about DNA or genes so his ideas about inheritance weren't quite right.
And what about Random Mutation/Natural Selection?
Then your lives are impossible because there is a mountain of evidence. Sorry.
But it wouldn't be considered evidence in any other field of science, would it? Unrepeatable, unfalsifiable storytelling.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2009 8:24 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2009 9:39 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2009 10:59 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 84 of 149 (532401)
10-23-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluegenes
10-23-2009 2:32 AM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
Same problem. Someone had to win the 1996 World Series, so the chance that it would be the Yankees was quite large. Equally, given that Colin's forebearers were fertile and liked children, the chance of a child being born was 1. The fact that it was Colin is just as likely as any other result.
And evolution producing peacocks or elephants is just as likely as any other result
No no no. Someone had to win the world series. Colin's ancestors had to have a descendant. But as you point out yourself:
Evolution doesn't have to do anything
And given that the chance creation of a single enzyme runs into trillions to one, the overwhelming likelihood is that it hasn't.
(Beyond speciation to an equal or lesser level of complexity, that is).

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 10-23-2009 2:32 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by bluegenes, posted 10-23-2009 9:41 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 85 of 149 (532404)
10-23-2009 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Modulous
10-21-2009 9:39 AM


you've confused natural history with the theory of evolution - it's a common error,
Hardly surprising when natural history tends to take the form of "what evolution did next".
What is on topic here is whether the proposed mechanisms are enough to account for the biological change proposed in natural history. Maybe they aren't and there are other mechanisms out there.
While I disagree that there are "other mechanisms out there", this is certainly the most honest -and reasonable- statement I've read from an evolutionist on this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2009 9:39 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2009 8:00 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 94 of 149 (532648)
10-25-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Modulous
10-23-2009 8:00 AM


What is on topic here is whether the proposed mechanisms are enough to account for the biological change proposed in natural history. Maybe they aren't and there are other mechanisms out there.
While I disagree that there are "other mechanisms out there", this is certainly the most honest -and reasonable- statement I've read from an evolutionist on this forum.
I'm fairly sure you do accept that there are other mechanisms out there. Unless I am mistaken and you don't think that life has been influenced by the hand of a designer or creator?
My Creator is the "proposed mechanism" on my side of the debate. That's why I'm referred to as a (derogatory adjective of your choice) Creationist.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2009 8:00 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 95 of 149 (532650)
10-25-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by bluegenes
10-23-2009 9:41 AM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
Thornton named a specific team having a specific record and scores. He pointed to something that couldn't be predicted. You agree that whatever happened isn't unlikely, and that Colin's existence isn't unlikely.
Let me put it another way.
Process: baseball. Target: World Series. Result: Yankees.
Process: procreation: Target: a child. Result: Colin.
Process: evolution. Target: none. Result: peacocks.
Has that clarified things?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by bluegenes, posted 10-23-2009 9:41 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 9:58 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2009 1:20 PM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2009 1:14 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 99 of 149 (532844)
10-26-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
10-25-2009 9:58 AM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
the target of evolution is not "none" but "survival to reproduce."
No it isn't, Percy. All the baseball teams involved in the World Series were trying to win it. Colin's ancestors were trying to have a descendant. Evolution -as you have sternly lectured me on several occasions- isn't trying to do anything.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 9:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 10-27-2009 8:37 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 100 of 149 (532845)
10-26-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by bluegenes
10-25-2009 1:20 PM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
Process: history of baseball. Specific targets: None.
I'm sure the organisers of the World Series would be flabbergasted to hear that.
One specific result: the 1996 Yankees finished 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then won the World Series in six games over Atlanta.
So obviously the Yankees weren't trying to win the World Series? I mean, that would make it a target, wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2009 1:20 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by bluegenes, posted 10-27-2009 1:26 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 103 of 149 (533145)
10-29-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by bluegenes
10-27-2009 1:26 PM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
History was not "trying" or aiming for Colin, a specific result. If viewed as a target, any specific human with any specific genome appears extremely unlikely (as does any specific species).
But given fertile, child-friendly ancestors, the chances of a human being occuring, Colin or someone else, is 1. Evolution doesn't have to achieve anything. That's why the overwhelming probability is that it will achieve nothing.
Look at it this way. Let's say evolution has 1000 base pairs to play with. It can do anything it likes with them. There are 41000 possible combinations. One of them will produce an enzyme. The other (41000)-1 will produce nothing useful.
What is the probable result?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by bluegenes, posted 10-27-2009 1:26 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 4:29 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 110 by bluegenes, posted 10-29-2009 9:27 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2009 10:57 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024