a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

quote:

---

Mammuthus: How is this a teleological hypothesis?

​

Warren: I already explained this. What are you expecting a teleological hypothesis to be?

---

Then explain it again. Is the following a teleological "hypothesis" in your mind: The second largest key in my pocket opens the trunk of my car?You are claiming that an enzyme catalzying a reaction is a teleological hypothesis and it is not. It is not even a hypothesis but a description of a function.

quote:

---

Warren: Pay careful attention to the fact that while my critics almost universally demand that I prove evolution is impossible, I have never built my position by demanding they prove design is impossible.

---

You apparently do not realize that science (all science) works with falsifiable hypotheses? I am not asking you to prove that evolution is impossible. I am asking you to show how ID is falsifiable which you have not done.

quote:

---

Not only can't you falsify it you can't even tell me what data would cause you to suspect the eubacterial flagellum didn't evolved through coincidental cooption. And I find it annoying that you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not being evasive at all.

---

I find it annoying that you tell me evolution of the flagellum is not falsifiable and I show you an easy way to do it and then you berate me for not providing positive evidence for the evolution of flagellum. Make up your mind which you want...ok forget it I will just give you both so that in you next post you can double your hypocricy by claiming that I did niether.falsification: Here are a couple, no protein or gene for the flagellum in unrelated species, even closely related species, bear any homology at all. The genes for the flagellum are not passed on from one generation to the next i.e. not heritable.support:Curr Biol. 2001 Apr 3;11(7):529-33. Related Articles, LinksAxoneme-specific beta-tubulin specialization: a conserved C-terminal motif specifies the central pair.Nielsen MG, Turner FR, Hutchens JA, Raff EC.Indiana Molecular Biology Institute and Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.Axonemes are ancient organelles that mediate motility of cilia and flagella in animals, plants, and protists. The long evolutionary conservation of axoneme architecture, a cylinder of nine doublet microtubules surrounding a central pair of singlet microtubules, suggests all motile axonemes may share common assembly mechanisms. Consistent with this, alpha- and beta-tubulins utilized in motile axonemes fall among the most conserved tubulin sequences [1, 2], and the beta-tubulins contain a sequence motif at the same position in the carboxyl terminus [3]. Axoneme doublet microtubules are initiated from the corresponding triplet microtubules of the basal body [4], but the large macromolecular "central apparatus" that includes the central pair microtubules and associated structures [5] is a specialization unique to motile axonemes. In Drosophila spermatogenesis, basal bodies and axonemes utilize the same alpha-tubulin but different beta-tubulins [6--13]. beta 1 is utilized for the centriole/basal body, and beta 2 is utilized for the motile sperm tail axoneme. beta 2 contains the motile axoneme-specific sequence motif, but beta 1 does not [3]. Here, we show that the "axoneme motif" specifies the central pair. beta 1 can provide partial function for axoneme assembly but cannot make the central microtubules [14]. Introducing the axoneme motif into the beta 1 carboxyl terminus, a two amino acid change, conferred upon beta 1 the ability to assemble 9 + 2 axonemes. This finding explains the conservation of the axoneme-specific sequence motif through 1.5 billion years of evolution.Anat Rec. 2002 Nov 1;268(3):290-301. Related Articles, LinksMotility proteins and the origin of the nucleus.Dolan MF, Melnitsky H, Margulis L, Kolnicki R.Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Morrill Science Center, Amherst 01003, USA. mdolan@geo.umass.eduHypotheses on the origin of eukaryotic cells must account for the origin of the microtubular cytoskeletal structures (including the mitotic spindle, undulipodium/cilium (so-called flagellum) and other structures underlain by the 9(2)+2 microtubular axoneme) in addition to the membrane-bounded nucleus. Whereas bacteria with membrane-bounded nucleoids have been described, no precedent for mitotic, cytoskeletal, or axonemal microtubular structures are known in prokaryotes. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate that the cells of the earliest-branching lineages of eukaryotes contain the karyomastigont cytoskeletal system. These protist cells divide via an extranuclear spindle and a persistent nuclear membrane. We suggest that this association between the centriole/kinetosome axoneme (undulipodium) and the nucleus existed from the earliest stage of eukaryotic cell evolution. We interpret the karyomastigont to be a legacy of the symbiosis between thermoacidophilic archaebacteria and motile eubacteria from which the first eukaryote evolved. Mutually inconsistent hypotheses for the origin of the nucleus are reviewed and sequenced proteins of cell motility are discussed because of their potential value in resolving this problem. A correlation of fossil evidence with modern cell and microbiological studies leads us to the karyomastigont theory of the origin of the nucleus. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.And here is a website full of references supporting the evolution of the flagellum and taking apart ID at the same time
Evolution of the Flagellum - MetaNow I place the ball back in your court, give a testable falsifiable hypothesis for ID and not a description of enzymatic function and we can move from there.

Since Warren might not get back to you for a couple of months (busy as he is poring over the thrilling oeuvre of Mike Gene), I can only guess what form his reply will take. However, both Mark24 and myself have provided Warren with the fascinating hypothesis by Ian Musgrave at the University of Adelaide concerning the evolution of the BacFlag. It will astonish you to hear he wasn't convinced.I've sworn off debating with Warren, since he's long since turned into the Intelligent Design Creationism Broken Record. He seems to think it strange that we can't come up with a reason to think that teleology had anything to do with the origin of the BacFlag. What he's been told is that we've never seen teleology contribute to the natural origin of organisms or structures in any other instance.What Warren calls "Naturalism of the Gaps" is actually more valid than "God of the Gaps" because material mechanisms have in fact been discovered for such former mysteries as heredity, disease, fermentation, and adaptation of organisms to their environments. I still have not heard of a single instance of a non-naturalistic explanation contributing to scientific inquiry.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

I still have not heard of a single instance of a non-naturalistic explanation contributing to scientific inquiry.

---

I disagree. ID and creationism are ideal examples for young science students of what science is not. Thus, they can be used to contribute to scientific inquiry by showing students the danger of poor reasoning which they will then hopefully avoid.but in practice you are correct..at least until my Teleological-Thermal-Cycler from CreatoGen arrives allowing me to generate the results I want to see without actually having to do any work, have a hypothesis, or any evidence....the patent holder will be rich.

Mammuthus, I asked you a specific question. Can you falsify the claim that the flagellum evolved by adopting parts with different functions? You keep dancing all around my question without touching it. How come?

Mammuthus: Now I place the ball back in your court, give a testable falsifiable hypothesis for ID and not a description of enzymatic function and we can move from there.Warren: I have already provided you with a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis and you refuse to recognize it. We evidently disagree on what a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis is. You need to spell out what your expections are. I assume what you are looking for is a hypothesis that shows something to be intelligently designed. Sorry but that's not the only form a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis can take.All that's necesssary to form a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis is to have a suspicion that something in nature may have been designed and then follow up this suspicion with an investigation. If in the course of this investigation one uses teleological reasoning to make a prediction/hypothesis concerning some phenomena and this prediction/hypothesis could be proven false by new data then what you have here is a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis. This is the course of action Mike Gene followed that led to his making a prediction about degradosomal enolase function which could turn out to be false. This example demonstrates a teleological approach CAN be used to guide lab research and, along the way, generate insight into the living world. I therefore agree with Mike Gene when he says:Thus, I would even go as far as to maintain the notion that ID is a "science stopper" or nothing more than a "god-of-the gaps" approach has been effectively refuted.[This message has been edited by Warren, 10-16-2003]

nice point and so rare to see here. Good job W

Warren, I am being a bit lazy and don't want to try and reconstruct the twists and turns of the whole thread. Can you help by laying this out in step by step fashion, with bullets perhaps?I would expect to see a prediction which could be checked that would be different from the non-telogical (ID?) approach. I haven't seen enough detail in the thread to make it clear to me. Perhaps for those of us who don't understand the jargon you could explain that too.That's a fair amount of trouble, but it might make you case clearer.

quote:

---

"All that's necesssary to form a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis is to have a suspicion that something in nature may have been designed and then follow up this suspicion with an investigation employing teleological reasoning"

---

You're confusing two very different things:
1. Source of inspiration for a hypothesis.
2. The hypothesis itself.The 1st does not need to be falsifiable. It can be a dream. It can be the babblings of a toddler.The second needs to be falsifiable.If the second doesn't invoke a designer, it's not an ID hypothesis.

NosyNed: I would expect to see a prediction which could be checked that would be different from the non-telogical (ID?) approach. I haven't seen enough detail in the thread to make it clear to me. Perhaps for those of us who don't understand the jargon you could explain that too.Warren: Here's a link that should help:
Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.com[This message has been edited by Warren, 10-16-2003]

First problem with Mike Gene's "testable ID hypothesis" :Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.comIn his general introduction on this page, he starts off on a promising note, then when he gets to the point of showing the "testable predictions", he writes:

quote:

---

At this point, one can begin to phrase the ID hypothesis in testable "if,-then" terms. Put simply, if life owes its origin to intelligent design, then high resolution studies will uncover further phenomena that echo origins through biomolecular engineering at the hands of rational agents.

---

So, his testable prediction is "phenomena that echo origins through biomolecular engineering at the hands of rational agents"???????Oh, of course.But maybe he'll flesh that out a bit...Second problem with Mike Gene's "testable ID hypothesis" :One way he could flesh it out is by differentiating ID predictions from other predictions. He does this:"ID entails that these cellular processes are quite sophisticated (and not the random mess expected by molecular biologists)"OK, talk about a strawman! Molecular biology predicts "a random mess". Rigggghhht.Third problem:This biggest problem is, that despite repeated use of phrases like "seen in the light of my ID perspective", the hypothesis Mike Gene arrives at ("Enolase functions in the degradosome as a prong that plugs the degradosome into the glycolytic pathway so that ATP generated by pyruvate kinase is then quickly channeled to the helicase to fuel its unwinding activity. ") in no way depends on the existence of intelligent designers of the cell.Really. Try this: copy the text of Mike Gene's page, and remove all those phrases like "in the light of my ID perspective". Also remove the strawmen like the one above, that molecular biology predicts "a random mess".Now, given just his listed observations, and no appeals to an intelligent designer, does it make sense to propose the function for enolase that Gene proposes?Yep. I mean, it may or may not be true, but it's plausible and consistent with the observations.So why call this an "ID hypothesis", if it doesn't require an Intelligent Designer?Fourth problem:

quote:

---

from Mike Gene: "I envision the first cells as complex and sophisticated entities. And while the introduction of such cells were probably followed by a long history of evolution, I expect to find traces of such initial states because, as I have explained elsewhere, such a state is front-loaded and would be continually exploited by evolution. "

---

This is placed in an important part of the page, seemingly as the primary driver of predictions. But what are the predictions? What differentitate the "inital states" from the products of "the long history of evolution"? Maybe he spells this out in the "elsewhere" he refers to, but he sure doesn't here.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-16-2003]

Zhimbo: This biggest problem is, that despite repeated use of phrases like "seen in the light of my ID perspective", the hypothesis Mike Gene arrives at ("Enolase functions in the degradosome as a prong that plugs the degradosome into the glycolytic pathway so that ATP generated by pyruvate kinase is then quickly channeled to the helicase to fuel its unwinding activity. ") in no way depends on the existence of intelligent designers of the cell.Warren: Are you suggesting that Mike could have arrived at his
hypothesis using non-teleological reasoning? Perhaps, but this is beside the point. The fact is, Mike's hypothesis was arrived at using teleological reasoning of the form:"If the first cells were the product of advanced bioengineering what would we expect to find."Following this line of thought, Mike was able to produce a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis.On the other hand, a non-teleological hypothesis would follow a line of reasoning such as:If we posit simple, sloppy, quasi-life forms that were spawned from geochemistry, what would we expect to find.I fail to see how this perspective would have led one to the same hypothesis that Mike arrived at but even if it did that would be irrelevant.[This message has been edited by Warren, 10-16-2003]

quote:

---

"Following this line of thought, Mike was able to produce a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis."

---

My point is that this is exactly what is lacking! Please fill in the steps of reasoning that led from the observation to the prediction that depend on the existence of intelligent designers. I don't see how intelligent design figures in at all.Given the list of observations, it seems that enolase might fit into a previously un-specified system. Period. The existence of an intelligent designer plays absolutely no explanatory role.

quote:

---

"If we posit simple, sloppy, quasi-life forms that were spawned from geochemistry,"

---

As it applies to today's organisms, this is irrelevant, or a strawman, depending on what you mean. We aren't talking about the origin of life. All of Mike Gene's observations AND hypotheses concern current life. Right? His only obsevations are current, his hypothesis concerns current life.I don't see how Mike Gene's ideas about the design of the first cells enters into it.

quote:

---

"I fail to see how this perspective would have lead one to the same hypothesis that Mike arrived at but even if it did that would be irrelevant."

---

Why wouldn't that perspective lead to it? Despite Mike Gene's strawman, mainstream biology does not predict "random messes". If Mike's ideas don't make predictions substantively different from mainstream biology, then the supposed intelligent designer has no empirical consequences.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-16-2003][This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-16-2003]

The flesh is already there- you simply need to know (scientifically) that one can imagine the agent to entrain a common dynamic with two different kinematics either by electromagnetism or biometabolickinematics else Warren seems correct to me.If you THEN wish to distinguish an ID from and non-ID one one needs the acutal kinemtics or at best the dynamics itself short of a further collapse of revoutionary evolutionism (aka whatever can be humanistically yoked) to Mike's... There can be core Darwininan liked individuality without chance or there can be chance randomness that underlies the dynamics EVEN if some plane in the kinematics is constant so I do not see how Mike "did it" as you said. If I am wrong for not reading in detail the link then feel free to say so - but please try and do understand the discrimination I am making about teleology and the LACK of it in the GROWTH of biological thought- THAT i think is the mistake in any attempt to make a revolution in to an evolution- even Mayr's kind!!