Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
442 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Aussie, dwise1, jar, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx (10 members, 432 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,889 Year: 1,001/6,534 Month: 1,001/682 Week: 54/182 Day: 28/26 Hour: 2/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
Member (Idle past 3109 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004

Message 151 of 157 (341832)
08-20-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by AnswersInGenitals
08-20-2006 7:53 PM

Lynn Margulis
Actually, the motorcycle did evolve from the bike, but not through a gradual series of allelic gene mutations. It was an instance of endosymbiosis. If you are not familiar with this term, you should read Lynn Margulis' "Symbiotic Planet". It is a very short book and lays out the concept and evidence for endosymbiosis in a straightforward manner. Just be careful not to take her seriously when she proposes this mechanism for all speciation events. She has the mind of a great biologist, but the soul of a crackpot creationist, seeing her solution as the only possible one and all criticism as part os a great conspiracy.

"Crackpot creationist"? I say, AIG, that`s a tad harsh. I have three books by Margulis and think she lays out, with many related references, her ideas of bacterial insertions in quite a convincing way. What particularly did you object to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-20-2006 7:53 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-21-2006 2:30 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Posts: 636
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 152 of 157 (341844)
08-21-2006 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Nighttrain
08-20-2006 11:14 PM

Re: Lynn Margulis
Yes, you are quite right. That was too harsh and uncalled for for such a productive and interesting scientist. My only excuse is my pencant to sacrifice accuracy for alliteration. Her "Garden of Microbial Delights" has always been one of my favorite books. But in the book I reference, I was very disappointed in her paranoia and refusal to accept that there are many mechanisms, all Darwinian at their basis, that contribute to evolution. Endosymbiosis, while certainly one of the most intriguing, is just one of those mechanisms. But I do like to idly speculate if certain leucocytes might have started out as invasive amoeba with a taste for bacteria that adapted to life in the mammalian blood stream and somehow acquired their hosts genome. Probably a silly idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Nighttrain, posted 08-20-2006 11:14 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Posts: 636
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 153 of 157 (341845)
08-21-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Brad McFall
08-20-2006 7:58 PM

Re: IC vs. nonmateriality
Brad, thank you for your response. I'm glad to see that you focused on the heart of my post and am encouraged that you totally agree with my position in this matter. I'm a little confused though about your reference to Williams' work. Would that be Venus or Serena?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Brad McFall, posted 08-20-2006 7:58 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Brad McFall, posted 08-21-2006 10:54 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Posts: 636
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 154 of 157 (341848)
08-21-2006 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Nighttrain
08-20-2006 10:14 PM

Re: Distiguishing between Designer and Design Process
"We step on soil every day, but few people realize that 'dirt' supports a complex community of microorganisms that plays a critical role on Earth, he said. "The number of bacterial species in a spoonful of soil is likely to exceed the total number of plant species in all of the United States."

We don't have to go traipsing about the garden to appreciate the ubiquity and diversity of bacteria. The typical human body has about 100 trillion cells, but only about 50 trillion of these are 'us' in that they started from our original egg and contain our genome. The rest, making up over half our cells, are an extensive menagerie of critters, mostly bacteria. We are not individuals. We are walking ecosystems. Most of these co-critters serve functions that are useful or even essential for our survival. And of course we serve functions that are essential to their survival.

Lynn Margulis, in her delicious book: "Garden of Microbial Delights" describes this in detail and suggests that perhaps the bacteria are the Intelligent Designers that evolved the so called higher animals like us humans just so they would have a nice temperature stabilized and constant moisture environment and also have someone to bring home the bacon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Nighttrain, posted 08-20-2006 10:14 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4148 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001

Message 155 of 157 (341896)
08-21-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by AnswersInGenitals
08-21-2006 2:37 AM

Re: IC vs. nonmateriality
I'm glad to see that you focused on the heart of my post and am

Be careful I am not giving you the whole ro}w{bot for free. There is an “ecological moment” being passed during consideration of the topic in this thread whether it holds up the belt loop or is the engine belt itself.

I'm a little confused though about your reference to Williams' work. Would that be Venus or Serena?

I will address this if you are especially interested. “Williams” refers of course to the man George C., that developed an important position on biotic adaptability 1966 under title of “Adaptation and Natural Selection.”

The search plan that any robot would have preprogrammed however is not one in IT but rather as per an earlier entry of mine in this thread via a NICHE (not necessarily a genus of thought of tricycles or twoseaterbicycles, or Fords etc.) as( in)

”because the niche-constructing acts of organisms must be selected in advance of their expression, it follows that the niche-constructing activities of organisms must either suffice, for example because they arose for other reasons, or be oriented a priori toward targeted future outcomes or organism-environment interactions on the basis of at least rudimentary and semantically informed search plans.”
(bold/ital- combo added) page 177 “Niche Construction” by Odling-Smee, Laland, and Feldman 2003

This plan only inflates the cost of doing macrothermodyanics it does not inhibit or prohibit it. The niche construction authors mis-use Maxwell’s “demon” in general but not in particular.

Edited by Brad McFall, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-21-2006 2:37 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Inactive Suspended Member

Message 156 of 157 (434870)
11-17-2007 8:39 PM

spam removed

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Inactive Suspended Member

Message 157 of 157 (462907)
04-10-2008 12:29 PM

Spam deleted

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022