Question: Is the key problem that new species are seldom or never observed?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 25, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A key problem with the argument over Darwinian evolution (evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations) is that so few actual examples of speciation (new species forming) have ever been observed that we really have no way of knowing for sure whether Darwin had the right idea.

I suspect that explains precisely why acceptance of Darwinism is so often treated as some kind of loyalty test for support for science in general.

That is, the Darwinist is taking a great deal on faith. And thoseÃ‚Â Darwinists who also happen toÃ‚Â be fanaticsÃ‚Â by temperament behave just as other fanatics do when they think they have found certainty: They go aboutÃ‚Â like bulls looking for a fight -Ã‚Â demanding that you too, brudder, better get saved. Otherwise, you face udder damnation …

As Jonathan Wells noted in his controversial Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,

So except for polyploidy in plants, which is not what Darwin’s theory needs, there are no observed instances of the origin of species. As evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.” Evolution’s smoking gun is still missing.

– Jonathan Wells, Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design , p. 55, quoting Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, p. 32)

In fairness to the fanatical Darwinist, unlike the Islamic extremist, he is only trying to separate doubters from their careers, not their heads.

That said, why not insist that at least one thousand obvious examples of speciation in animals – where we have a lot of information about what happened -Ã‚Â be accumulated and studied, so that we have a study population to work with, to assess various theories of the origin of species?

Ã‚Â If we can’t find that within the next century, we need to assess just what role Darwinism is playing in science or society, because shedding light cannot really be the role.

Comments

RB too improbable. An argument from incredulity? Shame on you. At least you know how I feel about abiogenesis as the given answer to the OOL problem. The answers to your objections become more apparent only when you first take design as a given. Since FL is a design theory we can do that. Design is that which is to be proven. So from a design theoretic view: -simpler first is not an axiom, designs can begin at any arbitrary level of complexity So in answer to your question about prokaryotes carrying all the unexpressed genetic information we must first ask what evidence argues against a complex eukaryote first and bacteria cleaved off from that. I can't find any compelling evidence that prokaryotes had to come first. The fossil evidence from 3.5bya is pretty slim. All it tells us is at best is that bacteria were found then. If there were populations of say ameoba 3.5bya that were the designed entry point should we expect the fossil evidence to be elusive? I think so. Would an ecology of amoeba and bacteria work out on the early earth? Sure. Vast numbers of photosynthetic bacteria as primary producers with a much smaller number of much larger amoeba feeding on them. It still happens to this day. What also still happens to this day is an amoeba species with a measured amount of DNA 200 times that of the human genome. Amoeba dubia. Look it up. Keep in mind that we've only measured the amount of DNA in only a tiny sampling of what's out there yet to find extant. At least, dubia's existence means an organism can successfully carry around that much DNA and still be a survivor. Now to your objection about carrying all that unexpressed DNA around and no selection pressure to keep it accurate. Once again, if we look at it from a design theoretic view, we must ask if there are other reasonable ways the unexpressed genome can be preserved. Sure there are. We use error detection algorithms in computer data storage of any arbitrary reliability we need. It's a tradeoff between replication speed and reliability is all. Not a problem. DNA replication is accurate now to some one in 10^7 through one in 10^9 with prokaryotes the more mutagenic and that's before selection does anything. And just in the small number of organisms we checked. Improving that error rate by several orders of magnitude isn't really difficult. In fact the same mechanisms that get the error rates above can be employed redundantly so there's not even anything we haven't already observed, just more of it. DaveScot_{September 30, 2006
September
09
Sep
30
30
2006
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

Lee asks, vis front loading, "What areas of natural history donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fit well with this model?" If I understand the 'front loading' hypothesis correctly, it proposes that, for 2 thousand million years, each of an uncountable number of single-celled, prokaryotic organisms, lacking nuclei, carried within information sufficient not only to code for its own development, but sufficient to specify the development of every one of the millions of descendent species that followed over earth's subsequent history, including every multicelluar plant and animal species living today as well as the 99.9 percent that are now extinct. The overwhelming majority of this information was not expressed as phenotype, and hence was not subject to stabilizing selection - yet remained undegraded over eons of time and practically infinite numbers of replications. Packed within each prokaryote were adaptations to countless future successions of contingent natural geographic, environmental, climatic, and ecological contexts, awaiting triggering signals/circumstances for their expression, including innumerable adaptations of one organism to another in predator prey, symbiotic, parasitical, and other relationships - all to be triggered in synchrony. And on and on. This is proposed because some do not believe that natural selection can shape complex adaptations - too improbable.Reciprocating Bill_{September 29, 2006
September
09
Sep
29
29
2006
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Believe it was Scott who posted: That the information is pre-coded to abruptly unfold new species at given intervals. Like a computer algorithm. CouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t this make sense since we find code wrapped in code, at the cellular level? And wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t this be more consistent with the fossil record we observe? I think this is a very interesting area and would appreciate further thoughts besides theseÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ 1) Speciation occurs, brought about by pre-coded instructions, hence the lack of transitional fossils. Also overcomes the problem that if n=1 for a new species where there is no one to mate with. (this is known to cause depression and suicide, leading to early extinction.) 2) Descent with modification occurs, brought about by pre-coded instructions, hence similar structures, similar building blocks, similar DNA in some cases. As noted before, descent with modification does not require a RM & NS causal model. 3) Irreducible complex systems and complex specified information exist because pre-coded information contains the CSI and instructions to build the IC structures. 4) Mutations occur, but generally have a negative effect on the pre-coded information, much like a random error in a software program is seldom a useful feature. 5) Natural selection occurs, generally preserving the original coded information and weeding out negative mutations. Note: - This in an inference to intelligence, not the supernatural. - This model does not deny mutations and natural selection, but places them into the causal category where we observe them performing today. - Micro evolution exists caused by both pre-coded information and mutations - Macro evolution exists caused by pre-coded information. Here is a listing of features compiled by Hugh Ross that favor ID methodology and seem to fit in well with this mode. Chicken-and-egg systems: Many biochemical systems are called chicken-and-egg systems (after the old conundrum, "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?") because they consist of components that require each other for the components to be produced. For example, ribosomes make proteins, yet they in turn consist of proteins. Proteins can't be formed without ribosomes (proteins), and ribosomes (proteins) can't be made without proteins! Fine-tuning and high precision: Long recognized as design features, fine-tuning and high precision traditionally signify a device's superior engineering and craftsmanship. Many biochemical structures and activities depend on precise location and orientation of chemical groups in three-dimensional space, just-right chemical composition, and exacting chemical rates. Molecular fine-tuning is a defining property of life's chemical systems. Molecular motors: These protein complexes are found inside the cell and are literal machines. Many possess an eerie resemblance to man-made machines. A new special issue of Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter edited by Joseph Klafter and Michael Urbakh contains invited papers from some of the world's greatest experts on molecular motors. Macro-scale thermodynamic engines convert the random motion of fuel-produced heat into directed motion. Such engines cannot be downsized to the nanometer scale, because thermodynamics does not apply to single atoms or molecules, only large assemblies of them. A great challenge for the field of nanotechnology is the design and construction of microscopic motors that can transform input energy into directed motion and perform useful functions such as transporting of cargo. Today's nanotechnologists can only look in envy at the biological world, where molecular motors of various kinds (linear, rotary) are very common and fulfill essential roles. Biochemical information systems: Experience teaches that intelligible messages come from intelligent sources. The cell's biochemical machinery (proteins, DNA, RNA, and oligosaccharides) is information-based and therefore its logical to infer that it comes from an intelligent source. Genetic code: Encoded information indicates intelligence beyond the mere presence of information. An intelligent being must develop and employ the code. The cell's information exists in a coded format that defines the cell's information systems. Genetic code fine-tuning: The rules that comprise the genetic code are better designed than any conceivable alternative code to resist error caused by mutations. This fine-tuning powerfully indicates that a superior intelligence developed the cell's information systems. Preplanning: Planning ahead indicates purpose and reflects design. Many biochemical processes consist of a sequence of molecular events and chemical reactions. Often the initial steps of these pathways elegantly anticipate the final steps. Quality control: Designed processes incorporate quality-control procedures to ensure efficient and reproducible manufacture of quality product. Many biochemical operations employ sophisticated quality control processes. Molecular convergence: Several biochemical systems and/or biomolecules found in different organisms are structurally, functionally, and mechanistically identical. Yet they appear to have independent origins. Given the complexity of these systems, it is not rational to conclude that blind, random, natural processes independently produced them. Questions: What areas of natural history donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fit well with this model? Are there other important areas or bodies of evidence that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fit will with NDE but do with this model? Thanks, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve enjoyed reading everyoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s posts on this topic, all 122! Lee PenickLee Penick_{September 29, 2006
September
09
Sep
29
29
2006
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Chris Hyland:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Do you have any more questions now about why we expect Ã¢â‚¬Å“tens of thousandsÃ¢â‚¬Â of Ã¢â‚¬Å“intermediatesÃ¢â‚¬Â?Ã¢â‚¬Â (from PaV) Im not sure I follow, is there a copy of the diagram on the net somewhere?
I did a simple google search. It immediately popped up. Here it is: http://darwin.gruts.com/docs/origin-1/diagram/
So far the only attemp at calculation I have seen is here: http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/evc/argresp/tranfull.htm
I don't agree with Elsberry's analysis, and, hence, his numbers. His equation is: EFR = (NSTP * NSPP * AP * SEVR * FSDP) and ETF = EFR * OFS where EFR is the "expected fossil ratio", NSTP is the "natural selection time proportion", NSPP is the "natural selection population proportion", AP is the "area proportion", SEVR is the "subsidence vs. elevation variation ratio", FSDP is the "formation to species duration proportion", ETF is the "expected number of transitional fossils", and OFS is the number of "observed fossil species". Darwin, referring to his diagram, writes: "In the diagram, each horizontal line has hitherto been supposed to represent a thousand generations, but each may represent a million or a hundred million generations, and likewise a section of the successive strata of the earth's crust including extinct remains. . . the diagram throws light on the affinities of extinct beings, which, though generally belonging to the same orders, or families, or genera, with those now living, yet are often, in some degree, intermediate in character between existing groups; and we can understand this fact, for the extinct species lived at very ancient epochs when the branching lines of descent had diverged less." Thus, we can, per Darwin, choose these intervals to be up to a 100 million years old. If that's the case, there's no reason for Elsberry to include the NSTP since obviously over such a long period of geologic time natural selection will have taken place. This makes NSTP now equal to 1. NSSP is meant to account for the fact that NS occurs only on a few "inhabitants" at a time (Darwin's words); however, again consulting Darwin's own diagram, we see that over the time frame he indicates (that is, at every step of the way beginning with time period I, and then II, and then III, and so forth) the average number of "diverging" species shown on his diagram(which are "intermediate" from the preceding interval--remember, again, these intervals are now, with Darwin's permission, 100 million years long) are, on average (from IX down: 5/7; 6/8; 8/10; 6/9; 5/9; 4/7; 4/7; 4/9; 3/11; 2/11) 0.53. But, let's be more conservative and say 0.4. For AP, Elsberry shows 0.1. But if we look at Darwin's quote we see that he was talking about the fact that in his own day the fossils that had been recovered were mainly from just Europe. (The fossil record was somewhat sparse at the time, and Darwin was counting on a more ample fossil record to buttress his theory. That didn't happen.) But that is no longer true. Fossils have been found in Antartica, China, Australia, etc. , etc. So, if a main branch had an extensive range, there's an extremely good chance that almost all of their fossil remains had a chance of showing up. So, the AP is much closer to 1.0 than it is to 0.1. Again, fairly conservative, let's make this 0.85. SEVR is something that is hard to quantify. But, again, we're not living in Darwin's time. Fossils have been found most everywhere. And so whether there was subsidence or not matters very little. So, again, conservatively, let's make this number, what, 0.5? OK, I guess that's as good a guess as you can make. FSDP, Elsberry tells us, is o.5. It's anybody's guess. Although we're now dealing with a very long time interval, nonetheless, the "intermediate" forms that Darwins indicates on his diagram don't have to be of a fine character. So, it sort of balances out. So let's use 0.5. Now it's time for math: EFR=(NSTP*NSPP*AP*SEVR*FSDP) =1.0*0.4*0.85*0.5*0.5=0.085 and EFP=EFR*OFS=0.085*250,000 fossil species, =21,250 fossil species!!! I guess Stanley Gish was right!PaV_{September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Recip Bill wrote:
MjB2001 said: Ã¢â‚¬Å“The problem with Behe and Snoke, I find, is not necessarily the mathematics but the underlying assumptions.Ã¢â‚¬Â PaV replied, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Either you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t read the paper, or you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand the paper. The paper is a devastating blow to neo-Darwinism.Ã¢â‚¬Â However, Michael LynchÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s discussion of Behe and Snoke begins with the following:
Here' s the quote that Bill included. Ã¢â‚¬Å“To support their contention of the implausibility of adaptive protein evolution by Darwinian processes, Behe and Snoke started with an ad hoc non-Darwinian model with a highly restrictive and biologically unrealistic set of assumptions. Such extreme starting conditions guaranteed that the probability of neofunctionalization would be reduced to a minimal level. An alternative approach, adopted here, is to rely on a set of biologically justified premises and an explicit population-genetic framework.Ã¢â‚¬Â The reason that Lynch considers their model "unDarwinian"--a reason you didn't bother mentioning--is the fact that Behe and Snoke's model doesn't treat the first, of a minimum of two, amino acid (a.a.) substitution to be "advantageous". Prescinding from the fact that Darwin knew neither about genetics nor nucleotide, nor proteins, Behe and Snoke chose that scenario for their model because the fact is, of course, that most mutations are known to be deleterious. (They, afterall, were looking for a "realistic" model; not necessarily a Darwinian one!) Lynch insists that, a la Darwin, each step of the evolutionary process must include an intermediate that is "advantageous". And, so, he develops his own model. Well, why don't we look at the results of his own model. I notice that Figure 3 of his paper shows that a population size of one million, (10^6), requires, for a two a.a. substitution, with a selection pressure of 0.01, 20 billion (10^8) years to bring about this mutation. And what is this mutation? It is a protein molecule that has substituted a "peptide bond" for a covalent bond. 20 billion years to accomplish that!!! Now what is the transition time from the common chimp to man? 5 million years. And how many chimps live in a community of chimps (i.e., interbreed)? On average, 100. So, if we had 10,000 communities of chimps all breeding together at once, it would take 20 billion years to form a "peptide bond" in a protein. So, when I said that the paper was a "devastating blow to neo-Darwinism", I should have added, "as is Michael Lynch's paper." In his response to Lynch's paper and critique, Behe notes that the figure both of them (i.e., both Behe and Lynch) used for the rate of 'duplicated genes' appears, due to a new paper, to be on the high side (by a few orders of magnitude), thus rendering both their devastating results to be on the optimistic side of things. I too suggest reading the papers closely, and understanding the implications of the numbers they arrive at, and you'll see that is not I who is "fulminating". Recip Bill:
With respect to the restriction of their focus to point mutations, Lynch earlier noted: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Â¦given that the authors restricted their attention to one of the most difficult pathways to an adaptive product imaginable, it comes as no surprise that their efforts did not bear much fruit.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Whether this model of Behe and Snoke (as well as Lynch's) represents "one of the most difficult pathways imaginable" or not, it nonetheless is the only route to the origination of true genetic information that I--or anyone else--knows of. Transposons, recombination, and gene duplication all simply move nucleotide sequences from one location to another. Now chimps and humans share 97% of the same genes. But how did the other 3% arise? I suggest you ruminate what I've written.PaV_{September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

MjB2001 said: "The problem with Behe and Snoke, I find, is not necessarily the mathematics but the underlying assumptions." PaV replied, "Either you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t read the paper, or you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand the paper. The paper is a devastating blow to neo-Darwinism." However, Michael Lynch's discussion of Behe and Snoke begins with the following: "To support their contention of the implausibility of adaptive protein evolution by Darwinian processes, Behe and Snoke started with an ad hoc non-Darwinian model with a highly restrictive and biologically unrealistic set of assumptions. Such extreme starting conditions guaranteed that the probability of neofunctionalization would be reduced to a minimal level. An alternative approach, adopted here, is to rely on a set of biologically justified premises and an explicit population-genetic framework." With respect to the restriction of their focus to point mutations, Lynch earlier noted: "Ã¢â‚¬Â¦given that the authors restricted their attention to one of the most difficult pathways to an adaptive product imaginable, it comes as no surprise that their efforts did not bear much fruit." It appears to me that Mjb2001 was on to something. Obviously, those interested should read the original, read Lynch's rebuttal, and then Behe and Snoke's reply before fulminating further here.Reciprocating Bill_{September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Carl said: "But imagine how upset Searle would get if the Chinese room argument was conscripted in support of metaphysical supernaturalism!" I think you've got something there...just who ARE those guys out there? And why are they ordering Chinese? (The Jan 1990 Sci Am article by Searle in which which reprises his parable includes a little cartoon depiction of Searle in the C-room. He thinks to himself, "Glad I don't have to order Moo Shu Pork this way!") Churchland's luminous room would probably be a better conscript to supernaturalism, anyway. It glows, and all.Reciprocating Bill_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

"Do you have any more questions now about why we expect Ã¢â‚¬Å“tens of thousandsÃ¢â‚¬Â of Ã¢â‚¬Å“intermediatesÃ¢â‚¬Â?" Im not sure I follow, is there a copy of the diagram on the net somewhere? I don't claim to know hwo many their should be, its just since the phrase 'many tens of thousands' was used on this thread I had assumed there was some calculation somewhere. So far the only attemp at calculation I have seen is here: http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/evc/argresp/tranfull.htm "This amounts to meaningless criticism. So donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t bother me with any of their nonsense; IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve read it already" I haven't read their criticism but I have read the paper. I don't have any big problems with the paper itself, my problem is with the claim that it rules out evolution all together, when in fact it rules out only some mechanisms of evolution. In this way I guess it is the same as my problem with the concept of IC itself.Chris Hyland_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

mjb2001: "But this isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the ONLY mechanism of RM+NS available to an organism. Point mutations arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the only thing higher organisms have going for them. " That's totally irrelevant. The problem is the relationship between mutation and acquired information. Point mutation is the simplest example, because it shows the transformation in its real essence, one bit (or, better, one nucleotide) at a time. But accumulation of information is always the accumulation of bits, be it 1, 10, or 100 at a time. If you change, randomly, 100 bits at a time, your chance of obtaining useful information is very near to zero. If you try a random inversion or deletion, your chances of obtaining new useful information is practically zero. You cannot build new functions, new proteins, new active sites, just by "mixing" existing information. New information has to be built, the appropriate bits and sequences have to begin to exist where before they did not exist. Point mutation is practically the only way to do that, and Behe's reasoning is perfectly valid. The problem is the mathematical relationship between random mutation and information, and nothing else. All other arguments of darwinists are just smoke in the eyes.gpuccio_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

From Behe and Snoke: "Our model is restricted to the development of MR features by point mutation in a duplicated gene. We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes (such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations) would be more or less efficient." and "The lack of recombination in our model means it is most directly applicable to haploid, asexual organisms. Nonetheless, the results also impinge on the evolution of diploid sexual organisms. The fact that very large population sizesÃ¢â‚¬â€109 or greaterÃ¢â‚¬â€are required to build even a minimal MR feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 108 generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes. Thus, mechanisms in addition to gene duplication and point mutation may be necessary to explain the development of MR features in multicellular organisms." The problem with Behe and Snoke, I find, is not necessarily the mathematics but the underlying assumptions. They claim that population numbers on the order of 10^22 is staggering, but by their own admission this method of mutation is most likely confined to haploid, asexual organisms (ie, bacteria). Well, considering the are on the order of 10^30 microorganisms on the planet, if each species had say 10 times the the population size required to fix a mutation, that would still be 10,000,000 times less then the current population of microorganisms. As pointed out, bacteria can easily accomplish this. But this isn't the ONLY mechanism of RM+NS available to an organism. Point mutations aren't the only thing higher organisms have going for them.mjb2001_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Chris Hyland: "I admit Darwin was wrong that the Earth is infinitley old if thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what he said. That doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have anything to do with wether we should expect to have found tens of thousands of transitional fossils though. " He didn't say that, he simply suggested an extremely long time period before the Cambrian Explosion. He was wrong about that. But you act as if this was incidental to his theory. It, in reality, is not. Darwin invokes (at least in the first two editions) the Creator twice; once at the end of his book--to get around the problem of abiogenesis-- and, the other time when he is dealing with the problem of the evolution of the eye. That's how big a problem the 'eye' was for him; and, his only recourse around it was to invoke a very old fossil record. So, if we take away the very large amount of time that Darwin thought it would take to bring about the eye (don't forget the Trilobite, the sort of identifying fossil of the Cambrian, has very complex eyes!), then he can't account for it. Well, there goes his theory. Sort of a dilemna, wouldn't you say? As to intermediates: I have Darwin's famous "diagram" right here in front of me. At the bottom, A, one incipient species, is seen to diverge through ten intervals of time (fill in the units of time you want to use; Darwin doesn't). At the end of these ten intervals of time, A, in a circuitous way, gives rise to a10, f10, and m10, three new 'incipient species'. a10, f10, and m10 then go on to give rise to 8 new species, which, taken together, form a genera. Now, on the way from A to a10, f10, and m10, I count, based on his branching diagram, 29 "intermediate species" which DON'T SURVIVE!!! Thus the ratio: 29/3=9.7 "intermediate species" (which don't survive, and are, therefore, "fossils") for every "new species" that form. His "incipient species", I, gives us 17 "intermediate species" in arriving at w10 and z10. Two species remain unchanged. Hence, at the end of a considerable period of time, we begin with 11 "incipient species", which give rise to 5 "new species" while 2 species remain unchanged. All of this produces 46 "intermediate forms", and 7 of the "incipient species" that don't survive, and hence are fossils. The overall ratio, then: 53 fossil forms/7 surviving species= 7.6 fossil species/surviving species. Do you have any more questions now about why we expect "tens of thousands" of "intermediates"? Chris Hyland: "Im not sure what you think that paper proves. It wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exactly a blow for evolution." Either you haven't read the paper, or you don't understand the paper. The paper is a devastating blow to neo-Darwinism. It provides a model which demonstrates to be true what is already intuitively obvious. In the Dover trial, the plaintiff's lawyer, wanting to demonstrate that the huge numbers ( in both population and years of time) Behe's paper requires for a simple "peptide bond" to form, asked Behe if bacteria--which easily enjoy huge populations--could form this bond in short order. Well, the answer, based on the mathematics, is "yes". But what about elephants with their, on average, small populations and long gestation times, and infrequency of mating? Well, it's a resounding "no". In a billion years, elephants, through RM+NS, could hardly form a "peptide bond". And this is going to differentiate an elephant from its LCA? Read the paper and weep! (And Panda's Thumb's criticism can't touch the central argument. The most they could do was to pare down the numbers a bit. So, now, to form a simple "peptide bond", it might not take a population of 10^8 organisms 10^10 years to form it. It might take less. This amounts to meaningless criticism. So don't bother me with any of their nonsense; I've read it already.)PaV_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

"Well, either admit Darwin was wrong, or come up with the tens of thousands of transitional forms. You canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have it both ways." I admit Darwin was wrong that the Earth is infinitley old if that's what he said. That doesn't have anything to do with wether we should expect to have found tens of thousands of transitional fossils though. "Try to find and read Behe and SnokeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s paper. It addresses exactly the point youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re stressing, and it gives the mathematics. The improbabilities are staggering; but, of course, the Darwinists concede nothing." Im not sure what you think that paper proves. It wasn't exactly a blow for evolution.Chris Hyland_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

PaV, thank you for the italian welcome, and for the kind words. I hope we can exchange our views on many points. Could you (or anybody else) give me a link to the Behe-Snoke paper? I would really like to read it. I am deeply grateful to Behe, Dembski and all the people in the ID movement for having expressed and detailed many things that I had been thinking for years. Regards to all. Giuseppegpuccio_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

The Behe-Snoke paper is on-line. Protein Science has also published a response to Behe and Snoke:
Lynch M (2005) Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins. Protein Science, 14:2217-2225.
Behe and Snoke respond in the same issue. The discussion continues!Carl Sachs_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: Try to find and read Behe and Snoke's paper. It addresses exactly the point you're stressing, and it gives the mathematics. The improbabilities are staggering; but, of course, the Darwinists concede nothing. Ignorance is bliss-como noi diciamo cui--I guess. You should be able to get a free copy if you "google" it.PaV_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: E una piacere d'averti cui in questa blog. E aparente che voi siete inteligente e puoi espresarti buoni. Benvenuti. Figlio d'IschiataniPaV_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Re: 102. Yes, I've have been expecting much the same. I would guess that they just don't see how the same problems that arise in evolution also arise in philosophy of mind. Which is surprising, because Dennett insists on the continuity -- which is why he went from writing on consciousness and intentionality to writing on Darwinism. (But imagine how upset Searle would get if the Chinese room argument was conscripted in support of metaphysical supernaturalism!)Carl Sachs_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

PaV At my age and general condition I can't afford to be patient with these clowns any longer. I say get rid of them all. Laugh them out of existence. that is about all they are good for. Of course what would you do without them which I suspect is one of the major reasons forums exist. I, for one, don't need them at all. As far as I am concerned, they are all, in Harry Truman's words - "living miracles with neither brains nor guts." And so I will continue to treat them with the contempt they have earned, thank you very much. "However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by ANY OBJECTIVE MIND..." Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 209, my emphasis. So much for the objectivity of the "Darwinian mind," the mind that never was. "But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's cenral dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this is true." ibid, page 224, his emphasis. Neither do I Pierre. "To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." ibid, page 107. Amen Pierre. Ergo The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. How do you Darwimps like them apples? I hope they give you gas. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Tom English, Here is a challenge for you. In the next two weeks you take it upon yourself to come up with the best case against the whale transition and I come up with the best case for the whale transition. Since we both claim that these are opposite of what we believe see who does the best job for the other person. We can post our responses back on this thread and they will appear on the recent responses so others can see that they have been posted.jerry_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

John, It's always good to know what we're dealing with. So a certain amount of patience is warranted. When you get to the point where you're simply repeating yourself, then that's time to quit. But as long as they're respectfully disagreeing, I'm not too flummoxed. Cheers.PaV_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Pav You are wasting your time and so am I. You cannot communicate effectively with those who are deaf to what Einstein called the "music of the spheres." These people are helpless victims of their "prescribed" fate which is to go through their entire pathetic existence unable to recognize that - "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control." They are transparent examples of another of Einstein's insights into the nature of the human conditi0n. "Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion." "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings." anonymous "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

PaV, your post is very clear, and I think you have expressed woderfully the main problem of the natural selection theory. Just to stress it a little bit, I would like to make a rough hypothetical example. Let's suppose that we have two species, A and B, and that B derives directly from A by a speciation process driven by RM + NS. Let's suppose that the two species have a reasonably complex genome (let's say 10^7 nucleotides), and that they differ for 1000 significant nucleotide substitutions (a reasonable, understated assumption for a speciation, I think). If we hypothize a completely gradual "evolution", one nucleotide at a time, we should have 1000 intermediate forms, from A to B through A1, A2... A999. Obviously, a single correct mutation is an easy enough event (the probability should be, if I am not wrong, 1/3*10^-7, but I am not a mathematician, please correct me if I am wrong). No problem, therefore, for a single mutation to occur in a single individual, given enough time. But let's make it more difficult. Let's be generous, and suppose that we can have clusters of ten coordinated mutations at a time, in a single step. That event is much more unlikely, I think we are now in a really tough range of probability (mathematicians, please help). But let's suppose that it may happen by chance in a single individual and in a reasonable time, provided that all the individuals of A have the same probability of the event. Well, in that case we would still need 100 transitions from A to B. Now, the problem is that we cannot push our "luck" further, that is we cannot suppose that we have coordinated mutations of, say, 100 nucleotides at a time in a single individual in a single step, because that would really be too unlikely, even in an infinite time (I don't think that my numbers are necessarily the right ones, but the concept is that, at some point, we cannot really push our luck anymore). Here is where NS should come in support of RM. Well, but for NS to act, it is necessary that each "single step" mutation, be it of 1, 10 or 100 nucleotides) satisfy two criteria: 1) It has to be the cause of a phenotypical difference (otherwise, it cannot be detected by natural forces, and remains only hidden information, which cannot be selected). 2) The phenotypical difference has to be strong enough and specific enough to give a reproductive advantage. In other words, the new genotype must expand, because if it remains confined to a single individual and its progeny (in a stable population) the chances to have the second sep in the same individual are the same as the chances of having both steps at the same time, which we have already ruled out as too unlikely. So, A2, A3... An must, each at its time, expand, if not to all the original population (which would subsitute A), at least to a reasonable, important fraction of it. In other words, each intermediate must be stable enough to create a vast "pool" of genomes which may "receive" by chance the following mutation. So here come the impossibilities: a) How can anyone conceive that each new function, each new protein, each new enzyme, can be realized as a sequence of hundreds or thousands of intermediates, each ensuring a phenotypical reproductive advantage? How can that be possible, from an engineering point of view? b) Why is A still here with us, along with B, while A1, A2, An don't exist anymore? c) Why isn't there any evidence of any kind (fossils for instance) of these intermediates? They were many, they were stable, they expanded for long times, they had reproductive advantages on each antecedent. Where are they? Remember that we are not speaking of hundreds or thousands, but of billions of billions of intermediate forms, because you have to repeat the above reasoning for each species in the world, in all times. Answers welcome.gpuccio_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

Tom English:
The notion that because Darwin predicted something neo-Darwinism hinges upon observing it is bizarre.
You write that you have been observing the creationist-Darwinist-design debate for 25 years, yet your question seems to suggest you're not familiar with the foundations of neo-Darwinism. It's called neo-Darwinism because Mendelian genetics basically sounded the death toll for Darwinism. A way had to be found to wed the two. Fisher did it. How did he do it? Well, he assumed a model where the effect of a mutation was infinitesimally small. So, now, maybe we should expect an infinite number of intermediates. The language and logic that Darwinists use today is hardly different from what is found in the Origins. It is naive to think that neo-Darwinism can stand while good, old-fashioned Darwinism can fall. The reality is that neo-Darwinism is more tenous than Darwinism proper--since it is now forced to deal with the implications of Mendelian genetics. In fact, Sewell Wright, and Haldane, both disagreed with Fisher's fundamental equation of natural selection. As to the whale fossil sequence--well, that's one whale of a story. I really am not impressed with it as a transitional sequence. Remember what happened with the supposed horse sequence? That was much finer-grained, if you will, and yet Stephen Gould strongly asserted that it in no way represented a transitional sequence. With the whales, we see different forms. We see different forms in dogs--and they're the SAME species!! All the whales in the sequence look like, well, whales. So where is the transition? As I say, not very impressive. But certainly better than nothing--although, in the end, it might amount to nothing. Chris Hyland:
Fair enough, but why would we now expect to find many tens of thousands of transitional forms.
Well, either admit Darwin was wrong, or come up with the tens of thousands of transitional forms. You can't have it both ways.PaV_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs said: "I would guess that people who find evolution inadequate as an explanation for the facts of human existence are also skeptical about the thought that oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s personal identity is constituted by a specific organization of cells...Conversely, I would guess that people who arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t put off by the thought that variation and selection are the principal (even if not sole) mechanisms driving biological complexity also donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t loose sleep at the thought that a human being is made of meat Ã¢â‚¬â€ or at the thought that a piece of meat could be sentient, rational, and self-aware." Thanks for refreshing my memory of "thinking meat." Makes me smile. We're getting far afield, but I agree. I've been (half) expecting the emergence of hostility directed at efforts within cognitive science and philosophy to "naturalize intentionality" and agency - from the same quarter that currently attacks contemporary evolutionary science. I am thinking of the work of the earlier Dennett (The Intentional Stance, Kinds of Minds), Hilary Putnam (Representation and Reality), Searle, Pinker, Haugland, the Churchlands, Jerry Fodor, Stephen Stich, and so on (writers who have staked out a wide variety of positions on this difficult problem).Reciprocating Bill_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

I know of not a single new species that has arisen in the past 10,000 years and neither does anyone else apparently because I have repeatedly asked for that to be documented only to be ignored. No species ever arose gradually either. The origin of a species is a genetic change and no genetic change has ever arisen gradually. I thought everybody knew that by now but not Tom English, not Chris Hyland, not Alan Fox, not anybody over ar Elsberry's Alamo. I am through trying to communicate with you clowns as it is a complete waste of my time. I recomend you all be banned from any further partcipation here as you contribute nothing, absolutely nothing, except the same old time-worn, mindless litany of Darwinian mysticism. It is hard to beieve isn't it? I love it so! A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Jerry said: "I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make the quote you claimed. Someone else did. " My bad. Apologies.Reciprocating Bill_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

"Chris Hyland asks where did the Ã¢â‚¬Å“tens of thousandsÃ¢â‚¬Â of intermediates come from; well, it comes from DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s notion that the world is eternally old." Fair enough, but why would we now expect to find many tens of thousands of transitional forms.Chris Hyland_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

PaV 90: Interesting post. Thanks.Tom English_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

PaV, Until the 1990's, most, if not all, opponents of neo-Darwinism held that there was no speciation and that there were no transitional forms in the fossil record. As recently as 2004, Gish held the same. He was wrong. I first brought up the whale transition in response to Jerry's post:
You would think that for just one species, the fossil record would record a detailed sequence of transformations from one morphology to another.
In supposing there was not such a species, he was wrong. In my 35 years of watching the creation-Darwinism-design debate, I have seen opponents of neo-Darwinism soften their claims many times and move the evidential goalposts even more times. So it is not the least surprising that you should attempt to salvage the situation with "Well, you haven't found nearly as many transitional forms as you should." And you add to that, "Yeah, and show me those pre-Cambrian fossils Darwin predicted, too." The notion that because Darwin predicted something neo-Darwinism hinges upon observing it is bizarre. Denyse asks for "at least one thousand obvious examples of speciation in animals." Paraphrase: "I know that the notion of species is problematic, so I insist that you show me many obvious examples of speciation. But you seem to have had some clear-cut success with plants, so plant speciation doesn't count. So there!" Take it from the voice of experience: If one thousand animal speciation events are reported in the peer-reviewed literature over the next century, someone with the creationist-IDist personality type will not only insist on seeing one hundred thousand, but will also claim that the definition of species is somehow rigged. (Belt and suspenders, you know.) You may think I am being sarcastic, but the reality is that I have seen this sort of response many times.Tom English_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Reciprocating Bill, I didn't make the quote you claimed. Someone else did. The actual quote Ã¢â‚¬Å“Assume for the sake of argument that different species turn up in the fossil record and that common descent appears to explain what we observe. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really have a problem with these for any theological reasons.Ã¢â‚¬Â Actually I agree with this conjecture but note just what the conjecture actually says. What I actually believe is that the fossil record doesn't support NDE, in fact it falsifies it. I have made no claim about common descent.jerry_{September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply