Same Old Darwinian Drivel

_{June 26, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

A new study is out analyzing electric eel genomes. Guess what? The scientists are “shocked.” The results are “surprising.” If nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Darwinian evolution, then why are scientists always shaking their heads based on their latest findings in the lab?

Here’s some of the background to the study found in an
article from Phys.Org:

The work establishes the genetic basis for the electric organ, an anatomical feature found only in fish and that evolved independently half a dozen times in environments ranging from the flooded forests of the Amazon to murky marine environments.
“These fish have converted a muscle to an electric organ,” explains Sussman, a professor of biochemistry and director of the UW-Madison Biotechnology Center, who first undertook the exploration of the electric organ almost a decade ago. The study published in Science provides evidence to support the idea that the six electric fish lineages, all of which evolved independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ, needed for defense, predation, navigation and communication.

And the main findings from the same article:

“What is amazing is that the electric organ arose independently six times in the course of evolutionary history,” says Lindsay Traeger, a UW-Madison graduate student in genetics and a co-lead author of the new report along with Jason Gallant, an assistant professor of zoology at Michigan State University.
Adds Gallant: “The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same ‘genetic toolbox’ to build their electric organ,” despite the fact that they evolved independently.
Worldwide, there are hundreds of electric fish in six broad lineages. Their taxonomic diversity is so great that Darwin himself cited electric fishes as critical examples of convergent evolution, where unrelated animals independently evolve similar traits to adapt to a particular environment or ecological niche. The new work, which includes the first draft assembly of the complete genome of an electric fish, the South American electric eel, identifies the genetic factors and developmental paths the animals used to create an organ that, in some instances, can deliver a jolt several times more powerful than the current from a standard household electrical outlet.

Now, just ask yourself: if you believe that the theory of Intelligent Design best explains the functioning of biological organisms, would you be SURPRISED by these results? The answer is a resounding, “No.”

From the Science article itself (behind a paywall):

Our analysis suggests that a common regulatory network of transcription factors and developmental pathways may have been repeatedly targeted by selection in the evolution of EOs, despite their very different morphologies.

Repeatedly targeted by selection—the same, old Darwinian drivel.

Isn’t it AMAZING what the environment and random mutations can bring about? In fact, it brought it about SIX times, using “essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways. I tell you, Darwinian evolution is miraculous!!!

Comments

BA77: Please don't tell me that scientists were surprised! How can that be? BTW, thanks for the links. Very relevant here.PaV_{July 2, 2014
July
07
Jul
2
02
2014
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

as to: "If B is in competition with A then it might well drive it to extinction, if B is exploiting a new niche then it’s competition is all thoe {A_1… A_n} forms floating around." That's Darwin's theory! Here are the facts: Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists - April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory,,, One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory,,, "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?" The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. "We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists," Cardinale says. "When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled.",,, Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. ",,,Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong." http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html Darwin 'Wrong': Species Living Together Does Not Encourage Evolution - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution set out in the Origin of Species has been proven wrong by scientists studying ovenbirds. Researchers at Oxford University found that species living together do not evolve differently to avoid competing with one another for food and habitats – a theory put forward by Darwin 150 years ago. The ovenbird is one of the most diverse bird families in the world and researchers were looking to establish the processes causing them to evolve. Published in Nature, the research compared the beaks, legs and songs of 90% of ovenbird species. Findings showed that while the birds living together were consistently more different than those living apart, this was the result of age differences. Once the variation of age was accounted for, birds that live together were more similar than those living separately – directly contradicting Darwin's view. The species that lived together had beaks and legs no more different than those living apart,,, ,,,there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages. But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species.,,, He said that the reasons why birds living together appear to evolve less are "difficult to explain",,, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/darwin-wrong-species-living-together-does-not-encourage-evolution-1429927bornagain77_{July 2, 2014
July
07
Jul
2
02
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

wd400:
If B is in competition with A then it might well drive it to extinction, if B is exploiting a new niche then it’s competition is all thoe {A_1… A_n} forms floating around. In that case you’d expect all the individuals with somewhat good EOs to be out-competed by those with better ones. This is more or less Darwin’s model of speciation in Chapt. 4 of Orgin, btw.
Yes, it's Darwin's Principle of Divergence. In a sense, this is the essence of Darwinism. It was only when Wallace 'saw' this principle in action in the Malaysian Archipelago and sent notice to Darwin, that Darwin was ready to publish. But, do we really see this happen? And if we do, is this really no more than 'microevolution'?
PaV:We don’t see EO’s and muscles ‘toggling.’ wd400: In fact we do, several electric fish lineages have given up on their EOs.
But that's not 'toggling;; that's 'loss of function,' which is how a lot of 'speciation' occurs. 'Toggling' is a 'back and forth' motion. IOW, we don't see EOs arising, disappearing, and then arising again.
PaV: We don’t see ‘intermediate forms.’ wd400: In fact we do. Weakly electric fish pop up all over the tree. The South American strongly eletric fish fit within a clade of weakly electric fish!
Yes, these newly discovered species are "weakly" electric, but here's their morphology: One of the fish, Brachyhypopomus bennetti, has a large electric organ and a short, fat tail. The other, Brachyhypopomus walteri, has a more typical electric organ and a long, thin tail. The EO is, it would seem, the same kind of EO, with some subsequent modifications because its 'tail' is quite often cut off. We have no evidence that the EO is "intermediate," only that the voltage is intermediate.
PaV: We don’t see a very small (easy) genetic distance between these two morphologies. wd400: I don’t know what this means (having read the text above too)
The whole purpose of the A1 to A'N' example was to break down all those 'single'---not simultaneous---mutations you, as well as other Darwinists, seem to think must have occurred. Well, if all these steps, per the Principle of Divergence drive their antecedents to extinction, then when we compare fish with 'muscles' and fish with 'EOs,' then there shouldn't be that many mutations separating them. (I'm assuming here that these 'intermediate' forms don't have full EO function; if they did, then A1 would have had to have "simultaneous" mutations. Either there is a whole host of 'intermediates,' or there have to be "simultaneous" mutations.) But we don't see this whole host of intermediates.
PaV: And all of this is made worse because we now know that only ONE ‘pathway’ exists. PaV: We don’t see multiple ‘pathways’ from muscles to EOs. wd400: Nor do we see only a single one. We know when EO’s evolve the same suite of genes have their expression changed. This research doesn’t tell us how evolutionary pathways can create those changes, or even which ones were taken in each case.
You're sort of equivocating here with the idea of 'pathway.' If the 'pathways' were 'identical,' then the species would likely be living in exactly the same environment. It's just like the examples of what you say are 'intermediate' EO forms---the differences have largely to do with the predator situation in their environment. Let me re-state here what I've said dozens of times: if Darwin had entitled his book, Origin of Adaptations, then I'd have few problems with it. But the fact is that of the tens of thousands of proteins and regulatory regions within the 'teleost' genome, it's the very same "toolbox" that brings about the fundamental change of muscle to EO. There aren't hundreds, or thousands, of different 'toolboxes' that can be exploited. This means that only certain regions, highly specific regions, of the genome can be exploited, and this, of course, makes the needed mutations all the more harder to get at. This makes the improbability of going from A to B all the greater.PaV_{July 2, 2014
July
07
Jul
2
02
2014
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Even without the magical intervention of any evolution, it's obvious that genetic variation facilitated adaptation of a genome to multiple ecosystems. An admittedly extreme case is the preserved genetic variability in dogs, from chihuahuas to St. Bernards (and wolves). And neither chihuahuas nor St. Bernards are likely to go extinct. I'd even bet someone could still breed a fertile St. Berhuahua! ;-) -QQuerius_{July 1, 2014
July
07
Jul
1
01
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

In your A -> B by way of A_1 A_2 scenario you'd usually expect the fate of 'A' depends on how B is evolving. If B is in competition with A then it might well drive it to extinction, if B is exploiting a new niche then it's competition is all thoe {A_1... A_n} forms floating around. In that case you'd expect all the individuals with somewhat good EOs to be out-competed by those with better ones. This is more or less Darwin's model of speciation in Chapt. 4 of Orgin, btw.
We don’t see EO’s and muscles ‘toggling.’
In fact we do, several electric fish lineages have given up on their EOs.
We don’t see ‘intermediate forms.’
In fact we do. Weakly electric fish pop up all over the tree. The South American strongly eletric fish fit within a clade of weakly electric fish!
We don’t see a very small (easy) genetic distance between these two morphologies.
I don't know what this means (having read the text above too)
And all of this is made worse because we now know that only ONE ‘pathway’ exists.

We don’t see multiple ‘pathways’ from muscles to EOs.
Nor do we see only a single one. We know when EO's evolve the same suite of genes have their expression changed. This research doesn't tell us how evolutionary pathways can create those changes, or even which ones were taken in each case.wd400_{July 1, 2014
July
07
Jul
1
01
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

wd400: Finally, plain-spoken and open. Much nicer. Pretty much, everything comes down to this:
You’d only expect multiple solutions to a problem if multiple solutions exist and are easily obtainable from ancestral teleost genome these groups shared. Is there any evidence for this claim?***
Basically, if "multiple solutions exist" and are "easily obtainable," then, yes, Organism A can become Organism B. This is called "micro-evolution," which most (even I, to a degree, accept this, though I wouldn't invoke the words NS---which, of course, is a play on words of "artificial selection," which intelligent agents are known to bring about) here at UD readily accept.+++ Yet, if it were "easy"---which, within the arena of population genetics means that they're not that many mutations apart---then wouldn't we see "teleosts" having electric organs, and then reverting back to regular muscle, and so forth? We don't see this, however. So, the evidence suggests that it is NOT easy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, it appears that this change (not evolution, just a change) is NOT easy? Then what? Well, they say in the article that there's a whole "tool-box" which involves changes to regulatory proteins and pathways, and changes to proteins. Upon the Darwinian view, this happens gradually. Since you are denying "simultaneous" mutations (don't wiggle out of this position, please), then you must "believe" that they occur step-by-step. But, again, what should we expect from this? If you can go from A to B one step at a time, then you can go from B to A one step at a time. We would expect, given so many changed environment, that the EO would toggle back and forth, as I've already stated. We don't see this. Also, on the Darwinian view, we would expect that this 'pathway' is taken because the changes increase fitness---or else, NS could not be invoked [there's an exception to this that the neutral drift people like you would invoke; I'll address that in a moment]. Therefore, let's say that Organism A becomes Organism B in steps. Let's call these steps: A1, A2, A3 ........A'N'--> B. Since A1 is more fit than A, shouldn't A disappear to be replaced by A1? And A1 disappear to be replaced by A2, and so on? Then we would expect to "find" Organisms A'N' and B, with very little genetic distance between them---which is not the case with muscle becoming an EO. If you object that the "fitness" difference is so slight that A1 might not disappear, nor A2, etc., then we would find all kinds of "intermediate forms." But we don't see them. Further, if there is no "fitness difference" involved, then not only can NS not be invoked, but, as I've said already, we would see a 'toggling' between the forms over geologic time. We don't see this either. Now the last case in which there is no 'fitness' difference whatsoever, boils down to the case of neutral drift. If you believe that the required mutations could be built up over time via this 'drift,' so that all sorts of 'neutral' mutations can be 'selected' at once --- which, of course, forms your fondness for Gould ---calculations will show that this will take an enormous amount of time, and that, because these mutations are 'neutral' and not 'seen' by NS, they can also 'mutate' away. If you look at the study by Behe and Snoke, this is how they modeled evolution, and they demonstrated mathematically that astronomical amounts of time would be required for most species just to bring about a two residue change. (This, then, formed the basis of Behe's look at the malarial parasite---the ultimate test of NS because the parasite was in a life-and-death struggle with the chloroquine, and NS, therefore, was operated as strongly as is possible---in which he discovered, CONSISTENT with his mathematical models, that the malarial parasite---which, because it is such a prolific replicator was one of the few species that his mathematical model said might bring about a two a.a. change---did bring about resistance via a two a.a., simultaneous, mutation. All of this lends credence to the improbability of accumulating a host of 'simultaneous' mutations via neutral drift without some of them being lost. And all of this is made worse because we now know that only ONE 'pathway' exists. As you know, wd400, if there were lots of 'pathways,' then this would increase the likelihood of neutral drift bringing about this change. So you don't even have that any longer. So, in sum, what do we have? We don't see EO's and muscles 'toggling.' We don't see 'intermediate forms.' We don't see a very small (easy) genetic distance between these two morphologies. We don't see multiple 'pathways' from muscles to EOs. Therefore, we don't see a plausible Darwinian mechanism for explaining this conversion. This implausibility is heightened given that we now know that there is only one, single, 'pathway' that leads from muscles to EOs. The evidence---or, better yet, the LACK of evidence---completely undermines the Darwinian position. Meanwhile, ID says that all of this has the hallmark of intelligence being at work. Can you undermine our claim? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ***(This needs to be pointed out here. You can only make this statement because you now know that only one solution is possible. The scientists were surprised. If you had asked them--and probably you---BEFORE the study was conducted, they would have said, "Oh, we expect to find more than one pathway." Why do I say this? Because, of course, they were "surprised" by the results. So, now that the results are in, you ask me: why do you find this so surprising? This is ex post facto science. Dembski, in NFL, as he lays out the mathematical foundation of his Design Inference, cautions that the 'target' or 'pattern' that one is looking for has to be specified and known beforehand, or else it is like "shooting an arrow, and then painting a target around it [i.e., wherever it lands in the probability space/configuration space]." This is basically what you're doing. ID knows enough NOT to do it.) +++ [[N.B.: I should point out – there is no suggestion that the same mutations have been fixed in each lineage, just similar results with regard to gene expression.
And this is just like the whole list of SNPs that protect against malaria. Yes, with one protein, and the simple change that is needed in it, yes, that might be easy.]]PaV_{July 1, 2014
July
07
Jul
1
01
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Mung: "A toolbox is a container for tools. Toolboxes are designed for a purpose. The tools a toolbox is designed to contain are designed for a purpose." ID strategy number 2: any term or phrase used by evolutionist that can be misinterpreted by an IDist to infer design, will be.Acartia_bogart_{July 1, 2014
July
07
Jul
1
01
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Gould, a non-Darwinian in the nonUD-ian sense of "Darwinism", did indeed say evolution would procced differently if you could rewind the clock. Other evolutioary biologists disagree. It's a classic case if the tension between (true) Darwinism, in which selection provides direction and a degree of predicability and neutral ideas where the paths taken by lineages is more or less random. Everyone falls somewhere on a continuum from Dawkins-ish Darwinism to Gould-ish contingency and chance. (For the little that it's worth I'm probably closer to Gould). But what about this paper? The results so show the same genes have their regulation changed in multiple difference evolutions of the EO. You think this is a problem for evolutoin because “Randomness” is what you expect from ‘random’ mutations and unguided NS.. But, there are only so many genes and networks that contribute to teh running of the cell, and only o many that can be modified. So, if you a muscle precussor cell is to develop into something other than a muscle then hey1 might be the only protein for the job. If that's the case then we shouldn't be too suprised hey1 is up-regulated in all the EO cells. I should point out - there is no suggestion that the same mutations have been fixed in each lineage, just similar results with regard to gene expression. IT is a a little suprising that so many genes have been used repeatedly (surprise, after all, is what get's you in Science and not Genome Biology and Evolution), but I don't why you think it's "drivel" to see this evolving by natural seleciton. You'd only expect multiple solutions to a problem if multiple solutions exist and are easily obtainable from ancestral teleost genome these groups shared. Is there any evidence for this claim?wd400_{July 1, 2014
July
07
Jul
1
01
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

As this is the bit you’ve yet to explain. Why do random mutations mean it’s unlikely that the same genes would be used in generating the same trait? This opens up a broader discussion. Wasn't it Stephen Gould who said that if evolution were rewound, that it wouldn't occur the same way again. IOW, "randomness." That's what "Darwinism" is all about---"randomness." As a population geneticist who is fond of neutral drift, you delve in an area that is completely random. So, if "mutations" are 'random', and NS is non-teleological---i.e., it can't see the "end" towards which things move, then how, under this scenario, can you account for each of these different lineages doing things in the same way. Meanwhile, the ignition switches on Fords, BMW's, and Volvos are very, very similar. They solve the same need in almost, if not in the, same way. That's what you expect from intelligent agency. "Randomness" is what you expect from 'random' mutations and unguided NS. That's why the scientists were surprised. But, it's convenient for you to 'not' be surprised. But I think you're being intellectually dishonest---perhaps not consciously, but certainly at least unconsciously. You make demands of ID---prove it!; but, when I ask you for numbers you simply hand-wave the whole issue away. This is more than convenient.PaV_{July 1, 2014
July
07
Jul
1
01
2014
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

I don't think the public discourse on biology is more reliant on metaphor than other fields of science. How metaphors did you hear for the Higgs boson, or to to describe cosmic inflation?wd400_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

A toolbox is a container for tools. Toolboxes are designed for a purpose. The tools a toolbox is designed to contain are designed for a purpose. wd400:
It’s just a term referring to the set of protein/RNAs/regulatory elements in a genome.
IOW, it's being used as a metaphor. Apparently no other metaphor which did not evoke design was appropriate. Why does biology rely so heavily on metaphors?Mung_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

It's just a term referring to the set of protein/RNAs/regulatory elements in a genome.wd400_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain what a "genetic toolbox" is and what kind of tools are in it. -QQuerius_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

But that’s not what this post was about. It was about “surprised” scientists who found that of six species of fish–some clearly not in the same descendant line and some also taxonomically distant–the very same “tool-box” was used. Different species, different lineages, different environments, but always the same solution. That’s not what a theory based on “randomness” would expect.
As this is the bit you've yet to explain. Why do random mutations mean it's unlikely that the same genes would be used in generating the same trait?wd400_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

wd400: It's a complete waste of time dialoguing with you. You interpret everything I write in the most negative way possible. You're not interested in knowing anything. You're only interested in holding onto your views. You say I was talking about simultaneous mutation from the get-go. That is so wrong. But that's how you choose to interpret things. You say I'm talking about something I know so little about. Well, you're right in one respect. I'm no expert in either muscle tissue or electric organs. But that's not what this post was about. It was about "surprised" scientists who found that of six species of fish--some clearly not in the same descendant line and some also taxonomically distant--the very same "tool-box" was used. Different species, different lineages, different environments, but always the same solution. That's not what a theory based on "randomness" would expect. You countered by saying NS is not 'random' and charging that I had said so. Wrong about that, I pointed out that I was talking about the 'random' pathway one would expect if a truly "random" process was a work, a process that you said was "mutationism", not "Darwinism." (You can't help picking at nits). That got us to the point of talking about what these "mutations" might look like. I did a calculation for the improbability of two, simultaneous mutations, showing, quite easily and clearly, that evolution would have a hard time overcoming the improbability involved. I asked you to provide calculations for you "belief" that "gradual" ( or are you saying that mutations do have to occur simultaneously) evolution of a pathway would occur. You failed to provide such calculations, simply dismissing it as beyond what we know. (of course, this means that Darwinism is an argument from ignorance---isn't that what they say about ID?). Then I made the point that if evolution were to have occurred so 'gradually,' that surely we would find, among extant species, some of these very 'gradual' and 'intermediate' changes that your view requires. Then you gave a very inept example, and I pointed out the inherent contradiction. That brings us up-to-date now. You can blow all the smoke-screens you want. I simply ask: show me the calculations, and show me the intermediates. Then I'll begin to take you more seriously.PaV_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

The snideness I was referring to was the OP. I don't think it's arrogant to point out someone's mistakes, especially when those mistakes come after being so dismissive of a topic they know so little about. In this thread, you've repeatedly claimed that the evolution of an EO would require simaltaneous mutations. Nothing in teh paper that elicited this post requires this to be true. So it turns out that this post was spurred by nothing other than your own belief incredulity that an EO could evolve. Now you seem to be saying Behe's book chapter about malaria (in which he makes several mistakes) is proof that simltanious mutations are required for the evolution of EOs? A very stange argument.
In answering the question I pose about ‘intermediates,’ you reply, “No.” And, yet, your ‘imagine’ an intermediate scenario—murky waters—and then suggest the EO will later on be “optimized.
You didn't read very closely. Some fish already used their EO's to navigate and communicate in murky or dark water. Those EO's are 'intermediate' between muscle/nerve and the much more powerful EO's of strongly electric fish. What I was answering "no" to was the claim that if an intermediate character was beneficial we'd necessarily see some species with that intermediate character. I can see no reason why that would be the case.
So to use the example of “half a wing” to ‘defend’ Darwinism against the charge that no ‘intermediates’ have been found is just twisted logic. If you want to be a Darwinist, then you HAVE to give reasons WHY there are NO “half wings.”
I didn't give it to "defend Darwinism". I really didn't think anyone could think the fact no modern reptiles retain primitaive wings constitutes an argument against the evolution of wings. I thought it might nicely illustrate why the argument was wrong (descendants of the primatively winged dinosaurs are either extinct or birds...). But I guess I was wrong.wd400_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

wd400:
All this anger and derision and snideness,
This is what arrogance gets you. Change your attitude, and I will change mine. It's up to you.
PaV: If NS would not kill off these one-step mutations, then they should be found somewhere in the animal kingdom, should they not? If, for each step, “fitness” is gained, then shouldn't each of these single steps be there for us to see?

wd400: No. Mutations are only benificial or not in the context of their environment. Weakly electric fish use their EO’s to navigate and communicate, that’s only likely to be of use in murky habitats. Moreover, once an EO is developed it makes senese it soptimized.
You've contradicted yourself. In answering the question I pose about 'intermediates,' you reply, "No." And, yet, your 'imagine' an intermediate scenario---murky waters---and then suggest the EO will later on be "optimized." So, then, are you saying that "murky waters" are no longer found? Or that there is no advantage to having some 'intermediate' form of an EO? And that we should no longer be expected to find such a form? Again, you contradict yourself.
No one (in their right mind…) compains that there are no living reptile with half a wing, after all.
Perverse logic here. Typical of Darwinists. You make all kinds of presumptions and suppositions, and then use these to defend the theory. Science doesn't work that way. Defend the theory AND its presumptions and suppositions. "Half a wing" is only possible within a Darwinian framework of "gradualism." ID rejects it and says, instead, that the structure is most likely the result of an intelligent intervention of some sort. So to use the example of "half a wing" to 'defend' Darwinism against the charge that no 'intermediates' have been found is just twisted logic. If you want to be a Darwinist, then you HAVE to give reasons WHY there are NO "half wings." As to proof of the need for "simultaneous" mutations, read The Edge of Evolution. This 'need' is documented there. But, of course, you wouldn't deign to read such a book. After all, some ID person wrote it. (IOW, who cares about 'facts,' when we all know that scientific dogma is more important.) The intellectual dishonesty you're guilty of is this: I quite simply pointed out to you---who, as a population geneticist familiar with how populations can overcome the improbabilities associated with the fixation of certain mutations---the improbability for NS to provide for just TWO mutations (the malarial parasite in Behe's book is an extravagant replicator, or else it couldn't have reached resistance to chloroquine in a short period of time). This requires you to stick to the position that 'simultaneous' mutations aren't needed. But it was needed in the case of the malarial parasite. And that was just to get some simply 'ion-channel' to function. If you're an honest scientist, you can't believe or accept Darwinism unless you're "not in your right mind."PaV_{June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

. . . a common regulatory network of transcription factors and developmental pathways may have been repeatedly targeted by selection . . . Now, that is a quote by someone who hasn't the faintest clue what they are talking about. Go ahead, waive the Darwinian flag, even when it doesn't make a bit of sense to do so.Eric Anderson_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

...it is the population’s reaction to all of these things (except what genes get passed along) that are the factors that drive natural selection.
Except that the random nature of these effects will largely overwhelm the force of natural selection. Let me try and explain this in small steps. Evolution is supposed to work in a succession of small steps, right? Each step builds on the previous ones. This gradual accumulation of useful changes is how evolution happens (supposedly). So lets say that a rabbit is born with a new useful mutation. Let's say that the mutation confers a 1% greater chance of successfully reproducing (small steps, remember). What is the chance that natural selection will 'see' this new mutation and use it to determine if the rabbit passes it's genes along? Well, we answered that earlier. 1%. Which basically means that there is a 99% chance that the reproductive success of this rabbit will be determined by something other than natural selection. I'm not saying that the rabbit will die. I'm saying that the selection process is mostly random. It might well survive and propagate, but if it does, it will be mostly due to chance.StephenA_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

StephenA: "So, please, educate me. What other “random” processes are involved in natural selection other that mutations? The environment. The nature and composition of local competitors. Which genes happen to get passed along. Local food supply. The weather. Predator population and composition. Pretty much everything really." You make perfect sense if any of these things were random. Beyond the animal's control is not the same thing as being random. And it is the population's reaction to all of these things (except what genes get passed along) that are the factors that drive natural selection. Yet you try to spin them to convince us that these are the reason that NS does not work.Acartia_bogart_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Ok my apologies people, the double post was not an attempt at any emphasis, just a failed minor spelling correction ... :-)willh_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Mapou: "There are probably thousands of different biochemical ways to generate electricity. Evolving an electric muscle just once is incredibly unlikely. But evolving the same organ six times independently puts Darwinists squarely in the voodoo science camp" Yes see your point. But even if the extant electric organ that is displayed in these creatures was the only choice, it seems a very stiff proposition for a design free material process to achieve.willh_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Mapou: "There are probably thousands of different biochemical ways to generate electricity. Evolving an electric muscle just once is incredibly unlikely. But evolving the same organ six times independently puts Darwinists squarely in the voodoo science camp" Yes see your point. But even if the extant electric organ that is displayed in these creatures was the only choice, it seems a very stiff proposition for an design free material process to achieve.willh_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

So, please, educate me. What other “random” processes are involved in natural selection other that mutations?
The environment. The nature and composition of local competitors. Which genes happen to get passed along. Local food supply. The weather. Predator population and composition. Pretty much everything really.StephenA_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Mung: "Simply false. It’s a real shame that we cannot simply concentrate strictly on ID here at UD. Instead we must constantly counter the mistaken ideas of Darwinists. Is there something defective in Darwinian education?" So, please, educate me. What other "random" processes are involved in natural selection other that mutations? Simply stating that I am wrong is not an argument. Unless you are using that tried and true ID argument of "I know you are but what am IAcartia_bogart_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

willh, There are probably thousands of different biochemical ways to generate electricity. Evolving an electric muscle just once is incredibly unlikely. But evolving the same organ six times independently puts Darwinists squarely in the voodoo science camp.Mapou_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Mapou: "Think about it. Darwinists should be surprised at the results because the parallel evolution of identical mechanisms in distant species stretches credulity to a breaking point." No doubt anyone 'in the community' would have to be surreptitious if in disagreement. Perhaps put in the form of a question, or indeed surprise, is the wisest choice for a non-conformist. But for the discussions sake, is there any real shock (no pun intended, just can't think of another word besides repeating the quoted word 'surprise' again) to the revelation that the genetics are so similar? Doesn't this specific impressive organ (or perhaps modified muscle ... and very impressive indeed in such as the electric eel for both its size and galvanic force) require specific and related genetic material to produce it? Are the authors of the study not referring to the actual genes involved to provide this biologic function, or is it some other aspect of the genetic structure/expression? Well on this so I do wonder ... just want to pose this to gain clarification for in case the suggestion of some hidden (to me atleast) factor is more relevant. Thanks for any responses.willh_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Muscles are already electric organs, even if the aren’t Eletric Organs.
Muscles do not generate electricity. Muscles move because of an electric stimulus provided by nerves. And nerves do not generate electricity, they harness and use it.Joe_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

willh @58, Maybe those researchers are not really Darwinists but closet IDists? It's their way of protesting the paradigm without looking like it. In the politically correct world of biology, one does not come out against Darwin and still hope to have a job. Darwinists are fascists. Think about it. Darwinists should be surprised at the results because the parallel evolution of identical mechanisms in distant species stretches credulity to a breaking point.Mapou_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

"Adds Gallant: “The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same ‘genetic toolbox’ to build their electric organ,” despite the fact that they evolved independently..." Is the phrase 'surprising result' perhaps just a literary device, or where they truly surprised in real terms? Does anyone perhaps have any insight into what they expected to find, or if not that, what wouldn't have 'surprised' the researchers?willh_{June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply