RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria

RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 3:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys To induce more "battiness" in a mammal would require the replication of that history in both its molecular and selective aspects. In addition, it would also require that the mammal in question has not already undergone a history that blocks a turn toward "battiness". You will not get more "battiness" in an elephant unless you can take the elephant backward through its history to the point of its common ancestry with the bat. IOW, it is wrong to assume that changes which produce detrimental change in modern bats would also be detrimental to the non-flying acnestor of bats. Even more, it is wrong to assume that specific changes in specific genes would be detrimental if it occurred in the ancestor's genome. In order for this to work you need to reconstruct the ancestral genome. The only way to do this that I know of is through comparative genomics and phylogenomics which are definitely not ID tools. They are heavily couched in evolutionary mechanisms.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:18:17 PM)
quote: Good heavens, this is hardly a failure of evolution. The scenarios are quite different. In the first place bacteria are single cells and viruses simply a bit of DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein capsid. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, they are haploid i.e. they don't have a second copy of their genome to offset any effect of a mutation. We can exert a great deal more control over the environment of bacteria and viruses and in most experiments we are looking to induce one or a few simple changes. A bat, however, is a complex mammal. Its cells (even germline cells before mitosis) are diploid. A mutation in such a cell may have no effect whatsoever. It has no discernable effect on the host organism (except when it initiates a cancerous growth) and only affects the offspring if it is passed on to a gamete which forms part of a zygote. Furthermore "battiness" implies not just one or a few changes in a single strand of DNA but a whole suite of changes, dependent on a fairly lengthy history of selection. To induce more "battiness" in a mammal would require the replication of that history in both its molecular and selective aspects. In addition, it would also require that the mammal in question has not already undergone a history that blocks a turn toward "battiness". You will not get more "battiness" in an elephant unless you can take the elephant backward through its history to the point of its common ancestry with the bat. So I say that one can't make the comparison because the cases are significantly different, and you jump in and say essentially, 'Heavens, you can't compare these two cases because they are quite different!', then most would call that agreement, not contradiction.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:20:32 PM)
quote: One has to ask "harmful to whom"? Of course, premature death is harmful to the individual whose life is cut short. But it seems to be beneficial to the population exposed to malaria. Well sure; it's rather like saying that if I jam the lock on my car to keep a carjacker from entering it benefits my potential survival, but it still constitutes a broken lock, and is less fuinctional when compared to a lock that works.

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So I say that one can't make the comparison because the cases are significantly different, and you jump in and say essentially, 'Heavens, you can't compare these two cases because they are quite different!', then most would call that agreement, not contradiction. The difference is that you preceded your comments with the statement: "See, this is where evolution really fails;" In fact, the cases are different because of reasons that are consistent with evolutionary theory and common ancestry. So it is not a matter of evolution failing.

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:26:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: One has to ask "harmful to whom"? Of course, premature death is harmful to the individual whose life is cut short. But it seems to be beneficial to the population exposed to malaria. Well sure; it's rather like saying that if I jam the lock on my car to keep a carjacker from entering it benefits my potential survival, but it still constitutes a broken lock, and is less fuinctional when compared to a lock that works. No, you have it backward. You should be looking at a scenario in which you do not survive, but your population is better off because you don't.

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well sure; it's rather like saying that if I jam the lock on my car to keep a carjacker from entering it benefits my potential survival, but it still constitutes a broken lock, and is less fuinctional when compared to a lock that works. Having a car with a broken lock is better than having no car at all, is it not? How about an even more extreme example. Let's say that you rigged your car to explode if it was unlawfully entered into. This would remove the car theif altogether and benefit other car owners (the population).

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:36:19 PM)
quote: Well that is getting into abiogenesis and doesn't reflect on evolution per se. Getting to cellular life is not quite the same thing as following the history of cellular life. I would certainly agree that it is an important field of research. At some point we have to relate the pre-biotic evolution of chemicals to the biological evolution of species. But it is still important to bear in mind that these are distinctive processes. The chemical evolution of RNA & DNA has relatively little to do with the Darwinian evolution of species. So a focus there is really side-stepping the issues. Well, no, the essential genetic toolkit is common to all animals and therefore appears to be quite ancient; how that toolkit works is better understood as an engineering and information architecture venture than it is one of sitting around making up scenarios about how it could have come about. quote: Yes, that is true. The Cambrian used to be a watershed, but now we have Ediacaran animals, and micro-fossils going back 3.5 billion years, archeal life, and much more comprehension of the complexity of the "simplest" cells. There is quite a tale yet to discover as we continue to explore possible prebionts. Well yes, but the Ediacaran event was explosive as well; neither is indicative of the gradualisms suggested by Darwin. Indeed, there are numerous such explosive events in life’s history, all contrary to the Darwinian idea of the development of complexity. quote: I don't know why anti-evolutionists try to load all of cosmic history into evolution. Yes these matters of the origin of the cell and the capability of life to develop will certainly give us new insights, but this should not be accounted a failure of evolution, since it was never proposed as a theory of the origin of life or of cells. It is a theory of species change and adaptation, of speciation and diversity. I don't think it has failed in its own field. Failure is only claimed when people like yourself apply it to matters it was never intended to deal with. I am not sure what you are responding to here; I said nothing of ‘cosmic’ history, but simply pointed out that the complexities which undergirds the development of life, the primary architecture of life, is ancient. We know now it didn’t develop gradually over time, end of story. Understanding how that complexity came to be modified in a number of ways may be helped by certain evolutionary scenarios, but the essentials of life, that all life shares and which provides the basis for the development we see, is quite beyond the explanatory ability of evolution now. quote: Nor is it a support that evolution needs. By the way, when did evolution ever take intelligent causation off the table? I don't think it is intelligent causation that is the issue. It is assuming that evolution and intelligent causation are mutually exclusive. I have no problem with intelligent causation. I think evolution is an example of intelligent causation. It is the ID insistence that intelligent causation is not expressed through evolution that I find mystifying. Well I appreciate that you don’t see them as mutually exclusive, but that interpretation of evolution is obviously not held by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. That idea would put you on my side of the fence. And there are IDists who do see a sense of teleology behind evolutionary mechanisms. quote: I think you misunderstood what I meant. I too see evidence of intelligence all the way through from top to bottom. But seamlessly in and through the natural processes. What I do not see are items of evidence which stand out from the whole in a contrastive way as presenting intelligence in a manner the rest of nature does not. Well, if it were for example the development of computers we are talking about I would say both are true. I could consider the entire process, which would certainly be indicative of intelligent causation, or I could consider the structure of a microchip, which would give me another level of understanding. I don’t think the ideas are mutually exclusive, and I also think that is why we can say that throughout the history of our understanding of life, it has always been evident that it was designed.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:38:45 PM)
quote: Having a car with a broken lock is better than having no car at all, is it not? How about an even more extreme example. Let's say that you rigged your car to explode if it was unlawfully entered into. This would remove the car theif altogether and benefit other car owners (the population). Certainly; but evolutionists claim the same processes that break locks and explode cars also produce those cars, and are capable of turning them into planes and boats!

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:41:46 PM)
quote: No, you have it backward. You should be looking at a scenario in which you do not survive, but your population is better off because you don't. Well, no, blood cells are not part of a population but an organism. That is what is being broken; a blood cell, so an individual can endure a malarial infection. That disruption, which allows the individual to survive, is then passed on to the population genetically through reproduction. There was a first sickle cell individual, a sickle cell Eve if you will.

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 4:58:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Certainly; but evolutionists claim the same processes that break locks and explode cars also produce those cars, and are capable of turning them into planes and boats! No, it turns cars into cars. Planes and boats are sister taxa.

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 5:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, no, blood cells are not part of a population but an organism. That is what is being broken; a blood cell, so an individual can endure a malarial infection. That disruption, which allows the individual to survive, is then passed on to the population genetically through reproduction. There was a first sickle cell individual, a sickle cell Eve if you will. This is exactly how neutrophils work. After attaching to or engulfing a foreing object they commit suicide (a massive oxidative burst) taking the foreign object with them.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 5:15:26 PM)
quote: No, it turns cars into cars. Planes and boats are sister taxa. Yeah, unless someone blows them up, in which case they go extinct.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 5:17:38 PM)
quote: This is exactly how neutrophils work. After attaching to or engulfing a foreing object they commit suicide (a massive oxidative burst) taking the foreign object with them. Except they are designed to do that; when your red blood cells go kamikazi on you there are some problems with the whole oxygen transport system.

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 5:22:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Except they are designed to do that; Is this the same design process that is supposed to make elephants and mice? Does it make exploding mice?;) quote: when your red blood cells go kamikazi on you there are some problems with the whole oxygen transport system. In the heterozygous state the problems outweigh death. Which leads us to another hemoglobin variant, hemoglobin C. This allele attenuates malarial infections resulting in lower rates of death due to malaria. This allele is not nearly as detrimental to RBC's as hemoglobin S (even in the homozygous state) and is expected to replace hemoglobin S in areas with endemic malaria, such as Burkina Faso. quote: J Evol Biol. 2004 Jan;17(1):221-4.Links Estimation of relative fitnesses from relative risk data and the predicted future of haemoglobin alleles S and C.Hedrick P. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AR 85287, USA. philip.hedrick@asu.edu Epidemiological studies of genetic differences in disease susceptibility often estimate the relative risks (RR) of different genotypes. Here I provide an approach to calculate the relative fitnesses of different genotypes based on RR data so that population genetic approaches may be utilized with these data. Using recent RR data on human haemoglobin beta genotypes from Burkina Faso, this approach is used to predict changes in the frequency of the haemoglobin sickle-cell S and C alleles. Overall, it generally appears that allele C will quickly replace the S allele in malarial environments. Explicit population genetic predictions suggest that this replacement may occur within the next 50 generations in Burkina Faso.

Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 6:43:09 PM)
quote: Well, again, you have posited scenarios where you imagine they can be useful, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, this isn’t a scientific assertion; unless you can demonstrate those useful changes in a model animal, your assertions have no basis in fact. […] I think there is no evidence that the numerous and specific changes that are required to induce the bat morphology are individually beneficial, and for those changes which we have induced and observed (like forearm and digit lengthening, two separate changes) no benefit was in evidence. The assertion that they can happen then is really a fantastic claim, one that would require evidence, the burden of which is on the person making the claim (that would be you). Of course ongoing research may change this; but as it stands, I think my position is significantly more reasonable than yours, and more elegant. Jhud, this really isn’t a difficult point. I can’t understand why you’re continuing to miss it. Your assertion is that we have to propose an unknown and unobserved process for the origin of flight in bats, because evolution would have been incapable of producing it. In order to support this point, you will have to show more than just that there’s no proof that a position other than yours is correct, because if evolution and intelligent design are both equally possible as explanations, Occam’s Razor favors the first one. Your argument depends on there being no possible way natural selection could have favored these mutations; the burden of proof is definitely not on me for this. Do you really not understand this point? That when you propose the existence of an unobserved process whose support depends on something being impossible, it is your own burden of proof to show that this is the case?

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 7:33:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well sure; it's rather like saying that if I jam the lock on my car to keep a carjacker from entering it benefits my potential survival, but it still constitutes a broken lock, and is less fuinctional when compared to a lock that works. Having a car with a broken lock is better than having no car at all, is it not? How about an even more extreme example. Let's say that you rigged your car to explode if it was unlawfully entered into. This would remove the car theif altogether and benefit other car owners (the population). This would be the illustration I was hinting at. Especially if Jhud was in the car when it exploded. He doesn't survive. He takes the thief and the car with him. The population (both cars and owners) is left virtually unharmed.

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 7:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, no, the essential genetic toolkit is common to all animals and therefore appears to be quite ancient; That is not surprising if it existed in the common ancestor of all animals. quote: how that toolkit works is better understood as an engineering and information architecture venture than it is one of sitting around making up scenarios about how it could have come about. You are comparing apples and oranges. How the tool kit works doesn't tell us how it diversified or how the variations in information were transmitted through a population, or why different populations use different versions of the tool-kit, nor why the patterns of dispersal are what they are. Both aspects are legitimate fodder for biological research, but one does not explain the other. The molecular scene is not a replacement for the evolutionary scene. quote: Well yes, but the Ediacaran event was explosive as well; neither is indicative of the gradualisms suggested by Darwin. That is actually a misrepresentation of gradualism. quote: I am not sure what you are responding to here; I said nothing of ‘cosmic’ history, but simply pointed out that the complexities which undergirds the development of life, the primary architecture of life, is ancient. So? Life is ancient. quote: We know now it didn’t develop gradually over time, end of story. No we do not know that. We would have to have a falsification of abiogenesis to know that. We don't even have a theory of abiogenesis to falsify yet. quote: Understanding how that complexity came to be modified in a number of ways may be helped by certain evolutionary scenarios, but the essentials of life, that all life shares and which provides the basis for the development we see, is quite beyond the explanatory ability of evolution now. It always was. The origin of life is not the subject of evolution. This is an example of the misapplication of evolution outside its field that I was speaking of. quote: Well I appreciate that you don’t see them as mutually exclusive, but that interpretation of evolution is obviously not held by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. So what? Differences of metaphysical opinion don't damage scientific consensus since science doesn't speak on metaphysics. quote: Well, if it were for example the development of computers we are talking about I would say both are true. I could consider the entire process, which would certainly be indicative of intelligent causation, or I could consider the structure of a microchip, which would give me another level of understanding. Another level of understanding, I can go along with. My point is that the microchip is not more indicative of intelligent causation than the computer as a whole. You would not say the microchip is evidence of intelligent causation while the computer is not. But that seems to be the scenario ID demands of design in nature. quote: I don’t think the ideas are mutually exclusive, and I also think that is why we can say that throughout the history of our understanding of life, it has always been evident that it was designed. Which has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting evolution.

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/6/2008 8:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: No, you have it backward. You should be looking at a scenario in which you do not survive, but your population is better off because you don't. Well, no, blood cells are not part of a population but an organism. That is what is being broken; a blood cell, so an individual can endure a malarial infection. That disruption, which allows the individual to survive, is then passed on to the population genetically through reproduction. There was a first sickle cell individual, a sickle cell Eve if you will. Yes, blood cells are part of a population since they are located in organisms which are part of a population. Furthermore, the broken blood cell is not what is distributed in the population. What is distributed is the genetic information which may produce such a blood cell. Certainly there was a first sickle cell individual, but it is highly unlikely she (if it was a she) was a sickle-cell Eve, as had she been afflicted with sickle cell anemia, she would likely have died in childhood. What you are overlooking is that mutations occur in one genome at a time and humans have diploid cells. So the first human to inherit the gene for Hemoglobin S also inherited (from the other parent) a normal hemoglobin gene and was heterozygous for the condition. That person would have sickle cell trait, not sickle cell anemia. The first person to have sickle cell anemia (which is a result of your broken blood cells) had to inherit the gene from both parents, so it had to have been in the population for some time already. Finally genes and cells only survive or disappear as the organism in which they are located survives or disappears. So you cannot separate them from the organism, nor can you separate the organism from the population.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/7/2008 11:10:17 AM)
quote: Yes, blood cells are part of a population since they are located in organisms which are part of a population. Furthermore, the broken blood cell is not what is distributed in the population. What is distributed is the genetic information which may produce such a blood cell. Certainly there was a first sickle cell individual, but it is highly unlikely she (if it was a she) was a sickle-cell Eve, as had she been afflicted with sickle cell anemia, she would likely have died in childhood. What you are overlooking is that mutations occur in one genome at a time and humans have diploid cells. So the first human to inherit the gene for Hemoglobin S also inherited (from the other parent) a normal hemoglobin gene and was heterozygous for the condition. That person would have sickle cell trait, not sickle cell anemia. The first person to have sickle cell anemia (which is a result of your broken blood cells) had to inherit the gene from both parents, so it had to have been in the population for some time already. Finally genes and cells only survive or disappear as the organism in which they are located survives or disappears. So you cannot separate them from the organism, nor can you separate the organism from the population. It's like you just repeat and elaborate on what I say, claim I overlooked it, and that you are somehow contradicting what I claimed. Very odd.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/7/2008 11:25:14 AM)
quote: That is not surprising if it existed in the common ancestor of all animals. Even if that is the case, evolution doesn’t explain how the essential complexity got there to begin with. quote: You are comparing apples and oranges. How the tool kit works doesn't tell us how it diversified or how the variations in information were transmitted through a population, or why different populations use different versions of the tool-kit, nor why the patterns of dispersal are what they are. Both aspects are legitimate fodder for biological research, but one does not explain the other. The molecular scene is not a replacement for the evolutionary scene. This is like saying ‘how a rocket works doesn’t tell us how it got to the moon…”, which of course is an absurd thing to say; of course knowing how the toolkit works tells us about these things. Don’t say silly and ignorant thing simply to contradict, think them through first – you are getting to be very reactionary in your responses. quote: That is actually a misrepresentation of gradualism. These events aren’t gradual at all. quote: So? Life is ancient. The complexity of life is ancient, that the point. quote: No we do not know that. We would have to have a falsification of abiogenesis to know that. We don't even have a theory of abiogenesis to falsify yet. Yes, we do know that. When the entire animal kingdom has an essential genetic toolkit, and that toolkit contains the essential complexities necessary to produce the various forms found in the animal kingdom, and is essentially conserved throughout said kingdom, then we know that this essential complexity didn’t develop gradually over time. quote: It always was. The origin of life is not the subject of evolution. This is an example of the misapplication of evolution outside its field that I was speaking of. Not the origin of life, but of it’s essential complexity in providing a framework for the various forms that now exist – this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. quote: So what? Differences of metaphysical opinion don't damage scientific consensus since science doesn't speak on metaphysics. ‘Intelligent causation’ isn’t a metaphysical concern. quote: Another level of understanding, I can go along with. My point is that the microchip is not more indicative of intelligent causation than the computer as a whole. You would not say the microchip is evidence of intelligent causation while the computer is not. But that seems to be the scenario ID demands of design in nature. I don’t believe either I or most proponents of ID would say ID is only evident in the parts rather than the whole. quote: Which has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting evolution. It has everything to do with rejecting the notion that the development of life is an unguided event.

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/7/2008 11:47:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud It's like you just repeat and elaborate on what I say, claim I overlooked it, and that you are somehow contradicting what I claimed. Very odd. Actually, you continually and persistently overlook the impact on the population and that IS the evolutionary perspective. You tend to use the word "organism" as if it were a synonym for "species", but whenever convenient, you treat it as an individual. I expect that what you are really doing is adopting an essentialist notion of "organism". Well, evolution does not operate in essentialist concepts. It operates in populations and gene pools through changes that occur originally in individual genomes and affect the lives of individuals. Evolution is the study of how differences which first appear in individual genomes come to impact populations. Until you can deal with a population/gene pool perspective, you will continue to misrepresent what evolution is and what evidence is pertinent to evolution.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/7/2008 12:02:27 PM)
quote: Actually, you continually and persistently overlook the impact on the population and that IS the evolutionary perspective. You tend to use the word "organism" as if it were a synonym for "species", but whenever convenient, you treat it as an individual. I expect that what you are really doing is adopting an essentialist notion of "organism". Well, evolution does not operate in essentialist concepts. It operates in populations and gene pools through changes that occur originally in individual genomes and affect the lives of individuals. Evolution is the study of how differences which first appear in individual genomes come to impact populations. Until you can deal with a population/gene pool perspective, you will continue to misrepresent what evolution is and what evidence is pertinent to evolution. Oh, I am quite familiar with the concept - but just to be clear, you agree the trait for sickle cell arose as a mutation in a single human ancestor, correct?

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/7/2008 12:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Even if that is the case, evolution doesn’t explain how the essential complexity got there to begin with. Neither does ID. "The Designer Did It" is not an explanation. The problem is that the last common ancestor of all life was about as complex as a very simple bacterium, which is quite complex. The tools that the theory of evolution gives us can't see past the LCA very far. Beyond that point it is mostly conjecture at this time. The best that anyone can do is describe abiotic reactions that possibly, maybe, could give rise to simple replicators. quote: The complexity of life is ancient, that the point. What point is that? Is this another attempt at faulty logic, where complexity automatically equates to being intelligently designed? How long are IDers going to beat this imaginary dead horse? quote: Yes, we do know that. When the entire animal kingdom has an essential genetic toolkit, and that toolkit contains the essential complexities necessary to produce the various forms found in the animal kingdom, and is essentially conserved throughout said kingdom, then we know that this essential complexity didn’t develop gradually over time. I agree. In the vertebrate lineage there had to be at least one whole genome duplication which also resulted in a duplication of hox genes. The tool kit doubled overnight. The Cambrian also marks the advent of the original tool kit, the original set of hox genes. There were little, if any, developmental constraints unlike modern times where embryonic development is set in stone. For Cambrian animals the triploblastic embryonic stage was something new. quote: ‘Intelligent causation’ isn’t a metaphysical concern. It's not an explanation either. quote: It has everything to do with rejecting the notion that the development of life is an unguided event. What evidence shows that it is guided?

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/7/2008 12:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: That is not surprising if it existed in the common ancestor of all animals. Even if that is the case, evolution doesn’t explain how the essential complexity got there to begin with. That is yet to be seen. Life existed before animals existed. How much of the essential complexity was built up in populations that preceded the first animal life? quote: quote: You are comparing apples and oranges. How the tool kit works doesn't tell us how it diversified or how the variations in information were transmitted through a population, or why different populations use different versions of the tool-kit, nor why the patterns of dispersal are what they are. Both aspects are legitimate fodder for biological research, but one does not explain the other. The molecular scene is not a replacement for the evolutionary scene. This is like saying ‘how a rocket works doesn’t tell us how it got to the moon…”, No, it is not. Knowing how the animal tool-kit works tells us how an organism functions as an animal. It does not tell us how crocodiles function as crocodiles or snails function as snails. For that you need animal tool kits that have been appropriately specialized. How the general animal tool kit used by all animals is modified for the special use of particular types of animals is what evolution deals with. quote: quote: So? Life is ancient. The complexity of life is ancient, that the point. I don't see how it is a different point. Life is complex; life is ancient. So the complexity of life is ancient. So? quote: quote: No we do not know that. We would have to have a falsification of abiogenesis to know that. We don't even have a theory of abiogenesis to falsify yet. Yes, we do know that. When the entire animal kingdom has an essential genetic toolkit, and that toolkit contains the essential complexities necessary to produce the various forms found in the animal kingdom, and is essentially conserved throughout said kingdom, then we know that this essential complexity didn’t develop gradually over time. At this point you need to get to the specific contents of the tool kit. You need a list of contents, verification that none of them existed in pre-animal life, none could be derived from precursors in pre-animal life and that the components could not have been assembled over generations. Until you have that, you do not know that it did not develop gradually over time. quote: quote: It always was. The origin of life is not the subject of evolution. This is an example of the misapplication of evolution outside its field that I was speaking of. Not the origin of life, but of it’s essential complexity in providing a framework for the various forms that now exist – this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. If life was always complex, then the essential complexity comes with the origin of life. You have to look at pre-bionts to determine how it was built up. So it does have to do with abiogenesis. quote: ‘Intelligent causation’ isn’t a metaphysical concern. Until you can produce the possessor of the intelligence, it most certainly is. quote: I don’t believe either I or most proponents of ID would say ID is only evident in the parts rather than the whole. Then why do you keep talking about evolution as if it is impossible to see ID in evolution? Evolution is part of the whole. If ID is genuinely evident in the whole and not just specific parts, evolution cannot be excluded from ID. Yet you keep fighting evolutionary concepts and mechanisms as if they were at odds with ID. quote: quote: Which has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting evolution. It has everything to do with rejecting the notion that the development of life is an unguided event. First, evolution is not about the development of life. (You do keep going back to the origin of life, yet you get ticked off when I mention abiogenesis. Rather strange.) Second, the proposition that either evolution or abiogenesis are unguided events is a metaphysical proposition. Neither the theory of evolution nor hypotheses of abiogenesis require that these events be unguided.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/7/2008 12:23:51 PM)
quote: The problem is that the last common ancestor of all life was about as complex as a very simple bacterium, which is quite complex. The tools that the theory of evolution gives us can't see past the LCA very far. Beyond that point it is mostly conjecture at this time. The best that anyone can do is describe abiotic reactions that possibly, maybe, could give rise to simple replicators. Well, and please be exceedingly honest here – you have no idea how complex the presumed ‘the last common ancestor of all life’ was, do you? quote: What point is that? Is this another attempt at faulty logic, where complexity automatically equates to being intelligently designed? How long are IDers going to beat this imaginary dead horse? I didn’t say they equated, so the faulty logic is yours, as is the presumption. quote: I agree. In the vertebrate lineage there had to be at least one whole genome duplication which also resulted in a duplication of hox genes. The tool kit doubled overnight. The Cambrian also marks the advent of the original tool kit, the original set of hox genes. There were little, if any, developmental constraints unlike modern times where embryonic development is set in stone. For Cambrian animals the triploblastic embryonic stage was something new. Again, asking for exceeding honesty here; you have no idea when the Hox genes arose, do you? quote: It's not an explanation either. Certainly it is – unless you are going to purport that nothing that exists can be explained as the result of an intelligent cause. quote: What evidence shows that it is guided? First I would have to know that you agree that intelligent causation is a legitimate consideration when contemplating the origin of any structure – do you?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI