MikeBGene@aol.com writes
in message <8a.20973b3.26140150@aol.com>:
[much rearrangement of paragraphs]
> I am not and have not argued that similar genes *lead* me to
> infer design. I am simply arguing that similar genes are not
> rendered incoherent by an ID perspective. That is, a non-ID
> explanation is not required to account for similar genes.
I'm still confused. *Nothing* is rendered incoherent by an
ID. The only practical way to tell the difference to me is
to apply Occam's Razor.
[Regarding the mosquito example described in more detail
below:]
> In your example, I would need a lot more information
> before suspecting ID.
That sounds reasonable.
> The bottom line is that similar genes, *interpreted* as the products
> of blind gene duplication, are not evidence that RM&NS has
> indeed been the mechanism behind the origin of major evolutionary
> innovations.
But this does not sound reasonable given that gene duplication is
observed to happen.
"A mosquito species called Culex pipiens can now survive massive
doses of organophosphate insecticides. The mosquitoes actually
digest the poison, using a suite of enzymes known as esterases.
The genes that make these esterases are known as alleles B1 and
B2. Many strains of Culex pipiens now carry as many as 250 copies
of the B1 allele and 60 copies of B2." -- quoted from The Beak
of the Finch p.254.
Mutation (point or otherwise) is observed to happen-- which
means a newly duplicated gene can, if condititions are right
(there are open questions regarding this process, of course),
mutate into a slightly different function and continue to evolve
in whatever direction is dictated by environment or other
pressures.
Now, we observe a pair of genes that are close together --consistent
with the duplication mechanism-- and have common sequences as well as
differences --consistent with an original duplication followed
by mutation. What is the simplest explanation for this observation?
It is obviously gene duplication. How can anyone suggest an ID
and not be guilty of multiplying entities?
Some other issues:
<snip>
>
> >If this designer is capable
> >of designing any one of life's trillions of genes, then it seems
> >to be sheer laziness for it to reuse existing parts.
>
> First of all, there are not trillions of different genes among
> life.
Life has existing for some.. billions of years?; so yes, there
are very probably a mind-boggling number of different kinds
of genes.
> Secondly, ID does not entail the belief that every gene
> is the direct product of intelligent intervention.
If an ID is responsible only for the complicated genes, then my
point is enforced. If an ID is responsible only for the simple
genes, well... I doubt anyone would propose that.
> Thirdly, your
> subjective value judgment about laziness is fatally weakened by the
> fact that you speak essentially from ignorance. For example,
> if you had much experience designing organisms such that you
> can show us why such a design was lazy, I'd pay more attention.
>
> Reusing existing parts makes darn good design sense to me.
> In contrast, you seem to insist that a *real* designer would
> invent the wheel a million times over. And a *real* designer
> would use the wheel in only one of his/her designed
> constructions. Why?
I mentioned this because I think a very important thing in the
ID debate right now is for the ID side to admit that the evidence
shows that the ID must not be an omnipotent being. Thus, we
can continue discussion without fear that it is really, beneath
the surface, one of those ugly theist -vs- atheist confrontations.
At that point, it would become more productive to imagine what
kinds of ID aliens exist in this universe, where should we look
for evidence of their existence, what kinds of genetic engineering
they're capable of, and perhaps most importantly, where did
*they* come from?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 30 2000 - 15:58:41 EST