Reflectorites
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:51:32 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[continued]
>>CL>Integration of symbionts to form a cell, for example--quite
>>>impossible?
>SJ>See above re "impossible". It sounds like Cliff is trying Chris' trick of
>>trying to shift the burden of proof.
>>
>>And I don't know why Cliff keeps going on about "symbionts". As I
>>have pointed out several times, even if Margulis' serial endosymbiotic
>>theory(SET)is true (and there are a number of problems with it that I
>>have summarised):
CL>The point is that this is a mechanism that explains how a sudden increase
>in the complexity of an organism could occur.
See above on "sudden". And while eukaryotic cells are indeed am "increase
in...complexity" over prokaryotic cells, the latter are already fantastically
complex (see below).
CL>Irreducible-complexity
>arguments depend on the straw man of pure gradualism.
"Gradualism" is not a "straw man". It is what they actually *teach* in
schools and university Biology classes.
And "Irreducible-complexity" is *precisely* the test that Darwin himself set
as falsifying his theory:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. --Charles Darwin,
in The Origin of Species ... In his talk, Behe quickly reviewed the modern
theory of evolution and then flashed onto a screen his favorite quote by
Darwin from The Origin of Species (see p. 15), acknowledging the kind of
evidence that would be necessary to refute the Darwinian theory of
evolution. Behe took up the challenge of Darwin's test and asked, "What
type of biological system could not be formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications? Well, for starters, a system that has a quality that I
call irreducible complexity." (Woodward T., "Meeting Darwin's Wager,"
Part 1 of 3, Christianity Today, Vol. 41, No. 5, April 28, 1997, p.14.
http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html)
Evolutionists who rule out "Irreducible-complexity" in principle, are
unwittingly making Darwinism even more unfalsifiable, and showing that
Darwinism is to them a `religion', rather than just a scientific theory.
CL>If symbionts in
>an ecosystem can suddenly become one organism, that is a leap in
>complexity.
See above.
>SJ>1. it is only the merger of already *existing* cells. It does not explain the
>>*origin* of those existing cells.
CL>The general principle can explain how the interrelated machinery of the
>cell came to exist.
See above. One would then have to come up with a symbiotic story for
each one of the separate components of the prokaryotic cell, like:
1. the DNA-mRNA transcription system (with its 20 helper enzymes
including RNA polymerase);
2. the mRNA-protein ribosome translation system (also with 20 unique
enzymes for each amino acid);
3. the Endoplasmic Reticulum system (smooth & rough);
4. the Golgi apparatus (which manufactures, packages, stores, wraps, tags
(addresses with a `bar code') and then transports the packages to where
they are needed;
5. the mitochondria with its automated `utility company' converting fats
into ATP, via a miniature electric rotary pump, to drive everything else;
6. the chloroplasts in algae and plants which have this ingenious little solar
collector system which reflects one photon of light into the photosynthetic
reaction centre, which converts light energy into chemical energy;
and last but not least;
7. the cellular double phospholipid membrane with its own passive
transport protein gates and active transport sodium-potassium and proton
pumps.
Cliff would then need to explain how all those mindless pre-prokaryote
symbionts eating each other also just happened to get it so right to lay the
foundations for all prokaryotic *and* eukaryotic life for the next 3.8 billion
years.
>SJ>And it does not explain: a) how in fulfilling
>>its own immediate bacterial needs, it just so happened to get everything
>>right, sufficient to build all the complex plants and animals for the next 3.8
>>billion years;
CL>Just so happened, in the midst of an astronomical number of what could
>be viewed as unsuccessful attempts.
Cliff has no independent evidence that there were "an astronomical number of...
unsuccessful attempts". It is just an *assumption* based on naturalistic
philosophy that it must be so, otherwise they couldn't have just happened
to get it right in a small number of successful attempts.
The evidence is that if they did all merge, that it was a series of unique
events. In the case of the mitochondria, for example, the free-living
components components, the prokaryotes exist in the trillions, yet never
show any signs of forming new, permanent symbiotic mergers like that
which would have had to have formed into eukaryotes.
The point is that they got it *exactly* right 3.8 billion years *in advance*
of their own immediate needs.
So Cliff's "Just so happened" is *not* an explanation. It is just restating
the problem.
A far-sighted Intelligent Designer who could see 3.8 billion years into the
future could make sure that all the right components arose and found each
other and merged in the right order, so that down the track all subsequent
single- and multicellular life could arise, could be expected to do this, *and
this could eventually be demonstrated under the ID paradigm*.
But a `blind watchmaker' looking only after its own immediate survival
needs could never be expected to get this right, and I predict that this could
never be plausibly demonstrated under the naturalistic paradigm.
SJ>b) why it only happened: i) *twice* (mitochondria and chloroplasts);
CL>Nobody says it only happened twice. But mitochondria and chloroplasts
>seem to be the best and clearest examples. I am happy to attribute *all*
>organic complexity to the genomic integration of symbionts.
My point was that all these symbiotic unions would have had to be in the
same line, i.e. in a series. That's why it is called *serial* endosymbiotic
theory. Plants have *both* prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Cliff might be "happy" to do it by `hand-waving', but where is his detailed
theory?
For starters, where is his detailed explanation of how the Golgi apparatus
arose as a free living prokaryote? And how did other prokaryotes survive
without it?
Or where is Cliff's detailed explain of how some prokaryotic cells survived
without mitochondria and yet were large and powerful enough to ingest other
cells which did have mitochondria.
And how did the genome itself come from? All living components would have
had to have had a genome, just to survive for *one* generation!
SJ>and ii) in the *same* line, because all eukaryotes are
>>thought under SET to have descended from a common ancestor
>>having mitochondria, and plant cells have both mitochondria and
>>chloroplasts;
CL>Successful innovations accumulate, lineages diverge, I don't see
>the problem.
So in the end, Cliff is back to Darwinism and the `blind watchmaker'! But if
that is the case, then why so we need his theory, since Darwinism can
explain it all without Cliff's pan-symbiosis?
And the problem is that Cliff's explanation is just a hand-waving tautology.
There is no evidence, apart from their mere survival, that these symbiotic
unions were any more "successful" than their free-living components. The
free-living components, the prokaryotes, are the most successful organisms
of all, being able to survive and flourish everywhere.
>SJ>2. it would only explain the origin of eukaryotic *cells*. It would not
>>explain the design *above* the cellular level that Paley was discussing.
CL>The general model could apply above the cellular level. It's a little weird
>to think that metazoan organs were once free symbionts, but why not? It's
>logically more satisfactory than thinking these complexes evolved
>gradually.
I have no problem with this in principle. I just want to see Cliff's
*evidence* and his *detailed*, worked out theory for *each* metazoan
organ: 1) what evidence that it was once a free symbiont? 2) how it could
survive without the other components? 3) what would bring these
particular components together? 4) what would keep them together-if they
were the most successful-why were they?; and 5) how they got it so right,
looking only after their own bacterial needs to build a system of
components of such fantastic sophistication that it served as the building
blocks for all of eukaryotic life for the next 3 billion years?
>>CL>How can you make logical arguments *for* microevolution while maintaining
>>>that it is false?
>SJ>I don't understand Cliff's point. I am able to follow the "logical arguments"
>>that evolutionists make and yet believe that they are "false".
CL>If the conclusion is false, then either the premises or the logic must be in
>error.
Not really. A scientific theory can be logically sound, but the *evidence* is
simply against it. Almost all failed theories were at least logically sound.
>SJ>But nevertheless, Goldschmidt has been consigned to the scrap heap of
>>"scientific history" by the Darwinists, because there is no known way that
>>macromutations could create life's complex designs *naturalistically*:
CL>Goldschmidt should be a hero to ID theorists; he recognized the
>problem of irreducible complexity.
Indeed. But "irreducible complexity" has been recognised even by Darwin.
There is an "irreducible complexity" problem in Cliff's own pan-symbiosis
theory. Each one of the free-living components had to be complex enough
to survive and flourish in plentiful enough numbers so they could find each
other and merge by chance. But if they were that successful already, why
did they *need* to merge?
An Intelligent Designer could have brought all these free living components
together in a series of unique, or at least rare, events. That theory better fits
the evidence, because there is little or no evidence of such permanent,
integrative symbiotic mergers among the free living components today. An
ID theory would also better explain why these unions got it so right, 3
billion years in advance. And the ID hypothesis could be tested in detail,
because no one would deny that human intelligent designers could recreate
the situation in a laboratory, using intelligent input, better than a `blind
watchmaker' theory could.
>>CL>Mayr exemplifies the 'modern synthesis' in his abhorrence of real
>>>macroevolution. But in the 21st Century, the Cambrian explosion and
>>>its incompatibility with gradualism will come into sharp focus, and
>>>macroevolutionary theories will abound, to the dismay of ID theorists
>>>who find microevolution an easy target.
>SJ>Disagree. Things are headed ID's way.
CL>Who can say? Dark ages come and go. I certainly don't see much of a
>future for conventional theory.
Agreed. Maybe we are coming out of a "Dark Age" - the age of
Materialism, into the new renaissance of Intelligent Design?
>SJ>Why does Cliff think the majority of biologists since Darwin have always
>>been dead against macromutational theories, despite the better fit to the
>>fossil evidence they would give? It is because they realise that
>>macromutations might be able to explain the odd single character, but
>>they have no hope of explaining the origin of *whole complexes* of
>>mutually *interacting characters*.
CL>We do agree that microevolution is not the answer. Some kind of
>macromutation is the answer for me, a designer is the answer for you.
The problem is that "Some kind of macromutation" just doesn't work.
*Only* the input of "a designer" would work.
>SJ>Cliff can `handwave' about macromutations, but let him try to explain
>>*naturalistic* `blind watchmaker' macromutations in a detailed, testable way,
>>that could explain the origin of even *one* complex biological system, which
>>must at all times, fit in with all the other existing systems, without
>>missing a beat.
CL>The funny thing about using Gould's 'handwaving' expression of objection,
>is that it is itself its own best example of 'mere handwaving'!
I don't disagree. But Gould at least highlights the problems of Darwinism,
like Goldschmidt once did. That's why they are now vilifying him and will
ensure that history (which they write) will judge Gould harshly, if he is
remembered at all.
CL>I have doubts about conventional kinds of testing being able to reproduce
>rare events of a billion years ago; we can only theorize as best we can.
>But even these long-ago events are observable in principle, and so testing
>cannot be logically excluded.
So in the end, Cliff's theory is untestable?
My argument is that ID *can* test by reconstruction all these intractable
materialist origin events, by inserting the input of an intelligent designer, as
a place-holder (exactly what happens but illegitimately in materialist
theories now), and getting each stage's output to work, as input for the
next stage.
If science is about what works, then ID *will* work!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic
soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic,
constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While
some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to
reconstruct the evolutionary process are extremely tentative."
(Orgel L.E., "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, Vol.
94, 15 April 1982, p.150)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 18:09:01 EDT