Reflectorites
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:06:08 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>SJ>It is interesting how Cliff slides away from answering the question:
>>"if design was real, how would Cliff ever know it?"
CL>The designer would have to reveal herself and explain her nature,
>her methods, and her objectives.
This sounds like Cliff requires the Designer to make an appointment with
Cliff, and after He has satisfied Cliff with a full explanation of who He is,
what He did, how He did it, and why he did it, then Cliff might condescend
to believe in Him!
What Cliff is really doing (whether he realises it or not, is setting the bar so
high, that he will never have to face up to the evidence, even if it is true.
>SJ>The fact is that I, and some other IDers (like Mike B. Gene), are as
>>much interested in working out the "puzzle" as Cliff is. In fact,
>>Cliff is a rarity among evolutionists on this List. Most of them
>>are not interested in puzzling out the details, because they have
>>"one big all-inclusive answer", namely "evolution"!
CL>How about puzzling out the design process?
That is *exactly* what I am doing. Why does Cliff think that at age 53 I
have enrolled in a Bachelor of Science course in Biology, that I will be
lucky to finish before I am 60?
CL>How would that differ
>from evolutionary biology? Would anything that was difficult for
>evolutionary biology be declared an intervention?
The main difference between ID and "evolutionary biology" is that the
former accept intelligent cause as well as unintelligent cause, where the
latter only accepts unintelligent cause.
Therefore, if the evidence pointed to intelligent cause, the IDer could
accept it where the evolutionary biologist couldn't.
>SJ>No. "symbiosis theory" also needs "the `blind watchmaker' to build complex
>>designs". All that "symbiosis theory" does is merge already produced
>>designs together.
CL>That is doing a lot; that is an evolutionary mechanism that can generate
>new morphological complexity instantly, a mechanisms not envisioned by
>Darwin.
Which "mechanism" is that exactly: 1) endosymbiosis; 2) parabiosis; 3)
macromutation; or 4) natural selection out of an "astronomical" number
of mutations?
>SJ>Cliff can verbally espouse a `symbiosis all the way
>>down' but it is just `hand-waving' unless Cliff explains *in detail* how
>>symbiosis could build complex designs in the first place.
CL>There's no observing these processes; they don't seem to be operative
>now among the present highly evolved fauna. So we have to theorize,
>based upon some general notions. The possibility of organisms joining
>is such a general idea. The origin of the primitive fauna that began the
>process is pretty obscure, but the general idea is that complexity was
>built up through cells mutating to form aggregations and specializations.
How could this ever be falsified? That is, if it was wrong, how would Cliff
ever know it?
[...]
>SJ>So "could" the `blind watchmaker' "work at every level". So could ID or
>>creation for that matter. If Cliff is espousing a fully naturalistic theory
>>which is superior to the fully naturalistic theory (i.e. Neo-Darwinism)
>>taught in all the textbooks, then he needs to show it is better than it.
CL>I don't see how you can subscribe to irreducible-complexity arguments
>against gradualism while maintaining that a theory that goes beyond
>gradualism with new explanations for the evolution of complexity is inferior
>to existing theory.
The reason is that Cliff has not shown that his symbiosis theory *is* an
"explanation".
Cliff needs to show how his phenotypic explanations work at: 1. the
individual genetic level (i.e. how it could be: a. built into an organisms'
genome, and then b. into its sex cells); and 2) the population genetic level
(i.e. how it would become fixed and dominant in a population.
[...]
>>CL>I don't see how genomic integration could be gradual. It wouldn't
>>>work if the genetic material were divided.
>SJ>Well, the fact is that even now in eukaryotes, "the genetic material" *is*
>>"divided". Mitochondria have their own DNA (i.e. mtDNA) and as well
>>the cells nuclear DNA controls the mitochondria.
CL>It doesn't matter where the DNA is kept, it's all part of the genome of
>the organism. The point is that the DNA of a symbiont joins the genome
>suddenly, not gradually.
Well then what did Cliff mean by "It wouldn't work if the genetic material
were divided"?
>SJ>And, apart from making Darwinism a mere bystander to this, arguably the
>>greatest `evolutionary' change in the history of life, SET does not explain
>>other major structures of the cell, such as the "nucleolus, the Golgi
>>apparatus, or the microtubules":
CL>Why should all these things have to be explained at once?
Unless Cliff's theory can explain them *all* it is not a general theory. If
Cliff wants his theory to be accepted in place of the reigning Neo-
Darwinian and/or endosymbiotic theory, he needs to show his theory can
do a *better* job of explaining the evidence than they can.
>SJ>If the former, why does Cliff need his pan-symbiosis theory?
>>Macromutations (especially an "astronomical number" of them) could do it
>>all. If the latter, why does Cliff need his pan-symbiosis theory? An
>>"astronomical number of' *micro*-"mutations" coupled with Margulis'
>>SET theory, is what even Dawkins believes:
CL>The joining of symbionts *is* a macromutation.
Disagree. A "macromutation" is literally a large-scale genetic change. the
term has been associated with Goldschmidt's chromosomal rearrangements
and Gould's regulatory genes small changes producing large phenotypic
effects:
"Since Goldschmidt was not convinced of the relevance of minute variation
to the origin of species, he was forced to seek a different kind of genetic
revolution as the source of evolutionarily significant morphological novelty.
He thought he had found his answer at the level of the chromosome.
Although chromosomes had been accepted as conforming to a general
picture of Mendelian inheritance, the profound reorganization-the large
mutations, or macromutations-that Goldschmidt postulated for the origin
of species seemed uninheritable. Gradualism appeared to make sense
because the underlying notion of small genetic changes could be
accommodated by Mendelian genetics. Macromutations, especially of the
sort Goldschmidt proposed, did not... During the seven years that followed
the initial publication of their theory, regulatory and structural genes had
been discovered. Correctly, Gould and Eldredge saw in these different
classes of genes the potential for understanding evolution. For example,
even though great similarity between humans and chimpanzees in the
proteins that are coded by structural genes had been demonstrated, which,
in turn, implied that the structural genes were essentially identical, Gould
and Eldredge were not convinced that this was the proper genetic level at
which one should seek answers to questions of evolutionary change. ... In
this regard, Gould and Eldredge argued, one should scrutinize the
regulatory genes, which are responsible for orchestrating the expression of
and the interactions between the structural genes themselves. Even a small
difference in only one regulatory gene could make a huge difference in
terms of whether an organism developed into a chimpanzee or a
human."(Schwartz J.H., "Sudden Origins", 1999, pp.354-355).
The term "macromutation" has never, AFAIK ever been associated with
symbiosis theory. I have Margulis' book "Microcosmos" where she sets out
her endosymbiotic theory and "macromutation" is not even in the index.
Moreover, Margulis says that these symbiotic mergers took "hundreds of
millions of years" to complete:
"With the keen perception of hindsight, eukaryotic cells now look like
mergers of diverse organisms. Living corporations, some of the mergers
began as hostile take-overs of one organism by another. But over hundreds
of millions of years they became so coordinated, so interwoven that it took
the electron microscope and the intricate techniques of biochemical analysis
to penetrate the illusion that because the harmony of cell parts seemed
perfect, it had always been so." (Margulis L. & Sagan D., "Microcosmos",
1986, p.127)
So unless Cliff can show from the scientific literature that the term
"macromutation" includes symbiosis, this will be just his own private
definition of the term.
>>CL>Again, the point is that here is a mechanism, a wrinkle not envisioned
>>>by Darwin, one which could function at various levels.
>SJ>Cliff hasn't shown that it *is* "a mechanism". To everyone else
>>on this List except Cliff, it looks just like `hand-waving'.
CL>You accept the mechanism in Margulis's model, what's so bad about
>stretching the concept's application a bit?
First, I do not necessarily "accept the mechanism in Margulis's model.
There is some molecular evidence that prokaryotes may have `devolved'
from eukaryotes:
"Summary. The currently accepted universal tree of life based on molecular
phylogenies is Characterized by a prokaryotic root and the sisterhood of
archaea and eukaryotes. The recent discovery that each domain (bacteria,
archaea, and eucarya) represents a mosaic of the two others in terms of its
gene content has suggested various alternatives in which eukaryotes were
derived from the merging of bacteria and archaea. In all these scenarios, life
evolved from simple prokaryotes to complex eukaryotes. We argue here
that these models are biased by overconfidence in molecular phylogenies
and prejudices regarding the primitive nature of prokaryotes. We propose
instead a universal tree of life with the root in the eukaryotic branch and
suggest that many prokaryotic features of the information processing
mechanisms originated by simplification through gene loss and
nonorthologous displacement...However, the current universal tree has
been recently questioned on several grounds. With more and more
sequences available, in particular from rapidly expanding genome projects,
it turned out that many protein phylogenies contradict the rRNA tree and
also each other in terms of relationships between the three domains.
Moreover, many phylogenies became confused, i.e., the three domains
topology were no more recovered, with archaeal and bacterial lineages
often intermixed. For example, this turned out to be the case for three out
of the six data sets originally used to root the universal tree (ATPases, lle-
tRNA synthetase, and carbamoyl-phosphate synthetases). Comparative
genomics also led to the conclusion that each domain was a mosaic of the
two others in terms of gene contents. Surprisingly, it appeared that
eukaryotes contained more bacterial genes than archaeal ones, and that
archaea contained more bacterial than eukaryotic ones." (Forterre P. &
Phillipe H., "Where is the root of the universal tree of life?," BioEssays,
Vol. 21, No. 10, 1999, pp.871-879, p.871. Footnotes omitted.)
Second, before Cliff starts "stretching" Margulis's model, he needs to show
that: a) there is something wrong with Margulis's model that Cliff's theory
repairs; and b) Cliff's own theory really is a "stretching" of Margulis's
model, and not a completely new theory.
>>CL>Right, how can you envision this complex arising step-by-step?
>SJ>I don't have to "envision this complex arising step-by-step". Under
>>my progressive creationist paradigm I could quite consistently
>>postulate the entire cell arose de novo in one fell swoop!
CL>What *can't* you consistently postulate under ID?
I have stated it plenty of times. The essential feature of ID, as proposed by
the ID movement, is there is evidence of intelligent cause in the history of
life that is *detectable*.
Thus an *agnostic* who believes there is detectable evidence of intelligent
cause would be welcome within ID but a *Christian* theistic evolutionist
who believed there has been intelligent cause but denied that it was
empirically detectable, would not be welcome within the ID movement:
"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution debate?
Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything from utterly
discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every conceivable point to
create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly
melding all organisms together into one great tree of life). For intelligent
design the primary question is not how organisms came to be (though, as
we've just seen, this is a vital question for intelligent design) but whether
organisms demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being
intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit such
"marks of intelligence" as much as any act of special creation. That said,
intelligent design is incompatible with what typically is meant by "theistic
evolution" (or what is also called "creative evolution," "teleological
evolution," "evolutionary creation" or most recently "fully gifted creation").
Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and
baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When
boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no
different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural
processes in the origin and development of life." (Dembski W.A.,
"Intelligent Design", 1999, pp.109-110).
>SJ>Now maybe Cliff can explain how he, under his *fully naturalistic*
>>paradigm, envisions "this complex arising" either "step-by-step" or
>>otherwise?
I note Cliff just ignored this!
[...]
>>CL>Big symbionts would be complexes built up from smaller ones.
>SJ>It is easy to *say* this, but Cliff needs to show how
CL>Why? It's a general concept. People have believed in Darwinian evolution
>for a long time without showing how.
So I take it Cliff cannot "show how" the "Big symbionts" were "built
up from smaller ones"?
>SJ>But before Cliff starts throwing the "personal incredulity" stone, let him
>>consider his own glass house. Cliff's whole symbiosis alternative theory is
>>based on the fact that Cliff personally cannot see how Darwinist
>>gradualism could work, e.g.:
CL>Bringing in additional mechanisms is not the same thing as invoking
>the supernatural.
First, Cliff does not deny that his theory is based on his own "personal
incredulity" of him not being able to "see how Darwinist gradualism could
work".
Second, my "invoking the supernatural" has nothing to do with "personal
incredulity". I don't say that I cannot personally believe naturalistic
theories. I have consistently said that I could accept even Darwinian
evolution if it was proven to be true. Indeed, I have this on my testimony
web page:
"...I accept all the verifiable scientific evidence, including the "Big Bang", a
4.6 billion year-old Earth, and some form of descent with modification
from common ancestors. I would have no problem even if Darwinian
evolution was proved to be true, because the God of the Bible is fully in
control of all events, even those that seem random to man (Prov. 16:33; 1
Kings 22:34)." http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimny.html#mycalling)
>SJ>Indeed, the major difference between Cliff (and all other
>>atheists/agnostics) and theists like me is in fact a *giant* "personal
>>incredulity" issue.
CL>I don't call myself any of those things, but it's inevitable that you
>would lump me in there.
So what *does* Cliff call himself? Is Cliff claiming to be some sort of
theist?
CL>Anyway, it seems that ID is a rival to
>macroevolutionary theory. They are competing explanations for
>the same thing, organic complexity that can't be explained through
>gradualism.
Not necessarily. What ID is "a rival" to is *any* theory which says that
organisms exhibit no "empirically detectable marks of being intelligently
caused".
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let us notice what would be involved in the conversion of a land
quadruped into, first a seal-like creature and then into a whale. The land
animal would, while on land, have to cease using its hind legs for
locomotion and to keep than permanently stretched out backwards on
either side of the tail and to drag itself about by using its fore-legs. During
its excursions in the water, it must have retained the hind legs in their rigid
position and swum by moving them and the tail from side to side. As a
result of this act of self denial we must assume that the hind legs eventually
be came pinned to the tail by the growth of membrane. Thus the hind part
of the body would have become likes that of a seal. Having reached this
stage, the creature in anticipation of a time when it will give birth to its
young under water, gradually develops apparatus by means of which the
milk is forced into the mouth of the young one, and, meanwhile a cap has
to be formed round the nipple into which the snout of the young one fits
tightly, the epiglottis and laryngeal cartilage become prolonged upwards to
form a cone-shaped tube, and the soft palate becomes prolonged
downwards so as tightly to embrace this tube, in order that the adult will be
able to breathe while taking water into the mouth and the young while
taking in milk. These changes must be effected completely before the calf
can be born under water. Be it noted that there is no stage intermediate
between being born and suckled under water and being born and suckled in
the air. At the same time various other anatomical changes have to take
place, the most important of which is the complete transformation of the
tail region. The hind part of the body must have begun to twist on the fore
part, and this twisting must nave continued until the sideways movement of
the tail developed into an up-and-down movement. While this twisting
went on the hind limbs and pelvis must have diminished in size, until the
latter ceased to exist as external limbs in all, and completely disappeared in
most, whales." (Dewar D., "More Difficulties of the Evolution Theory: and
a reply to "Evolution and Its Modern Critics", Thynne & Co: London,
1938, pp.23-24)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 17:52:04 EDT