Atheistic intelligent design

[immortal]

 

Experiments in molecular biology indicate that the stepwise model of evolution accumulating favorable modifications is not happening. Trillions of trillions of organisms have been exposed to selection pressure and thus far there have been no examples of multistep pathways greater than three steps observed. Even the couple of three step examples included steps that were not favorable. One can point to several single and two step mutations that provide some adaptation advantage but do not progress any further. The illustration is interesting but it does not describe what is actually going on.

 

It seems that even the slight small mutations can induce big changes over an entire population. This link shows how microevolution is coupled to macroevolution. It does'nt always have to be a series of small favorable mutations that accumulates over time to produce complex structures.My linkhttp://biology.ucsd.edu/news/article_020602.html

 

This statement mischaracterizes the issue. Molecular studies seem to demonstrate that functional pathways don't exist at all, rather all stepwise routes involve unfavorable mutations that render natural selection incapable of preserving the unfavorable modifications that are later needed to generate new functional molecular components and cellular function controls..

 

Not necessarily. My previous link falsifies your statement and also there can be mutations that have a neutral effect on the organism.

 

Here is a report on one such study of the salmonella bacterium whereby the researchers employed a technique to generate mutations anywhere and in the genome. They found that regardless of the mutation each and every mutation had the same small negative impact on fitness of 0.5%. With no selection advantage the model you described becomes impotent because if one wants to posit that the accumulation of many mutations can bring about new function, then one has to maintain that the accumulation of negative impacts eventually makes positive and this is counter to your model.

 

I think you have come to your own conclusion by highlighting those points which suits your argument and completely ignoring other valid points. From your link it was stated that "doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all." You have completely missed this point. Yes there may be some negative effects from the mRNA but it is left to natural selection to decide whether to keep it or eliminate it.

 

Evolution works by cumulative selection i.e accumulation of good designs. If there are negative effects from a mutation then Natural selection will effectively filter it out unless those mutations are not dominant and does not affect the phenotype of the individual.

No mutations are positive or negative and bad or good by themselves it depends on the environment that they are interacting with. What is negative in one environment can be completely turn out to be positive in the other. So yes accumulation of negative impacts may be positive in some other environment which may even go on to fix this variation through out the population. So its definitely not counter to my model.

 

Correct. However while we continue to look for natural processes that are more capable than the ones identified and observed today, Genetic Engineers are racing ahead with teleological process that do explain observed diversity. I find it interesting that many people prefer to be blind of that reality..

 

I don't know about others but I am not blind to that and I also don't know what is the problem with other mainstream biologists but my problem is that I am a student of engineering who loves biology too much and hence most of the times I have to think about things which are not deeply related to this topic and in the process I forget what I know or what I read previously about this field.

 

After doing some recall. Yes today the geneticists never look the genome of any population as before they say that the DNA in the genome are not as static as we assumed previously they are more dynamic with genes jumping around here and there and there by providing variations to populations in different ways apart from the single point mutations that we usually see normally.

Some of the terms and concepts they usually use are Molecular drive ,Transposition, Molecular coevolution and structured responses from genome to changes in the environment. So the genome is more dynamic than we previously thought so don't be surprised to see how the organisms survive this variations in the entire genome when even small single mutation can cause havoc in the system. It seems that these genome variations are fixed when these genomes interact with the environment differently. Its like the environment is providing a solution to a genomic problem.

 

Even though all these mechanisms are different from natural selection they influence the genome independently only upto a certain threshold point above which natural selection comes into the picture and introduces some constraints. So you can not completely eliminate evolution by natural selection from the picture.

 

It seems that you are also not agreeing on the concept of common descent through modification. I earlier read from a creationist website how he was trying to falsify this concept by starting to compare individual genes which provide specific functions to an organism through out the animal kingdom and made statements like this gene is 45% similar between a horse and a cow and said that this gene was most similar between humans and chickens. So he asked how we can accept common descent.

 

Definitely this is a serious error we don't try to establish descent with modification using single genes or gene families. A single gene may be in normalizing selection in one population and may be continuosly co-evolving in some other species. A gene may be more similar between humans and chickens compared with the same gene between humans and chimps because the gene in humans and chickens may be in a normalizing selection and has not evovled until it branched off at some point in history and whereas the gene in the chimp may be co-evolving with some other competing population of a difeerent species.

 

I think it is fair as long as you try to find loopholes that are their in the theory but its not fair to induce faith in something by completely ignoring a well established truth. We don't need scientific reasoning to have faith in something. Let's not bring faith to the level of science and by the way those teleological models of yours will definitely be very much different from the scientific models so if you want to accept a teleological model you don't have to attack a model which is based on science.

Edited November 7, 2010 by immortal

[John Cuthber]

Frankly, I didn't understand most of that.

 

Would anyof you like to comment on the observation I made earlier ie anything that can design a universe might as well be called God.

You can't have design without a designer; if the designer isn't God, who is it?

As far as I can see that pretty much kills the idea of an atheist intelligent design theory.

[immortal]

Frankly, I didn't understand most of that.

 

It is may be because your area of expertise is different but I am not going to doubt your level of knowledge. May be my post was bit elaborative or may be I went offtopic at sometimes.

 

Would anyof you like to comment on the observation I made earlier ie anything that can design a universe might as well be called God.

You can't have design without a designer; if the designer isn't God, who is it?

As far as I can see that pretty much kills the idea of an atheist intelligent design theory.

 

 

If the argument was limited to this then we had no problem. You are absolutely right if there are any teleological design solutions then it has to come from god as all other possiblities are very unlikely. Here evolution by natural selection had to be relevant because they inserted some loop holes into this theory which is fair but ignored some well established truths just to impose faith in something else.

Even if there is a theistic intelligent design theory I am quite conviced that it will definitely be different from the scientific models that we have and it does'nt have to contradict or we don't have to attack science for that matter. It will be a completely different way of or view of investigating the nature as we know it.

Edited November 7, 2010 by immortal

[swansont]

That a better and more accurate analogy is not offered that does not make use of teleology demonstrates the weakness of of the power of natural process to generate efficient search routines.

 

The elaborations contained in my previous post address this.

 

Baloney. Analogies are often used because they are simple and make it easier to convey concepts. It is usually understood that there are shortcomings. This is no more than argument from ignorance.

[AzurePhoenix]

Would anyof you like to comment on the observation I made earlier ie anything that can design a universe might as well be called God.

You can't have design without a designer; if the designer isn't God, who is it?

As far as I can see that pretty much kills the idea of an atheist intelligent design theory.

that assumes some solid definition of the title "god" that doesn't exist. For example, people worshipped gods who they didnt imagine to have anything to do with the universe's origins. Or, someone who worships a particular god, (say, Allah, or Ahura Mazda) could say that the Designer isn't God as they accept or desire it to be. You say the designer might as well be God, well for you, sure, if that's your criteria to a god, but then, for me, a god is simply anything someone finds worthy of reverence or what have you, and treats it as such.

 

Hmm, curiosity. If the designer were a college student with slacker tendencies and grades, and made our universe on a whim on a popular computer program something like Spore that he bought at his world's walmart, would you still consider him God?

[michel123456]

Frankly, I didn't understand most of that.

 

(...); if the designer isn't God, who is it?

(...)

 

Max.

[cypress]

http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm

 

The teleological information was "we need an antenna that has these performance characteristics, regardless of how weird it looks" and the algorithm was allowed to generate whatever designs it could. The success of the evolutionary algorithm in producing antenna designs more efficient and compact than the man-made designs is telling. How could design information be provided by the designers if they did not know how to achieve the performance the evolutionary algorithm achieved?

 

The article does not reveal the degree and amount of information that was inserted into this program that allowed it to optimize antenna performance. The article also does not mention that without the information front loaded into the algorithm by the designers the system does not find an optimum. The human designers were responsible for the success of this system. Some of the many kinds of information provided were clues to aid the algorithm in performing educated next steps.

 

Baloney. Analogies are often used because they are simple and make it easier to convey concepts. It is usually understood that there are shortcomings. This is no more than argument from ignorance.

 

The elaborations in my previous posts where I objected to the analogy describes why the analogy was not only weak but why the concept is failing to live up to the predictions made of it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The article does not reveal the degree and amount of information that was inserted into this program that allowed it to optimize antenna performance. The article also does not mention that without the information front loaded into the algorithm by the designers the system does not find an optimum. The human designers were responsible for the success of this system. Some of the many kinds of information provided were clues to aid the algorithm in performing educated next steps.

Could you provide sources for these claims?

 

The methods of the search are explained in this paper [pdf]:

 

http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/publications/lohn_papers/aps2004.pdf

 

They define a fitness function that uses gain, voltage standing wave ratio, and directionality to evaluate the antenna. That is all. What information was front-loaded?

[cypress]

It seems that even the slight small mutations can induce big changes over an entire population. This link shows how microevolution is coupled to macroevolution. It does'nt always have to be a series of small favorable mutations that accumulates over time to produce complex structures.My linkhttp://biology.ucsd.edu/news/article_020602.html

 

Follow on studies of evolutionary development indicate that while mutations of these kinds dramatically alter development of the organism, the result is either normal unaltered organisms, weakened and severely deformed organisms or dead organisms but never a changed functional organism.

 

Here is a previous discussion of this issue

 

Not necessarily. My previous link falsifies your statement and also there can be mutations that have a neutral effect on the organism.

 

I don't see how. Please point to where the link does so and describe it for me. Neutral mutations seem irrelevant since they offer no selection advantage.

 

I think you have come to your own conclusion by highlighting those points which suits your argument and completely ignoring other valid points. From your link it was stated that "doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all." You have completely missed this point. Yes there may be some negative effects from the mRNA but it is left to natural selection to decide whether to keep it or eliminate it.

 

I don't see where I ignored any valid points. The word "most" was selected by the writer of the article. The research paper seems to indicate that all mutations investigated had a negative impact that was statistically equivalent. I don't see how the balance of your points are relevant. Please explain and show how natural selection would select mutations that are detrimental, as this is contrary to the premise.

 

Evolution works by cumulative selection i.e accumulation of good designs. If there are negative effects from a mutation then Natural selection will effectively filter it out unless those mutations are not dominant and does not affect the phenotype of the individual.

No mutations are positive or negative and bad or good by themselves it depends on the environment that they are interacting with. What is negative in one environment can be completely turn out to be positive in the other. So yes accumulation of negative impacts may be positive in some other environment which may even go on to fix this variation through out the population. So its definitely not counter to my model.

 

Please offer an example of a stepwise evolutionary pathway of 4 or more steps that proceeds as you described. In the 80 years that organisms have been observed in the process of adapting to environmental stress there should be countless examples, if what you describe is correct.

 

It seems that you are also not agreeing on the concept of common descent through modification. I earlier read from a creationist website how he was trying to falsify this concept by starting to compare individual genes which provide specific functions to an organism through out the animal kingdom and made statements like this gene is 45% similar between a horse and a cow and said that this gene was most similar between humans and chickens. So he asked how we can accept common descent.

 

I don't make this claim.

 

I think it is fair as long as you try to find loopholes that are their in the theory but its not fair to induce faith in something by completely ignoring a well established truth.

 

I'm not looking for loopholes, I am attempting to accurately portray the state of knowledge in this area. These are weaknesses in the theory and if we are discussing the merits of a theory we should also discuss the shortcomings. Why sugar coat it? Evolution nicely describes how organisms acquire adaptations but does not explain how novel form and function arises.

 

We don't need scientific reasoning to have faith in something. Let's not bring faith to the level of science

 

Those who advocate for evolution as the explanation for how all observed diversity arose are bringing in a mountain of faith. It is absolutely not supported by available evidence. Noting similarities in organisms does not explain how the differences occurred and it is the differences that need to be explained.

[swansont]

 

The elaborations in my previous posts where I objected to the analogy describes why the analogy was not only weak but why the concept is failing to live up to the predictions made of it.

 

Fails to live up to the predictions? Are you actually claiming it wouldn't work?

[immortal]

Follow on studies of evolutionary development indicate that while mutations of these kinds dramatically alter development of the organism, the result is either normal unaltered organisms, weakened and severely deformed organisms or dead organisms but never a changed functional organism.

 

It is this big changes in the form of deformed organisms followed by slight fine tuning the structure through natural selection which gives them such adaptability so much that it looks like a perfect design solution for a specific problem to an external observer.

 

I don't see how. Please point to where the link does so and describe it for me.

 

There can be favourable mutations. I quote "The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation". This is contrary to your statement that all mutations are considered to be unfavourable to the organism.

 

I don't see where I ignored any valid points. The word "most" was selected by the writer of the article. The research paper seems to indicate that all mutations investigated had a negative impact that was statistically equivalent. I don't see how the balance of your points are relevant. Please explain and show how natural selection would select mutations that are detrimental, as this is contrary to the premise.

 

Well I suppose definitely there is some difference between words "each and every" and "most" and between words "all" and "not very few". It is an established fact that most if not all mutations are unfavourable to an organism. But it is enough with one big rare slight mutation to provide a significant evolutionary advantage to an organism. What the paper provide is a new perspective on how the silent mutations can infact change the phenotype of an organism with out changing the structure of the protein. No where in your link it is stated that all mutations are unfavorable to an organism. As I said earlier if there is a negative effect then natural selection will effectively filter it out if it is affecting the overall fitness function of an organism with respect to an environment.

 

As for your question of how natural selection would select mutations that are detrimental. There are a few examples one example is the sickle cell anaemia in which an individual carrying two sickel cell genes have deformed RBC's and the individual will die from thrombosis. Now everyone can see this is a mutation that is detrimental but what's interesting is the next part this same sickel cell gene in an indivdual having only one sickel cell gene will be selected in a malaraial sensitive region because this deformed RBC's inhibit the malarial parasite to enter into it. If an individual has only one single sickel cell gene it does not affect the individual as it would have affected if he had two copies of the same gene.

 

This shows how natural selection makes a completely bad gene into an amazingly good gene in a different environment.

The peppered moth is an another example of this situation.

 

 

Please offer an example of a stepwise evolutionary pathway of 4 or more steps that proceeds as you described. In the 80 years that organisms have been observed in the process of adapting to environmental stress there should be countless examples, if what you describe is correct.

 

Neutral mutations seem irrelevant since they offer no selection advantage

 

Here is a paper which I think you are in better position than me to analyze it. It provides a simple model to explain how protein-protein interactions can evolve using step by step mutations My link

I find no reason why using this model evolution by natural selection produce complex multi component protein structures with specific functions.

And also at the end of the same article they show how even the accumulation of neutral mutations may provide an evolutionary advantage to the organism later. These neutral variations may provide the raw material on which natural selection can act.

 

I quote from the same link "The evolutionary usefulness of accumulating neutral mutations preparing for saltatory changes is underlined by the recent discovery that a heat shock protein (hsp90) suppresses the phenotypic appearance of morphological mutations in Drosophila under normal conditions. By masking a hidden reservoir of genetic diversity this facilitates saltatory morphological changes upon environmental change ".

 

I don't make this claim.

 

Ofcourse you don't make that claim but I just wanted to show how ignorance in this field can lead to such drastic conclusions and also misguideing the public or the layman by providing misinformation.

 

I'm not looking for loopholes, I am attempting to accurately portray the state of knowledge in this area. These are weaknesses in the theory and if we are discussing the merits of a theory we should also discuss the shortcomings. Why sugar coat it? Evolution nicely describes how organisms acquire adaptations but does not explain how novel form and function arises.

 

Are you claiming that evolution by natural selection only increases the efficiency of the existing novel forms but do not produce them in the first place?

 

We do know the state of affairs in this field. The gaps may be filled by biologists with in a decade or so there is no requirement for any alternative teleological assistence models right now.

 

 

Those who advocate for evolution as the explanation for how all observed diversity arose are bringing in a mountain of faith. It is absolutely not supported by available evidence. Noting similarities in organisms does not explain how the differences occurred and it is the differences that need to be explained.

 

No one has said "we advocate evolution as the explanation for how all observed diversity arosed". We do know the state of affairs in this field and we are open to any alternative scientific theory which addresses current problems in this field.

 

We are providing so many examples,analogies and models but nothing seems to satisfy you. It is fairly easy to point out loopholes but it takes some huge effort from biologists to fill these gaps.

 

I suppose in some other thread you have said that design is the process which provides complete explanation for all the observed diversity in geological time and also you have said that genetic engineers will create novel forms indicating the hand of design in this issue.

 

If this is the case why don't you provide a model for your design process? What is this design process? and why we have to give importance to this alternative version than to the current theory? Who were the designers before the genetic engineers?

Edited November 9, 2010 by immortal

[michel123456]

The thread has gone out of track. Atheistic Intelligent Design is not a discussion about whether Evolution is right or wrong. Intelligent Design does not concern the living beings only, but the entire physical reality. And IMHO Intelligent Design is not an answer to anything. Who made the Designer? Another designer (Wilfried) who made the Designer (Max). But who designed Wilfried? It is a never-ending process. Nearly 200 years from now, some scientist had already send the Designer hypothesis to the waste basket, and I really see no reason why do we have to go into the dirt and ressurect that senile concept. If some declared atheists want to do so, it means there are no real atheists, they must be agnostics at least, or real believers.

[cypress]

Fails to live up to the predictions? Are you actually claiming it wouldn't work?

 

That would be rather foolish. I am correcting those who improperly claim it is a fact that evolution accounts for observed diversity.

 

It is this big changes in the form of deformed organisms followed by slight fine tuning the structure through natural selection which gives them such adaptability so much that it looks like a perfect design solution for a specific problem to an external observer.

 

Do you have an validated example or is this imagination? Every attempt thus far to generate new form by this method has failed.

 

There can be favourable mutations. I quote "The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation". This is contrary to your statement that all mutations are considered to be unfavourable to the organism.

 

I asked for an observed example and you offered speculation. It seems the author was overly optimistic. The references I provided describe the reality of where this field has (not) progressed eight years later.

 

Well I suppose definitely there is some difference between words "each and every" and "most" and between words "all" and "not very few". It is an established fact that most if not all mutations are unfavourable to an organism. But it is enough with one big rare slight mutation to provide a significant evolutionary advantage to an organism.

 

No it is not enough for just one slight mutation. New form requires multiple coordinated slight mutations, an uninterrupted stepwise evolutionary pathway of many mutations to be exact. In 80 plus years of looking for these pathways we have thousands of single step mutations, a small handful of two step mutations, fewer than five probable three step and zero greater than three steps. Perhaps you know of an observed multistep pathway greater than three steps. If evolution accounts for all observed diversity, we should by now be aware of thousands of examples of these multistep pathways in order for evolution to proceed in the allotted geologic time.

 

 

As for your question of how natural selection would select mutations that are detrimental. There are a few examples one example is the sickle cell anaemia in which an individual carrying two sickel cell genes have deformed RBC's and the individual will die from thrombosis. Now everyone can see this is a mutation that is detrimental but what's interesting is the next part this same sickel cell gene in an indivdual having only one sickel cell gene will be selected in a malaraial sensitive region because this deformed RBC's inhibit the malarial parasite to enter into it. If an individual has only one single sickel cell gene it does not affect the individual as it would have affected if he had two copies of the same gene.

 

Sickle cell trait is an advantage in an environment with Malaria so it is an example of how selection selects advantage even if the adaptation involves partial damage. It is an excellent example of how mutation which seems to damage function can provide adaptations to existing function. This is not an example of evolution leading to new function.

 

This shows how natural selection makes a completely bad gene into an amazingly good gene in a different environment.

The peppered moth is an another example of this situation.

 

Mutation and selection seem quite proficient at damaging function to defeat threats. These are adaptations of existing function that are examples of the single and double step mutations I previously spoke of that seem to go nowhere further than adapting existing function to environmental influences.

 

Here is a paper which I think you are in better position than me to analyze it. It provides a simple model to explain how protein-protein interactions can evolve using step by step mutations My link

I find no reason why using this model evolution by natural selection produce complex multi component protein structures with specific functions.

And also at the end of the same article they show how even the accumulation of neutral mutations may provide an evolutionary advantage to the organism later. These neutral variations may provide the raw material on which natural selection can act.

 

I quote from the same link "The evolutionary usefulness of accumulating neutral mutations preparing for saltatory changes is underlined by the recent discovery that a heat shock protein (hsp90) suppresses the phenotypic appearance of morphological mutations in Drosophila under normal conditions. By masking a hidden reservoir of genetic diversity this facilitates saltatory morphological changes upon environmental change ".

 

I'll have a another look at this article and perhaps comment later.

 

Ofcourse you don't make that claim but I just wanted to show how ignorance in this field can lead to such drastic conclusions and also misguideing the public or the layman by providing misinformation.

 

I find that researcher are also guilty of overselling their ideas and offering misguided conclusions. The paper on evolutionary development seems to be a good example of that. I've seen statistical analysis of peer reviewed and published research papers that indicate over 50% of the papers reach incorrect conclusions.

 

 

 

Are you claiming that evolution by natural selection only increases the efficiency of the existing novel forms but do not produce them in the first place?

 

To be precise, I am saying that experimental molecular biology indicates that adaptations to existing function are observed and validated but there are no observed cases of multistep evolutionary pathways to precursors required to produce new forms and new functions outside the rare cases of one or two mutations acting on single component systems such as enzymes. The vast majority of cell functions involve multiple components usually more than ten parts plus a host of control components.

 

We do know the state of affairs in this field. The gaps may be filled by biologists with in a decade or so there is no requirement for any alternative teleological assistence models right now.

 

We should be forthright about what is validated and what is not. Many on this site treat speculation about their favored explanations as fact just as you did with the researchers quote above. Some biologists may chose to explore material explanations while others may chose to explore other explanations. Why should we begrudge them of that?

 

No one has said "we advocate evolution as the explanation for how all observed diversity arosed". We do know the state of affairs in this field and we are open to any alternative scientific theory which addresses current problems in this field.

 

Many scientists are not open to alternative theories. Many on this site are close minded as well.

 

We are providing so many examples,analogies and models but nothing seems to satisfy you. It is fairly easy to point out loopholes but it takes some huge effort from biologists to fill these gaps.

 

Gaps are gaps. You can't fill gaps with analogies and models. Rather than trying to fill them with just so stories, it would be better to admit they are weaknesses in the theory so that the readers will have an accurate view of where the theory is strong and where it is weak.

 

I suppose in some other thread you have said that design is the process which provides complete explanation for all the observed diversity in geological time and also you have said that genetic engineers will create novel forms indicating the hand of design in this issue.

 

If this is the case why don't you provide a model for your design process? What is this design process? and why we have to give importance to this alternative version than to the current theory? Who were the designers before the genetic engineers?

 

I have noted that genetic engineers are progressing and are now far ahead of evolution in terms of explanatory power for observed diversity but I do not advocate that design is anything other than a rational alternative explanation with its own set of difficulties and weaknesses. I complain about speculation on the part of the evolutionary biologist so it would be silly for me to speculate about alternatives. I am happy to speak about what is known.

[michel123456]

I feel like blowing in a cello.

[immortal]

Do you have an validated example or is this imagination? Every attempt thus far to generate new form by this method has failed.

I asked for an observed example and you offered speculation.The references I provided describe the reality of where this field has (not) progressed eight years later. I find that researcher are also guilty of overselling their ideas and offering misguided conclusions. The paper on evolutionary development seems to be a good example of that. I've seen statistical analysis of peer reviewed and published research papers that indicate over 50% of the papers reach incorrect conclusions.

 

Well I have briefly addressed this problem of speculation in my previous posts in this thread. But we can just know glimpses of how it might have happened right now. My linkAtleast this shows that it is not just a mere imagination of things. evo-devo is a new field and it is wrong to make conclusions on it just yet.

Not all reasearchers are like that the link above gives a complete description of the current status with out making any absurd conclusions.

 

It seems the author was overly optimistic.

There is nothing wrong in being optimistic as long as he does not make absurd conclusions. No one would propose a hypothesis and say "it may not work". It this optimism which has helped all of us to progress in science. The hypothesis can be under testification.

 

No it is not enough for just one slight mutation. New form requires multiple coordinated slight mutations, an uninterrupted stepwise evolutionary pathway of many mutations to be exact. In 80 plus years of looking for these pathways we have thousands of single step mutations, a small handful of two step mutations, fewer than five probable three step and zero greater than three steps. Perhaps you know of an observed multistep pathway greater than three steps. If evolution accounts for all observed diversity, we should by now be aware of thousands of examples of these multistep pathways in order for evolution to proceed in the allotted geologic time.

 

I think current molecular clock studies shows that some multi component structures are under fuctional constraints and have not changed much since millions of years. So how can you observe the changes on an observation scale of 80 years when the molecule complexes have'nt changed for millions of years.

 

Sickle cell trait is an advantage in an environment with Malaria so it is an example of how selection selects advantage even if the adaptation involves partial damage. It is an excellent example of how mutation which seems to damage function can provide adaptations to existing function. This is not an example of evolution leading to new function.

 

I have not said that accumulation of detrimental mutations will lead to positive selection by natural selection in producing new functions. I said that natural selection can effectively select existing bad gene complex by creating new functional relationships between these gene complexes and the environment and there by turning the bad gene into good gene.

 

 

Mutation and selection seem quite proficient at damaging function to defeat threats. These are adaptations of existing function that are examples of the single and double step mutations I previously spoke of that seem to go nowhere further than adapting existing function to environmental influences.

 

What your talking is preadaptation, evolution by NS not only provides adaptations to existing functions but it can produce new functions through positive selection of single protein components.

My link

I'll have a another look at this article and perhaps comment later.

I plead you to make an open analysis on that before coming to any other conclusions. I have a strange feeling that you might ignore this.

 

To be precise, I am saying that experimental molecular biology indicates that adaptations to existing function are observed and validated but there are no observed cases of multistep evolutionary pathways to precursors required to produce new forms and new functions outside the rare cases of one or two mutations acting on single component systems such as enzymes. The vast majority of cell functions involve multiple components usually more than ten parts plus a host of control components.

 

Lets make it clear, adaptations to existing function are observed and validated and also it is observed and validated that evolution by NS is excellent at producing new functions through positive selection of single component proteins.

 

The problem is the validation of complex multistep evolutionary pathways for the production of multi component structures. The theory is yet to develop a model for how protein-protein interactions can change conformations in time to create new functions for the organism.

 

We should be forthright about what is validated and what is not.

Yes saying that evolution by NS is a fact and it accounts for all diversity will be an oversimplified statement. Yes evolution by NS is a fact in explaining the origin of new functions in the form of single component proteins but fails to explain origin of multicomponent structures due to their complexity and this will take time to fix it.

 

Many on this site treat speculation about their favored explanations as fact just as you did with the researchers quote above.

 

Then your argument of all mutations are unfavorable is also not a fact. Lets allow both of these hypothesis to be tested at the floor test and which ever is testified will turn out to be a fact.

 

Some biologists may chose to explore material explanations while others may chose to explore other explanations. Why should we begrudge them of that?Many scientists are not open to alternative theories. Many on this site are close minded as well

 

Well in order to accept these alternative explanations you have to convince the scientific community that it can be testified.

As educated responsible citizens of the world we should not allow false belief systems to spread across our society. The current scientific enquiry is the best enquiry we have in that matter even though it may not answer all questions.

 

Gaps are gaps. You can't fill gaps with analogies and models. Rather than trying to fill them with just so stories, it would be better to admit they are weaknesses in the theory so that the readers will have an accurate view of where the theory is strong and where it is weak.

 

No gaps can be filled the fact that these testified models can be used to create various technological uses in various fields of science shows that our models do describe the phenomena accurately as we see it.

 

Yes these will be weaknesses of a theory until the gaps are filled with new explanations or models.

I have noted that genetic engineers are progressing and are now far ahead of evolution in terms of explanatory power for observed diversity

 

The ability to modify structures through intelligence does'nt explain anything about how those complex strucutes arosed in the first place and account for diversity.

Edited November 10, 2010 by immortal

[swansont]

That would be rather foolish. I am correcting those who improperly claim it is a fact that evolution accounts for observed diversity.

 

We were talking about the analogy.

[cypress]

I said it was the concept that was failing not the analogy.

[cypress]

Well I have briefly addressed this problem of speculation in my previous posts in this thread. But we can just know glimpses of how it might have happened right now. My linkAtleast this shows that it is not just a mere imagination of things. evo-devo is a new field and it is wrong to make conclusions on it just yet.

Not all reasearchers are like that the link above gives a complete description of the current status with out making any absurd conclusions.

 

There is nothing wrong in being optimistic as long as he does not make absurd conclusions. No one would propose a hypothesis and say "it may not work". It this optimism which has helped all of us to progress in science. The hypothesis can be under testification.

 

It's an 11 year old article and overly optimistic quote that is incorrect about the mechanism and impact of altering high level developmental controls. It is generally not a good approach to use incorrect information to argue your point.

 

I think current molecular clock studies shows that some multi component structures are under fuctional constraints and have not changed much since millions of years. So how can you observe the changes on an observation scale of 80 years when the molecule complexes have'nt changed for millions of years.

 

One would generally not investigate static systems in order to try to explain change. Experiments indicate that mutative adaptations occur quickly when environmental change is introduced but while these adaptive changes seem to work to alter present function, they don't seem to act on the molecular systems that are precursors to novel function. The single exception being one and two step mutations to single protein systems such as enzymes. The vast majority of cell functional components are multiple molecular protein systems of ten to hundreds of coordinated, coherent well fitted parts, and controls to manage construction, function and maintenance.

 

 

 

I have not said that accumulation of detrimental mutations will lead to positive selection by natural selection in producing new functions. I said that natural selection can effectively select existing bad gene complex by creating new functional relationships between these gene complexes and the environment and there by turning the bad gene into good gene.

 

But you have not offered a real example of accumulated mutations (of four or greater steps) leading to new function

 

 

 

 

What your talking is preadaptation, evolution by NS not only provides adaptations to existing functions but it can produce new functions through positive selection of single protein components.

My link

 

Another example of mutations to enzymes. But I have granted these. Can you show that mutations to single component systems scale to the multistep mutations required for the vast majority of functional molecular systems at the cell level? One does not show that a particular tree is a cherry tree by pointing to the apples growing on it.

 

I plead you to make an open analysis on that before coming to any other conclusions. I have a strange feeling that you might ignore this.

 

I'm still investigating this article and will comment later.

 

Lets make it clear, adaptations to existing function are observed and validated and also it is observed and validated that evolution by NS is excellent at producing new functions through positive selection of single component proteins.

 

Not excellent at producing new functional enzymes. The enzymes produced are generally very inefficient by comparison to most others. Functional enzymes are required for adaptation to changing environments as one of their functions is to break down chemicals that could otherwise be toxic. It is a weak argument to describe this as novel function in the sense I mean as all enzymes have the same basic function to act as catalysts.

 

The problem is the validation of complex multistep evolutionary pathways for the production of multi component structures. The theory is yet to develop a model for how protein-protein interactions can change conformations in time to create new functions for the organism.

 

Yes, tis has been a known problem for 30 or more years now.

 

Yes saying that evolution by NS is a fact and it accounts for all diversity will be an oversimplified statement. Yes evolution by NS is a fact in explaining the origin of new functions in the form of single component proteins but fails to explain origin of multicomponent structures due to their complexity and this will take time to fix it.

 

Not due to the complexity of the task, but because in molecular biological experimentation, it simply does not happen by the known evolutionary processes. Other processes should be investigated as a means to fix this weakness.

 

 

Then your argument of all mutations are unfavorable is also not a fact. Lets allow both of these hypothesis to be tested at the floor test and which ever is testified will turn out to be a fact.

 

In the case of salmonella bacterium investigated it appears that all mutations were unfavorable. If it turns out that all adaptations to environment are at face value, unfavorable, then evolution should require an ever changing environment to lead the process of evolution. The environment does not seem to be ever changing though instead it seems to be cyclical indicating that evolution should oscillate but return to the same place over and over. Observations indicate this is the case.

 

Well in order to accept these alternative explanations you have to convince the scientific community that it can be testified.

As educated responsible citizens of the world we should not allow false belief systems to spread across our society. The current scientific enquiry is the best enquiry we have in that matter even though it may not answer all questions.

 

The current scientific process has blind spots that guarantee certain lines of investigations won't occur. I don't think that is "best".

 

No gaps can be filled the fact that these testified models can be used to create various technological uses in various fields of science shows that our models do describe the phenomena accurately as we see it.

 

Evolutionary theory does not seem to have much technological use. Modern medicine exclusively proceeds on the assumption that all biological systems have functional purpose and these systems are deconstructed through reverse engineering. the evolutionary narrative is a gloss that not particularly useful in this process.

 

The ability to modify structures through intelligence does'nt explain anything about how those complex strucutes arosed in the first place and account for diversity.

 

It indicates that design is capable of generating the complex structures from scratch also. Soon Genetic engineers will demonstrate novel complex structures from scratch. Design is outpacing the evolution narrative by miles and miles and I suspect that if evolutionary biologists don't throw in the towel and begin to look for more capable processes, the race will soon be so lopsided, funding for the search may shift to design.

[Moontanman]

It indicates that design is capable of generating the complex structures from scratch also. Soon Genetic engineers will demonstrate novel complex structures from scratch. Design is outpacing the evolution narrative by miles and miles and I suspect that if evolutionary biologists don't throw in the towel and begin to look for more capable processes, the race will soon be so lopsided, funding for the search may shift to design.

 

Cypress, you keep harping on design, for design to be significant in this it has to have a source, can you suggest a source? So far there is no evidence for design except assertions that evolution had to have design to happen. Who are these genetic engineers? You say that design is out pacing evolution, how does that indicate there is some other designer who designed us? if you do not have a viable alternative to evolution other than some mythical designer i don't see the point of your argument. I can suggest lots of things are real with no evidence for them, how is your idea of a designer any different? I'm not trying to be a smart ass cypress but all i see you doing is saying no it can't be like that with no suggestions of what it is like.

 

So far evolution is the only alternative that is supported by evidence, this evidence might be weak to you but it is infinitely better than the evidence you have for some "designer with no name" Not liking a theory is not evidence it is not real and assertions of the existence of a designer need to be backed up with more than finger pointing at the things evolution cannot currently explain. So far science has worked quite well to explain evolution via natural selection, it's not perfect but until someone actually comes up with something besides a rapidly shrinking number of objections to evolution i think it deserves to be investigated further and to be taught as the most probable reason for the complexity of life on Earth.

 

Your assertion of a designer is no better than saying some mysterious undetectable entity holds the earth in orbit around the sun because we don't know exactly what makes gravity work. .

[Ophiolite]

I have a small measure of sympathy with some aspects of cypress's arguments. When I studied palaeontology and biology at undergraduate level in the late 1960s I felt there were inconsistencies in the data. No surprise there, but I was troubled by the glib way these inconsistencies were addressed.

 

Gould and Elridge tackled some of the palaeontological ones with their proposal of punctuated equilibrium. The discovery of hox genes and epigenetic effects satisfied some of my concerns on the genetic side. Yet I still see an authoritative response to questioning of aspects of mechanism, both in forums like this and in popular accounts of evolution. Frankly I think there are important mechanisms we are still missing that govern evolution and account for diversity and emergence of complexity. Unlike cypress I see no need to posit some hypothetical designer (though I think it unscientific to discount the possibility), but I would like to see a more open recognition that the claim that small changes alone can build up over time to big changes may be in error. (As an analogy, the best evidence for plate tectonics was gathered after we started looking for it.)

 

To return to my opening thoughts, where I have zero sympathy with cypress is that in hundreds of post he avoids saying directly what he believes to be the case. Equivocation, ambiguity and dissembling seem to be his speciality. That is frustrating, acts against a productive discussion and is ultimately extremely rude.

[immortal]

It's an 11 year old article and overly optimistic quote that is incorrect about the mechanism and impact of altering high level developmental controls. It is generally not a good approach to use incorrect information to argue your point.

 

Let us allow the hypothesis to be testified. It is incorrect to say that a hypothesis is incorrect with out allowing it for validation. We can not expect all the answers from a field which is a decade old.

 

Experiments indicate that mutative adaptations occur quickly when environmental change is introduced but while these adaptive changes seem to work to alter present function, they don't seem to act on the molecular systems that are precursors to novel function. The single exception being one and two step mutations to single protein systems such as enzymes. The vast majority of cell functional components are multiple molecular protein systems of ten to hundreds of coordinated, coherent well fitted parts, and controls to manage construction, function and maintenance.

 

But you have not offered a real example of accumulated mutations (of four or greater steps) leading to new function

 

Can you show that mutations to single component systems scale to the multistep mutations required for the vast majority of functional molecular systems at the cell level? One does not show that a particular tree is a cherry tree by pointing to the apples growing on it.

 

You are asking us to provide evidence for events which are so rare that it is highly improbable that it would have occurred at least twice or thrice from the time of origin of Homo sapiens to the present state.

 

An evolutionary pathway of greater than 3 or 4 steps requires multiple mutations to occur on both interacting proteins. This was Michael Behe’s argument in Darwin’s Black Box.

He argued that since each mutation had to provide a survival advantage in order for NS to produce new functions in Darwinian terms it is highly impossible to produce new functions which required multiple mutations in Darwinian terms as these mutations are screened off by NS before other mutations arise. I suppose this is what your argument is.

 

It seems that genes accumulate neutral mutations which do not really affect the structure or the functional phenotype of the proteins which it encodes. So genes can accumulate some neutral mutations with out the loss of molecular recognition between the proteins which it encodes and when a mutation occurs which affects the phenotype of the protein its structure is dependent on the previous neutral mutations it had accumulated over time.

 

The new structure can interact with other proteins with out loss of molecular recognition and can accept a conformational change which indeed may lead to the evolution of sub-system which is part of a bigger molecular system. This is true for other interacting proteins with in the system. This is not just imagination and in fact this is the model which my earlier link describes for the evolution of protein-protein interactions.

 

It is the unequal rate of molecular evolution which makes these events difficult to observe. But if we choose the right kind of dynamic system for our observation then it might be probable that our future generations might see how those complex molecular systems evolved.

 

 

Not excellent at producing new functional enzymes. The enzymes produced are generally very inefficient by comparison to most others. Functional enzymes are required for adaptation to changing environments as one of their functions is to break down chemicals that could otherwise be toxic. It is a weak argument to describe this as novel function in the sense I mean as all enzymes have the same basic function to act as catalysts.

 

I think evolution by NS will be quite satisfied to provide survival advantage to organisms by fine tuning the existing attributes of the molecules. Why would NS go on to build a new molecule which acted as a catalyst instead of giving directions to a molecule which is inherently a catalyst to produce the desired byproduct and there by giving an evolutionary advantage.

 

The duplicated intestinal enzyme in langur monkeys was efficient and functional to work under more acidic conditions than its former enzyme.

 

Not due to the complexity of the task, but because in molecular biological experimentation, it simply does not happen by the known evolutionary processes.

 

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

 

In the case of salmonella bacterium investigated it appears that all mutations were unfavorable. If it turns out that all adaptations to environment are at face value, unfavorable, then evolution should require an ever changing environment to lead the process of evolution.

 

Normally most of the mutations are unfavorable to an organism and if environment doesn’t provide a solution then it will certainly get extinct. If the growth of salmonella reduces by 0.5% due to unfavorable mutations and if this is a sufficient cause for the overall reduction of its fitness then god help salmonella.

 

The environment does not seem to be ever changing though instead it seems to be cyclical indicating that evolution should oscillate but return to the same place over and over. Observations indicate this is the case.

 

This is the reason why, there is a burst of evolution followed by a period of stasis. In case if you have observed the role of hsp90 mentioned in an article at the end of my earlier link you will see how this is working perfectly in Darwinian terms.

 

The current scientific process has blind spots that guarantee certain lines of investigations won't occur. I don't think that is "best".

 

I said it is the best possible way of investigation we have at the present moment until you show us an alternative investigation way which account for reality we can not consider your point.

 

Evolutionary theory does not seem to have much technological use. Modern medicine exclusively proceeds on the assumption that all biological systems have functional purpose. The evolutionary narrative is a gloss that not particularly useful in this process.

 

If this is the case then why pharmaceutical companies have to consistently look for new drugs if the older version was enough to keep the infections at bay.

Until we investigate the bacteria and look for how it had evolved the resistance to that antibody we can not be able to produce a drug with the right combination to strike the bacteria again.

 

 

It indicates that design is capable of generating the complex structures from scratch also. Soon Genetic engineers will demonstrate novel complex structures from scratch. Design is outpacing the evolution narrative by miles and miles and I suspect that if evolutionary biologists don't throw in the towel and begin to look for more capable processes, the race will soon be so lopsided, funding for the search may shift to design.

 

If someone indeed starts funding for design then where one would start looking for signs of design. Where do we begin or where do we start looking for it. What is the process for investigating it?

 

If you are looking for teleological causes then definitely this will be outside of science and therefore evolutionists doesn’t have to be disturbed by this as the funding for research based on scientific enquiry will not be affected.

[cypress]

To return to my opening thoughts, where I have zero sympathy with cypress is that in hundreds of post he avoids saying directly what he believes to be the case. Equivocation, ambiguity and dissembling seem to be his speciality. That is frustrating, acts against a productive discussion and is ultimately extremely rude.

 

I appreciate your opening statements. I suspect I am equally frustrated that even you seem to miss the clear statements I have made about what I believe.

 

I don't believe the observed evolutionary processes sufficiently explain biological diversity. Instead I suspect other more capable processes are involved. I don't know what they are but I believe we should be looking for them. I make reference to design because design is an example of a more capable process that is in operation today that may or may not be this elusive process, however if evolutionary biologists don't get busy looking for a more capable process, designers may soon develop a new life form from scratch and when they do, they may hand design advocates a near insurmountable lead in explaining life and diversity of life.

[JohnB]

michel123456, it is not required for the designer to have a prior designer.

[ydoaPs]

michel123456, it is not required for the designer to have a prior designer.

Why?

[Moontanman]

michel123456, it is not required for the designer to have a prior designer.

 

Why not? If it is necessary to have a designer then why wouldn't the designer need a designer as well?