Arguing Against Intelligent Design

[Thunderbird]

 

The key element is that I think (not believe, think) that the evidence in support of mutative speciation is weak, and it gets very little discussion because it gets "dirtied" by the association with creationism. Well, stop it. Look at the underlying data and face the issues.

 

 

 

B)

[Biochemist]

My intention is to suggest that Bio should distinguish his argument from Intelligent Design if he does not want to his argument conflated with those who infer a creator or god as the intelligent designer. This is because the common understanding of ID is to point to complexity as evidence of an intelligent designer. Who else could they be referring to other than God?

By the way, I am open to this point of view. I have previously called my position "proscribed speciation", but as I recall someone responded with "That's just intelligent design", so I went with it.

 

This did lead me to the conclusion that otherwise-open-minded folks will occasionally ignore data that they falsely associate with an unfavored position.

[Biochemist]

I feel that any theories that are intended to provide alternative explanations to what some might consider weak arguments in the standard Darwinian evolutionary model, but are not intended to point to an all powerful creator, should be distinguished from ID and discussed in another thread.

 

Just one man's opinion.

Interesting point of view. It seems to me that you are insisting that we define ID in such a way that it cannot be science (as opposed to allowing for a framework where it is). Isn't that sort of a syllogism?

[Biochemist]

...Do you think the code could have been present in the autonomous cell before the Cambrian and the phyla arouse separately, from a common primordial genetic soup.

That is the implication. I think Buffy called this the "Biological Big Bang" when I first brought it up a couple years ago.

[Thunderbird]

That is the implication. I think Buffy called this the "Biological Big Bang" when I first brought it up a couple years ago.

 

 

Then what could have been the organizing principles that brought these formerly autonomous, competitive units together cooperatively?

[Essay]

The key element is that I think (not believe, think) that the evidence in support of mutative speciation is weak

 

Weak!?

 

Have you not even heard about epigenetics?

 

This allows for many orders of magnitude more "mutative capability" for the genes, over what the standard dogma suggested.

 

...and how many more mechanisms, yet to be hinted at, await discovery?

 

...and what if aliens designed it all; does that change our method, or our results, or conclusions?

 

Please google epigenetics.

...or copy number polymorphism, or "methylation grandparents"

[Biochemist]

Then what could have been the organizing principles that brought these formerly autonomous, competitive units together cooperatively?

Well, if we include yours, we have:

 

1) a creator,

2) an alien, or some other life seeding model from another non-earth location

3) your oolites

4) other.

[modest]

Regardless of when the gene expresses itself in a majority of the population - the gene itself came about via mutation. By definition and stipulation: if the first life form of common descent didn't have this gene (and it didn't come from little green men) then it was mutation. Mutation being the appearance of something new by change from what was before.

This is the point where I fundamentally disagree. I am suggesting that the majority of genomic changes are not mutations at all. It you are suggesting that all changes are mutations, then that would mean that all otherwise "normal" children are mutants.

 

I understand. When looking at the subject of common descent vs. life today, I think there are four possibilities:

1. mutation added to the gene pool. To be more specific - a natural process that follows the laws of probability.
   
2. an intelligence outside the cell added to the gene pool.
   
3. an intelligent process existed inside the life form of common descent capable of designing different offspring. [i would note here that no such thing has been found]
   
4. The life form of common descent had all the genetic material (plus or minus) to create any modern life form.
   

If you can tell me something that falls outside these four areas, I will amend my position amicably. It looks like, from your answer below, you believe number four. I would agree number four agrees with your theory.

 

This is why I was asking for a definition of ID. If no one can define either "mutation" or ID, then I am not sure what we are arguing. Let me take a stab at both:

 

Good idea

 

 

1) Mutation: A change in genetic code driven by stimuli external to the cell (e.g., UV light, toxins, etc) that is not predisposed toward any particular genetic outcome.

 

I would not limit mutation to an external process. By your definition somatic hypermutation wouldn’t be mutation.

 

2) Intelligent Design: a subtheory of evolution that contends that many intra cellular biochemical structures are complex enough that they are not reasonably explained by mutative processes.

 

This definition is fine, the title theory is wrong.

 

Logically you must stipulate (to advocate both positions) something like the subject of common descent had genetic coding for future species.

This is exctly what I am suggesting.

 

The problem people have is envisioning how a creature with complex genetic information (let's say to create a frog or a tree) got here on earth to be our progenitor. The implication is clearly that God or aliens did it. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

I would also add that this is inconsistent with life taking three billion years to become multicellular. If the life form of common descent had the genetic coding to make future species - one would assume it would get right to it.

 

-modest

[Biochemist]

This allows for many orders of magnitude more "mutative capability" for the genes, over what the standard dogma suggested.

Now you have hit one of my "hot" buttons. In our tendency to retain connection to standard dogma, we retain words that become increasingly meaningless. If we are going to talk about increasing "mutative capability" for genes, why, for heavens sake (no pun intended) would we call this "mutative"?????

 

A capability of a gene is mutative?????? Criminy.

 

This reminds me of the sports announcer that said "this team is literally on fire!" I suspect he meant "figuratively". But he used the exact opposite word.

[modest]

Now you have hit one of my "hot" buttons. In our tendency to retain connection to standard dogma, we retain words that become increasingly meaningless. If we are going to talk about increasing "mutative capability" for genes, why, for heavens sake (no pun intended) would we call this "mutative"?????

 

A capability of a gene is mutative?????? Criminy.

 

This reminds me of the sports announcer that said "this team is literally on fire!" I suspect he meant "figuratively". But he used the exact opposite word.

 

There is nothing non-mainstream with differing rates of mutation. There is certainly no justification for jumping on Essay for pointing it out. Rates of mutation have been measured. Mechanisms of DNA repair suggest that the rate of mutation itself is subject to natural selection. Good science has been done supporting that.

 

If you mean to make the claim all genes have the same "mutative capability" then do so. I will make the claim that is wrong.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

Well, if we include yours, we have:

 

1) a creator,

2) an alien, or some other life seeding model from another non-earth location

3) your oolites

4) other.

 

oolites and the structure they formed were merely a piece of the puzzle of complexity theory done by many scientist over many years.

The theory's were already there in the models and math, I just happen to find the fossilized pre-big bang embryo.

[Biochemist]

Absolutely outstanding post, Modest. We are now (finally) having exactly the conversation I was trying to generate.

...I think there are four possibilities:

1. mutation added to the gene pool. To be more specific - a natural process that follows the laws of probability.
   
2. an intelligence outside the cell added to the gene pool.
   
3. an intelligent process existed inside the life form of common descent capable of designing different offspring. [i would note here that no such thing has been found]
   
4. The life form of common descent had all the genetic material (plus or minus) to create any modern life form.
   

If you can tell me something that falls outside these four areas, I will amend my position amicably. It looks like, from your answer below, you believe number four.

Yes, although I would not included the word "all" in the position #4. I can't rule out mutation as ever being a mechanism, I just don't think it is primary. It also might not be reasonable to separate #3 and #4. The more you think about it, they become indistinguishable.

I would not limit mutation to an external process. By your definition somatic hypermutation wouldn’t be mutation.

I do think that hypermutation is a misnomer, and is not a mutation at all. It is a well codified, repeatable, intracellular process. I think there is no evidence it has anything to do with mutation. It is a capability that all cells in that category have.

This definition is fine, the title theory is wrong.

Understood, and a credible point. Although if we could identify a set of items that would be falsifiable, the work "theory" would become reasonable.

The implication is clearly that God or aliens did it. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

That would be true if that particular proof was the objective. I don't think it is. We would be trying to prove that daughter species were generated from complex, predefined recombinations of parent species DNA. That would, I think, be a real theory.

I would also add that this is inconsistent with life taking three billion years to become multicellular. If the life form of common descent had the genetic coding to make future species - one would assume it would get right to it.

Ah, but it didn't. Hence we have:

 

1) Earth arrival: 4.5 billion years ago

2) Earth cool: 4 billion years ago

3) First prokaryote: 3.5 billion years ago

4) First eukaryote: 1.8 billion years ago

 

So, it was 1.7 billion years (assuming the generally accepted numbers are reasonable). I have always taken the proof case for the problem to be the sudden expansion of life body plans during the Cambrian explosion. A grisly, detailed discussion of that probabilistic issue was posted above a couple of times. I will re-post the link to a previous thread here:

 

Statistical/probability issues in speciation [Archive] - Science Forums

 

I still contend that is is very difficult to get the probability of this evolutionary step down to some palatable number- say, one in a billion, unless the process was substantially predefined.

[Biochemist]

...there are four possibilities:

1. mutation added to the gene pool. To be more specific - a natural process that follows the laws of probability.
   
2. an intelligence outside the cell added to the gene pool.
   
3. an intelligent process existed inside the life form of common descent capable of designing different offspring. [i would note here that no such thing has been found]
   
4. The life form of common descent had all the genetic material (plus or minus) to create any modern life form.
   

If you can tell me something that falls outside these four areas...

Incidentally, on the bolded portion, we do know numerous mechanisms for genomic transformation (switchover, transposons, etc) that we typically (and unthoughtfully) label "mutation". We also typically impute a lot of capability into that body of DNA we call "junk", because so much of what goes on in a life form is not established by the coding portion of the DNA (e.g., how to the identical cells in a mammalian embryo "know" which item to mature into?). Ergo, it is not true that there is "no" evidence for complex intelligent processes. We just have not established the causal connection between genomic change and a pre-existing target for that change in the parent species.

[Thunderbird]

Now you have hit one of my "hot" buttons. In our tendency to retain connection to standard dogma, we retain words that become increasingly meaningless. If we are going to talk about increasing "mutative capability" for genes, why, for heavens sake (no pun intended) would we call this "mutative"?????

 

A capability of a gene is mutative?????? Criminy.

 

This reminds me of the sports announcer that said "this team is literally on fire!" I suspect he meant "figuratively". But he used the exact opposite word.

B)

Mutative capability" kind of an oxymoron, How about "genetic probabilities",that way it leave's the process up to potentialities in the system rather than defects. This makes more sense that way, all you need to do is shift the information bank back in time to the cell.

[Biochemist]

There is nothing non-mainstream with differing rates of mutation. There is certainly no justification for jumping on Essay for pointing it out.

Oops, Sorry. Again, I humbly apologize. I didn't mean to jump on Essay. I was really making fun of myself for reacting to the "this must be a mutation" framework that pervades so much of our terminology.

Rates of mutation have been measured. Mechanisms of DNA repair suggest that the rate of mutation itself is subject to natural selection. Good science has been done supporting that.

Yes, lots of good science. But I really think we should consider a framework that is more like "rates of genomic alteration" and then ask the question what fraction of that activity is the "rate or mutation". Alterations that are predefined (whatever that means: it would require a probabilistic boundary) would be excluded form the "count" of changes that are mutations.

If you mean to make the claim all genes have the same "mutative capability" then do so.

Oh no, that is certainly incorrect. We certainly agree on that.

 

Sorry I was unclear. And again my apologies if I was inadvertently hostile to Essay.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Wait a minute. "Emergent complexity" is a name for an idea. The topic of this thread is fundamentally "how could complexity emerge if the building blocks for such complexity are insufficient to achieve the end complexity that we actually observe?" If I understand your answer, you are saying "because it does".

 

Nope. In answer to the question I'm saying it's because the system is non-reversible, that the "rules" aren't preserved - and that you may not even be aware of them all. For instance, most Cellular Automata become extinct or static after a finite number of generations. Just because you know the current rules of the game, and the current state doesn't mean it's possible to extrapolate backwards! If you have an empty "board" for instance, it's impossible to know what the previous iteration looked like. If you have a static board, you can go back as many generations as you like, but it's not generally possible to say what the previous "non-static" iteration looked like. With a repeating configuration, you can only go back as far as the "loop-point."

 

Furthermore, given a particular board, it may be impossible to deduce all of the rules by looking at the current situation. For instance, a static configuration in Conway will NOT tell you what the conditions for "living" and "dying" are. In fact, you have NO IDEA whether the "rules" allow for the level of complexity that's currently achieved, because you have no way of going back to see if they do.

 

I'm not just making a tautology here and saying "life exists because it exists" but I'm saying that it's not necessary to introduce another level of "rule making" to explain it. Just because you don't KNOW the rules (and CAN'T know the rules) doesn't mean the rules don't exist or are insufficient. In fact - the inability to successfully deduce all of the "rules" is actually in a way one of the rules.

 

ID requires God, or aliens, or some omnipotent bio-engineer with bad taste in knees and a penchant for left-over nipples. All emergent complexity requires is that you acknowledge that you can't (necessarily) put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

 

TFS

[that doesn't mean you shouldn't try...]

[Thunderbird]

I understand. When looking at the subject of common descent vs. life today, I think there are four possibilities:

1. mutation added to the gene pool. To be more specific - a natural process that follows the laws of probability.
   
2. an intelligence outside the cell added to the gene pool.
   
3. an intelligent process existed inside the life form of common descent capable of designing different offspring. [i would note here that no such thing has been found]
   
4. The life form of common descent had all the genetic material (plus or minus) to create any modern life form.
   

If you can tell me something that falls outside these four areas, I will amend my position amicably. It looks like, from your answer below, you believe number four. I would agree number four agrees with your theory.

 

 

 

Good idea

 

 

 

 

I would not limit mutation to an external process. By your definition somatic hypermutation wouldn’t be mutation.

 

 

 

This definition is fine, the title theory is wrong.

 

 

 

The problem people have is envisioning how a creature with complex genetic information (let's say to create a frog or a tree) got here on earth to be our progenitor. The implication is clearly that God or aliens did it. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

I would also add that this is inconsistent with life taking three billion years to become multicellular. If the life form of common descent had the genetic coding to make future species - one would assume it would get right to it.

 

-modest

 

You are forgetting quantum superposition's of DNA sampling.