A crazy idea about Evlolution?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

So I am being deliberately self defamatory n the hope some people will bypass this. It is a genuine request for those who have knowledge to look and comment.

It starts with the assumption that Irreducible systems exist (maybe that will stop some here)

Ok so let’s postulate using known conditions… If you both follow and understand it, perhaps you could tell me of a known theory that matches it or comes close?

The only answer to IC is that there is already a system in place to do the function of the new integrated system., so how might this new system develop?

It starts as a cancer. Neutral or wrongly developed cells. They qualify as your neutral drift. The cancer is benign in terms of development and not being lethal, and not enough to cause any disadvantage to the “Host” creature.

As time progresses the cancer takes a form which amounts to a parasite. It is now drawing off the host but still not killing it and the creature can still live, even thrive.

Eventually the system becomes fully functional and becomes symbiotic. It is now a benefit.

Now the old system becomes redundant. and slowly reduces perhaps becoming vestigial or only occurring in the foetal development.

The new system is now fully integrated.

All those conditions exist. And you can probably find data to back up this theory.

However, there are some major plausibility issues in terms of why such a thing should develop (other than it is quite a nice progression). Isn’t this building? (yes) and isn’t that against Evolutionary concepts? (Why should it?) and doesn’t it fly against all probability that there could be developmental progressions? Isn’t it far fetched? And so on, but

Nature (or God) does not have to conform. Not to human credulity, or human notions in any shape or form. If it could happen why not?

So the question is could this happen? (And has anyone ever thought of it before?)

Richard

2

As well as a crazy spelling. I wish I knew what it said. I bet it’s closer to the left-hand peak of the Dunning-Kruger range,

1 Like
3

:clown_face:

Told you

Richard

4

Ohhhhh! I just worked it out from the title. Very clever.

5

Richard, not sure how this really makes sense. It borrows somewhat from neutral drift, but neutral drift is by definition, neutral. A mutation that creates a unusable manifestation would be deleterious, as the organism would be expending resources to produce it and thus be selected against. That is why unicorns disappeared.and ponies took over their niche. :wink: :wink:

7 Likes
6

How could cancer be non-lethal or benign or not cause any disadvantage to the “host” creature? What is a “host” creature, anyway?

1 Like
7

Not all human cancers kill and we would never leave them to develop even if they were not lethal. But who knows what could happen if things were not monitored

A host creature would be the one that had the deviation.

Look, I realise this is left field, but sometimes left field can work.

I am asking people to put aside preconceptions and follow the principles and progression.

Parasitism is not usually fatal. If it were the parasite would die. And the fact that creatures can survive with parasites would indicate that if there was something of that nature (but not strictly speaking a separate creature) the Host may still thrive.

And we might be talking about inherent defects lasting generations before any noticeable change occurs. In fact, for it to work the defect would have to become basically endemic otherwise it would not be around for the next stage.

Play with it instead of trying to reject it out of hand.

Richard

8

Some cancers kill slowly and some kill quickly. Tell me about the non-lethal ones.

That’s not what a host is.

We can’t put aside reality

9

This would require an intelligent supernatural designer so the rest of your argument doesn’t apply.

No the answer is a system can function in a different way that is still beneficial if a part of the supposed IC system is removed. Evolution doesn’t work by replacing one functional system with a different system that performs the same function.

cancer: a disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body.

Cancer is not passed on to off spring so there is no way for it to ever be anything other than a growth of abnormal cells in one individual. As I have pointed out, you keep thinking in terms of an individual and not a population. Also any changes have to be reflected in the DNA that is passed on to future generations.

Symbiotic relationships, which includes parasitism, are defined as the relationships between different organisms. If you want to use the terms for systems you need to provide your definition.

1 Like
10

You are just denying the existence of IC.

Richard

11

Of course. It is a man made construct. Can you provide an example that hasn’t been refuted? The professional ID folks haven’t come up with one yet.

My point is if IC is correct then there has to be a supernatural intelligent designer.

1 Like
12

I will not stop there but I see no reason for such an assumption – not even sure I can make sense of it. How are you defining an irreducible system? Are you saying that it has no parts? Are you talking about a magical black box that isn’t even made of matter?

Should I guess that IC means irreducible complexity? guess so.

What do you mean by “the only answer to IC”?

Why?

It doesn’t follow that any alteration of a system must have the properties of a cancer. I cannot even make sense of this assumption.

Is that like leaving your brain at the door? …especially since you haven’t even explained what preconception you would have us put aside. Matter? Chemistry? Genetics? What???

13

Believing in IC necessarily implies believing in uppercase ID, as well. It’s nice to be able to believe in lowercase ‘id’, since I have objective evidence of God’s sovereignty over the timing and placing of mutations in DNA.

14

Maybe not. It could be a silicon-based alien life form and not supernatural. :grin: But that just kicks the can down the road.

15

Why not? Who says that the modern-day reality is the same as it has always been. Who says that a non-lethal growth is impossible? Can’t you think beyond what you think you know?

Richard

16

Except the kind of ‘thinking beyond’ you are talking about is not reality, but fantasy.

17

If Irreducible means that you cannot build it piece by piece stand alone (which I am sure is the idea) then what I am proposing (playing with) is a situation where it can grow without having to function before completion.
It seems that some scientists do not think that IC need exist because they insist on trying to repurpose components. But. irreducible must mean that the components are unique to the system and therefore cannot be repurposed to or from anything else.(otherwise there would not be any “problem” which I guess is what they want to believe)

Richard

18

So you have never indulged in a “what if?” scenario?

How boring!

Richard

19

I enjoy science fiction.

20

Science fiction is usually based on science fact with a little fantasy thrown in. What I have proposed is no different.
And there is no harm in playing around with ideas. That is how things get done.

I said it was crazy. Run with it.

Richard