Biological Information and Intelligent Design: Abiogenesis and the origins of the genetic code

Faith & Science Conversation
81

[quote=“Eddie, post:74, topic:5596”]
Of course it’s a political document. Behe is right.[/quote]
That would necessarily mean that you were wrong.

They are, and they are denouncing ID as non-science, which it is. They are speaking for science when they take political positions calling for more science funding, too. Left standing is my point is that scientific organizations don’t take positions on scientific controversies. That’s what “The ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims,” means–they aren’t doing science.

Again, if you disagree, Eddie, it should be trivially easy to state an ID hypothesis and the empirical predictions it makes. You know there isn’t anything of the sort from the political ID movement.

No, it’s a simple fact, not a judgment, because no one in the ID movement has performed an empirical test of an ID hypothesis.

[quote]…So you should either deny that the AAAS is a “truly scientific organization,” or admit that such organizations can and do take positions on scientific controversies.
[/quote]There is no scientific controversy, because ID isn’t science. If you disagree, it should be trivially easy for you to state an ID hypothesis and the empirical predictions it makes.

Example from evolution: the peacock’s tail (and those of other male birds) plays an important function in sexual selection. Empirical prediction: males with experimentally shortened and/or mutilated tails will mate less often.

It’s easy!

82

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:80, topic:5596”]
If someone promotes Intelligent Design, but refuses to take a position on who the Designer is, or how long it took the Designer to create humanity, I see no compelling reason for BioLogos to take any kind of stance regarding that person.[/quote]

Other than to point out that it’s not science.

[quote]Such vagueness is intentionally political, rather than sincerely scientific.
[/quote]Exactly.

1 Like
83

Yes, astrology in the present tense. In other words, Behe’s insanely expanded definition of science had to include something virtually everyone agrees is not science to include ID. My summary is accurate.

Again, Behe’s ID includes no empirical testing of ID hypotheses. Therefore, it doesn’t include the very essence of science. And it’s the most science-y ID out there!

There’s no manipulation by me. That’s why I posted the context and provided the link to more, while you wrote a whole page without ever quoting Behe.

[quote=“Eddie, post:75, topic:5596”]
In sum, astrology was eminently more testable than natural selection…
[/quote]Are you kidding? “In sum”? You cited nothing, and claim that you have summarized evolutionary biology in a paragraph?

Try this as an example of reality:

Nine matched foursomes of territorial widowbird males were captured and randomly given the following treatments. One of each set had his tail cut about six inches from the base, and the feathers removed were then glued to the corresponding feathers of another male, thus extending that bird’s tail by some ten inches. A small piece of each feather was glued back on the tail of the donor, so that the male whose tail was shortened was subjected to the same series of operations, including gluing, as the male whose tail was lengthened. A third male had his tail cut, but the feathers were then glued back so that the tail was not noticeably shortened. The fourth bird was only banded. Thus the last two birds served as experimental controls whose appearance had not been changed, but which had been subjected to capture, handling, and (in one) cutting and gluing. To test whether the manipulations had affected the behavior of the males, numbers of display flights and territorial encounters were counted for periods both before and after capture and release. No significant differences in rates of flight or encounter were found.

The mating success of the males was measured by counting the number of nests containing eggs or young in each male’s territory. Before the start of the experiment the males showed no significant differences in mating success. But after the large differences in tail length were artificially created, great differentials appeared in the number of new active nests in each territory. The males whose tails were lengthened acquired the most new mates (as indicated by new nests), outnumbering those of both of the controls and the males whose tails were shortened. The latter had the smallest number of new active nests. The females, therefore, preferred to mate with the males having the longest tails.

Or this:
Petrie, M. & Halliday, T. Behav Ecol Sociobiol (1994) 35: 213. doi:10.1007/BF00167962

Or better yet, Swamidass’s new paper.

Are any of those real studies covered by your alleged summary?

1 Like
85

@Relates

Here’s a nice paragraph on ecological influences, Roger.

I think the one thing that needs to be mentioned is that it is as a population nears extinction levels of membership size that the most dramatic shifts in population genetics can occur.

And when is a population of any thriving organisms most likely to encounter dramatic population loss? When ecological situations change frequently and dramatically … pushing the gene pool this way and that … driving “wedges” in between genetically stable tendencies … until a mutation emerges that can quickly dominate the population because there are so few members of the population to stifle the new genetic pattern!

"Ecological specialization

Over the course of the experiment, the populations have evolved to specialize on the glucose resource on which they grow. This was first described in 2000, when Cooper and Lenski demonstrated that all populations had experienced decay of unused metabolic functions after 20,000 generations, restricting the range of substances on which the bacteria could grow. Their analysis suggested that this decay was due to antagonistic pleiotropy, in which mutations that improved ability to grow on glucose had reduced or eliminated the ability to grow on others substances.[23] A later study by Leiby and Marx that used more advanced techniques showed that much of the decay Cooper and Lenski had identified were experimental artifacts, that loss of unused functions was not as extensive as first thought, and that some unused functions had improved. Moreover, they concluded that the metabolic losses were not due to antagonistic pleiotropy, but the neutral accumulation of mutations in unused portions of the genome, suggesting that adaptation to a simple environment might not necessarily lead to specialization.[24]"

86

@gbrooks9

When are you going to stop talking “down” to me as if I am ignorant of the scientific literature concerning evolution?

87

@Relates,

[ [ sigh ] ]

One: I wasn’t talking down to you.

Two: I was passing on the results of an experiment and their conclusions that touched on ecology.

Three: Your reaction to what I posted has been tainted by my past reactions to your ongoing and bellicose proceedings against establishment Academia regarding the study of Evolution in general.

Four: Generally speaking, when I actually am talking down to you, it is in response to you talking down to the giants and leaders of today’s Evolutionary Science. If you would achieve some internal amity with Academia, no doubt you would garner increased credibility for you and your views at the same time.

88

[quote=“Eddie, post:84, topic:5596”]
You responded to none of my informed discussion of natural selection.[/quote]
Eddie, it was an uninformed denialist rant. There was no discussion. You’re a culture warrior, period.

And to include ID in science, Behe had to expand the definition of science to include astrology in the present tense, which is not advanced as a scientific hypothesis.

Yet neither you nor Behe can advance a scientific ID hypothesis. So you’re implicitly saying that ID is on the other side of astrology from real science.

You really need to stop making pompous pronouncements based on your lack of understanding of science.

I stand by my summary of it.

I cited a testable hypothesis and the results of testing it, remember?

And you still haven’t listed the mechanisms that you include in your Humpty Dumpty term “neo-Darwinism.”

What??? Eddie, your ignorance is showing. Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection.

So are you claiming that things that Darwin dealt with aren’t included in your term “Darwinism”?

[quote]So even if I accepted the results of the experiment you quote, it wouldn’t follow that natural selection was any stronger a hypothesis.
[/quote]Sexual selection is natural selection. Whether you accept the results doesn’t matter.

90

@gbrooks9

[quote=“Relates, post:66, topic:5596”]In my view Evolution is the combination of genetics and ecology. Evolution as Darwin saw it took place when Variation took place and Natural Selection caused it to survive and prosper or selected it in. As I see it evolution takes place when genetic change takes place and ecology selects it in by causing it to survive and prosper.
[/quote]

Let me see if I can break this down. ‘Ecology,’ the study of the environment, may perhaps be equated to the older, more common term ‘nature.’ When you say “ecology selects it in,” you are essentially reinventing the term ‘natural selection,’ possibly, as far as I can tell, either because you feel the term ‘natural selection’ has today accumulated too much baggage and associations to clearly communicate meaning to the masses, or (based on a previous comment of yours) because you labor under the misapprehension that ‘natural selection’ exclusively means competition and denies the worth of co-operative strategies for life.

Am I wrong?

91

@benkirk @Eddie So now that you both have had you chance to point out how the other person doesn’t know how to debate and makes absolutely no sense, maybe you could both move away from the totally unproductive personal sniping and griping.

93

Just wanted to clarify your post, @Lynn_Munter…

The words you quoted are from @Relates… but you addressed your post to @gbrooks9.

For what it’s worth, I think your attempt to understand Roger’s viewpoint is worth a post or two…

94

@Lynn_Munter

No you are not wrong in the broad sense, but I would not put it that way.

I am critical about Darwin’s concept of Natural Selection, also de4fined as Survival of the Fittest, because it has never been scientifically verified. It is based on constant conflict or war between organisms which isw false and counter to the fact that all things were created through the Logos/Jesus Christ, Who was not an advocate for war.

I would not equate the ecology with Nature. It is part of Nature, but it is not Nature. Nature is not a scientific term, while ecology is. Ecology works by symbiosis, while survival of the fittest works by competition. Ecology is established science, while Darwinian survival of the fittest is not.

I really do not think that we need new terms to communicate to “the masses.” Indeed I think most people even young people understand the role of ecology in evolution. The problem is with scientists like Dawkins, Dennett, and others who are do bound to defend Darwin against all comers, that they defend the indefensible, because their goal is to defend their brand of evolution, not to improve on it.

Now if you think that organisms can pick and chose how to survive, I think that you are mistaken. If you have any non-ecological examples of Natural Selection, please share them.

95

@Relates

Biology has exhaustively verified Darwin’s natural selection for the past century plus. It is not based on constant war between organisms, however! There are many different avenues through which it works, and war is comparatively rare.

Nature can indeed be a scientific term, and that is how Darwin used it. I am unconvinced that your use of the word Ecology agrees with everyone else’s, however, and I strongly reject your distinction between symbiosis and competition as completely separate (‘competing,’ if you will) mechanisms. Organisms in symbiotic relationships can be and often are ‘fitter,’ and therefore natural selection applies to them. This was not news to Darwin.

I am glad you agree that we don’t need to invent new terms! I was mildly surprised to discover, while checking definitions on Wikipedia, that ‘ecological selection’ is actually a term that is often used to refer to “natural selection minus sexual selection.” I.e. there is no distinction as it is used between symbiotic or competitive traits.

Well, obviously if an organism chooses to join, remain with, or leave a group, that can have a large impact on their survival. But I believe your point is that deliberate choices are the exception rather than the rule in evolution. The word ‘strategy’ is often used in biology to mean ‘a method or consistent course of action’ without necessarily implying thought. Nevertheless if it causes confusion I will avoid using it in this context.

I’m unsure what you mean by non-ecological examples of natural selection. By the accepted definition above, any and all sexual selection would count.

My point, however, was that the two ‘categories’ are too overlapped for any of the definitional hairsplitting you have been promoting, so I would say the onus is on you to provide examples of ‘ecology’ which do not fall under natural selection.

96

Sorry for the confusion! I think I’ve got the hang of it now.

Thanks!

97

@Lynn_Munter, thank you for your response.

Yes, Natural Selection happens, but the real question is how? Darwin based his theory on Malthus who wrote that population change took place through continual struggle for limited resources. That is a fact,and it is also a fact that this mechanism has not been verified.

The conflict between predator and prey is the only clear example that Dawkins gives and it is wrong because predator and presy are not in competition for the same resources.

Ecology says that Natural Selection happens because some alleles are better adapted their environment then other alleles. Even if there is no population presure, God created flora and fauna to continually produce Variations. It is the ability of these Variations to adapt to their environments which determines evolutionary change.

Now part of the problem has been that I am basing my view of what is the neoDarwinian standard of Evolutionary theory on the writings of Richard Dawkins. Why? Because that is what he claims to represent. Also I really do not see anyone contradicting his claim.

If some scientists disagree with Darwin and Dawkins, they need to demonstrate how Natural Selection can be different for different species. E. O. Wilson in his recent book, The Social Conquest of the Earth" says that it is social creatures who work together and not compete against each other who are selected to flourish. I agree. Dawkins does not. Symbiotic mutuality is the basis of evolutionary change, not Darwinian conflict.

Michael Ruse wrote a book, The Gaia Hypothesis, about the conflict between Dawkins and James Lovelock/ Lynn Margulis representing ecology. He seems to think that Dawkins get the better of the argument. If one does not take the Gaia Hypothesis too literally, I don’t think so, but Dawkins does seem to have the upper hand now, which I what I am saying.

Dr. Frank Perry criticized the Darwinian neglect of ecology with his book, Darwin’s Blind Spot, in 2002. It seems to me that they have changes some of the wording to pay lip service to ecology as well they should, but not their basic way of their their basic model of how evolution actually works.

Piece meal change does not work in nature or science. We need a “Scientific Revolution” is the understanding of evolution, which is never simple or easy as Thomas S. Kuhn documented.

Until we do that we will still have a theory that really does not explain how and why life forms actually change. We will have a crippled science that creates confusion as well as some order. Science is at its weakest when it claims to have solved all the problems.

98

This is the actual existing definition of how natural selection works. Dawkins suffers from unfortunate attitude problems and I have not read his work; if you are looking for an overview of the current understanding of the matter, might I suggest the Wikipedia entry on Natural Selection? It enumerates a lot of different ways natural selection can work.

Although it may be true that symbiotic relationships could be studied or talked about more in the context of evolution, this does not amount to needing a ‘revolution’ in our understanding of natural selection. The basic model is sound, piece-meal change does work, and the theory really does explain how and why life forms actually change.

That said, I appreciate your detailed response, including the books you are forming your conclusions based on, and the thoughtful discussion!

99

Thank you for this suggestion to check out the Wiki, which I did. The first thing I noticed was there was a definite change in the article on NS from when I checked it out in 2010 In 2010 the language about ecology and the environment ware not there, and now they are.

I am glad the Wiki recognizes this reality, but it points to the fact that this is a change in evolutionary thinking which has taken place since I have been talking about it. Still Dawkins has not changed his views.

Richard Dawkins has more than an attitude problem, He has a scientific problem with his Selfish Gene, and to overlook or deny that he has a strong following in the scientific community is a serious mistake.

Also in the Wiki Article about Symbiosis I found this information.

_While historically, symbiosis has received less attention than other interactions such as predation or competition,[37] it is increasingly recognized as an important selective force behind evolution,[12][38] with many species having a long history of interdependent co-evolution.[39] In fact, the evolution of all eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) is believed under the endosymbiotic theory to have resulted from a symbiosis between various sorts of bacteria.[12][40][41] This theory is supported by certain organelles dividing independently of the cell, and the observation that some organelles seem to have their own nucleic acid.[42]_

This is the point that I made about symbiosis. Symbiosis is not just an important selective force behind Natural Selection, it is the force between Natural Selection. We know that predation mentioned as another force is actually a form of bio symbiosis. Predation benefits both the predator species and prey species.

The lion does not compete with the zebra for grass to eat. The zebras benefit from the culling of the herd. Both benefit when there is plenty of rain and grass for the zebras which means there is enough food for all without overgrazing.

Humans are also predators and because of this millions of cattle have a comfortable life. This is also symbiosis.

The basic model is changing because the old form was not correct. When the change or revolution is complete we will have a much better science which will satisfy those who objected on moral grounds and might reorient those who used survival of the fittest to justify selfish motives.

100

@Relates

How did you get into this rut that things are sooooo Black and White ?

The relationship between Predator and Pray is not a fallacious one… even if they are not in competition for the same resources. We should be able to grant to you that the Predator/Prey relationship might not be the controlling factor. But it is certainly a factor in Natural Selection.

As to how Natural Selection works… what a very odd thing to say…