Evo-Devo vs. Lynn Margulis?
by Bilbo I've been reading Kirschner and Gerhart's The Plausibility of Life, which so far is a fascinating read. I'm not done, but it appears that their view is that there have been sudden appearances throughout natural history of "core processes" in living organisms, which then allow the organisms to evolve by relatively small, simple steps. But what they haven't done, so far, is explain where these core processes come from. Perhaps they will offer an explanation later in the book.
But you think they would offer at least a passing mention of Lynn Margulis's ideas of endosymbiosis and symbiogenesis. She knew about the sudden appearances of core processes, and suggested that they came about by acquiring the genomes of other organisms. This happened, according to her view, by either bacteria or protists engulfing other bacteria (endosymbiosis), or more recently, by multi-cellular organisms being infected by bacteria or viruses (symbiogenesis).
But no mention of her or her ideas at all. Even when they admit, "In one line, a descendant leading to plants engulfed a cyanobacterium and achieved photosynthesis in one step," (p.55) there's no mention of Margulis, and no tip of the hat to endosymbiosis.
Why? Is there a feud going on? Have Margulis's views been largely falsified? Has a better explanation of the origin of these core processes been offered?
And why should I want to know? What has this got to do with ID? Perhaps plenty. When he was here, I sensed (perhaps wrongly) that Mike Gene wasn't too keen on Margulis's ideas. He's working on the hypothesis that the original cells were front-loaded with the information necessary to evolve into multicellular organisms. Perhaps he thinks endosymbiosis isn't needed.
However, endosymbiosis and symbiogenesis do not contradict ID, nor front-loaded evolution. In fact, they may offer a way to understand how a designer would have proceeded. This was certainly the view of Fred Hoyle, as I noted here:
http://telicthoughts.com/fred-hoyle-and-front-loaded-evolution/
But I don't want this thread to be about whether front-loaded evolution is a good or bad idea. I would just like to find out why there seems to be a feud brewing between evo-devo and endosymbiogenesis/symbiogenesis.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The problem is that symbiogenesis _is_ front-loading. It is just front-loading a community of organisms rather than a single one.
The problem is that the evo-devo crowd wants to explain the origin of complexity on the basis of only physical laws – usually natural selection, sometimes emergence. However, if evolution proceeds by symbiogenesis, that takes the wind out of the materialist sails completely, because it says that it was all created previously, and all we have today are interesting recombinations of exisitng parts. Thus, it leaves them without a material explanation.
As a curiosity, symbiogenesis is an okay mechanism for materialists for something that happens every once in a while. But if it becomes the defining state of evolution, then evolution is no longer materialistic.
Also, just to point out, us creationists tend to be fairly big supporters of symbiogenesis for lots of large-scale evolutionary activity as well.
Comment by johnnyb — July 18, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
johhnyb:
There never has existed a material explanation for life. If the wedge document is considered secret then this is the bigger secret. There is no theory guiding us to a replicating cell. Only a theory as to what takes place once a cell exists.
Comment by Bradford — July 18, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I'm not too keen on her ideas about eukaryotes, it's kind of like 0+0 = 1
Comment by Guts — July 18, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Bradford:
(cough) bullshit. There is a "material" explanation for life. So far it's a patchwork of hypotheses, far from a complete theory, but they are positive hypotheses that are being investigated in labs. What's your testable hypothesis? The Designer dunnit?
Even without cells, there can be variation, heredity and selection. Do you think these mechanisms do not apply to pre-cellular life? If so, please explain why.
Comment by Raevmo — July 18, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
There are lots of materialist explanations for life, there is just insufficient objective empirical evidence to support them. This leaves them in the purely theoretical realm, but all of ID lives in the purely theoretical realm so you are in no position to claim that is a problem.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 18, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Raevmo:
That's nothing to brag about. It's being tested in labs. Wow. Generate a few random biomolecules and call that an explanation. Abiodunnit.
You repeating this does not make it factual. What does natural selection yield in an extracellular environment?
Comment by Bradford — July 18, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Bradford:
Yes, that's why I didn't brag about it. But you denigrate it without argument. Do you think "generate a few random biomolecules" is a fair summary of the research that is done? If so, why? Please let us hear your alternative hypotheses that can be tested in labs.
Let's face it Bradford, you have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric and dishonest distortions of the real scientific efforts to investigate the origin of life. It's pathetic.
Comment by Raevmo — July 18, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
What I offer is honesty- cells come from other cells and extracellular biomolecules do not form the biomolecular systems characteristic of cells. Abiogenesis merits no respect. Stop putting it on a pedastol.
Comment by Bradford — July 18, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bradford:
That's honesty? Summarizing research as
That's supposed to merit respect?
Give us a fair review of the scientific evidence and let's discuss that. Or alternatively, give us your hypotheses and let's discuss them.
Comment by Raevmo — July 18, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Abio is your baby not mine. AFAIK it's a frackin story.
Comment by Bradford — July 18, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Well, Bradford, if you have nothing of substance to say and refuse to answer any of my questions, then I guess we're done here. Nighty night.
Comment by Raevmo — July 18, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Cells come from other cells is the only definitively factual statement in the exchange. I'm not going to discuss evidence for your theory that you refuse to introduce yourself but if you want to then bring it on.
Comment by Bradford — July 18, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I'll repeat the last paragraph of my OP:
Thanks to everyone for not clearing this up.
Comment by Bilbo — July 19, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You wrote…
I sympathize with your frustration with the us-verses-them mentality.
I had brought up Margulis's ideas as a third choice alternative between God and randomness presumptions in previous comments but no one was interested then either. It appears too many people are focused on circling the wagons around their positions.
I believe there is validity in the charge of dogmatic Group Think among the defenders of the MET status quo. What gets me in trouble with many ID proponents is that I'm equally convinced that dogmatic Group Think prevades the ID Movement.
At any rate, I would agree that the lack of reception for Margulis' ideas is supporting evidence of resistance against what is considered dangerous ideas.
I believe Pez found a quote from Margulis where she felt she was forced to claim being a "Darwinist" under peer pressure (while pointing out she opposed neo-darwinists).
I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Hopefully this was close to what you were looking for.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Yes TP, it does help confirm my suspicions, though I'm hoping to hear from some of the biologists around here. Allen MacNeill in particular.
Comment by Bilbo — July 19, 2008 @ 2:47 pm