Open thread: Peter Singer, lampreys, and convergent evolution
by KrauzeIn case you don't know what to talk about, here's some stories to break the ice:
Robert P. George, Council of Bioethics at Princeton University: "I Was Wrong About Peter Singer" (HT: Positive Liberty). George has always defended Singer. Not his opinions, since Singer supports bestiality and the killing of infants, but his integrity in always representing his opponents accurately. See what made him change his mind.
More ancient genes: "Although lampreys and humans shared their last common ancestor some 560 million years ago, it turns out that the SoxE family of genes is involved in facial development of lampreys during neural crest development, just as SoxE is responsible for formation of the human pharynx and parts of the jaw." (HT: Red State Rabble)
"Parallel Evolution: Proteins Do It, Too": "Wings, spines, saber-like teeth - nature and the fossil record abound with examples of structures so useful they've evolved independently in a variety of animals. But scientists have debated whether examples of so-called adaptive, parallel evolution also can be found at the level of genes and proteins."
June 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Hi Daniel,
"The consilience of information from all of the fields of biology strongly support the conclusion that there is a common origin for life."
How much of a "consilience" there is depends on who you're asking. From one of the references on the "Tree of Life" site:
"You're not at all wrong though when you say those papers are premising their studies on the assumption that there is a Tree of Life, but that there is a Tree of Life is pretty much beyond doubt amongst biologists."
That eugenics was a proper science was also pretty much beyond doubt amongst biologists, just 50 years ago.
"The Berkeley, TalkOrigins and PBS sites I linked to describe the body of evidence for those assumptions."
As I said, those sites deal only with common descent of higher groups (e.g. apes and man). At the most fundamental level of the tree of life (bacteria, eukaryotes, and archaeons), things aren't so clear-cut.
Comment by Krauze — June 18, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I read "I Was Wrong About Peter Singer" with disgust and horror. The head of Bioethics at Princeton University praises this guy's intellectual honesty. The guy advocates murder!
This is the natural result of a belief in contingent evolution.
If contingent evolution were correct, then I for one would prefer to be deceived into believing that it was not so rather than become a preacher of infanticide.
Comment by bFast — June 18, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
bFast,
You may be shocked to learn that many - indeed, perhaps even (gasp!) most - evolutionary biologists do not condone infanticide. In fact, the notion that post-partum infanticide is morally acceptable seems to be restricted to a very small group of philosophers, none of whom (to my knowledge) actually perform research in evolutionary biology. Given that there is essentially zero overlap between those who best understand the theory of evolution and those who condone infanticide, perhaps you are mistaken in your belief that the latter is a "natural result" of belief in the former?
The "evolutionists are baby-killers" argument no doubt makes for great fire-and-brimstone sermons to true believers, but it fails to stand up to rational scrutiny. Don't make the mistake of extending your moral outrage over Singer's more provocative statements into intellectual domains where they find no natural home.
Comment by Mesk — June 18, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Krauze,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Philippe & Forterre article argues for the difficulty in rooting the ToL, not that there is not a root at all. Certainly there are discrepancies that make pinpointing a description of the LUCA difficult - that much I've said - and neither Philippe & Forterre nor any other similar paper I'm aware of contests this.
Eugenics was a social philosophy, based upon the view that humans could be bred. That this is possible has never been denied - what has been successfully refuted is the social accseptability of this form of "scientific racism." IOW, biologists never debunked eugenics, sociologists did, so you're reference to it is a non sequitur.
You're reference to it however was to point out that humility is an important trait for scientists - theories can be and are superceded frequently in the course of science. Most we never hear about, as they're proposed and quickly discredited. Others explain some phenomena but quickly run into roadblocks, and a select few explain a wide array of data across many fields.
For the field of biology, Evolution, as Darwin explained it, HAS been shown to be radically incomplete in a few ways, marked by changes incorporating genetics and molecular biology (the modern synthesis), the merger of evolutionary and developmental biology (evo-devo), the conception of punctuated equilibrium, and so on.
And yet the summary descriptions of "descent with modification," "survival of the fittest," and the interplay between Natural Selection and Random Mutation, have been resoundingly confirmed. Not one piece of evidence contradicts the conclusion that such mechanisms for change are at work - only "gaps," and the incompleteness of our own knowledge (and the inability for a complete explanation for every single biological feature out there).
Yes, and as I said, this is a fair point - we don't have transitional forms readily available for study prior to the Cambrian Explosion, leaving us largely speculating on the cellular evolution of early prokaryotes and eukaryotes prior to that. For that, we're left using cellular and molecular homologies, and working backwards from the homology-based patterns of nested heirarchies that remain today.
Comment by Daniel — June 18, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
More evidence in support of the zero-CSI POV (when it comes to protein function, that is).
Comment by Art — June 18, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Mesk:
Eugenics, infanticide and other forms of controlled improving of the genome is the natural result of NDE. It seems head-in-the sand to consider that one's beliefs about causation are not implemented in beliefs about every day life.
Consider the testmony of John Sanford. I found a quote from him here (item #43) where he says, "When I was an evolutionist, I also was, at heart, a eugenecist." This is a clear example of a biologist recognizing that his NDE position produced a eugenic philosophy.
Sorry I don't have statistical studies of Biologists who espouse hideous evil, but the natural result of NDE is morally repugnant never the less.
Comment by bFast — June 18, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 1:02 am
bFast-
I am a professional evolutionary biologist, and as those who know me here can attest, a Darwinian to the core. I do not approve of eugenics or infanticide, and find them to be repugnant. In fact, I do not know a single person who does espouse these ideas. And I know a lot of biologists.
Since nearly all Darwinians are not Eugenecists, perhaps you should revise your thesis.
Comment by Myrmecos — June 19, 2006 @ 1:02 am
June 19th, 2006 at 2:06 am
Oh! Poor, poor Robert George!
He is able to accept that a devil like Peter Singer can exist with him at Princeton just as long as the devil doesn't insult him! Promoting infanticide, bestiality and necrophilia may be unpleasant, but Oh!, when Singer is "intellectually dishonest" with Robert George, well that's just beyond all decency!
"… the letter concerns me." How sad for Robert George…
Well, boo-friggin-hoo Robby. Princeton hired a madman as your colleague, as sick an individual as was ever created by the Nazi or Stalinist states, who indoctrinates rich children into equating genocide with compassion, and you are upset about a letter sent to The Nation. If this is what insults you, you may not be many notches above Singer. Go back and have another lunch with him, break bread, and just patch things up over some human liver and fava beans.
Stu Harris
http://www.theidbookstore.com
Comment by Stuart Harris — June 19, 2006 @ 2:06 am
June 19th, 2006 at 3:27 am
I agree with Mesk and Myrmecos that "contingent evolution" does not logically entail support for infanticide, even though Singer attempts to clothe his argument in pro-evolution rhetoric. Yet let's try and apply this distinction to another topic, and see what happens. When asked to support their belief that ID = creationism, many ID critics will point to ID supporters writing on what they see as the theistic implications of intelligent design, on why their theism makes them more perceptive to intelligent, or in other ways conflating the two. Yet if Singer's belief in evolution is seperable from his advocacy of infanticide, why isn't Phillip Johnson's theism seperable from his belief in intelligent design? Noting that there are more Johnson's than Singer's is irrelevant, as the logic of a concept isn't decided by demographics.
So, this is what puzzles me: Since this distinction is so clear to ID critics when it comes to someone like Singer, why is it that so many seem unable to graps it when it comes to someone like Johnson?
Comment by Krauze — June 19, 2006 @ 3:27 am
June 19th, 2006 at 4:51 am
Hi Krauze,
I agree that 'Intelligent Design' as a general concept is not inherently religious. After all, you can apply the phrase 'intelligent design' to designs that have been created by human beings. It all depends on who your candidate for the designer is.
As to the question as to why Johnson's theism is inseperable from his belief in intelligent design - that is due to many statements he himself has made to that end. For example:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
And:
"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus."
So when Philip Johnson himself says that - for him - "intelligent design, which really means the reality of God" then I think it's fair to say that - for him at least - intelligent design really is inseperable from his theism.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 19, 2006 @ 4:51 am
June 19th, 2006 at 5:04 am
Hi Odd Digit,
"So when Philip Johnson himself says that - for him - "intelligent design, which really means the reality of God" then I think it's fair to say that - for him at least - intelligent design really is inseperable from his theism."
Yes, just like for Peter Singer, evolution really does support infanticide. The question is why anyone except Singer and Johnson should care about this.
Comment by Krauze — June 19, 2006 @ 5:04 am
June 19th, 2006 at 5:50 am
Hi Krauze,
I don't know much about Singer to be honest.
In Johnson's case, people care because he is deliberately attacking science by trying to force his religious viewpoints into science classes under the guise of intelligent design. People who have children often care about their kid's education and don't want their children to be force-fed religious dogma under the guise of science. Oh, and in the States it's illegal as well.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 19, 2006 @ 5:50 am
June 19th, 2006 at 10:22 am
As this is an open thread, here is a little something for MikeGene. A review of his 'IC Revisited' piece.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 19, 2006 @ 10:22 am
June 19th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Krauze said:
Huh? Did I miss something? There's a very good reason why PJ's theism is inseparable from his belief in ID - they're one and the same (have you forgotten the Wedge?).
Granted, he might be speaking of something other than YE-Creationism, but PJ and many other IDers strongly argue that Special Creation is defensible as science (again, have you forgotten Of Pandas and People?).
And if you'll recall the origin of ID's terminology (Paley in particular, but others as well), they were articulating theological philosophies, were they not?
So while ID may not strictly equate with Biblical Creationism, it does espouse Special Creation.
Regarding Infanticide and Singer though - again, like eugenics, infanticide is a failed sociological premise. Please don't conflate sociology and genetics. Thank you.
Comment by Daniel — June 19, 2006 @ 10:55 am
June 19th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Hi Daniel,
We agree that even though Singer uses evolution to argue for infanticide doesn't mean that evolution entails infanticide, right? Singer could start up an "Evolutionary Infanticide Institute" together with likeminded colleges, without making evolution entail infanticide, agree? In fact, a fundraising letter from said Evolutionary Infanticide Institute could be leaked, cited in blog posts, newspaper articles, and rulings of district courts of Pennsylvania, and it wouldn't matter one iota to what evolution entails, no?
So, what is the magical property of the entitity known as Phillip Johnson, that enables his beliefs and actions to determine what intelligent design entails?
Comment by Krauze — June 19, 2006 @ 11:37 am
June 19th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
That sounds about right. Singer is largely describing Social Darwinism, which is a perversion of evolutionary principles and leads to genocide when taken to its logical conclusion. I've always considered these programs as a human application of dog breeding, which itself leads to some strange results (some of the more exotic dog breeds are highly artificial and non-natural IMHO).
So Singer could start up an "Evolutionary Infanticide Institute," and it might work, but the social costs would be so amoral and horrendous well before any change in the human gene pool was actually produced that it would never happen.
Incidentally, the size and diversity of the global human population and the moral/sociological resistence to such an institute would probably act as barriers to any such artificial selection programs - reinforcing the equlibrium within human population genetics. On this line of thinking, it seems to me that we have so thoroughly removed selective pressures on H. sapiens that tremendous catastrophes would be required to generate noticeable changes in our gene pool. Think bottleneck: just as the first humans out of Africa numbered a 1000 or less, from which all modern humanity is descended, I imagine that only a tiny subset of the current 6billion+ humans would be the progenitors of the next stage in human evolution. Now, I'm generalizing quite a bit, but such an insitute as you describe Singer founding in theory would have to accomplish something on this scale to truly implement a successful human breeding program, and that's not feasible.
Actually, the most realistic and intriguing version of the next step of human evolution that I've heard of is in Frank Herbert's The Dune Chronicles. In those books, the cyclic changes in the human population over tens of thousands of years is a major theme.
Anyway, I digressed a bit there…
Yes, I'd agree with that statement, I think. But that's extremely hypothetical, of course - said "EII" would probably claim that evolution supported its premises, but it probably could never go far enough to actually effect the natural population genetics equilibrium of H. sapiens, and instead this EII would be fueled by either an elitist ideology or a gross misunderstanding of population genetics.
I don't know. Maybe it's his association with the Discovery Institute, which is the flagship for the ID Movement. I understand wanting to dissociate oneself with the DI, however, but the fact that the DI tends to speak for the ID Movement is an unfortunate fact.
Don't like that? Perhaps you should start a new, separate movement or group, and explicitly differentiate yourself from the DI.
Comment by Daniel — June 19, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Hi Daniel,
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Philippe & Forterre article argues for the difficulty in rooting the ToL, not that there is not a root at all."
I didn't claim that they did. I thought that you were saying that the was a consilience between the various phylogenies, and cited P&F to dispute that. But now I see that you were actually talking about a consilience of information from all of the fields of biology. So let me withdraw me citing of P&F and instead ask you to list some of that information, showing that there existed a single LUCA.
As for my mention of eugenics, I was simply making the point that "the consensus" have turned out to be wrong before, especially when dealing with topics outside of its area of expertise (i.e. morality for biologists). Considering that very few biologists actually evaluate the thesis of universal common ancestry as part of their daily work (indeed, as Sober & Steel argues, no such quantitative test has ever been performed), don't expect me to suspend my disbelief just because most biologists agree with each other on this subject.
Comment by Krauze — June 19, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Daniel:
And yet in another thread here at TT Daniel argues that the LUCA has been identified.
Daniel:
(Of course, I wasn't asking about the LUCA, nothing that difficult. But since it is supposedly the common ancestor and I was asking about common ancestors, I suppose it was in the ballpark.)
So what species was identified as the LUCA? Or did they not have species back then?
Daniel:
Man, I could swear you indicated the LUCA had been identified, and sent me to Ciccarelli as proof. But now you seem to be backtracking from that, or arguing the opposite. So did you give a direct response to my request for such an entity, or not?
Comment by Mung — June 19, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
So are these genes homologous? Are the structures, that these genes are responsible for the formation of, homologous?
Comment by Mung — June 19, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Ok, back to the molecular and cellular homology argument then: simply put, the universal genetic code (UGC) is the standard centerpiece for arguing that there was a common origin for all life known to have existed on Earth. Granted, the UGC is not quite universal, with variants in all kingdoms known to exist.
The article above cites Knight et al., which works nicely as a scientific review paper describing genetic code variants and their causes.
Sure, in many proteins across the kingdoms of life, there is substantial sequence dissimilarity, but the structural and functional homologies in the molecular machinery are astounding: Cytochrome c and the rest of the electron transport cascade in cellular respiration; the DNA transcriptional machinery; the mRNA translational machinery; DNA packaging proteins; metabolic housekeeping enzymes (e.g. the Kreb's cycle); amino acid and nucleotide synthesis pathway enzymes; and so on.
All of these common features point to a common ancestry.
That's fine. But again, Darwin's theory has been corrected and revised on a few occaisions in the past 150 years, in the details (so you're right there), but at every twist and turn, the roles of Descent With Modification, and Natural Selection have been resoundingly confirmed; not to mention the confirmation that many proteins from E. coli and S. cerevisiae have been shown to be interchangable with their mammalian counterparts, to demonstrate their functional homology and redundancy.
Comment by Daniel — June 19, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
And yet in another thread here at TT Daniel argues that the LUCA has been identified.
No, I said Ciccarelli et al. make a case for why they think the LUCA was a gram-positive thermophilic bacteria, and that while it sounds good to me, I am not 100% sure that it's correct. IOW, the jury is still out on specifically which type of bacteria the LUCA was.
Ok, you want a statement of what I actually think? Yes, I think Ciccarelli et al. are correct, and the LUCA was a gram-positive thermophilic bacteria, but I wouldn't stake my career on that conclusion just yet. I do, however, find their case well-reasoned. If you'd like, however, we can go through the paper point-by-point.
Regarding the SoxE comments, I'm not familiar with that specific developmental gene in detail. But yes, as far as I recall, that's an excellent example of homologous proteins and Evo-Devo biology.
Comment by Daniel — June 19, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
In principle, I suppose that it is possible for somebody to favor ID for non-religious reasons. But in practice, almost all ID advocates are Christians, and internal documents from Discovery Institute, the major ID advocacy organization and the one primarily responsible for popularization of the term "intelligent design" reveal it to be a religiously motivated Creationist front group. This suggests that the evidence supporting natural selection as a theory is so convincing that hardly rejects it without religious motivation. On the other hand biologists (who by an overwhelming majority favor evolution) exhibit no strong religious bias one way or another–virtually all major varieties of religious belief are well represented.
As for advocacy of infanticide, it is a rare "fringe" belief in our culture, regardless of one's views regarding evolution. Evolution, of course, as a natural process, cannot provide moral guidance; it would be like trying to take moral lessons from gravity. People base their moral views on a variety of sources, which may be religous, philosophical, utilitarian, emotional, or some combination. There is no evidence that ethical behaviour is strongly correlated with any particular religious point of view.
Comment by trrll — June 19, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
More from Mung:
Has anyone seen Special Creation, as described by ID, taking place? Researchers have indeed seen speciation taking place, and the fossil record is proving ripe with transitional forms to boot. The evidences I've already linked to are more than enough evidence for common ancestry, and I'm not overly fond of indulging your creationist tone (I suppose you question the validity of radiocarbon dating, too?).
Yes, we're extrapolating backwards from current evidence here, but what's wrong with that?
But maybe you'd like to provide an alternative explanation for the vast amount of data available to us in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular phylogenetics, etc., that is plausible and parsimonious…
Again, the rationale for the characteristics of the LUCA is in the Ciccarelli paper, as well as a number of others in the ToL reference list I provided. If you'd like the answer to how they determined those characteristics, I urge you to read the paper, and then we can go through it point-by-point - but I'm not interested in telling you what the paper says just so you can get out of actually reading it.
Yes, it would. And please cite the evidence in biology for such characteristics of a designer, to back up your speculation.
This coming from the person who refuses to acknowledge the universally common features of the molecular machinery of the cell… Ok, fine. Let's just say that all of the pre-fossilrecord descriptions of life's history is pure speculation, and that the designer implemented special creation just prior to, say, the Cambrian Explosion. Where's the evidence for that(cite evidence in biology)? What did the blueprints for life look like, and on what basis can you make such conclusions(cite evidence in biology)?
IOW, provide a better alternative explanation for the molecular and cellular homologies, across the spectrum of life, that I've been describing.
Comment by Daniel — June 19, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
[...] For an interesting conversation that I've gone and gotten myself into, check out this open thread at Telic Thoughts. (cont'd from here) [...]
Pingback by Migrations » Blog Archive » On molecular homology and common ancestry — June 19, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 4:49 am
So Mike posts a long response to me in the 'In Case You Missed It' thread… and then promptly closes it.
I've responded on my blog instead, just on the off chance that you're interested Mike.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 20, 2006 @ 4:49 am
June 20th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Daniel:
Has anyone seen the common ancestors that you claim exist?
I'm not asking for evidence of common ancestry any more than you are asking for evidence of a designer. I am asking for you to identify the common ancestors that you claim exist. Who or what was the common ancestor of chimps and humans, for example. What species? I'm asking for the same thing of you that you demand from ID, and nothing more. Isn't it about time that you put up or shut up? Demonstrate the existence of this common ancestor that you claim exists. You can't, and you should know that you can't. So your believe in such entities is purely subjective. Whatever else it may be, it's not science.
When you claim that the LUCA was a gram-positive thermophilic bacteria do you really think that demonstrates the existence of a common ancestor to all extent life?
When you actually identify a common ancestor then we can try to date it. Otherwise your comment is irrelevant.
If you're not going to point to one and say that this one was a common ancestor, then all your transitionals are irrlelvant. This is about common ancestors and demonstrating their existnce. You know, as in how you want the existence of the designer demonstrated.
What does this have to do with anything? Are you proposing that since you cannot image any alternatives, or that because no one else can come up with one that satisfies you, that this suffices to demonstrate the existence of your common ancestors?
LOL! You're deluded. Cannot carry on rational discourse with someone like this. Where's your evidence that I or anyone else here refuses to acknowledge the universally common features of the molecular machinery of the cell.
Comment by Mung — June 20, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
lol you made like a bajillion mistakes in that thread.
Comment by Guts — June 20, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
For the 15th time, the species I'm talking about is a gram-positive thermophilic bacterium.
Wha??? I put up (Ciccarelli et al.). Now, you can either address that (read it first, please), or shut up yourself.
Now you're going to argue that chimps and humans don't have a common ancestor? You're a YE-creationist, aren't you Mung?
Ooookay… you just keep believing that Mung.
Yep - it rounds out a pretty darn good case that there was a common ancestor, and then advances that case to argue that this was the common ancestor.
That's not irrelevant at all, just tangential.
Can we get a mediator in here, because I simply can't talk to Mung here and his rants… Seriously, I'm starting to think he doesn't even accept radiocarbon dating, and will start raving about how the fossil record is just an illusion resulting from Noah's flood.
That I have to physically show a common ancestor is over-doing it a bit. If it helps, fine, I'll take back the claim that you have to physically show me the designer - but you do have to present a line of evidence which demonstrates Special Creation, Divine Intervention, or Assembly of Life de novo, at the exclusion of Descent With Modification.
I'm making the case for cellular and molecular homology of all life to, and descent with modification from, a gram-positive thermophile. How do you chose to respond? (and please, cite actual features of supposed design or failures of descent with modification to explain biological change).
Comment by Daniel — June 20, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
June 21st, 2006 at 4:26 am
Guts says:
If you look at the thread again you'll see that I acknowledge my one mistake and Mike acknowledges a couple of his. And then closes the thread. I'll let people come to their own conclusions from that.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 21, 2006 @ 4:26 am
June 21st, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Daniel,
You seem more concerned about whether I am a YEC than actually dealing with the issue I am raising.
I'm not arguing any such thing. What I am saying is that no such ancestor has been demonstrated to exist, none has been identified, and that your belief that one exists is purely subjective.
So you agree that my argument is valid. Good. So now go back and revisit your original statement about ID having to demonstrate that a designer exists and tell us what ID really needs to do.
Why do you feel that design has to exclude descent with modification? Remeber, this all started out because of a claim which you made regarding what ID must demonstrate. It looks more and more like for you, ID = Creationism. For you, for ID to be valid it must put forth Creationist proofs. Why is that?
Comment by Mung — June 21, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
June 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
It depends on whether you're talking about the "strong" or "weak" forms of ID here, I think. "Strong" ID, as I view it, uses arguments for the sudden emergence of forms (i.e. Special Creation, etc.), that excludes the notion that all novel biological forms are variations on previously existing forms (Descent With Modification). "Weak" ID, however, usually preserves the view that a Designer facilitates DWM by some unknown means (What I label Divine Intervention). In fact, "Weak" ID in this sense is difficult to distinguish from theistic evolution; and in this view, no, ID does not exclude DWM.
ID accomodates both Strong and Weak ID, and permutations in between - I'm not sure which part of the Big Tent of ID you fit in.
For me, ID doesn't perfectly equate with Creationism, but it is on the slippery slope that eventually leads to Creationism. ID, even in its "Weak" form, is inherently theistic, either way.
And yes, I have a tendency to focus on and attack the common IDer claim that ID is science. I've discussed this with MikeGene among others (yes, it's a reactive basis of argumentation I'm applying), and I have little or no problem with those who have a telic or theistic worldview (as long as they differentiate it from science, again). But, in the given ID-wars as a socio-political sideshow, I tend to assume that IDers are arguing that ID = science until stated otherwise. Yes, yes - assumptions are bad, but I think it's understandable in this context.
Just to clarify then, what exactly is the point you're arguing in this discussion? Was it merely to point out that I overstated the case for demanding a demonstration of the Designer's existence, or are you trying to take it further and argue that ID has some basis to be taught alongside the rest of biology in science classrooms?
Comment by Daniel — June 21, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
June 21st, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Daniel:
I very much like your "Strong" and "Weak" ID concept. I find it to do a pretty good job of dividing the ID community into two sub-camps. I also think that at some point weak ID and theistic evolution must meet. The longer I look at this issue, the more content with the weak ID position I become.
Comment by bFast — June 21, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:07 am
bFast,
I'm not sure who originally articulated the Strong/Weak ID concept, but I most recently read on that in Jerry Coyne's contribution to Intelligent Thought. I understand the appeal of looking at ID in this way, but personally, I find it aggravating, because it makes defining ID impossible; ID becomes different for every individual - and yet, many ID proponents argue that their view is the correct, scientific and objective view.
Not to mention, all too often, IDers will consistently espouse the Strong in front of religious audiences, but fall back to the Weak form when in front of biologists, educators and the media. Dembski has done this a number of times.
The "Big Tent" of ID just ticks me off, as what ID is can constantly change to suit the debate environment; and every time I meet a new person who says he/she's an ID apologetic, I have to start from scratch finding out what sort of ID viewpoint they're arguing from.
Comment by Daniel — June 22, 2006 @ 10:07 am
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:30 am
Interesting classification choices. Why is Strong ID the version that most resembles Creationism and Weak ID the version that most resembles Darwinism? Why isn't Strong ID the version with the biggest tent or the version closest to science and Weak ID the version with the least resemblance to science?
Why does it matter? Why the need to label and stereotype? Perhaps I have an open mind about things. Is that so hard of a thing to believe about someone who finds the concept of intelligent design reasonable?
All I was doing was pointing out the requirements you wanted to place on ID advocates and compare them to something which I believed to be a similar concept in evolutionary biology and ask why we don't have the same standards for both.
At what point does your belief in a common ancestor become objective rather than subjective? What I would like to know is whether you thought my comparison was reasonable. I think from the way that you have changed your requirements that you must think so. So now I'd like to know where we go from here. It's not an argument over whether common ancestors actually existed, it's an argument over standards of evidence upon which a belief becomes objective rather than subjective. If you recall, that is where this entire discussion got started.
In any event, I've enjoyed it. I hope we both benefitted.
Comment by Mung — June 22, 2006 @ 10:30 am
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:44 am
Why is this? If ID constrained itself to designs which could eventually be traced to human intelligences would it still be inherently theistic?
Yes.
No.
I don't think there is yet a theory of biological design that could be taught as part of a biology class. Perhaps a course on intelligent causation. Although, humans are certainly biological creatures and as such I see no reason why the things they do could not be taught in a biology class. I guess it would depend upon the goals of the biology curriculum.
Comment by Mung — June 22, 2006 @ 10:44 am
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:46 am
Mung,
I'm not completely sure why "Strong" ID is more associated with Creationism than "Weak", but I think it has something to do with which version of ID makes the more extreme or drastic claims.
Who's stereotyping? When I say Big Tent, I'm not talking about a physical tent that IDers are standing in, or labeling individuals. I'm talking about a broad spectrum of viewpoints, and the Tent or umbrella that encompasses all of those viewpoints.
I'd like a clear, concise and consistent definition of ID, that's all that I mean by my objections to the Big Tent.
Comment by Daniel — June 22, 2006 @ 10:46 am
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:53 am
Huh? Are you suggesting that humans might be the Designers, prior to there being humans?
Ok, I can deal with that.
Ok, agreement!:smile:
How do you distinguish such coursework from anthropology, archaeology, or forensics, which are already taught in higher ed?
Comment by Daniel — June 22, 2006 @ 10:53 am
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Daniel:
What kind of membrane did this entity possess?
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Presumably the same sort that all of its descendants have, a lipid bilayer.
Comment by Daniel — June 22, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Hi Daniel,
"Ok, back to the molecular and cellular homology argument then: simply put, the universal genetic code (UGC) is the standard centerpiece for arguing that there was a common origin for all life known to have existed on Earth."
An ID perspective on that observation is presented here.
As for the other traits you mention, if similarity of core processes is evidence for universal common descent, does that mean that fundamental dissimilarity of core processes counts as evidence against it?
By any stretch of the word, DNA replication is a core process. Yet the machinery that carries it out in bacteria and eukaryotes is so different that some researchers have suggested that "the modern-type system for double-stranded DNA replication likely evolved independently in the bacterial and archaeal/eukaryotic lineages." (Leipe, Aravind & Koonin, 1999, "Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?", Nucleic Acids Researc 27(17):3389-401)
The presence of a boundary separating inside from outside is characteristic of all independent life, and cell membranes must also be considered a core trait. The lipids from which the membranes are constructed, however, differ widely between bacteria and eukaryotes, leading Martin and Russel to conclude that the two groups acquired their membranes independently. ("On the origins of cells", 2003, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences 358(1429):59-83)
"That's fine. But again, Darwin's theory has been corrected and revised on a few occaisions in the past 150 years, in the details (so you're right there), but at every twist and turn, the roles of Descent With Modification, and Natural Selection have been resoundingly confirmed;"
I'm not questioning "Descent with Modification". I accept common descent in Darwin's agnostic sense, from "one or a few" lifeforms. What we're discussing is universal common descent, which demands the existence of a LUCA. Nor do I question natural selection and its important role in the evolution of life. My ID interests lie with the origin of life.
"not to mention the confirmation that many proteins from E. coli and S. cerevisiae have been shown to be interchangable with their mammalian counterparts, to demonstrate their functional homology and redundancy."
Given that I accept the common ancestry of eukaryotes, I have no problem with mammal-yeast homologies. As for the mammal-E. coli interchangeability, that's just an illustration of the similarity of their genes. This similarity could also be explained by common design, as laid out in Mike's essay, linked to above.
Comment by Krauze — June 22, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Krauze:
Actually, that study shows the lipids from which the membranes are constructed differ widely between bacteria and archaebacteria, those lipids probably arose independently. Eukaryotes and eubacteria have the same kind of lipids.
Comment by Guts — June 23, 2006 @ 11:58 am
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Krauze,
I read Mike's essay and would like to ask about some things in it. The word "deleterious" appears a number of times in the essay, but never in any of the quoted text. Is this because the cited papers make no distinction between the type of mutation? How can the genetic code possibly be used to distinguish deleterious mutations from non-deleterious mutations? Do you think there would be a better way to state what it is that the code accomplishes wrt mutations than to say that it weeds out only (implied) deleterious ones?
But if the code functions to reduce mutations without regard to how they might help or harm the organism what does this say about a scenarion in which organisms are designed to evolve?
It really looks to me like organisms are designed to not evolve, unless the driving force of evolution is something other than nucleotide mutations.
Comment by Mung — June 23, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
June 24th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Hi Guts,
Thanks for the correction. It was a while since I last looked at the paper, and I should have read it again before responding to Daniel.
Comment by Krauze — June 24, 2006 @ 8:30 am
June 24th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Hi Mung,
As Paul Davies points out in The Fifth Miracle, there is a limit, where too high a mutation rate makes it impossible for organisms to replicate all their vital functions without any crippling mutations. Being right at this threshold would present the best compromise between stability and adaptability to new challenges. Where the threshold is placed for each organism depends on the length of its genome. (If you need to faithfully replicate X nucleotides for your offspring to survive, you will need, at the very least, a process that fails less than one out of X times. The longer your genome becomes, the higher fidelity you'll need.) So, we should expect to see mutation rates correlate inversely with genome length. And that is just what we see: Bacteria have shorter genomes than eukaryotes, and they also have higher mutation rates. And viruses, which have even shorter genomes, also have even higher mutation rates.
So I think the "buffering" of the genetic code against mutational effects (as well as proof-reading mechanisms) represent an attempt to have an accurate-yet-not-too-accurate replication of genetic material.
Comment by Krauze — June 24, 2006 @ 9:11 am
June 25th, 2006 at 10:48 am
My point is that the MG article isn't so broad as "mutational effects" and seems to limit the "buffereing" of the code to "deleterious" mutations alone. Is a correction in order, or does it truly let beneficial mutations pass while blocking deleterious ones? What do MG's cited sources say?
I'm pointing out that MG seems to restrict the effectiveness of the code to deleterious mutations. What is the justification for this?
Comment by Mung — June 25, 2006 @ 10:48 am
June 25th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Sorry for the long delay in my reply, I was away for the weekend…
Krauze,
MG's response to the universal genetic code is fine for just that subset of data, but completely ignores the other aspects I mentioned, as you note…
Regarding the DNA replication machinery and the cell membrane architecture, yes, there are significant differences, but none of these features are completely alien to each other. This is moot though, since you say you accept common ancestry but your concerns lie with the origin of life.
Personally, I think there's a lot of intriguing guesswork going on out there as to the origin of life, but I think the reality has something to do with the hydrothermal vents and RNA World possibilities that are in vogue these days. In particular, the hydrothermal vents raise the possibility for transition-metal catalysts and thermal cycling (like PCR) to jump-start the first organic chemical replication processes. But that's just speculation of course. The possibility of inorganic bubbles or compartments preceding lipid bilayers seems to add strength to this view, also.
You end your initial response to me (on Thursday) by saying that you only accept common ancestry of eukaryotes though, based on common features throughout these more complex cells, yet maybe you don't accept common ancestry of eukaryotes and prokaryotes, despite their common features.
But common design, you say? Given that ID doesn't specify anything about the "design," this sounds fishy - highly arbitrary and speculative: anything is possible for an omnipotent deity, but making such claims throws falsifiability right out the window.
Mung has some further insights worth looking at:
Quite true. Such is the basis for Punctuated Equilibrium - in the absense of selective pressures in a population's environment, the population's gene pool tends to maintain static gene frequencies. Sure, genetic drift may occur in some rare instances, but not to any noteworthy extent. This is the basis for the field of population genetics, of course.
Comment by Daniel — June 25, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Is this Hardy-Weinberg?
When would there ever be an absence of selective pressures? What does the environment have to do with it, is the environment the only source of selective pressure?
Other evolutionists seem to think that genetic drift is a major component of evolution. Doesn't the effect of drift depend on the population size or effective population size?
Comment by Mung — June 26, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Yes.
The HWE applies to individual non-linked genes and the stasis of their frequencies, as well as for the stasis of large arrays of genetic elements or entire gene pools. For the case of us, H. sapiens, we're in a static equilibrium, with little or no natural selection - even frequencies of hereditary diseases are stable from one generation to the next in people.
For selective pressures, yes, the environment(s) in which a species exists provides selective pressures: forms of selection can include both survival (health, predatory evasion, finding food, etc.) and reproductive success (appeal to the opposite sex, parenting skills, etc.). Selection can be stabilizing, directional, or disruptive of individual traits of an organism. More info is available here.
Yes, genetic drift (e.g. the bottleneck and founder effects) depends to a large extent on population size. The smaller the population, the less negligible genetic drift becomes. Think of it like flipping a coin 10 times versus 1000 - the fewer the times you flip the coin, the more likely the number of times it lands on "heads" will deviate greatly from 50%.
Comment by Daniel — June 26, 2006 @ 5:14 pm