Open thread
by KrauzeI'm going to try something new here. This thread is for you, dear reader, to discuss anything and everything of your heart's desire. For example, how about this rodent, thought to have gone extinct 11 million years ago, but now discovered to have living descendents in Asia? Or what about this letter from biologist Paul Gross, accusing a "compromiser" of not being sufficiently dismissive of intelligent design? Or maybe this review of Gerhart's and Kirschner's new book, which claims that "the deep molecular biology of the cell actually fosters biological novelties when plants and animals need them most, not merely when random chance generates them." Or whatever else you feel like talking about.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
ID proponents, including some of the bloggers here, have seized upon some ideas put forth by Mattick, waxing hopeful, even philosophic about the implications and ID-friendliness of his ideas. In particular, some imagine that regulation by RNA is largely a eukaryotic matter, allegedly being much more predominant and encompassing in eukaryotes than prokaryotes. A recent review by Stortz, Altuvia, and Wassarman provides a more realistic view, one that contradicts the "ID-friendly" assertions bandied about in various fora. Enjoy.
The paper:
AN ABUNDANCE OF RNA REGULATORS, Gisela Storz, Shoshy Altuvia, and Karen M.Wassarman, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005. 74:199"“217
Needless to say, the RNA World is here to stay. And it is firmly rooted in prokaryotes (in fact, before) as well as eukaryotes.
Comment by Art — March 11, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Thanks for the opportunity, Krauze.
I guess I am really interested in promoting ID as a viable alternative to purely natural causation. I would like to use whatever means I have at my disposal to do so.
My motivation is mostly scientific, to advance science through fruitful endeavors and broaden our knowledge of ourselves and life.
I come here to learn.
I am closer to descent with modification thanks to Dembski and Behe than I have ever been. Still, I do not see compelling evidence though I have been reading about evolution in journals, articles, and books for a couple of decades.
I am open to the truth whatever it is.
I check this blog everyday to see what is new. I enjoy reading all of the blogs.
Cheers,
Ken
Comment by Ken Beacon — March 12, 2006 @ 12:05 am
March 12th, 2006 at 5:06 am
RNA World is a flawed hypothesis!!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Julie Thomas is God! Her prophecies are being fulfilled!
Comment by Arik Soong — March 12, 2006 @ 5:06 am
March 12th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Art,
You are attacking a straw man. It's not a question where "regulation by RNA is largely a eukaryotic matter, allegedly being much more predominant and encompassing in eukaryotes than prokaryotes." It's whether the eukaryotic cell design better exploits the full potential of the biotic RNA. Consider the Tree of Life. The genetic diversity that exists among bacteria dwarfs that of the eukaryotes. As Zimmer points out, "Animals in different phyla are separated by much less genetic distance than bacteria that are in the same phylum. If scientists were classifying life from scratch today based on genetic distance, they'd probably downgrade animal phyla to classes." Yet the morphological, behavioral, and developmental diversity among eukaryotes greatly exceeds that of bacteria. So why are there no prokaryotic mice?
I would argue that part of the reason comes from the eukaryotic cell design "“ the nucleus. By separating transcription from translation, eukaryotes have a larger window into the RNA world (it's not all-or-none). One such expression is alternative splicing (AS), where it is estimated that up to 50% of eukaryotic genes can be alternatively spliced. AS greatly facilitates the modular evolution of genes and that catalyzes the evolution of complexity. Thus it is not surprising that it plays a crucial role in development and even the formation of the brain.
Comment by MikeGene — March 12, 2006 @ 11:41 am
March 12th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Collins has a reply to Gross.
Comment by MikeGene — March 12, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Taking Schopenhauer's Advice
Comment by MikeGene — March 12, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Arik,
Apparently I appeared on the ID scene in the post-Julie-Thomas era. If I could happen upon your good will, can you enlighten me a little more of this legend named Julie Thomas?
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 12, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Salvador,
For example, check Julie Thomas at Talk.Origins.
Comment by Analyysi — March 12, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Thanks for the link! It is like having the beatific vision of Julie Thomas!
Comment by Arik Soong — March 12, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Wolf! Wolf!!
(The above could be taken several ways. One way is as a mutation of a letter in "Woof! Woof!!". Another is a bit deeper, and involves "intelligent design".)
Comment by Douglas — March 12, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Hi Douglas,
"It's a wonder to me that evolutionists seem to require the "emergence" of mammals to be tied to the extinction of dinosaurs. A far better explanation is that there was a change in global atmosphere right after a global Flood."
I'm an evolutionist, and while I'm not sold on the extinction of dinosaurs as the explanation for the success of mammals (for example, big mammals munching on dinosaurs existed before the extinctions started), I don't consider the evidence for a global Flood convincing. In this, I take the side of the crust of "respectable creationists" like Paul Nelson and Kurt Wise, who acknowledge that the case for YEC isn't all that impressive, and that the currently main attracting feature of the view is the fact that it seems to flow from a literal reading of Genesis - see, for example, Paul Nelson's essay with John Mark Reynolds in Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Zondervan, 1999).
Paul, I know you're reading this, so feel free to jump in and let me know if I'm not doing your position justice.
Comment by Krauze — March 12, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Krauze,
From what I've read, there is impressive evidence for a global Flood. For example, the very explanatory power of a water canopy which I described; also, the widespread and deep fossil record; and, polystrate (?) fossils (that is, fossils which extend through several layers of the geological column); plus, fast-frozen, fully intact creatures, particularly large creatures (such as woolly mammoths), especially those frozen in the process of eating or digesting (a global Flood, caused by a failure of a water canopy, can explain this); not to mention the Tropical climate which previously existed in the current polar regions. I am sure I am forgetting some things.
Comment by Douglas — March 12, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
One of the things I forgotten to mention here (which I mentioned there, however), is the "gigantism" often found in the fossil record (giant pteradactyls [spelling?], giant sloths, giant dragonflies, giant snails, etc.). These can be explained by a water canopy which previously existed, thereby causing increased atmospheric pressure and oxygen content of the air.
Comment by Douglas — March 12, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
March 12th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
"forgot", not "forgotten"
Comment by Douglas — March 12, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
No, Douglas. No, no, no.
Had there been a "vapor canopy," all mammals would die of rickets. UV light is required to irradiate cholesterol in our blood, creating a compound that fixes calcium in bones. No UV, no hard bones. There is no evidence of any non-UV animals, ever.
A vapor canopy would not created "flash frozen" creatures, but instead would have cooked them instantly, boiled their flesh away, and cooked the bones into glue — if they'd had bones, which they wouldn't have had had there been a vapor canopy. The heat from the falling of such a body of water would have devastated all life on Earth.
There are no physical means by which such a canopy could have been maintained in the atmosphere or outside it.
Gigantism can be explained more easily by lack of predators to wipe them out, and by other natural selection events. Hyperbaric pressure produces no trend to gigantism, either physically for any creature, or genetically. As Carl Baugh has discovered, it simply doesn't work (when will he publish?)
Comment by edarrell — March 13, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:27 pm
I am the untutored savage, I would like to put forth this thought. I seem to have a perception that materialistic nature (opposed to designed nature) simply wouldn't bother with life at all no matter what the probablities unless the chances were 1 to 1. My perception is that materialistic nature simply takes the path of least resistance, or least energy usage and the development of any form of life would, to me, seem to be the path of most resistance, or most energy usage. Is this correct or at least somewhere on or near the correct path??
Comment by carbon14atom — March 23, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
April 13th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Art,
OK, I saw a satellite's image of a hurricane. Looks ordered? Was that the point? That from a distance, the hurricane looks ordered, but when we see what it does up close — creating disorder — our perceptions of hurricanes changes? I'm guessing that's your point.
So are you saying that the hurricane inside the cell is very destructive to the cell? Or to the things inside the cell?
Comment by Bilbo — April 13, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
April 14th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Carbon14atom,
Nature does generally take the "path of least resistance" by moving towards an equilibrium state, but it's not always intuitively obvious what the equilbrium states are. Suppose you pour two liquids into a jar. Will the liquids mix evenly, or stay seperate? We can't say unless we know what the two liquids are.
Also, it's possible for a system to randomly move out of the equilibrium state. In general, the further outside of equilibrium a state is, the lower the probability that it'll be in that state at a given time.
As to probability…of course it's possible for things to happen when the odds less than 1:1. The odds of getting "heads" when you flip a coin are 2:1 against, but it happens all the time.
If the odds of life forming in a given year under proper conditions are X:1, then we'd expect life to form after about X years with proper conditions. (Of course it could form in the very first year, or not at all…the odds are against it, but it's still possible.)
Once life exists, it establishes a new equilibrium state and tends to continue to exist.
Comment by chaosengineer — April 14, 2006 @ 11:19 am
April 14th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
edarrell,
"No, Douglas. No, no, no."
I think you forgot "Bad Douglas. Bad bad bad."
"Had there been a 'vapor canopy,' all mammals would die of rickets."
The theory is of a "water canopy". I don't think it's supposed that it was vapor.
"UV light is required to irradiate cholesterol in our blood, creating a compound that fixes calcium in bones. No UV, no hard bones. There is no evidence of any non-UV animals, ever."
I don't know enough about these things to comment on them, other than to say you are obviously arguing from ignorance, since you don't know if there was some way for UV light to filter through the water canopy, or whether there might have been open spots in the canopy, or whether there might have been a different mechanism back then for creating the compound that fixes calcium in bones. (Boy, I love using evolutionists' arguments.)
"A vapor canopy would not created 'flash frozen' creatures, but instead would have cooked them instantly, boiled their flesh away, and cooked the bones into glue "” if they'd had bones, which they wouldn't have had had there been a vapor canopy. The heat from the falling of such a body of water would have devastated all life on Earth."
That doesn't sound reasonable. Suppose the canopy wasn't as high up as you imagine. Water shot into the atmosphere would have cooled, and then returned, probably at great speed, to Earth nearly frozen. I will go back and read what the theorists who theorize this have actually theorized.
"There are no physical means by which such a canopy could have been maintained in the atmosphere or outside it."
That you know of. I'm sure there are lots of things Nature practices which we yet think are unlawful.
"Gigantism can be explained more easily by lack of predators to wipe them out, and by other natural selection events."
Hardly. From what I'd read, such gigantism would, in today's environment/atmosphere, be essentially precluded. A much more direct and simple, and elegant, explanation than proposing a "just suppose" story.
"Hyperbaric pressure produces no trend to gigantism, either physically for any creature, or genetically."
That wasn't the claim. The idea is that our current environment/atmosphere wouldn't or couldn't suport the kind of gigantism which was at one time relatively wide-spread.
"As Carl Baugh has discovered, it simply doesn't work (when will he publish?)"
Say again. What did he "discover", exactly? And do you have references?
Comment by Douglas — April 14, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
April 14th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
This site needs an "edit" feature.
Comment by Douglas — April 14, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
April 14th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Questions I think an engineer might want to know, in regards to the Hurricane inside the cell:
1) Does the speed at which things happen in the cell cause serious damage to important parts of the cell?
2) Is this damage irreparable?
3) Is the speed necessary for survival of the cell, or of the organism that the cell is a part of?
4) Or do we just think things are happening in a disorganized, undesigned way, because they are happening so fast?
Some thoughts about speed:
A) We are currently spinning around the axis of the Earth at about 1,000mph.
B) We are revolving around the Sun at about 600,000mph.
C) Who knows how fast we are travelling around the Galaxy?
D) And who knows how fast we are travelling away from the Big Bang?
E) In other words, speed is relative. We may think things are happening much too quickly inside the cell. But what we perceive as hurricane speed may be normal to the cell.
Comment by Bilbo — April 14, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
April 14th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Bilbo, the hurricane is an example intended to contrast with the picture that the quote from Denton gives us, to show how alternatives to the teleological metaphor actually inform us much better than teleology.
The "speed" at which things happen in a cell, like the winds that make up the hurricane, are necessary for the organization one sees in cells. Without the much accelerated chemistry (and the attendant headlong rush into increasing entropy) in a cell, the "machines" that teleologists think they see would not exist. In this case, the organization in a cell is akin to the organization in a hurricane. In fact, the hurricane is a better metaphor than the lego, nuts and bolts, erector set model that teleologists cling to.
The hurricane, like the tornado, dispels a number of ID precepts. Thus, it is IC - remove the eye, the eyewall, the feeder bands, and it is no more. Atmospheric scientists call hurricanes heat engines - explicitly, exactly, in no uncertain terms. Therefore, by the very (and only) standard that ID proponents use to assert that things like the flagellum are machines, hurricanes are machines. Not like machines, they are machines.
Denton's view of the cell is cute, if archaic and misleading. Wrap your mind around the paradox I have outlined and you get a much better grasp (without having to learn chemical terms, or how to push around electrons, mind you) of how cells work.
Comment by Art — April 14, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
April 15th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
[First, let me correct myself. I think 60,000mph is closer to how fast we travel around the sun. I was doing the math in my head. BTW, anybody know the equation for the circumference of an elipse?]
Art writes: "The "speed" at which things happen in a cell, like the winds that make up the hurricane, are necessary for the organization one sees in cells."
Doesn't the speed at which things happen in the cell depend upon enzymes? How probable are they?
What parts does the speed of a hurricane depend upon? How probable are they?
Comment by Bilbo — April 15, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
April 15th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Hey Art,
If we play the tape in slow motion, does the behavior look more orderly and puprposeful?
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 15, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
April 15th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Bilbo asked:
1. Yes.
2. Huh?
and then:
1. All of them, I suppose.
2. Huh?
Sal asked:
No, I think it would look pretty pointless.
Comment by Art — April 15, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
How probable are the conditions necessary to produce enzymes in an abiotic environment? Okay, okay…you would want to start with RNA…alright…How probable are the conditions necessary to produce a single RNA molecule, in an abiotic environment?
How probable are the conditions necessary to produce a hurricane (or the parts of a hurricane) in a non-hurricane environment (an environment in which there are no existing hurricanes).
How many different kinds of parts are there in a hurricane? How specific do they have to be in order for a hurricane to function?
Comment by Bilbo — April 17, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
I think the better question is how probable the appearance of catalyst are.
Actually, it's probably not that good a question, because they are pretty probable under pre-biotic conditions. The better approach is to use my analogy to guide one's thoughts and research.
What are the odds that an Atlantic hurricane will form sometime in the next 100 years?
I dunno what yer getting at, Bilbo.
I expect that each hurricane is somewhat different as far as the total number of "parts". But they all need a core set of finely-meshed, "purposefully-arranged" parts. Eye, eyewall, feeder bands, …
Comment by Art — April 17, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Art: "I think the better question is how probable the appearance of catalyst are.
Actually, it's probably not that good a question, because they are pretty probable under pre-biotic conditions. The better approach is to use my analogy to guide one's thoughts and research."
I disagree. This goes back to Dr. MacNeill's boulder example. A boulder rolling down a hill and coming to rest on a the flat surface of a dirt road isn't all that improbable. A flat, two ton stone moving from a quarry a mile a way is rather improbable. We wouldn't be suspicious of design in the first case, but would be in the second.
Likewise, hurricanes aren't all that improbable. We had over 20 last year. I expect we'll have quite a few this year. And within the next 100 years, I'll bet my unpaid house that we'll have at least one. My guess is that the parts of hurricane aren't all that improbable, either, and that they adjust to the external and internal conditions rather rapidly.
Now what is the probability of the appearance of a catalyst?
Comment by Bilbo — April 18, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
April 21st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Not improbable, to be sure. But they are irreducibly complex, and they consist of a number of purposefully-arrange parts, and their constituent molecules have, in aggregate, millions of orders of magnitude more positional or configurational information than the genetic code of your typical lifeform on earth.
Pretty near unity.
That's what makes the question a distraction.
Comment by Art — April 21, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Ah! The open thread!
So Behe writes the foreward to Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. He is describing Dembski's discovery of how to determine when anything (not just biological entities) is intelligently designed: Specified Complexity. Behe is saying that this tool can be used in all sorts of disciplines: "….philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more."
Then in the next paragraph (p.11) he writes, "For a scientist such as myself, however, design theory is most exciting as a tool to probe nature."
Obviously in the quote that Kat…er…G.Arago likes to use, when Behe says, "Intelligent design theory," he is NOT referring to the implications of discovering design in biology, but to using Specified Complexity as a tool to identifying design in any discipline.
So any criticisms that Kat…er…G.Arago has made against Behe based on this quote are baseless.
Comment by Bilbo — May 15, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 7:46 am
What is this Kat stuff? Who is Kat? I have been no one other than myself here at TT's. Please attempt to back this up or drop the accusation and tag-on name-game.
What are you talking about Bilbo?
Further, "using SC as a tool to identify(ing) design in any discipline" - that's exactly the point! How can Behe claim to 'identify design' in disciplines he doesn't know anything about? He most likely doesn't even know the language in literary criticism!
Comment by g arago — May 16, 2006 @ 7:46 am
May 16th, 2006 at 8:20 am
So tell me, is Specified Complexity actually being used anywhere in ""¦.philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more," (or any other field outside the ID echo chamber for that matter), or are we merely expected to take Behe's word on it that it is useful?
My impression was that beyond a savaging of his work by critics, and the odd courtesy citation, Dembski's work has been largely ignored by the academic world.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 8:20 am