The Simulation Argument meets Evolutionary Informatics
by TechneUnless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.
In evolutionary informatics, two paramaters are needed for evolutionary algorithms. Heritability and Selection.
Heritability implies the following:
1) "Parents" give rise to "offspring".
2) Traits from "parents" are passed on to "offspring".
3) Each "offspring" from a "parent" signifies a new generation.
4) Variation between generations may or may not occur.
Selection implies that certain traits that are not on a fitness landscape will not be selected.
Let's look at Autodock as an example and how it relates to evolutionary informatics.
Autodock employs a genetic evolutionary algorithm in order to try and predict the orientation of a ligand within a protein.
The ligand is the heritable structure. (A ligand is any structure that binds to a protein, e.g. a therapeutic molecule)
The protein is the fitness landscape.
The genetic evolutionary algorithm provides the variation and selection parameters.
Consider the following diagram:
Figure 1: A) Basic lay out of memetic algorithms. A population of individuals is randomly seeded with regard to fitness (initialized). The individuals are randomly mutated and their fitness is measured. Individuals with optimal fitness are further mutated until convergence of a local optima is reached. The process is carried out for the entire initialized population. The global optima is selected from the various local optima. B) Fitness landscape with local optima (A, B and D) and a global optima (C). In a memetic algorithm, the initial population of individual are randomly seeded and can be viewed as any of the arrows indicated in the figure.
A few important aspects from the figure:
1) Fitness depends on the phenotype.
2) Fitness (in the case of Autodock) is the capability of the ligand phenotype to bind and stay bound to the protein.
3) The parameters for succesful binding are many. For Autodock, the following are included:
Van der Waals interactions
Electrostatic interactions
Desolvation,
Hydrogen bond interactions
Torsional free energy
Conformational interactions
Autodock uses a Solis & Wets search algorithm to probe the fitness landscape of a particular protein (See figure below).
The surface of a protein is where the binding of the ligand will occur, thus 3-dimensionally, the fitness landscape would resemble something like this:
Rapamycin ligand bound to the mTOR protein.With autodock, a population of individuals (ligands) are randomly placed within the receptor. The conformation ligand-protein interactions are measured for each individual and is then followed by a conformational "mutation" (See image below).
Ligand "mutation".The binding energy for each conformation "mutation" is measured until a local optimum for a specific population of individuals is reached. The binding energy of the local optimum of each population is measured, and the global optimum is the population of individuals that have the best binding energy (See results below).
Docked ligand positions and binding energies
As an example, consider the following diagram:
Again, a few important aspects from the figure:
1) Fitness depends on the phenotype
2) Fitness in this case is the capability of the phenotype to reproduce (self-replicate)
3) The parameters for succesful self-replication are many. A few examples:
A) Fast replicators (e.g. bacteria)
B) Intelligent replicators (e.g. monkeys)
C) Cooperative replicators (e.g. ants)
D) A combination of the above (e.g. humans)
E) Population dynamics
F) And others…etc.
Therefore, if certain parameters are not on a fitness landscape for a certain phenotype, such as the capacity to construct a car, such a trait will not be selected in the next generation if the population of phenotypes consist of bacteria.
There are many parallels between this evolutionary algorithm and the history of our universe. These include:
1) Incorporation of randomness (with regards to fitness) as well as selection.
2) The process is biased towards a few ends just like our own evolutionary history (e.g. An End to Endless Forms: Epistasis, Phenotype Distribution Bias, and Nonuniform Evolution)
3) Convergence. Our evolutionary history is filled with examples of comvergence. E.g.:
- The spectacular convergence of abiogenesis into a universal highly optimized genetic code that governs just about all life forms on earth.
- Beautiful structural convergence on several levels. e.g. Convergent Evolution
- Molecular convergence: Carbonic anhydrases, Prestin, Others
If we are indeed living in a simulation, an evolutionary algorithm of some sort seems plausible.
Question is:
Is this conception of reality with information and algorithms being fundamental categories really compatible with the mechanistic/anti-teleological conception of the material world?
October 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Yes.
Comment by don provan — October 12, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
No.
(I'd write more, but darnit, sometimes missing the spirit of a question is fun!)
Comment by nullasalus — October 12, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
No. Physical manifestations of information and algorithms are compatible with non-teleological interpretations when they relate to physical phenomenon. They can be said to be likewise compatible with teleological conceptions but materialists can contend that physical forces or matter mindlessly mimick teleology. However, that contention must apply to explanations for consciousness. But at this juncture the mindless mimicking argument fails. We can construct computational devices effecting outcomes produced by conscious minds by implementing symbolism through physical constructs. The physical symbols then become tools by which "thinking" is modeled. The meaning of the symbolism and its functional role within a computational device is grasped by conscious minds. Meaning however is inexplicable by referencing material constructs alone. To posit that the physical mimicks teleology makes a distinction between the physical and that which is mimicked (an abstract concept). To conflate meaning with the physical symbolism of it is a category error which confuses an abstract meaning with its physical representation. Materialists cannot have it both ways. Either the physical manifestation of symbolism is conceptually assigned (an intrinsically teleological action) or it results from a mindless force of nature. The latter could in theory explain a physical alignment consistent with assigned symbolism but not the capacity to discern the meaning inherent to the symbolic alignment or reassign a different symbolic convention generating the same meaning. That capacity cannot be reduced to mindless mimicking. It requires a mindful capacity to distinguish a symbolic concept from the physical manifestion of it; an inherently teleological act.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Most people accept the reality of at least two basic phenomena – matter/energy and volition. Which is primary? Which came first? Did one create the other? Is it more reasonable to assume matter is primary, and volition “emerged” from matter? (How does “emergence” differ from “miracle“?) Or is it more reasonable to believe volition created matter? We don’t know, or perhaps can’t know, the precise nature of either. Nevertheless, everyone accepts the reality of matter/energy, even though we don’t understand it’s basic nature. Does matter consists of packets of energy? And what might be the basic nature of energy.
The existence of volition, on the other hand, is more contested. Probably because we can’t even venture a guess about its possible basic nature. Even without an understanding of volition, most of us believe in the existence of free will. I realize materialist have proposed torturously elaborate arguments that free will us an illusion and doesn‘t really exist. That is their privilege. Personally, I accept the obvious. We decide to raise our arm, and the arm goes up. Furthermore, we always have self interest reasons for raising an arm, even if it is just to confirm the ability, or to relieve some subconscious physical discomfort. Scientists have discovered that raising of an arm is initiated by the movement of single ions, and ions are accepted as part of physical reality. This would seem to suggest matter as passive and volition as the active component of creativity.
Those who deny the reality of free will regard matter/energy as primary and believe the universe came into existence by accident – for no particular reason. Those who regard volition as the primary ingredient might believe the universe created itself, rationally and purposefully. This is a form of intelligent design that has nothing to do with conventional religion. However it is much closer to the definition of ID than it is to materialism and RM&NS.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — October 13, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
One way to state it is that a stochastic process will wander into non-reapeatable states. As an illustration, consider a 1000 coins, each uniquely numbered so that you can form a string if you put them side by side sequentially (from coin 1 to coin 1000). Such a string might look like
HTTH…..H
Every flip of the 1000 coins will probably not repeat an earlier (ancestor) flip.
The issue with the evolutionary simulation above is that the SAME solution can be converged upon in certain limited scenarios like a ligand, or even say, some forms anti-biotic resistance. However, these are the exception, not the rule. Even I have written such algorithms that converge on these same solution, even though it began via different starting points:
Cordova's Algorithm is Remarkable
Yet another way to view the problem, and it was one alluded to in a pro-ID peer-reviewed article:
Another Pro-ID Paper Passes Peer Review
From the paper:
Let me amend this: "Thus, the structure of life has probability zero."
to: "Thus, the structure of life has probability zero [if it occured through measurement]"
If a computer attempts to understand itself by examining it's own code and construction, it must store this information (or at least some of it) somewhere inside of itself, as voie said: "measurement transforms physical states to symbols in memory".
But if this process modifies the state or properties of the computer, the computer has to account for this change, but in so doing, it yet again self-modifies its memory, and thus it can never succeed in measuring a stable copy of itself. It never reaches the point where it comprehends itself!
This is like a dog chasing it's tail — the computer can't comprehend itself, thus it cannot duplicate itself unless an outside entity made it possible for the computer to duplicate itself.
Or, unless the designer of life intended us to be able to do such a thing.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 14, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
If the ligand does not include hydrogen bonding groups, it will not generally be docked in regions of the protein that forms hydrogen bonds, since it will find a conformation of better energy in a hydrophobic region of the protein. Even though the search methods are stochastic, with only 6 or so torsional degrees of freedom, there will usually be a cluster of solutions with very similar conformations. Perhaps reality's freedoms are "constrained" similarly.
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
October 16th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Biased towards a few endpoints?
Comment by Techne — October 16, 2009 @ 2:33 am
October 16th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Sometimes, but not always.
Recall, Behe and the edge of evolution. The fact that evolution is biased toward things like sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, blindness in cave fish, etc., etc. is hardly evidence natural seleciton is inherently biased toward what we might consider complexity.
In the double knockout experiments by Barry Hall (which Behe rerferenced here: True Acid Test), at some point selection can't work any more at all. There has to be sufficient navigation equipment to navigate in the first place.
So the above referenced examples of convergence toward various opimum peaks is contingent on sufficient machinery existing in the first place. Only limited amounts of optimization are possible, not necessarily the discovery of irreducible complexity.
Evolutionary algorithms can find optimization points, they cannot discover irreducible complexity which is invisible to natural selection.
i.e. evolutionary algorithms can help a satelite find an optimal orientation for it's antennas (this is an optimization problem), but evolutionary algorithms can't figure out login/password combinations (this is an irreducible complexity problem) any better than random search.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 16, 2009 @ 9:03 am
October 16th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Techne:
Most likely quite a few endpoints. Evidence for it can be found at a number of levels. Perhaps at the most fundamental level are the basic forces of nature and the universe. The universe is a hospitable place for life and yet not a universe which easily yields conditions which give rise to life. If teleology is revealed by necessity or the lack thereof then what physical necessity led to this universe? What contingencies, if any, would have produced variant universes?
Comment by Bradford — October 16, 2009 @ 11:03 am
October 16th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Sal:
I would argue that irreducibly complex systems represent global optimums.
Comment by Guts — October 16, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
That is reasonable, but not all global optimums are accessible to an evolutionary algorithm, only some optimums.
That's why the double knock out mutants of Barry Hall (which Behe referenced) could no longer find the global optimum once enough machinery was knocked out.
Natural seleciton can work to find an optimum if the problem is within reach. Sufficiently IC systems are usually out of reach.
For every global optimum that can be found by NS, there are probably many more that cannot be found by NS.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 17, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Please define irreducibly complex, and tell us why nature can't create such structures? Oh, perhaps a biological example.
Comment by Zachriel — October 17, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
(Using Zach's argument) Stonehenge: tell us why nature can't create such structures? Oh, perhaps an example.
Nature can make anything Zach – including Stonehenge! All you've got to do is imagine it!
I've got another question for you Zach:
A brain cell contributes nothing in the form of energy to an organism. How did the first brain cell evolve? Think closely!
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 17, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Like with automobiles, we have strong evidence that they are manufactured by a peculiar species of ape.
Nerves help animals acquire food, which nourishes the entire organism. They also have mitochondria. I'm not sure your point. Perhaps if you were to try to form an argument instead of just handwaving.
Comment by Zachriel — October 17, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
You did not answer the question Zach. (Is it really that hard for you to focus?)
I'll repeat it for you: Stonehenge: tell us why nature can't create such structures?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 18, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Tee hee! Getting a little flustered there Zach? I ask how the first brain cell evolved and you answer with some gobbledygook about nerves and mitochondria. What's the matter, has your vaunted imagination dried up? Try to focus Zach – remember, great scientific discovery is made by thinking closely about evolutionary pathways!
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 18, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
The term "nature" is equivocal in your question. However, we do have strong evidence that an intelligent ape was involved in the construction.
Your question included an incorrect premise. You said a brain cell contributes nothing in the form of energy to an organism. In fact, nerves help animals acquire food, which nourishes the entire organism. I then suggested you try to form an argument in order to clarify your position. Instead, you continue to wave your hands.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Am I the only one to notice that Zach never answers questions?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 18, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
When a term is equivocal, that means the question should be rephrased, or the term defined. No clarification is forthcoming.
There is a natural organism, a species of ape, that is known for making lithic monuments. Consequently, nature not only can make lithic monuments, but has. To determine how a structure such as Stonehenge came to be, we test various hypotheses. As we know this organism has built other lithic monuments, we might predict that there would be evidence of such apes in the vicinity and in the time period at issue. Something worth investigating.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Zach
Here is what an answer looks like
Dear Dan,
Since I believe that man is a natural organism I believe that nature can create Stonehenge
Signed Zach
see how easy that is
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 18, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Zach:
If you were to actually answer questions like that it might bring up other questions like……..
Can something be the result of natural forces and designed at the same time?
Now that would be an interesting discussion to have.
As it is we never get there because you never answer questions
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 18, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I did answer the question "like that."
Of course humans are natural organisms. But the problem is that the term "natural" is equivocal.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
It seems to me that you have a very strange idea of what “ like that” means. I would also like to point out that your “answer” only came after my calling you out.
But I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trying to turn over a new leaf.
Your answer would seem to say that it is possible to for objects to be formed by natural forces and still be designed is this your view?
(Hint yes or no are not your enemy.)
If so would a natural explanation for an object have any bearing on whether it is designed or not?
Keep this answering thing up and we might be able to make some progress
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 18, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The question was whether or not nature can create structures such as Stonehenge? The term "nature" is equivocal. You apparently think that "humans are natural organisms" is a reasonable answer.
Consider. Down the street there is a house inhabited by supernatural beings. What does that mean?
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I guess my hope that Zach would turn over a new leaf and actually begin to answer questions asked to him was premature.
I asked two questions he gave zero answers but instead asked a question of his own.
Oh well par for the course
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 18, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Question:
Down the street there is a house inhabited by supernatural beings. What does that mean?
Answer:
Supernatural means above nature. Since I believe humans are not reducible to matter and physical law I believe that they are by definition supernatural. Therefore all houses inhabited by humans are inhabited by supernatural beings
See how easy that is
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 18, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 7:21 am
"Intelligent ape" is equivocal.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 7:21 am
October 19th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Yet, someone else—most everyone else—would expect it meant ghosts or the like. That's why it's equivocal.
I'm not sure it is equivocal as much as it is vaguely defined. We could strengthen our definition, but we could actually just drop the term "intelligent" and say we have strong evidence that an ape was involved in the construction, an ape with a long history of modifying stones for tools.
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 8:01 am
October 19th, 2009 at 8:20 am
You could strengthen your definition if you could show that humans are indeed related by descent to apes.
However it is obvious that all you can do is declare such a relationship exists.
Amazing how your "science" works…
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 8:20 am
October 19th, 2009 at 8:21 am
The way you and your ilk throw around the word supernatural it is perfectly normal to think that humans fall under that category.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 8:21 am
October 19th, 2009 at 8:28 am
According to Linnaean taxonomy (which predates Darwin's theory of Common Descent), humans are primates, along with monkeys, gorillas and chimpanzees. Most modern taxonomists place humans in Hominidae.
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 8:28 am
October 19th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Humans are promates by DEFINITION, not descent.
And being a primate does not make it an ape.
IOW once again Zachriel "responds" by not saying anything.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 8:36 am
October 19th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Linnaeus grouped humans with primates based on shared characteristics.
Correct. That's the
nested,aggregating,containment,inclusion hierarchy we've been talking about. All Hominidae are primates, but not all primates are Hominidae. Humans are classified as Hominidae, also known as the great apes.Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 9:12 am
October 19th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Humans are promates by DEFINITION, not descent.
That would be the definition- those DEFINING characteristics- the characteristics that DEFINE the taxa
Right the thing I said was based on CHARACTERISTICS and you said it was based on descent and then you agreed with me and you still think your agreement refutes my claim- strange.
Yes if one ASSUMES we are related by descent (with modification) then one would say that.
My point is there isn't any genetic data that would show us that the differences observed in that "Family" can be accounted for by natural selection and random mutations.
IOW it is based on faith.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 9:31 am
October 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Hmm.
Try to focus Zach… A brain cell is not a nerve cell. A BRAIN CELL contributes nothing in the form of energy to the organism. How and why did the first BRAIN CELL evolve?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 19, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Daniel Smith, I asked for a definition of irreducible complexity. You posted several equivocal diversions, but have repeatedly failed to answer the question.
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The specialized nerve cells in brains evolved from the advantage of better coordination of nerve cells. This is really well understood. The entire range of development from simple nerve cells through human intelligence can be seen in species alive today. You asking the question as if it cannot be answered really underscores how little you know.
Comment by don provan — October 19, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The cells most associated with the brain *are* nerve cells (though there are about an equal number of glial cells).
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
don provan,
Not one mainstream biologist knows how or even why the first nerve cell appeared.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Living organisms are biological examples of irreducible complexity.
And if you don't like IC all you have to do is show that undirected/ non-goal oriented processes can account for it.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Are they now? Is the Behe quote supposed to be the definition?
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
That’s why it does not matter.
You can believe that the entity that designed Stonehenge is entirely natural while I think it was supernatural.
Yet like all rational folks we both agree that Stonehenge is designed.
That is the cool thing about ID it does not care if one is a materialist like you or a duelist like me.
If you wish to play word games with "natural" that's fine but as you yourself have demonstrated they are only games.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 19, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Of course it matters. The question included an equivocal term, tell us why nature can't create such structures.
Of course. The evidence supports that Stonehenge was manufactured by generations of a bipedal ape known to have manufactured many other such lithic monuments.
I'm not a materialist.
I'm not playing games. I asked for clarification. I asked for a restatement. But they were not forthcoming. Then you insisted I provide an answer. Which I did. That you thought you knew what I meant when I used the same equivocal language illustrated the problem.
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I'm sure the story is well known don – though I'm equally sure the details are not.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 19, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
For a definition of "irreducibly complex", see Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Now, please define what you mean by "nature".
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 19, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Living organisms are biological examples of irreducible complexity.
Now, yesterday, last year- well ever since science was able to deduce what it takes to get a minimal living organism.
And by Dr Behe's own words show that living organisms can be accounted for by undirected/ non-goal oriented processes and ID falls.
In brief- just as he said.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Cool so you agree that having a natural explanation for an object (in this case bipedal ape did it) has nothing to do with whether a design inference can be made.
I fully expect you to point that out the next time DP brings it up.
If you don't I will.
luke 6:44
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 19, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I don't know what you are trying to say. We have evidence that Stonehenge was manufactured by bipedal apes. If we didn't have that evidence, then we just wouldn't know and we would be left to speculate.
But as I said, "natural" is a word subject to a great deal of equivocation, as is "design." I have no problem with stating that generations of bipedal ape manufactured Stonehenge. And though there was no single designer, it is reasonable to consider it an instance of design, as that term is normally construed.
Why not just point to the statement you take issue with?
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Here it is.
We already know that evolution can create IC systems, as described generations ago (Muller 1939). There are a variety of evolutionary mechanisms that can and have led to irreducible complexity, e.g. cooption, functional migration, cascading.
Nature is an equivocal term. It can mean the contrary of supernatural, or the contrary of artificial. It can even inhabit a twilight. For instance, a theist doesn't call his leg an artificial leg, unless it's a prosthetic device. It's not that hard to keep the various definitions straight, as long as you understand why there might be confusion and make some attempt.
Comment by Zachriel — October 19, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
What utter nonsense!
Muller didn't have anything to say about molecular systems.
He wrote about "interlocking complexity", but not pertaining to anything Dr Behe discusses.
It isn't about "evolutionary" mechanisms. It is about undirected, non-goal oriented processes.
You just can't seem to get that through your very dense outer layer.
So even given your strawman what have those evolutionary mechanisms been shown to do?
What experiments have been conducted that would tell us those mechanisms can account for IC?
As Dr Behe said – how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via Darwinian processes?
Evidence for Common Descent is not evidence for a mechanism- evolutionists always equivocate/ conflate the two.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
That theist wouldn't say that nature gave him/ her the leg.
So perhaps tha theist doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Comment by ID guy — October 19, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
October 20th, 2009 at 7:57 am
We're not necessarily talking about molecular systems, but irreducible complexity as defined by Behe in Darwin's Black Box. And Muller's "interlocking complexity" meets that definition, including the susceptibility to perturbation, and he predicted that such systems would naturally evolve, first in 1918.
Muller, Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors, Genetics 1918.
Comment by Zachriel — October 20, 2009 @ 7:57 am
October 20th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Except that Muller never demonstrated anything.
And he sure as heck didn't demonstrate that undirected, non-goal oriented processes led to his "interlocking complexity".
So yes if one can just say things then Dr Behe would be easily refuted.
Comment by ID guy — October 20, 2009 @ 8:17 am
October 20th, 2009 at 8:29 am
He showed how evolutionary processes can be expected to result in irreducibly complex systems. Hermann Muller went on to win the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1946. Let's face it: he scooped Behe by nearly a century.
Comment by Zachriel — October 20, 2009 @ 8:29 am
October 20th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Two problems:
1- He didn't show anything
2- "Evolutionary" processes is meaningless as the debate is about undirected, non-goal oriented processes vs. directed, goal oriented processes.
So let's face it, Muller didn't do anything to Dr Behe's argument.
Comment by ID guy — October 20, 2009 @ 8:34 am
October 20th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Mike Gene blogged about Muller's paper and its relation to Behe- I can't find it right now.
It refutes your nonsense.
Comment by ID guy — October 20, 2009 @ 8:37 am
October 20th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
ID guy:
I think I know which one you're talking about. There are many examples of evolutionary biologists doubting that IC systems even exist:
Clearly there's no consensus in the anti-ID community as to whether irreducibly complex structures were predicted to exist. It's more correct to say that the modern synthesis simply accommodates the existence of irreducible complexity. If it turns out that Massimo and David are correct, evolutionary theory wouldn't be falsified. There are reducibly complex systems, and there are irreducibly complex systems, so it's rather silly to say that a theory predicts that both will occur, unless you're talking about a very specific hypothesis with regard to a very specific system.
Comment by Guts — October 20, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
October 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Sal:
It depends on which one. I think co-option is so successful as an explanation for irreducibly complex systems because it makes use of what already exists. And what already exists contributes substantially to the system in question.
Comment by Guts — October 20, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Define "we", "know" and "evolution" as you use the terms here.
I'm sure I speak for most here in saying that "we" certainly don't "know" undirected "evolution" to be capable of any such thing.
Is this more of your storytelling or do you have actual experimental evidence to back this claim up?
That's nice, but I asked you to define what you mean by "nature" in the referenced quote.
Also, if "It's not that hard to keep the various definitions straight", why did this conversation happen?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 22, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It would be easier to restate. Decades ago, Irreducible Complexity was described and predicted as a possible consequence of evolutionary processes. The scientist was speaking within his field of expertise. (Muller 1918, 1939)
I was responding in kind to the use of the term by others. Again, it would be easier to restate. Please define irreducibly complex, and tell us why "nature" can't create such structures? The first part of the question has been answered. I'm not sure the second part of the question is well-defined, but the use of scare-quotes invites a definition for the sake of argument.
Comment by Zachriel — October 22, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
zach:
Muller was describing the entire organism, not irreducibly complex molecular machines. He expected "very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life", but we know that organisms consist of modular, robust systems, such that this would not be the case.
Comment by Guts — October 22, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 am
The definition of irreducible complexity does not mention molecules and is very general, as is the basic argument.
Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious, including those mutations that have a phenotypic effect on "irreducibly complex molecular machines."
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2009 @ 7:31 am
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:13 am
zach:
The definition of irreducible complexity has nothing to do with lethality, it has to do with the function of a discrete system. There are many good reasons to differentiate between entire organisms and machines. Also, to say that the definition of irreducible complexity "does not mention molecules" is disingenuous, the argument in Behe's book dealt only with machines at the molecular level. And for good reason, when dealing with evolution you have to focus on this level.
zach:
However, most mutations are neutral, contra "very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life". Life is modular, robust, and evolvable.
Comment by Guts — October 23, 2009 @ 9:13 am
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Uh huh. Nice story Zach – if you believe in that kinda stuff.
I asked about experimental evidence and you dodged the question.
Zach,
The word 'nature' is not in "scare quotes" in your original question. Are you changing your question now so that you don't have to define what you mean by "nature"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 23, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I restated. In any case, the mammalian middle ear is an example of gradual cooption and optimization resulting in an IC system.
That's what I said I was doing. I was referencing the use of the term by others. I have already explained that I find the term ambiguous.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
So explain How and Why (to the best of your ability) the middle ear evolved.
Please back it up with the experimental evidence lacking from your "we know" assertion.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 23, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
The how and why.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
October 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Zachriel,
There isn't any "how" in your first link.
IOW there isn't any genetics that link the changes to any mutations.
Do we even fully understand the development of mammalian ears?- as in what genes and regulatory networks DETERMINE what type of ears will develop?
So if "the best of your ability" is to link to wikipedia it is obvious that you don't have any ability at all.
Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2009 @ 10:00 am
October 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
It's via incremental, selectable variations.
Genetics is the branch of biology that deals with the heredity. Evolution is all about heredity. No, we don't have molecular data on the transition, but that isn't necessary to demonstrate that mammals are hereditary descendents of more primitive organisms, or that the mammalian middle ear evolved via cooption and functional migration from reptilian jaw bones.
Comment by Zachriel — October 25, 2009 @ 10:19 am
October 25th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Variations to what, exactly?
IOW we need to be able to test the premise- what would we vary?
That is part of genetics.
Except you don't even know if such transitions are possible via mutations.
IOW there isn't any way to test the premise that the mammalian ear "evolved" from a reptilian ear.
All you can do is assume it happened.
Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2009 @ 10:41 am
October 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
From your "how" link:
Does this give you pause at all Zach? Independent evolution of similar hearing configurations occurring three to six times? Does that seem odd to you? (it should!)
From your "why" link:
By chance huh? How can one possibly know that?
All of this evidence is consistent with front-loaded evolution. Independent evolution and preadaptation are expected when evolution is a directed process.
There's nothing here that supports undirected evolutionary mechanisms. Nothing.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 25, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
October 25th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Not at all. The ear drum is a straightforward solution to improved auditory sensation.
You asked a specific question, experimental evidence of an evolutionary mechanism that has led to irreducible complexity. The example was the mammaliam middle ear, specifically the ossicles. You then asked how and why. The former answer is the specific intermediate steps of the process. The latter answer is adaptation, the process by which organisms become better suited for their environment though variation and selection.
Most adaptations are not preadaptations. I would be happy to discuss this area once you acknowledge the case at issue.
Everything is consistent with front-loaded evolution—as long as you don't have to support the claim. Indeed, everything that doesn't go extinct is a preadaptation!
Sure there is. We have an incremental, selectable pathway leading to an irreducible structure. This is precisely what is predicted by evolutionary theory. Front-loaded evolution is not specific enough to yield a distinguishing prediction, but if it predicts selection as the engine of adaptation, then it is vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — October 25, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
October 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Existing organisms and structures.
We don't have to vary the organic structure of long-extinct organisms to be able to make any claims about their evolutionary history. We have other forms of evidence; embryonic, fossil and molecular.
Genetics: The scientific study of heredity.
We know there is sufficient natural variation in organisms to account for evolutionary history. Indeed, measured rates of evolution are much, much faster than the historical rate.
The Theory of Common Descent is well-established.
Comment by Zachriel — October 25, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
October 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Variations to what, exactly?
So you don't know.
You should just say that you don't know.
You can make all the claims you want.
But without any way of testing those claims it ain't science.
Genetics is also about variation Zach.
Except you don't even know if such transitions are possible via mutations.
So you don't know if such transitions are possible via mutations.
Just say so.
IOW there isn't any way to test the premise that the mammalian ear "evolved" from a reptilian ear.
The assumption of universal common descent is not- unless of course bald assertions can establish something.
Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
October 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
correction to my post:
Genetics is the study of genes (genomes), heredity and variation.
Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
October 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
No one has any such thing.
No one knows if mutation and selection is sufficient for the change.
There isn't any way to test the premise that a reptilian ear/ jaw can "evolve" into a mammalian ear/ jaw.
Therefore there isn't any way to test any particular mechanism of evolution for such a thing.
Perhaps you should teach your theory of evolution in a history class- that is made-up history…
Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
October 26th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I love this foolproof reasoning! If it works – obviously it's the product of evolution because it would be selected. If it doesn't work, it's a leftover that was once useful but now is not. It explains everything and is unfalsifiable. How can one argue with that?
"Experimental"? Show me where mammalian ossicles have been evolved from reptilian jawbones via experiment.
All you're doing is telling a story Zach! The sad thing is, you don't even seem to realize it.
How can you possibly know what is and isn't a preadaptation? Are you privy to the genetic changes going on in 'most' organisms?
Except that front-loaded evolution predicts preadaptation.
Except that whole random wrt fitness thing. Auditory systems evolved independently several times by random wrt fitness variation? Where is your experimental evidence to back up such a claim?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 26, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
October 26th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I've pointed you to the evidence, but you don't even bother to look. You sweep your hands in broad generalities and think you're making a scientific argument.
Start with the basics. Do you understand the Theory of Common Descent? Do you have objections to the basic outlines of the theory?
Comment by Zachriel — October 26, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Is that the theory that says I am related to my mother and father?
It must have taken years to write that "theory".
Or are you talking about universal common descent (UCD)?
There is a difference between common descent and universal common descent.
If you mean UCD then you should say UCD. Otherwise you are being deceptive.
BTW there isn't any evidence that such a transition is possible- that is from reptilian ear to mammalian ear.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 7:20 am
October 27th, 2009 at 7:43 am
No. That's an observation and the application of the definition of heredity, not a theory.
The modern Theory of Common Descent, in particular, that mammals and modern reptiles descended from a common ancestral population.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 7:43 am
October 27th, 2009 at 7:57 am
That sounds like UCD.
And too bad there isn't any genetic evidence that would tell us that the transitions needed for that are even possible.
So what is the "theory"?
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 7:57 am
October 27th, 2009 at 8:00 am
It's only universal if it includes all taxa. There is some question concerning the root of the phylogenetic tree. The Theory of Common Descent states that extant life shares ancestry with one or a few original populations, but allows for horizontal mechanisms (e.g. endogenous retroviruses).
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 8:00 am
October 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am
(By the way, nearly all researchers accept Universal Common Descent, though many make the proviso that the original ancestor was a common population exhibiting pervasive horizontal genetic transfer.)
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 8:19 am
October 27th, 2009 at 8:28 am
BTW not one researcher can support the claim of UCD.
IOW it doesn't matter what anyone "accepts".
Why do they accept it?
There still isn't any genetic evidence (for the transitions) that supports the claims of UCD.
So how can it be tested?
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 8:28 am
October 27th, 2009 at 9:10 am
They accept it because the scientific evidence supports Common Descent. In this case, we're only concerned about the common descent of mammals and reptiles. Do you reject this?
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 9:10 am
October 27th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The same evidence supports common design.
No I don't reject that we are talking about the common descent of mammals and reptiles.
I reject that there is science behind the claim.
And I have noticed that you have yet to provide the genetic data that confirms the transitions are possible.
And as you said it is a historical thing so perhaps history teachers would embrace the idea.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 9:50 am
October 27th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Do you also reject an old Earth? Geological succession?
Common Descent is an essential component of the Theory of Evolution. A living world that evolved over millions of years from common ancestors is empirically much different than one that is not. Does anyone in the ID Community want to help ID guy with this?
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 10:22 am
October 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am
How about you starting with the basics Zach? I asked specifically for EXPERIMENTAL evidence of mammalian ear evolution from reptilian jaw bones.
I'm making the argument that a "series of selectable steps" says nothing whatsoever about HOW those variations occurred. That type of thing must be discovered through experiment.
Ever read Schindewolf Zach? He accepted common descent but posited a completely different mechanism than Darwin's random variation. How can you differentiate between the two when you're not even aware of one of them?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 27, 2009 @ 11:58 am
October 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I reject that there is science behind the claim {of the common descent of mammals and reptiles}.
Does the age of the Earth depend on how it came to be?
If you say so. However that does not mean there is any genetic evidence for the transitions.
How is it different and how does that provide the genetic evidence I am looking for?
Help me with the fact you cannot support your claims?
That is pretty funny…
And I have noticed that you STILL have yet to provide the genetic data that confirms the transitions are possible.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Daniel,
For that "experiment" you need to build a time machine and get to the time and place that "evolution" happened.
Or you could just use your imagination as that is what passes for scientific data in the evolution camp.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The hypothesis is entailed with Common Descent. There are a variety of laboratory and natural experiments to test the hypothesis concerning the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, but the hypothesis itself depends on Common Descent. So we have to start there.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The age of the Earth can be determined by a variety of means. I take it you do reject an old Earth and the geological succession.
Do you mean molecular genetics? Because there is ample evidence of common hereditary origins. Molecular data is mostly geologically recent.
Historical claims are subject to scientific testing, just like other claims. For instance, Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. We don't need a time machine to test this hypothesis, including specific predictions about the content of various geological strata.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Does the age of the Earth depend on how it came to be?
That doesn't answer my question.
You would seeing that you can't/ won't answer a simple question.
What is the molecular genetic data that supports the transitions?
So you have to start with the assumption for Common Descent before you will accept evidence for it?
That is bass akwards.
There isn't any experiment- in the lab nor nature- that supports the transition of the reptilian ear to a mammalian ear.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
And I have noticed that you STILL have yet to provide the genetic data that confirms the transitions are possible.
So what Zachriel is saying is just because he is gullible enough to accept the flimsy circumstantial evidence that depends upon the assumption of Common Descent, we all should also accept such evidence and get on with our lives.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
That's funny. You answered my question with a question. If there was some ambiguity in my question, then asking for clarification makes sense, but that's not the case.
The age of the Earth is the age of the Earth. The means we determine its age may or may not depend on how it was formed. You reject Common Descent. Do you also reject an old Earth? Geological succession?
The
nested,aggregating,containment,inclusion hierarchy of the molecular data, experimentation with embryonic development, as well as fossil evidence.No, but the particular hypothesis and its supporting evidence are entailed in the Theory of Common Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
My question is directly related to your question.
And I would say before we get to your questions mine needs to be addressed first.
Because if it matters how something came about- and that reflects on its age- then it is clear we need to address it first.
I would say the how directly correlates to the when.
I reject the claim that there is scientific evidence that supports the alleged transitions.
Common descent doesn't predict a nested hierarchy.
The fossil evidence doesn't support CD and neither does embryonic devo.
You have been swindled.
What hypothesis?
And is it based on non-goal oriented processes?
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Let's say for the sake of argument that I accept common descent of mammals and reptiles.
Now that we're over that hump, how about the experimental evidence that shows how the mammalian ear evolved via undirected evolutionary mechanisms?
BTW Zach, if you keep snipping the parts of my posts that (I think) are most troubling to your worldview, I'm going to get the impression that your world is a very tenuous one!
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 27, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
We can show experimentally that two bones that make up part of the lower jaw in reptilian fetuses (quadrate and articular) form two bones of the mammalian middle ear (incus and malleus). Knowing that mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor, this is evidence that the bones were coopted for auditory sensation.
Extant life only represents the end-points of this process, so this doesn't tell us how such a transition occurred. And it does seem rather peculiar that the evolutionary result of reptilian jaw bones would be tiny, highly-sensitive, irreducibly complex, mammalian ossicles. Indeed, it seems difficult on first glance to imagine what the transitional organisms might have looked like.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
If they are altered just so and moved just so.
IOW the bones of the mammalian ear do not resemble the bones of a reptilian jaw- not in size, shape nor location.
And if you start messing with bones there are the muscles that control them to consider.
So, all we need to do is start altering reptilian embryos to see if we can achieve any of those "just-so" scenarios.
Until then this historical "theory" belongs in a history class.
Thank you for making that that very clear Zachriel.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
October 27th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Oh! So close! Try looking at mammalian embryonic development instead. During development, the ossicles are attached to the mandible by Meckel's cartilage. Reabsorption of Meckel’s cartilage disconnects the ossicles from the mandible freeing them to migrate to the middle ear.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
October 28th, 2009 at 7:07 am
So, all we need to do is start altering reptilian embryos to see if we can achieve any of those "just-so" scenarios.
So close that it is exactly what has to be done to test the premise.
Why? Embryonic development does not equal evolution.
We are talking about evolution.
You would have something if devo = evolution, but it does not.
Therefore you don't have anything.
You still don't have any idea whether or not changes to the organism's genome is what caused the devolpment to change.
So how can we test your claim that mutations plus selection led to the changes of those bones' size, shape and location?
Comment by ID guy — October 28, 2009 @ 7:07 am
October 28th, 2009 at 7:39 am
The truly amazing thing is that ear bones didn't just evolve from jaw bones—they're still jaw bones during embryonic development!
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2009 @ 7:39 am
October 28th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Still no evidence for their evolution.
And people who think embryonic devo = evolution there isn't any hope to understand the evidence at all.
Comment by ID guy — October 28, 2009 @ 7:57 am
October 28th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Of course there is. The evidence begins with common descent from their common ancestor. There's no point waving your hands about ossicles without that foundation.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2009 @ 8:15 am
October 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
So tell me what's been imagined, after several prolonged glances, (IOW looking closely). Then show me the hypothetical pathway and how it has been tested experimentally.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 28, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
October 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Zachriel,
What gene, genes and/or DNA sequences were mutated to bring about the change?
What is the evidence that changes to a reptilian genome can cause the changes in the two bones?
That is what I am looking for- the evidence that shows such a transition is possible.
You don't seem to be able to provide any.
You seem to think that just because youy are so gullible that you accept flimsy circumstantial evidence that everyonme should also accept it.
Comment by ID guy — October 28, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
October 28th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
To review, we have experiments with embryos that two bones that make up part of the lower jaw in reptilian fetuses form two bones of the mammalian middle ear. Indeed, ossicles *are* modified jaw bones!
You have tentatively accepted Common Descent (which is supported by a wide variety of evidence). From Common Descent, we can predict that there were selectable, intermediate steps in the development of the mammalian middle ear, in this case, viable organisms with increasingly sensitive hearing.
You demand "experimental" evidence (implying you don't have a very good grasp of the scientific method). But we have something much better. We have the actual fossil organisms showing the evolutionary changes from jaw bones to middle ear, including morganucodon, hadrocodium, and the recently discovered maotherium and yanoconodon.
This data not only confirms a prediction from Common Descent, but shows that an "irreducible" structure can evolve through a very straightforward process of cooption, functional migration and optimization.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
October 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Zach,
I don't know if you're misunderstanding my position on purpose or if you're just so used to arguing a certain way that you haven't even noticed it.
I'm not disputing that mammalian ears evolved from reptilian jawbones. I'm asking you what the evolutionary mechanism was and how you know that.
I've mentioned the evolutionary theory of Otto Schindewolf (possibly Germany's greatest paleontologist) several times in several threads and you always snip that out and then act as if I'm making a typical creationist argument.
I'm not. Pay attention!
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 28, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
October 28th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
The mechanism is gradual, selectable steps, that is, natural variations and natural selection. More particularly, if you read the article cited above on Therian Mammals, they point to developmental heterochrony and gene patterning. Small changes in the timing of developmental processes can effect significant changes in function.
There are too many well-known evolutionary transitions to make the hopeful monster theory viable. Some changes can be relatively rapid, but the evidence strongly argues against sudden changes forming novel complex interlocking structures, including as we've seen for the mammalian middle ear. (On the molecular level, there's more flexibility due to the nature of those structures. For instance, random proteins can sometimes have biological function.) This does not exclude some large changes. Entire genomes can be duplicated.
Biological networks often resemble scale-free networks. Scale-free networks exhibit highly complex interactions on many levels. Major nodes exhibit irreducibility, and tend to be remain highly stable over time. New attachments work around well-established patterns, reinforcing modularity at larger scales. And it also helps explain the pattern of change itself, with lots of small changes, a few big changes, and rare revolutions that occur at surprising times.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
October 28th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Off-topicFirst you ask that you be shown the strawman "where mammalian ossicles have been evolved from reptilian jawbones via experiment." When I point out that the evidence depends on Common Descent, you insist that you want experiments with ossicles. You repeatedly highlight "experimental" as if natural experiments or other hypothetical predictions are irrelevant. You ignore ID guy's constant misunderstandings of Common Descent. On another thread you lend support to Front Loading which depends on Common Descent. And you continuously harp on Schindewolf whose theory is also dependent on Common Descent. Finally, you say for the sake of argument that you accept common descent of mammals and reptiles, implying you don't really accept it. (Nevertheless, it is quite acceptable to do so. If it leads to a contradiction, then anything argued based on the assumption would then be unfounded. In this case, it can be separately supported. Notice that it did allow the discussion to advance.)
We're up to you saying you're "not disputing that mammalian ears evolved from reptilian jawbones."
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
October 29th, 2009 at 6:44 am
But that is a lie.
We have no idea if such a transition is possible.
You don't even know what gets modified to bring about such a transition.
Comment by ID guy — October 29, 2009 @ 6:44 am
October 29th, 2009 at 8:17 am
The embryonic relationship was discovered in 1837 by Karl Reichert. The evolutionary hypothesis based on this relationship dates to Ernst Gaupp in 1910. The first intermediate fossils didn't turn up until the 1950's, while more and more details of the transition have been revealed by more recent findings.
Mutations in mice show that small genetic changes can affect the separation of the middle ear from the mandible by modifying the developmental timing of Meckel's cartilage, a process called paedomorphosis.
Comment by Zachriel — October 29, 2009 @ 8:17 am
October 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am
This shows a complete lack of understanding of Schindewolf's theory.
I suggest you read his "Basic Questions in Paleontology" before engaging in strawman arguments against it.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 29, 2009 @ 10:04 am
October 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am
zach:
No, that's the traditional approach. More recently, investigators have considered changes in the relative positioning of a developmental event – see for example Shigeru Kuratani's Science paper dealing with lamprey jaw development. Evolution occurs also ( and perhaps does so mostly) through changes in the capacity to elaborate a developmental event. As for the ear region, it is likely that all three mechanisms (which actually overlap) have been involved in evolutionary changes in this region.
Comment by Guts — October 29, 2009 @ 10:35 am
October 30th, 2009 at 8:33 am
No one can make you clarify your views or defend them. It's enough to point out that you won't.
Just because Typostrophe Theory has vague similarities to modern theories doesn't mean it has any scientific basis. Here's a recent test of the basis of Schindewolf's theory:
Korn, Typostrophism in Palaeozoic Ammonoids?, Paläontologische Zeitschrift 2003.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2009 @ 8:33 am
October 30th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Zachriel,
You don't even klnow whether or not the transition is possible- that is from reptilian jaw to mammalian ear.
You don't have any ckue as to what gene, genes, regulatory networks are responsible for the reptilian jaw nor the mammalian ear.
All you have is speculation that is based solely on the assumption that reptiles and mammals shared a common ancestor.
Comment by ID guy — October 30, 2009 @ 8:44 am
October 30th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Nice projection…
Comment by ID guy — October 30, 2009 @ 8:45 am
October 30th, 2009 at 9:24 am
We not only know it's possible, we have the fossil evidence showing that it did, in fact, happen. The fossils not only confirm a prediction from embryonic observations and Common Descent (Gaupp, 1910), but shows that an "irreducible" structure can evolve through a very straightforward process of cooption, functional migration and optimization.
Behe has in mind a model where all the parts of an irreducible structure are snapped into place. But we can see that it doesn't have to happen this way. Rather, the parts can morph into a configuration such that they are coopted and then increasingly specialized and dependent for the function.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2009 @ 9:24 am
October 30th, 2009 at 11:55 am
zach:
You've been corrected on this before, since you are repeating it here without addressing the corrections I can only conclude that you are being deceptive. Behe allowed for the possibility of "circuitous routes" way back in his 1996 book:
Furthermore, you keep harping on examples on the macroscopic level. You've been corrected before on this point as well. Behe focused on protein machines at the molecular level. Any proposed evolution of molecular machines involves protein changes. Ear-bone evolution involves developmental regulatory changes. Any change in the place or time of development of a structure is regulatory in nature. Changes in proteins are less likely to underlie such changes because most regulatory proteins are constrained due to their pleiotropic roles in the development of different structures.
Comment by Guts — October 30, 2009 @ 11:55 am
October 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Did you actually read this paper Zach? Or did you just read the abstract and think "that's good enough"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 30, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
October 31st, 2009 at 10:46 am
You don't even klnow whether or not the transition is possible- that is from reptilian jaw to mammalian ear.
The fossil evidence relies on the assumption it did happen.
There still isn't any genetic data which links to the transitions.
IOW you still cannot test the claim.
Comment by ID guy — October 31, 2009 @ 10:46 am