Well I hope the real world.
>You must anchor your
>theoretical models in testable ways to biology. Various points then
>need to be addressed:
>1. The idea that DNA has all the information content of an organism
>is dogma, not the fruit of research.
Actually it is known that there is some info in the proteins imparted to
the egg. My understanding from several years ago is that these proteins
act like a set of initial conditions in development. But the information
for those proteins, in turn, must be contained in the DNA ultimately or
those proteins couldn't be made.
>2. Neither experimental work nor studies of fossil lineages lead to
>the conclusion that there are "no limits" to variation.
Everyone keeps talking about limits, yet I see no experimental evidence
that there are limits over geologic time. The fossil record is a record of
living beings that look NOTHING like those alive today. This FUNDAMENTAL
fact must be addressed by antievolutionists.
>3. "Random replacement" fails to address the issue of irreducible
>complexity - the response is just to deny that IR exists.
Have you ever run the programs I have on my web page? They illustrate
that complex shapes or simple shapes can be found by random search with a
mutating system. And as I have often pointed out, the world's economy is
very complex and today would fit the definition of IR but it was not
designed by any one person.
>> But most phase spaces are like sponges, with caverns and connecting
>> passageways. ...
>> The phase space looks like a cavern system with passageways. The major
>> caverns are the stable species the passageways are the rapidly traversed
>> regions. The caverns explain the stasis of species and the narrow
passageways
>> explains the punctuated part of evolution.
>
>How do you know the passageways exist? Is this theory or experiment?
Experiment.
Mimulus lewisii (Fig. 1a) is bumblebee-pollinated and has pale pink
flowers with contrasting yellow nectar guides, a wide corolla opening with
forward-thrust petals to provide a landing platform, a small volume of high
concentration nectar, and inserted anthers and stigma. M. cardinalis (Fig.
1c) has typical hummingbird-pollinated flowers, with red petals lacking
nectar guides, a narrow tubular corolla, a large volume of nectar, and
anthers and stigma exserted to make contact with the hummingbird's
forehead. M. cardinalis is likely to be derived from a
bumblebee-pollinated ancestor such as M.lewisii. Despite the striking
difference in morphology between the two species, they are completely
interfertile when artificially mated. The F1 hybrid (Fig. 1b) is vigourous
and fertile; when self-pollinated it gives rise to F2 segregants of
astonishing diversity in floral colour and form (Fig. 1d-i). Hybrid plants
have never been reported in nature. As both species flower abundantly and
continuously for several months in the late spring and summer when
hummingbirds and bumblebees are active, it is clear that differences in
floral morphology are sufficient to ensure reproductive isolation.
Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) governing floral morphology are thus
candidate 'speciation genes.'"~H.D. Bradshaw Jr., S. M. Wilbert, K. G. Otto
and D. W. Schemske, "Genetic mapping of Floral Traits Associated with
Reproductive isolation in monkeyflowers (Mimulus)," Nature, 376 Aug. 31,
1995, p. 762
They have shown that there are only a few genes that make a major impact of
the morphology of these two species. And they are in the process of
experimentally changing from one species to the next.
"Our mapping experiments show that for each of eight-floral traits likely
to play a role in reproductive isolation there is at least one major QTL
accounting for more than 25% of the phenotypic variance. This finding
suggests that the evolution of reproductive isolation may involve genes of
large effect and therefore that speciation may occur rapidly.
"The floral syndrome associated with hummingbird pollination is found in
18 families and 39 genera in the flora of western North America, and in
many cases has evolved from bee-pollinated ancestors. One plausible
scenario for the initial steps in the evolution of hummingbird pollination
in Mimulus would include a sequence of three major mutations affecting
pollinator attraction, reward and efficieny. A mutation at the yup locus
causes carotenoid pigment deposition throught the flower, reducing
attractiveness to bumblebees by eliminating contrast between the petals and
nectar guides. A second mutation at the major 'reward' QTL leads to
greatly increased nectar volume and visitation by hummingbirds. A third
mutation at the major QTL for pistil length improves the efficiency of
pollen deposition by hummingbirds. This hypothesis for the evolution of
hummingbird pollination is testable in part by introgressing the
M.cardinalis allele at each major QTL into a M.lewisi genetic background
(singly and in combination), followed by assessment of pollinator
visitation and its fitness conseqeunces in nature."~H.D. Bradshaw Jr., S.
M. Wilbert, K. G. Otto and D. W. Schemske, "Genetic mapping of Floral
Traits Associated with Reproductive isolation in monkeyflowers (Mimulus),"
Nature, 376 Aug. 31, 1995, p. 765
In that case there is a barrier and I can
>> not go from X to Z.
>
>This is definitely asserting theory.
See above.
>
>> Now, where does the information come from for these major changes? God
>> designed them into the phase spaces!!!!! Life is not creating these major
>> innovations. Life is DISCOVERYING what God has already created! If you
start
>> a creature with our DNA you get a human because our cluster of points is
>> marked 'human' in the phase space. If you use a similar length DNA but
with
>> 1-2% changes, you can get a chimpanzee because those cluster of points
in the
>> phase space are marked 'chimpanzee'.
>
>Are you arguing that the "design" is in the environment, which
>exercises a natural selection pressure on the genome? I am happy to
>discuss this further, as there has been quite a history of people
>arguing that the design is in the mutation/variation - but most
>Christians have not found it very attractive to think that "design"
>is to be found in environmental selection pressures.
NO, not in the environment, but in the design of the functionality of
biopolymers. The list of all possible DNA's of 100 unit length can be
categorized by functionality. Lots and lots of DNA's will produce
molecules which perform the function of cytochrome c. At least 10^93
according to Yockey, but I think there are probably lots more that perform
the function at an inefficient rate. These functional DNA sequences are not
necessarily found next door to each other in the multi-dimensional
sequences space. They are scattered out like fairy dust throughout the
entire sequence. Thus one is not far from a useful function no mater where
you are (euclideanly speaking).
They tend to
>think that the environment is good for weeding out the imperfects and
>the unfit, but not for taking the design forward. How do you handle
>this point?
go play with the programs I have on my web page. Watch them run,
understand what is happening. Design is in the functionality of the
sequences; God decided what function a given sequence would have. Natural
selection is the search engine to find useful functions.
Having a selection "pressure" does not thereby generate
>the variations necessary to exploit the developing niche.
Mutation creates the variations in the sequences, not selection. Maybe I
should revise what I said above. Mutation and selection are the search
engine in sequence space. Remember what sequence space is. for a 2 unit
long protein you have a 2d space with 20 x 20 locations (400 locations
total) Each location may be able to perform multiple functions so there is
a mapping of functionality upon the sequence space. When you go to 8 unit
long molecules you have an 8 dimensional space with a much more complex and
multiply connected euclidean space upon which functionality is mapped.
If the
>theory is limited to Darwinian mechanisms, then the organism may not
>develop according to its theoretical potential.
It will if the design of functionality vs sequence space is such that
acceptable sequences form a cavern type system.
>
>> Is this a purposiveless view of nature? Does this view destroy God's
>> control? Of course, not.
>
>Agreed. But we are not talking about "purpose" but "design".
It doesn't destroy God's design either. He designed the caverns of
functionality.
>
>> God designed the phase spaces and in doing so, God was
>> essentially laying down a nearly undetectable railroad track which would
lead
>> from one animal to the next, not according to an unplanned sequence of
events
>> but according to His foreknowledge. In other words, God rigged the
roulette
>> wheel, BY DESIGN.
>
>Having an undetectable track does not guarantee that something will
>travel along it! This is where most theists have thought there needs
>to be a design input to the variations that occur - equipping the
>organism to "travel".
Yes it does, it just doesn't determine WHEN it will travel along it. Have
you seen the worms screen saver for a computer? Those worms crawl around
totally at random, yet eventually then cover every point on your screen.
You may have to wait a while but it WILL happen as assuredly as the sun
will rise tomorrow.
>
>> What experimental evidence is there of this? Lots. 3 or 4 mutations
perform
>> most of the physical transformation between two species of monkeyflower.
>> These
>> 3-4 mutations make most of the changes required to change the flower
from a
>> bumblebee designed flower to a hummingbird designed flower. See H.D.
>> Bradshaw
>> Jr., S. M. Wilbert, K. G. Otto and D. W.Schemske, "Genetic mapping of
Floral
>> Traits Associated with Reproductive isolation in monkeyflowers (Mimulus),"
>> Nature, 376 Aug. 31, 1995, p. 762-765
>
>Why is this evidence FOR the view you have advocated? Exactly the
>same data may be appealed to by advocates of "Basic Type Biology" or
>"Discontinuity systematics" or "Baraminology" - or whatever you wish
>to call those who do consider that there are unbridgeable
>discontinuities between groupings of organisms.
Define baraminology? You can't. If canids are a baramin why do they all
have different chromosome counts? Same with the genus rattus. Rats from
various parts of the world have vastly different counts of acrocentric or
metacentric[?--I dont want to look this up now] chromosome counts.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm