Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:51:32 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>
>[continued]
>
>>>CL>Integration of symbionts to form a cell, for example--quite
>>>>impossible?
>
>>SJ>See above re "impossible". It sounds like Cliff is trying Chris' trick of
>>>trying to shift the burden of proof.
>>>
>>>And I don't know why Cliff keeps going on about "symbionts". As I
>>>have pointed out several times, even if Margulis' serial endosymbiotic
>>>theory(SET)is true (and there are a number of problems with it that I
>>>have summarised):
>
>CL>The point is that this is a mechanism that explains how a sudden increase
>>in the complexity of an organism could occur.
>
>See above on "sudden". And while eukaryotic cells are indeed am "increase
>in...complexity" over prokaryotic cells, the latter are already fantastically
>complex (see below).
>
>CL>Irreducible-complexity
>>arguments depend on the straw man of pure gradualism.
>
>"Gradualism" is not a "straw man". It is what they actually *teach* in
>schools and university Biology classes.
>
>And "Irreducible-complexity" is *precisely* the test that Darwin himself set
>as falsifying his theory:
>
>"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
>not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
>modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. --Charles Darwin,
>in The Origin of Species ... In his talk, Behe quickly reviewed the modern
>theory of evolution and then flashed onto a screen his favorite quote by
>Darwin from The Origin of Species (see p. 15), acknowledging the kind of
>evidence that would be necessary to refute the Darwinian theory of
>evolution. Behe took up the challenge of Darwin's test and asked, "What
>type of biological system could not be formed by numerous, successive,
>slight modifications? Well, for starters, a system that has a quality that I
>call irreducible complexity." (Woodward T., "Meeting Darwin's Wager,"
>Part 1 of 3, Christianity Today, Vol. 41, No. 5, April 28, 1997, p.14.
>http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html)
>
>Evolutionists who rule out "Irreducible-complexity" in principle, are
>unwittingly making Darwinism even more unfalsifiable, and showing that
>Darwinism is to them a `religion', rather than just a scientific theory.
>
>CL>If symbionts in
>>an ecosystem can suddenly become one organism, that is a leap in
>>complexity.
>
>See above.
>
>>SJ>1. it is only the merger of already *existing* cells. It does not
>explain the
>>>*origin* of those existing cells.
>
>CL>The general principle can explain how the interrelated machinery of the
>>cell came to exist.
>
>See above. One would then have to come up with a symbiotic story for
>each one of the separate components of the prokaryotic cell, like:
>
>1. the DNA-mRNA transcription system (with its 20 helper enzymes
>including RNA polymerase);
>
>2. the mRNA-protein ribosome translation system (also with 20 unique
>enzymes for each amino acid);
>
>3. the Endoplasmic Reticulum system (smooth & rough);
>
>4. the Golgi apparatus (which manufactures, packages, stores, wraps, tags
>(addresses with a `bar code') and then transports the packages to where
>they are needed;
>
>5. the mitochondria with its automated `utility company' converting fats
>into ATP, via a miniature electric rotary pump, to drive everything else;
>
>6. the chloroplasts in algae and plants which have this ingenious little solar
>collector system which reflects one photon of light into the photosynthetic
>reaction centre, which converts light energy into chemical energy;
>
>and last but not least;
>
>7. the cellular double phospholipid membrane with its own passive
>transport protein gates and active transport sodium-potassium and proton
>pumps.
>
>Cliff would then need to explain how all those mindless pre-prokaryote
>symbionts eating each other also just happened to get it so right to lay the
>foundations for all prokaryotic *and* eukaryotic life for the next 3.8 billion
>years.
>
>>SJ>And it does not explain: a) how in fulfilling
>>>its own immediate bacterial needs, it just so happened to get everything
>>>right, sufficient to build all the complex plants and animals for the next
>3.8
>>>billion years;
>
>CL>Just so happened, in the midst of an astronomical number of what could
>>be viewed as unsuccessful attempts.
>
>Cliff has no independent evidence that there were "an astronomical number
of...
>unsuccessful attempts". It is just an *assumption* based on naturalistic
>philosophy that it must be so, otherwise they couldn't have just happened
>to get it right in a small number of successful attempts.
>
>The evidence is that if they did all merge, that it was a series of unique
>events. In the case of the mitochondria, for example, the free-living
>components components, the prokaryotes exist in the trillions, yet never
>show any signs of forming new, permanent symbiotic mergers like that
>which would have had to have formed into eukaryotes.
>
>The point is that they got it *exactly* right 3.8 billion years *in advance*
>of their own immediate needs.
>
>So Cliff's "Just so happened" is *not* an explanation. It is just restating
>the problem.
>
>A far-sighted Intelligent Designer who could see 3.8 billion years into the
>future could make sure that all the right components arose and found each
>other and merged in the right order, so that down the track all subsequent
>single- and multicellular life could arise, could be expected to do this, *and
>this could eventually be demonstrated under the ID paradigm*.
>
>But a `blind watchmaker' looking only after its own immediate survival
>needs could never be expected to get this right, and I predict that this could
>never be plausibly demonstrated under the naturalistic paradigm.
>
>SJ>b) why it only happened: i) *twice* (mitochondria and chloroplasts);
>
>CL>Nobody says it only happened twice. But mitochondria and chloroplasts
>>seem to be the best and clearest examples. I am happy to attribute *all*
>>organic complexity to the genomic integration of symbionts.
>
>My point was that all these symbiotic unions would have had to be in the
>same line, i.e. in a series. That's why it is called *serial* endosymbiotic
>theory. Plants have *both* prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
>
>Cliff might be "happy" to do it by `hand-waving', but where is his detailed
>theory?
>
>For starters, where is his detailed explanation of how the Golgi apparatus
>arose as a free living prokaryote? And how did other prokaryotes survive
>without it?
>
>Or where is Cliff's detailed explain of how some prokaryotic cells survived
>without mitochondria and yet were large and powerful enough to ingest other
>cells which did have mitochondria.
>
>And how did the genome itself come from? All living components would have
>had to have had a genome, just to survive for *one* generation!
>
>SJ>and ii) in the *same* line, because all eukaryotes are
>>>thought under SET to have descended from a common ancestor
>>>having mitochondria, and plant cells have both mitochondria and
>>>chloroplasts;
>
>CL>Successful innovations accumulate, lineages diverge, I don't see
>>the problem.
>
>So in the end, Cliff is back to Darwinism and the `blind watchmaker'! But if
>that is the case, then why so we need his theory, since Darwinism can
>explain it all without Cliff's pan-symbiosis?
>
>And the problem is that Cliff's explanation is just a hand-waving tautology.
>There is no evidence, apart from their mere survival, that these symbiotic
>unions were any more "successful" than their free-living components. The
>free-living components, the prokaryotes, are the most successful organisms
>of all, being able to survive and flourish everywhere.
>
>>SJ>2. it would only explain the origin of eukaryotic *cells*. It would not
>>>explain the design *above* the cellular level that Paley was discussing.
>
>CL>The general model could apply above the cellular level. It's a little weird
>>to think that metazoan organs were once free symbionts, but why not? It's
>>logically more satisfactory than thinking these complexes evolved
>>gradually.
>
>I have no problem with this in principle. I just want to see Cliff's
>*evidence* and his *detailed*, worked out theory for *each* metazoan
>organ: 1) what evidence that it was once a free symbiont? 2) how it could
>survive without the other components? 3) what would bring these
>particular components together? 4) what would keep them together-if they
>were the most successful-why were they?; and 5) how they got it so right,
>looking only after their own bacterial needs to build a system of
>components of such fantastic sophistication that it served as the building
>blocks for all of eukaryotic life for the next 3 billion years?
>
>>>CL>How can you make logical arguments *for* microevolution while maintaining
>>>>that it is false?
>
>>SJ>I don't understand Cliff's point. I am able to follow the "logical
>arguments"
>>>that evolutionists make and yet believe that they are "false".
>
>CL>If the conclusion is false, then either the premises or the logic must be
in
>>error.
>
>Not really. A scientific theory can be logically sound, but the *evidence* is
>simply against it. Almost all failed theories were at least logically sound.
>
>>SJ>But nevertheless, Goldschmidt has been consigned to the scrap heap of
>>>"scientific history" by the Darwinists, because there is no known way that
>>>macromutations could create life's complex designs *naturalistically*:
>
>CL>Goldschmidt should be a hero to ID theorists; he recognized the
>>problem of irreducible complexity.
> Indeed. But "irreducible complexity" has been recognised even by Darwin.
>
>There is an "irreducible complexity" problem in Cliff's own pan-symbiosis
>theory. Each one of the free-living components had to be complex enough
>to survive and flourish in plentiful enough numbers so they could find each
>other and merge by chance. But if they were that successful already, why
>did they *need* to merge?
>
>An Intelligent Designer could have brought all these free living components
>together in a series of unique, or at least rare, events. That theory better
>fits
>the evidence, because there is little or no evidence of such permanent,
>integrative symbiotic mergers among the free living components today. An
>ID theory would also better explain why these unions got it so right, 3
>billion years in advance. And the ID hypothesis could be tested in detail,
>because no one would deny that human intelligent designers could recreate
>the situation in a laboratory, using intelligent input, better than a `blind
>watchmaker' theory could.
>
>>>CL>Mayr exemplifies the 'modern synthesis' in his abhorrence of real
>>>>macroevolution. But in the 21st Century, the Cambrian explosion and
>>>>its incompatibility with gradualism will come into sharp focus, and
>>>>macroevolutionary theories will abound, to the dismay of ID theorists
>>>>who find microevolution an easy target.
>
>>SJ>Disagree. Things are headed ID's way.
>
>CL>Who can say? Dark ages come and go. I certainly don't see much of a
>>future for conventional theory.
>
>Agreed. Maybe we are coming out of a "Dark Age" - the age of
>Materialism, into the new renaissance of Intelligent Design?
>
>>SJ>Why does Cliff think the majority of biologists since Darwin have always
>>>been dead against macromutational theories, despite the better fit to the
>>>fossil evidence they would give? It is because they realise that
>>>macromutations might be able to explain the odd single character, but
>>>they have no hope of explaining the origin of *whole complexes* of
>>>mutually *interacting characters*.
>
>CL>We do agree that microevolution is not the answer. Some kind of
>>macromutation is the answer for me, a designer is the answer for you.
>
>The problem is that "Some kind of macromutation" just doesn't work.
>*Only* the input of "a designer" would work.
>
>>SJ>Cliff can `handwave' about macromutations, but let him try to explain
>>>*naturalistic* `blind watchmaker' macromutations in a detailed, testable
>way,
>>>that could explain the origin of even *one* complex biological system, which
>>>must at all times, fit in with all the other existing systems, without
>>>missing a beat.
>
>CL>The funny thing about using Gould's 'handwaving' expression of objection,
>>is that it is itself its own best example of 'mere handwaving'!
>
>I don't disagree. But Gould at least highlights the problems of Darwinism,
>like Goldschmidt once did. That's why they are now vilifying him and will
>ensure that history (which they write) will judge Gould harshly, if he is
>remembered at all.
>
>CL>I have doubts about conventional kinds of testing being able to reproduce
>>rare events of a billion years ago; we can only theorize as best we can.
>>But even these long-ago events are observable in principle, and so testing
>>cannot be logically excluded.
>
>So in the end, Cliff's theory is untestable?
>
>My argument is that ID *can* test by reconstruction all these intractable
>materialist origin events, by inserting the input of an intelligent
>designer, as
>a place-holder (exactly what happens but illegitimately in materialist
>theories now), and getting each stage's output to work, as input for the
>next stage.
>
>If science is about what works, then ID *will* work!
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic
>soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic,
>constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While
>some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to
>reconstruct the evolutionary process are extremely tentative."
>(Orgel L.E., "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, Vol.
>94, 15 April 1982, p.150)
>Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 06:17:41 EDT