Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>>SJ>"Gradualism" is not a "straw man". It is what they actually *teach* in
>>>schools and university Biology classes.
>
>CL>They've taught plenty of wrong things over the years.
>
>That it is "wrong" is not the point. The point is that "Gradualism" is *not*
>a "straw man", if that is in fact what is being "taught"!
The context is lost, but I don't see why the fact that gradualism is being
taught somewhere makes it less of a straw man within your arguments.
>CL>Behe is right, the gradualism part of Darwin's theory does break down,
>>it does not satisfactorily explain the evolution of certain complexes in
>>nature.
>
>Again, I give full credit to Cliff for acknowledging it. So how does Cliff's
>symbiosis theory explain the origin of the blood-clotting cascade, which has
>many components which have to be in place for any of it to work at all, and
>indeed part of the system would be worse than none of it:
These are general ideas, not specific solutions. The general idea is that
complexes can form as ecosystems and later coalesce into organisms.
>"Blood clotting has to work within very narrow restrictions.
>...
Yes, everything has to be exactly right, just as my legs have to be long
enough to reach the ground; no more, no less. Coincidence?
I don't feel embarrassed at all in having no play-by-play report of the
evolution of clotting or many other things. I do like having more than
gradualism available to explain the evolution of complexity under the
general model of natural selection.
>"It is
>important to realize that no one has ever offered a credible hypothesis to
>explain how the blood clotting system could have started and subsequently
>evolved. " (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People," 1993,
>pp.141-145)
Why is this "important to realize?" There are so many things we don't know.
>CL>One doesn't have to come up with a story, one need only recognize
>>that this is a plausible mechanism.
>
>Just about *anything* could be "a plausible mechanism" if one did
>not bother with the *details*!
It's hard to match ID for being skimpy on details. Margulis and
others have argued well for certain instances of symbiotic evolution,
establishing the mechanism as an operative one.
>If Cliff cannot come up with a "symbiotic story for each one of the
>separate components of the prokaryotic cell" then why should we prefer
>Cliff's symbiotic theory, when Darwinism at least claims to have "a plausible
>mechanism", namely random mutation and natural selection?
Symbioses-integrated-into-organisms are mutations that did occur
randomly and were naturally selected. This fits into the general model of
Darwinism as evolution through natural selection. It does not fit under the
Darwinian idea of gradualism, as such conversion can't be done gradually.
>>SJ>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.
>
>CL>Well, it took a long time and a lot of luck
>
>And this is Cliff's idea of a *scientific* explanation, that is
>better than Darwinism's explanation of random mutations and
>natural selection?
The suggested model is Darwinian in the sense of relying on RM&NS.
>>>CL>Just so happened, in the midst of an astronomical number of what could
>>>>be viewed as unsuccessful attempts.
>
>>SJ>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.
I would think the claim that astronomical numbers of organisms have existed
and suffered astronomical numbers of non-beneficial mutations over the years
is indisputable.
>CL>This is a basic tenet of evolutionary theory, that most mutations are
>>unsuccessful.
>
>We were not talking about "mutations". We were talking about
>*symbiotic* "unsuccessful attempts".
The terminology is weak here. What constitutes an attempted symbiosis?
What constitutes an attempted integration of symbionts? If an integration
of symbionts were unsuccessful and the symbionts remained independent,
how would we distinguish this from normalcy in the ecosystem? The usual
'mutation' terminology doesn't work. When a possible actuality finally
happens, when things happen to fall into place a certain way, do we say
that up till then things had been trying to get there? To me the sudden
formation of a new complex organism from symbionts is a macromutation,
but one driven into existence through metazoan relationships more than
genetic mutations.
>CL>Such bizarre experiments would have had a better chance of viability
>>before all the predatory eukaryotes and metazoans appeared.
>
>There is however no evidence of this. Cliff now needs to populate the
>primordial sea with "an astronomical number of" ... "bizarre experiments"!
What would be the objective evidence that simple organisms had a
better chance of evolving complexity when there were no pre-existing
complex organisms to compete with? I don't know, this seems fairly
axiomatic to me.
>>>CL>Successful innovations accumulate, lineages diverge, I don't see
>>>>the problem.
>
>>SJ>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?
>
>CL>Darwinism is gradual, my proposed model is not. Darwinism explains
>>everything, as does ID. My model is more limited.
>
>What exactly *are* the limits of Cliff's model? That is, what does it:
>1) claim to explain; and 2) claim not to explain?
It's not clear what "Cliff's model" is, but I'll assume we're not talking
about my segmentation article but rather just about the suggestion that
Margulis's model might apply more broadly than she herself has
publicly applied it. But the object is to figure out how evolution
occurred. What the limitations are depends on what is being talked
about. Certainly one limitation of radical theories about the original
formation of cells or metazoans is that they say nothing about the
vast post-Cambrian-explosion era. That can be dealt with through
gradual Darwinian evolution.
>>SJ>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?
>CL>To outcompete the old independents.
>
>So we are back to good old Darwinistic "survival of the fittest"?
I never abandoned natural selection. This all operates within NS.
>>SJ>So in the end, Cliff's theory is untestable?
>
>CL>Theories about history are always in principle testable.
>
>So why should we beleieve Cliff "untestable" theory in preference to Dawkins'
>or Margulis' "untestable" theory?
I don't accept the untestability of any statement about the real world,
past or present.
>>SJ>If science is about what works, then ID *will* work!
>
>SJ>ID can do anything, with the greatest of ease. That's the trouble with it.
>
>Well at least "ID" probably *can* explain the origin of life and make a model
>that *works*. That is better than naturalism can do!
ID can most definitely explain absolutely anything imaginable, and much
more. Naturalism is relatively limited.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 22:49:33 EDT