Re: Various (evidence and logic, etc)

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Wed Jul 05 2000 - 17:36:19 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Info. on writing theories"

    Reflectorites

    On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:05:19 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:

    >SJ>Second, I am not even making an argument based on Darwinism. My point
    >>was that "Darwinian gradualism" *itself* claims to be the only naturalistic
    >>mechanism "which can (in theory at least) reliably craft complex designs".

    CL>What would be the significance of this point? I'm interested in the claims
    >themselves, not in the claimants' claims that they are right about their
    >claims.

    I was answering Cliff's claim that I was basing an argument on Darwinism
    being true, when all I was doing was discussing "the claims themselves".

    Besides, my posts are to *the Reflector*, not to Cliff personally. If he is not
    interested in an aspect of my post, others might be.
     
    >>CL>Unless you allow that a designer may have set up a Darwinian world.

    >SJ>I don't rule that out. One of my own web pages makes the point that
    >>Darwinism, by its own admission, requires that the laws of physics must be
    >>"deployed in a very special way":

    CL>Dawkins is an idiot for saying that.

    Why? It is true! Here is something similar from a philosopher:

    "Granted that Nature's laws are in fact life-permitting, Darwinian accounts
    give (although usually only in very compressed form) the causal story of
    Life's evolution.... Still, not just any universe would be one in which
    Darwinian evolution would work. If a tiny reduction in the early cosmic
    expansion speed would have made everything recollapse within a fraction
    of a second while a tiny increase would quickly have yielded a universe far
    too dilute for stars to form, then such changes would (presumably) have
    been disastrous to Evolution's prospects." (Leslie J., "Universes", 1996,
    p.108).

    [...]

    >SJ>Cliff is just `wriggling' here. His symbionts which survived out of "an
    >>astronomical number of unsuccessful macromutations is Darwinian".

    CL>Assuming the last quote mark is two words late, I can only gainsay the
    >implication that macromutations are Darwinian in your usual sense of
    >the word.

    I am not sure now what exactly I was quoting! But on one of his posts Cliff
    wrote:

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    CL>You're ignoring the astronomical number of mutations that were
    >unsuccessful, that happened in the wrong order, at the wrong time,
    >to the wrong organisms, that were indeed worse than useless.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    so maybe the quotes should have been around something like:
    "astronomical number of mutations that were unsuccessful". My apologies
    to Cliff.

    But if Cliff's " macromutations" don't do the whole job in one jump, and
    rely on survival of the fittest out of an "astronomical number of mutations
    that were unsuccessful" then it *is* Darwinian.

    If Cliff wants to avoid the "Darwinian" aspect, he should state that his
    macromutations do the whole job, without there being an "astronomical
    number of mutations that were unsuccessful".

    The confusion is caused by Cliff mixing up: 1) symbiosis; 2)
    macromutations; and 3) an "astronomical number of mutations that were
    unsuccessful", not to mention 4) parabiosis or "Siamese twinning". Cliff
    needs to clarify exactly how these 3 or 4 mechanisms work together to
    produce the effects that he is claiming.

    CL>But maybe I'm just hand-waving as I'm wriggling. BTW, How do
    >you picture this hand-waving? Is it done with two hands, as if to say 'stop',
    >or is it a one-handed dismissive get-outa-here gesture?

    I didn't invent the term. It is used in science, as for example:

    "But we definitely were saying that the large-scale patterns of the history of
    life, such as evolutionary trends and the relation between extinction and
    evolution, demanded additional explanation. This additional theoretical
    treatment must go beyond the simple handwaving extrapolationism that to
    this day forms the very heart of ultra-Darwinian treatments of
    "macroevolutionary" large-scale evolutionary events and patterns."
    (Eldredge N., "Reinventing Darwin, 1996, pp126-127)

    I presume "hand-waving" means like a magician does.

    >SJ>*Anything* that survives because it is the fittest among a number of
    >>competitors is Darwinian.

    CL>Including macromutations? I thought they were out in your conception
    >of Darwinian evolution?

    See above. It depends on how "macro" are the "mutations". Most (if not
    all) macromutationist theories have all the major changes happening in a
    single jump, in only one organism. Cliff is relying on and "astronomical
    number of mutations" so I presume that as macromutations go they are not
    all that big.

    >SJ>Cliff needs to make up his mind what exactly *is* his theory. Is it symbiosis
    >>or "macromutations"? If it is "macromutations" it doesn't need symbiosis
    >>and vice versa.

    CL>The symbiotic theory is not *my* theory. But why are symbiosis and
    >macromutation mutually exclusive? For me, the merging of symbionts *is*
    >a macromutation. My theory about segmentation uses Siamese-twinning,
    >another macromutation.

    Cliff is not referring to any "symbiotic theory" literature, so to date it
    appears to be Cliff's *own* theory, that he is proposing.

    And I disagree that "the merging of symbionts *is* a macromutation". No
    one AFAIK claims that symbiosis is a single event. In a previous post I
    quoted Margulis as saying the mergers took "over hundreds of millions of
    years" (Margulis L. & Sagan D., "Microcosmos," 1986, p.127).

    >SJ>Development Biology would presumably claim that the Hox genes that
    >>make digits started with one and duplicated them over time. I have not
    >>necessarily have a problem with that.

    CL>This sounds like the 'control gene' deus ex machina. I need to know
    >more about this noble creature. For example, what are its limitations?
    >There are genes which affect gross skeletal morphology, real basic
    >blueprint genes; but if they can add new (non-atavistic) segments,
    >why don't we see this creativity at work? A problem with appending
    >new segments is that the evidence shows quite the opposite going
    >on: in segmented animals the evolutionary trend is reduction and
    >distortion among groups of segments.

    I agree there may be problems with Developmental Biology's Hox gene
    explanations (they are just switches which don't turn themselves on or off),
    and I agree "in segmented animals" (e.g. arthropods) "the ... trend is
    reduction...among groups of segments". The theory that arthropods
    descended from a segmented worm-like common ancestor seems plausible.

    But I cannot see that Cliff's "Siamese-twinning" theory adds anything to it.
    I am not saying that "Siamese-twinning" may not have played a part, but
    AFAIK Cliff has yet to produce evidence from the scientific literature that
    it has.

    The only reference I have seen about parabiosis is where it was artificially
    induced and caused sterility:

    "Parabiotic union of salamander larvae before the sex of the larvae can be
    determined will result in about 50 percent of the unions being between
    individuals of the opposite sex. In such heterosexual pairs, the testes
    develop normally but the ovaries are inhibited. The parabiosed females are
    sterile and may later develop testicular nodules in the sterile gonad that
    show spermatogenesis and produce mature sperm. From the results of such
    parabiosis experiments, it has been concluded that the testes differentiate
    earlier than the ovaries and secrete male hormones that pass across to the
    female larva and inhibit the development of its gonad. (Hopper A.F. & Hart
    N.H., "Foundations of Animal Development," 1985, p.473)

    >SJ>So endosymbiotic theory still has to explain how the *genes* for the once
    >>free-living mitochondria and chloroplast organelles merged with the host
    >>organism.

    CL>They just did, they just happened to, through some mixup. And it caught
    >on. That's evolution. The most solid thing in favor of the symbiotic theory
    >is that it's more plausible than gradualist scenarios as a mechanism for
    >generating irreducibly complex structures.

    This may be Cliff's idea of a scientific explanation, but it isn't mine.
    Margulis does explain it with more detail than Cliff, but it is still sketchy
    with a lot of loose ends.

    Lang B.F., Gray M.W. & Burger G., "Mitochondrial Genome Evolution
    and the Origin of Eukaryotes", Annual Review of Genetics, 1999. Vol. 33,
    pp.351-397 claim that eukaryotes and mitochondria arose together in one
    unique `big bang' event. And Forterre & Phillipe (1999) claim that the
    molecular evidence is that prokaryotes descended from eukaryotes!

    But if the endosymbiotic theory (or indeed the other two theories) is
    correct, to me the thing that *really* needs explaining is how several
    different *bacteria*, pursuing their immediate needs, eating and being
    eaten, managed to get it *so* right, that they laid down the basic building
    blocks of all eukaryotic life (algae, plants, fungi and animals) for 2 billion
    years into the future. Margulis claims that one of these symbionts was a
    spirochetes, which is the basis of all eukaryotic nerve and brain cells:

    "Or perhaps we should say that history spirals back on itself . For within
    the eye that peers through the microscope, tiny rods and cones-nerve cells
    specialized for light perception- respond to the light and to each other by
    sending chemical and electric messages along axons and dendrites-the
    fibrous arms of neurons-to the brain. Cross sections of the rod and cone
    cells in the eye reveal the 9 + 2 pattern of microtubules. The axons and
    dendrites of the brain are a differently organized mass of microtubules,
    containing all the microtubular proteins but without the 9 + 2 formation.
    Something in the eyes triggers waves of transmissions across the synapses
    between the densely packed axons and dendrites of brain cells. Riding these
    waves is the thought: "Did the spirochete motility system of the microcosm
    evolve within the ordered environment of larger organisms to become the
    basis of their nervous systems?" Proof of spirochete identity in the cells of
    the brain, beyond the rich presence in them of microtubules (neurotubules),
    is slowly accruing. Alpha and beta tubulins are the most abundant soluble
    proteins in the brain. Two or three proteins in termite-dwelling spirochetes
    have immunological similarities to tubulins in the brain and in all
    undulipodia. After maturity, brain cells never divide, nor do they move
    about. Yet we know mammal brain cells-the richest source of tubulin
    protein anywhere-do not waste their rich microtubular heritage. Rather, the
    sole function of mature brain cells, once reproduced or deployed, is to send
    signals and receive them, as if the microtubules once used for cell-whip and
    chromosomal movement had been usurped for the function of thought."
    (Margulis L. & Sagan D., "Microcosmos," 1986, p.149).

    If this is the case, it is more good evidence of far-sighted Intelligent
    Design. Without a theory of Intelligent Design, all naturalists can do is
    shrug their shoulders and say "They just did...it caught on. That's
    evolution".

    >SJ>I agree with Richard that Cliff has got hold of the problem from the wrong
    >>end. He need to have a *genetic* theory to explain *inherited* parabiosis.
    >>Twinning at the morphological level does not create one merged genome.
    >>The genome is already fixed at conception.

    CL>Twinning at the morphological level is a morphological phenomenon. There
    >is no merging of genomes. When this phenomenon is caused by a gene that
    >the genome of the twins has inherited, the twins' offspring will also be twins.
    >I don't see the problem with inheriting genes that have morphological effects.
    >Why is a special new genetic theory needed?

    While twinning may be "caused by a gene", has Cliff any evidence that
    *Siamese* twinning is? The embryonic cell in its first several replications is
    not even under the control of its DNA but its cytoplasm. My understanding
    is that Siamese twinning is a non-inheritable development disorder":

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,119854+11,00.html
    Wednesday, Jul. 5, 2000 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

    malformation

    [...]

    Doubling of parts

    Individuals partially or wholly double, but joined together, are represented
    by the rare occurrence in man of Siamese twins, so-called from a famous
    Siamese pair exhibited for many years in the 19th century. The condition
    consists of identical twins joined by a bridge of tissue through which the
    circulatory systems communicate. Such twins probably arise by the
    incomplete separation of a single fertilized egg into two parts; the
    experimental production of such double individuals in newts has been
    accomplished by constricting the egg in the two-cell stage.

    In man, partially double symmetrical malformations are found. They vary
    from those with a single head but with neck, trunk, and limbs doubled,
    through those with two heads and a single trunk, to others with head,
    shoulders, and arms doubled, but with one trunk and one pair of legs. Such
    double malformations probably arise following the less complete separation
    of the halves of the early embryo or partial separation at later stages. ....

    (c) 1999-2000 Britannica.com Inc.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    >SJ>>Susan or Cliff will not succeed at eliminating creationists "by laughing at
    >>them or ignoring them". The only way they will ever eliminate creationists
    >>is by beating them fair and square by rational arguments.

    CL>Nothing philosophical ever dies out because of rational arguments.
    >Philosophies are not vanquished, merely abandoned.

    Agreed that there is a hard core in any position (including both creation
    and evolution), which is impervious to "rational arguments". But the silent
    majority in both camps is open to "rational arguments" and the evidence if
    it is clearly, honestly and non-threateningly presented. Evolutionists'
    "laughing at them or ignoring" creationists strategy has clearly failed, and is
    now backfiring.

    If evolutionists want to at least significantly reduce the numbers of
    creationists/IDers, they will have to learn to treat their opponents like
    human beings and beat them fair and square by rational arguments and
    evidence, not by abuse and ridicule.

    >SJ>But Cliff's proposed pan-symbiosis `final solution' is unconvincing even to
    >>evolutionists, let alone creationists.

    CL>But should it turn out to be valid, no problem; it's just the way things
    >were designed. Life is great when you've got science and religion both
    >going for you.

    The same could be said for Cliff's anti-design ultimate assumption! In the
    end, design and anti-design are two mutually exclusive ultimate
    metaphysical assumptions. Either one or the other *must* be true. The
    IDer, like the anti-IDer, is entitled to test lower theories against the
    evidence and if they appear valid, to incorporate them into his/her
    metaphysical framework.

    But incorporating lower theories into one's framework does have an effect
    on the framework. For example, I have accepted common ancestry so that
    has an effect on my view on how God works and on His goodness - I don't
    accept the YEC `no death before the Fall' interpretation.

    If one is open to the evidence, and more and more lower theories are
    incorporated into one's framework that are incongruous with it, the
    modifying of the framework will create stresses and strains, and if it
    continued, the framework would eventually have to be abandoned.

    However I am having no such problems with my overall Christian
    theistic/ID framework. If I did, I would have found an excuse not to keep
    going in this debate - I have left twice because of other reasons and came
    back each time, despite getting `beaten up' daily. :-) But I am *enjoying* it!

    Indeed, as I incorporate more evidence (and I read everything I can for and
    against my position), I find the case for design growing stronger! And the
    anti-design case seems to be getting weaker and its exponents more
    desperate and dependent on ridicule, abuse and faulty arguments.

    So I agree with Cliff: "Life *is* great when you've got science and religion
    (two major areas of *truth*) both going for you"! :-)

    >SJ>Cliff might ponder the implications of that. If Susan's more traditional
    >>Darwinist arguments are not even convincing to Cliff, and Cliff's symbiosis
    >>arguments are not convincing to other evolutionists, then that is just what
    >>would be expected if naturalistic evolution is false!

    CL>Just what would be expected if the topic is difficult and obscure.

    If "the topic" is still "difficult and obscure" after *140 years* of
    "naturalistic evolution", then that is "just what would be expected if
    naturalistic evolution is *false*"!

    Steve

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of
    matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of
    atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.
    They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound
    logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be
    composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away
    the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe
    that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter." (Haldane J.B.S., "When I
    Am Dead," in "Possible Worlds: And Other Essays," [1927], Chatto and
    Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209)
    Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 18:15:02 EDT