Reflectorites
Subject: Re: macroevolution or macromutations? (was ID) 2/2
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:29:54 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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"!
CL>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.
A straw man is a caricature of the real thing. But the fact is that gradualism
is still being taught *as* the real thing. The fact that it is wrong is all the
more reason it *should* be criticised.
[...]
>SJ>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:
CL>These are general ideas, not specific solutions. The general idea is that
>complexes can form as ecosystems and later coalesce into organisms.
I am well aware that symbiosis is a "general idea" that *could* explain
irreducible complexity, but the questions are: 1) *does* it? and 2) *how*
does it?
Gradualism also is a "general idea" that *could* explain irreducible
complexity. But Cliff rejects that because it breaks down when "specific
solutions" are considered.
So why should Cliff's symbiosis "general idea" be not subjected to the same
testing for "specific solutions" that falsified gradualism?
>SJ>"Blood clotting has to work within very narrow restrictions.
>>...
CL>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?
The point is that legs are not an irreducibly complex system. Cliff's legs
were once only a few inches long and they have grown gradually and
continuously, reaching the ground and working all through that time.
CL>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.
I don't expect Cliff *personally* to come up with how the blood clotting
cascade arose, because as Behe points out, *no one* does:
"Attempts to explain the evolution of highly specified, irreducibly complex
systems either mousetraps or cilia or blood clotting-by a gradualistic route
have so far been incoherent, as we have seen in previous chapters. No
scientific journal will publish patently incoherent papers, so no studies
asking detailed questions of molecular evolution are to be found. Calvin
and Hobbes stories can sometimes be spun by ignoring critical details, as
Russell Doolittle did when imagining the evolution of blood clotting, but
even such superficial attempts are rare. In fact, evolutionary explanations
even of systems that do not appear to be irreducibly complex, such as
specific metabolic pathways, are missing from the literature. The reason for
this appears to be similar to the reason for the failure to explain the origin
of life: a choking complexity strangles all such attempts." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p.177).
"The impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the molecular basis
of life is evident not only from the analyses in this book, but also from the
complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed
models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced...
In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has
uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. No one at
Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member
of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner-no one at all
can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting,
or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian
fashion." (Behe, 1996, p.187).
But if Cliff claims that symbiosis can explain the blood clotting
cascade, I would like to see his proposed explanation. If he doesn't
have one, then in what sense would Cliff be claiming that symbiosis
can explain it?
>SJ>"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)
CL>Why is this "important to realize?" There are so many things we don't know.
The problem is not what "we don't know" but what we *do* know. Knowing what
we now know about the blood clotting cascade, no one can even *imagine*
how it could *possobly* have arisen, even in thought experiments!
>>CL>One doesn't have to come up with a story, one need only recognize
>>>that this is a plausible mechanism.
>SJ>Just about *anything* could be "a plausible mechanism" if one did
>>not bother with the *details*!
CL>It's hard to match ID for being skimpy on details.
First, pointing out that one's rivals may have problems might be a
satisfactory answer in politics, but it can hardly be satisfactory
in *science*.
Second, ID at least has an excuse, in that it is new and hopelessly
outgunned in resources compared to naturalistic science (NS). But NS
has no similar excuse. They have the taxpayer-funded resources and
have been unable to even propose a possible solution.
Third, ID *has* put forward *some* "details" towards a solution,
that is, the hypothesis that the blood clotting cascade is the
product of intelligent causes.
CL>Margulis and
>others have argued well for certain instances of symbiotic evolution,
>establishing the mechanism as an operative one.
>SJ>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?
CL>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.
As I have pointed out before, Cliff is using "mutation" in a way that AFAIK
*no one* in mainstream science would use it.
A "mutation" is an inheritable change in the sequence of nucleotide base pairs
on a DNA molecule. It is *not* the merging of whole organisms.
Cliff by using a mainstream word like "mutation" in a radically different
ways is giving the *illusion* of sameness with mainstream science but that
is all it is - an *illusion*.
Besides all that, Cliff needs to explain in some detail how he proposes
it happened that is different to Margulis' Serial Endosymbiotic Theory
(SET). If it is not different, then why is Cliff using terms that
Margulis doesn't use?
>>>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
>SJ>And this is Cliff's idea of a *scientific* explanation, that is
>>better than Darwinism's explanation of random mutations and
>>natural selection?
CL>The suggested model is Darwinian in the sense of relying on RM&NS.
It doesn't even do that, since the "M" is not "Darwinian". The Darwinists
were dead against Margulis' symbiotic theory when she first proposed
it, which they would not have done if it was "Darwinian". Dawkins'
in "The Blind Watchmaker' tentatively accepts it, but he does not
say that symbiotic merging of whole organisms is "mutation".
[...]
>>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.
CL>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.
We are talking about *symbiotic events*! Cliff is starting to become
confused by his own flexible definitions.
I have not quoted from 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), yet because I wanted to see how this symbiotic argument panned
out.
But I will point out that at the molecular level (and this 47 page article
is chock-full of molecular analysis), it appears that the mitochondria
united with an already existing *eukaryotic* cell (not a prokaryote)
and it was a *unique* event, which they liken to a `big bang':
QQ
>>CL>This is a basic tenet of evolutionary theory, that most mutations are
>>>unsuccessful.
>SJ>We were not talking about "mutations". We were talking about
>>*symbiotic* "unsuccessful attempts".
CL>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.
It does not help by Cliff misusing "terminology". If Cliff wants to
discuss symbiosis and he claims to be following Margulis, then he
should use Margulis' terms, otherwise there will be hopeless confusion.
>>CL>Such bizarre experiments would have had a better chance of viability
>>>before all the predatory eukaryotes and metazoans appeared.
>SJ>There is however no evidence of this. Cliff now needs to populate the
>>primordial sea with "an astronomical number of" ... "bizarre experiments"!
CL>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.
It may be "axiomatic" on *naturalistic ways of thinking*, but it does
not mean that it actually happened that way. See above from Lang, Gray
& Burger that the evidence is that the "experiment" only happened
*once*.
[...]
>>CL>Darwinism is gradual, my proposed model is not. Darwinism explains
>>>everything, as does ID. My model is more limited.
>SJ>What exactly *are* the limits of Cliff's model? That is, what does it:
>>1) claim to explain; and 2) claim not to explain?
CL>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.
No. The "object is to figure out how" organisms arose. Assuming it was
by "evolution" just prejudges that the mechanism was nothing but
unintelligent causes.
CL>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.
It still is " not clear what `Cliff's model' is"! Cliff needs to
unpack and carefully define what exactly it is he is proposing.
>>>SJ>There is an "irreducible complexity" problem in Cliff's own pan-symbiosis
>>>>theory ... if they were that successful already, why
>>>>did they *need* to merge?
>>CL>To outcompete the old independents.
>CL>So we are back to good old Darwinistic "survival of the fittest"?
CL>I never abandoned natural selection. This all operates within NS.
The first point is that "the old independents" are still around.
The second point is what exactly is Cliff's theory? That is, where
is it different from Margulis' theory?
>>>SJ>So in the end, Cliff's theory is untestable?
>>CL>Theories about history are always in principle testable.
>SJ>So why should we beleieve Cliff "untestable" theory in preference to Dawkins'
>>or Margulis' "untestable" theory?
CL>I don't accept the untestability of any statement about the real world,
>past or present.
Sorry. I misread Cliff as saying "untestable" above.
So how do we test Cliff's "testable" theory?
>>>SJ>If science is about what works, then ID *will* work!
>>CL>ID can do anything, with the greatest of ease. That's the trouble with it.
>SJ>Well at least "ID" probably *can* explain the origin of life and make a model
>>that *works*. That is better than naturalism can do!
CL>ID can most definitely explain absolutely anything imaginable, and much
>more. Naturalism is relatively limited.
[...]
Cliff's own post above shows that "Naturalism is" *not* "relatively limited".
It can "definitely explain absolutely anything imaginable" by such answers
as:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL>Why is this "important to realize?" There are so many things we don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL>Well, it took a long time and a lot of luck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between ID and NS is not that they *both* can in principle explain
everything, but that ID might actually be able to come up with a model
that *works*.
Whereas "Naturalism" will probably go on to the end of time, with its stock
answers like the above that guarantee that if it *was* wrong, it would never
be able to know it.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yet Teggart once again points out the truly interesting lesson of Darwin's
confrontation with the fossil record. Darwin's early scientific experience
was primarily as a geologist, and much of what he had to say about the
nature of the fossil record (summarized in the passage quoted above) was
an accurate and insightful early contribution to our understanding of the
vagaries of deposition and the preservation of fossils. But his Chapter 9
(first edition) on the imperfections of the geological record is one long ad
hoc, special-pleading argument designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain
away, the differences between what he saw as logical predictions derived
from his theory and the facts of the fossil record." (Eldredge N., "Time
Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of
Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, pp.27-28)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 10 2000 - 18:15:17 EDT