Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>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?
If you think it *could*, then it's already an improvement on gradualism,
which we both think *can't* explain irreducible complexity. Puzzling out
how it all went is quite a challenge.
>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?
For me gradualism is not falsified by any specific thing, but by the general
idea of irreducible complexity, and by the existence of this alternative to the
very unlikely mechanism of microevolution.
>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?
I don't recall claiming anything about clotting, but the general idea is that
ecosystems become physiological systems, and I see no limit to the
complexity that can arise within an ecosystem.
>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!
See above. I think you're talking about the limitations of your own
imagination.
>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*.
No, best-in-the-field evaluation of models is part of science. But
in this context of general quasi-philosophical conversation, the
repeated demands for details when you have none yourself, nor
even a general mechanism, seems hypocritical.
>Second, ID at least has an excuse, in that it is new and hopelessly
>outgunned in resources compared to naturalistic science (NS).
I would think that a new science should not spring into existence on
sheer hope alone, that some crumb of real insight must be involved.
>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.
That solution is so excellent that it will serve as the solution to all
other problems as well.
>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.
I make no excuses for them.
>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.
One could say an endoparasite merges with another organism. But this
is not interesting, because there is no genomic integration. The wholesale
integration of another species' DNA into a given genome looks like a
macromutation to me.
>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*.
New ideas are expressed by new usages. If you don't like them, just wave
your hands slowly and say *illusion*...*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?
I use the terms I feel like using. Margulis has a specific case. I'm interested
in the general mechanism which that case introduced.
>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".
'Darwinism' has two meanings: RM&NS and gradualism. Gradualism
doesn't seem to be generally valid; there are things that are unlikely to
have evolved that way. Dawkins is as much of a gradualist as he can be,
but that's his problem.
>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've consistently referred to the integration of symbionts as macromutations.
>>SJ>We were not talking about "mutations". We were talking about
>>>*symbiotic* "unsuccessful attempts".
If, as seems plausible, an integration of disparate genomes should fail
to form a viable organism, that would be an 'unsuccessful attempt'.
Genomic integration is a macromutation in the DNA and morphologically
as well.
>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.
The general concept I'm talking about just isn't that complicated. These
cries of illusion and confusion can't be taken seriously.
>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*.
Once it happened, competition was too tough for it to happen again.
>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.
I have made that prejudgment, it is axiomatic for me.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 04:19:42 EDT