A team of molecular biologists from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) has now discovered that mRNAs can be targeted for destruction by several modes and molecules, highlighting a previously unanticipated complexity in the control and regulation of the cell's genetic messages.
As with the previously known genetic regulation mechanisms, evolutionists can offer nothing more than vague speculation about how such incredible complexity could have arisen spontaneously. One of the proteins involved in some aspects of this regulation is called Ago and the evolutionists make the rather heroic claim that this protein, as found in mammals, evolved from an earlier version that was in ancient vertebrates. As a reference for this jaw-dropping, unscientific, claim, they unbelievably cite their “unpublished data”:
The four mammalian Ago homologs evolved from a common ancestor early in the vertebrate lineage (our unpublished data).
Imagine a physicist claiming to have proven perpetual motion and citing his unpublished data. This isn’t even wrong. Nor do terms such as absurd or ludicrous do justice to such inanity. Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.
And so the Cornelius Hunter "How to Jump the Shark" school opens for another session.
ReplyDeleteJust curious CH - why did you give the OP headline "Evolutionists Say Their “Unpublished Data” Prove Evolution " when nowhere in the paper do the authors say or imply anything has been proven? The words "prove" or "proven" never appear in the paper. You seem to be quite confused again. Less charitable readers may conclude that you're out and out lying.
Because of this sentence: "The four mammalian Ago homologs evolved from a common ancestor early in the vertebrate lineage (our unpublished data)."
DeleteTry to keep up.
The authors published an unsupported claim, no more no less. The proper scientific response is to withhold judgement until the data becomes available. Until then, we are under no compulsion to accept it but neither is it any reason to reject it. Like evidence for Intelligent Design we'll just have to wait and see.
DeleteYou’ve seen evolutionists falsify the science
ReplyDeleteFalsify the what?
and you’ve seen their religious mandates,
The vast majority of "evolutionists" have no religious mandate. The same cannot be said for ID proponents.
but as the contradictions mount now they are simply referencing their unpublished data.
Referencing unpublished data is perfectly legitimate, as long as it is available for inspection. And contradictions aren't mounting anyway - this simply a delusion you seem intent on maintaining and propagating. What is "mounting" is a wealth of interesting data that is steadily deepening our understanding of the processes that shape living organisms.
Just because we don't know how something evolved doesn't mean that it must have been designed.
It is you guys who are jumping to un-evidenced conclusions not we "evolutionists".
And what is worse, is that you want to teach your religiously motivated but unevidenced claims as science.
It's time you looked at yourself in the mirror, Cornelius.
Elizabeth states:
Delete"The vast majority of "evolutionists" have no religious mandate."
And yet behind the denial we find that Darwinism was indeed founded on theology:
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
Moreover to this day, as was clearly illustrated by Avise's blatant use of Theodicy to support Darwinism, Darwinism continues to be, underneath all the rhetoric, primarily a religious program. Here is an atheist professor who, not so skilled in the art of rhetoric, openly proselytizes his Darwinian religion in his classroom:
Dr. Will Provine - EXPELLED - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJ5dHtmNtU
Darwinists are blatant hypocrites in their use of 'religion in the classroom';
"Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom" (from 2008): John G. West - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEajEwzYwHg
Southwestern University Law Review: DEALING WITH THE ENTANGLEMENT OF RELIGION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Excerpt: But each time we present a theory of life's origin to our schoolchildren, we are showing preference. And by actually looking at the theories and what they represent, as well as looking at what religion provides for people, we can see that the government, even in limiting the teaching to only evolution, is endorsing a religious ideology. A message exists behind this endorsement - the same message people feared would exist if we allowed schools to teach biblical creationism theories or even intelligent design theory. The message itself is an endorsement. Accordingly, the government is endorsing a particular religious belief - the belief that no supernatural being exists. In effect, this endorsement not only advances that particular religious belief and inhibits other religious beliefs, but also it shows an utter failure of maintaining the government's requisite neutrality involving religion and the government.
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=37+Sw.+U.+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=90873d971bf3d768563adad5bf41fe28
ba77, what, in the above post, falsifies my claim that "The vast majority of "evolutionists" have no religious mandate"?
DeleteThe theory of evolution is not "the belief that no supernatural being exists". It doesn't even entail such a belief.
Saying so doesn't make it so.
In contrast, ID does entail religious belief. So which group has a "religious mandate"?
Contrary to Elizabeth's assertion that evolution has no religious mandate, the plain fact of the matter is that the religious mandate of materialistic atheism is woven throughout the foundational framework of neo-Darwinism. Besides Darwin's own use of theology in 'Origins' to try to establish his case, as well as Avise's, Myer's Coyne's, Collins', Ayala's. etc.. etc.. modern use of Theodicy to try to make their case for Darwinism, Darwinists even try to mandate that the scientific method itself be subsumed under methodological naturalism. (i.e. scientific materialism). I even had a Darwinists have the audacity to tell me that 'science is materialism'. This assertion is simply ludicrous! The scientific method cannot even be reduced to matter and energy and thus matter and energy can never explain the origin of the scientific method in the first place much less can it explain the origin of the minds that use the scientific method. For atheists to deny that Darwinism mandates no religious position, and yet 'try to' mandate that only materialistic answers are scientific in these questions of origins is either sheer blindness on their part or is willing deception on their part, but either way the result of this 'jerry rigged' enterprise is to force only one conclusion that entails atheistic materialism as its conclusion!
DeletePredictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9
correction: 'For atheists to deny that Darwinism mandates a religious position,
DeleteElizabeth you strike me as a smart person, I'm surprised to hear you make such untrue claims. As an agnostic with no religious beliefs what so ever, I have proven your mandate for ID incorrect. Also, if you can't see atheism as the religious guidance for evolutionary science then I think you are blind. While yes, it's not a necessary mandate, it is there just as much as ID.
DeleteWhich claims of mine do you consider "untrue"?
DeleteAnd if you have "no religious beliefs whatsover" - what is the nature of the Intelligent Designer you postulate? A material alien?
And no, atheism is not "the religious guidance for evolutionary science" - or else why would so many evolutionary scientists be theists?
Why, indeed, would the vast majority of theists accept evolutionary science?
Evolutionary science neither requires nor rejects theism. In contrast, ID actually posits an immaterial designer.
That makes Evolutionary science not religious, and it makes ID a religious proposition.
If evolutionists do not have a religious mandate, they certainly have a philosophical mandate, and that is to adhere to the precepts of methodological naturalism. I would say that they pursue methodological naturalism with a religious fervor.
DeleteIf science is defined as a system of investigation that is restricted to discovering only natural causes, how can such a science claim that it will discover the whole truth and nothing but the truth about our world and the universe it which it exists? This is tantamount to saying that truth is a matter of definition and not one of discovery.
It seems to me that it is the ID folks are the ones who have no preconceived notions about what the truth can be, and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
Doublee: If evolutionists do not have a religious mandate, they certainly have a philosophical mandate, and that is to adhere to the precepts of methodological naturalism.
DeleteIf by "evolutionists", you mean evolutionary biologists, they often only adhere to the scientific method in their scientific work.
Doublee: If science is defined as a system of investigation that is restricted to discovering only natural causes, how can such a science claim that it will discover the whole truth and nothing but the truth about our world and the universe it which it exists?
The distinction between natural and supernatural is ambiguous. Methodological naturalism is best thought of as a heuristic.
More properly, science can only investigate those claims that are empirically testable. This may not reveal "the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Science is limited, but powerful within its realm.
If evolutionists do not have a religious mandate, they certainly have a philosophical mandate, and that is to adhere to the precepts of methodological naturalism. I would say that they pursue methodological naturalism with a religious fervor.
DeleteI think you are confusing "methodological naturalism" with "philosophical naturalism". Methodological naturalism is simply the fundamental assumption of science that things can be explained. It does not have to be true - and indeed, it is perfectly possible for a scientist to hold the philosophical view that some things may be intrinsically unexplainable. But methodologically we look for explanations, and, if they are not forthcoming, we say "we don't know". We have no methodology (within science) for concluding that there is no possible explanation.
If science is defined as a system of investigation that is restricted to discovering only natural causes, how can such a science claim that it will discover the whole truth and nothing but the truth about our world and the universe it which it exists?
"Science" can't (it's not a person). I'm a scientist and I make no such claim, and I don't know a single scientist who does. Our methodology simply does not allow us to rule out explanations that we have not yet thought of! Scientific methodology is simply about fitting models to data. We do not attempt to discover "reality", only consistent models that predict new data.
This is tantamount to saying that truth is a matter of definition and not one of discovery.
Well we certainly need to define truth carefully before committing ourselves to a view on how to reach it.
In science, "truth" isn't much used - what we do is accept models that predict data better than other models, and, in our cups, may venture that the better fitting models are probably nearer "the truth". But we do not have direct access to reality - merely ever-closer fitting models.
But then it depends on what kind of proposition you are evaluating as "true". There is no scientific method of evaluating the statement "God gave his only begotten son to be our saviour". But many hold it as true. But it is a philosophical or theological truth, not a scientific one.
It seems to me that it is the ID folks are the ones who have no preconceived notions about what the truth can be, and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
Only by equivocating with the word "truth". Anyone, evolutionist, or ID proponent, can hold the view that there are truths that are inaccessible to science. But there is no scientific methodology that can uncover the supernatural. In fact, I'd argue that such an idea is incoherent - if a thing can be detected by science, by definition it is natural, not supernatural. Failing, therefore, to discover the supernatural by means of science, does not rule out the supernatural. In contrast, insisting that science can discover the supernatural is, I would argue, an oxymoron. And somewhat heretical, by my standards :) It suggests a God who is an inhabitant of this universe, not the ground of its being.
Elizabeth nothing about the theory of ID requires an immaterial agent. Even if I did believe that God was the agent of causation, it still doesn't mandate it. It does mandate intelligence though, for obvious reasons. Being that I am not a God believer I think the better question is...if ID has a religious mandate why am I not a God believer? Their are a vast amount of agents I can think of besides God as the intelligent agents. What is wrong with aliens life forms? I mean, the universe is huge, why limit the universe to just us?
DeleteAnd you are wrong, atheism is absolutely the driving force behind evolutionary science. The same reason theism is the driving force behind ID(this battle has been going on way before the advent of the scientific method)but neither necessitate the philosophical conclusions that so many make. I am one of the few that doesn't associate the designing intelligence with God.
I think an interesting empirical case could be used to prove "God" as a best explanation though. If it could be demonstrated that intelligent life outside our own is extremely unlikely in the universe, then that means the cause is beyond the nature of our material universe. If scientists are allowed to expand the probabilistic resources(Multi-verse theory) beyond the universe, than so to can ID advocates (immaterial intelligent agents). ANd even if the agent is immaterial beyond the universe it STILL doesn't mandate that we associate it with God. MIB is a great example, with the marble galaxies.
It's your job, Elizabeth, to demonstrate that it's not a logical possibility to posit any other intelligent agent other than God to make your statement true.
Zachriel: "If by "evolutionists", you mean evolutionary biologists, they often only adhere to the scientific method in their scientific work. "
You completely looked past the philosophical presupposition. The research itself is the science, the reason for the research is the philosophical mandate. Why are evolutionary biologists researching A certain thing in the first place? Because life MUST have come about by a material process. Evolutionary research is like walking into a room filled with clutter and saying, "I lost something, but I don't remember what it is"...ID and evolutionary theory are one in the same thing, it's just the difference between unintelligent forces and intelligent ones.
Elizabeth Liddle said
Delete"Methodological naturalism is simply the fundamental assumption of science that things can be explained. It does not have to be true"
Maybe you do not realize it but when you say:
"but there is really no doubt that lineages diverged over millions and billions of years."
You have moved from the methodological naturalism to the metaphysical naturalism.
Elizabeth nothing about the theory of ID requires an immaterial agent.
DeleteThis is incorrect. It is perfectly possible to have an scientific theory, and we have them all the time - but they concern specific, hypothesised, intelligent designing and manufacturing agents.
"ID" as proposed as a theory to account for biological organism is not such a theory. No specific intelligent designer or manufacturer is proposed, and therefore no testable predictions are forthcoming. It is an entirely negative theory based on rejection of any alternative explanation for biological complexity.
Even if I did believe that God was the agent of causation, it still doesn't mandate it. It does mandate intelligence though, for obvious reasons.
And without a proposed intelligent agent, it is a useless theory, because, as I said, it makes no testable predictions. And whenever you ask an ID proponent to propose such an agent, the request is rejected as irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. It is absolutely central.
Being that I am not a God believer I think the better question is...if ID has a religious mandate why am I not a God believer? Their are a vast amount of agents I can think of besides God as the intelligent agents. What is wrong with aliens life forms?
Nothing. The theory that life was created by intelligent aliens can generate testable hypotheses about the nature of those aliens, their methodology, and, indeed, their own origins.
I mean, the universe is huge, why limit the universe to just us?
Absolutely no reason at all.
And you are wrong, atheism is absolutely the driving force behind evolutionary science.
DeleteEvidence please.
The same reason theism is the driving force behind ID(this battle has been going on way before the advent of the scientific method)but neither necessitate the philosophical conclusions that so many make. I am one of the few that doesn't associate the designing intelligence with God.
In that case, please do some actual science. If you think that the postulated intelligent agent responsible for life on earth is an actual material intelligent denizen of this universe, theorise as to who/what they might be? Do they visit regularly whenever a species need a helpful mutation? Or did they just seed the earth (as Fred Hoyle, I think, postulated) with a view living cells and leave them to evolve? How would we test each of these theories?
I think an interesting empirical case could be used to prove "God" as a best explanation though. If it could be demonstrated that intelligent life outside our own is extremely unlikely in the universe, then that means the cause is beyond the nature of our material universe.
But then you won't be able to make any testable predictions. If the postulated designer is an omnipotent God, it can explain anything, and therefore nothing.
If scientists are allowed to expand the probabilistic resources(Multi-verse theory) beyond the universe, than so to can ID advocates (immaterial intelligent agents).
It's not a question of what is "allowed" - it's a question of what makes testable predictions.
ANd even if the agent is immaterial beyond the universe it STILL doesn't mandate that we associate it with God. MIB is a great example, with the marble galaxies.
And again, to test this, you'd need to be specific. That's fine. But ID proponents refuse, generally to be specific. I'm glad to meet a proper scientific ID proponent! Now let's see some science.
It's your job, Elizabeth, to demonstrate that it's not a logical possibility to posit any other intelligent agent other than God to make your statement true.
It's perfectly logical to posit any intelligent agency, including God. It's just not possible to test the God postulate by scientific methodology, because by definition, God is unbound by limitations.
Zachriel: "If by "evolutionists", you mean evolutionary biologists, they often only adhere to the scientific method in their scientific work. "
You completely looked past the philosophical presupposition. The research itself is the science, the reason for the research is the philosophical mandate. Why are evolutionary biologists researching A certain thing in the first place? Because life MUST have come about by a material process. Evolutionary research is like walking into a room filled with clutter and saying, "I lost something, but I don't remember what it is"...ID and evolutionary theory are one in the same thing, it's just the difference between unintelligent forces and intelligent ones.
Ignore content above after "Zachriel" - copy pasted in error!
DeleteBlas: "but there is really no doubt that lineages diverged over millions and billions of years."
DeleteYou have moved from the methodological naturalism to the metaphysical naturalism.
No, I have merely moved to regarding things hugely supported by consilient lines of evidence as not worth wasting time doubting.
There are far more interesting unresolved questions to tackle.
Elizabeth Liddle said
Delete"No, I have merely moved to regarding things hugely supported by consilient lines of evidence as not worth wasting time doubting.
There are far more interesting unresolved questions to tackle."
Blas said "Maybe you do not realize it"
Or you do not care but
"You have moved from the methodological naturalism to the metaphysical naturalism."
ELiddle:
DeleteThe vast majority of "evolutionists" have no religious mandate. The same cannot be said for ID proponents.
Elizabeth, what evidence do you have that supports either of those two statements? Aren't you just giving us what you presume to be the case? IOW, is there actual empirical evidence one way or the other?
Let me submit this empirical evidence: IIRC, the number of evolutionary biologists who are irreligious---that is, don't believe, or are agnostic about, God is very, very high. Isn't there, then, a bias on their part to spurn any evidence which might lead to the idea of God? Doesn't this, de facto, become a "mandate" of sorts?
bornagain77 June 15, 2012 4:12 AM
DeleteI see you're still laboring under the delusion that not collecting stamps is a hobby like collecting stamps.
Apparently, you're not the only one because this
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
and this
Southwestern University Law Review: DEALING WITH THE ENTANGLEMENT OF RELIGION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
are both guilty of the same outrageous equivocation.
I will try to make it simple for you.
When I was a Christian, I believed in the existence of God, the truth of the Bible and the Anglican doctrines I was taught.
I no longer believe those things are true.
I do, however, still have opinions about the claims of Christianity and other faiths. But having an opinion about Islam does not make me a Muslim - or a member of any other faith, come to that.
To group belief and non-belief under the same heading of "religious belief", to pretend that believing in a particular faith and being agnostic or atheist are equivalent is, to put it politely, deceitful.
Liddle:
DeleteAnd without a proposed intelligent agent, it is a useless theory, because, as I said, it makes no testable predictions. And whenever you ask an ID proponent to propose such an agent, the request is rejected as irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. It is absolutely central.
Come on, this is plain nonsense. The only thing that one needs to know about the causative agent in ID is that it is intelligent (the I in ID). From the intelligence hypothesis alone, one can derive a powerful and falsifiable prediction about the design of life. The prediction is that life is organized hierarchically so as to form a non-nested tree (unlike the Darwinist TOL, which is nested).
And yes, there was an evolution but it was a design evolution, one which does not have to progress in tiny steps a la Darwin. Indeed, this is what the fossil and genomic record show. Darwin's tiny steps are nowhere to be found. And no, short and long-beaked finches are not examples of a Darwinian tiny step prediction. It's just simple adaptation, something that hunters and farmers have known about for thousands of years.
The question is, why is designed life organized hierarchically? The answer is simple: Any complex designed entity that is built out of simple or elementary building blocks (such as DNA) is based on a bottom-up design principle. Bottom-up design is necessarily hierarchical. Deny at your own detriment.
PS. Even though I am a Christian, I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that God or some other supernatural being created life on earth. The book of Genesis states that living organisms were formed by the Elohim, a plural Hebrew word that means "the lords". And I certainly do not subscribe to the view that science is even close to understanding the entirety of nature. But that's a another subject for a different forum and another time.
ForJah: You completely looked past the philosophical presupposition. The research itself is the science, the reason for the research is the philosophical mandate.
DeleteThat wasn't the original contention, which was that methodological naturalism improperly excludes supernatural explanation. Because the distinction between natural and supernatural is ambiguous, methodological naturalism is no more than a heuristic.
As to your point, humans certainly bring philosophical dispositions to their scientific work. Some scientists are theist and certainly pray for success in their work. However, any scientist worth his salt also knows that any results have to be supported by the scientific method, that is, by empirical verification.
Another point to consider is that robotic or insect intelligence could certainly apply the scientific method without any philosophy whatsoever.
Elizabeth:
DeleteAnyone, evolutionist, or ID proponent, can hold the view that there are truths that are inaccessible to science. But there is no scientific methodology that can uncover the supernatural.
There is a scientific methodology that can detect or infer that an intelligence has acted. Criminal investigations are one area where this occurs. Archaeologists also infer that an intelligence has acted when they discover an ancient artifact. Detecting intelligent signals from outer space is another.
On what basis do scientists rule out the inference that an intelligence has acted in the history of life? Have the methods of "intelligence detection" suddenly become unreliable? Or have scientists ruled out detecting intelligent agency in the history of life because they don't like what the affirmative answer implies?
Whether that intelligence is natural or supernatural cannot be answered directly from the evidence, so I would agree with you that there is no methodology that can uncover the supernatural. Yet, it seems that if we posit an intelligent corporal being as the intelligent agent, we are at the beginning of infinite regress.
Doublee
DeleteThere is a scientific methodology that can detect or infer that an intelligence has acted. Criminal investigations are one area where this occurs. Archaeologists also infer that an intelligence has acted when they discover an ancient artifact. Detecting intelligent signals from outer space is another.
In every single case the "design detection" is based on previously known capabilities of the designers and the telltale signatures of human involvement. Police detectives and archaeologists can identify the handiwork of humans because they already know the capabilities of humans. Even SETI is looking for signals with modulation types know to be used by humans, on the idea that there are only a finite number of ways to modulate electromagnetic waves.
With biological life there are no such previously known examples to compare against. To identify design you have to know (or make educated assumptions) about the capabilities and limitations of the designer. There's no way around it.
On what basis do scientists rule out the inference that an intelligence has acted in the history of life? Have the methods of "intelligence detection" suddenly become unreliable? Or have scientists ruled out detecting intelligent agency in the history of life because they don't like what the affirmative answer implies?
Science doesn't rule out that an intelligence has acted in the history of life. Science just points out at this time there is insufficient evidence to make such an inference.
No one is stopping you or anyone from doing further research on the topic. But it will take positive evidence, not negative arguments like "this is too complex so it must be designed" to convince the scientific community.
Also, Cornelius, you equivocate most appallingly with the word "evolution".
ReplyDeleteThe reference to "unpublished data" is not made to support the hypothesis tested in the paper but to background phylogenetic information about the sequence.
The fact that you have a problem with phylogenetics is neither here nor there. Not even all IDists do, and yet you are happy to cite Behe, for instance, in support of your own position.
However the problem in the statement remains, EL..
Delete"The four mammalian Ago homologs evolved from a common ancestor early in the vertebrate lineage (our unpublished data)"
Should better be:
"The four mammalian Ago homologs ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE evolved from a common ancestor early in the vertebrate lineage (our unpublished data)"
Cause you know that the argument from similarity used in phylogenetic is surely not so certaint to let one use such a statement..
The fact that even this speculation or interpretation is not even provided with the data is even very funny..
Semantic nitpick aside, do you agree with Cornelius' assessment that the authors of this paper were in fact claiming that their results "prove evolution"?
DeleteWhy or why not?
"The four mammalian Ago homologs ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE evolved from a common ancestor early in the vertebrate lineage (our unpublished data)"
DeleteAnd would you also write:
"the earth is thought to revolve around the sun"?
Both are merely theories, after all.
Or, perhaps more pertinently:
Delete"Carboniferous rocks are thought to have been laid down about 359.2 ± 2.5 million years ago".
This is what I mean about equivocation. There may be legitimate doubt that current evolutionary theory can explain certain features of life, but there is really no doubt that lineages diverged over millions and billions of years.
Elizabeth Liddle said
Delete"but there is really no doubt"
Well, that is hard. What make you have no doubt about something? More specifically what do you mean by really, doubt, wrong correct, true, false?
I mean: extremely well supported by consilient and independent lines of evidence.
DeleteI don't mean anything more or less than that.
Elizabeth Liddle said
Delete"I mean: extremely well supported by consilient and independent lines of evidence."
I that let you without any doubt? I´m perverse if I withhold provisional assent?
I don't understand your questions - could you rephrase?
DeleteCH: evolutionists can offer nothing more than vague speculation about how such incredible complexity could have arisen spontaneously.
ReplyDeleteThe same could be said about plate tectonics. Do you have another blog entitled Wegener's God?
Cornelius, are you saying that ancestral vertebrates did not have Ago? What is your evidence for this? We all would love to hear it.
ReplyDeleteag:
Deleteare you saying that ancestral vertebrates did not have Ago?
No, I'm not saying that. Strange that you would infer that.
So what are you saying?
DeleteSo, Cornelius, you are disagreeing with the authors for saying something that you agree with? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Deleteag:
DeleteAs the OP explains, the authors claim that the Ago homologs evolved from a common ancestor early in the vertebrate lineage, citing their "unpublished data." If I understand you correctly, you are equating that evolutionary claim with the very different claim that ancient vertebrates had Ago.
Just curious CH. Have you tried contacting the authors and asking to see the data in question? Most scientists are overjoyed when the lay public takes an interest in their work and are usually quite happy to explain their findings in detail. In many cases you'll even find scientists willing to share the raw data sets with fellow investigators who have a legitimate interest in the subject.
DeleteI suppose it's that last part that's the stumbling block for you, eh?
I've tried at least 5 times to post here a recent paper on argonaute evolution and it's been deleted every time.
DeleteWhy?
Exactly. Cornelius lumps OOL, adaptation, speciation, common descent, all under the title of "evolution" and implies that because we don't know how A evolved, we have no evidence to support phylogenetic models.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should look in the literature for more information?
ReplyDeleteJ Cell Biochem. 2012 Mar 13.
"Structural evolution and functional diversification analyses of argonaute protein."
"The results show that bacteria and archaeal AGO proteins are clustered in the same clade and there exist multiple AGO proteins in most eukaryotic species, demonstrating that the increase of AGO gene copy number and horizontal gene transfer (HGT) have been the main evolutionary driving forces for adaptability and biodiversity."
@Liddle: Just because we don't know how something evolved doesn't mean that it must have been designed
ReplyDeleteOh yeah there's some real science in that statement. Science is all about the "how" something evolved because, ya know, it just had to have happened, really, take their word for it, 'cause they're scientists.
BTW I thought the "how" was 100% stochastic mutations and natural selection, case closed, because "how" something happened a billion years ago has been proven. And If I want an accounting of all mutations, and I mean every single one of them, necessary to build ANY structure, well, the "how" doesn't work that way, its unscientific to ask the "how" in that way, get it?
Oh yeah there's some real science in that statement. Science is all about the "how" something evolved because, ya know, it just had to have happened, really, take their word for it, 'cause they're scientists.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed there is. We cannot infer "design" merely from lack of an alternative hypothesis.
Nor can we infer "no design", even if we have an alternative hypothesis. This is because Design proponents refuse to characterise their hypothesised designer, and so are unable to make any testable predictions. Anything can be accounted for by a "designer" if we allow that postulated designer unlimited powers.
So no, you should not take any scientists word for it that life was not designed. We cannot rule out the agency of an omnipotent designer. But nor should you take any ID proponent's word for it that life was designed, unless they have a better case than "we don't know how else it could have happened".
BTW I thought the "how" was 100% stochastic mutations and natural selection, case closed, because "how" something happened a billion years ago has been proven.
You thought wrong.
And If I want an accounting of all mutations, and I mean every single one of them, necessary to build ANY structure, well, the "how" doesn't work that way, its unscientific to ask the "how" in that way, get it?
I'm not sure what you mean. I think your sarcasm is getting between you and clarity.
No Liz, you completely misrepresent ID theory. It most certainly makes testable predictions. It's a lie to say otherwise. Also, ID is based on a positive case of designing intelligence not, "we don't know how else it could have happened"...I have never read this statement in an ID book. If an event is extremely unlikely to occur by chance or necessity...and intelligence has been shown to produce the effect in question, then it's scientific to state that this other cause(ID) is the best explanation, until it can be shown otherwise.
DeleteLet's hear them please. And am curious,without a explanation how an event occurs,how do you compute odds? If you have an theoretical explanation,how do you know it is correct one?
DeleteNo Liz, you completely misrepresent ID theory. It most certainly makes testable predictions. It's a lie to say otherwise.
Deleteit may not be true, ForJah, but it is not a lie, which is a deliberate untruth. I am not aware that this is an untruth.
But you can put me right by giving me a testable prediction of ID.
Also, ID is based on a positive case of designing intelligence not, "we don't know how else it could have happened"...I have never read this statement in an ID book.
No, but that's what, you will find, every argument boils down to. Take Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Design is the default conclusion when Chance and Necessity are rejected. In other words, if we cannot explain something by Chance or Necessity we must infer Design. It is both negative and fallacious.
If an event is extremely unlikely to occur by chance or necessity...and intelligence has been shown to produce the effect in question, then it's scientific to state that this other cause(ID) is the best explanation, until it can be shown otherwise.
No. For a start, that is exactly the "we can't explain it, therefore design" negative inference that I rightly stated ID arguments consisted. For a second, it is fallacious.
The "best explanation" in science is the model that best fits the data, and, if two models both fit the data reasonably well, typically we prefer the more parsimonious, but this is not always a reliable guide. A better methodology is to find predictions made by each model that differ. Then you see which of the two sets of predictions is supported by new data.
So please give me a prediction made by ID theory.
The induction argument you advocate, ForJah, has this form:
DeleteX has characteristics A
Y has characteristics A & B.
J has characteristics M & N
We know that J causes X.
We do not know what causes Y, although we know it wasn't J.
Therefore the best explanation for Y is something with characteristic N.
Can you see the holes?
Elizabeth I don't understand what your comparing with your variables. Can you please be more specific.
DeleteEL:
ReplyDelete"But you can put me right by giving me a testable prediction of ID."
Just some of them that I have in mind:
- ID predictions on the significant role of centrosomes in cancer, rather than just a negative mutations effect.
- The front-loading predictions consistent on the recent findings of epigenetics information activated by antibiotic resistance in microbiome never selected or mutated from the synthetic molecules pressure.
-The dysteleological "science stopper" argument debunked, consistent with ID.
- The evidence of discrete infusions of information into biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms.
- The extreme (using an euphemism) rarity of amino acids functional sequences within all the possible sequence.
The Winkler: - ID predictions on the significant role of centrosomes in cancer, rather than just a negative mutations effect.
DeleteDo you have a citation to the original paper?
The Winkler: - The evidence of discrete infusions of information into biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms.
Evidence of "infusions of information"? Can you provide a specific?
The Winkler: - The extreme (using an euphemism) rarity of amino acids functional sequences within all the possible sequence.
Stable, folding, functioning proteins are not that uncommon in sequence space.
Many fitness landscapes can be searched much faster with evolutionary processes compared to random search.
Thanks, The Winkler:
ReplyDeleteEL:
"But you can put me right by giving me a testable prediction of ID."
Just some of them that I have in mind:
- ID predictions on the significant role of centrosomes in cancer, rather than just a negative mutations effect.
Can you explain why this is a prediction of ID?
Can you also point to where it was predicted, a priori?
Failing that, can you describe how ID accounts better for these data than standard biological explanations?
- The front-loading predictions consistent on the recent findings of epigenetics information activated by antibiotic resistance in microbiome never selected or mutated from the synthetic molecules pressure.
Can you cite the front-loading predictions of this effect, and why front-loading by an ID fits the data better than a standard evolutionary explanations?
-The dysteleological "science stopper" argument debunked, consistent with ID.
This does not appear to be a prediction of ID, and I am not sure what argument you are referring to, how it was debunked, and why the debunking is "consistent" with ID.
- The evidence of discrete infusions of information into biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms.
Can you tell me what these "top-down" and "bottom-up" patterns of appearance are, and why they are predicted by ID?
- The extreme (using an euphemism) rarity of amino acids functional sequences within all the possible sequence.
Can you explain why this is a prediction of ID and how ID is a better fit to these data than evolutionary processes?
I will say that I've always thought the "front-loading" hypothesis was the one ID hypothesis that is potentially testable.
ReplyDeleteBut I've never seen it cast in actual testable form - i.e in a form in which it makes a differential prediction from that of evolutionary theory.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteHere are some. I do not say how good they are, but I think a sincere scientist would at least agree that exporing these potentially testable hypotheses is worthwhile.
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
source: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156 table 2
"exploring"
DeleteCollin,
DeleteWhat you describe isn't a front-loading scenario. Number 2 points to an interventionist designer. Which is what the people pushing ID really mean.
Thank you, Collin:
DeleteElizabeth,
Here are some. I do not say how good they are, but I think a sincere scientist would at least agree that exporing these potentially testable hypotheses is worthwhile.
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
But IC is a negative inference: we can't explain how this feature could have evolved, therefore it is IC.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
Why is this a positive prediction of ID? Again, it's a negative inference from lack of evidence, not a positive prediction of ID.
And why would an ID necessarily create biological organisms ex nihilo?
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
What do you mean by "unrelated"? Are you conceding that some species are related? And how do you conclude, if a gene, or functional part is found in two populations that the two populations are "unrelated"?
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
Why is this a prediction of ID? And how do you determine whether code is "junk" or not?
I do appreciate that you have attempted to rise to the challenge, but my case stands, I think.
And I certainly do not see any prediction that was actually made about new data - or can you refer me to a dated citation for a prediction of ID that was subsequently confirmed?
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
DeleteThis prediction is non sequitur as well. The is no reason to think something should be very complex if it was designed. Boomerangs and chopsticks are very simple.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteWould you say that the more information rich and complex machinery found in the cell, the more likely it shows evidence of design? Is there a point at which something gets so complex that it seems at least somewhat improbable that chance or necessity could be sufficient?
Collin
DeleteWould you say that the more information rich and complex machinery found in the cell, the more likely it shows evidence of design? Is there a point at which something gets so complex that it seems at least somewhat improbable that chance or necessity could be sufficient?
I'd say it's an argument from ignorance based personal incredulity and therefore worthless in any scientific sense.
Thorton, will you please explain the difference between personal incredulity and scientific skepticism and how you would apply scientific skepticism to the theory of evolution as it applies to the complexity found in the cell?
DeleteCollin
DeleteThorton, will you please explain the difference between personal incredulity and scientific skepticism and how you would apply scientific skepticism to the theory of evolution as it applies to the complexity found in the cell?
Scientific skepticism is an objective critical analysis based on a rational application of scientific methodology which demonstrates different, non-supportive results for conclusions previously claimed.
Personal incredulity is a subjective emotional response based on ignorance.
"ZOMG it's sooooo complex that GAWD must have done it!!" is personal incredulity.
Would you say that the more information rich and complex machinery found in the cell, the more likely it shows evidence of design? Is there a point at which something gets so complex that it seems at least somewhat improbable that chance or necessity could be sufficient?
DeleteI'd say that the kind of "rich and complex machinery found in the cell" shows evidence of an iterative process of optimisation that is found in the outputs of intelligent biological organisms, and also in self-reproducing populations. Indeed I'd argue that in many ways the processes are very similar - variants/prototypes are generated, and the ones that perform best are copied and, in turn, varied slightly.
In other words, human artefact design processes resembles evolution in many ways, rather than the other way round.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDelete"And would you also write:
'the earth is thought to revolve around the sun'?
Both are merely theories, after all."
I find you rather polite, in contrast to some of the teeth-gnashing monitors who sleep with one open eye on this blog. But this comment shows why it's pointless to have a discussion with you. Talk about equivocation! We're discussing theory of evolution, which I can't even call unsupported because it makes no specific claims to support or not support, and you compare it to the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
Notice that no one debates that second theory, because it's supported by an abundance of evidence. When discussing whether another theory is similarly supported, what is the use of pointing to the orbit of the earth and saying, 'See, it's like that?' It's polite, well-mannered, circular question-begging. That you're using it as a sincere argument in good faith indicates that you're sincerely trapped. If you didn't think that such a comparison made a point, you wouldn't have made it. If you think it does, then it's your reasoning, not your arguments, that are circular.
badwiringI find you rather polite, in contrast to some of the teeth-gnashing monitors who sleep with one open eye on this blog. But this comment shows why it's pointless to have a discussion with you. Talk about equivocation! We're discussing theory of evolution, which I can't even call unsupported because it makes no specific claims to support or not support, and you compare it to the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
DeleteIt was an analogy, possibly a poor one, not an equivocation.
And you are not correct, the theory of evolution is as much a theory as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, although it is more complex. And it makes specific predictions that have been supported by evidence, and it is also regularly modified, as a body of theory, as we discover more.
And it is supported (bear in mind that it it is a complex theory, and more analogous to, say, accounts of the early history of the universe, than the theory that the earth goes round the sun) by an abundance of evidence.
For instance, the mechanism that Darwin proposed for adaptations in populations over time has actually been observed, experimentally, as well as in real-time field observations.
Inferences have to be made in science. For example, if we see a well-defined tree of life situation where it seems like organisms are slowly morphing from one form to the next, then we can make some inferences about what that means. It is the same if we see the forms suddenly appear or jump from one form to another. Elizabeth seems to want the first inference to be allowed but not the second.
ReplyDeleteCollin
DeleteIt is the same if we see the forms suddenly appear or jump from one form to another.
But we don't see any evidence that forms suddenly appear or jump from one form to another.
Discontinuities seen in the fossil record are well known to be an artifact of a very sporadic and very incomplete sampling process in the long term continuous evolution of life. Fossilization is very rare to begin with, and the the further back in time you go the less chance a fossil has of being preserved to the present.
It's no different than looking at the family photo album shots of you assembled while you were growing up. The album may have photos of you at 1 year old, and 5 years old, and 10 years old. That doesn't mean you jumped directly from 1 year old to 5 years old, then directly to 10 years old. It's an artifact of the sampling rate.
Thorton claims:
Delete"Discontinuities seen in the fossil record are well known to be an artifact of a very sporadic and very incomplete sampling process in the long term continuous evolution of life."
and yet:
"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."
Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George
"The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" –
Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard
"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." Robert L Carroll - Paleontologist
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." -
Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95
etc.. etc.. etc..
Hmmm, a Darwinist claims one thing and the truth is found to be another.
Thorton also claims:
Delete"Fossilization is very rare to begin with, and the the further back in time you go the less chance a fossil has of being preserved to the present."
While true as a overall principle, the fact is that the fossil record actually reveals a lot more detail about the history of life on earth than Thorton would prefer to let on:
Macroscopic life in the Palaeoproterozoic - July 2010
Excerpt: The Ediacaran fauna shows that soft-bodied animals were preserved in the Precambrian, even in coarse sandstone beds, suggesting that (the hypothetical transitional) fossils are not found because they were not there.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/02/macroscopic_life_in_the_palaeoproterozoi
Response to John Wise - October 2010
"So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record."
Sean Carroll developmental biologist
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
At North Dakota State University, Presenting the Positive Case for Design – Casey Luskin – February 14, 2012
Excerpt: Indeed, Simon Conway Morris notes in his book Crucible of Creation that in the Burgess Shale fossil collections which document the Cambrian explosion, “about 95 per cent are either soft-bodied or have thin skeletons.” [p. 140].
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/at_north_dakota056351.html
"Are Pre-Cambrian Fossils the Solution to Darwin's Dilemma?" - podcast - January 2012
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-01-20T15_45_26-08_00
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009
Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved."
http://www.discovery.org/a/12471
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263
Does Lots of Sediment in the Ocean Solve the "Mystery" of the Cambrian Explosion? - Casey Luskin April, 2012
Excerpt: I think the Cambrian fossil record is surprisingly complete. I think it may be more complete than we realize. The reason for that is, for instance, if you look at the stratigraphy of the world, if I go and collect Cambrian rocks in Wales and find certain fossils, if I then go to China, I don't find the same species but I find the same sorts of fossils. If I go into Carboniferous rocks, I go to Canada, they are the same as what I find in this country. So there is a clear set of faunas and floras that take us through geological time. The overall framework is falling into position. - Simon Conway Morris
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/lots_of_sedimen059021.html
bornagain: Hmmm, a Darwinist claims one thing and the truth is found to be another.
DeleteWell, the truth is found to be more complicated than originally thought. In this case, rates and ranges of evolution vary considerably, so that changes the sampling prediction.
"Discontinuities seen in the fossil record are well known to be an artifact of a very sporadic and very incomplete sampling process in the long term continuous evolution of life. "
ReplyDeleteSo you've made allowance for the fossil record to be interpreted as discontinuous artifact of a continuous process. You've explained why the fossil record is consistent with gradual evolution even though on the surface it doesn't appear to support it. I don't find fault with that.
But having explained the fossil record in terms of evolution, you can't use the fossil record as evidence of evolution. It's fine to say, "No, the fossil record doesn't appear to demonstrate gradual transitions, but here's the reason why." That's reasonable. But from there the most you can argue is that the fossil record is not inconsistent with gradual transitions. (And I'm sure there plenty of holes to poke in that. Different subject.)
Going to your example of the family photos, you allow that the child and young adult and grown man are all the same person based on the assumption that they are. But given the same photos without that knowledge or the assumption suggested by the context, you would have no way of knowing whether they were the same person. You could insist that the photos must represent different stages in the lives of individuals and arrange them as such, but you could be completely wrong.
In the case of family photos that's a good assumption, although someone could still play a bizarre trick on you. In the case of fossils you're depending on dubious "evidence" to support the assumption. And nearly anyone will support the strength of that evidence by pointing to the fossil record, which as demonstrated is at best consistent with the theory despite an appearance of inconsistency, and therefore cannot support it.
DoesItMatter: Going to your example of the family photos, you allow that the child and young adult and grown man are all the same person based on the assumption that they are. But given the same photos without that knowledge or the assumption suggested by the context, you would have no way of knowing whether they were the same person. You could insist that the photos must represent different stages in the lives of individuals and arrange them as such, but you could be completely wrong.
DeleteSo how would scientists try to resolve the matter? They might look for intermediate photographs to try to tie the various stages together.
So, then a contrarian notes that there is a discontinuity (ages 10-12 when the growth rate was high), and another discontinuity where there just isn't any data (age 3-4, when the parents left off taking photos). And for every new photograph, there's two new gaps! And your conclusion would be that they must all, everyone of them, be separate people, even though we have dozens or hundreds of snapshots.
If it sounds silly, well, it is.
Zachriel,
Delete"So, then a contrarian notes that there is a discontinuity (ages 10-12 when the growth rate was high), and another discontinuity where there just isn't any data (age 3-4, when the parents left off taking photos). And for every new photograph, there's two new gaps! "
Here's the key point that you're missing. Are you interpreting the photographs in light of the abundant evidence that children grow in stages to become adults, or are you attempting to use the photographs as evidence of that?
That's beside the point that it's an awful example because you're still begging the question by likening something reasonably "known" to something that is not.
It's been known that children grow through phases to adulthood long before there were photographs. If the evidence was so weak that we needed occasional family portraits to support it, the evidence would still be weak.
The evidence is lacking. Comparing an unsupported premise to a supported one says nothing about the premise. What you see as a comparison is actually a contrast which makes the opposite of your intended point.
badwiring: Are you interpreting the photographs in light of the abundant evidence that children grow in stages to become adults, or are you attempting to use the photographs as evidence of that?
DeleteWe're evaluating a hypothesis, that is, a tentative claim held for the purposes of deducing and testing its empirical implications. The thought-experiment presumes that your knowledge is limited.
We know that organisms evolve. We can examine a smattering of fossils, and have a strong signal of a nested hierarchy. From this we hypothesize branching descent from common ancestors. We then test this hypothesis by looking for additional fossils, by analyzing the nested hierarchy in more detail, by observing the process of evolution more closely. More specifically, we would propose and test specific hypotheses that are derived from the theory in order to refine that theory.
1/2
ReplyDeleteEL, sorry for the delay, I was busy with my family, and it's a hard job...;)
Me:
- ID predictions on the significant role of centrosomes in cancer, rather than just a negative mutations effect.
EL:
"Can you explain why this is a prediction of ID?
Can you also point to where it was predicted, a priori?"
Wells inferred with design reasoning the possible existence of an undiscovered molecular machine.
While turning the attention to centrosomes during cell division in searching for the reason of cell's cancer, he noted that the centrioles looks like turbines with tilteld blades.
Assuming that these were indeed designed to be just like turbines, as an advocate of intelligent design, he used reverse engineering to predict other features of these centrioles and their influence in cells with or without cancer.
He (a) suggested that each centriole contains an Archimedes screw, that is a must in a turbine, (b) postulated that the force would be provided from the dynein-motor in the centriole, (c) concluded that the system would operate as a vortexer, those devices in labs used to swirl content of test tubes.
Finally, he (d) deduced an high rotating speed for obtaining the polar ejection force used in cell division and (e) found that the rise of cytosolic calcium gradient would shut off the dynein motors, turning off the polar ejection force: if this function would fail to operate, the continuing force would stress and damage the cell.
Consistent with this view, there's the correlation between cancer and calcium deficency, presented in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco
http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey={B72F4DAE-AE00-475F-B0BB-81588D9920D4}&MKey={A017DB07-275B-4A9D-833F-DB2760E62BDA}&AKey={088FBDBF-3C4D-4212-865B-3612F7DD115B}&SKey={E0CD18D9-D609-4622-AF2C-1310A72A4D5E}
So this is an ID prediction cause the view about the primary role of mutations as the cause for cancer, would have disinclined a darwinian scientist to postulate all those hypothesis.
In this case, the appearence of design revealed to be REAL design, and with this Wells concluded the existence of several parts unknown before, even with the reverse engineering hyps developed on structures and functions.
EL:
"Failing that, can you describe how ID accounts better for these data than standard biological
explanations?"
I can't say that for a darwinian scientist it wasn't possible to make the same reasoning and
scientific hyps but that would be more difficult for the underlying assumptions of the theory.
2/2
ReplyDeleteME:
- The front-loading predictions consistent on the recent findings of epigenetics information
activated by antibiotic resistance in microbiome never selected or mutated from the synthetic molecules pressure.
EL:
"Can you cite the front-loading predictions of this effect, and why front-loading by an ID fits the data better than a standard evolutionary explanations?"
The fact that ID says that it's almost impossible to have huge amount of information created via the darwinian mechanisms implies that the informations that emerges from, for example, bacteria as they are stressed with a recent antibiotic molecule (i.e. genes for production of enzimes that confer resistence to the molecule) it's front loaded and silenced and not magically popped up with RM & NS on bacteria populations.
Me:
-The dysteleological "science stopper" argument debunked, consistent with ID.
EL:
This does not appear to be a prediction of ID, and I am not sure what argument you are referring to, how it was debunked, and why the debunking is "consistent" with ID.
This is exactly a prediction, instead.. Do you know what dysteleology means? The "bad design"
argument. I don't know of valid bad designed argument, despite all the attempt with the retina, rubisco, appendix, or others..
ID predicts that supposedly "dysteleological" structure in biology will reveal functional reasons for their features or evidence of some sort of evolutionary decay.
Ayoub, Denton, Minnich an others ID advocates ha identified functional reasons for what could
appear as a "bad design", "debunking" those claim.
Frequently, what appeared "bad designed" has revealed just unknown in all its aspect, confirming rushed claims instead of good and neutral science (revealing the often biased conclusions of several scientists that stops science with their "..it was simply bad designed..").
Me:
- The evidence of discrete infusions of information into biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms.
EL:
"Can you tell me what these "top-down" and "bottom-up" patterns of appearance are, and why they are predicted by ID?"
It's strange that you haven't got this point..
Have you ever heard about cambrian explosion?
That's a top-down pattern of appearance.
It's predicted from ID cause it's inexplicable
with the NS & RM darwinian "just-so" hyps but is consistent with a Desiigner intervention.
Me:
- The extreme (using an euphemism) rarity of amino acids functional sequences within all the possible sequence.
EL:
"Can you explain why this is a prediction of ID and how ID is a better fit to these data than
evolutionary processes?"
This is consistent with ID predictions about the extreme rarity and complexity of life.
If we could see long chain of functional aa simply forming everywhere, that would be a problem for ID.
Instead, as I strongly hope you do know, the rarity of sequences is astronomically high, almost 1 x 10^77 for a 150 aa protein.
The Winkler
DeleteThe fact that ID says that it's almost impossible to have huge amount of information created via the darwinian mechanisms implies that the informations that emerges from, for example, bacteria as they are stressed with a recent antibiotic molecule (i.e. genes for production of enzimes that confer resistence to the molecule)
You still haven't defined information as it applies to biological entities. You still haven't given an objective way to measure it.
it's front loaded and silenced and not magically popped up with RM & NS on bacteria populations.
Where physically does this "front loaded and silenced" information exist? If you say "the genome", then where specifically in the genome? If not in the genome, then where? What about Lenski's long term evolution experiment with E coli? If the information was "front loaded", why did only 1 lineage out of 12 evolve the ability to digest citrate? Why didn't they all evolve identically?
Have you ever heard about cambrian explosion?
Have you ever heard of the Ediacarian biota?
This is consistent with ID predictions about the extreme rarity and complexity of life.
You didn't answer the question. WHY would extreme rarity and complexity logically be expected from any design hypothesis?
Instead, as I strongly hope you do know, the rarity of sequences is astronomically high, almost 1 x 10^77 for a 150 aa protein
The rarity of a particular pre-specifed sequence is astronomically high. The odds of getting any working sequence isn't. It's the same dumb lottery fallacy - the odds of a certain number winning are very small, the odds of someone winning are high.
Sorry TW, all you're doing is parroting back the same old ID arguments that have been refuted a hundred times over. If you want to convince anyone, you need to provide some reasoned actual answers and details instead of blindly repeating the standard ID propaganda.
1/2
ReplyDelete'Thorn':
"You still haven't defined information as it applies to biological entities. You still haven't given an objective way to measure it."
Lodish's "Molecular cell biology" uses hundreds of times the same term (and so I think for the other textbooks): you can refert to it, if you want.
http://bcs.whfreeman.com/lodish6e/default.asp?s=&n=&i=&v=&o=&ns=0&uid=0&rau=0
Lodish use it without the definition? I can make the same..
Me:
it's front loaded and silenced and not magically popped up with RM & NS on bacteria populations.
Thorny:
"Where physically does this "front loaded and silenced" information exist? If you say "the genome", then where specifically in the genome?"
In the same gene, in "off" state cause d by the methylation of histone's tails.
You aren't aware of such details, Thorn?
"What about Lenski's long term evolution experiment with E coli? If the information was "front loaded", why did only 1 lineage out of 12 evolve the ability to digest citrate? Why didn't they all evolve identically?"
I don't think that you know LTEE at such detail and probably not even Lenski himself does.
In the LTEE case with the Cit+, it seems that there was a mutation that modified the function, maintaining always active the digestion and not only in certain conditions: loss of function, hence.
BTW, assuming that it was an epigenetic effect..
As you probably don't know, looking at your questions, the bacteria aren't a perfect photocopy of each other: maybe only some of the populations had what caused the selected ones to express the Cit+.
Or do you think that the entire gene jumped out the experiment with the trial and error process?
http://www.ecogene.org/3.0/?q=gene/EG13538
LOL
Me:
Have you ever heard about cambrian explosion?
Thorn:
Have you ever heard of the Ediacarian biota?
So? Can you explain?
From your source:
"..Most of the currently existing body-plans of animals first appeared only in the fossil record of the Cambrian rather than the Ediacaran. For macroorganisms, the Cambrian biota completely replaced the organisms that populated the Ediacaran fossil record..."
From mine:
"..Later study cast doubt on the affinity between these ancient remains preserved in sandstones and living creatures of today; the great German paleontologist A. Seilacher, of Tübingen University, has even gone so far as to suggest that the Ediacaran fauna has no relationship whatsoever with any currently living creatures. In this view, the Ediacaran fauna was completely annihilated before the start of the Cambrian fauna.."
Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah's Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (W. H. Freeman, 1992), p. 36.
"..Whether they were, in fact, early members of any phyla still living today and possible ancestral forms, or were members of phyla long since extinct, is a question of considerable current debate.
At any rate, they shed little light on the question of which phyla were ancestral to other phyla, or if indeed, animals have a common ancestry.."
Vicki Pearse, John Pearse, Mildred Buchsbaum, and Ralph Buchsbaum. Living Invertebrates (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1987), , p. 764.
The Winkler
Delete'Thorn':"You still haven't defined information as it applies to biological entities. You still haven't given an objective way to measure it."
Lodish's "Molecular cell biology" uses hundreds of times the same term (and so I think for the other textbooks): you can refert to it, if you want.
Lodish isn't claiming that natural processes can't increase 'information', you are. Just as I thought, you can't define 'information' as you are using the term and you can't tell how to measure it. You're just regurgitating boilerplate ID nonsense. Got it.
In the same gene, in "off" state cause d by the methylation of histone's tails.
Then demonstrate it. Show me the information in this 'off' state that created cetaceans from land animals. Or the 'front loading' that created the canid family. You claimed that all of evolution is due to this front loading, not just a few known examples of epigenetics. Are you abandoning that claim now?
I don't think that you know LTEE at such detail and probably not even Lenski himself does.
Yes, he does. The experiment keeps samples of every generation for genetic comparison. His results flat out refute your 'front-loading' claims.
Thorn:Have you ever heard of the Ediacarian biota?
So? Can you explain?
LOL! I love the way you quote 25 year old sources to support your ID nonsense. Here's a hint TW - as soon as you start using the silly Creationist "Cambrian explosion" argument, any scientific credibility you had goes right out the window. Tell me TW - were these "created' Cambrian forms all front-loaded with the 'information' for all the species that followed them in the next 550 million years? All the dinosaurs, all the birds, all the mammals, all the reptiles?
Thorn:You didn't answer the question. WHY would extreme rarity and complexity logically be expected from any design hypothesis?
It's a logical expectation from the works of designer with the capability to create all life on earth.
Still avoiding the question TW. WHY is it a logical expectation?
Lotteries and people are a matter of, say, < 1 * 10^10? We were talking about a "little" difference of 67 magnitudes...
But the principle is exactly the same. Take two decks of cards (104 cards total) and shuffle them together. The probability you'll get any specified arrangement is 104! or approx. 1.03 x 10^166. There's 100 orders of magnitude over your number, but the event still happened. MIRACLE!! Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand the concept.
Rethoric..
You mean valid points that you refuse to address. But that's OK. I've yet to see any IDer who could defend this nonsense.
The Winkler, you may find this paper to be of interest:
DeleteThe advent of hard-part structural support among the Ediacara biota: Ediacaran harbinger of a Cambrian mode of body construction
Clites et al
Geology April 2012 v. 40, no. 4, p.307-310
"Abstract: The apparent lack of taxonomic continuity between the Precambrian and Cambrian fossil records has led to controversial and conflicting interpretations about the Ediacara biota and their place in the evolution of metazoan life on this planet. This has been further complicated by the absence of similar modes of construction between these faunas and the rarity of Precambrian skeletonized fossils. We describe a new Ediacaran organism that represents the oldest multielement organism with structural support through either biomineralization or chitin. Coronacollina acula gen. et sp. nov. from the Ediacara Member (Rawnsley Quartzite) was constructed from a framework of rigid and brittle elements that disarticulated after death. It reveals a constructional mode not recognized previously among members of this assemblage, but one that was prevalent among Cambrian organisms. Coronacollina consists of a truncated cone associated with spicules, up to 37 cm in length, diverging radially from the cone. This constructional morphology is similar to the Cambrian Choia, a low conical demosponge with a corona of long spicules, providing a long-predicted constructional link between the Ediacara biota and the Cambrian fossil record."
Oops!
2/2
ReplyDeleteMe:
This is consistent with ID predictions about the extreme rarity and complexity of life.
Thorn:
You didn't answer the question. WHY would extreme rarity and complexity logically be expected from any design hypothesis?
It's a logical expectation from the works of designer with the capability to create all life on earth.
And is what emerges.
Me:
Instead, as I strongly hope you do know, the rarity of sequences is astronomically high, almost 1 x 10^77 for a 150 aa protein
Thorn:
"The rarity of a particular pre-specifed sequence is astronomically high. The odds of getting any working sequence isn't. It's the same dumb lottery fallacy - the odds of a certain number winning are very small, the odds of someone winning are high."
Sorry but you seem not aware of what you're talking, Thorn..
Your analogy is faulty just for the "quantity" (and not only for the quality) of the numbers involved.
Lotteries and people are a matter of, say, < 1 * 10^10? We were talking about a "little" difference of 67 magnitudes...
And one number, once selected in a lottery, it can't be selected again, contrary to a nucleotide or an aminoacid..
Thorn:
Sorry TW, all you're doing is parroting back the same old ID arguments that have been refuted a hundred times over. If you want to convince anyone, you need to provide some reasoned actual answers and details instead of blindly repeating the standard ID propaganda.
Rethoric...If your answers above would be the "refutations" at which you seem to point, I feel myself "warm beside the fire", as my frined David put it...:)
1/2
ReplyDelete'Thorn':"You still haven't defined information as it applies to biological entities. You still haven't given an objective way to measure it."
Me:
Lodish's "Molecular cell biology" uses hundreds of times the same term (and so I think for the other textbooks): you can refert to it, if you want.
Thorn:
"Lodish isn't claiming that natural processes can't increase 'information', you are. Just as I thought, you can't define 'information' as you are using the term and you can't tell how to measure it."
So I must define information or say how to measure it cause I claim that ET is wrong, while Lodish must not cause he claim that ET is right..
Nice this one, isn't it?
An BTW, just give me an example of increase in information, please..
Peer reviewed and Talk Origin's FAQs free, preferably..
Me:
In the same gene, in "off" state cause d by the methylation of histone's tails.
Thorn:
Then demonstrate it. Show me the information in this 'off' state that created cetaceans from land animals. Or the 'front loading' that created the canid family. You claimed that all of evolution is due to this front loading, not just a few known examples of epigenetics.
Have I said that "..information in this 'off' state that created cetaceans from land animals"?
Such an incredible fairy tale it's maybe your religious belief, not mine..
I'm just saiyng that some features that can move some peoples to address to macro evolution processes as an explanation are indeed informations "released" from a pre-loaded, "off" condition.
Just like the bacterial resistance.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953
Mine is not a theistic evolution position, Thorn, as you might like..
Me:
I don't think that you know LTEE at such detail and probably not even Lenski himself does.
Thorn:
Yes, he does. The experiment keeps samples of every generation for genetic comparison. His results flat out refute your 'front-loading' claims.
And indeed proved that the only feature acquired in more than 50,000 generations is a loss of genetic informations for the molecular machinery to turning off or on the citrate metabolism in some conditions.
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf
Loss, thorn...Consistent with front loading and ID hypothesis...
Thorn:
Have you ever heard of the Ediacarian biota?
Me:
So? Can you explain?
LOL! I love the way you quote 25 year old sources to support your ID nonsense.
25 year old for a geological science issue is not so shocking, if you are honest..
Thorn:
Tell me TW - were these "created' Cambrian forms all front-loaded with the 'information' for all the species that followed them in the next 550 million years? All the dinosaurs, all the birds, all the mammals, all the reptiles?
You haven't grasp what I meant to say..
The "front loading" was about the information for adaptation, but not the miracolous, unscientific kind that you evotists believe.
Little variations and adaptation, just what science CAN prove with experiments, and not "just-so" ideological positions like "if I can't prove it, it must have evolved"..
The Winkler
DeleteSo I must define information or say how to measure it cause I claim that ET is wrong, while Lodish must not cause he claim that ET is right..
Nice this one, isn't it?
An BTW, just give me an example of increase in information, please..
The standard definition of 'information' used in biology is the one first offered by Francis Crick
"By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein"
A simple example of the increase in information is a gene duplication event followed by point mutations to the duplicated segment. There are thousands of known examples in the literature.
Tell me why that isn't an increase in information.
I'm just saiyng that some features that can move some peoples to address to macro evolution processes as an explanation are indeed informations "released" from a pre-loaded, "off" condition.
Then what about the other 99.99% of the time? Where did all the other known changes come from?
Loss, thorn...Consistent with front loading and ID hypothesis...
Show me the calculations that indicate a 'loss' of information. Show me the before and after information values.
25 year old for a geological science issue is not so shocking, if you are honest..
25 years is way old when it comes to new discoveries about the Cambrian and Precambrian. But I guess the ID sites you get your info from haven't been updated in a while. ;)
The "front loading" was about the information for adaptation, but not the miracolous, unscientific kind that you evotists believe.
What about the rest of the data? Did your Designer come by every few centuries in the last 550 million years to *poof* all those species into existence?
2/2
ReplyDeleteThorn:
You didn't answer the question. WHY would extreme rarity and complexity logically be expected from any design hypothesis?
Me:
It's a logical expectation from the works of designer with the capability to create all life on earth.
Thorn:
Still avoiding the question TW. WHY is it a logical expectation?
Because the physical constraints and information specificity of the building blocks of life yields such extreme rarity.
We live in a complicated world, Thorn: if simply solutions would easily yield to life, maybe now we wer talking about Euro 2012...:)
Me:
Lotteries and people are a matter of, say, < 1 * 10^10? We were talking about a "little" difference of 67 magnitudes...
Thorn:
But the principle is exactly the same. Take two decks of cards (104 cards total) and shuffle them together. The probability you'll get any specified arrangement is 104! or approx. 1.03 x 10^166. There's 100 orders of magnitude over your number, but the event still happened. MIRACLE!! Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand the concept.
Oh no! What a delusion... Are you sure you would rise this silly arg?
You are right indeed! :P
But in the case you didn't notice it, here we are talking of the likelihood involved in a SPECIFIC SEQUENCE, and not in a CASUAL SEQUENCE.
The protein sequence is not casual as your trivial sequence of card.
Is HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY specific, HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY complex and coded (in more than one level, as I pointed to you before) and directly connected to FUNCTION, biological function.
Or if you want to use your same faulty logic, why don't you try to obtain your sequence two times in a row?
Or, if you prefer, define a sequence of card, A SPECIFIC ONE, and then let me know when you'll obtain it...Bye bye, see you in 300 M years time..
Me:
Rethoric..
Thorn:
You mean valid points that you refuse to address. But that's OK. I've yet to see any IDer who could defend this nonsense.
I've seen any ETer using this nonsense as valid points..:(
Thorn:
The Winkler, you may find this paper to be of interest:
Thank you Thorn, I appreciate the intent..
But I can't find myself satisfied only with an abstract, no matter how "just-so", rethorical and "darwin bowed" is..
The Winkler
DeleteBecause the physical constraints and information specificity of the building blocks of life yields such extreme rarity.
You still haven't explained why such a thing logically flows from ID. ToE has exactly the same constraints. You need to show that complexity and rarity are unique to ID. Why couldn't an omnipotent designer make life not as rare or not as complex?
But in the case you didn't notice it, here we are talking of the likelihood involved in a SPECIFIC SEQUENCE, and not in a CASUAL SEQUENCE.
OK, please show me the specification for any protein. Not an after-the-fact description; a before-the-fact specification. A specification is a document created before a design is done defining the design's goals. The finished product is then tested to see if it meets the specification. All IDers have done is describe an already existing protein and claim the description is a specification. That's no different than if I wrote down the 104 card sequence from by card game above after they were dealt and declared it to be a HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY specific, HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY complex specification.
As far as function goes, you can't show that the specific protein configuration is the only one that will perform the function, or that the combination of proteins we see now are the only ones that will support life. It's the "sharpshooter" fallacy. You drew the target bullseye around the bullet hole after the shot, then declared it to be a miraculous hit!
Thank you Thorn, I appreciate the intent..
But I can't find myself satisfied only with an abstract, no matter how "just-so", rethorical and "darwin bowed" is.
I don't have access to the full paper either but will try to get a copy. The point is there's now evidence that Cambrian forms do indeed have Precambrian precursors. That pulls the rug right out from under the ID claims about the Cambrian animals all being designed as found.
We live in a complicated world, Thorn: if simply solutions would easily yield to life, maybe now we wer talking about Euro 2012...:)
Been some good matches so far, eh? Sadly not many are televised here in the States. :(
1/2
ReplyDeleteMe:
Because the physical constraints and information specificity of the building blocks of life yields such extreme rarity.
Thorn:
You still haven't explained why such a thing logically flows from ID. ToE has exactly the same constraints. You need to show that complexity and rarity are unique to ID. Why couldn't an omnipotent designer make life not as rare or not as complex?
I'm not saying "that complexity and rarity are unique to ID": as is known, ET [claims that it] explains everithing, so even complexity and rarity through RM & NS.
The point is if these explanations are truly scientifically demonstrable, and the answer is no, because what comes from experiments in the last 50 years says something totally different.
RM & NS are indeed capable of small scale variations and adaptations but not of the magnitude, the variety adn the quantity of the specific steps required from the evidence.
Me:
But in the case you didn't notice it, here we are talking of the likelihood involved in a SPECIFIC SEQUENCE, and not in a CASUAL SEQUENCE.
Thorn:
OK, please show me the specification for any protein. Not an after-the-fact description; a before-the-fact specification. A specification is a document created before a design is done defining the design's goals. The finished product is then tested to see if it meets the specification. All IDers have done is describe an already existing protein and claim the description is a specification. That's no different than if I wrote down the 104 card sequence from by card game above after they were dealt and declared it to be a HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY specific, HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY complex specification.
Whaat? What is this that you're asking?!?!?
HAVE you ANY IDEA of WHAT a protein is?
Do you think it's a lump of chimical substances casually fused together?
1) Scientists studies protein since, when, 1950? And now we know only the "surface" of the story.
2) Yuo're asking me to provide you the reasons why a specific protein sequence is so? Are you kidding? Just look at Wikipedia or at a molecular biology book and study the properties of the 20 left-handed amioacids used by proteins, the alfa helices, the beta strands, and all the reasons for the known structures conformations, due to the covalent or non-covalent forces involved and others physical and mechanical rules. Those are the "specifications" you're asking.
3) I can't grasp how such a reply from me on the constraints of the aas could add a tiny drop of sense to your point...
GODDAMMIT the BLOG ERASED MY LONG REPLY AGAIN!!
DeleteThis is getting pretty irritating. I'll try to recreate it this afternoon.
The Winkler
DeleteI'm not saying "that complexity and rarity are unique to ID": as is known, ET [claims that it] explains everithing, so even complexity and rarity through RM & NS.
OK then, so if rarity of life and complexity aren't unique to ID or required by ID, then using them as predictions to affirm ID is worthless. Got it.
RM & NS are indeed capable of small scale variations and adaptations but not of the magnitude, the variety adn the quantity of the specific steps required from the evidence.
Why not? What barrier makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate over time into macro-evolutionary ones? Don't say "no new information" unless you're willing to provide your definition of 'information' and give an objective way to measure it.
BTW, I notice you had no comment on the definition of 'information' I provided, and the example of information increase I described. I'll take that to mean you agree with both.
Whaat? What is this that you're asking?!?!?
HAVE you ANY IDEA of WHAT a protein is?
I know exactly what a protein is. I'm asking you to provide the before-the-fact specification for a protein, any protein, that you say exists.
2) Yuo're asking me to provide you the reasons why a specific protein sequence is so? Are you kidding?
Not the reasons, just the before-the-fact specification.
Those are the "specifications" you're asking.
No, those are after-the-fact descriptions. I'd like to see the before-the-fact specification, the one the original protein of that type was designed to. If you want to admit you can't provide one that's OK.
2/2
ReplyDeleteThorn:
As far as function goes, you can't show that the specific protein configuration is the only one that will perform the function, or that the combination of proteins we see now are the only ones that will support life.
There are dozens of studies on this subject, and I know them quite well, even in the details..As you know, I don't stop reading the abstract...
Do you want some links and titles?
"Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative
Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors" (sorry, I have the pdf)
"Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences
Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds" (sorry, I have the pdf)
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1 (free)
Science surely is searching for more insight on proteins but this fact is a fact even for the evolutionary theories and not only for ID...One thing is clear: chance and necessity contraints are too weak and slow for achieve what it needs in a protein sequence, and certain step require more than what mutation can physically reach.
For example, in most cases, medicine show us that just a single mutation in a specific protein production causes severe disease and/or malfunction of entire pathway.
So the vast majority (if not all) sequences ARE what yo call "..the only ones that will support life", as it results..
Me:
Thank you Thorn, I appreciate the intent..
But I can't find myself satisfied only with an abstract, no matter how "just-so", rethorical and "darwin bowed" is.
Thorn:
I don't have access to the full paper either but will try to get a copy. The point is there's now evidence that Cambrian forms do indeed have Precambrian precursors. That pulls the rug right out from under the ID claims about the Cambrian animals all being designed as found.
I prefer to wait and see what evidence the study cites.
Me:
We live in a complicated world, Thorn: if simply solutions would easily yield to life, maybe now we wer talking about Euro 2012...:)
Thorn:
Been some good matches so far, eh? Sadly not many are televised here in the States. :(
Didi you see? The next big match Italy - England!!!
Are you english?
The Winkler
DeleteDo you want some links and titles?
Those don't show that the form of a protein is the only possible one, or the only way to support life. I also don't accept self-published ID "research" that hasn't gone through proper peer review.
One thing is clear: chance and necessity contraints are too weak and slow for achieve what it needs in a protein sequence, and certain step require more than what mutation can physically reach.
It's not clear to me or anyone else in the scientific community at all. I'd ask you to demonstrate, but I'm afraid all I'd get is regurgitated ID nonsense with ridiculous made-up probability numbers. Right?
Sorry TW, but I've seen all the ID bogus probability arguments before. Fact is, no one has near enough data to make any kind of accurate probability assessment.
For example, in most cases, medicine show us that just a single mutation in a specific protein production causes severe disease and/or malfunction of entire pathway.
So the vast majority (if not all) sequences ARE what yo call "..the only ones that will support life", as it results..
No, that only shows the proteins and combinations we have now have been highly optimized for our current environment. It says nothing what other variants or combinations are possible, or how they would do in other environments.
I prefer to wait and see what evidence the study cites.
OK, fair enough.
Did you see? The next big match Italy - England!!!
Are you english?
No, native USA, but wife's family is very Italian! I hope they show it here - I may have to find a sports bar. :)
The Winkler: "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative
DeleteAmino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors"
That study actually shows quite a lot of allowable variation, "highly conservative replacements of exterior residues, none of which would cause significant functional disruption alone, are combined until roughly one in five have been changed. This is found to cause complete loss of function in vivo"
The Winkler: "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds"
The problem with that study is that it doesn't consider that mutations could evolve other, possibly related functions. In addition, the conclusion is contrary to the relatively common experiment showing that stable, folding proteins exist in about 10^-11 random sequences.