Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I am suggesting that support for serial mutation is weak. Period. There are several long, ugly threads on this forum with hundreds of posts discussing the implications of the theoretical options if serial mutation is not the cause of speciation.

Why not speak to Evolution in the broader sense?
Mutations can cause evolution, as can NS and genetic drift. It all depends on the circumstances at hand.

"Serial mutation" is an odd term. It suggests, to me, that evolving lifeforms are somewhat "opposed" to non-linear continuity. I find faith in randomness.

As far as speciation goes, it's a challenging science.

Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
iTOL: Interactive Tree Of Life

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Did you happen to catch this program?

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS

The whole thing is quite worth the watch, but Chapter 8 seems to speak specifically to the points you've raised above.

I watched Chapter 8 to see if there was anything new in it. There is not. Although Nova did a good job with cool graphics.

Again, we have a reasonable proposition (that some structures are incredibly complex, and hence are difficult to ascribe to serial mutation) and a counterargument that the flagellum example has parts that are used in other complex structures.

My only point is that both arguments are reasonable. The flagellum components are indeed incredibly complex, highly specific components. The fact that some very highly specific components can be used for completely unrelated, very highly specific functions (unlike the simplistic mousetrap as a tie-clip metaphor in the video) could be as well argued as another proof case for ID. These are protein structures (I don't know how many genes) that are exquisitely integrated with the surrounding membrane tissues.

If someone designed a fuel injector that was also usable as a otoscope, we would probably say that pretty clever (similar shape, very diverse usage). In itself it is a design argument.

The refutation of serial mutation will probably require examples of daughter species expressing complex phenotypes that cannot be shown to have been previously expressed (and hence could not have been selected). I think it is still worth looking.

We would call that activity research.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Again, we have a reasonable proposition (that some structures are incredibly complex, and hence are difficult to ascribe to serial mutation) and a counterargument that the flagellum example has parts that are used in other complex structures.

You seem to misrepresent to the true position of ID. You can equivocate and make your own subjective interpretations all you want, but they are not making reasonable propositions.

They are not suggesting that some structures are "incredibly complex, and hence difficult to ascribe to serial mutaion." They are suggesting that some structures are "irriducibly complex" and could not have come about from evolution.

I know you are brighter than most ID proponents with whom I've had the disfortune to interact, but surely even you can see the difference.



By the way, the very concept of research implies discarding broken ideas. We know the Earth is not flat, and we know that the Earth is not the center of the universe, yet we still are learning through research.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Why not speak to Evolution in the broader sense?

Because "evolution" per se is weakly defined. You have to identify a point within the range of issues to have an informed discussion. It might surprise some to hear that "evolution" only means that things have changed. That definition would include (most) Creationists, since they agree with that.

Even within "Darwinian evolution" there is a range of accepted elements, although the link that IN posted a couple posts previously was a pretty good definition.

I don't (for example) have a problem with the generally accepted earth age (at 4.5 billion years or so) or common descent (that is, all life forms from a common ancestor). I think those elements are well supported. But I think the arguments for serial mutation driving natural selection driving speciation are weak.

Humorously some folks (on this very site) put me in the very same bucket with the folks that think the earth was created in 7-24 hour days,and that all life was mature on day 7. This is presumably because I don't automatically accept the reigning mutation dogma. Go figure.

You see the problem?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The refutation of serial mutation will probably require examples of daughter species expressing complex phenotypes that cannot be shown to have been previously expressed (and hence could not have been selected). I think it is still worth looking.

We would call that activity research.

And we would call the results, allelic drift (assuming that the organism interacts with others).

[InfiniteNow]

SIDE NOTE:

Let's recognize that BioChemist is a good contributor. I may disagree completely with his conclusions, but he makes my own arguments stronger by challenging them in an intelligent way.


I ask that NOBODY consider him a run of the mill IDiot, because his posts here on Hypography VERY clearly show that he is not. I want my approach to this topic to be stronger, and the only way that will happen is if folks with his knowledge and ability are here to challenge me and my points. I'm sure everyone here wants the same, so the same goes for you.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You seem to misrepresent to the true position of ID. You can equivocate and make your own subjective interpretations all you want, but they are not making reasonable propositions.

You are again critiquing my argument by referencing their argument.

You are essentially doing what Creationists do when they point to Genesis 1 and say "see- it says 7 days; it means 7 days". Genesis 1 could mean a whole bunch of things, just in regular English.

Likewise, Behe did not (I don't think) mean to terminate his argument (or the discussion) when he created the term "irreducible complexity". I don't think my argument is significantly different than his. If you feel better calling "pretty complex, hence pretty unlikely", (PCHPU) then call it that. The thesis still stands. These arguments are all (unfortunately) highly probabilistic. When I referenced above that I can't see how we got to life from a standing start in 300 million years, that is fundamentally a probabilistic argument. One support for my position is that it has (apparently ) not happened again in the ensuing 3.5 billion years, even thought the environment is significantly less hostile.

I find that interesting.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I think the arguments for serial mutation driving natural selection driving speciation are weak.

When put that way, I have to agree.
Nonetheless, your comment suggests to me that you are not considering other factors of evolution such as genetic drift and gene flow. It is not necessarily a causal science in the way you suggest. NS is pervasive, but other factors are at work. It is not necessarily linear, as you describe.

Humorously some folks (on this very site) put me in the very same bucket with the folks that think the earth was created in 7-24 hour days,and that all life was mature on day 7. This is presumably because I don't automatically accept the reigning mutation dogma. Go figure.

Nobody's done that since you've returned, AFAICT.

You see the problem?

Nope, can you elaborate on this problem?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

SIDE NOTE:

Let's recognize that BioChemist is a good contributor. I may disagree completely with his conclusions, but he makes my own arguments stronger by challenging them in an intelligent way.


I ask that NOBODY consider him a run of the mill IDiot...

I am deeply honored. Most of my peers consider me a very special idiot, not the run-of-the-mill sort.

I am also suspicious that idiots can run mills, ergo the standard idiot is more probably a can't-run-the-mill idiot.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by freeztar

...your comment suggests to me that you are not considering other factors of evolution such as genetic drift and gene flow.

I don't have any issues with genetic drift. I am not confident it is a material contributor to speciation, but it is reasonably well established. My view is that genetic drift is just expression of recessive alleles. Ergo it is unrelated to serial mutation. But it is indeed a subset of gradualism.

..NS is pervasive, but other factors are at work. It is not necessarily linear, as you describe.

I am frankly a little uncomfortable taking on NS directly. Part of the issue is that NS encompasses a large set of different processes (some, for example, are readily reversible) with significantly different mechanisms. I would rather talk about mechanisms than the macro topic. It makes the discussion tighter.

Nobody's done that since you've returned, AFAICT.

And I am tickled. So nice to be remembered.

Nope, can you elaborate on this problem?

As I mentioned in this post, NS (for example) in normal usage comprises both genetic drift (which I accept) and serial mutation (which I question). If we don't stay at a specific level of detail, we get a lot of off-topic noise. I really love this place when we have the really grisly knock-down face-offs and still stay on topic.

Speaking of that, where is Buffy anyway?