|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2005 : 13:42:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dave W.
As if evolutionary biologists don't. But the simple fact of the matter is that for decades, now, it's been known that just random mutation and natural selection are not sufficient to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
You lost me here Dave. What else do we need?
quote:
Cuneiformist
Right, Dave, and I actually struggled with this for awhile before writing. I guess is how we choose to interpret the word 'design.' Behe obviously means for 'design' to imply intelligent action. I was following him. But it's true that various forces-- e.g. natural selection-- are designing life's diversity on earth. But even if we've given a name to it, does natural selection really design? Did a river design the Grand Canyon? By some interpretation, yes. But obviously not Behe's-- hence the need to add "Intelligent" before "Design."
Exactly, Behe only means intelligent as by something sentient. Design itself has a much broader definition.
As to not being able to explain the beginning of life from inorganic molecules, it's very clear what the general mechanism is. Maybe the specifics aren't worked out yet but to suggest there are no valid hypotheses with good preliminary evidence ignores the last 20 years of genetic research. Which, of course, is what IDers and Creationists do. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2005 : 14:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You lost me here Dave. What else do we need?
Genetic drift. Horizontal gene transfer. The mechanism (I forget the name) by which an organism gets engulfed by another and the two evolve as one thereafter (like the mitochondria in all critters which have 'em).
I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list, and there are probably other mechanisms of evolution which have not yet been discovered.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2005 : 23:27:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You lost me here Dave. What else do we need?
Genetic drift. Horizontal gene transfer. The mechanism (I forget the name) by which an organism gets engulfed by another and the two evolve as one thereafter (like the mitochondria in all critters which have 'em).
I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list, and there are probably other mechanisms of evolution which have not yet been discovered.
Oh. I just lumped those mechanisms in with mutation but they aren't the same and they do make a tremendous difference.
Gene transfer systems
1) Transformation - transfer and uptake of free DNA, NO cell to cell contact, though I recall this could happen when one cell consumed another so that would be no nucleus to nucleus contact (I may be remembering this incorrectly)
2) Transduction - phage mediated transfer of DNA, transfer of DNA by viruses, NO cell to cell contact
3) Conjugation - plasmid mediated transfer of DNA, DNA transferred from donor to recipient cell via conjugation bridge
4) Reassortment - the RNA segments can get mixed up when a cell is infected with two different viruses
5) Progeny recombinant - self explanatory |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 00:31:42 [Permalink]
|
There are many different mecanisms with solid evidence, but the primary mechanism for evolutionary change is natural selection.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 04:27:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
There are many different mecanisms with solid evidence, but the primary mechanism for evolutionary change is natural selection.
Selection has to act on something. The variety of genetic differences available to be acted upon is the other half of the equation. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 18:07:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
There are many different mecanisms with solid evidence, but the primary mechanism for evolutionary change is natural selection.
Nobody's arguing that, Dude. What Behe and the like are arguing against is the position that mutation and natural selection (only) completely explain the diversity of life. In that, they're correct, and won't find many biologists who'd fight 'em, because we know about all sorts of non-random mutations, non-mutative changes, and I forgot, in my previous post, to mention sexual selection.
Yes, natural selection is in the top two on the list of important evolutionary mechanisms, but neither we nor Behe are saying that natural selection isn't important. It just isn't the whole story. Biologists know that. Behe and all of the Discovery Institute (I believe) deny that biologists know that, and it's a very strong part of their rhetoric with the public. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 20:12:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Selection has to act on something. The variety of genetic differences available to be acted upon is the other half of the equation.
That's part of the definition of natural selection.
quote:
Yes, natural selection is in the top two on the list of important evolutionary mechanisms, but neither we nor Behe are saying that natural selection isn't important. It just isn't the whole story. Biologists know that. Behe and all of the Discovery Institute (I believe) deny that biologists know that, and it's a very strong part of their rhetoric with the public.
Yeah. They deliberately conflate "primary mechanism" with "only mechanism", and argue against their nice little strawman.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2005 : 14:31:01 [Permalink]
|
Here's a section of a post from a guy who attended the Behe debate at Texas A&M the other day. From the BABB:quote:
Michael Behe spoke first for 35 minutes. It was a very nice powerpoint presentation, very easy for layfolks to follow, and injected with funny jokes well spaced out. His focus was specific; "irreduceable complexity" in biochemical systems. He had time for two examples, the flagellar motor in a bacterium, and the human blood clotting system. His arguments were very convincing... even I found them compelling. He didn't get much into detail though, which I found conveniently annoying.
Then Dr. Cassone, a prominent neurobiologist that's our department head, had his 35 minutes. His powerpoint presentation started off rockier, less smooth and obviously less practiced. I felt twinges of initial panic. But as Cassone progressed, his presentation improved. He took as his main tack one of Behe's examples from his book (human vision), and focused on that. He pretty much demolished irreduceable complexity as Behe defined it, at least a couple times over. Cassone pounded detail after detail about eye pigments and eye function at the biochemical level, to the point where anyone who had their doubts must've been deaf and blind. Some of Cassone's research involves bird vision, and it showed in the presentation.
Oh yeah, for conclusion Cassone posted up information regarding the "Wedge Strategy" and listed Behe as a senior fellow.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
The audience went dead silent. DEAD SILENT. It was unnerving.
Check out "The Wedge Strategy". Now that's an eye opener. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2005 : 14:56:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Oh yeah, for conclusion Cassone posted up information regarding the "Wedge Strategy" and listed Behe as a senior fellow.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
The audience went dead silent. DEAD SILENT. It was unnerving.
Check out "The Wedge Strategy". Now that's an eye opener.
I think that's some of the best material you can put out there. It may seem like just another personal attack, but in reality it reveals what the goals are behind ID "science". |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2005 : 16:47:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think that's some of the best material you can put out there. It may seem like just another personal attack, but in reality it reveals what the goals are behind ID "science".
The motivation and/or goals of one side of an argument is valid information, as long as your argument isn't "These are this guy's stated goals, therfore his info is bad."
When you demonstrate your opponents argument to be bad, and then deliver info concerning their agenda (that is directly relevent to their argument), it's a nice way to drive home a point.
Sounds like Dr. Cassone is on the ball.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2005 : 18:40:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
That's part of the definition of natural selection.
This may be nit-picking, but no. Natural selection is a force which acts upon species. And it acts upon species whether they are genetically diverse or not. It can act most severely upon species which have no diversity (perfect clones), actually.quote:
Yeah. They deliberately conflate "primary mechanism" with "only mechanism", and argue against their nice little strawman.
Precisely. And for some reason, it's a big hit with the Fundies, even though it's a sin. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2005 : 01:55:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by beskeptigal Selection has to act on something. The variety of genetic differences available to be acted upon is the other half of the equation.
Then I said: that's part of the definition of natural selection.
Then:
quote:
Posted by Dave_W This may be nit-picking, but no. Natural selection is a force which acts upon species. And it acts upon species whether they are genetically diverse or not. It can act most severely upon species which have no diversity (perfect clones), actually.
To pick a nit: "The variety of genetic differences available" covers diverse and non-diverse species. It's a quantity non-specific statement. Natural selection acts upon whatever is there to be acted upon.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
