YouTube
reply to koabarra on Ben Stein & Glenn Beck Show
Intelligent Design – commented
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=293rfcliohY)
COMMENTS
In response to your supernatural comment:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not
only because I see it, but because by? it I see everything else."
~ C.S. Lewis
It is not a question of whether which one is more likely to occur.
Everything in the world can be explained through either viewpoint. The question
of whether he exists or not is simply a measure of what we see in the world.
---
The most common argument is that we would obviously see complexity in
the accumulation of random mutations over a long period of time.
However, ID does not argue that we see simply complexity. We see
irreducible complexity with functionality. Most of these molecular machines
would require all it's working parts to function.
The counter here is that the parts evolved independently of each other.
Problem is, that assumes that all genetic mutations are purely
beneficial. There is no evidence
---
that ANY mutation is purely beneficial. It has been repeatedly
acknowledged that mutations are the LOSS of information. Evolution makes the
assumption that mutation is the gaining of information. Assumptions are not
science; because Science is a study of objective facts.
Another problem is that we have no idea what mobilizes
a protein to do what it's supposed to do. How would a protein decide to do what
it's NOT supposed to do, but start co-operating with another new protein from a
mutation?
---
Also, we come across the problem of never finding a single fossil of all
of these millions of changes over the billions of years that would account for
all these mutations to create something as complex as a human from a
single-celled organism.
In fact, most of the "missing links" such as Lucy and Ida have also, been shown to be false. They're essentially
take a tooth and reconstruct a whole skeleton around it.
Also, those models would be completely possible from genetic variances
in the
---
population itself. For example, if the government started to euthanize all brown eyed people, the next generation of
people would have a higher percentage of people with blue or green eyes. There
has not been a single mutation, but our population has (relatively)
considerably changed.
In fact, Darwin's finches were shown to be exactly this. When the rain
returned, the population's beaks also returned to it's original size.
This does mean that there? is an ability for populations to adapt, but
---
this does not mean that the population will ever become? a new species.
That is Intelligent Design in a nutshell.
---
REPLY
Hi,
I received your YouTube message. I will reply
to your most recent set of comments that you posted on the video. I do not
usually make a reply as long as this but I wanted to be thorough and perhaps
thought it would be useful as a general response to the recurring arguments
that occur.
Ok let’s talk about ID and evolution.
I just want to start off with your quote of C. S. Lewis. C. S. Lewis
wasn’t a scientist, he was a writer and theologian. Also, he passed away before
the bulk of major discoveries in biochemistry, bioinformatics
and quantum gravity cosmology so he would not have been exposed to major pieces
of evidence that are crucial to evolution and philosophy of theism. Why are you
citing him?
Just a little tip. If you’re going to use ONE person’s opinion as an
argument, be sure to read up on his expertise. With enormous respect to a
wonderful author and an extraordinary and admirable person, I think that
particular quote is very irrelevant and is merely a fancy way of expressing a
subjective opinion.
First of all, let me comment on ID in general. ID, as I understand it,
is the idea that certain features of the universe and living things are best
explained by an intelligent cause such as an intelligent agent (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136).
It is based on the idea of complex-specified information (CSI), which is based on
Dembski’s filter. Irreducible complexity is a subset
of CSI saying that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved
from simpler, or “less complete” predecessors because all of its parts must
initially be present in a suitably functioning manner (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp).
Dembski’s filter is basically:
Does event E have a high probability or can it be explained by a law? If
no:
Can it be explained by chance? If no:
Having rejected regularity and chance, must accept design.
More specifically, Dembski arbitrarily defines
CSI as nonrandom information with 500 bits or more.
Basically this is wrong because natural selection can produce information.
Dembski assumed that natural processes are incapable
of producing information exceeding 500 bits. This is not so. The very early
genomes were very small and contained no information. It was due to the natural
selection for efficient replicators that information
increased. Evolutionary mechanisms also increase information and have been
operating on cells for BILLIONS of years. The filter ignores all this.
Another problem is that the first step asks for probabilities that are
unknown, so we simply cannot perform the calculation. Also, success is badly
defined and focuses on a single, specified outcome. For example, many different
protein sequences can give a particular function, not just one. So it is wrong
to calculate the probability of just one particular sequence.
See also:
Behe’s irreducible complexity is also simply wrong.
The systems that Behe cites have all been proved to
be able to have evolved naturally:
The “bacterial flagellum”
1.
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Oct;4(10):784-90. Epub
2006 Sep 5.
From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella.
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/Pallen_Matzke.pdf
This paper shows that
a) There are many different forms of the bacterial flagellum, varying in
structure and mode of function and that in fact most consist of a conserved
core of only about 30 proteins. This only about half of the flagellum proteins
in some species, suggesting the system in these species is not even irreducibly
complex.
b) Vestigial non-functional remnants of flagellar
genes have been found in several bacteria.
c) Flagellar proteins have homology with each
other, suggesting common evolutionary ancestry.
d) They also have homology to other non-flagellum components, further
suggesting evolutionary origins.
2.
Trends Microbiol. 2009 Jan;17(1):1-5. Epub 2008 Dec 10.
Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution:
seek simplicity and distrust it?
Snyder LA, Loman NJ, Fütterer K, Pallen MJ.
This paper shows that
a) Cut-down flagellar systems have other roles besides the flagellum.
b) Many of the proteins have
functional homologs in the geneomes.
c) Not all bacteria have flagellums and that the taxonimical
distribution of the genes could be a gene loss or horizontal gene transfer
(HGT) scenario.
The eye
1.
Science. 2006 Sep
29;313(5795):1914-8.
Casting a genetic light on
the evolution of eyes.
Fernald RD.
https://ekendil.angelfire.com/Doc/IC/Casting_a_Genetic_Light_on_the.pdf
This shows the evolutionary
“stepping stones” for the formation of eyes.
2.
Curr Biol. 2005 Oct 11;15(19):R794-6.
Opsins: evolution in waiting.
Trezise AE, Collin SP.
Shows the evolution of the
proteins that allow us to see – opsins.
Others
There are also examples of
complicated protein complexes that have had their evolutionary history
resolved. An example is complex 1:
J Mol
Biol. 2005 May 13;348(4):857-70.
Tracing the evolution of a
large protein complex in the eukaryotes, NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase
(Complex I).
Gabaldón T, Rainey D, Huynen MA.
There are MANY examples like
these. Want more? Actually, tell you what. Name a system you think is
irreducibly complex.
Other ID proponents like
Meyer (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17471-jefferson-would-not-have-supported-intelligent-design.html)
make the same mistake of viewing DNA just like a code completely ignoring its
evolutionary history.
So in conclusion, ID is not
science, it is just pseudoscience. On the IDEA website they make it very clear that they THINK ID is
science, accepting ANY designer, be it God, extaterrestrials,
etc. However, they even admit themselves that they have a religious bias
towards the God of the Bible!!! So this places ID in the realm of religious pseudoscience. What Dembski, Behe, Meyer and all those other bigots are doing is
actually conjuring a “God of the gaps” argument, which is known for its
cowardice and its intellectual debauchery. This is because EVEN if there wasn’t
any discovered evolutionary history, it would just mean that the history of
that system is unknown. As you can see, so many systems have clear or plausible
evolutionary histories that it is probable the rest have just not been
discovered and are simply unknown.
Let me answer your claims
more specifically now.
You said there is no evidence
that mutations have beneficial effects. Yes, there is. Most mutations are
deleterious, yes, but some are beneficial. And, of course, some mutations and
genetic processes can add information to the genome. I assume by beneficial
mutations you mean mutations that increase your chances of survival by making
you fitter to the environment you are in. Ok, here are a few. Knock yourself
out.
1)
Circulation. 1997 Jun
17;95(12):2628-35.
Genetic variant showing a
positive interaction with beta-blocking agents with a beneficial influence on
lipoprotein lipase activity, HDL cholesterol, and triglyceride
levels in coronary artery disease patients. The Ser447-stop substitution in the
lipoprotein lipase gene. REGRESS Study Group.
Groenemeijer BE et al.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/2628
Mutations found in people
which make them accumulate less “bad” cholesterol and therefore are less likely
to suffer from circulatory disease.
2)
FEBS Lett.
1998 Oct 2;436(2):155-8.
Enhanced fMLP-stimulated
chemotaxis in human neutrophils
from individuals carrying the G protein beta3 subunit
825 T-allele.
Virchow S, Ansorge N, Rübben H, Siffert G, Siffert W.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9781669
A mutation in people that
makes a G-protein cascade work better and therefore gives a better immune
system:
3)
PLoS Biol. 2006 Jul;4(7):e201.
The genetic basis of thermal
reaction norm evolution in lab and natural phage populations.
Knies JL, Izem R, Supler KL, Kingsolver JG, Burch CL.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040201
10 adaptive mutations found
in bacteriophages (type of virus) that make them more
resistant to high temperatures.
4)
Genetics. 1975
Apr;79(4):661-74.
Gene duplication as a
mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Hansche PE.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/79/4/661
A mutation in Yeast in the
enzyme acid monophosphatase that made it better at
metabolising/3-glycerophosphate.
5)
Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12.
Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with
bacteria.
Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss
J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot
M.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/7/3807.full
Mutations in a bacteria that
make it grow faster and better
I can give you hundreds
(literally) more if you want. Want them??? Is that proof enough for you?
Now, you’ve also said that
“how would
a protein decide to do what it's NOT supposed to do”. Well, of course it
doesn’t “know” anything! Mechanisms such as gene duplication create another
copy of the protein and then the proteins evolve independently and after
accumulation of mutations the protein can acquire a new function. This can be
things like a new active site, a new structural role or a new binding site. But
the way a protein acquires new interacting partners in multimeric
protein complex is often due to the self-interacting copies of a protein unit.
Here, take a look at these papers – they describe the evolution of multi-protein complexes.
1)
Nature. 2008 Jun 26;453(7199):1262-5. Epub
2008 Jun 18.
Assembly reflects evolution of protein complexes.
Levy ED, Boeri Erba E, Robinson CV, Teichmann SA.
https://ekendil.angelfire.com/Doc/IC/Assembly_reflects_evolution_of_protein_complexes.pdf
2)
Genome Biol. 2007;8(4):R51.
Evolution of protein
complexes by duplication of homomeric interactions.
Pereira-Leal JB, Levy ED, Kamp C, Teichmann SA.
http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/4/R51
3)
Nat Rev Genet. 2008
Dec;9(12):938-50.
Turning a hobby into a job:
how duplicated genes find new functions.
Conant GC, Wolfe KH.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n12/abs/nrg2482.html
(Abstract only)
About your comment on
functionality, this is also something ID proponents don’t seem to understand.
Functionality arises because of natural selection on the genome to replicate
the genome more efficiently in the organism’s ecological niche. That’s all. It
doesn’t show that there is a purposeful designer, it just shows adaptation of
the organism for DNA replication. That is how evolution directs things and that
is how it works. Therefore CSI is meaningless and cannot be used in practice.
No fossils? Lucy and Ida and the other fossils are false eh?
Rubbish.
First of all, here is a list
of transitional forms. And no, these are not just pretty pictures, they are
based on REAL fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Is that enough for you? How
many do you need, exactly? Did you know that fossilisation
of land animals is a very rare event? That is why almost all our fossils are
sea-animals.
Ok, here is the paper for
Lucy, the original paper:
Nature. 1976 Mar
25;260(5549):293-7.
Plio--Pleistocene hominid discoveries in Hadar, Ethiopia.
Johanson DC, Taieb M.
http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/pdf/260293.pdf
And for Ida:
PLoS One. 2009 May 19;4(5):e5723.
Complete primate skeleton
from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany:
morphology and paleobiology.
Franzen JL, Gingerich PD, Habersetzer J, Hurum JH, von Koenigswald W, Smith
BH.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723
Both have detailed
photographs. Are you seriously suggesting that those are all fake? Why would
someone fake them? Both papers contain detailed investigation of the fossils
and concluded that they are genuine transitional forms. If Lucy wasn’t genuine,
why do so many scientific papers STILL go on talking about the fossil today???
For example:
J Hum Evol.
2005 Jun;48(6):593-642.
Associated cranial and
forelimb remains attributed to Australopithecus afarensis
from Hadar, Ethiopia.
Drapeau MS, Ward CV, Kimbel WH, Johanson DC, Rak Y.
https://ekendil.angelfire.com/Doc/fossils/Associated_cranial_and_forelimb_remains_attributed_to.pdf
This paper further characterises Lucy’s species, A. afarensis,
as probably ancestral species to ours.
Species can’t turn into new
species? Ummm...
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You are simply not
understanding how evolution works. In your macabre example of euthanising brown-eyed people, yes, that would mimic a
selection pressure, but in nature there more selection pressures, more physical
barriers that separate populations and more TIME. Yes, theoretically, if you
split the human population with a HUGE impenetrable wall and left them for
about 3 million years, guess what? You would have 2 species. This is because in
each group the mutations accumulate until the two groups are no longer
genetically compatible and a sperm from one group can’t fertilise
the egg of the other group to make a
baby. This is what has occured naturally for BILLIONS
of years. That’s how evolution works.
You seem to be pretty
ignorant about evolution in general. I cannot educate you since I have neither
the time nor inclination to do so. I suggest you read this evolution primer on
New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/topic/evolution
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
And a very good summary
Nature paper:
Nature. 2009 Feb
12;457(7231):808-11.
Natural selection 150 years
on.
Pagel M.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/nature07889.html
(Abstract only)
There are also many excellent
books out there.
Your arguments uncontroversially show your ignorance of biology and your
probable exposure to misinformation. And see, this is why people often laugh at
you guys. I learnt about A. afarensis in PRIMARY school, and this proves my point.
You have been subjected, I am sorry to say, to misinformation about biology.
And that’s why I am so hostile to the ideology of fundamentalist or fanatic Abrahamic monotheism. Because it is destructive on so many
levels. Not only does it cause wars, it also causes retardation of human
intellect. See, ALL of your arguments I have heard before by fanatic Abrahamic monotheists over and over again. And I think it’s
simply because people who hold that position listen to each other and
regurgitate the same stupid arguments
over and over again without taking time to actually learn about it and look at
the evidence.
So here is what I suggest.
Click on the links, read the papers, inform yourself using sources that are NOT
religious-oriented bigotry, and then we can talk again once you have a
non-biased opinion. Ideally, get a proper science degree or something if you
don’t have one. I have met MANY biologists from MANY universities. Do you know
how many of them reject evolution? ZERO. There is NOT a controversy about it in
the scientific community.
