Another Darwin assault

[lemit]

What do you think of this "Soapbox" piece--Soapbox being kind of the equivalent of an op-ed?

This year, the world recognizes two milestones around the life of naturalist Charles Darwin: his birth in 1809 and the 150th anniversary of his pivotal book, "The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

 

While Darwin was trained in the seminary and not sciences, he was a keen observer and recorded those observations on his voyage on the Beagle from 1831 to 1836.

 

Today, Darwin is universally recognized as the father of evolution, the theory that all life evolved from a common living ancestor, which in turn evolved from nonliving matter. Our public schools and universities have built their science teaching and research presuppositions upon this idea that "molecules turned into men over time" and treat it as fact. Darwin believed this to be true until he died, but he didn't have much of the details worked out, rather just "one long argument" for it. Darwin also saw his theory as being a comforting replacement for a belief in God because he didn't like the idea of hell, nor could he reconcile suffering in the world with the idea of a good God.

 

Darwin's legacy is both an advancement in our understanding of the natural world and the human disaster of atheistic regimes like Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Naturalism presupposes that no supernatural force was involved in our origins and thus gives us no purpose, positions man free from the laws of God, and makes man merely an animal, seeking his own pleasure at the expense of others.

 

Scientists have imposed atheistic presuppositions on the explanation of origins - a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The teaching of evolution as fact in science classrooms is also wrong because observational data do not support the theory.

 

Today's science textbooks teach evolution as fact, when already known facts and laws directly contradict it. In high school biology textbooks, we're told that life can only come from life (the Law of Biogenesis), which Louis Pasteur proved via experiment, yet in following chapters we are told that "life arose" from nonlife 3.5 billion years ago. We're told that species slowly morph into more complex new species over long periods of time, yet this has never been observed, even after observing tens of thousands of generations of bacteria.

 

I believe that our culture has been deceived into thinking that evolution can explain life's origins when the facts prove that it cannot. Life's information, complexity, interdependence and sustainability are much better explained by the history in Genesis. The facts of science back this up. Dr. Rob Carter will visit Fort Collins this week to share the latest findings in the human genome and how the story of creation, the catastrophe of the flood and the dispersal of the people all line up consistently with the data of human genetics and fit much better than the evolutionary scenario. If this interests you, come hear Dr. Carter speak at 3 p.m. Friday in the North Ballroom of Lory Student Center at Colorado State University.

 

And if you can't make that but are interested in the topic of creation/evolution and how we can all work together to have science stay connected to truth, e-mail me at [email protected] and I'll be happy to talk with you.

 

Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 29, 2009

 

When I helped with a Soapbox essay for this same paper a few months ago, we spent several weeks checking facts and rewriting our essay (about biochar) so it succeeded logically and the general public could understand what we were talking about. The newspaper staff itself has a long-standing tradition of not bothering to read what is in the paper. Or at least that is the assumption that has developed over the years.

 

Several years ago this newspaper asked me to conduct training sessions for their staff. I very carefully looked through a few editions and declined their request. There were too many things I had learned my first month in journalism school that the editors apparently never learned, either in school or in life. I didn't know how to get to a starting point.

 

But disregarding the paper it's published in, what do you think about the substance of this particular attack on Darwin?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[Getting A Life]

Pasteurs experiment did nothing to prove that only life begets life. It established that life begets life, nothing more.

 

Urey & Miller's experiments, however, shed some important light on the debate. Through synthesising organic molecules from inorganic constituents they showed, in a laboratory, what could easily have happened in nature.

 

Evolution not being observable is preposterous. Just change the word 'natural' in natural selection to artificial as in artificial selection and we see profound evidence that selection engenders changes in physical characteristics right before our eyes. All our brassicas from wild mustard, all our dog breeds from wolves...

 

As for all that God malarky - there is the case that lacks evidence. It's high time someone started taking churches to court for procuring money under false pretenses.

 

The article is appalingly badly written, and not researched at all. Which is typical of near everything written by christians. Just another fraudulent and opinionated christian agenda.

[sman]

...what do you think about the substance of this particular attack on Darwin?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

 

Like so many attacks on darwinism, this one belies that the author doen't know the first thing about darwinism. I don't understand why they don't just pick up a book about it - it's so easy to do.

 

Darwinism requires life to operate and is therefore not a rival theory for the origin of life. The origin of life cannot be approached from biology. It is the relm of chemistry and physics.

 

The myths relayed in Genesis in no way save us from our ignorance of how life first arose. This is obvious in the text itself ... you'd think people would pick up a copy of the bible before they made pronoucements like this - it's so easy to do.

[Galapagos]

I am going to quickly run through this article and respond/comment because I haven't done this in a while, and it's nice to give the anti-creationist module of me old noodle a good flexin' every once in a while.

 

Today, Darwin is universally recognized as the father of evolution, the theory that all life evolved from a common living ancestor, which in turn evolved from nonliving matter.

 

He is universally identified as such by layfolk and creationists with an agenda. Both the idea of a universal common ancestor and the idea that life evolves predate Darwin. Darwin's accomplishment was to synthesize many of his findings as a naturalist into a cogent argument that lineages change over time, and that natural selection was the primary agent responsible for biological adaptation.

 

Our public schools and universities have built their science teaching and research presuppositions upon this idea that "molecules turned into men over time" and treat it as fact. Darwin believed this to be true until he died, but he didn't have much of the details worked out, rather just "one long argument" for it.

Darwin never publicly professed a belief that life arose from molecules through a process of chemical evolution, although he did in private state that he suspected this to be the case:

Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life

 

Darwin also saw his theory as being a comforting replacement for a belief in God because he didn't like the idea of hell, nor could he reconcile suffering in the world with the idea of a good God.

Indeed, Darwin found the idea of Hell to be distasteful and doubted the existence of a benevolent deity because of the suffering in the world. The author is implying that Darwin believed his theory to be true because it was comforting, not because the evidence was convincing. This is a highly dishonest tactic and the author is clearly imputing motives to Darwin that no one could ever possibly know about for rhetorical purposes.

Darwin's legacy is both an advancement in our understanding of the natural world and the human disaster of atheistic regimes like Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Naturalism presupposes that no supernatural force was involved in our origins and thus gives us no purpose, positions man free from the laws of God, and makes man merely an animal, seeking his own pleasure at the expense of others.

Nonsense. Stalin's head geneticist Lysenko was an utter failure who wrongly believed Lamarckian evolution to be true(his basic mistakes about genetics cost a lot of lives through the failed agricultural projects of the USSR). In fact, geneticists who believed in a Darwinian conception of evolution were persecuted in Russia for their scientific views at this time.

I'm not sure if Mao was familiar with Darwin's work at all, but I'm willing to bet the author did as much research for that assertion as they did for the one about Soviet Russia.

 

Scientists have imposed atheistic presuppositions on the explanation of origins - a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The teaching of evolution as fact in science classrooms is also wrong because observational data do not support the theory.

Teaching facts about the universe is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, and evolution(and natural selection as a mechanisms thereof) are both established scientific facts. This is simply a falsehood.

 

Today's science textbooks teach evolution as fact, when already known facts and laws directly contradict it. In high school biology textbooks, we're told that life can only come from life (the Law of Biogenesis), which Louis Pasteur proved via experiment, yet in following chapters we are told that "life arose" from nonlife 3.5 billion years ago. We're told that species slowly morph into more complex new species over long periods of time, yet this has never been observed, even after observing tens of thousands of generations of bacteria.

 

Speciation has been obsereved, and Louis Pasteur determined that entire maggots and flies don't spontaneously arise(kind of like being created) from older rotting animals. That has zero bearing on the question of whether or not primitive life arose from non-living molecules in a process of chemical evolution.

I believe that our culture has been deceived into thinking that evolution can explain life's origins when the facts prove that it cannot.

Scientists may or may not determine how chemical evolution, abiogenesis, or the origin of life occurred. They have already determined that evolution happened and that we evolved from ape-like hominid ancestors.

Life's information, complexity, interdependence and sustainability are much better explained by the history in Genesis. The facts of science back this up. Dr. Rob Carter will visit Fort Collins this week to share the latest findings in the human genome and how the story of creation, the catastrophe of the flood and the dispersal of the people all line up consistently with the data of human genetics and fit much better than the evolutionary scenario.

 

I wrote up this entire reply without having read this far down in the article, and I kind of feel ripped off now! There will be no getting through to someone this dogmatic. The stories from genesis are obviously mythology to anyone who isn't a victim of brainwashing or severe self-deception.

[lemit]

I wrote up this entire reply without having read this far down in the article, and I kind of feel ripped off now! There will be no getting through to someone this dogmatic. The stories from genesis are obviously mythology to anyone who isn't a victim of brainwashing or severe self-deception.

 

Now you know why I made the statements about the newspaper, and you also know how I felt when I read the thing the first time. To have advertising on an op-ed page is very sloppy journalism. That sloppiness has characterized that newspaper in the fifty years I've read it. I'm glad you saw the deception.

 

I was impressed by your response to all of the thing. Thank you for saying the things I was thinking but didn't have the background to put into writing.

 

--lemit

[HydrogenBond]

There are two opposing schools of thought about life. The naturalists has life evolving from basic chemicals through random interactions and natural selection. The creationist has life appearing fully formed through divine means. Could there be something in the middle that says both at the same time?

 

For example, when a star forms from a cloud of interstellar gas, star genesis will be similar for all stars and is quite predictable, based on natural laws. The cloud will begin to collapse, rotate and then light appears. The template for making a star is there, even before the physical process begins, due to the way natural laws, such as gravity, behave with the mass. The creationist says god made the stars. The evolutionists says this occurs through random and selection. The middle says natural laws will pre-define this template goal, which is to make a star, even before it happens. But there will be random variation along this theme.

 

To apply this star effect to life, we need some natural laws specific to life that can set natural direction toward templates. There are two natural laws, based on observation. Nature prefers highest entropy and lowest energy. But life, over time, will lower entropy and increase its energy value.

 

The energy value within life is a reflection of its caloric value. Unlike a rock, which nature tries to puts at lowest energy, life gains caloric energy value as it grows, even though nature would prefer lowest energy. The lowering entropy within life is a reflection of evolving efficiency, which implies an increasing level of atomic and molecular order. Less efficient will have more entropy, since more random things can happen.

 

For example, going from simple RNA replicators to an entire functional cell, implies the amount of integrated molecular order gets higher and higher (atoms once randomly floating within water, gaining order by being placed in specific spots). This integrated unit, also defines more energy within its structure (belongs to itself).

 

Life makes use of two opposing principles; its own goal is toward higher energy and lower entropy. But life is also a part of nature which prefers lower energy and higher entropy. The balance for life, favors life, with life net evolving toward higher energy and lower entropy over time. But nature is still in effect, adding entropy through genetic variations and lowering energy via life feeding on other life. This lowers the energy value in the direction of the natural push and increases the entropy of the atoms that were once ordered within life. But life recycles this energy to gain or maintain energy against the push of nature.

[freeztar]

Please stay on topic, HB.

 

Posts in this thread should be limited to critiques of the article in the OP, not random musings on entropy and life. If you'd like to discuss such things, please create a new thread.

[HydrogenBond]

The modern theory of evolution uses genetic changes, as the cause, leading to the effect we call selective advantage. Darwin's thesis was very important, because he helped define the effect called selective advantage. But the genetic cause did not reach fruition for another century, with the isolation of DNA and the genetic code.

 

It is interesting to consider how Darwin would have explained the cause for his historic effect. Without knowing about genetics, at that time in history, he would have had to use other causes more in vogue within the science of that time. This did not diminish the value of the Darwinian effect, even if the causes were not correct. Darwin solved part of the puzzle.

 

In modern times, we have the genetic cause and the selective advantage effect. But what is still missing is how these two bookends connect, in terms of how life takes advantage of a genetic change, converts this into something that is part of the existing bio-chemical integration, to produce a selective advantage. This middle area is where I tend to dwell because modern evolution can't fully answer these questions.

 

Let me give an example, of that middle area. Say a random genetic change produces a new gene that can produce a new protein from a new precursor. That gene's protein can do nothing until we also evolve a transport protein since very little enters the cell without direct assistance. Does the cell need to randomly generate both at the same time, or will the DNA bury the first and wait for the second?

 

Let us get more complicated and look at multicellular. Cells communicate with other cells with chemicals. Say we need another cell to produce the precursor, before the transport protein can transport it, so the original genetic change is able to take effect. We need three coordinated genes before any selective advantage. What are the odds for that all at once? While any gene is waiting for the other two, what happens if another genetic change occurs in one of them, does it all have to start from scratch?

 

In modern evolution, we have the cause which goes to the final effect. It moves like lightning in the fog. We fail to address what goes on behind the scenes to make it possible again and again. Addressing this is the next step in the evolution of evolution. It is too early to make a dogma.

 

The debate for this topic is dogma against dogma. I see the two as two different stages in the history of thought about evolution. One is more modern, but there is still much work to do at the interface between cause and effect. Darwin did not need to know the real cause to derive the effect. Modern science did not need to know the middle to generate the cause for the effect. Now we need to know the middle.

[Buffy]

We need three coordinated genes before any selective advantage. What are the odds for that all at once? While any gene is waiting for the other two, what happens if another genetic change occurs in one of them, does it all have to start from scratch?

No it does not. We see again and again throughout evolution the development of structures that are initially created for one thing that prove useful for another.

 

In line with the original intent of this thread, you blithely pass off a very commonly used Creationist falsehood as a given in order to argue against Evolution.

 

Irreducible Complexity has been flogged quite completely to death around here if you search around the forums a bit.

 

Thanks for the object lesson HB....

 

Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth, and no opinions so fatally mislead us, as those that are not wholly wrong; as no watches so effectually deceive the wearer as those that are sometimes right, :(

Buffy

[Galapagos]

The modern theory of evolution uses genetic changes, as the cause, leading to the effect we call selective advantage. Darwin's thesis was very important, because he helped define the effect called selective advantage. But the genetic cause did not reach fruition for another century, with the isolation of DNA and the genetic code.

 

It is interesting to consider how Darwin would have explained the cause for his historic effect. Without knowing about genetics, at that time in history, he would have had to use other causes more in vogue within the science of that time. This did not diminish the value of the Darwinian effect, even if the causes were not correct. Darwin solved part of the puzzle.

Natural selection is still the only evolutionary force that can maintain an adaptation - whether the novel adaptations arise from the recombination/reorganization of pre-existing developmental patterns, or mutation. Darwin did not just solve part of a puzzle, he solved THE puzzle of adaptation. Selection is necessary for the maintenance of adaptation, and thus is necessary for life to evolve.

 

As for inheritance, Darwin knew that inheritance had to be governed by some rules, he just wasn't sure what those rules were. Darwin believed inheritance was explained by a process of pangenesis involving the blending of so called gemmules, which was obviously flawed and heavily criticized by some of his contemporaries(ever-blending gemmules would eventually lead to a homogenous population, not a population with the variation required for selection to operate). Darwin even recognized the flaws in this part of his theory, and was never able to make sense of it(inheritance clearly happens, but the question was how). Little did he know that in 1866 the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel had published his groundbreaking findings about the laws of independent assortment/segregation in an article in a journal in the German language which was ignored by almost all naturalists of the time. Darwin solved the puzzle in that he knew inheritance had to happen, he just didn't know how that process would operate mechanistically.

The synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian selection during the 1920s was the beginning of our modern conception of evolution, the so called Modern Synthesis. The discovery of DNA as the particles of inheritance didn't happen until about 30 years later, but the rules governing inheritance were determined by Mendel.

 

----

 

It would be appreciated if you shortened your posts by cutting out the misrepresentations of the history of biology and just posting concise creationist objections or whatever. Believe it or not, typing long scientifically/historically accurate posts and fact-checking rather than just pulling things out of your @$$ is more exhausting than it sounds.

In modern times, we have the genetic cause and the selective advantage effect. But what is still missing is how these two bookends connect, in terms of how life takes advantage of a genetic change, converts this into something that is part of the existing bio-chemical integration, to produce a selective advantage. This middle area is where I tend to dwell because modern evolution can't fully answer these questions.

Modern evolutionary biologists can answer these kinds of questions and plenty of them are doing so today. When you say "modern evolution can't fully answer these questions", you should be saying "I can't fully answer these questions", and that is because you don't regularly read the academic literature on evolutionary biology, nor are you a trained biologist.

I will now attempt address your creationist objections to the best of my limited ability, but after about 2 years of studying biology at the collegiate level and watching you make false claim after false claim while learning nothing on this internet forum, I sincerely doubt you will benefit from it. I will also recommend some items for you to read, but you have obviously ignored my previous recommendations as well, so again, my expectations are low.

 

Let me give an example, of that middle area. Say a random genetic change produces a new gene that can produce a new protein from a new precursor. That gene's protein can do nothing until we also evolve a transport protein since very little enters the cell without direct assistance. Does the cell need to randomly generate both at the same time, or will the DNA bury the first and wait for the second?

 

You are assuming a new functioning gene arises ex novo and is then expressed an an empty, vacuum like cell. If this were the case, then your objections might make sense. The cells themselves are made from proteins and various protein products, all of which are produced by genes being expressed together at the right time(kind of like a cake being made by the ingredients being mixed in the right amounts at the right time). By the time cells as we recognize them evolved at all, the developmental networks of genes cross regulating each other's expression are already in place.

As for the origin of new genes with novel protein products in modern cells, one way these are believed to often arise is through a mutation called a gene duplication, followed by slight deviation through mutation+selection of one(or more) of these duplicates. The idea is that if a gene is duplicated, the second(or however many) copy can deviate through mutation and alterations of expression without disrupting the developmental or homeostatic processes the original copy of the gene was involved in(because that original copy can keep doing whatever process it did). Duplications are likely suspects in the source of novel genes because of this ability to already function in the complex developmental/homeostatic networks, and the freedom they have to deviate while the original copy continues with its function.

Here is a recent article published in the journal Molecular Microbiology that discusses how duplication(and triplication and quadruplication :eek_big:) have played a role in the evolution of transport proteins:

Tracing pathways of transport protein evolution. [Mol Microbiol. 2003] - PubMed result

We have conducted bioinformatic analyses of integral membrane transport proteins belonging to dozens of families. These families rarely include proteins that function in a capacity other than transport. Many transporters have arisen by intragenic duplication, triplication and quadruplication events, in which the numbers of transmembrane α-helical hydrophobic segments (TMSs) have increased. The elements multiplied may encode two, three, four, five, six, 10 or 12 TMSs and gave rise to proteins with four, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 12, 20, 24 and 30 TMSs. Gene fusion, splicing, deletion and insertion events have also contributed to protein topological diversity. Amino acid substitutions have allowed membrane-embedded domains to become hydrophilic domains and vice versa. Some evidence suggests that amino acid substitutions occurring over evolutionary time may in some cases have drastically altered protein topology. The results summarized in this microreview establish the independent origins of many transporter families and allow postulation of the specific pathways taken for their appearance.

 

Another way novel transport mechanism could have arisen is through the random, neutral accumulation of mutations that end up being propitious when combined in a certain situation later. This was shown to likely be the case for some components of the TIMM transport complex in a paper recently published in PNAS:

The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine — PNAS

Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular machines for protein transport. How these molecular machines evolved is a fundamental question. Mitochondria were derived from an α-proteobacterial endosymbiont, and we identified in α-proteobacteria the component parts of a mitochondrial protein transport machine. In bacteria, the components are found in the inner membrane, topologically equivalent to the mitochondrial proteins. Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general.

 

 

 

Let us get more complicated and look at multicellular. Cells communicate with other cells with chemicals. Say we need another cell to produce the precursor, before the transport protein can transport it, so the original genetic change is able to take effect. We need three coordinated genes before any selective advantage. What are the odds for that all at once? While any gene is waiting for the other two, what happens if another genetic change occurs in one of them, does it all have to start from scratch?

The answer I gave above applies to multicelluar and single celled organisms(also see the bacterial ABC transporters). You are still missing the target here. Novel protein products do not just get expressed into empty cells without a way to be transported. There are already transport proteins with labile electrostatic affinities for the different molecules that may comprise new proteins(the converse is also true, proteins could be transported to a new place by a slight modification of a transport mechanism, which still works due to these labile affinities due to shared components). The fact that many genes represent divergent lineages of ancestral duplications means many hormones, binding sites, transport proteins etc. within cells share homologous molecular components(see protein domain wiki page). A new protein may have an affinity for existing transport structures(and vice versa) because it is composed of parts(amino acids, polypeptides) that were already recognized in previous proteins.

In short, and as Buffy suggested previously, parts of existing transport mechanisms(and of the proteins being transported) may be exapted for new uses.

 

 

 

In modern evolution, we have the cause which goes to the final effect. It moves like lightning in the fog.

I just wanted to point out that your posts are full of rhetoric and devoid of any modern biology and I find this to be very annoying. IMO, your posts on evolutionary biology are uninformed stealth-creationist screeds that are an embarrassment to the scientific standards of Hypography.

 

 

We fail to address what goes on behind the scenes to make it possible again and again. Addressing this is the next step in the evolution of evolution. It is too early to make a dogma.

Scientists don't "make dogma", they observe facts, formulate and test hypothesis, subject their work to peer review, and establish theories . You are implying something about modern biology here that is not true and is malicious- that it is dogmatic and not scientific. Your problem is that you believe this while clearly never, ever reading any modern academic literature on evolutionary biology.

In short, you are full of it(and dogmatic to boot! oh the irony!).

 

 

The debate for this topic is dogma against dogma. I see the two as two different stages in the history of thought about evolution. One is more modern, but there is still much work to do at the interface between cause and effect. Darwin did not need to know the real cause to derive the effect. Modern science did not need to know the middle to generate the cause for the effect. Now we need to know the middle.

 

No, creationism is not on the same level as "dogma vs dogma" with evolutionary biology. Creationism is pseudoscientific fantasy for people who are either brainwashed in a culture from a young age, willfully deluded wishful thinkers, or charlatans preying and profiting from ignorance. Evolutionary biology is .... SCIENCE! :doh:

 

 

The science between genetic change and the expression of genes in the phenotype is the burgeoning field of evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo. All cells an organism have the same genome, but their genes are expressed differentially in differing cell/tissue types. How do changes in development - such as changes in the timing, placement, or regulation of genes - come into play during evolution? How do novel genes find a place in the pre-existing developmental program? How do spatial/temporal changes in already existing parts during development play a role in evolution?

These are interesting questions and evo-devo is exciting stuff. The objections you have raised are unproductive, vague, argument-from-incredulity creationist ones implicitly about the failed idea of irreducible complexity.

 

If you are interested in reading more about evolutionary developmental biology, Sean B Carroll has written an interesting summary for laypeople:

Amazon.com: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo (9780393327793): Sean B. Carroll: Books http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Forms-Most-Beautiful-Science/dp/0393327795/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257309553&sr=8-1-spell

 

 

IF you feel like your specific question about molecular transport was not well enough answered, you might try consulting the list of creationist claims on the TalkOrigins archive next time instead of posting them here, as this very objection is listed and answered there ;) :

Index of Creationist Claims - CB200.3: Protein transport and Irreducibly Complexity

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at any cell, it is highly integrated and very efficient. All the mechanisms suggested by Galapagos imply the cell is making itself less than integrated and less efficient, with all those random trail balloons. Has anyone ever demonstrated this random state of life, when a selective advantage appears?

 

Highly integrated and efficient means the cellular contents have a low degree of disorder. It is only when order appears, do we have selective advantage. Say we have all those duplexes, triplexes, etc., where are they when selective advantage appears? It is like they never existed.

 

Say the cells of your body started to make all types of trial balloons. It is full of junk that is lowering the integration of the once well oiled machine. Wouldn't that make you sick instead of give you an advantage?

 

I am not a Creationist, although this the label is used to silence opposition. It like calling someone a Communist during the 1950's.

[Buffy]

If you look at any cell, it is highly integrated and very efficient. All the mechanisms suggested by Galapagos imply the cell is making itself less than integrated and less efficient, with all those random trail balloons.

While subjective, there are endless arguments that cells are neither highly integrated nor very efficient. They are very sensitive to outside conditions and cannot survive without lots of external entities in order to survive. Many cell types have got all sorts of bits and pieces that both do not perform useful functions and yet use up energy. The energy mechanism they do use leaves much energy wasted because it's not fully utilized.

 

Galapagos is not "implying the cell is making itself less than integrated and less efficient": this sort of anthropomorphising of evolutionary processes is typical of fallacious arguments attempting to disprove evolution: there is no Intent or Desire or Trying or Goal involved in evolution.

 

What Evolution does imply is that it the evolutionary selections may be "efficient" or "effective" under current conditions and then become "inefficient" or even detrimental under later different conditions.

Highly integrated and efficient means the cellular contents have a low degree of disorder. It is only when order appears, do we have selective advantage. Say we have all those duplexes, triplexes, etc., where are they when selective advantage appears? It is like they never existed.

No, there is no link between decreasing entropy and "efficiency" or "integration."

 

"Efficiency" can only be measured under specific environmental conditions: for example evolving a thick coat during extended ice ages will become a distinct disadvantage when the ice age ends.

Say the cells of your body started to make all types of trial balloons. It is full of junk that is lowering the integration of the once well oiled machine. Wouldn't that make you sick instead of give you an advantage?

The adaptations in the genes can be not only turned on or off, but they can be lost over time or reused for different purposes. We can see this in similarities between genes that encode for completely different traits.

 

A gene for thick fur that becomes recessive during hot ages, end up being the one thing that allows a particular line of species to survive the next ice age.

 

I've been reading your posts for a very long time, and you continually avoid this issue of the interaction of the environment and evolutionary selection. You should either ask more questions about it if you don't understand it or start to incorporate it into your thinking about evolution, because repeating these statements that ignore it makes it look like you have no intent to understand evolution but rather to irrationally argue against it.

I am not a Creationist, although this the label is used to silence opposition. It like calling someone a Communist during the 1950's.

Note that I have not called you a Creationist, but rather have simply pointed out that your arguments are identical to those used by Creationists. This is not inherently problematic if you are willing to recognize and discuss the weaknesses of Creationist arguments that have been endlessly proved incapable of either disproving evolution or providing an alternative, supportable theory.

 

The labels here are of no importance except to create categories that can be edifying. Finding them pejorative is something one might choose to do, but I would not advocate it.

 

But at the same time, it is perfectly fair game to point out that "irreducible complexity" is just as much a failed theory as the argument that "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will never become corrupt" is.

 

Trying to avoid the long-proven validity of those issues by trying to say they're "name calling" is simply avoiding the facts.

 

Fishing is a delusion entirely surrounded by liars in old clothes, :eek_big:

Buffy