Why are We Disagreeing with ID?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Dan_Eastwood

I am stating that your definition is incorrect. Definitions matter.

Then let me be perfectly clear. Your definition was …

Evolution is defined as a blind and unguided process. A purposeful arrangement of parts is the opposite claim.

Which is incorrect. Definitions matter.

Clarity of ones position matters.

My irony meter just exploded.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Which is incorrect. Definitions matter.

Yet Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins describes evolution as a blind and unguided process. We could debate how that affects the definition. Do you agree with them?

[Dan_Eastwood]

Description is not definition. Discussion based on a false premise is not useful.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@colewd

Are you claiming evolution is not a blind and unguided process?

Guided is a broad, non-technical word. Evolution is blind and unguided so far as teleology or personal guidance. Selection is a big part of the mechanism of evolution, and by definition selection involves directionality for fitness in a given environment. Survival is not blind to the environment. On that level, there is guidance. Evolution happens as it happens regardless of the words we use to describe it.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Description is not definition. Discussion based on a false premise is not useful.

Hi Dan
I am discussing a position that two leading proponents of evolutionary theory have taken. There are many definitions I have seen regarding evolution and certainly more then one interpretation. The biggest difference between the design community and orthodox evolutionary theorists is not common descent but the mechanism(s) that drive it like mutation, genetic drift, selection, recombination etc.

If your position is not supporting Coyne/Dawkins blind and unguided claims then your position may be closer to Behe’s then you realize.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Discussion based on a false premise is not useful.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

So you are defining evolved as a definition. What exactly does evolved mean to you.

An evolved arrangement of parts is a system with multiple parts that has a function, as I have said several times now.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@RonSewell

Guided is a broad, non-technical word. Evolution is blind and unguided so far as teleology or personal guidance. Selection is a big part of the mechanism of evolution, and by definition selection involves directionality for fitness in a given environment. Survival is not blind to the environment. On that level, there is guidance. Evolution happens as it happens regardless of the words we use to describe it.

Hi Ron
Are you then claiming that it is blind and unguided until selection occurs? How much of life’s diversity do you think this explains?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

An evolved arrangement of parts is a system with multiple parts that has a function, as I have said several times now.

A functional arrangement is is often purposeful but it is not necessary evolved as it may have been designed. A computer or a car is designed they did not evolve.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

A functional arrangement is is often purposeful but it is not necessary evolved as it may have been designed.

By definition, an arrangement of parts that has function in a biological organism is an evolved arrangement of parts.

If you think I am doing this wrong, then please review how you use purposeful in the same manner.

[John_Harshman]

You understand, I hope, that everything you say goes right over Bill’s head. He gets neither what you mean nor where you’re trying to lead him. You won’t get Bill to drink if you can’t even lead him to water. Try being less subtle. It won’t help, but it’s less obviously futile.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

A functional arrangement is is often purposeful

According to your definition, isn’t a functional arrangement always purposeful?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

If you think I am doing this wrong, then please review how you use purposeful in the same manner.

T
You need to establish “evolved” before the claim is reasonable. The last thing evolutionary theory needs is more circular reasoning. IE homology…similarity due to common descent.

Purposeful simply means a reason for a function and a flagellum for example has a reason which is mobility.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

The last thing evolutionary theory needs is more circular reasoning. IE homology…similarity due to common descent.

That’s a definition of the term homology, not circular reasoning.

You may say you disagree that the similarity is due to common descent, but then you would simply be denying that the attributes in question are homologous.

Nobody says “we know this evolved because it’s homologous”. Rather, we simply say that we think it is homologous (we think it is similar because they share common ancestry). You can then ask, okay - why do you think they share common ancestry? And if someone answered you by saying “because they’re homologous” then they’d be guilty of circular reasoning. But no-one here does that. There reason we say things share common descent is because we have the evidence expected from common descent - nested hierarchies.

But the definition of homologous is not itself circular reasoning. It’s just a term, a name, for things we think are similar due to common descent.

Why I am explaining this? Not for you, of course, terminally incapable of learning as you are.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@John_Harshman

Try being less subtle. It won’t help, but it’s less obviously futile.

Well, I’m being entertained by the approach…

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

That’s a definition of the term homology, not circular reasoning.

A way to avoid the appearance of circular reasoning would be to re define homology as similarity and not similarity due to common descent. The observation is the sequence similarity why is it necessary to add due to common descent when that is a tentative conclusion?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

A way to avoid the appearance of circular reasoning

There is none and therefore no need to avoid it.

@colewd

why is it necessary to add due to common descent

To distinguish them from homoplasies. That is similarities that are due to convergence. So there is a term for each.

You are of course free to disagree that the characters are actually homologous, that is you are free to disagree that their similarity is due to common descent.

[lee_merrill]

@CrisprCAS9

@lee_merrill

One indication this is correct is no new protein-protein binding sites in malaria, one in humans, and one in HIV

That’s hilariously false, as you have been repeatedly told. New binding is trivial. It’s also unnecessary that any of the binding be ‘new’, when it could merely be exaptation.

So why not more new binding sites in humans, in HIV, in malaria?

@CrisprCAS9

@lee_merrill

If there were selectable, intermediate steps to new binding sites, you would expect they would be plentiful.

This represents a rather fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. They aren’t necessarily intermediate towards the end product. What we would expect, instead, are reasonably well-functioning systems composed of partial sets of homologous proteins. And that is exactly what we see for these ‘irreducible’ systems.

But this doesn’t address my point, selectable paths imply plentiful results. And just because we see irreducibly complex systems doesn’t mean they evolved (if I’m understanding you correctly).

[lee_merrill]

@Faizal_Ali

@lee_merrill

Yes, I think so, since no one has come forward with another example.

Are you sure? How do you know? Do you think scientists spend all their time trying to make creationist numpties look foolish by finding their errors?

I expect if they find an error, they would make it known. Just like you all seem eager to point out errors in Behe’s views.

@Faizal_Ali

@lee_merrill

Are you saying resistance doesn’t decrease significantly?

No. But it does because of drift. In the absence of choloroquine there is no longer any selective pressures preventing the CR strains from declining in prevalance, so this is what happens in accordance with genetic drift.

Certainly there is drift, but there also is an indication of negative selection, given that CR would be practically fixed.

@Faizal_Ali

@lee_merrill

And there is another indication, in chloroquine resistance needing about 10^20 organisms, versus atovaquone resistance needing about 10^12 organisms, and one mutation.

Thanks, Nigel.

But this is not a refutation.

[lee_merrill]

@T_aquaticus

@lee_merrill

Behe grants 2 of the 5 or 6 mutations as being neutral, and occurring on the way to a new protein-protein binding site. That leaves 3 or 4 mutations as deleterious.

Then show us specific differences between proteins where this was the case.

I’m not sure what you are asking for here…

@T_aquaticus

@lee_merrill

Because natural selection isn’t at work, as in the cell, where many (most?) of these changes would be deleterious?

B cells go through lots of selection. First, any antibodies binding to self antigens are killed. Second, any random peptides that bind to foreign antigens are strongly selected for.

But most of these changes are not deleterious.