"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

You implying that was overkill?

Hell no. Im just getting a bit annoyed at Bernies feigned politeness followed by his inane out of-the-blue non-contextual quotes from writers that he admits not understanding at all.

Hell no. pile on. Behe knows about A2k. He knows his salad days are numbered. IC , as a "scientific postulate" is terminal and fading fast.

Mr. Timberlandko. Thank you so much. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not a scientist. You have done a great deal of work.

Would you please take one of those sources--Any of them you choose-- and write a precis which answers Behe's concern. I really don't want to bother you but I am earnestly searching for an answer.

The part which continues to bother me is the insistence of Behe that there has been no detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual step by step fashion.

As I said, I am not a scientist but I would imagine that such a detailed model would tell us something like:

During the XYZ era, the abdc's of the bdeeg were infiltrated by the ICDE because of the process of Cedd stemming from the increased solar etc. This then resulted in the formation of a nerve that was sensitive to light.

Then, in a time period perhaps spanning 500,000 years, the light senstive spot, under the influence of ccceed, which was formed by the interaction of bdeeb with eeebd, an entirely fortuitious event, acted on the light sensitive spot so that the nerve that was sensitive to light eeeccedd.

That is how I imagine such an explanation might work.

Is there anything out there for the layman to read which does indeed give a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system( like the eye) might have been produced in a gradual step by step Darwinian fashion.?

Thank you, sir!!!

Certainbly, Bernard, try http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/evolution_of_the_eye.htm

look for example at the Dawkins article.

And if you're worried about that "light spot", you are a light spot yourself.
Your entire surface. Your skin. Yes, even those parts beneath your Jockeys. Game for an experiment? Do you have a light on by your computer? Good. Put a blindfold on. Move your hand around. For that matter take off your socks and move your foot around. Feel anything? A little heat maybe? More heat as you get closer to the lamp? You're feeling light--you're an eye spot. That's infrared, but of course you know that. It's light, just down the electromagnetic spectrum from red. Our eyes can't sense it, but insect eyes can. If you've ever looked at a night vision scope, which concentrates the infrared, you know that IR is perfectly capable of giving a detailed picture of what's out there.

And as Dawkins says, eyes have evolved probably at least 40 different times, in wildly different forms, and those forms still exist in different species, and many of those intermediate forms from light spots to functional eyes exist too.

I know that no amount of evidence convinces you once you've made your mind up, much like George Bush, but read a few of them, and then come back and tell me why you don't believe them.

That's not what your skin is primarily for, obviously, mostly it holds you in and everything else out, but pretty much everything's skin does this other little trick, along with the other sensors it's got, like cold, and pain (betcha can guess why we've got that one), and sugar sensing (we've got that one inside, bacteria, e.g. have it on the outside. Survival mechanism, gets repurposed, happens all the time.

You'll notice that Behe doesn't talk about the eye anymore as being an example of irreducible complexity, because it turned out to be all too reducible, and as Dawkins says, too many examples of intermediate stages and alternative pathways still exist in the world's extant species

And you've got your levels mixed. When you're talking cell-level evolution, like vesicular transport, you may be talking biochemical processes. When you're talking evolution of organs like eyes, you're talking gene-level. That's where it's controlled. And "irreducibly complex" features like flight can spring from surprisingly minimal changes.

Recent research for example, points to a mutation in a single gene controlling bmps--bone morphogenetic proteins--in bat ancestors, a proteindifferent in today's bats versus their mouse cousins, would have produced the first extended-phalange gliding wings that evolved into today's bats.

Another "irreducibly complex" system that suddenly starts looking reducible.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/how_to_make_a_bat.php
referencing Sears, Behringer, Rasweiler, Niswander, 2006, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Thank you, username. Your posts were most instructive. You appear to have the material down cold. As I said, I am not a scientist and I am looking for an answer.

Can you help?

Please read the question carefully since all parts of it are crucial. It possible, I would like to have it answered with the same clarity( thank you) you used in your answers above.

Can you propose a DETAILED MODEL by which a complex BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEM might have been produced in a GRADUAL, STEP BY STEP Darwinian fashion?

I am not in a hurry and if you decide to answer but need time, that will be fine with me.

I thank you ahead of time!!

I read BumbleBeeBoogie's post with interest. One line, particulary, drew my attention--

Quote

The work has inspired both admiration and skepticism. Many paleontologists have a hard time believing some of the humans that are known to have lived during that era could have been pairing up with apes.

end of quote

SKEPTICISM? How could any scientists be SKEPTICAL? I thought that it was all written in stone!!

And, Username- Shame on me--I could not handle the "off site" references. I am afraid you will have to give me information I can access>

Good scientists are the most skeptical people you'll ever find, and we all know it. That's exactly why the prevailing theories are so compelling, they have repeatedly passed through a highly trained relentless skepticism filter composed of some of the most highly trained people in their field.

Yes, sir- Thank you for opening my eyes- You are correct. I was wrong.

And Dr. Behe is Skeptical. He asks that someone give him a DETAILED MODEL by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a GRADUAL.STEP BY STEP DARWINIAN FASHION.

Do you have such a reference, sir? Since I am not a scientist, I would appreciate an explanation( or a precis) which would answer Behe's question--the entire question taking into account all of the modifiers.

But, you must admit that, unless the article is misleading, it would appear that some paleontologists are looking for more PROOF that, as they put it in the article---"some of the fossil humans that are known to have lived during that era could have been pairing up with apes"

Personally, I do not think it is too far a stretch. I know Scientists look for proof but I am aware that, even in our day, Sodomists and those engaged in Beastiality and Necrophilia(perfectly natural behaviors for some persons) engage in behavior some "misguided moralists" view as unthinkable.

So, why not a fossil human and an ape?

Bernard, just read the cite. It is an accurate recap of an article in PNAS. It gives you the information. Like many scientific journals, you cannot get the original article online, unless you want to pay--in this case $30. Now make no mistake, I love you like a brother, but furthering your scientific education is not worth that much to me. I will provide you the relevant information but if you want the original you'll have to pay for it yourself. I am not a Pell Grant. It's time you learned to stand on your own two feet and pay for things yourself, instead of relying on the kindness of strangers. (I, in fact, do note where things come from, and as in this case, when the original is generally inaccesible on the net, I note what that is, so one can see whether or not it is reputable and peer-reviewed. You, on the other hand, might learn, as people keep reminding you, to provide cites yourself. You don't. Saying something is by Jonathan Lipscomb does NOT count as an adequate citation. Would it hurt you to say it's from the Chicago Sun-Times, which WOULD count as an adequate cite (with the dateof course as well), which I found out quite by chance).

Ever see the scene in True Romance where Dennis Hopper is explaining the origin of Sicilians to Christopher Walken? That's what this one sounds like more or less....

Username- I agree with your last post. But, I find it exceedingly curious that something as vitally important as the explanation of Evolution AND ITS MECHANISMS FROM THE BEGINNING( whenever that was) is not available for the common man--a non scientist--as I have described myself many times on this thread.

The explanation of what many scientists call the most important idea of all- EVOLUTION-and we do not have an explanation which is understandable to the common man as to exactly how the MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION DEVELOPED FROM THE BEGINNING.

I am sure that some brilliant scientists have already written about this--not in arcane language and not in language describing PART OF THE PROCESS BUT A TOTAL EXPLANATION OF THE STEP BY STEP DETAILED MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION.

Do you have such a reference sir? If you do, please list the name of the book and I will get it asap!

Actually, I was watching a thing last night in which a television wonk asked Richard Dawkins if he could name a single instance of a mutation producing an increase in information content, and Dawkins was totally stumped. Just kind of sat there for several minutes with a stupid sort of a look on his face.

Gungasnake- I find the skepticism of those paleontologists very discomfiting. I thought they had every thing pinned down>

I really have problems with the scientific explanations of the beginnings of it all. That is really what would totally explain Evolution for me.

How did it all begin?

Some posit "The Big Bang"

Some say there was no "Big Bang and that the Universe as we know it has always existed--It is eternal.

Some say
"There is no place for it( the singularity which begins the "big bang) to occupy. no place for it to be, We can't even ask how long it has been there-whether it has just lately popped into being..or whether it has been there forever waiting for the right moment. There is no where to retire to to watch the big bang because outside the singualarity there is no where."

After reading Mortimer Adler's "How to Think About God" it appears to me that God, as described be Dr. Adler is more comprehensible and logical than the gobbledegook about the "Big Bang" or the uncaused eternal Universe.

But, as you know, Gungasnake,scientists know everything--even the character of the "neutrino".

You are welcome sir.



There's a difference in being skeptical, and being obstinate and obtuse. Dr. Behe has a right to ask for such information, but that doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to provide it for him, nor does the lack of an answer in any way invalidate the moutains of other evidence for evolution.



No sir, I do not. Nor am I likely to, since like you, I am not a mollecular scientist. But I believe other people on this thread, who have demonstrated substantial knowledge, have provided you with reference material.



Since you are not a scientist, how are you going to understand the answer to Behe's question? How come you're not asking for a clear answer to some scientists questions on Quantum Electro Dynamics? You seem to have skepticism about mollecular biology even though you don't know enough about it to understand an answer. Do you have similar skepticism about QED?



Of course. The information in the article is relatively fresh, why wouldn't people want more detail and validation?

I somehow dont believe gungas characterization of DAwkins at all. Dawkins, if anything , has been consistent with his explanation of "cumulative genetic selection". He, like Gould and MgHee, Mayr and Cracraft, Eldredge and a bunch of others have been stating that genes dont cause evolution, they record it. The distinction is often missed by those so indisposed to learning.

Im thinking that gunga is, once again, merely changing words around to suit his obsessive behavior.

As far as that statement Bernie, may I humbly submit that you have it backward. For its BEHE who is proposing his model freom merely a position of authority, not evidence. He doesnt want any data or evidence contrary to his position. How can you hold a scientist in such esteem when, after almost a decade and a half, after his very positions of argument have been slowly sawed off , he still hollers his position of Irreducible Complexity from the Lehigh Bell Tower?
Id re-evaluate his position as a scientist and honor him more for being a religious zealot who refuses to bend under pressure of overwhelming evidence.

As far as giving you evidence, first, your positions seem to come out of the ether without evidence. How do we expect you to even pick up on the nuances when your mind seems already made up.