quote:

Well, my replies are much shorter, because instead of responding to your strawman characterizations of my points, I keep referring back to my actual points.

My proffered means of exploring the issues provides a solid and robust research program, testable mechanisms, and a repeatable and falsifiable means of testing hypothesis via predictive outcomes - yours is mere speculation.

Mine is based on work scientists are already doing, and already consider demonstrative in terms of the development of organisms. Yours is simply a call back to hackneyed generalities once wished upon by the failed progenitors of Neo-Darwinism.

Every time we get down to brass tacks, talking about actual identifiable mechanisms, of the sort found in our genetic and cellular systems, as when we began to in considering the bacterial and viral changes considered in a previous thread, you back away and hide behind vague notions of what you consider possible, but have no means to demonstrate.

In short, I am talking science, you are not.

quote:

See, this is what I was trying to discuss with you in post #180, and you didn’t reply to it. When we get into the actual changes that are involved, the argument you’re using—“every independent change poses a number of potential problems for the survivability of the organism to which they are occurring”—doesn’t hold up. You keep saying this, and then when I point out how these changes could have actually been useful, you don’t have anything to say in response. Are you going to support your assertion that we can know for certain that these changes would have posed problems to the organisms’ survivability, or attempt to address my point about why we can’t know this?

quote:

But if you want to try again, go ahead. Your assertion is that it’s possible to demonstrate with certainty that there is no possible advantage these mutations could have provided, even considering the huge differences that would have existed between the lifestyles of bats’ ancestors and that of laboratory mice, and the ways in which these differences would have affected which mutations would and wouldn’t have been useful to them. What evidence can you provide to support your assertion about this?

Since you were consistently unable to support this assertion in the previous thread, I don’t expect you to be able to provide anything different this time around. But perhaps you’ll surprise me. Once again, you have the three options that I mentioned before: support your claim that it’s possible to determine for certain that these mutations would have been harmful, stop making this claim, or continue using it while still failing to support it, and demonstrate to everyone that you don’t care whether the arguments you use are false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
By contrast, I began with two definitive finds, laboratory work aimed specifically at determining the measurable changes that are entailed in producing the morphology of the bat. One article concerns the ‘forelimb’ of the bat , the other concerns the genetic basis for extended digits of the bat. Both articles speak to the significance of such finds in terms of understand the evolutionary development of the bat, so their finds are wholly applicable in this case.

Another definitive and measurable basis for the tests is the common basis of the mammalian genome. Genetic sequencing, another modern science and technology that you fail to grasp, has revealed to us that contrary to evolutionary expectations, the differences between various organisms, especially true for vertebrates, and certainly true for mammals, is not a matter of incidental modifications to the gene, but expressions of the gene through the regulation of those genes.

We also have some idea about the history of the bat through such sequencing. For example, we know that echolocating bats, previously thought to have evolved from non-echolocating bats were instead probably the ancestral group – this is contrary both to evolutionary expectation and even the fossil find you cited.

We also know, contrary to evolutionary expectation that bats aren’t closely related to flying lemurs or insectivores as previously assumed, but instead were more closely related to the mammalian clade the includes horses and carnivores.

So when we compare various mammals, in this case a mouse and bat, though you could pick any other mammal, we can measure the specific changes to genetic expression that have gone into the production of the different morphologies. Not only that, but one can induce such changes in a living animal model. I only listed two such changes, but it seems certain all the changes can eventually be understood and tested. At that point we will know the full oeuvre of specific genetic modifications that are required to make the typical mammalian genome into the specific morphology we see in the bat, and we can test those changes (as has already begun to be done with the two examples I cited) and determine the necessary interdependencies and sequences such changes would have to occur for a viable organism to result. It’s like reverse engineering an operating system, which we also do with modern 21st century technology.

I am predicting (note that word – it is essential to this discussion – it means that testing current findings, understood through a particular hypothesis – in this case certain tenets of ID –certain measurable results will be found) that the genetic changes discovered, and the modification to the animal model when these changes are implemented, will show us that multiple, essential interdependent yet independent genetic modifications will be necessary to produce the morphology of a bat, and that no single genetic modification of the whole set necessary will be sufficient to either produce a viable organism under any selective process or one which could lead sequentially to the final set of genetic changes.

And since this will be found to be true, it supports the notion that forethought and organization are necessary for such changes to be implemented.

quote:

I've been following this conversation with interest, and I really appreciate the information in this post and the links.

What puzzles me is why you present this information as an apparent departure from standard evolutionary theory. That is certainly not how the scientists doing the research see it.

Consider the first item, related to the development of the bat's forelimb. The final paragraph in the article quotes the researcher as follows; (bolding added)


Dr. Behringer describes the significance of his finding as such: "Darwin suggested that "successive slight modifications" would ultimately result in the evolution of diverse limb morphologies, like a hand, wing, or fin. The genetic change we engineered in mice may be one of those "slight modifications" to evolve a mammalian wing."


Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

Similarly note the description of the gene affecting the digits: (bolding added)

Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated. Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly, Sears told the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Denver. Relatively few transitional forms would have existed just briefly before being displaced by more advanced forms.

As to your prediction, I think any evolutionary biologist/geneticist would agree that "multiple, essential interdependent yet independent genetic modifications will be necessary to produce the morphology of a bat." That is still wholly in line with standard evolutionary thought.

So I wonder why, in disputing the theory of evolution, you present exactly what is expected of evolution. Slight modifications, small developmental changes, interacting in interdependent ways to produce the bat morphology. How is this not evolution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I've been following this conversation with interest, and I really appreciate the information in this post and the links.

What puzzles me is why you present this information as an apparent departure from standard evolutionary theory. That is certainly not how the scientists doing the research see it.

Consider the first item, related to the development of the bat's forelimb. The final paragraph in the article quotes the researcher as follows; (bolding added)


Dr. Behringer describes the significance of his finding as such: "Darwin suggested that "successive slight modifications" would ultimately result in the evolution of diverse limb morphologies, like a hand, wing, or fin. The genetic change we engineered in mice may be one of those "slight modifications" to evolve a mammalian wing."


Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

Similarly note the description of the gene affecting the digits: (bolding added)

Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated. Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly, Sears told the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Denver. Relatively few transitional forms would have existed just briefly before being displaced by more advanced forms.

As to your prediction, I think any evolutionary biologist/geneticist would agree that "multiple, essential interdependent yet independent genetic modifications will be necessary to produce the morphology of a bat." That is still wholly in line with standard evolutionary thought.

So I wonder why, in disputing the theory of evolution, you present exactly what is expected of evolution. Slight modifications, small developmental changes, interacting in interdependent ways to produce the bat morphology. How is this not evolution?

Well it is notable that these are two separate experiments dealing with two separate changes to the expression of two different genes. Even with those two changes one wouldn't have sufficient changes to make a 'wing', though the limb would certainly be more wing-like - so we can specifically and systematically explore what it would take - and if the evolutionists are right per the quoted scientists, then we should be able produce a series of 'successive slight modifications" each one representing a viable form - I am predicting this hasn't actually been the result, and will not end up being the result - and thus other factors are necessary, primarily organization and planning.

quote:

So, if I have this right, on the basis of two experiments which support an evolutionary hypothesis you are predicting that the evolutionary hypothesis will be falsified.

Rather strange reasoning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

So, if I have this right, on the basis of two experiments which support an evolutionary hypothesis you are predicting that the evolutionary hypothesis will be falsified.

Rather strange reasoning.

I didn't say that at all.

Rather strange interpretation.

quote:

and if the evolutionists are right per the quoted scientists, then we should be able produce a series of 'successive slight modifications" each one representing a viable form - I am predicting this hasn't actually been the result, and will not end up being the result - and thus other factors are necessary, primarily organization and planning.

quote:

I just said it more succinctly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I just said it more succinctly.

Your statement doesn't resemble mine at all. The two experiments don't "support an evolutionary hypothesis" in any sense of the word.

But that doesn't mean they necessarily falsify it - further experiments, if consistent with these finds, would continue to cast it into doubt.

quote:

According to the researchers they do support the evolutionary hypothesis. As described in these articles, and in the very words of the researchers, both look like a textbook case of evolution in action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

According to the researchers they do support the evolutionary hypothesis. As described in these articles, and in the very words of the researchers, both look like a textbook case of evolution in action.

So you would say, a "textbook case of evolution in action", would consist of a researcher taking the regulatory genes from one organism, inserting them into another organism, and documenting a result which shows a single change that has nothing to do with enhancing the survivability of said organism?

What textbook are reading?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

According to the researchers they do support the evolutionary hypothesis. As described in these articles, and in the very words of the researchers, both look like a textbook case of evolution in action.

So you would say, a "textbook case of evolution in action", would consist of a researcher taking the regulatory genes from one organism, inserting them into another organism, and documenting a result which shows a single change that has nothing to do with enhancing the survivability of said organism?

What textbook are reading?

quote:

Which organism? The mouse or the bat?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
So you would say, a "textbook case of evolution in action", would consist of a researcher taking the regulatory genes from one organism, inserting them into another organism, and documenting a result which shows a single change that has nothing to do with enhancing the survivability of said organism?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Which organism? The mouse or the bat?

Well from a bat to a mouse; though doing it the other way round would be interesting as well, albeit more difficult ina lab.

quote:

But bats did not evolve into mice (or vice versa). Besides fitness is a matter of comparison with con-specifics, so it has to be a choice of which organism benefits in relation to its own population and in its own niche.

quote:

But bats did not evolve into mice (or vice versa). Besides fitness is a matter of comparison with con-specifics, so it has to be a choice of which organism benefits in relation to its own population and in its own niche.

quote:

The mouse is a model organism that simply lets us actually see the effects of the changes in an observable repeatable way, that is all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

But bats did not evolve into mice (or vice versa). Besides fitness is a matter of comparison with con-specifics, so it has to be a choice of which organism benefits in relation to its own population and in its own niche.

The mouse is a model organism that simply lets us actually see the effects of the changes in an observable repeatable way, that is all.

quote:

Sure, so we know what the gene does, and that it does the same thing in a mouse as in a bat. That gives us the mechanism (or part of it) by which a bat developed the forearm and digits which led it to flight.

What we cannot expect is that the modification would benefit the mouse as it benefits the bat. Benefit is a different matter than mechanism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Sure, so we know what the gene does, and that it does the same thing in a mouse as in a bat. That gives us the mechanism (or part of it) by which a bat developed the forearm and digits which led it to flight.

What we cannot expect is that the modification would benefit the mouse as it benefits the bat. Benefit is a different matter than mechanism.

Well, unless you think that the ancestor of the bat was some spectacularly unusual mammal, there is no reason to think that we can't test the specific effects of modifying a standard mammalian genome and testing how the various combinations of gene expression and regulation that we see in a bat impact that genome.

quote:

After all, if the simple expression of a gene can demonstrate the activity of evolutionary mechanisms, then then testing several of them in concert should give us even more information in terms of how those changes impact an organism.

quote:

Of course, as I have suggested before, we could go the other way, and simply knock out the latest genetically expressed changes and see how far we can go before the bat ceases to be viable.

quote:

It is not a matter of it being unusual. It is a matter of it adapting to what (for a mammal) is an unusual niche. "Benefit" has to relate to that niche as much as to the organism. So trying the gene out in a different organism will not test benefit as it relates to the bat.

quote:

See, this is the part where he just stops replying. And this time he can’t make the excuse that for one reason or another he thinks I don’t deserve a response, since he’s now being asked the same question by you and (to a lesser extent) Method.

The various times that I made this point with him when we debated previously, some of the time he refused to reply like he’s doing now; some of the time he would reply with something that didn’t attempt to address my point, and some of the time he did something equivalent to what he did in post #28: 14 paragraphs of ad hominem attacks and pontification about how science is on his side, while still saying nothing about our point which you described in four sentences. It’s a rare ability to be able to so little in so many words.

There’s something kind of interesting I’ve noticed here related to this. When I first joined this forum in February, Jhud was pretty much unchallenged as the authority about biology in this section of it, and as a result most of the other posters regarded him as that and tried to learn things from him. I have a lot of experience recognizing who the members of a forum are who receive this kind of respect. But more recently, this has almost completely stopped, even among the anti-evolution posters. I’ve sometimes noticed them viewing this thread and the other when where he and I debated about this, but they generally don’t have anything to say about what we’re discussing; they’re just watching and listening.

The most interesting part is that I’m not the one causing this change. Jhud is capable of being reasonable, and when one of his arguments is shown to be flawed, I think he’s capable of ceasing to use it. But I think I can predict how he’s going to react to what I’m posting now, if he replies at all: another example of the sort of thing that was in post #28, while saying nothing about the problem you’ve just pointed out in his argument. It’s his own choice to react in this way, and encourage what happens as a result.