Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design

floyd wrote:
> Wall of Sleep wrote:
>
>>floyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wall of Sleep wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Interesting proposal, but not falsifiable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have no idea where the barrier lies for each individual genus (don't
>>>>know if that's the correct term?),
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The above is the bit that needs work. It's not a falsifiable
>>>prediction unless and until you can state explicitly where that barrier
>>>is supposed to be.
>>>
>>>You don't need to state a general rule for _every single_ genus (or
>>>species, or whatever taxonomic level interests you). You could simply
>>>state that the location of the barrier is an empirical issue that must
>>>be determined on a case-by-case basis.
>>>
>>>_But_ if you want this proposal to be falsifiable, you need to suggest
>>>(1) where the barrier exists for at least _one_ pair of organisms, and
>>>(2) what it should look like. You seem to be proposing that viability
>>>of the organism is an indicator of the barrier. That's fine, although
>>>there are many other known causes of failure of viability, so you need
>>>to be able to exclude those as well. (For example, my great
>>>grandfather died, but *not* because he suddenly developed a mutation
>>>that caused him to exceed the boundaries of "human", wherever those
>>>boundaries might be.)
>>>
>>>I look forward to seeing the modified version of your proposal. A more
>>>modest version, detailing the location and nature of the barrier in one
>>>and only one specific case, may potentially be falsifiable. The more
>>>general speculation ("that a barrier exists somewhere but we don't know
>>>where or what it looks like") is, let's say, "not yet ready for
>>>publication".
>>>
>>
>>I don't know that I have the expertise to show exactly where a barrier
>>exists to your satisfaction.
>
>
>
> But you see, that's exactly the problem. If I were to say to you "I
> bet you ten dollars that you can't walk all the way to point X", the
> first thing you would say is "where is point X?" If I replied "I
> can't tell you that." You'd probably think it was a rather silly bet.
>
>
> We're faced with the same problem here. You tell me that evolution
> can't go beyond a specific point, so I have to ask where that point can
> be found. If you can't tell me, I have no way to determine if you are
> right or not.
>
>

That's not entirely true. I've said that evolution cannot get from point
A to point B because a barrier exists between the two. So I *have*
loosely defined the barrier as somewhere between two known points -
between chimp and human, rat and bat, single cell and multi cellular, etc.

So if I bet you $10 that you can't get from point A to point B (or vice
versa), that would be a legitimate bet - since point A and point B *are*
defined. In fact, the *exact* location of the barrier can not be defined
without experimentation. My proposal is that one will *always* be found
between the two points.

>
>>Like I said, I'm no biologist. My guess is
>>that most of the "gaps" in the fossil record represent barriers of this
>>type.
>>
>
>
>
> Are there specific "gaps" you're thinking about here? I often hear
> people say that there are gaps in the fossil record, but it's very rare
> that anyone ever points to a specific gap.

The gap between apes and man, fish and amphibians, reptiles and birds...

>
> It's quite clear that the fossil record is not a complete set of the
> preserved remains of all organisms that ever lived. (Good thing too,
> or we would have no food!) The reasons that the fossil record is not a
> complete biotic record are also pretty well understood. But I don't
> understand why the _absence_ of preserved remains can be extrapolated
> to imply that the organisms never existed. As an analogy, if I found a
> book with a few missing pages, I would assume someone tore them out or
> that the book was in some way incomplete, but I would not assume that
> the pages were never written.
>

I'm not citing the fossil record as exclusive evidence of my proposal.
I'm only saying that my proposal fits the findings in the fossil record
and offers a possible explanation (on top of the others you mentioned)
for the gaps.

>
>
>
>>My proposal would mean that these barriers represent a need for original
>>"types" or "kinds", and that through experimentation, the genetic
>>borders for these original kinds can be found.
>
>
>
> Ok, so this is an empirical project exclusively. That's fine.
>
>
>
>
>> The simplest experiment
>>would probably be the evolution of multi-celled organisms from
>>single-celled.
>
>
>
> Ok, but that's already been done. See Velicer, Gregory J. and Yuen-tsu
> N. Yu. 2003. _Evolution of novel cooperative swarming in the bacterium
> Myxococcus xanthus_. Nature 425: 75-78
>
> and
>
> Rainey, Paul B. and Katrina Rainey. 2003. _Evolution of cooperation
> and conflict in experimental bacterial populations_. Nature 425: 72-74.
>
>

The only thing I found on this was a couple short descriptions.
If you know of a site with more detail, please provide a link.

Apparently the single celled organisms did group up, but they did not
actually *become* a multi-celled organism. In fact, eventually defectors
from the group "sabotaged the viability of the group".

from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6953/abs/nature01906.html

"A fundamental problem in biology is the evolutionary transition from
single cells to multicellular life forms1, 2, 3. During this transition
the unit of selection shifts from individual cells to groups of
cooperating cells1, 3, 4. Although there is much theory5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, there are few empirical studies16. Here we
describe an evolutionary transition that occurs in experimental
populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens propagated in a spatially
heterogeneous environment17. Cooperating groups are formed by
over-production of an adhesive polymer18, which causes the interests of
individuals to align with those of the group. The costs and benefits of
cooperation, plus evolutionary susceptibility to defecting genotypes,
were analysed to determine conformation to theory1, 3, 12. Cooperation
was costly to individuals, but beneficial to the group. Defecting
genotypes evolved in populations founded by the cooperating type and
were fitter in the presence of this type than in its absence. *In the
short term, defectors sabotaged the viability of the group* ; but these
findings nevertheless show that transitions to higher orders of
complexity are readily achievable, provide insights into the selective
conditions, and facilitate experimental analysis of the evolution of
individuality." (emphasis mine)

So, I'd say that the barrier can be (at least for the time being) drawn
at grouping. If these organisms can be coaxed into becoming an actual,
self replicating, *viable* multi-celled organism, that would falsify my
proposal.


>
>
>> Essentially, if it can be done, then both evolved from an
>>original kind. If not, then seperate kinds were necessary.
>
>
>
> So single celled life (like yeast and bacteria) and multicellular life
> (such as giant sequoias and humans) both evolved from the same original
> kind. Gotcha. So where, exactly, do you see a problem with evolution?
>
>

Not so fast. (see above)
>
>
>>If a moth can be genetically altered into a butterfly, then it can be
>>presumed both are of the same kind. I would suspect that this might be
>>possible. I would guess however that a moth could not be altered into a
>>bee. If it could, a common ancestor is "proven", or at least shown to be
>>probable.
>
>
>
> Wait a second, a single ancestor of both bacteria and sequoias is ok,
> but a shared ancestor between moths and bees isn't? I'm not following
> you here. Could you clarify this please. It seems like a
> contradiction to me, but perhaps I'm just misunderstanding.
>

You've jumped track. A "single ancestor of both bacteria and sequoias"
has *not* been established.

>
>
>>I should add that such barriers are already being found. For instance,
>>in Hall's E-coli experiments, where a lactase enzyme evolved quickly,
>>when the evolved gene was deleted, no new gene evolved. He said himself
>>that these bacteria had "limited evolutionary potential."
>
>
>
> in B.G. Hall, _Evolution on a Petri Dish. The Evolved B-Galactosidase
> System as a Model for Studying Acquisitive Evolution in the
> Laboratory_, Evolutionary Biology, 15(1982): 85-150.
>
> In this case, "limited potential" may not mean what you think it means.
> Hall removed one enzyme that broke down lactose and the species very
> quickly evolved a replacement by modification of a different existing
> enzyme. He then removed both of those enzymes and found that doing so
> prevented the organism from utilising lactose. No third set of genes
> was available to be modified to code for lactase. (Of course that's
> like saying that humans have "limited potential for running" because if
> you cut off both of someone's legs, they aren't going to win any
> marathons!) The removal of the two lactase sequences did _not_ prevent
> the organisms from using glucose, so even that rather extreme form of
> artificial manipulation didn't result in the death of the organisms,
> which was the criteria you had proposed previously.
>
>

Well, the organisms *would die* in a lactose only environment! It's true
though that this experiment doesn't represent *exactly* the kind of
barrier I'm proposing. I cited it because it showed a barrier for a
single function. The fact that *this* barrier could not be crossed gives
weight to my contention that such barriers exist and eventually will
stall out evolution from one "kind" into another.


>
>>Also, it should be noted, that this proposal can also be falsified in
>>reverse. If a bat can be "reverse evolved" into a rat, or a bird to a
>>lizard, etc., the proposal would be falsified.
>>
>
>
>
> Is there something about the flying squirrel that causes you to reject
> it as "half-way" between a rat and a bat? It looks like exactly the
> sort of thing you're looking for. (Of course it is not an _actual_
> ancestor or descendent of either, but it does show how that "gap" can
> be bridged.)
>

Yes. If you propose the flying squirrel as the closest living relative
to the bat, then revise my statement to read "If a bat can be 'reverse
evolved' into a flying squirrel".

If you are not proposing the flying squirrel (as I assume you're not)
then why bring it up? Is it because it *looks* like something that is
somewhere between a rat and a bat? What kind of science is that?

That's the problem with much of the argument for evolution: it's based
on appearances and not empirical evidence. You know as well as I do,
that upon close examination, a flying squirrel does not work as the link
between rat and bat. But it's constantly proposed because it looks good
on paper.

Either way, I'm proposing a barrier will still be found.


>
>
>>Theoretically, it should be possible to reverse evolve any lifeform back
>>to a previous state and eventually all the way back to an original
>>single cell.
>
>
> It is, of course, quite easy to build a human starting with a single
> cell. My mom did it four times!
> ;-)
>

Yes. So did mine, (the first one turned out the best IMO).
But you and I both know that's irrelevant to our discussion.

>
>
>>I know this would take too long to be reasonable, but any
>>steps along the way should also be possible. I say they're not. But
>>since I'm no scientist, and have no access to a lab (and wouldn't know
>>what to do there if I did!), I'll leave the testing to the experts.
>>
>>Those of you that claim it's already been done, please cite the exact
>>experiments and their results.
>
>
> See above for the citations on single-celled to multi-celled. It seems
> to me that if _that_ has been accomplished, any other observed
> instances are pretty much redundant. If we have a "bridge" between
> bacteria and beluga whale, the bridge between moths and bees is a
> pretty simple one to accept. YMMV, of course, but I'd like to hear
> your take on that. Thanks, again. I appreciate your ideas (even
> though I disagree).
>

See above.

.

Quantcast