Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design

floyd wrote:
> Wall of Sleep wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> I can see your point. (I disagree, obviously, but I understand what
> you're asking for a bit better now.) The problem here, as others have
> pointed out, and as you clearly understand (from your writing below,
> WRT flying squirrels) is that in those cases where there is a clear and
> unambigouous connection (e.g. between bacteria without flagella and
> bacteria with them), it is easy enough for you to say "you haven't
> reached point B."
>

Yes, what you're saying is essentially true. My proposal is broad and
therefore hard to falsify because, as you say, if no barrier is found
between point A and point B, I would concede that an evolutionary link
is established and move the goalposts (point B) a bit farther and say
"Now try it.". So yes your point is valid. I do think however, that the
goalposts can *always* be moved far enough to reach an impenetrable
barrier - and not by requiring great leaps either.


> But here, at least, you have at least mentioned where "point B" is
> located. If point A is human and point B is chimps, then we have
> something empirical to go on, and since yours is an empirical test,
> that at least puts it in the realm of potential falsification, which is
> necessary if you want it to be scientific.
>
> I admit I am still not comfortable with the lack of definition of the
> proposed "barriers"; I still think that term needs more explicit
> definition if you're going to make any headway. But I can at least
> understand what you're expecting.
>

Well "barrier" is probably a misleading term. "Gulf" might be more
descriptive of what I mean - as in a gulf that cannot be bridged by
evolution.


>
>>>>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...
>
>
>
> Gotcha. 5X5. So, what kind of physically measurable stuff should I
> look for? John Harshman has a ready made list of DNA base sequences
> for humans, chimps, gorillas and Orangutans that he's posted several
> times. I could give you a bunch of morphological stuff (I'm not really
> up on the genetics; I should be, I know, but I'm not). In both cases
> (morphology and genes), there seems to be differences of degree (how
> _much_ of character X) rather than differences of _kind_
> (presence/absence variables).
>
> To be frank, both my interests and my expertise are weighted towards
> the primates, humans and "apes", and I'm much better informed about the
> phenotypes or physical bodies than I am about genes, so it would help
> me a lot in my attempts to understand you if we could focus just on
> that.
>
> If you're ok with that level of focus (and I promise not to try to
> "wow" you or overwhelm you with obscure Latin names or anything like
> that), then we can move this discussion to a more empirical level,
> which is where your proposal really has to go in order to be useful for
> science. Sound cool?
>

OK, but I've got to warn you, you're going to probably be over my head
most of the time and I'll have to have you explain things to me in
layman's terms - since that's what I am.

> If so, which characteristics, exactly, do you use to distinguish humans
> from the non-human primates? I'm not trying to "trick" you. I realise
> that this is a contentious issue. I just want to understand. What
> _empirically measurable_ characteristics do humans have that
> chimpanzees and bonobos lack, or vice versa? Answering that question
> will go a _very_ long way towards making your proposal a viable,
> scientific statement, and would be an important contribution to the
> discussion.
>

How about language?
Another possibility (and a fitting one perhaps) is the ability to design.
I don't know. I really wasn't thinking in terms of specific differences.
I was thinking more of the finished product. You know, a human who can
fit into society and function unnoticed amongst the rest of us. I
realize that might be moving the goalposts a bit far though.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>
> Ok, understood.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
>
> Hmmm... _Nature_ *is* available online, but it's a subscription
> service; only the abstracts are available for free. Do you live near a
> university? Most of the US Uni's have subscriptions (community and
> junior colleges are a bit more sporadic, some do, some don't.) So you
> can just walk into the Uni library and use their computers. (Waltz in
> like you own the darned place, don't say a word to anyone and just sit
> down at a terminal without asking. Everybody will assume you're a grad
> student. Or, if you can't figure out how to get past the Uni's login
> and password stuff, ask one of the librarians and they'll assume you're
> tenured faculty! Ha ha)
>
> If not, probably the best access to the articles is to visit your local
> public library (I'm assuming you live in the US, correct me if I'm
> wrong) and if they don't have the relevant issues, there's a good
> chance they could do Inter-Library Loan. If not, send me an email (not
> to the group) and I'll try to work something out.
>

Well, I live near a big city so that's not an issue. My problem is one
of time. I barely have time to answer this post as it is, and I've got
several threads that I started when I was out of work which are now
going unanswered as well.

>
>
>>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".
>
>
>
> Ok, so again, we're confronted with the "where is the barrier" problem.
> If they *can* group up, what prevents them from staying that way?
>

Apparently the defectors prevent it.

> And to get back to analogies, sabateurs that overthrow a collective
> aren't really evidence that the collective didn't exist, obviously!

Yes, but a collective is not necessarily a new lifeform either is it?

As another analogy, take human collectives. The fact that humans can
group and share resources (and suffer a loss of individual freedoms)
does not mean this human *collective* is a new "multi-body" species.

Bacterial grouping and sharing of resources at the expense of individual
comfort might be nothing more than a "circling of the wagons" which ends
when conditions improve with the individual bacteria going back to their
own "lives".


> So
> if the absence of lactase is enough to prove "limited genetic
> potential", then the possibility of the absence of defectors can't be
> discounted either, right?
>

Correct. But it has to observed, not assumed - correct?

> But again, we've drifted into more theoretical concerns and if our aim
> is to keep this empirical (which I think is a good idea for your
> "side"), then this probably gets us away from where we need to go. I
> do have some more "theoretical" disagreements with this interpretation,
> and I'll provide them if you're really interested, but in the interests
> of getting your proposal "publication-ready", they seem like rather
> side points.
>

Agreed. I'd like to stick with the observable.

>
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
>
> I can see that. Like I said, *I* think it's been done. The fact that
> "_in the short term_, defectors sabotaged the viability of the group"
> is not at all in question. Whether the emphasis in that sentence
> should be on "short term" or "sabotaged the viability" is what we
> really need to address, I suppose.
>
>

Yes, if by "short term" they mean that eventually the cells came back
together, overcoming the defectors, and merged into a new
multi-cellular, reproducing lifeform, then the whole "short term
defector" problem is negated.
On the other hand, if it's just a guess, it certainly would not falsify
the existence of my "gulf".

>
>
>>>
>>>>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)
>
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>
>
> Fair enough. Again, I misunderstood your question. (Which again
> points to the importance of taking the whole thing down a notch from
> abstract theory to empirical study.)
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
>
> Ok, but to be fair, the barrier could not be crossed _in the time
> allotted for the experiment_. That's not _necessarily_ the same as
> "could not be crossed ever under any circumstances." It might be, but
> that's not demonstrated. Back to our earlier analogy, "you can't run
> from A to B _in the next five minutes_" is not equivalent to "you can't
> run from A to B".
>
> And noting that the organisms would die *if* they were in a
> lactose-only environment is perfectly in accord with natural selection,
> of course. So you and Darwin agree on that one. ;-)
>

I have no argument whatsoever with natural selection. My argument is
with the ability of mutations to get us from point A to point B. And
there is, of course, a time frame involved - since all life is supposed
to have evolved from a single lifeform (simple enough to have arisen
from non-life) within the proposed age of the earth.

If it can't be shown that evolution from point A to B would
realistically fit into a reasonable slice of this timeframe, then it
might also be considered unreasonable. For example if it could be shown
beyond a doubt that humans could evolve from chimps in six billion
years, that wouldn't be a falsification of my gulf - since it couldn't
occur in the allotted amount of time. It would be a start though.

>
>
>>
>>>>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".
>
>
> Probably closer relative to the rat, actually, but the same logic
> applies.
>
>
>
>>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?
>
>
>
> Well, if you say "there is no way for anything to be half-way between a
> rat and a bat", then it's simply pointing to something that is, in many
> respects, "half-way" between those two. It's obvious that a living
> flying squirrel is *not* an ancestor of a living bat, nor is it an
> ancestor of a living rat.
>

I never said "there is no way for anything to be half-way between a rat
and a bat". I said there is a gulf between rat and bat that evolution
can't cross.

If a different "relative" is proposed, my argument still applies.


> *BUT* if something like a flying squirrell *can* exist, which it is,
> then we can at _least_ build testable hypotheses about what a
> hypothetical proto-bat ancestor might have looked like. *Then*, once
> we've done that, we can determine the genetic distance between rodents,
> divide that by estimated mutation rates to determine when the proposed
> rat/bat split might have occurred, and then know where (in which
> strata) any surviving proto-bat ancestor fossils _might_ be found, if
> we are lucky enough and persistent enough.
>

Theoretically yes.

> In other words, the suggestion is a goad to future research, inspiring
> us to direct any investigations in what are potentially (although not
> certainly) fruitfull paths. By contrast, saying that no such creature
> could possibly exist is, in my opinion, a council of despair that would
> only inspire us to stop looking.
>

Again, I never said that.

> I may be naive; we might never find what we are looking for, but I
> would rather be a naive optimist than a naive pessimist. Maybe that's
> just my personal temperment.
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
> Hmmm... I worry that you might have misunderstood my point in
> mentioning the flying squirrel. I didn't mean to imply that I thought
> it *was* a transition between rats and bats. It isn't. Rather, I
> meant to suggest that something that looks like a rat but can glide is
> intermediate between something that looks like a rat but is stuck
> walking and something that looks like a rat but can fly under its own
> power. In other words, a "transitional" or "half-way" species between
> [terrestrial rodent] and [flying rodent] is not precluded
> _in_principle_, because such a thing exists today. If a flying
> squirrel can exist today, something similar might have existed in the
> past.
>
> I should have been more clear about that. My bad.
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
> That's certainly the case, but for right now, it's you and me
> brainstorming. I'd prefer it if we could do it face to face over a
> couple of beers or coffees, but we have what we have. We can get
> really serious when your proposal gets closer to publication-ready.
> Until then, I see nothing wrong with a few giggles to break up the
> serious discussion.
>
> (As an explanation for my particularly weak attempt at humour: I've
> noticed that discussions between our respective "sides" have an almost
> inevitable tendency to descend into unpleasantness, name calling and
> attempts to de-humanise our "opponents", up to the point when one or
> the other side godwins the thread. I have also noticed, from my
> experience, that an occasional bit of humour (even something as lame as
> *my* corny jokes) can help diffuse some of that tension and put off the
> mutual attempts at dehumanisation. I want, more than anything else, to
> talk to _you_, personally, as one intelligent human being to another.
> I doubt either of us will ever convince the other, again, that's from
> experience, but I am not about to, and not at all _willing_to_, stop
> treating you like a human. If the occasional bad joke keeps the
> conversation going between two humans, rather than two anonymous
> on-screen personas, I will be happy even if I never convince you of a
> darned thing. Don't take my jokes and such as an implication that I am
> not serious. I am. I'm just more interested in discussion than name
> calling, and if humour facilitates that, I'll use it.)
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
>
> Fair enough, and right back at'cha. And thank you, again, for keeping
> this exchange on the level of polite discussion. I think if we can
> demonstrate (at least to each other) how to conduct a reasoned
> discussion, we will do more for this "debate" by example than either of
> us could do through pure research. Best.
>

Thank you for not starting out by belittling me. Many have. I appreciate
your kindness and hope that we can continue this discussion in a civil
manner as well. BTW, I like my beer weak and my coffee strong!

.