Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
My wife made tortellini and meatballs last night, they were pretty good.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 08:11 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 08:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  My wife made tortellini and meatballs last night, they were pretty good.
I had turkey soup that I made from the Thanksgiving turkey.

It is really scrumptious. My secret ingredient is gravy.
I added some of the leftover gravy to the soup to thicken it. Drooling

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-12-2012, 08:23 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 01:15 AM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

1) I don't care for the Behe vs Miller Argument. I won't waste time on following that debate.

2) If irreducible complexity is set to challenge evolution. This high-quality paper demonstrates that the flagellum evolved into something, so here you have it. If you're rejecting the concept of homology, that's up to you! I cannot do anything about that.

(You'll use part of the paper for whatever you find usefull and forget the rest of the paper... Way to go!!)

3) If by irreducible complexity you mean that, within the same species, a certian complex structure only functions as a whole. Well, I'll say to you that that alone doesn't say anything against evolution (you can say it was designed, I can say it was randomly generated in the computer of the magic goblin), but it may say something about specialization. And I say may, because it is so very common in biology to see a component from a complex cell structure having different functions.

4) Clinging on such specificities and ignoring the majority of the well-studied examples makes ID very feeble. As Ghost said, good luck with that!

5) If you reject evolution, then you have to imagine that it was designed. Same ol' 150 years old argument with biochemestry flavour.


You don't even understand your own citation. The argument according to your paper, (as your own paper refers to it as an "argument") concerning evolvability, (and again remember, my point is only that the T3SS is not ancestral to the BF) and is instead that the T3SS is believed to have evolved from the bacterial flagellum (and for reasons already cited concerning homology) Your paper says nothing of the BF's irreducible complexity, because that is not what the paper is about (as in citation that I provided earlier concerning irreducible complexity) and it doesn't take away from the same fact that the BF is an irreducible complex system which is the only issue Behe is speaking of, and or not whether protein are interchangeable, because no one including myself or Behe claims that proteins are not interchangeable (but again in this case they are not even the same proteins, only similar) The type 3 secretion system is a needle like structure, unlike the tail or rotory structure of the BF which can spin at 150 rpm's, and within less than a quarter rotation can turn and spin the opposite direction. If you remove just one part, it will not function as a bacterial flagellum. In fact it won't function as anything including a T3SS, and again, as for your take on its relatedness, your own citation says this......


"Type 3 secretion systems (T3SSs) are essential components of two complex bacterial machineries: the flagellum, which drives cell motility, and the non-flagellar T3SS (NF-T3SS), which delivers effectors into eukaryotic cells. Yet the origin, specialization, and diversification of these machineries remained unclear"


No one disputes the fact that they are both two complex systems, but it is the BF which is considered "irreducibly complex"

You don't even seem to understand the definition of IC. In fact your entire argument as you understand it is moot, and I used the word "understand" very graciously. What makes you think that a five minute google search can replace years of research? You know something?
On second thought, I want you to continue to cite this paper when speaking of the BF. In fact I encourage you to do so,


and yes, I believe it would be more likely that the BF was generated by magic goblin's (as you proposed) than the mechanisms of evolutionary theory as it stands today, and please spare me the promissory GOTG's mantra.

PS As for Ghost, I doubt he could even spell the words bacterial flagellum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 08:31 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 08:23 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  No one disputes the fact that they are both two complex systems, but it is the BF which is considered "irreducibly complex"


Considered by whom? Not proven. This is a silly argument from ignorance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 08:49 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 12:20 PM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 01:53 AM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  As to the articles... majorly opinions or mathematical models at the most... Ideas? Yes! Good ideas? Well... you know my opinion about the one-eyed Sauron! New important data? No.

Nonetheless, one caught my attention "Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force?". Hey! they actually can be usefull! They actually pippet things and put stuff in tubes!

What a great disilusion and waste of time!

1) I won't discredit the journal. It would be a feeble argument.

2) No material and methods. It is a review! No bench work!
(Even poor ol' Darwin was in the field trying to do some honest work...)

3) Here's the comment of one reviewer:

"Summary & recommendation.
In this manuscript, the author reviews current knowledge regarding the structure and function of centrioles in animal cells, then proposes a novel role for centrioles in the generation of the polar ejection force. The author's proposal is plausible and testable, but suffers from two weaknesses: 1) the hypothesis is somewhat extravagant, while seeking to fill a knowledge gap that is not similarly dramatic; and 2) the hypothesis is highly speculative and poorly supported by current data. Moreover, the author misrepresents current uncertainty regarding the cause of the polar ejection force, and fails to convincingly establish a strong correlation between presence of polar ejection forces and presence of centrioles. Given the author's stated antipathy toward "neo-Darwinism" it is perhaps not surprising that he omitted the more detailed taxonomic survey that is needed to strengthen the claim of correlation. And the author glosses over the known roles of centrioles in the formation of cilia, structures known to be absent in land plants. Overall, the manuscript is generally clear and well-written, but is weakened by ad hoc swipes at evolutionary theory and some concluding speculation (on cancer biology) that is unacceptably vague and simplistic. Attention to these matters should improve the manuscript such that it will be suitable for publication in Rivista di Biologia, and I recommend that it be published after revision."

4) I've read the article and the revision proposed was not certainly taken into account.

5) Here's a comment of an actual cell biologist (Stephen Matheson) that for me beautifully sumarizes what ID really is:

"Finally, what about this paper could possibly be distinctive as the work of an ID theorist? Only this: that he considered the possibility that tubular structures could be turbines. Now, is that really an ID distinctive? Has Wells noticed how cell biologists refer to motors, cargo, tracks, export, import, zip codes, sorting? Cell biologists regularly identify patterns in biology that make sense through reference to structure-function relationships, and cell biologists are happy to refer to those functions using the vocabulary of design, both literally and metaphorically. If that's all that ID thinkers have to offer, then maybe they should just get back in the lab with the rest of us and try to figure out how all this stuff works."

How did this pathetic attempt to challenge evolution was accepted by the editor, I don't know! But if this is the best the Discovery Institute can produce. Good luck with that!

I'm out...




"Opinions of models at most"?

You cite a paper based on an argument (as stated in your own paper) and now your speaking of opinions concerning my citations? The old change the gaol post strategy, i.e. you asked for peer review and once I provide them you change the goal post.

I provided article from only one mathematician, and from that you took that it was the only one cited? Why did you ask me to provide peer review articles (and many more than you provided) if you were going to just ignore them or hand waive them away? Why weren't you already aware of at least this short list? I can provide more if you like, but Im sure you will just discount them also.

Are these also a mathematical journals?

Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.

Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410.

Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595.

Is the Journal Life not a biology journal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 12:42 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 12:45 PM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 01:53 AM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  As to the articles... majorly opinions or mathematical models at the most... Ideas? Yes! Good ideas? Well... you know my opinion about the one-eyed Sauron! New important data? No.

Nonetheless, one caught my attention "Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force?". Hey! they actually can be usefull! They actually pippet things and put stuff in tubes!

What a great disilusion and waste of time!

1) I won't discredit the journal. It would be a feeble argument.

2) No material and methods. It is a review! No bench work!
(Even poor ol' Darwin was in the field trying to do some honest work...)

3) Here's the comment of one reviewer:

"Summary & recommendation.
In this manuscript, the author reviews current knowledge regarding the structure and function of centrioles in animal cells, then proposes a novel role for centrioles in the generation of the polar ejection force. The author's proposal is plausible and testable, but suffers from two weaknesses: 1) the hypothesis is somewhat extravagant, while seeking to fill a knowledge gap that is not similarly dramatic; and 2) the hypothesis is highly speculative and poorly supported by current data. Moreover, the author misrepresents current uncertainty regarding the cause of the polar ejection force, and fails to convincingly establish a strong correlation between presence of polar ejection forces and presence of centrioles. Given the author's stated antipathy toward "neo-Darwinism" it is perhaps not surprising that he omitted the more detailed taxonomic survey that is needed to strengthen the claim of correlation. And the author glosses over the known roles of centrioles in the formation of cilia, structures known to be absent in land plants. Overall, the manuscript is generally clear and well-written, but is weakened by ad hoc swipes at evolutionary theory and some concluding speculation (on cancer biology) that is unacceptably vague and simplistic. Attention to these matters should improve the manuscript such that it will be suitable for publication in Rivista di Biologia, and I recommend that it be published after revision."

4) I've read the article and the revision proposed was not certainly taken into account.

5) Here's a comment of an actual cell biologist (Stephen Matheson) that for me beautifully sumarizes what ID really is:

"Finally, what about this paper could possibly be distinctive as the work of an ID theorist? Only this: that he considered the possibility that tubular structures could be turbines. Now, is that really an ID distinctive? Has Wells noticed how cell biologists refer to motors, cargo, tracks, export, import, zip codes, sorting? Cell biologists regularly identify patterns in biology that make sense through reference to structure-function relationships, and cell biologists are happy to refer to those functions using the vocabulary of design, both literally and metaphorically. If that's all that ID thinkers have to offer, then maybe they should just get back in the lab with the rest of us and try to figure out how all this stuff works."

How did this pathetic attempt to challenge evolution was accepted by the editor, I don't know! But if this is the best the Discovery Institute can produce. Good luck with that!

I'm out...









Yes this particular statement above is true and I agree. When biologist "consider the possibility that tubular structures could be turbines" and when they speak of quaternary digital encoded specified information, and nano technical machinery in the cell, they are "both speaking literally and metaphorically" How does this help your case? Again not only are they speaking literally, but metaphorically. Let it sink in. Theres an old saying. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck".....well you know the rest.

I asked you kindly to only cite data that you understood well enough to defend in your own words, and said that those who couldn't, didn't do their homework. Instead, you chose to cite (the non peer reviewed) opinions of others. Your what I call, a five minute Googler.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 12:53 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 01:02 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
The so-called irreducibly complex structures are seen by IDers as evolutionary dead ends, i.e. nothing could have evolved into that structure and that structure could not evolve into something else.

Miller refuted this idea by stating that TT3SS evolved into the flagella. It seems that he was wrong, because it was the other way around. What I’m telling you is that the bacteria flagellum is in no way an evolutionary dead end, given the results on the paper that I’ve cited. Look at the picture!!!

[Image: journal.pgen.1002983.g007&representation=PNG_I]


Again, this article may be helpful for your Master’s argumentation with Miller, but by all means bacterial flagella does not refute evolution in any way!


So stop trolling around and admit that you’ve precipitated in your interpretation of the paper.

(P.S. Redarding I.C., you're right! I guess I am a 5 minute googler! But again it does not deserve more credit than that!!)

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 01:24 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 04:06 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Evolution is a natural phenomenon, no doubt.

Neo-darwinism explains how evolution works and the evidences supporting it are astonishing. However, due to the lack of falsifiable predictions regarding some aspects of evolution, the classification as a scientific theory does not gather consensus.


I'm pragmatic and thereby I consider neo-darwinism a scientific theory.

What do you think about this issue?

Honestly (and not as kindly as I'd like to believe myself to be) I think that people that want to play semantic shenanigans with the term "theory" are more uncomfortable with confrontation than they are with the terminology. It's not always easy to defend the beauty and elegance of what we don't know, and some people don't like to do it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 02:30 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 12:53 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  The so-called irreducibly complex structures are seen by IDers as evolutionary dead ends, i.e. nothing could have evolved into that structure and that structure could not evolve into something else.

Miller refuted this idea by stating that TT3SS evolved into the flagella. It seems that he was wrong, because it was the other way around. What I’m telling you is that the bacteria flagellum is in no way an evolutionary dead end, given the results on the paper that I’ve cited. Look at the picture!!!

[Image: journal.pgen.1002983.g007&representation=PNG_I]


Again, this article may be helpful for your Master’s argumentation with Miller, but by all means bacterial flagella does not refute evolution in any way!


So stop trolling around and admit that you’ve precipitated in your interpretation of the paper.

(P.S. Redarding I.C., you're right! I guess I am a 5 minute googler! But again it does not deserve more credit than that!!)
As for trolling, you contacted me personally, and thought you were going to teach me a lesson. Look at the nice picture. You are so naive man.
Yes Miller was wrong. I'm glad you finally admitted it. Yet your still trying to use the old heads I win, tails you lose argument. Yet you still seem to be confused. The whole premise lies on co option. The T3S is not considered irreducibly complex and again as for evolvability your own citation describes the paper as an argument that it is making for a neo Darwinian process with a general proposition that may or may not be true but it doesn't matter concerning Behe's argument who might even agree that this is sufficient evidence to show that the BF was the precursor, but as I said before does nothing to refute IC.

If you don't get it after it was explained to you time and time again then this your fault for pretending to understand something you do not. One more time, the rational is that because they share a small amount of similar proteins therefore, they must be related. Again, even if the T3SS did evolve from the BF and the data was foolproof and empirical this does not refute IC.

"We "argue" that this ancestral version was involved in protein translocation. A second major step in the evolution of NF-T3SSs occurred via recruitment of secretins to the NF-T3SS, an event that occurred at least three times from different systems"...........They also go one to use words like we "suggest" etc.



When you can provide a detailed and empirical account of how a neo Darwinian process could have produced a BF then let me know. Remember were using your own standard as applied to me. It has to be empirical data. Your paper says nothing about how the BF evolved. And one other thing. Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 03:54 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 02:30 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  ... And one other thing. Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?

They were quite busy not yet being mammals. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: