I have just read what RtB has brought up recently about convergence and thought it rather thought provoking. I haven't had the chance to read the links but I get the drift of what they are saying. Read it with an open mind and I don't expect this to disprove evolution but rather as noted at the end...put red flags up. Could convergence point more to a designer*?
Dan
"4/15/2010
by Dr. Fazale ("Fuz") Rana
No one likes to pay taxes. Though necessary for our government to operate, they still represent an unpleasant financial burden.
Similarly, widespread convergence observed in the biological and biochemical realms burdens evolutionary biologists. And new work by scientists from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), further taxes the evolutionary paradigm.1
From an evolutionary perspective, convergence describes scenarios in which it appears that natural processes generated identical (or nearly identical) anatomical, physiological, or behavioral traits in unrelated organisms (e.g., echolocation in dolphins and bats). Convergence can even occur in the molecular realm, manifesting as the independent, repeated origin of biomolecules and biochemical systems.
As I discussed in The Cell’s Design and in this article on plant convergence, quite a few scientists do not expect convergence to be commonplace because evolutionary processes are historically contingent. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski recently confirmed this expectation through the Long-term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) conducted in his lab at Michigan State University. Lenski and his team have directly observed historical contingency at work in populations of the bacterium E. coil. (For more on the LTEE, see previous articles on bacteria evolution and the LTEE research.)
In spite of the historically contingent nature of the evolutionary process, convergence appears to be widespread at the organismal and biochemical levels. And as the scientists from UCSF describe in a recent paper, biochemical convergence is even more extensive than anyone thought.
Evolutionary biologists recognize five different types of biochemical convergence.2
- Functional convergence describes the independent origin on more than one occasion of biochemical functionality.
- Mechanistic convergence refers to the multiple independent emergences of biochemical processes that use the same chemical mechanisms.
- Structural convergence results when two or more biomolecules adopt independently the same three-dimensional structure.
- Sequence convergence occurs when either proteins or regions of DNA arise separately, yet have identical amino acid or nucleotide sequences, respectively.
- Systemic convergence describes the independent emergence of identical biochemical systems.
The UCSF researchers sought to determine the relationship between functional and mechanistic convergence in enzymes. They examined 95 functionally convergent enzyme pairs, focusing specifically on the set of chemical bond changes that take place during the course of enzyme catalysis.
They discovered that, while the functions of the enzymes were the same, the overall reactions mediated by the enzymes were similar in only 44 percent of the pairs and, of those, 33 percent employed the same chemical mechanism. This result means that functional and mechanistic convergence can overlap, but they remain distinct types of biochemical convergence. From an evolutionary perspective, it also appears that a large number of enzymes evolved independently multiple times to use the same reaction sequence! This result is truly surprising.
This survey represents important insight into protein structure and function. It should help biochemists do a better job of classifying enzymes. Additionally, it provides biotechnologists with insights beneficial toprotein engineering and the design of novel enzymes. On the other hand, this work also creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm simply because evolution shouldn’t repeat.
It is these types of problems that make me skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm. The red flags are up. It’s time for an audit.
Endnotes:
1. Daniel E. Almonacid et al., “Quantitative Comparison of Catalytic Mechanisms and Overall Reactions in Convergently Evolved Enzymes: Implications for Classification of Enzyme Function,” PLoS Computational Biology 6 (2010): e10007000. Doi:10.1371/journal/pcbi.1000700
2. Russell F. Doolittle, “Convergent Evolution: The Need to Be Explicit,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences19 (January 1994): 15–18"
http://www.reasons.org/evolution/convergence/enzyme-convergence-taxes-evolutionary-paradigm
Your statement makes no sense. How do examples of convergence in Evolution, point to Special creation?
ReplyDelete"because evolution shouldn’t repeat" is an unsupported statement that doesn't make sense in an article about 'convergence'
Hey ya BT,
ReplyDeleteYour statement makes no sense. How do examples of convergence in Evolution, point to Special creation?
I more so asked a question with a statement. "I don't expect this to disprove evolution but rather as noted at the end...put red flags up. Could convergence point more to special creation?"
Back to the point.
Convergence is "convergence describes scenarios in which it appears that natural processes generated identical (or nearly identical) anatomical, physiological, or behavioral traits in unrelated organisms (e.g., echolocation in dolphins and bats)."... as it states above.
Ok. So I wonder if it points more to special creation because of common characteristics in animals that are unrelated. I am not claiming that all animals should be totally different, but that we note how completely different, unrelated animals take the same, if not, similar paths of "evolution".
I wonder if it points to special creation because when you have common designers such as ( I'll humour you with a Ray comfort description) aircraft engineers, you will find common structures pertaining to the different aircraft. None of the aircraft are related to each other, they are only related in the sense of a common designer.
I suppose you would argue that your "common designer" is the idea that the animals are in similar natural selection environments? So they would take the same or similar path?
But RtB seem to see that it points more in the other direction. I think it is an interesting point to bring up.
My point was shouldn't you be using the term 'intelligent designer' rather than 'Special Creation' which implies more stuff poofed into existence rather than guided evolution.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how God did it. I believe He was involved. Special creation could have been all of it (I doubt it) or special creation was a portion of it... such as progressive creation.
ReplyDeleteClearer?
Er, maybe.
ReplyDeleteThe point was since the article was about 'convergence in evolution' then 'special creation' is pretty much off the table *in this situation*.
Not necessarily,
ReplyDeleteRtB are arguing from my understanding that convergence supports a designer rather than more "random"/"less planned" (doing my best to explain) evolution.
How is this not related to the situation?
Or maybe I have misunderstood the article...
So it would have been clearer if I asked "Could convergence point more to designer?" rather than "Could convergence point more to special creation?".
Arrgh, terms, terms ,terms.
I got to get back to work...
ReplyDelete"So it would have been clearer if I asked "Could convergence point more to designer?" rather than "Could convergence point more to special creation?"."
ReplyDeleteYes that's what I am saying.
Convergence can't exist in one off 'special creation' event. The concept doesn't make sense.
That's what I am talking about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletelol. it's fine, but you get what I mean?
ReplyDeleteK,
ReplyDeleteI'll change it.
Ya,
Convergence is describing a similar, active development of something between two unrelated pairs (or more). Convergence could argue that animals were made so that they were meant to develop in a more specific, less random way; along intended patterns determined by someone such as a designer.
I used "special creation" because two unrelated animals could have had a "special" unrelated creation to cause them to follow similar paths...
I hope that makes more sense.
But I do see what you are saying too.
Hey Fuzz Nuts.
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I am not sure how God did it. I believe He was involved."
You'd be better off just leaving there instad of packing your head with surious philosophical nonesense from RtB.
All you "bleevers" get in trouble the instant you start invoking science as evidence for creationism.
There is no evidence.
Evolution is the only theory that explains the diversity of life and there are absolutely no competing theories.
All of the following are facts of evolution which in fact could be falsified, but have not been falsified.
Protein functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes
Endogenous retroviruses
Anatomical parahomology
Molecular parahomology
Anatomical convergence
Molecular convergence
Anatomical suboptimal function
Molecular suboptimal function
Nested hierarchies
Convergence of independent phylogenies
Transitional forms
◦Reptile-birds
◦Reptile-mammals
◦Ape-humans
◦Legged whales
◦Legged seacows
Chronology of common ancestors
Anatomical vestiges including:
Atavisms
Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
Humans tails
Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology
Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
◦Snake embryos with legs
◦Embryonic human tail
◦Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
Present biogeography
Past biogeography of:
Marsupials
Horses
Apes and humans
Good to see you again.
Hey Bald Ape,
ReplyDeleteYou'd be better off just leaving there instad of packing your head with surious philosophical nonesense from RtB.
I find a lot of what they say interesting and a good read.
All you "bleevers" get in trouble the instant you start invoking science as evidence for creationism.
There is no evidence.
Evolution is the only theory that explains the diversity of life and there are absolutely no competing theories.
Please demonstrate why science cannot be evidence of a Designer.
All of the following are facts of evolution which in fact could be falsified, but have not been falsified.
Yes, I see the list, and I am sure they are very interesting. However, would you care to address the topic of the post?
Great to see you too Froggie.
cheers,
Dan
I suppose it's possible, DP. I don't think it pointing to a Creator is as plausible as it pointing to a natural process, but I can't rule it out either.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteThe article is written by Fuz Rana who is well know to "tax" the patience of real scientists. He a presuppositionalist, not an empiricist.
Fuz days:
"As I discussed in The Cell’s Design and in this article on plant convergence, quite a few scientists do not expect convergence to be commonplace because evolutionary processes are historically contingent."
That is not true. I have read extensively on convergence at Pub Med and convergence is commom."
"The results of this work show that the phenomenon of convergent evolution is not rare, especially when considering large enzymatic families."
His claim that like enzymes generate different hologies in varies species is smoke and mirrors.
They are like a catalyst. They do not generate the characteristics, they supply the material that other parts of the DNA uses to generate the characteristics.
Rana's book, "The Cells Design he made ignorant claims that have been long debunked. Rana doesn't do research. He erely scans valid scientific articles and tries to put spin on others hard work/
The reason that I posted the list was to show you that the least of our worries is convergence. The list is a partial listing of the facts of evolution.
The theory part of evolution is the mechanics of which convergence is only one very small part that is being worked on, and not by Fuz Rana.
He's as bad as Ken Ham.
There is a lot yet to learn about convergence but it is in no way troubling or a threat to the theory of evolution. as Fuz would like you to think.
There is an article witten every week by creationists for the last 100 years proclaiming evolution is dead.
I do expect we will learn more about evolution and am certain that certain ideas will change as new facts are discovered. There is no other theory that explains the diversity of life, not one.
Da Pilgrim wrote the following to Froggie: Please demonstrate why science cannot be evidence of a Designer.
ReplyDeleteIf the Designer is defined in such a way that his existence can be tested for, then we could theoretically find evidence of his existence.
Take note, however, that most definitions have him existing outside of time and space. This means that a naturalistic methodology (like science) would never be able to find such a being.
Could this science find naturalistic evidence of a supernatural creator? I don't think so, but maybe it's possible. Maybe God put his signature on the universe such that we can see it and understand it for what it is (ie. God's signature). I suppose that looking for such things would be worthwhile.
To date, however, we have not found any such signature. The history of science is littered with phenomena which were previously attributed to the presence and interference of supernatural agents - but every time we've looked, we've found nothing but natural processes.
We should keep looking, while keeping in mind the mistakes of the past...
I often wonder how certain people think there is a human, naturalistic test for the supernatural, when the word supernatural is defined as something not natural and therefore not able to be tested for by humans.
ReplyDeleteIn case you hadn't noticed, the writers of the bible included the supernatural so that their authority could not be challenged by empirical evidence, and now we fin the ID crowd stating that they "think" there are possible ways to test for the supernatural.
There is nothing that is more incongruous in all the ideas of the IDists and Creationists. They propose to test for things which the bible implicity states one cannot empirically test for.
The moment they try to use science as evidence for their supernatural beliefs, they relegate their supernatural beliefs to science, which is shown to always end badly for them.
Dan, hope married life is working well for you!
Hope you're getting some good nookie!
Interesting discussion guys,
ReplyDeleteI am a tad busy this weekend (Traveling to buy a car in another city). I'll get back to you guys when I can.
Dan.
Marriage is great Froggie! LOL. I have a wonderful wife!
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the nookie is good :D
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you took that with good humor!
It takes me back 36 years when me and Mrs Froggie got hitched! haha!
Our last of five kids, our son, is finishing his first year in college.
I can tell you this. Life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer you get to th end, the faster it goes!
Actually I meant cookies. She bakes I hope!
ReplyDeleteWhat were you referring to?????
Hmmmm,
ReplyDelete"C" is along way from "N" on the key board Mr. Frog man LOL.
OK,
I'll try to talk about the theme that has started here and it will link into another post that I have planned.
He a presuppositionalist, not an empiricist.
Is there a true...through and through empiricist anywhere? Someone that relies soley on experiments and their 5 senses? Someone that does not have any preconceived beliefs that is non-empirical?
I often wonder how certain people think there is a human, naturalistic test for the supernatural, when the word supernatural is defined as something not natural and therefore not able to be tested for by humans
I don't know anyone that thinks that. I can't test God personally. I can see his effects on the world around me. I assume a Designer rather than assuming emptiness; based on the evidence before me.
In case you hadn't noticed, the writers of the bible included the supernatural so that their authority could not be challenged by empirical evidence
?
Yeah sure many different people wrote it. They didn't just "add" the supernatural. It happened to them and the people around them. How else did twelve men spread the gospel?
Do magic tricks?
Maybe God put his signature on the universe such that we can see it and understand it for what it is (ie. God's signature). I suppose that looking for such things would be worthwhile. To date, however, we have not found any such signature. The history of science is littered with phenomena which were previously attributed to the presence and interference of supernatural agents - but every time we've looked, we've found nothing but natural processes.
Many people have found the signature and it comes in many different forms ie. miracles,prophecy, nature. Not "WE" but "some" I should think is more correct.
Just because I cannot see a Causer does not mean there is no Causer. I judge whether something has a Causer by the evidence before me in the form of a causation.
Fascinating topic.
We are really getting into epistemology now :)
I said "Just because I cannot see a Causer does not mean there is no Causer. I judge whether something has a Causer by the evidence before me in the form of a causation."
ReplyDeleteI should point out that when I mean Causer I mean we can judge the nature of what the Causer might be by the degree of complexity (or other) the causation was.
Froggie,
A great testimony you and your wife have of 36 years! Bigger families are cool too, congrads. Lots of arrows in your sheath as the Bible would put it from memory :)
"He a presuppositionalist, not an empiricist.
ReplyDeleteIs there a true...through and through empiricist anywhere? Someone that relies soley on experiments and their 5 senses? Someone that does not have any preconceived beliefs that is non-empirical?"
Nope, not even me. I have had ideas that have survived in my thinking only to study further or have some knowledgeable person say something that produced a eureka moment. It happens to every empiricist and non-empiricist alike. Mrs. Froggie, although an empiricist, allows herself much more room to entertain emotional considerations for certain decisions than I ever did.
"I often wonder how certain people think there is a human, naturalistic test for the supernatural, when the word supernatural is defined as something not natural and therefore not able to be tested for by humans."
You need to wonder no more young man. I know of no scientist/ logical empiricists that would propose that there is such a test. That is the downfall of the ID movement. They continue to insist that there is a falsifiable test, somewhere. But they have never yet produced it for scrutiny and repeatability. When one makes claims for a supernatural event/ personage, the onus is upon them to provide he evidence. Something that cannot be detected by the senses, cannot be seen is thought to be kinda like it does not exist.
"I don't know anyone that thinks that."
Very good. We are on the road to your salvation in logic!
"I can't test God personally. I can see his effects on the world around me."
ReplyDeleteUh oh! Houston, we have a problem! This is an unsubstantiated claim. There can be countless reasons for the effects on the world around us. To make this claim you must have a testable and falsifiable theory.
"I assume a Designer rather than assuming emptiness; based on the evidence before me."
Now you're going all sophist on me- you read Rousas Rushdooney much?
"Assuming" a designer is presupposing a designer so you have just hoisted yourself on your own petard. then you claim evidence right after you said previously that you know of noone that could propse such evidence. Please Dan, let's not start dancing around that bush. It is totally unproductive.
"In case you hadn't noticed, the writers of the bible included the supernatural so that their authority could not be challenged by empirical evidence?"
Just as any prescientific authoritarian leader might write in his book to enable him to keep control over his subjects. That happens all the time.
"Yeah sure many different people wrote it."
That is obvious on only cursory examination, and they contradict themselves on many occasions. If you need some scolarly titoring on this I will send Beamstalk in to show you all the unkown and different authors of the bible.
"They didn't just "add" the supernatural."
No, they "claimed" it happened to them just like Sid Roth says every week on his show that thousands of amputees and cancer patiets are being healed every day.
"It happened to them and the people around them."
They claimed this only.
"How else did twelve men spread the gospel?"
ReplyDeleteHow did one man create the Nazi party? How did one man create Islam? How did a small group of rebels create the U.S.A.? They are all quirks of history. Christianity would not have become a major had Constantine decided to use it as a unifying force for his empire, rather than kill off the Christians.
"Do magic tricks?"
Indeed they did! The mideast was teeming with Messiahs in the first century and the superstitious people of the day demanded magic.
This is very well known in writings extant the bible.
"Maybe God put his signature on the universe such that we can see it and understand it for what it is (ie. God's signature)."
Maybe.....
"I suppose that looking for such things would be worthwhile."
I know of very few "scientists" that do their doc thesis on looking for, or how they would look for, "such things." But I will tell you this, most valid dicoveries are made by scientists and engineers following the evidence and finding something they never expected, and I would never rule out that valid/ emirical evidence will never be found to show "such things." But, they have not as yet found anything. Most of the matters that were attributed to the supernatural 200 years ago all have natural explanations today, and theose holes are being plugged every day.
"To date, however, we have not found any such signature."
Correct. Welcome back to reality.
"The history of science is littered with phenomena which were previously attributed to the presence and interference of supernatural agents - but every time we've looked, we've found nothing but natural processes."
What the...? Is there an echo in here? :)
"Many people have found the signature and it comes in many different forms ie. miracles,prophecy, nature. Not "WE" but "some" I should think is more correct."
Scrap the reality for wishful thinking...Stat!
I'm not sure if I can even parse that statement. It totally lacks in perspecuity.
"Just because I cannot see a Causer does not mean there is no Causer."
Cry on somebody else's shoulder about that one. I'll not go down that rabbit hole with you.
"I judge whether something has a Causer by the evidence before me in the form of a causation."
So you have taken all this time to trot out the old canard that the "design" you imagine in nature must have a designer? You wated my time on this? Geeeeesh!
"Fascinating topic."
It was when I was your age. Not so much anymore. In my sixty years science has marched forward solving problems and finding new and fascinating facts daily. Religion has done nothing that I can see, but try to stifle the progress of science, and comfort little old ladies and the weak of mind (sorry man, I couldn't resist...)
"We are really getting into epistemology now :)"
You might be, but I shall not. Epistemology is philosophy, like theology.
Philosophy is a fun subject to discuss,(I spent considerable time discussing philosophy with my son who has just finished his first year of college- He's taking psych 101 in the fall semester and he already has the book....Look out everybody!!!!) if one does not take it too seriously. It ends up being a roomful of fairly educated men and women chasing the tails of words around like a cat with a bow tied to his tail. It is often hysterical!
I think hilosophy has a certain innate value, but philosophers basically run along side the train of science hollering ideas at the engineer, who rarely hears him, but sometimes nods approval to humor him.
Now, maybe it would be better to talk about cookies.
Take care lil buddy!
Hey Froggie,
ReplyDeleteI think you may have got a few quotes that you thought were mine but weren't. The italics my last post were quotes from you guys.
It was when I was your age. Not so much anymore. In my sixty years science has marched forward solving problems and finding new and fascinating facts daily.
Funny that you keep coming back and talking about it since it is not much fun. I mean, there isn't an atheist creed that commands you to preach their gospel is there not?
Nope, not even me. I have had ideas that have survived in my thinking only to study further or have some knowledgeable person say something that produced a eureka moment
Thats not very atheistic like is it? I mean, I thought only people like Christians had "ideas" that they believed to be true?
Now you're going all sophist on me- you read Rousas Rushdooney much?
Nope.
Assuming" a designer is presupposing a designer so you have just hoisted yourself on your own petard. then you claim evidence right after you said previously that you know of noone that could propse such evidence. Please Dan, let's not start dancing around that bush. It is totally unproductive.
The classic, I can see evidence of the wind around me but I cannot see it. I don't have to see a cause to accept the causation as evidence of a cause. We see things happening and we make deduction about the possibilities and make ideas about things we cannot find the cause for. Some such as atheists say it is nothing but matter, theists say that it must be something more than matter that is behind it all.
Both have their beliefs. Both cannot confirm through science what the cause is.
I'll not go down that rabbit hole with you.
Often people choose to make it a rabbit hole choose to make it a rabbit hole.
I'll finish with a couple of questions: Is belief action? Is action belief?
first century and the superstitious people of the day demanded magic.
Why has Christianity become so significant? Amazing how it has been false for 2000 years and a majority hasn't realized it. Amazing why so many people believe in miracles and have experienced them if they aren't real and only magic tricks as you say.
I have spoken to beams many times before. Interesting guy. The fact that the gospels disagree is stronger evidence for me that they were not made up. If they were made up I would have done a better job of piecing it together.
God used writers and their styles. He guided them.
I am happy to say that I have faith that the Bible is the Word of God with the evidence provided before me. It would take a great deal more faith to believe many other things... such as atheism.
I am running out of time. Got To Go.
cheers,
Dan