EvC Forum: The Death Knell for ID?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: The Death Knell for ID?

Tangle

Member

Posts: 9568

From: UK

Joined: 10-07-2011

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 9 of 102 (650011)
01-27-2012 4:06 AM

Do we know if the 3 intermediate mutations before the fourth really 'useful' one added any benefits of their own to the organism? It doesn't seem so from the article although it may be that no-one has looked for any yet.

If nothing useful for the intermediates is found, it's not obvious how natural selection can be claimed for them - or at least the story we tell for the evolution of complex structures like the eye is not an exact analogy.

So we're left with asking why something so apparently improbable happens so regularly - 24:96 or 1 roll of the dice in 4. The skeptic would say that on the evidence, something else is happening which we can't yet explain, but the obvious one is we got the odds wrong - ie the dice is loaded somehow. But we haven't yet shown how.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
	Message 11 by Trixie, posted 01-27-2012 4:27 AM	Tangle has replied
	Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 01-27-2012 4:55 AM	Tangle has not replied
	Message 19 by jar, posted 01-27-2012 9:43 AM	Tangle has not replied

Tangle

Member

Posts: 9568

From: UK

Joined: 10-07-2011

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 12 of 102 (650016)
01-27-2012 4:49 AM

Reply to: Message 11 by Trixie
01-27-2012 4:27 AM

Re: Intermediate selection

Hope this helps

Not much to me!

But it seems that this statement - if it could be explained and demonstrated in non-geek - may do the job.

Thus, it is clear that selection acted
on the J protein even before the new capacity
evolved. This selection presumably improved the
interaction of the phage tail with LamB.

We need the word 'presumably' replaced by 'demonstrably' and then show why that is an advantage that would be selected for. Then we'd have a great story.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
	Message 11 by Trixie, posted 01-27-2012 4:27 AM		Trixie has not replied

Tangle

Member

Posts: 9568

From: UK

Joined: 10-07-2011

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 17 of 102 (650036)
01-27-2012 7:31 AM

Reply to: Message 16 by Trixie
01-27-2012 7:02 AM

Dan Dennett uses the Skyhook versus Crane analogy

"An aeroplane pilot commanded to remain in place (aloft) for another hour, replies: 'the machine is not fitted with skyhooks' " ... The skyhook concept is perhaps a descendant of the deus ex machina of ancient Greek dramaturgy: when second-rate play-wrights found their heroes into inescapable difficulties, they were often tempted to crank down a god onto the scene, like Superman, to save the situation supernaturally. ... Skyhooks would be wonderful things to have, great for lifting unwieldy objects out of difficult circumstances, and speeding up all sorts of construction projects. Sad to say, they are impossible." (p74).

Dennett uses the skyhook and crane as a magnificent metaphor. Just like objects can be lifted by imaginary skyhooks or cranes, so can design originate by 'skyhooks' or 'cranes'. The 'skyhook'-explanation of design invokes the supernatural, the 'crane' explanation invokes natural processes. The 'skyhook'-explanation of design is invoked by Creationists, the 'crane' explanation is invoked by 'evolutionists'. Darwin's Dangerous Idea is that all design can be explained without skyhooks: without Mind or God. Dennett gives a good historical overview of the use of these two types of explanation.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android