sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Hope it ain't in them damn Euros...Thanks Tricky, ... the cheque's in the post...
For a very simple reason: the bullet is not a heritable characteristic. If you could show that the bullet was a retained trait from generation to generation despite not being in the DNA, that would be evidence. Finding the equivalent of the rubber ducky in the information of the cat would be IC; finding an actual rubber ducky wedged inside of it would not. In this case, the "rubber ducky" equivalent in heritable traits would be something that was heritable, but did not follow rules of heritability (modern Mendelian-derived genetics) and did not show up in the DNA. The stacking-rules violation would be unusual base pairs not of the GATCU variety.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Okay, I think I've got it.
I not sure how modern Mendelian-derived genetics were produced other than by looking at lots of heritable traits and writing the rules, as more more traits are observed the rules are rewritten accordingly (sex-linkage, extranuclear DNA, meiotic drive etc.) As each new 'rubber ducky' is produced it's used to reformulate the rules - thus removing it's rubber ducky status. Doesn't this, by definition, remove any possibility of IC?
These are not Rubber Duckys, though, and this is not an attempt to dodge so we don't go down that road yet. Let me explain. Mendelian genetics gets its name from Gregor Mendel, a man in a monastic order who first experimented with inheritable characteristics. The first rules he found were simple, and it happened he was working with organisms that had mostly simple-Dominance traits; at least the ones he looked at.
Finding a new rule (that there is incomplete dominance) led to the discovery of chromosomes and X and Y specific mutations.
This is a heritable characteristic that is carried by genetic information; genes are carried, and expressed or not expressed. Incomplete dominance was a variation in that both were expressed rather than one expressed and one not.
If one could find a characteristic that was in an organism that did not follow heritability rules and was not a spontaneous mutation (some genetic diseases crop up in folks who have no family history), one might be getting somewhere.
An example: One finds a trait that is expressed only in the first born child of a family traced through the father's lineage. The child can be male or female, but if female she expresses the trait (say white hair) but none of her children do; however, if male, even if not firstborn, his first child will have white hair. This would be difficult to explain with modern genetics; especially if it were shown that it was always the first child.
This might be a trait expressed in the genetic code, but it clearly violates our "stacking order."
However, finding an object in a corpse is not IC.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Why were they not rubber duckies? They were heritable traits which couldn't be accounted for by the 'stacking order' rules which were then known. Doesn't this qualify them as rubber duckies?
In your example could you clarify if you mean only the first born child of an individual male, or the first born child of a particular male/female combination. [I don't know what it's like where you are, but some men here are known to have children by more than one partner... hard to credit I know, but apparently it true.]
Not really. Not knowing all the rules does not insert a designer, and science generally prefixes any truly broad statement with "we think" or "research so far indicates." The traits are still heritable; they are still bound in DNA. They were stacks we'd not seen before, but they still follow the rules of not being suspended in air and not being made of anything other than blocks.
It was these exceptions to the raw Mendelian model that led to more research and the discovery of DNA and its mechanisms, how it mutates and can mutate, and how all of that information is communicated and transmitted.
Think of it like this: Mendelian genetics were the sound you hear when you shake the box: some had really loud clunks, others did not. With genetics we finally got to look inside the box; the Mendelian rules were not thrown out because they still accurately describe part of what was going on. They were not the entire picture: this does not make them a rubber ducky for evolution because traits are still heritable, still only from the germ line, and still follow rules. Finding new elements to the rules is not the same as finding something which totally violates them. For instance, if we found an animal that was not genetically related to any of the other life on earth (not related genetically), that would violate our assumptions that all life derived from one source. If we found an animal that did not carry its information through its genetics, that would also violate a principle of heritibility and genetics, which are assumptions in selection and variability.
These are falsifications of genetics and evolutionary biology, not falsifications of IC. They do not prove the idea of a designer. We have been trying to determine what constitutes falsification of IC, not what would falsify genetics and evolutionary theory.
The problem is all of the above could still have naturalistic mechanisms; that they appear to falsify evolutionary theory does not provide positive proof for ID and IC: one doesn't win by default.
A bullet in a cat is not IC, that much we've determined. And we've also determined IC does not claim the entire sequence of genome and heritability. IC claims some things could not have arisen through other than an intelligent agency because no intermediates could exist.
If an intermediate is found to an item identified as IC by ID and the DI, IC and ID would be falsified. It would appear to be that this has happened. It is down to where Behe has claimed that the Designer could be working on the level of probability beyond the ken of even IC arguments.
Just consider single pairings. Keeping it simple.In your example could you clarify if you mean only the first born child of an individual male, or the first born child of a particular male/female combination. [I don't know what it's like where you are, but some men here are known to have children by more than one partner... hard to credit I know, but apparently it true.]
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
I'm not sure I see the distinction between "Finding new elements to the rules " and "finding something which totally violates them."
If I discover an organism which inherits its traits from its offspring, the well-known 'temporally-inverted fruit bat', then all it takes to rewrite the rules is to say, "the rules apply to all organisms as they were, except for the temporally-inverted fruit bat, where they work backwards."
Is my fruit bat a rubber ducky? ( I'm sorry, this is getting surreal.)
I can't understand the answer to my last question either: Let me rephrase it
Do you mean that
a) the trait is expressed only in the first born child of an individual male (for any given male, however many children he has, only the first will express the trait.)
or
b) the first born child of a particular male/female combination will express the trait.
For example, a male M produces four children C1, C2, C3, C4 as a result of mating with females F1, F2 twice and F3, in that order.
Under meaning a) only C1 expresses the trait.
Under meaning b) C1, C2 and C4 would express the trait.
Please indicate which meaning you intended, a simple a or b will suffice.
Well, you're starting to get what science is about: it is not static and dogmatic. Science is willing to admit something is missing, and is open to having its assumptions disproved.
The reason it is getting surreal is because we have to reach beyond the assumptions we already have. We already expect offspring to look like their parents; and if they don't we're shocked. Evolutionary theory formalized this idea; it explained why children of people in accidents don't have their parent's injuries. There is a somatic cell line (the organism) and a germ-cell line (gametes, or specialized cells that combine one-half of the somatic organism's original DNA).
To violate this idea, it would involve a child inheriting something not of the parent; however, this was recognized and noted as mutation. Not every offspring looks exactly like the parents, and not every parental mutation is expressed. Many (in fact most) mutations are fatal, so they never make it beyond a very early stage of development.
Now, in the case you stipulate it would turn the entire idea of inheritence on its head, saying that as a child gained a feature that would propagate backwards; would this be through time? Would it then appear that every past organism already had the changes wrought by the child intact? This would falsify the basic model of inheritence.
But it would not be a positive proof of IC.
A. Only A.
This would be a violation of inheritence as well, but with a different meaning from the rubber ducky example earlier in your post. This would represent a form of inheritence which in addition to not following the simple rules of inheritence we understand does not reconcile with a simple premise or with inheritence in general. A mutation such as A would, I think, be evidence of IC: impossible to replicate with DNA, yet undoubtedly heritable in a very specific way.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
I'm going to assume that the tone here was meant to be complimentary rather than condescending, so thank you for that. I return the compliment.
That may be why you found it surreal. I found it surreal because I never invisaged that the question " IS MY FRUIT BAT A RUBBER DUCKY?", would occur in a serious debate about scientific concepts - I thought that rather surreal and amusing, may be a smiley would have helped?
Yes
Yes, though a bit broad, genetics formalizes this idea, and thereby contributes to evolutionary theory.
Yes, Weissmann, Yes the Central Dogma, Yes
Now that's really clever!! I take it you meant to say a child expressing a trait which was not derived from something present in the parent?
I think I would go for the stronger statement 'No offspring looks exactly like its parents', though I might be persuaded otherwise for very small genome, very high abundance organisms such as certain viruses, plasmids etc. But that really depends on where one wants to draw your 'organism' boundary.
I not sure what the point of that is statement is? Are you saying that some mutations are recessive? Yes.
Are you saying somatic mutations in a parent are expressed in the offspring? Yes.
Are you saying neutral mutations in coding regions occur + non-coding regional mutations occur, in a parent which aren't expressed in the 'obvious' phenotype of the parent?
Fine
This doesn't follow logically since most mutations could cause fatality, and do so at the age of say 18. But now I really am nitpicking!
The name I gave to my creature was the "temporally-inverted fruitbat".
If I'd said it was a "red fruitbat", I'd expect you to be able to take a stab at its colour. If I'd said it was an "Egyptian fruitbat", I'd expect you to be able to guess where it might come from. I'm sorry if my assumption was unfounded, the answer is YES.
Yes, the family tree for the transmission of a recessive gene is identical that for normal fruit bats except that you have to draw it the other way up (temporally-inverted fruitbats always and only ever have two offspring, so the diagrams will still look similar!
)Yes, this would falsify the basic model of inheritance.
Okay, so this doesn't qualify as a rubber ducky, as it, by definition in our early posts, a rubber ducky provides positive evidence of IC. My fruit bat is not a rubber ducky.
So although it "falsifies the basic model of inheritance", it doesn't "totally violate the rules of genetics". You are slicing concepts here with a razor finer than I can see.
To summarize so far:
I've attempted to edge towards a definition of IC by presenting various examples
1) bullet : rejected because it's not a heritable element
2) You then suggest
"If one could find a characteristic that was in an organism that did not follow heritability rules and was not a spontaneous mutation ... one might be getting somewhere. "
3) I then point out that heritability rules tend to be rewritten in the light of new observations.
4) You then say "Finding new elements to the rules is not the same as finding something which totally violates them." I infer from this (in its context) that its not sufficient to provide something which requires "new elements to the rules", it must "totally violate them" in order to provide evidence of IC.
5) I then suggest an example, my fruitbat, which, I think, 'totally violates' the current heritability rules, but will still following heritability rules of its own.
6) Your response is that this is would not provide evidence for IC, even though it "falsifies the basic model of inheritance".
[I think this is a fair summary of the chain of argument so far. If you, or any outside lurker (I think that's the term) would care to point out if I've misrepresented the case then I will ,of course, be willing to discuss alterations]
My response to the argument so far is that the available gap between "find a new element" and "falsifying the basic model of inheritance", in which to fit "totally violates", appears to be increasingly small and hard to define.
This leaves the case you gave as the only potential example from which we can expand to produce a definition.
However, I would require a more detailed description of why you think this is adequate to "totally violate" heritability rules, but doesn't just mean that a new 'element' to the rules needs to be found, or it falsifies the basic model of inheritance.
My intuition is that I could produce an account for this under current genetic rules of heritability, without any recourse to new genetic rules. Though I would, of course, expect access to the whole realm of available genetic rules used by organisms, not just the limited toolkit which occur in humans.
But maybe that just your comment about me 'starting to get what science is about' rushing to my head!
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Somatic mutations are not expressed in the offspring, because they are not present in the germline cells.Sphenisc said:
The primary reason a germline mutation would not be expressed in an offspring is because the offspring inherits one chromosome from each parent, and so does not inherit its parents' entire genomes.
Actually, I think most mutations are neutral. But what is this about the age of 18? Most fatal mutations are fatal immediately.
~~ Paul
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Yes
Then we differ subtlely in our meaning of 'germline', if it isn't inherited by an offspring, then I would regard it as not being in the germline.
Yes
Nothing is special about the age of 18, which is why I prefixed it with the word 'say'. It's significance is that it is 'beyond a very early stage of development'.
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Then why did you say:Sphenisc said:
~~ Paul
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Because I meant to write 'not expressed', as in
Are you saying somatic mutations in a parent are NOT expressed in the offspring? Yes.
I was discussing "and not every parental mutation is expressed. " and meant to describe different ways in which things might not be expressed.
I didn't pick up the mistake when I wrote it, or even when you quoted me. I see it now and you're absolutely right, I was wrong and I stand corrected. Thanks
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Aha, a typo! I've heard of thoze.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
Z
Variable Constant
You have? I'm so proud! See, I make typos for a liging...
Lawsuit Contends Evolution is Taught as a Religion
And in the category of irrational attempts to twist the law, here's a link to information on a situation in which a couple is complaining to a court that evolution is being taught as a religion. I would not be surprised if the plaintiffs get hit with a countersuit that successfully demonstrates the original suit is frivolous.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/
And in the category of irrational attempts to twist the law, here's a link to information on a situation in which a couple is complaining to a court that evolution is being taught as a religion. I would not be surprised if the plaintiffs get hit with a countersuit that successfully demonstrates the original suit is frivolous.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/
Not so much, because Lamarckian inheritance would violate our current understanding of inheritence as well, hence that bifurcation early on.
Here is where it gets interesting...because there are hormonal ideas that could contribute to this model, however that would fall apart when the male mated with a second female and failed to produce the first-born trait. We could also rule out hormonal by inseminating many females at once, and regardless of the order, the first born should have this trait.
No, anybody is capable of getting scientific argument, but it does take some insight into the balance of data and theory...But maybe that just your comment about me 'starting to get what science is about' rushing to my head!
It was meant as a compliment.