[QUOTE=cheesehead;103056]I asked for an example "comparable to the eye, immune system, or bacterial flagellum", not something simple like a maser.

I'm not familiar with that. Is it fictional (which wouldn't qualify), or real? If real, is it "comparable to the eye, immune system, or bacterial flagellum" in complexity?[/QUOTE]I would argue that the immune system is simple. The bacterial flagellum is not that complex, IMO, but we'll let that pass for the moment.

Forward's antigravity device is real and I've seen a proposal for it to be flown on a NASA mission to test general relativity.


Paul

[QUOTE=ET_;103032]From a mathematical point of view, you are assuming some theories not starting from an axiom: AFAIK it is not yet confirmed that homosexuality is a genetic disease.[/QUOTE]

Whether it is the result of a direct genetic property is not relevant to what George is asking - all that matters is the issue of, "If condition X has a clear negative effect on direct reproductive fitness, why has evolution not eliminated (or at least drastically reduced over time) the factors which give rise to condition X?"

Thus, even if homosexuality were shown to have *no* genetic correlate and to be entirely due to biochemical conditions during gestation (say due to certain physical or emeotional stresses affecting the mother during pregnancy), the question simply becomes: if the resulting children tend to have fewer offspring as a result of their same-sex partner preference, why would evolution not have selected against whatever sets of genes encode for "tendency to suffer this intrauterine biochemical effect as a result of pregnancy stress"?

An Argument Against "Irreducible Complexity"
 

Allow me to put forth what I consider a very strong argument against one form of the "Irreducible Complexity" argument: the single-cell-versus-complex-multicellular-organism argument. There would appear to be a huge leap from a single-celled organism like brewer's yeast to a "higher" organism (albeit still a eukaryotic one, as is the yeast) like a human. The obvious question is "how could one evolve from the other (or both from a common ancestor or biological substrate), even in something on the order of a billion years?"

But in a sense that's looking through the telescope from the wrong end. We know for a fact that every so-called "higher" multicellular organism (at least on the branch including us humans) [b]starts life as a single cell.[/b] We can see the entire process of how that humble single cell turns into a complex higher organism unfold in front of our eyes in a matter of hours,days, weeks. While we are far from understanding the myriad of complex (but not irreducibly so, based on what we know to date) biochemical and signaling cascades needed to cause a single fertilized egg to eventually differentiate into a complex organism, it does happen all the time, right in front of eyes in a very short time frame, and we've discovered a huge amount about the details of *how* it happens in a very short time, just the last few decades. In other words, evolution didn't need to evolve a human from a single cell, it just needed to evolve a single cell [i]capable of giving rise to a human[/i] from one not so. And we can see simplified versions of all the basic processes needed to do that in much simpler beings. (Consider the well-documented dofferentiation program of the simple planarian flatworm, [i]C. Elegans[/i], for example). Suddenly, the evolutionary "leap" seems much less.

On the single-cell front, we know that unicellular organisms can evolve extremely rapidly (e.g. resistance to antibiotics) and are promiscuous swappers of genes and even entire cellular organelles (e.g. mitchondria resulting from a cellular engulfment event which happened to lead to a non-digestive result.) So it's not difficult to see the evolution of complex intracellular structure and biochemical cascades occurring. There you have 2 pieces of the puzzle, and the only one left over is how simple unicellular organisms arose from whatever kind of primordial soup was available on the young earth. None of these smaller chunks seems all that intractable anymore, and in every case we have lots of scientific support for the kinds of non-irreducible evolutionary events that occurred or were required. As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day. But it didn't take a billion years, either.

I just have a few things to say along with a question or two, so bare with me. First of all, I think the whole ID vs IC argument can be settled by one statement. At least, I hope so. That statement is simply this, "You cannot prove a negative". Next, I have a few questions. Is it possible that there are two, at least almost, equally dominant genes for a trait that would fight with each other or in some way combine as when someone has two different colored eyes? My last question involves the post by ewmayer about the evolution of cell biology. Now, this is not scientific by any means, but I just have to know this. Does a scientist, let alone regular people, get a little creeped out by the idea that cell biology evolution basically means that the human cell as we have it is basically a bunch of once separate creatures who just happened not to be digested by being enveloped? I know this will leave the area of science, but I just have to wonder what that idea means for humanity as a whole. I mean, it's probably not thought of very often, but it essentially would mean that humans are gestalt entities, but with the downside of no direct access to the supposed informational knowledge that the bits and pieces we are apparently made of have had through biology when they were separate organisms. Yes, I know this falls under metaphysics, but it's sorta depressing to believe that humans are actually just a collection of lower life forms who just happened to join together for no reason and just happened not to hurt each other to the point of complete distruction of one or both of them.

I remember why I gave up biology at the age of fourteen.
Who if anyone is trying to support ID? Or are you all
singing (at interminable length) from the same hymnsheet?

David

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;103100]Does a scientist, let alone regular people, get a little creeped out by the idea that cell biology evolution basically means that the human cell as we have it is basically a bunch of once separate creatures who just happened not to be digested by being enveloped?[/quote]

"You are what you eat"

[quote]I know this falls under metaphysics, but it's sorta depressing to believe that humans are actually just a collection of lower life forms who just happened to join together for no reason and just happened not to hurt each other to the point of complete distruction of one or both of them.[/QUOTE]

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - the fact that we're having this discussion should tell you that we (and all complex multicellular organisms) are far more than mere bags of cellular goop.

Perhaps more disturbing is the idea put forth (and which is a direct consequence of what we know of natural selection) in [i]The Selfish Gene[/i]: namely that from the gene-level perspective we are nothing more than biological vessels for the propagation of our genes. But the fact that we are sentient, intelligent and highly social (well, at least most of us) gives us the ability and the choice to make our lives much more than that. If more people appreciated that, perhaps the world wouldn't be drowning in people, most of whose lives are destined to be little more than the eat/fight/reproduce minimum required by evolution for any species to survive.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;103083]
Thus, even if homosexuality were shown to have *no* genetic correlate and to be entirely due to biochemical conditions during gestation (say due to certain physical or emeotional stresses affecting the mother during pregnancy), the question simply becomes: if the resulting children tend to have fewer offspring as a result of their same-sex partner preference, why would evolution not have selected against whatever sets of genes encode for "tendency to suffer this intrauterine biochemical effect as a result of pregnancy stress"?[/QUOTE]

First of all I'm sorry if my answers lack clarity: it's not easy to talk about philosophy in a foreign language.

My low-level answer: do you think that people killing themselves running at 150 mph on their cars are killed by natural selection?

If yes, then why are there no clues that evolution is diminishing this behavior?
If no, how could you think that evolution could select against "tendency to suffer this intrauterine biochemical effect as a result of pregnancy stress", a factor that seems to me to be external to evolution?

Luigi

[QUOTE=ewmayer;103138]
Perhaps more disturbing is the idea put forth (and which is a direct consequence of what we know of natural selection) in [i]The Selfish Gene[/i]: namely that from the gene-level perspective we are nothing more than biological vessels for the propagation of our genes. But the fact that we are sentient, intelligent and highly social (well, at least most of us) gives us the ability and the choice to make our lives much more than that. If more people appreciated that, perhaps the world wouldn't be drowning in people, most of whose lives are destined to be little more than the eat/fight/reproduce minimum required by evolution for any species to survive.[/QUOTE]

Ernst explains his thoughts in so linear a way that I can't resist reading and thinking about it.

IIRC, Dawking said that our being sentient, intelligent and highly social is a side effect of our genes' program; genetic complexity configures the possibility to feel "free" even if we follow an evolutionary program, as only the best choices will survive.

Feelings themselves can be seen as subroutines to help us survive.
But I'm sure no one could accept this situation and keep smiling, much better would be to believe that we are more than "moving parts in a mechanism".

Luckily enough, to demonstrate that Dawking was correct needs a meta-reality we are not (and cannot be) aware of.

The funniest thing is that at the end of this post what we have is faith in ourselves, with no clue whatsoever of certainty or demonstration.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;103143]do you think that people killing themselves running at 150 mph on their cars are killed by natural selection?[/quote]

Fast cars are far too recent a phenomenon to affect human evolution in any discernible way, but if you view the specific behavior you cite in the more general context of "risk-taking behaviors," that is a very valid question from an evolutionary perspective. The sensible prediction here is likely to be something along the lines of: given the kinds of challenges our ancestors faced, and the sexual dimorphism among humans (men stronger and more aggressive, women bear the young and do most of the work raising them), we expect to see appreciable differences in risk-taking behavior both between the 2 sexes and within each sex. Due to their lesser physical strength women are less likely to prevail in a fight against (say) a wild animal and (at least though most of evolutionary history) spend their prime years bearing and rearing the young, so it makes less sense for them to behave aggressively and consistently put themselves in harm's way, since that puts not only them but also their young at risk. (Note this is rather different from many other animal females, who must choose their battles carefuilly but must also be highly capable of violent aggression because they don't live in social groups and the fathers don't stick around after sex - think mama Bear and her cubs). Note that this is not at all to say that females should be incapable of violence - that would be clearly harmful from a survival perspective, since sometimes one doesn't get to choose one's battles - it just predicts they would evolve to be more circumspect in this regard than members of the species who don't have young to bear and nurse.

Human (and most other animal, but not all) males are more clearly built for risk-taking - if they get injured they have no gestating or nursing children which are put at risk as a consequence, at least not in any direct way. Yes, their children might still be put at risk as a result, but one of the major benefits of living in social groups is that the group has a very good chance of surviving the loss of any one individual, since the others can help "take up the slack." But even among men you don't want them to all be hyperaggressive and immediately risking life and limb at any sign of threat, since (a) if the threat proves false, their mere aggression can lead to self-injury, and (b) if the threat proves all too real and of superior force, the group risks being wiped out if no one is willing to back down or run away. Also, hyperaggressiveness may generally be inimical to success in non-threatening times: guys who are busy picking fights are unlikely to be good food providers or shelter makers. On the other hand, in a fight that's the kind of guy you want next to you (or in modern terms, on the front lines). Thus, one would expect a large variety of risk-taking behaviors, all further modulated by the social dynamics of the group ("Thag only gets to fight Brud after they've helped gather food and fuel for the coming winter and taught their sons to hunt") to make the most sense from an evolutionary perspective, among animals that live in complex social groups.

[quote]If yes, then why are there no clues that evolution is diminishing this behavior?[/quote]

The fact that most people don't routinely engage in high-risk physical behaviors (cliff diving, skiing down Everest) tells you that it has - but the fact that some people still do such stuff also tells you that there must be common life circumstances (at least in the context of the kinds of lives lived by our ancestors throughout the ages) under which the kind of mind-set that leads to such behaviors actually provides a net benefit. We could call that the "no guts, no glory" gene.

One other important point here: you specifically use an example of longstanding (i.e. ancient) behavioral tendencies meeting modern technologies, which makes it somewhat inappropriate. When it comes to risk-taking behavior, that implies that the individual engaged in the behavior is clearly able to *perceive* the risk. If I'm facing a hungry lion, I see the huge fangs and hear the roar, and I *know* I'm at risk, to a large extent because evolution would have rewarded such appreciation. Driving in a modern car would tend to "fool" many of those ancient evolved risk-assessment pathways, since most cars are specifically designed to both feel and be generally safe to use at high speeds, so one can feel perfectly safe and not appreciate the risk (at the gut-instinct level) until it's too late. Also in this regard, drunk driving (i.e. hampering our normal fear instincts through use of alcohol and other drugs) would appear to be a relatively recent innovation. In that respect, your example is more along the lines of "see the kinds of things that happen when ancient survival mechanisms meet modern innovations." The obesity epidemic in many industrialized countries is another example: we evolved in times when food was often scarce and almost always hard to come by. Thus evolution shaped us toward gluttony - on the rare occasions when food *is* plentiful, it's better to pig out, because that gives you a better chance of surviving the eventual famine. It also shaped us to go for the richest foods possible (fats, meat, sweets) given a choice. Our evolutionary history simply didn't include all-you-can-eat-whenever-you-feel-like-it until exceedingly recently.

But, given a couple hundred thousand years in the presence of fast cars, booze, and McDonald's, you can be sure that our evolution would be affected so as to improve our survival chances in such an environment, at least in the sense of survival-to-reproduction. There would be little selection for (say) genes that protect against heart attacks, since heart attacks kill most people when they are well past their prime reproductive years. Similarly with cancer - you can ask, "if cancer kills so many people, why has evolution not selected for strong resistance to it?" Well, it has, but only in the sense that relatively few people die of cancer before their 30s -- after that, all bets are off. If some ubiquituous feature of modern life (e.g. power lines or agro-chemicals) greatly increased the risk of early-life cancers and we had to live with that for a few thousand generations, you can bet that strong selection for people who had more-than-usual resistance to such cancers would occur, just as life in regions of Africa where malaria is endemic has selected for genes that confer resistance to that (i.e. the sickle-cell gene), and life in hot, sunny climates has selected for dark skin, eye and hair pigmentation.

[quote]If no, how could you think that evolution could select against "tendency to suffer this intrauterine biochemical effect as a result of pregnancy stress", a factor that seems to me to be external to evolution?[/QUOTE]

If the condition is sufficiently common and there is a gene-linked variation that makes people more or less prone to it, it is *not* external to evolution. Everyone gestates in their mother's womb. We know people show a wide range of responses to stress - some of us are calmer in the face of it, other have stress hormones shoot through the roof if they get a "B" on a chemistry exam. If the response correlates strongly enough with something that affects reproductive success, it *will* be selected for or against. Thus, if homosexuality were due to (say) elevated cortisol levels in the mother during pregnancy, and homosexuality were a clear hindrance to reproductive fitness (which seems unlikely or at least far from proven), and there were no other evolutionary factors requiring those high cortisol levels under stress (which may not be the case), rest assured, there would be evidence of selection for the maternal trait of "lower intraterine cortisol levels under stress." Taking the stress-hormone example as fact just for the purpose of illustration, the fact that homosexuality does not appear to be strongly selected against would imply one of the following:

1) homosexuality does *not* in fact appreciably hurt reproductive fitness (or at least did not over most of the past few million years);

2) homosexuality *does* negatively impact reproductive fitness, but there are other (at least equally strong) selective pressures *for* the stress response in question. Perhaps higher stress hormones help the mother survive if attacked, which more than compensates for the slightly increased risk of bearing a homosexual child. Remember, if the mother dies, it is not just the child in her womb (and any she may be nursing) that is lost, but all the others she would have gone on to have, had she survived. Thus, bearing any one child with diminished reproductive capacity might well be a good tradeoff, if it allows for one or more future children to be born who do not suffer that problem.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;103073](By the way, would you classify a conjecture in mathematics as an argument from incredulity, and hence a logical fallacy?)[/quote]
[quote=cheesehead]The argument from credulity would be to state that [I]there was no way to prove the conjecture without resort to something outside mathematics[/I], but without proving the statement that [I]there was no way to prove the conjecture without resort to something outside mathematics[/I].
[/quote]I should have written, "[U]One[/U] argument from credulity would be ..." there.

Another argument from incredulity would be for someone to claim that s/he proved the conjecture by considering all cases and demonstrating the truth/falsity of each, but without proving that s/he had actually considered [I]all[/I] possible cases. IOW, s/he would have considered all cases [I]that s/he could think of[/I], but if someone else demonstrated that another, unconsidered case existed, that would show that the supposedly completed proof was an argument from incredulity.

The conjecture itself wouldn't be an argument from incredulity; but an attempted proof could be, if it were shown to match that pattern.

[quote=Zeta-Flux]Unfortunately, that is the way of science; publish the *real* science in obscure and relatively specialized articles[/quote]If you had written "journals" instead of "articles", I'd reply that that's the way of modern scientific publishing, not of science itself.

The report of almost any scientific discovery/experiment is necessarily going to be specialized these days, and obscure to most people except those involved in that particular field of study. That's not a flaw in science itself.

[quote=xilman;103081]I would argue that the immune system is simple. The bacterial flagellum is not that complex, IMO, but we'll let that pass for the moment.[/quote]Let me restate that the context is the notion that "irreducible complexity" in biology disproves evolution and/or requires (capitalized) Intelligent Design. IDers have argued that the immune system and the bacterial flagellum are two examples of irreducible complexity that could not have arisen via evolution, so are evidence for (capitalized) Intelligent Design.

[quote]Forward's antigravity device is real and I've seen a proposal for it to be flown on a NASA mission to test general relativity.[/quote]Okay. I'm interested.

But it is irrelevant to ID/evolution because manmade devices are, basically, products of evolution (unless it can be [I]independently[/I] proven that humans are not the product of evolution).