How can you possibly be an athiest?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Lincoln, if you're talking about an INITIAL program, and rejecting a "mistake in an already operating program", then you are talking about ABIOGENESIS, not EVOLUTION. And if DNA and its accompanying machinery is a product of evolution, then you're talking about PRE-DNA REPLICATION.

There is no translation. There is no grammar. There is no syntax. There are no semantics. Not at this stage. The self-replicating molecule needs none of that.

In fact, language is a useful analogy for evolution. Nowadays we construct sentences, for which we need nouns, verbs, the education of our kids to understand the rules of grammar, and so forth. But none of this was initially necessary for vocal communication. If Ug the Erectus notices a leopard stalking his brother Zug, they don't have to sit down and figure out a language to convey that information in a structured manner: screaming and pointing will do fine.

Assuming protein replication, the primal self-replicating molecule merely attracts free-floating amino acids from the "primordial soup". They stick, with each amino acid in the protein attracting the equivalent one from the soup, so that a new chain of amino acids (a protein) forms, that's identical to the previous one. Then they drift apart, and the process resumes with more "soup".

I've already mentioned a somewhat similar modern example: prion diseases. It's equivalent except that the "food" is already strung together into a prion protein. The mutated prion attracts the normal one and puts a "kink" into it. When they drift apart, both kinked prions continue the process within the "soup" of normal prions in the unfortunate victim's brain. As with abiogenesis, a protein with a particular configuation is causing the production of more proteins with the same configuration: without translation, grammar, syntax, semantics...


There is no reason to assume that this was NOT an accidental mutation. Just as there is no reason to assume divine intervention when an apple falls from a tree.

Most mutations are either neutral or harmful. Is this evidence that God is malicious? Why credit God with beneficial mutations if you're not going to blame him for all the others? How can you treat beneficial mutations as evidence of God when you're being so biased?


I can, and have, done both. Pure randomness without natural selection (analogous to abiogenesis) produces short words in random letters typed on a keyboard, and evolution produces information from randomness via random mutation and natural selection (and in computer simulations such as those of Karl Sims, which aren't based on intelligent selection from the progeny).


Again you're using an over-complex analogy. It can apply only to abiogenesis, NOT evolution, because you're not simulating natural selection at all.

So let's assume that you have a bundle of gears, wheels and shafts, but they're all magnetic (just as organic molecules tend to attract each other). They stick together in a jumbled heap. After countless trillions of attempts, success will be achieved if you get a wheeled structure that rolls (not an automatic transmission).

This seems quite feasible.

Evolution would involve randomly tinkering with the structure over billions of years and keeping every change that makes it better. Eventually, you'll get an automatic trasmission (if that is "better" in this context).

Again, this seems feasible.

Did the first wheeled vehicle have an automatic transmission? No, but it "worked" regardless. That's the flaw in your analogy.


Yes, I am asking for the impossible. Just as YOU were, in seeking a computer simulation that wasn't "tainted" by intelligence. I hope this illustrates your fallacy. Do you argue that computer simulations of the weather are worthless because they're "tainted" by intelligence, or is this sort of fuzzy thinking reserved only for evolution?


The creation of "information" via evolution is based upon evidence that is available for all to see. Why don't you look into it?

Jack, you contimually are trying to slove a non-existant problem -- one based upon your own imagination of what life was several billion years ago. Have you ever thought of the possibility that your imagined life form never existed? Where is the evidence that it did? You tell us a story. THAT is your evidence.

The facts now as they stand for all to see require that we solve the problem, of syntax, symantics, grammar etc., that is clearly within the genetic code. If you cannot solve the problem then please just say so and we will move on. Nevertheless, your example of the so called evolution of language misses one central point:

These were intelligent beings devising the rules of communication weren't they? You still have not devised any rules of communication without the aid of an intelligent being, have you? And even a grunt or scream required that the hearer understand the meaning and there must have been a convention of agreement as to what the sounds and primitive symbols MEAN. Now, I emphasize the word mean for a reason because that is the fallacy of your entire argument about information arising randomly. More on that later...

Your explanation of making proteins without information is interesting but irrelevant to my argument, as I already conceded that certain parts of life can self- assemble (although in very contrived conditions-- that is, contrived by an intelligent being.) So you still have not answered the question of how we get from some basic parts (even though forced into interaction by an intelligent being, i.e, a human) to an interactive information-based machine. You keep skipping the important part. Is that intentional?

quote:

"Most mutations are either neutral or harmful. Is this evidence that God is malicious? Why credit God with beneficial mutations if you're not going to blame him for all the others? How can you treat beneficial mutations as evidence of God when you're being so biased?"

You are starting another debate here about the nature of God. Anyway I was simply pointing out that you cannot prove simply by observation that the evolution of a certain creature was the result of mutations that were not part of the original program which allowed both for warding off destructive influences while providing for variation and adaptation to the environment. In fact you must agree that there is a provision for fighting invasive viruses. That is basic biology. Why would you assume that a string of accidents cause so much beneficial and often beautiful change (such as a hummingbird or peacock) when the alternative is so obvious? Why do you cling to materalism at all costs? Surely a planned event is more likely to produce a beneficial result than a string of accidents. More later...

[Az]

Jack, you contimually are trying to slove a non-existant problem -- one based upon your own imagination of what life was several billion years ago. Have you ever thought of the possibility that your imagined life form never existed? Where is the evidence that it did? You tell us a story. THAT is your evidence.

well, at least his hypothesis doesn't include supernatural forces.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

At any rate, you don't know the odds, so this is just unfounded.

Point well taken. Let me find these odds so that I can post them.

Jack:

Sorry for the long post, but I want to post the relevent examples of 'speciations' from Jack's source. I'm surprised that he did not do so himself.

Interestingly, this is considered a 'settled' issue among biologists, to the point that they were unwilling to examine evidence for this hypothesis.

Thanks for actually answering the question, rather than adopting this usual argument,

5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self- incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays) Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridi- zation as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.

5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.

5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.

5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:


Pop A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Pop B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Pop C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Pop D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

[Ben Kenobi]

5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the dif- ferentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in inter- preting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:


Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations.
5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis) Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum) Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.


WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.

[Az]

Yawn. Rule of Debate #1, obiwan. Anything that takes 7-8 seconds just to scroll with PgUp, and PgDown through, won't be read.

[Ben Kenobi]

Too lazy to break into chunks right now.

And I don't want to sift through Jack's tretise that he posted again.

Prolly just sit on these points for awhile.

Again, sorry all.

[Lincoln]

The fallacy of Jack’s information via randomness argument:

quote:

“Pure randomness without natural selection (analogous to abiogenesis) produces short words in random letters typed on a keyboard, and evolution produces information from randomness via random mutation and natural selection (and in computer simulations such as those of Karl Sims, which aren't based on intelligent selection from the progeny).

First I will deal with the program of Karl Sims: Here is a quote from his website:

“Selection is the process by which the fitness of phenotypes is determined. The likelihood of survival and the number of new offspring an individual generates is proportional to its fitness measure. Fitness is simply the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. In simulation, it can be calculated by an explicitly defined fitness evaluation function, or it can be provided by a human observer as it is in this work.”

The words “explicitly defined” should ring a bell. What intelligent being is doing the defining?

Here is more:

“Genetic algorithms differ from the examples presented in this paper in that they usually utilize an explicit analytic function to measure the fitness of phenotypes. Since it is difficult to automatically measure the aesthetic visual success of simulated objects or images, here the fitness is provided by a human user based on visual perception. Some combinations of automatic selection and interactive selection are also utilized.”

And more: “Selection is performed by the user picking preferred phenotypes from groups of samples, and as long as the samples can be generated and displayed quickly enough, it can be a useful technique.

Anyway, that is not my point here because even without the flaws we are talking about the simulation of an already existing genetic code and finding out what it can do. The question I have posed here has always been the ORIGIN of information along with it’s accompaning rules of grammar, stastics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics (goal or result).

“Short words” do nothing to solve the above problems. Or even whole sentences or paragraphs do not help us. In fact even an entire volume of books do not help us with the information except that they may provide the raw material from which an intelligent being can produce real information such as is contained in even the most primitive living organism.

In the genetic code we have molecules of DNA used as “letters” in the language of life. The letters A=adenosine, G=guanosine, C=cytodine, and T=thymidine are used in the language as letters that in turn form “words” that are various triplet combinations of the four letters. Now I will give one example from the genetic code:

The letters formed into the triplet “words” AAA or AAG mean (or they are translated as) lysine.

The amino acid lysine is assembled in a specified order with other amino acids to form a useful protein. We can call this combination of triplet words in the code “sentences”. These words are arranged in a specified order. Three parts of adenosine (A) or two parts of adenosine mixed together with one part guanosine (G) do not make lysine. Another code (UAG using RNA for the letters) means STOP. Of course combining Uracil, Adenosine, and Guanosine does not cause anything to stop. The chemical letters are useful only as the are assigned a meaning.

The key word is “meaning”. The chemical letters and words only mean something when translated. Who or what assigned this meaning and made up these rules? Why would an evolving proto life form decide to form a language? And how could it? How can any IT assign a meaning to a chemical symbol? Yes, chemicals under the right conditions can spontaneously form into other more complex molecules but this process that is according to the laws of physics has no knowledge of how to assign MEANING to chemicals, together with a translation process and all the accompanying rules as listed above.

A materialist is asking us to believe that material is intelligent! He will go to any length necessary to pretend that there is no intelligent force in the universe yet he must tacitly claim logically that the blind forces of nature are intelligent! That is one reason why I named my book The Blind Atheist.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Jack, you contimually are trying to slove a non-existant problem -- one based upon your own imagination of what life was several billion years ago. Have you ever thought of the possibility that your imagined life form never existed? Where is the evidence that it did? You tell us a story. THAT is your evidence.

I am continually stunned that people could possibly post something like this and not see the overwhelming irony.

[Spiffor]

@ Kontiki. That's absolutely right

[Lincoln]

In other words Kontiki you cannot solve the information problem. Thanks for clearing that up. Any more evasions?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Slightly off topic, but one question that always springs to my mind is "Why do you believe in God?" (in the Christian sense). Don't take this at all as a knock against the belief, but I'm curious as to why many people do. If you believe that you have some personal connection with God, then fine, so be it. But I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Christians (or any other religion, for that matter) are placing their faith in something without really knowing why. I mean, is it simply because you were raised with this belief in your family and accept that it's true? Is it what you were taught at school? Have you really thought about it, understand many of the issues involved (including some of the "controversy") and made an informed choice? From my experience, it seems like at least a few of the Christians here have (Obiwan and Rogan Josh spring to mind, and I'm sure there are others) but I'm curious about some of the other Christians here (or members of any other religion).

The short answer to your question is, yes. The long answer is:

1. I believe in God because of facts and evidence and the logical interpretation of the facts and evidence.

2. My mother was a Christian and my father was an atheist. I was raised with both opinions.

3. I was not taught it in school but I attended a church sometimes with my mother as a child and learned their viewpoint there.

4. I have thought about it quite a bit and I have studied the opposing views. I have also studied biology which has led me to the necessity of intelligent design behind life.

5. I became a Christian when I was 29 because of a contnual string of incidents and spiritual intervention into my previous self-centered lifestyle. At that time I studied spiritual things and various religions to determine who or what was intervening into my life. The choice of Christianity was made reluctantly because of the hypocrisy that I saw over the rears. The facts and evidence and logic and the clear teachings of Jesus led me to my current beliefs.

Now why don't you change a few words in you question and answer your own question? Were you taught it in school... are you placing your faith in something without really knowing why, etc.?

[Lincoln]

In case anyone missed it, here are the questions again:

What law of physics requires this order of DNA (for example):

CGATTACCGATTGAC and not this one: CGATACCATAGCCA

And while you are at it please explain how the laws of physic divide the code into triplets or codons. Then you can tell us how the code came about and how it came to be translated and by what mechanism, without the aid of intelligent input. Finally you can tell us all how the laws of physics gives meaning to a chemical smbol and translates that meaning to the appropriate parts of the cellular machinery so that the interactive part know how to asemble themselves properly.

[Rogan Josh]

To Lincon and Obiwan: I think it is time for me to give it up. I can't tell whether they are deliberately 'misunderstanding' my posts or really not getting it. Although I personally don't believe in literal Creation, I have a lot of respect for your efforts to persuade them of your point of view. But I think there are just too many people on this board who are too set in their own belief system and not willing to listen to a different pov.

Good luck guys 'cos you are going to need it with this lot!

Edit: The quote I got while waiting for this post to appear was just so appropriate, I had to share it with you:

This is the theory that Jack built.
This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built.
This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

[yavoon]

lincoln the short and simple answer is the code is in that form cuz of the laws of the universe. u could just as well ask why apples fall or why the universe didnt implode the instant it was made. or ne other # of inane things. the only reason we know things are the way they are is cuz they are governed by laws.

so if ur gna go for god ur gna have to go retreat behind the laws.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack, you contimually are trying to slove a non-existant problem -- one based upon your own imagination of what life was several billion years ago. Have you ever thought of the possibility that your imagined life form never existed? Where is the evidence that it did? You tell us a story. THAT is your evidence.

As Kontiki pointed out, the irony here is overwhelming...

But, again, I don't have to PROVE any of this. I am NOT trying to prove the nonexistence of God. I am NOT trying to prove that life evolved without divine intervention.

I am merely pointing out that life COULD have evolved without divine intervention, therefore a God does not appear to be NECESSARY.

The facts now as they stand for all to see require that we solve the problem, of syntax, symantics, grammar etc., that is clearly within the genetic code. If you cannot solve the problem then please just say so and we will move on.

Yes, this stuff exists NOW, therefore at some point it presumably evolved. How, exactly, did this happen? As yet, nobody knows. Research is ongoing into how the transitions could have occurred, from protein replication to RNA replication to DNA replication, with its three-letter codons and so forth. So the short answer is "we don't know".

But none of this appears to be necessary for the emergence of life, and "we don't know, therefore God" is a classic God of the Gaps argument.

Nevertheless, your example of the so called evolution of language misses one central point:

These were intelligent beings devising the rules of communication weren't they? You still have not devised any rules of communication without the aid of an intelligent being, have you? And even a grunt or scream required that the hearer understand the meaning and there must have been a convention of agreement as to what the sounds and primitive symbols MEAN. Now, I emphasize the word mean for a reason because that is the fallacy of your entire argument about information arising randomly. More on that later...

You are attempting to read too much into an analogy.

But you have not exposed any fallacy about the concept of information arising randomly.

Your explanation of making proteins without information is interesting but irrelevant to my argument, as I already conceded that certain parts of life can self- assemble (although in very contrived conditions-- that is, contrived by an intelligent being.) So you still have not answered the question of how we get from some basic parts (even though forced into interaction by an intelligent being, i.e, a human) to an interactive information-based machine. You keep skipping the important part. Is that intentional?

You seem somewhat confused about what the "important part" actually is: abiogenesis, information increase via evolution, or the origin of the modern DNA replication system with its three-letter codons? These are different, separate events.

Why would you assume that a string of accidents cause so much beneficial and often beautiful change (such as a hummingbird or peacock) when the alternative is so obvious? Why do you cling to materalism at all costs? Surely a planned event is more likely to produce a beneficial result than a string of accidents.

Evolution is obvious. We know it happens (even if there IS a God), we can see it happening, and we know that it is inevitable. Wherever there is random variation and natural selection of inheritable characteristics, there WILL be evolution, as surely as there will be fire if fuel, oxygen and a source of ignition is present.

So you're not proposing an "alternative", you're proposing an additional factor. One that does not appear to be required.

First I will deal with the program of Karl Sims: Here is a quote from his website:

“Selection is the process by which the fitness of phenotypes is determined. The likelihood of survival and the number of new offspring an individual generates is proportional to its fitness measure. Fitness is simply the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. In simulation, it can be calculated by an explicitly defined fitness evaluation function, or it can be provided by a human observer as it is in this work.”

The words “explicitly defined” should ring a bell. What intelligent being is doing the defining?

Again, you seem to be asking for a computer simulation that wasn't designed by an intelligent being. It's OK to exlicitly define something that mimics a real-world phenomenon, like starvation.

“Genetic algorithms differ from the examples presented in this paper in that they usually utilize an explicit analytic function to measure the fitness of phenotypes. Since it is difficult to automatically measure the aesthetic visual success of simulated objects or images, here the fitness is provided by a human user based on visual perception. Some combinations of automatic selection and interactive selection are also utilized.”

Granted. The best examples of simulated evolution should not involve human judgements. They are the ones that use "an explicit analytic function to measure the fitness of phenotypes" rather than a human saying "I like the look of that one". Sometimes it's just so much easier for a human to say "Yes, that one appears to be doing well", rather than putting in further work to devise an additional program to test what appears to be obvious: Sims was lazy there.

But he lists the specific traits he was selecting for:

This demo contains animations of 26 different virtual creatures that emerged from simulated evolutions. Creatures are shown that resulted from each of four behavior optimization criteria:

1. Swimming speed (water environment)
2. Walking speed (land environment)
3. Jumping height (land environment)
4. Following ability (water environment)

Each of these is a simulation of a trait that is obviously relevant to survival in the real world, unlike the Dawkins example. It's not difficult to see that greater mobility will be useful to a real creature. So the simulation is valid: it's a real-world survival test that's being intelligently simulated.

Anyway, that is not my point here because even without the flaws we are talking about the simulation of an already existing genetic code and finding out what it can do. The question I have posed here has always been the ORIGIN of information along with it’s accompaning rules of grammar, stastics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics (goal or result).

Again, you need to clarify whether the problem is the origin of information per se, or the origin of the components of the DNA replication system. As I've admitted, we don't acually know the details of the emergence of the DNA replication system: however, the principle of the generation of information via evolution is more straightforward.