Allen MacNeill: Serial Endosymbiosis and Intelligent Design

I don't think that Lynn calls them "neodarwinian bullies" because she thinks that her theoretical extensions receive the kind of fair evaluation that makes an "excellent example" for how science should proceed. Neodarwinians know that Lynn's ideas about symbiogenesis and self-regulating systems lead to her and Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis and its teleological implications for predetermined purpose.

Dawkins and others have very vocally insisted that hell will have to freeze straight over before anyone in the community accepts anything that looks that much like "god" to them, and I don't believe that any amount of evidence is going to get a fair evaluation if it requires an admission that there is evidence that we're not here by accident.

The idea that the eukaryotic cell is actually a colony of microbes was first suggested in the 1920s by American biologist Ivan Wallin (Fausto-Sterling 1993). The originator of the modern version of the SET is biologist Lynn Margulis. In 1981, Margulis published the first edition of her book entitled Symbiosis in Cell Evolution in which she proposed that eukaryotic cells originated as communities of interacting entities that joined together in a specific order. With time, the members of this union became the organelles of a single host (Margulis 1993). The organelle progenitors could have gained entry into a host cell as undigested prey or as an internal parasite after which the combination became mutually beneficial to both organisms. As the organisms became more interdependent, an obligatory symbiosis evolved.

Holy cow, island, way to miss the entire point of the essay.

Erm... by the way... what evidence? You woo-peddlers keep insisting it's there but you never get around to actually, you know, showing it to anyone.

island said: Dawkins and others have very vocally insisted that hell will have to freeze straight over before anyone in the community accepts anything that looks that much like "god" to them, and I don't believe that any amount of evidence is going to get a fair evaluation if it requires an admission that there is evidence that we're not here by accident.

A pity Margulis has also become an HIV denialist.

Steven Sullivan said: A pity Margulis has also become an HIV denialist.

Her ideas are still radical, and still raise the blood pressure of many evolutionary biologists. Her dismissal of the "modern evolutionary synthesis" in particular is not popular among many evolutionary biologists, who are largely still mired in paradigms that are at least four decades of out of date.

btw, the commentary in the thread on Allen's blog is remarkably similar to mine regarding how the scientific community views Margulis's contributions since her original contribution:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/04/serial-endosymbiosis-and-intelligent.html

of course, there is a good point to be made there as well:

There is no authoritarianism in science.

Just because one might get one thing right, doesn't mean the scientific community will automatically accept your other contributions.

"Lynn’s work provides an excellent example of how ID should (but currently doesn’t) proceed."

"Allen makes an excellent case how science progresses and that while science may resist change, the only way to change science is to do hard work, research and show how your ideas form scientifically relevant contributions. This is particularly relevant when it comes to Intelligent Design, whose proponents have chosen it to remain scientifically vacuous, without content."

"When the history of evolutionary biology in the 20th century is written (I hope to contribute to it myself, if I live long enough), the work of Lynn Margulis will rank right up there with the work of Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Simpson, Stebbins, Gould, Lewontin, Kimura, Williams, Hamilton, Trivers, and the two Wilsons. And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote."

If 'self organization' turns out to be 'it', and 'it alone', so be it.

If?

just how long do we have to wait to make a reasonable conclusion about it?

200 years?

2000?

10000?

bah.

... you forgot the humbug!

nice response Lee

nice response Lee

take those blinders off, Pim.

He means it tongue in cheek, Ichthyic.

By the way, where is everybody. You'd think they'd all be back from the lake by now ...

The only problem I see with Mr Bowman's essay about Intelligent Design "theory" not being Creationism is that those Intelligent Design proponents who claim to accept Evolution, whether they are Discovery Institute luminaries, like Michael Behe, or malicious groupies, still rail incoherently against Evolutionary Theory, often making ludicrous excuses for doing so. They never make any satisfactory explanations about why Evolution is allegedly inadequate by itself, nor do they even bother to elucidate how an Intelligent Designer works through Evolution to form and alter diversity, let alone detect this Designer's presence in Evolution and Biology.

Of course, then there's the problem that the vast majority of Intelligent Design proponents are Young Earth Creationists, both unabashed and covert. Even Salvador Cordova hinted that he finds a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis to be more convincing an explanation of the origin of the diversity of life than "descent with modification."

Still, the biggest hurdle I (and the essay by Dr MacNeill) see for Intelligent Design "theory" is not the fact that Evolutionary Theory is the only theory that can adequately describe the formation and alteration of the diversity and forms of life. The biggest hurdle for Intelligent Design "theory" is that none of its proponents, whether they accept descent with modification, or whether they believe that the Bible is 100% true, or else, have even the slightest desire to do any science with, about or even to promote Intelligent Design "theory."

And no shimmyshammying by anyone can ever truthfully define Intelligent Design "theory" as a science if no one wants to use it in science to begin with.

The idea that ID is not creationism is somewhat misplaced but understandable. ID creationists have spent much effort to deny their Creator and pretend that ID is a neutral approach. Sadly enough, it is neither neutral nor scientifically relevant. Which is why we see ID strategy mutate and evolve quickly to regain a possible advantage. In the end, it still remains vacuous science and troublesome theology.

But getting to PvM’s point that “Lynn’s work provides an excellent example of how ID should (but currently doesn’t) proceed”, I would agree to a degree, but disagree that it’s analogous to what ID lacks. There are many more factors involved in achieving even minimal status, and the tools, funding and opportunities to do the requisite research regarding design inferences, hypotheses that most deem to negate evolution, but do not necessarily.

"The only problem I see with Mr Bowman’s essay about Intelligent Design “theory” not being Creationism is that those Intelligent Design proponents who claim to accept Evolution, whether they are Discovery Institute luminaries, like Michael Behe, or malicious groupies, still rail incoherently against Evolutionary Theory, often making ludicrous excuses for doing so."

" They never make any satisfactory explanations about why Evolution is allegedly inadequate by itself ... "

I just finished reading David Alt's Glacial Lake Missoula, on the Missoula Floods, and then went and visited the Scablands in Eastern Washington. The substory of Bretz's fight to convince the scientific community is much the same as Margulis' story. He had to fight against intransience, and presented a great deal of evidence, which was initially not accepted, for decades, ironically because the catastrophism he proposed was too similar to religious ideas like a Biblical flood, but in this case, Bretz had the evidence on his side.

PvM said: The idea that ID is not creationism is somewhat misplaced but understandable. ID creationists have spent much effort to deny their Creator and pretend that ID is a neutral approach. Sadly enough, it is neither neutral nor scientifically relevant. Which is why we see ID strategy mutate and evolve quickly to regain a possible advantage. In the end, it still remains vacuous science and troublesome theology.

RBH said: Lee Bowman wrote

But getting to PvM’s point that “Lynn’s work provides an excellent example of how ID should (but currently doesn’t) proceed”, I would agree to a degree, but disagree that it’s analogous to what ID lacks. There are many more factors involved in achieving even minimal status, and the tools, funding and opportunities to do the requisite research regarding design inferences, hypotheses that most deem to negate evolution, but do not necessarily.

Except that things like systematically validating concepts like Complex Specified Information on phenomena of known provenance don't require huge labs and hordes of grad students and post-docs.

Then we have our work cut out for us. I wouldn’t call it totally vacuous; just lacking. Regarding strategies, it’s sad that strategies need be employed.

But rather than dismissing natural causes, I simply advocate more research.

Co-evolution, while accepted as valid, often defies statistical reality.

More than one might think. Much of the work now going on has implications for design substantiation. Rather than cordon off a section for separate research, I advocate a merging of the two. In other words, an allowance of teleologic hypotheses within the mainstream.

I disagree. Behe has been quite specific in his criticisms, as has Dembski. Quoting from a talk Bill gave at Baylor 11/22/04 (AAR meeting?), which was cited on this blog back on 9/5/08, from an earlier post about Lynn Margulis:

To come back to the issue raised, how come that ID has failed so far to "systematically validating concepts like Complex Specified Information on phenomena of known provenance don’t require huge labs and hordes of grad students and post-docs."

You claim that it takes more effort than one thinks and yet this seems to be a minimal requirement if not one which should be relatively straightforward... Or, if Dembski's attempts to apply his filter to anything non-trivial, perhaps totally beyond ID's reach.

science may resist change

island said: Neodarwinians know that Lynn's ideas about symbiogenesis and self-regulating systems lead to her and Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis and its teleological implications for predetermined purpose.

From my discussions of the subject with her, Lynn Margulis's "problems" with the "modern evolutionary synthesis" of the first half of the 20th century is primarily that it was mostly theoretical, rather than empirical. To be precise, the work of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright, which provided a mathematical basis for the later work of Dobzhansky (and, to a lesser extent, Mayr) was limited almost entirely to mechanisms of microevolutionary change: selection and drift, to be precise. Following Eldridge and Gould's presentation of punctuated equilibrium this situation changed, and that change accelerated with the discovery of new mechanisms of microevolutionary change (such as Hamilton's kin selection and Trivers's reciprocal altruism). Most significant of all, the discovery of homeotic gene regulation and the various mechanisms of evolutionary developmental biology have almost completely rewritten the "modern evolutionary synthesis", which now seems to me to be more of an historical curiosity than a guiding force in most empirical research today.

However, if one sits in on a typical evolution course at most American universities, what one will spend almost the entire semester learning is the "modern synthesis", with punk eek, sociobiology, and evo-devo relegated to the status of a footnote, if they are mentioned at all. And Margulis's work on the origin of eukaryotes is barely mentioned, despite mountains of evidence supporting it. Bill Hamilton suspected that the origin of HIV had to do with the use of polio vaccine in Africa; indeed, he died investigating the possibility. Does that make him a crank? Or, like Margulis, do we recognize him for the tremendous advances in evolutionary biology that he spawned, and respect them both for the painstaking empirical research that supported their theories, and their commitment to empirical verification (rather than theoretical speculation)?

The list of evolutionary biologists who have been called cranks by other evolutionary biologists is a long one, and includes virtually all of the people one would expect to find lionized in the "evolutionary hall of fame". What separates most of them from the "ID hall of shame" is that they were unafraid to think about nature in new ways, and equally eager to get their hands dirty finding out if their suspicions about how nature worked could be tested against reality.

Everyone has "metaphysical assumptions" that guide their work; what separates scientists from the rest is that we are willing to test those assumptions against reality, and ready to give them up if reality shows us differently.

PvM said: [...] Behe, convinced by his faith, seems intent on proving his Designer to be limited or forced to intervene, although he accepts front loading as a possible explanation, he seems to reject this based on his faith. [...]

Lee Bowman said: Conflating Creationism with ID is a thing of the past. The NOMA concept has merit, but since ID does not qualify as a magisterium, it remains separate from the faith based side. Design inferences point to directed processes, but not necessarily by an overseer.

Allen MacNeill said: The list of evolutionary biologists who have been called cranks by other evolutionary biologists is a long one, and includes virtually all of the people one would expect to find lionized in the "evolutionary hall of fame". What separates most of them from the "ID hall of shame" is that they were unafraid to think about nature in new ways, and equally eager to get their hands dirty finding out if their suspicions about how nature worked could be tested against reality. Everyone has "metaphysical assumptions" that guide their work; what separates scientists from the rest is that we are willing to test those assumptions against reality, and ready to give them up if reality shows us differently.

Plenty of scientists are intrigued with intelligent design but for now don't see how they can usefully contribute to it. I recently had an exchange with one such scientist (a geneticist). I asked him, "What sort of real work needs to go forward before you felt comfortable with ID?" His response was revealing:

If I knew how to scientifically approach the question you pose, I would quit all that I am doing right now, and devote the rest of my career in pursuit of its answer. The fact that I have no idea how to begin gathering scientific data that would engage the scientific community is the very reason that I don't share your optimism that this approach will work.

Or consider Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. As a Christian believer, he is committed to design in some broad sense. Yet, at the most recent meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation (Pepperdine University, 2-5 August 2002) he expressed doubts about intelligent design as a scientific project. The problem, according to him, is intelligent design's "lack of a plan for experimental verification." I remain supremely optimistic that intelligent design has the research potential to satisfy such scientists. That potential, however, needs to be actualized. How, then, to actualize it? The most important thing right now is a steady stream of good ideas together with the resources to implement them. In particular, we need to reflect deeply about biological systems. That reflection needs to generate profound insight. And that insight needs to get us asking interesting new questions that can be framed as research problems. With these research problems in hand, we then need to go to nature and see how they resolve. I'm mainly a theoretician, so I'm not in a position to lay out a detailed set of research problems for intelligent design. Nonetheless, as an interdisciplinary scholar who rubs shoulders with scientists from many disciplines, I am in a position to lay out some research themes that may prove helpful to scientists who are trying to find a way to contribute usefully to intelligent design research. What follows, then, is a list of research themes (let me stress that I make no pretense at completeness).

McNeil, I hope you will seriously consider the possibility that you have been overly moved by a forceful whiner. "I had to actually back up my idea before it was accepted, therefore I'm a victim and the establishment is mean"! The endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts was explored and well supported by molecular biological research done by others. Margulis didn't even have to do it herself and still she whines. It is now standard textbook material. Spend most of a semester of evolution 101 learning the basics without mentioning her name over and over whines Margulis (per your comment). Yes I hope so. Try taking Physics 101. First semester almost all Newton, even though it is a small part of modern physics. Small but curcial. I don't hear modern physicists whining and demanding more personal attention in Phy 101. The whines you mention are without merit.

Bowman -

back on page 1 seems to think Behe has done empirical research related to his ID crusade. No cite given for the obvious reason. Behe runs from the lab. He spends all his time playing a biologist on TV and on the podium lecturing to Christian clubs. Although somewhat nuts he has quite enough residual sanity to know he is not going to find the Designer in a test tube.

The old chestnut that Behe accepts quite a bit of evolution is rotten. He is just like other creationists - he accepts some "micro" evolution, as little as possible. He puts over the claim that he accepts common descent, thus creating the false impression that he is partly reasonable. His version of "common descent" is that the Designer does the DNA work (which he would have to do anyway according to creationism) in the womb, making it look like common descent while in reality the Designer is the father.

"Intelligent design" is an advertising slogan for creationism.

Allen MacNeill said: Following Eldridge and Gould’s presentation of punctuated equilibrium this situation changed, and that change accelerated with the discovery of new mechanisms of microevolutionary change (such as Hamilton’s kin selection and Trivers’s reciprocal altruism). Most significant of all, the discovery of homeotic gene regulation and the various mechanisms of evolutionary developmental biology have almost completely rewritten the “modern evolutionary synthesis”, which now seems to me to be more of an historical curiosity than a guiding force in most empirical research today.

I suppose I should respond to the hemeotic gene statement as well.

I fail to see how it undermines the modern synthesis to the slightest degree.

In my estimation we are simply acquiring more information about the landscape in which evolution takes place, and not undermining mechanisms of mutation and selection. Homeotic genes are just a well conserved and difficult to evolve chunck of machinery. Extremely interesting and fun to study, but no more damaging to the modern synthesis than any highly conserved genetic information.

IMHO homeotic genes are what is undergoing evolutionary change in most multicellular organisms most of the time. But the mechanisms that cause evolutionary change to homeotic genes are still explained only by the modern synthesis. Perhaps you could also elaborate on why homeotic genes make the modern synthesis obsolete.

Re the modern synthesis, Yes Larry Boy has it right. I suppose there will some argument based on "defining" a limited synthesis to fit the argument. But sans arbitrary definitions the synthesis just kept on being synthesized. PE was implicit in the strictly modern synthesis work of Wright and Simpson. The discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and then the triplet code for amino acids - in other words the molecular basis of heredity - was a giant breakthrough. Then the synthesizing accelerated. The only "problem" is that people make arguments based on arbitrary terms such "modern synthesis" in order to make themselves important. Science is doing just fine despite personal ego issues.

Final clarification: To me the modern synthesis is fairly synonymous with the genetically theory of natural selection, and is essentially the claim the evolutionary change is the result of the sequential mutation and fixation of alleles. Certainly this focuses on micro-evolution, and much of the work was theoretical and mathematical.

From your brief summary of Margulis' objections I fail to understand what she is claiming.

The results of the modern synthesis have been used in important empirical work, particularly when comparing neutral evolution to natural selection, estimate historic population sizes of species, and trying to explain the origin and persistence of sex.

Finally, I am not aware of any macroevolutionary theories that have significant empirical or theoretical support. (Again IMHO) these days punctuated equilibrium is an observation of the fossil record, but not a fundamental theory of evolutionary change, macro or otherwise. SET (to me) is again not so much an evolutionary theory as an empirical claim, unless Margulis has made claims about what conditions cause SET to occur, and why we can expect SET to occur.

I apologize if my befuddlement with your comments comes from linguistic irregularity.

Perhaps the greatest shock to earlier views was the discovery of so much variation in the amino acid sequence of proteins, with the implication that much of this variation must not be subject to much if any selection. Now that proteins are better understood and we know there is usually a small critical area and a lot of general shape that can be achieved in many ways, this is no longer surprising. Now the neutral (more precisely nearly neutral) theory is routine.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Perhaps the greatest shock to earlier views was the discovery of so much variation in the amino acid sequence of proteins, with the implication that much of this variation must not be subject to much if any selection. Now that proteins are better understood and we know there is usually a small critical area and a lot of general shape that can be achieved in many ways, this is no longer surprising. Now the neutral (more precisely nearly neutral) theory is routine.

The major part of the synthesis mathematically synthesized the large amount of experimental genetics with Darwin's original contribution. Let us not forget what was synthesized.

PE is observed in the fossil record sometimes, an example being the evolution of a new species of snail in about 15 thousand years. As Gould himself said, "There are many exceptions..." (to PE). There are far more cases of not enough data to decide.

Sorry, one last clarification. Margulis' SET is a scientific theory, and an important one, but I do not consider it a theory of evolutionary change, but then again, I would not consider heliocentrism a theory of planetary motion. Perhaps again this is just my idiosyncratic use of words which I have not desire to defend.

Larry Boy wrote: "I apologize if this is where my miss-understanding arose."

What misunderstanding? I agree with you, and just add a footnote or two.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Larry Boy wrote: "I apologize if this is where my miss-understanding arose." What misunderstanding? I agree with you, and just add a footnote or two.

I’m pre-apologizing to Allen Macneill if he ment the modern synthesis to mean something other than I mean it to mean.

By the way, while we are sort of on the subject of great advances in recent decades I want to mention another one: the chemo-osmotic understanding of organelle membranes. The chemo-osmotic hypothesis won out around 1980 (?). It is a giant advance in making sense of cells, and now a textbook standard.

The endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts was explored and well supported by molecular biological research done by others. Margulis didn’t even have to do it herself and still she whines. It is now standard textbook material.

ID is but a movement, historically tied to fundamentalist creationism. To expect a religiously dangerous cult to get official church approval is a ludicrous proposal.

Lynn Margulis is one of many, many examples of scientists who were the prime movers of something extremely original and important, and then later became uncritical inventors and embracers of crackpot ideas. Kerry Mullis, Linus Pauling, Francis Crick, etc.

This is not an unusual phenomenon.

My personal guess is that the truly creative mind must be one that is somewhat light on self-criticism.

When rashness is combined with inspiration and insight, works of genius may result.

However, when the inspiration and insight have been used up, the ability to ignore criticism impedes good work.

It's also possible that those who have been recognized are just less inhibited about expressing themselves, because their words will be taken seriously.

It's also possible that the mild but real association of mental illness with creativity may have some role to play.

And of course, it's just my subjective impression that the most creative scientists often seem to become the worst crackpots. It would be tricky to do a controlled study of that, and I certainly haven't done one.

Conflating Creationism with ID is a thing of the past. The NOMA concept has merit, but since ID does not qualify as a magisterium, it remains separate from the faith based side. Design inferences point to directed processes, but not necessarily by an overseer.

Great, more "pointing". How do they know they're supposed to call them "design" inferences then? How dey know dat? How do they know the "designer" isn't evolution if "Design inferences point to directed processes, but not necessarily by an overseer"? How come the "director" can't be nature?

What is it that they don't like about evolution? If the "designer" can be evolution, then how come people say kooky things like "design inferences, hypotheses that most deem to negate evolution, but do not necessarily. They may simply alter the mechanisms involved."

"Conflating Creationism with ID is a thing of the past" ... yeah okay thanks.

Contrary to what you claim, there was a time when ID didn't have much opposition at all, if any. That was like way back in the stone ages or the middle ages or something like that. (Probably both.)

Yes, a contrarium (I just coined a new [English] word) does exist.

Thanks I coined one too: pointy poit poitn.

Design inferences pointy poit poitn to directed processes, but not necessarily by an overseer.

Yes, a contrarium (I just coined a new [English] word) does exist.

Thanks, good luck with it. I've coined a few myself in my day but they never cought on very well.

"Fundamentalistists" like to "anointy noint noit" stuff.

The Pope likes to "blessy bless bless" stuff.

ID likes to "pointy poit poitn" stuff.

They never cought on very well though. Good luck!

I disagree. Behe has been quite specific in his criticisms, as has Dembski. Quoting from a talk Bill gave at Baylor 11/22/04 (AAR meeting?), which was cited on this blog back on 9/5/08, from an earlier post about Lynn Margulis:

Okay thanks.

With regard to Sal Cordova, he is somewhat torn between ID and strict Presbyterian beliefs. I don’t think he’s a strict YEC, but open to it. He knows the requirements of science.

Okay thanks. Yeah I saw him on one of D James Kennedy's broadcasts once. Seems like a pretty cool dude. You both seem very well informed about stuff.

Then we have our work cut out for us. I wouldn’t call it totally vacuous; just lacking. Regarding strategies, it’s sad that strategies need be employed.

Okay thanks. What strategies are you talking about? The ones where they get their lacking taught in schools? Or do you mean funding strategies? What currently are their funding strategies? Uh huh.

Peter Dunkelberg wrote:

"I take the modern synthesis to be a snapshot of research at a certain time."

This is precisely my point. Most historians of evolutionary biology (c.f. Mayr and Provine) consider that the "modern evolutionary synthesis" (so called mostly because of Julian Huxley's 1942 book) reached its complete form by the Darwin sesquicentennial in 1959, as celebrated at the meeting/symposium at the University of Chicago. At that time, the "modern synthesis" could be said to consist of the following points:

* That natural selection was the primary mechanism of evolution at every level;

* That the genome was highly organized and homeostatic;

* That the "one gene-one enzyme" theory of Beadle and Tatum was the rule in molecular genetics;

* That the evolution of gross phenotypic characteristics (such as eyes, wings, etc.) was a good model of evolution at the molecular level;

* That protein evolution was a good model of DNA evolution;

* That genetic recombination was more important that mutation as a source of genetic novelty;

* That random genetic drift ( a la Sewall Wright) was an important mechanism in evolution;

* That macroevolution (i.e. speciation and the evolution of higher taxa) proceeded via essentially the same mechanisms as microevolution (i.e. natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift);

* That the biological species concept provided an unambiguous and useful definition of all species;

* That the process of speciation was completely understood in principle; and

* There was a monophyletic "tree of life", with its single root planted firmly in the bacteria (which were, of course, part of the kingdom Plantae).

What we know now (almost 50 years later) is that most of these tenets were either grossly inaccurate or just plain wrong. More recent research into the genetics of evolution has shown:

* That much of evolution is selectively neutral, especially at the level of nucleotide sequences in DNA;

* That the genome of most organisms is chaotic, with bits and pieces of gene sequences being added, removed, and rearranged in nearly random patterns;

* That genes and enzymes are only weakly associated (i.e. the "one gene-one enzyme" theory does not apply to most of the genome, and when it does it does so in peculiar and unpredictable ways);

* That much of the genome of most organisms, especially euykarotes such as ourselves, is stuffed with redundant sequences, modular gene segments, and regulatory regions which do not code for polypeptides at all, but which nevertheless are essential to phenotypic expression;

* That phenotypic and protein evolution is largely decoupled from the evolution of much of the DNA sequence in most organisms, especially eukaryotes;

* That mutation is immensely important, not only as a source of evolutionary novelty but also as a source of overall genetic change, especially in short-lived organisms such as bacteria;

* That random genetic drift is not an important mechanism in evolution (and may not even exist, according to Will Provine);

* That macroevolution proceeds by fundamentally different mechanisms that microevolution, and that these macroevolutionary mechanisms are still largely unknown (but are becoming better known, mostly through evo-devo);

* That the biological species concept is largely inadequate to characterize species at many levels, and that adherence to it has inhibited research into the mechanisms of speciation;

* That the mechanisms of speciation, like those of macroevolution, are largely unknown in many taxa; and

* That the "tree of life" is really a "mangrove of life", with multiple roots and anastimoses in at least three different domains (Archaea, Eubacteria, and Eukarya) and dozens of kingdoms (especially among the bacteria).

Yes, Darwin's original insight – that descent with modification (i.e. evolution) has occurred, and that the primary mechanism for this process is differential survival and reproduction of phenotypically variable individuals in populations. And while it is true that the "modern synthesis" in about the same respect to current evolutionary theory that Newtonian mechanics stands with respect to modern physics, there are so many differences and modifications to the overall structure of the 1959 version of the "synthesis" that for all intents and purposes it should be considered to have been almost completely superceded.

In 1975 E. O. Wilson appropriated the term "the new synthesis" for the then-controversial field he called "sociobiology". In retrospect, this was perhaps unfortunate, as it confuses the issue over what to call the current "synthesis" of evolutionary biology. Personally, I prefer to call it "the evolving synthesis", as that's clearly what it has always been doing, from the Pre-Socratic philosophers of the Ionian shore right up to the present. Rather than being a fixed dogma, it has always been a series of (Kuhnian) revolutions, both in theory and methodology. What makes me admire Darwin all the more is that his particular version of evolutionary theory – that is, that its primary mechanism was natural selection – was both anticipated multiple times prior to his publication of the Origin and has recrudesced multiple times since then.

Ergo, it seems to me more precise to refer to that body of empirical and theoretical research that deals with descent with modification as the result of differential reproductive success as (collectively) "the Darwinian revolutions".

The "modern synthesis" is dead; long live the "evolving synthesis; viva la revolutions!"

What are the strongest arguments against front loading?

Steven Sullivan said: A pity Margulis has also become an HIV denialist.

I looked for Lynn Margulis here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

I didn't find her name anywhere. Maybe her being an AIDS denialist is just a lame rumor.

Dale Husband said: I looked for Lynn Margulis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism I didn't find her name anywhere. Maybe her being an AIDS denialist is just a lame rumor.

I think you are really overstating the importance of the revisions that have been made to the modern synthesis.

Certainly most of the points of fact that you listed were thought to be true, and it has been realized that they were false, but to nit-pick a few.

I don't believe there was ever consensus that genetic drift was important, nor is there consensus that it is not important now. In fact, I would wager that there is consensus that it IS important, because it is the process that drives the fixation of deleterious alleles and mutational meltdown.

I don't know what you mean by "random genetic drift" as opposed to simply "genetic drift" but genetic drift can act on alleles that are not selectively neutral, and this is an important aspect of genetic drifts properties. The existence of genetic drift is absolutely certain.

Of course,there is very little support for drifts importance in the way Wright envisioned it.

I'm also certain there is no consensus that microevolutionary principals are irrelevant to macroevolutionary principles. None of the important evolutionary biologist I can think of would possibly agree with that statement, so please support why you think it is the case? (I am a devotee of Gould and I don't believe even he would have agreed with this statement.)

Again, if micro-evolution is not the cause of macro evolution, nobody told the evolutionary biologists. (I'm perfectly open to the idea mind you, I just can't find anybody who advocates it.)

I also certain that at least some in the modern synthesis thought that mutation was an extremely important factor in evolution (read the Genetical Theory of Natural Selection by Fisher).

I would think this assertion lay at the heart of the modern synthesis, but perhaps I have simply filtered my readings through modern eyes.

But more importantly, you just made a long list of unrelated facts that do not from a logically consistent theory. In other words, from my point of view, you are equating scientific knowledge at the time of the modern synthesis with the modern synthesis.

A theory is not some collection of beliefs and axioms, but rather a logical structure. Preferable a logical structure that can be expressed as a handful of equations. There are two different kinds of evolutionary theories contained in your list. One makes claims about natural history, and the other evolutionary mechanisms. I reserve, and believe most others do as well, the term modern synthesis to regard a theory about mechanisms.

The equations of the modern synthesis are valid under all the circumstances that the authors of the modern synthesis claimed validity for them. There have been no paradigm shifts which are obvious to me since the modern synthesis was created. The changes that you listed are tangential.

(IMO) The modern synthesis is evolving, but the fact remains that heart of the theory, which is simply the mathematical description of the interaction between Mendelian genetics and natural selection, remains the most well substantiated fact in biology. Because none of the math of the modern synthesis has been rejected, I think it is fair to say that the modern synthesis still stands until most of Fishers sundry equations stop being used, or are recognized as deficient in some way. I don't bother naming theories that require more than one or two bullet points to describe, because they will always be wrong.

Allen MacNeill said: * That macroevolution proceeds by fundamentally different mechanisms that microevolution, and that these macroevolutionary mechanisms are still largely unknown (but are becoming better known, mostly through evo-devo);

The Russian biologist A. I. Operin wrote a small book (in Russian) in 1936, that was translated and published in 1953 entitled “Origin of Life.” In chapter VIII of his book, “Further Evolution of Primary Organisms,” he discussed the work of B. Kozo-Poljanski, “Outline of a Theory of Symbiogenesis” (1924), and B. Keller, “Botany on a Physiological Basis” (1933), both in Russian. Both of these scientists presented what would later be called “endosymbiosis.”

Kozo-Poljanski advanced the idea that the eukaryotic cell was the product of the “symbiosis of simplest living organisms.” Keller is quoted as, “… We are developing the view that at some distant time in its history the cellular nucleus (nucleated cell?) passed through a stage when it existed as a colony of elementary living units similar to the colony stage through which the multicellular organism passed. Bacteriophages and genes are the remnants of those living units.” Operin then noted that, “It is possible and, perhaps probable that the cell nucleus did originate from such primary living units not directly but through an intermediate stage of more complex living things, like the bacteria.”

Again from Keller (1933), “Chlorophyll grains (chloroplasts) also must have been at one time independent living units, simpler than the cell itself, but containing the green substance, chlorophyll. … This symbiosis of organisms, which was at first accidental, gradually became elaborated into a most intimate and permanent system in which the previously independent organisms acquired the character of organs of a single whole, the cell.

(Translations by Sergius Morgulis 1938)

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://canofpowerup.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/lynn-margulis-continues-her-descent-into-lunacy/ as retrieved on May 19, 2008 00:39:18 GMT. Lynn Margulis Continues Her Descent Into Lunacy First it was her obsession with the “Gaia hypothesis“. Then it was her rather outlandish extensions of endosymbiosis in evolution, to the point of claiming that it was a more ubiquitous force than mutation. Then it was her jumping on the bandwagon of HIV/AIDS denial, lending her still somewhat reputable name to those spreading an almost literally poisonous myth. And finally, it was her endorsement of ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories. For Lynn Margulis it’s been a gradual descent into crankery for the past couple of decades, and she finally appears to have come full circle. The latest episode of this tragic saga comes to us via Screw Loose Change, which informs us that Dr. Margulis has appeared on the radio show of one Kevin Barrett. For those unfamiliar with the liturgy of the 9/11 “Truth” movement, Kevin Barrett is a complete fruitcake. In addition to his 9/11 lunacy, he’s also known for Holocaust denial, peddling Jewish Zionist conspiracism, and in general using thuggish tactics against just about anyone who disputes Troofer claims. By voluntarily associating herself with such a goon she has debauched whatever credibility she still had, from my perspective. Pat Curley provides some highlights. The late Carl Sagan’s first wife appeared on “Hangman” Barrett’s radio show last night and talked about “billions and billions” of anomalies regarding 9-11. She only had two concrete things to contribute. First, a friend of hers went out on a boat on that day, and noticed the lack of planes in the sky. Then he saw one plane, a big cargo plane, that was all white with no markings on it, flying very low and very slow. Her other claim is that another friend was not allowed to park in the WTC parking garage that morning, because the computers were down or something.

Konstantin Merezhkovsky (1855-1921) was a prominent Russian biologist whose research on lichens led him to theorize that larger, more complex cells evolved from a symbiotic relationship between less complex ones. In 1905 he coined the term “symbiogenesis” to describe “the living together of different kinds of organisms”. He adamantly rejected British naturalist Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which suggested that new species arose from natural selection and that the source of genetic variation on which natural selection acted came from “random mutations”. Rubbish, said Konstantin! The acquisition and inheritance of microbes best explains “biological novelty”. He was criticized by his colleagues, but wrote “Symbiogenesis and the Origin of Species” (published in 1926), which preserved his ideas for future generations.

Perhaps Allen Macneill could also post a list of things he thinks the modern synthesis was right about to balance out the list of things that people who created the modern synthesis were wrong about? Just to be fair.

“I take the modern synthesis to be a snapshot of research at a certain time.” This is precisely my point. Most historians of evolutionary biology (c.f. Mayr and Provine) consider that the “modern evolutionary synthesis” (so called mostly because of Julian Huxley’s 1942 book) reached its complete form by the Darwin sesquicentennial in 1959, ....

* That natural selection was the primary mechanism of evolution at every level; and * That random genetic drift ( a la Sewall Wright) was an important mechanism in evolution; and * That macroevolution (i.e. speciation and the evolution of higher taxa) proceeded via essentially the same mechanisms as microevolution (i.e. natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift);
[you left out mutation] and * That the process of speciation was completely understood in principle; and * There was a monophyletic “tree of life”, with its single root planted firmly in the bacteria (which were, of course, part of the kingdom Plantae).

* That much of evolution is selectively neutral, especially at the level of nucleotide sequences in DNA; and * That random genetic drift is not an important mechanism in evolution (and may not even exist, according to Will Provine); [Riight] and * That macroevolution proceeds by fundamentally different mechanisms that microevolution, and that these macroevolutionary mechanisms are still largely unknown (but are becoming better known, mostly through evo-devo); and * That genes and enzymes are only weakly associated (i.e. the “one gene-one enzyme” theory does not apply to most of the genome, and when it does it does so in peculiar and unpredictable ways); [ How many genes typically go into one enzyme?] and * That the mechanisms of speciation, like those of macroevolution, are largely unknown in many taxa; and * That the “tree of life” is really a “mangrove of life”, with multiple roots and anastimoses in at least three different domains (Archaea, Eubacteria, and Eukarya) and dozens of kingdoms (especially among the bacteria).

Rather than being a fixed dogma, it has always been a series of (Kuhnian) revolutions, both in theory and methodology.

... long live the “evolving synthesis; ...."

Gary Hurd said: We might have a winner:

Konstantin Merezhkovsky (1855-1921) was a prominent Russian biologist...

"Three biologists stand out in the history of the theory of endosymbiosis—the relationship in which a member of one species lives not just near or even permanently ON a member of another species, but INSIDE IT. The three biologists are Konstantin Merezhkovsky, Ivan Wallin, and Lynn Margulis."

"...published a series of revolutionary papers on the evolution of eukaryotic cells, culminating in her landmark book Symbiosis and Cell Evolution, in which she carefully laid out the empirical evidence supporting the theory that mitochondria, choloroplasts, and undulapodia (eukaryotic cilia and flagella) were once free living bacteria. [Emphasis added]

Allen sez:

However, if one sits in on a typical evolution course at most American universities, what one will spend almost the entire semester learning is the "modern synthesis", with punk eek, sociobiology, and evo-devo relegated to the status of a footnote,

that's either a misrepresentation of what is taught at american unis, or if anywhere near accurate, a condemnation of american unis.

frankly, having both taught and been taught evolutionary theory in 3 different unis, I have never seen sociobiology relegated to the status of "footnote".

Allen, I think you both misrepresent what unis have actually been teaching in the last 30 years, and misrepresenting how the arguments relate to one another.

If you actually read Hamilton's work, he hardly rejects the work of Fisher. Indeed, he builds on it.

example when you say:

o be precise, the work of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright, which provided a mathematical basis for the later work of Dobzhansky (and, to a lesser extent, Mayr) was limited almost entirely to mechanisms of microevolutionary change: selection and drift, to be precise. Following Eldridge and Gould's presentation of punctuated equilibrium this situation changed, and that change accelerated with the discovery of new mechanisms of microevolutionary change (such as Hamilton's kin selection and Trivers's reciprocal altruism).

this is inaccurate in the following ways:

1. Gould and Eldridge did NOT change any "situation" wrt to models of selection within populations; punc-eek was a macroevolutionary hypothesis, and was never intended to apply to individual population trait selection in the way Fisher's work was.

2. There was NO "acceleration" (of whatever you are trying to imply), with the contributions of Hamilton's work. In fact, if you look at the math, Hamilton relied much on Fisher's work to develop his own models. They are a REFINEMENT, not a replacement, for the ideas of trait selection laid out in Fisher.

I don't know what you're on about, or what your motives are, but misrepresenting the history of evolutionary biology in the way you are now is doing more harm than good.

Everyone has "metaphysical assumptions" that guide their work

no, they really don't.

frankly, I am hoping that Allen does a better job in his classes than he does on blogs, but based on earlier exchanges after his first class comparing ID to evolution concluded, I'd say not.

perhaps Allen should consider teaching:

"the metaphysics of scientific analysis" over in the Philosophy dept?

Moreover, I do hope when you start your course:

Evolution and Ethics: Is Morality Natural?

you won't be relying on Collins' "Moral Law" arguments.

Ichthyic said: frankly, I am hoping that Allen does a better job in his classes than he does on blogs, but based on earlier exchanges after his first class comparing ID to evolution concluded, I'd say not. perhaps Allen should consider teaching: "the metaphysics of scientific analysis" over in the Philosophy dept?

so, saying that "Everyone has "metaphysical assumptions" that guide their work" is not an ad-hominem, Pim?

yet his contributions have in many cases exceeded the contributions of the majority of posters to this blog.

in generating controversy?

sure thing.

You can worship Allen if you wish, that doesn't make his arguments any more sound.

...yet his contributions have in many cases exceeded the contributions of the majority of posters to this blog.

that sounds remarkably like an ad-hominem, Pim.

Ichthyic said: so, saying that "Everyone has "metaphysical assumptions" that guide their work" is not an ad-hominem, Pim? yet his contributions have in many cases exceeded the contributions of the majority of posters to this blog. in generating controversy? sure thing. You can worship Allen if you wish, that doesn't make his arguments any more sound.

Ichthyic said: ...yet his contributions have in many cases exceeded the contributions of the majority of posters to this blog. that sounds remarkably like an ad-hominem, Pim.

he has gotten people to think about these issues

I rather think we are talking about entirely different issues of controversy.

the "controversy" I refer to is him misrepresenting how evolutionary biology is taught, or didn't you notice the rather large numbers of people posting who disagreed with him?

If you think that's the kind of controversy worth promoting, you must think creationism itself is a great thing to teach, since it also does a great job of representing an "alternative" history of the teaching of science.

I have no problem when people focus on his arguments, arguments which I believe has significant merit.

and when he is demonstrably wrong?

what then?

do you still find his approach "intriguing"?

do you agree that the things he says are given "footnote status" in the teaching of evolutionary biology in the US really are?

Do you accept that on his say so, without challenge?

'cause at best, this is a condemnation of how universities teach evolution, and at worst, is gross and deliberate misrepresentation.

I'm sorry, but if you think that teaching the history of evolutionary biology in the way Allen suggests it played out is doing a service to students of evolutionary biology, I think you're wrong.

Way back after Allen's first course concluded, I suggested to many in that thread that they read the series "Narrow Roads of Gene Land", which gives an excellent history of how Hamilton built on the work of Fisher, developed his concept of inclusive fitness, was resisted by established academics, and eventually triumphed after testing many of his ideas and models in the field. All of the commentary and historical presentation is done by Hamilton himself.

I again highly recommend it (especially the first volume).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3746/is_199702/ai_n8750182

I'm also tired of getting into the same arguments, yet again, that we did on the first thread.

If you want to take Allen's word for it, go right on ahead.

I wouldn't recommend it, however.

Ichthyic said: he has gotten people to think about these issues I rather think we are talking about entirely different issues of controversy. the "controversy" I refer to is him misrepresenting how evolutionary biology is taught, or didn't you notice the rather large numbers of people posting who disagreed with him?

If you think that's the kind of controversy worth promoting, you must think creationism itself is a great thing to teach, since it also does a great job of representing an "alternative" history of the teaching of science.

I have no problem when people focus on his arguments, arguments which I believe has significant merit. and when he is demonstrably wrong?

what then? do you still find his approach "intriguing"?

do you agree that the things he says are given "footnote status" in the teaching of evolutionary biology in the US really are?

Do you accept that on his say so, without challenge?

'cause at best, this is a condemnation of how universities teach evolution, and at worst, is gross and deliberate misrepresentation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3746/is_199702/ai_n8750182

I'm also tired of getting into the same arguments, yet again, that we did on the first thread. If you want to take Allen's word for it, go right on ahead. I wouldn't recommend it, however.

Allen MacNeill said: Also, I never asserted that Lynn "originated" the SET.

As the originator of the serial endosymbiosis theory (SET) for the origin of eukaryotes, Lynn's work...

One thing I give McNeill credit for is not bothering with thin skinned tit for tat comments.

Ichthyic, I'm surprised that you react so strongly to some statements by McNeill. I don't think he meant "footnote" literally, he just thinks some topics should get much more space in Evo 101 than they do in some cases. Quite possibly these topics have been covered more in your experience than in his; neither of you has conducted a survey.

"Hamilton relied on Fisher's work..." well sure but Hamilton and May introduced important new ideas: game theory and evolutionary stable strategies, ways that simple evo models could lead mathematically to chaos. It seems reasonable to to say that that there was some sort of acceleration in progress in mathematical biology as a result.

"Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it."

The idea of punctuated equilibria (punk eek, PE) is that a species stays roughly the same much of the time, and morphological change is significantly correlated with a population of the species becoming a different species - over thousands or even a million or so years. This is a "punctuation", and it is by no means instantaneous.

The vague speculative long term trend known as species selection is a different thing. Clearly, species selection (which may or may not occur) was not part of the Modern Synthesis in 1950. The underlying problem in this discussion is the historical fact that a label "Modern Synthesis" was invented, and since then people speak of progress since 1950 as if it were not supposed to happen. As mentioned earlier, the MS is just a snapshot of research at a particular time. Research into the topics of the MS simply increased in the following years. Science was was not supposed to be done by a long shot.

"If that’s not what you meant to say, then maybe you should change it."

And that includes correcting one's spelling:

hoi polloi, not hoi poloi

so, saying that "Everyone has "metaphysical assumptions" that guide their work" is not an ad-hominem, Pim?

However, if one sits in on a typical evolution course at most American universities, what one will spend almost the entire semester learning is the “modern synthesis”, with punk eek, sociobiology, and evo-devo relegated to the status of a footnote, if they are mentioned at all.

that all significant evolutionary change happens as the result of selection and drift operating on very slight genetic differences in populations in which allele frequencies exhibit what Fisher called “continuous variation”

The modern synthesis is the broad based effort, accomplished during the 1930's and 1940's to unite Mendelian genetics with the theory of evolution by natural selection. (775) [nothing about all evolutionary change there] Arguably the most important insight from population genetics is the natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. (204) Heading: Host shifts in an herbivorous beetle: constrained by lack of genetic variation? (356) ...pigs have not evolved the ability to fly . . . . [sorry, had to put that one in.] (356) Selection can act at different levels as well. . . selection can act at the level of organelles within cells . . . sequences within genomes . . . CHAPTER 11: Kin selection and social behavior. . . . we spend most of chapter 16 and much of this one on subjects like the origin of life, endosymbiosis, and multicellularity. (676) [Doesn't sound like a foot note to me.]

Allen MacNeill said: And that includes correcting one's spelling: hoi polloi, not hoi poloi

Allen, at least change it on your blog. Margulis was not the "originator." Maybe "independently conceived" would be accurate. You might also say, "Margulis was the first biologist to provide actual evidence supporting the endosymbiosis hypothesis, originally called "symbiogenesis" by Russian biologists." It is ultimately the data that makes a hypothesis accepted, or rejected.

My reading of secondary sources about Ivan Wallin leads me to think his failed claims of independent mitochondria did much to prevent the symbiogenesis notion from being accepted, or even given further Western study. He very likely got the idea from the Russians, and then messed up experimentally.

I’d like to propose a Blended Synthesis: Some evidence suggests that evolutionary change is a result of selection and drift working at the genotype level, some evidence indicates that such processes work more at the phenotype level; but the critical thing to always remember is that the evolution of life is essentially and ultimately a result of RM+NS, and that design is always an illusion; although, as Dawkins and Crick have speculated, space aliens may have seeded the planet.

The only comment I would like to add, after reading this back and forth exchange between Allen and others is that many of these big additions to the "evolving synthesis" as Allen puts it apply almost exclusively to multi-cellular animals and plants. Mostly to animals, the Metazoa aren't even the bulk of biodiversity on this planet and yet what are often cited as many of the "revolutions" of evolutionary biology are in fact, exceptions or unique extensions of mechanisms that apply only to multi-cellular creatures.

I would also, perhaps mostly just as a point of principle, disagree with Allen where he says that Genetic Drift may not be an important contributer to evolution, or that it may not even actually exist. Genetic Drift, Neutral Theory, and Nearly Neutral theory are all still very important parts and contributors to evolutionary biology in my opinion. In my opinion we stress a little too much on Adaptationist explanations in evolutionary biology, again I think this comes from an inherent bias from those who study multicellular organisms. The picture for those of us who do work in Molecular Evolution -- particularly with Prokaryotes, Protists, and Viruses -- can be quite different.

"Allen, at least change it on your blog. Margulis was not the “originator.” Maybe “independently conceived” would be accurate."

I am not a big fan of Dawkins, but, he did not speculate that aliens might have seeded the planet. In the movie Expelled, Dawkins was pressed to propose any possible "intelligent design" scenario. He offered the space aliens example. Irony is wasted on some people, but the derision Ben Stein heaped on this notion reflects on the ID creationists who used this as "proof" they were not simply fundamentalist creationists trying to hide the identity of their creator, err Designer.

"...many of these big additions to the “evolving synthesis” as Allen puts it apply almost exclusively to multi-cellular animals and plants. Mostly to animals, the Metazoa aren’t even the bulk of biodiversity on this planet and yet what are often cited as many of the “revolutions” of evolutionary biology are in fact, exceptions or unique extensions of mechanisms that apply only to multi-cellular creatures."

"Darwinian evolution is at present the most important mechanism of adaptive evolution."

Allen MacNeill said:

As to Wallin's failure to establish the SET, his failure to grow mitochondria in isolation was probably due to hubris, combined with the unfortunate fact that mitochondria have offloaded too much of their genome to live independently of their host cells. This is evidence for a very long association between mitochondria and their eukaryotic hosts, and indirect evidence for a more recent association between chloroplasts and their eukaryotic hosts (unlike mitochondria, chloroplasts can be cultured in isolation).

Allen MacNeill said:

As to Wallin's failure to establish the SET, his failure to grow mitochondria in isolation was probably due to hubris, combined with the unfortunate fact that mitochondria have offloaded too much of their genome to live independently of their host cells. This is evidence for a very long association between mitochondria and their eukaryotic hosts, and indirect evidence for a more recent association between chloroplasts and their eukaryotic hosts (unlike mitochondria, chloroplasts can be cultured in isolation).

Apparently I can't post my long-winded comment and reply to Allen about the diversity of mitochondria (from the canonical aerobic mitochondria to anaerobic mitochondria, hydrogenosomes, and mitosomes) all of which have differentially lost different parts of their genomes (or their entire genome), perform different functions, etc.

I also wanted to point out that so far as I am aware Allen the Chloroplast can not be cultured independently of its host. While it is a more recent acquisition then the Mitochondria it has still off loaded a tremendous amount of its genome to the host and those proteins, essential for its function, must be imported from somewhere.

Apparently I can’t post my ....

Pete Dunkelberg said:

Apparently I can’t post my ....

You may however use preview ;) I guess you either: left out the "a" part of starting an url, or
forgot the other 'a' part at the end, or
typed something other than href where href belongs, or
forgot to properly close an html tag.

Daniel Gaston said: Apparently I can't post my long-winded comment and reply to Allen about the diversity of mitochondria (from the canonical aerobic mitochondria to anaerobic mitochondria, hydrogenosomes, and mitosomes) all of which have differentially lost different parts of their genomes (or their entire genome), perform different functions, etc. I also wanted to point out that so far as I am aware Allen the Chloroplast can not be cultured independently of its host. While it is a more recent acquisition then the Mitochondria it has still off loaded a tremendous amount of its genome to the host and those proteins, essential for its function, must be imported from somewhere.

harold said: My personal guess is that the truly creative mind must be one that is somewhat light on self-criticism. [...] And of course, it's just my subjective impression that the most creative scientists often seem to become the worst crackpots. It would be tricky to do a controlled study of that, and I certainly haven't done one.

I know apologize for three different posts from me on the same subject with slightly different wording :) Thanks though for fixing the broken posts.

Thanks for the link to Margulis proclaiming her HIV denialism, PvM.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/lynn_margulis_blog_tour.php

I read comment #16, which says:
"From the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in Atlanta I have requested the scientific papers that prove the causal relationship between the HIV retrovirus and the IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME commonly known as AIDS. They have never sent even references to the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that establishes the causal relationship because they can't. Such papers do not exist."

Maybe she should have looked up the papers herself in the relevant science journals instead of asking some bureaucrat to do her investigative work for her! Or does she even know how to do that? Sheesh!

"I heard a talk by a "medical scientist" from the Harvard Medical School at a meeting at Roger Williams Univ in Rhode Island from a supposed expert who attempts to design an HIV vaccine. He claimed the HIV virus mutates a billion times in 48hours. It became clear that the HIV virus has no clear identity."

Well, if the virus reproduces a billion times in 48 hours, and each example of reproduction is accompanied by a point mutation, then that statement by the scientist is accurate. Point mutations also occur in humans and most other organisms, but that hardly means they have no clear identity!

"In pursuit of the story of life and its effects on planet Earth one can be more honest if the earliest atages of evolution are the objects of study.
And this way I can lay low and not be "name-called" (i.e., "denialist") because I ask hard questions and require solid evidence before I embrace a particular causal hypothesis. Indeed, is not my attitude of inquiry exactly what science is about?"

Maybe if Margulis would attempt to do some ACTUAL RESEARCH on AIDS/HIV instead of taking at face value the claims of certain people she happens to be fond of because of personal feelings that have nothing to do with either facts or methodologies, SHE WOULD INDEED BE DOING SCIENCE!!!

My regard for Margulis just plummeted! That she was Carl Sagan's first wife and the mother of his first two children is no excuse for being a blind crackpot. Her days of being a competent scientist are OVER!

Allen MacNeill said: On the contrary, speciation and the origin of higher taxa appear to result primarily from random changes in genotypes among genetically and reproductively isolated populations, coupled with rapid radiation resulting from the relaxation of stabilizing selection following episodes of extinction and the concomitant opening of "vacant" niches.

In these "punctuational" events, historical contingency plays an extraordinarily important role, but cannot be modeled with any form of mathematics of which I am aware.

Larry Boy said: (money quotes: "Natural selection plays a fundamental role in most theories of speciation" and "Speciation has proceeded in this adaptive radiation in a repeatable fashion, ultimately as a consequence of adaptation to alternative environments.") So, at the vary least, many do not share your opinion that speciation is caused primarily by genetic drift. I have little time, but I am not aware of any studies which have estimated the reletive frequencies of allopatric and sympatric speciation. So, this is still an open question.

In these "punctuational" events, historical contingency plays an extraordinarily important role, but cannot be modeled with any form of mathematics of which I am aware.

Again, I think there is little empirical support for this view. At any rate, it is currently clear that both genetic drift + historical contingency and natural selection are important to speciation.

PvM said: Other money quotes "Natural selection plays a fundamental role in most theories of speciation, but empirical evidence from the wild has been lacking"

PvM said: What Allen seems to be saying is that the primary force seems to be genetic drift. The fact that empirical evidence has been mostly lacking should be an indication that while selection may play a role in some theories of speciation, it may not necessarily be the primary explanation for speciation.

Larry Boy said: I personally am unaware of unambiguous evidence which allows him to make this assertion.

PvM said: Perhaps the lack of empirical evidence?

Larry Boy said: I personally am unaware of unambiguous evidence which allows him to make this assertion.

Larry Boy said:

PvM said: Perhaps the lack of empirical evidence?

Larry Boy said: I personally am unaware of unambiguous evidence which allows him to make this assertion.

Perhaps you could explain this to me. I am unaware of how a the lack of empirical evidence supporting a claim can allow you to decide that a claim is correct.

Lee Bowman made a claim earlier on that I am not sure anyone answered directly. He reiterated the standard line that ID's design does not imply a designer, which I feel is illogical. There are at least two commom definitions of design, design with purpose and design without purpose. The snowflake is an example of design without purpose. It is a symmetrical pattern created by the chemical properties of water and chance. An example of design with purpose is nearly anything intentionally created by living organisms. An exception to this is some examples of pre-school artwork. ID's design is always that with a purpose. But design with a purpose, by definition implies a designer, something capable of formulating a concept involving purpose and acting on it. ID/Creationism exists to promote God as the designer, so they don't believe in purposeful design without a designer. When someone like Bowman tries to separate ID from Creationism, they often ran into this illogical of purposeful design without a designer.

Frank B said: Lee Bowman made a claim earlier on that I am not sure anyone answered directly. He reiterated the standard line that ID's design does not imply a designer, which I feel is illogical.

It only gets better. And notice how ID activists insist that detection of ID is separate from identification of the 'designer'. In fact, as Dembski admits, the detection of ID need not necessarily point to an intelligent designer... Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227, my emphasis). Source: Ryan Nichols, The Vacuity of Intelligent Design Theory

There are at least two commom definitions of design, design with purpose and design without purpose. The snowflake is an example of design without purpose. It is a symmetrical pattern created by the chemical properties of water and chance. An example of design with purpose is nearly anything intentionally created by living organisms. An exception to this is some examples of pre-school artwork. ID's design is always that with a purpose. But design with a purpose, by definition implies a designer, something capable of formulating a concept involving purpose and acting on it. ID/Creationism exists to promote God as the designer, so they don't believe in purposeful design without a designer. When someone like Bowman tries to separate ID from Creationism, they often ran into this illogical of purposeful design without a designer.

Thanks PvM for expounding on the subject of design vs designer.

Frank B said: Thanks PvM for expounding on the subject of design vs designer.

Frank B said: Lee Bowman made a claim earlier on that I am not sure anyone answered directly. He reiterated the standard line that ID's design does not imply a designer, which I feel is illogical.

My daughter once worked at a store that sold food supplements for athletes, I won't reveal the name of the store. She didn't like it, because she was supposed to tells lies that endangered people's health. She was glad to move on. Dembski is making money with his pontifications, but I couldn't do it. It's too dishonest.

PvM said:

Co-evolution, while accepted as valid, often defies statistical reality.

Except that ID fails to provide any evidence for this so-called 'reality'. Of course, ID merely attempts to look for fewer and fewer gaps in our knowledge to argue but 'see, how does 'x' explain this...' I find such comment not dissimilar, and thus suffering from the same flaws, at the attempts to argue that there is not only an edge to evolution but that this edge excludes a large fraction of evolution.

If a vertebrate eye evolution is improbable (altho it happened),

then a very similar mollusk eye (except for the verted retina, and rods only, no eyelid, etc) to have evolved under the premise of co-evolution is improbable to the improbable(th) power.

Some would say it’s probable however, (Dawkins), and that it might take relatively few mutational changes for each to form, and many with a similar design. That’s more what I referring to regarding co-evolution. I feel that it sends the odds toward the number of particles in the universe. I also feel that no eye would evolve, but that’s an open question at this point.

PvM said:

More than one might think. Much of the work now going on has implications for design substantiation. Rather than cordon off a section for separate research, I advocate a merging of the two. In other words, an allowance of teleologic hypotheses within the mainstream.

And thus, to quote Ayala, evolution as an inherent teleological hypothesis remains best addressed by identified mechanisms, and if ID wishes to add final cause teleology then it is free to do so. It's just that ID is not interested in 'design substantiation', calling it pathetic. And I understand, since ID will never be able to do much in this area. What is this mythical work that is going on that has implications for design substantiation? I agree that not much empirically testable work has been done. Without falsification, however, it remains a valid hypothesis. How much more time and effort does ID make to substantiate its claims? Claims which so far have been almost exclusively negative ones against a subset of evolutionary mechanisms? Falsification of RM-NS at any level is legitimate effort, but only a start. Verification of past events could be shown by an intelligent effort to do the same, i.e. a genomic alteration that resulted in a species alteration similar to others that have been observed. These ideas are only tentative. Why should science chose an approach which has failed to show much of any promise since it is based on ignorance to claim 'design' rather than accept that there are areas where our ignorance does not allow us to make much of any claims? Mainstream science can proceed as before. This would be a splinter group undertaking. I understand ID's interests in teleology but this would require an application of similar methods as used by criminology for instance, means, motives, opportunity, eye witnesses, physical evidence. However, ID seems interested in none of these approaches, and for obvious and valid reasons. How can we limit our God... Forensics has its limits. As far as limiting God, why rely on the Biblical chacterizations of omni- omni- omni-? Science posits based on evidence. If God were omni-(all), why has life evolved (with or w/o intervention) over eons? Why hominids last? Tends to refute anthropomorphism. This is why fundamentalist disavow ID, even though they may publicly endorse it for a given purpose.

PvM said: To come back to the issue raised, how come that ID has failed so far to "systematically validating concepts like Complex Specified Information on phenomena of known provenance don’t require huge labs and hordes of grad students and post-docs." For forensic studies of origins, and quantifying design by modeling, or attempting genetic engineering is a new field. Not sure what tools will be best suited. You claim that it takes more effort than one thinks and yet this seems to be a minimal requirement if not one which should be relatively straightforward... Or, if Dembski's attempts to apply his filter to anything non-trivial, perhaps totally beyond ID's reach. It may in fact be beyond ID's (or mankind's) reach.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Lee Bowman said: Conflating Creationism with ID is a thing of the past. The NOMA concept has merit, but since ID does not qualify as a magisterium, it remains separate from the faith based side. Design inferences point to directed processes, but not necessarily by an overseer.

Nonsense, as PvM and Stanton makes clear.

1) There is no independent ID idea, it is rehashed "creation science" which in turn is rehashed paleyism.

No ID'ist today quotes Paley's metaphor, since that's a 'just so' analogy.

2) ID is but a movement, historically tied to fundamentalist creationism. To expect a religiously dangerous cult to get official church approval is a ludicrous proposal. And to be fair to that specific church, they probably recognize that this is a societally dangerous cult as well. "Science works, bitches!"

You're speaking to historical creationists of a certain stripe; not the emerging ID group.

3) ID is in practice all about anti-science and negative claims, resisting and replacing science.

Sorry, but I disagree.

4) To make "design" a hypotheses it must specify a testable mechanism, i.e. designer characteristics. So far there isn't a single ID hypothesis, your description is completely fallacious.

Design inferences are the target.

As for point 4, you admit this as well: "design inferences, hypotheses that most deem to negate evolution, but do not necessarily. They may simply alter the mechanisms involved." To go from inference to hypothesis you need testability, specifying exactly how these mechanisms works.

That's right.

And to heed off the usual strawman raised, "IC" isn't a creationist hypothesis, it is a very old evolutionary hypothesis of Muller which universal negative has been adopted under the wrong name and rejected by observation a great many times; Muller was correct. If ID supporters were serious, this hijacking should be the first thing to be rectified IMHO.

I'll look into that argument.

I agree that not much empirically testable work has been done. Without falsification, however, it remains a valid hypothesis.

Falsification of RM-NS at any level is legitimate effort, but only a start. Verification of past events could be shown by an intelligent effort to do the same, i.e. a genomic alteration that resulted in a species alteration similar to others that have been observed. These ideas are only tentative.

Lee Bowman, You referred, via a PT post, to Dembski’s essay, which does contain one gem. Dembski wrote:

"Plenty of scientists are intrigued with intelligent design but for now don’t see how they can usefully contribute to it." I recently had an exchange with one such scientist (a geneticist). I asked him, “What sort of real work needs to go forward before you felt comfortable with ID?” His response was revealing:

"If I knew how to scientifically approach the question you pose, I would quit all that I am doing right now, and devote the rest of my career in pursuit of its answer. The fact that I have no idea how to begin gathering scientific data that would engage the scientific community is the very reason that I don’t share your optimism that this approach will work."

Or consider Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. As a Christian believer, he is committed to design in some broad sense. Yet, at the most recent meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation (Pepperdine University, 2-5 August 2002) he expressed doubts about intelligent design as a scientific project.

The problem, according to him, is intelligent design’s “lack of a plan for experimental verification.” I remain supremely optimistic that intelligent design has the research potential to satisfy such scientists.

That potential, however, needs to be actualized. How, then, to actualize it? The most important thing right now is a steady stream of good ideas together with the resources to implement them. In particular, we need to reflect deeply about biological systems. That reflection needs to generate profound insight. And that insight needs to get us asking interesting new questions that can be framed as research problems. With these research problems in hand, we then need to go to nature and see how they resolve.

I’m mainly a theoretician, so I’m not in a position to lay out a detailed set of research problems for intelligent design. Nonetheless, as an interdisciplinary scholar who rubs shoulders with scientists from many disciplines, I am in a position to lay out some research themes that may prove helpful to scientists who are trying to find a way to contribute usefully to intelligent design research. What follows, then, is a list of research themes (let me stress that I make no pretense at completeness)."

Lee Bowman made a claim earlier on that I am not sure anyone answered directly. He reiterated the standard line that ID’s design does not imply a designer, which I feel is illogical.

Conflating Creationism with ID is a thing of the past. The NOMA concept has merit, but since ID does not qualify as a magisterium, it remains separate from the faith based side. Design inferences point to directed processes, but not necessarily by an 'overseer'.

PvM said, and Lee Bowman wrote:

"Some would say it’s probable however, (Dawkins), and that it might take relatively few mutational changes for each to form, and many with a similar design." "That’s more what I referring to regarding co-evolution. I feel that it sends the odds toward the number of particles in the universe. I also feel that no eye would evolve, but that’s an open question at this point."

It's not just probable, evidence suggests that it happened. Of course there is quite a chasm between your faith based 'skepticism' and reality. But I understand why creationists are so fond of probabilities, even though they seldomly have mastered the basics thereof.

The eye is more than a 'design'. It's a number of interworking systems, each co-dependent to some degree on the others. The retinal complex entails staggering complexity and co-dependent processes. The so called inverted retina has been determined to be not just favorable to vertebrates, but possibly necessary to operate w/o UV damage, heat damage, and some other tentative reasons that I won't state here, but may publish. The blind spots are of no consequence, given two eyes. Better UV, low-light, and polarized light detection are beneficial to cephalopods. This points to intentioned design, rather than happenstance. Simply put, random mutations don't have the capacity to form 'systems' of cooperative mechanisms. Even if evolvable, most (or all) of the intermediates would offer little or no selective advantage. Even with a slight advantage at times, the would not necessarily luck out and become fixed in the population. Multiply those improbabilities by the number of steps and again, it exceeds 10 to the 87th power.

What if transcription processes worked flawlessly and there were no mutations? Guess we'd all still be single cells.

"Multiply those improbabilities by the number of steps and again, it exceeds 10 to the 87th power."

Lee Bowman said:

RBH said: Co-evolution, while accepted as valid, often defies statistical reality. While the Nilsson-Pelger paper set a rather low number of permutations to generate an eye, creating the idea that co-ev of 40 or so eyes was no big deal.

Lee Bowman blithered thusly:

It’s also possible (my tentative ‘theme park’ scenario) that we, or our non-corporeal lineage, are the designers of biologic life. Earth appears to be a biologic workshop of sorts, where many different things can be tried.

By what means do you decide whether or not a particular ecosystem "appears" to be a "workshop?" Where is the physical evidence of "workers?"

While there is evidence that synaptic activity forms consciousness, there is also evidence that it does not (OBE).

What, exactly, is the "evidence" for out-of-body experiences? Care to point to a reference?

These concepts are based solely on observations I have made, and are subject to modification if new data presents.

You've observed and verified out-of-body experiences? Again, where's your specific reference?

But it’s not what ID is about, so don’t quote me. I am not touting these concepts of reality, but merely saying that they could be valid.

Yeah, just like the possibility of an invisible pink unicorn typing this post with opposable mini-hooves "could" be valid -- if you can ever come up with any actual evidence to support such a hypothesis.

It's not enough to make up a fanciful story of unspecified supernatural agency and say it "could" be valid; you have to show some evidence to indicate that it IS valid, otherwise all you have is empty speculation.

Multiply those improbabilities by the number of steps and again, it exceeds 10 to the 87th power..

Simply put, random mutations don’t have the capacity to form ‘systems’ of cooperative mechanisms. Even if evolvable, most (or all) of the intermediates would offer little or no selective advantage.

Allen MacNeill said: Lee Bowman wrote:

"Multiply those improbabilities by the number of steps and again, it exceeds 10 to the 87th power."

If this is the case, then clearly you've done the calculation, so let's see it. To begin with, how many steps are there, and how do you know? And what are the probabilities of each step, and how do you know? And (most importantly), what are the comparative fitness values of each step, and how do you know? And, as my son's fourth grade teacher insists, please show your work...

If this is the case, then clearly you’ve done the calculation, so let’s see it. To begin with, how many steps are there, and how do you know? And what are the probabilities of each step, and how do you know? And (most importantly), what are the comparative fitness values of each step, and how do you know? And, as my son’s fourth grade teacher insists, please show your work…

Larry Boy said: I do not think that word means what you think it means. Co-evolution: "is the mutual evolutionary influence between two species. Each party in a co-evolutionary relationship exerts selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others' evolution." (from wikipedia, source of all good things.) I believe you are searching for convergent evolution : "the process whereby organisms that are not monophyletic (not closely related) independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to ecological niches or similar environments." (dito)

Registered User said: Interesting that MacNeill was wrong about Sagan and now promotes Margulis, a quintessential scientific has-been who never contributed much in the first place.

Her push for the endosymbiotic theory of the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts (I won’t touch on her belief that the eukaryotic flagella also arose this way since I don’t buy it) was a pretty big contribution to science

Yeah, and if Newton had died from a skull fracture (caused by a falling object), then Leibnitz would get all the credit for inventing the calculus. And if Darwin had followed his own inclinations and not those of Hooker and Lyell, then Wallace would get all the credit for the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Your point? (besides ad hominem attacks)

"Registered User" has revealed herself (via her obsession with the "ivory bill hoax" to be one of the people I banned from the comment threads at the Evolution and Design blog for repeated and flagrant violations of the "rules of engagement" on that blog. The vast majority of the commentators on that blog (from both sides) were not banned because they adhered to the stated rules and conducted themselves like scholars, rather than hooligans. In point of fact, only about a half dozen people were eventually banned – indeed, the number was probably less, if one includes sock puppets.

What "Registered User" (another sock puppet?) doesn't want you to know is that very early on Hannah and I agreed that we would divide up the moderation of the Evolution and Design blog: she would moderate the ID supporters and I would moderate the evolution supporters. Furthermore, we would allow each other to have a "veto" on banning; if either of us disagreed on a banning, the perp remained in the forum.

I must sadly report that the majority of the flagrant violators of the "rules of engagement" were from my side. By this, I mean that the majority of the people making ad hominem attacks, using insults instead of arguments, and attacking personalities (rather than arguments) were people who opposed ID. Admittedly, this was a very small group of people (including "Registered User" and her sock puppets), but it upset me nonetheless, because I have always believed that it was scientists that used evidence and logic in their arguments, and people like William Dembski who relied on personal attacks and fart noises.

But you, "Registered User", taught me the necessary lesson that some evolution supporters can be just as petty, venal, and insulting as anyone on the opposing side, and by your comments here, you continue to demonstrate the same. Congratulations.

Of course, it is always possible that "Registered User" is in fact none other than William Dembski himself or one of his cohorts. Always a possibility, especially since "Registered User" chooses to hide behind a convenient epithet (as she did on Evolution and Design). Care to confirm or deny, "Reg"?

As to Lynn Margulis and her importance to evolutionary biology, I find it interesting that about eight years ago she was asked by the National Academy to donate her papers to the national archives (which is one reason she doesn't answer emails). How reasonable does it seem that they would have made this request of someone who was "a quintessential scientific has-been who never contributed much [to science] in the first place"?

Tell me, Reg, when are you sending your papers to the National Archives?

The so called inverted retina has been determined to be not just favorable to vertebrates, but possibly necessary to operate w/o UV damage, heat damage,

The blind spots are of no consequence, given two eyes.

Better UV, low-light, and polarized light detection are beneficial to cephalopods.

Registered User said:

Her push for the endosymbiotic theory of the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts (I won’t touch on her belief that the eukaryotic flagella also arose this way since I don’t buy it) was a pretty big contribution to science

The design inference, if valid, could just as well refer to multiple designers, not necessarily in concert, and over different time periods. It could refer to spirit beings, possibly under an over seeing authority.

The design inference, if valid, could just as well refer to multiple designers, not necessarily in concert, and over different time periods.

Who ever straightened out my post, thanks. I am trying to learn HTML, but I am not picking up things like I used to. Nostalgia just isn't what it used to be.

you used an incorrect tag <p> for it to be valid xhtml use <p /> or for better look and feel < blockquote > and < /blockquote >

Oh and use preview to check formatting issues

PvM said:

The design inference, if valid, could just as well refer to multiple designers, not necessarily in concert, and over different time periods.

In fact, people have proposed a multiple designers theory Strangely it was not well received by ID Creationists, I wonder why. At least the MDT has some hopes...

" The idea that ID is not creationism is somewhat misplaced but understandable. ID creationists have spent much effort to deny their Creator and pretend that ID is a neutral approach. Sadly enough, it is neither neutral nor scientifically relevant. Which is why we see ID strategy mutate and evolve quickly to regain a possible advantage. In the end, it still remains vacuous science and troublesome theology."

I believe in a supreme entity (or council), but also in a hierarchy of intermediates, and that human (and possibly animal) life is in the lineage.

That's not a bad thing to believe, but do you have any evidence to support this belief? If not, it's just another religion like mine, not an actual scientific inquiry.

But ID is about biologic design, and the evidence for the way it has progressed.

And that evidence is...?

There currently is no mainstream ‘single-designer’ ID model. That would imply monotheism, a religious belief, and is therefore not a qualifier for the central ID premise.

There's no mainstream multiple-designer ID "model" either. That would imply polytheism, a religious belief. And what, exactly, is that "central ID premise" again? "Something designed us and its nature, means and motives are off-limits to inquiry?"

No, by postulating multiple designers, it merely makes it a more reasoned concept.

Please specify exactly what makes multiple designers more "reasoned" than a single designer. All I see is one more sophist taking a few interesting facts and saying "This kinda looks designed if you squint at it just so;" with no actual evidence, reason or proof to back up what is obviously just a subjective feeling you've had since childhood.

You can blither and meander all you want, Heywood, but it's perfectly obvious you have nothing but empty pretense and vague speculation to back any of your beliefs up. Calling it "reasoned" does not make it so. You have your polytheistic beliefs, I have mine (HAIL ASGARD!!!), and there's not one scrap of real objective evidence to prove either one.

Registered User said: Remember when Allen let that creationist Hannah Maxson run his blog with him? Remember when people would ask Hannah questions exactly like this and Hannah would refuse to answer and block any follow up comments? And remember when Hannah would block those comments how Allen would just sit on his hands? That was awesome. What's also awesome is that it's all archived. Together with the blocked comments (which I've collected), it makes a good teaching tool. Not for teaching science, of course, but for teaching people about creationist liars and Stockholm Syndrome. I seem to recall on the Kornell Kreationist Klub blog that McNeill took a swipe at Carl Sagan after someone mentioned Sagan's "extraordinary claims" quote in the context of Cornell's nefarious ivory-billed woodpecker fraud. Interesting that MacNeill was wrong about Sagan and now promotes Margulis, a quintessential scientific has-been who never contributed much in the first place.

The reason that early ID tended toward a single designer had obvious religious underpinnings. Now, however, with a shift toward rational investigation rather than a motive to further religion, things are changing.

The design hypothesis is much easier to convincingly affirm than before, since about half of the counter arguments no longer apply.

since ID specifies an “intelligent cause”, no gender, no singularity (he/her/they/it/)

since ID specifies an “intelligent cause”, no gender, no singularity (he/her/they/it/)

In fact, people have proposed a multiple designers theory

What “Registered User” (another sock puppet?) doesn’t want you to know is that very early on Hannah and I agreed that we would divide up the moderation of the Evolution and Design blog: she would moderate the ID supporters and I would moderate the evolution supporters.

using insults instead of arguments, and attacking personalities (rather than arguments) were people who opposed ID. Admittedly, this was a very small group of people (including “Registered User”

I find it interesting that about eight years ago [Margulis] was asked by the National Academy to donate her papers to the national archives

stevaroni said:

In fact, people have proposed a multiple designers theory

The guy in charge of the platypus was probably hired because his dad was in the same country club with the boss.

I think this discussion is over.

Yes, "Registered User" and "Great White Wonder" are one and the same.

And yes, this discussion is most definitely over.