Yet another reason Paul Nelson is extremely silly

" I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lessor number. Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influences. ... Therefore, on the principle of natural selection with the divergence of character, it does not seem incredible that, from some such low and intermediate form, both animals and plants may have been developed; and, if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form. But this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy, and it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted. No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants." And, from the book's last sentence; "There is grander in this point of view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one ; ...."

To make what I'm getting at exceedingly simple -- though it is intuitively obvious to most everyone who has really 'explored evolution' -- imagine that the hypothetical Nelson trait I describe becomes a defining feature of a diverse branch of life existing on this planet a million years from now (*shudder*). For example, let it take the place of "mitochondria, nucleus" in the blue dot at the base of Nick's tree. There is most certainly one 'Ur-Nelson' individual back to which all derived descendants can trace the origin of that trait. But we're talking about the LUCA. Is the actual LUCA of those descendants a single individual or a population of more than one individual? (Here the mitochondrial Eve and the y-chromosome 'Adam' provide good analogs, by the way.) In other words, if we were to gather up all the DNA existing in Nelson descendants a million years from now, could we find one ancestral individual -- a single LUCA -- that contained it all (even if we were to ignore mutations that had occurred subsequent to the LUCA)? The Ur-Nelson doesn't fit that bill in the slightest. For humans, it takes two to tango, so the answer is obvious (think the biblical Adam and Eve if you're unclear about that one). Now if bacteria have even more intricate and messy choreography when it comes to gene transfer, and if the swapping of genetic material for the proto-life on this planet was probably more messy and complicated still, odds are the entire ancestral basis for existing life on this planet was probably never localized within anything we might call a single cell.

These two articles should be always referenced when this sort of stupidity is presented by creationists. Basic version, there were extremely high exchanges of genetic material (of what ever kind) following the quite probable multiple origins of life. So just to be sure, what you're describing here is the same thing is horizontal gene transfer, right?

But analogy may be a deceitful guide.

Two possibilities exist: 1. Character X evolved once, i.e., in a particular cell (call it Ur-X), early in the history of the population. Any other cell possessing X must therefore have descended from Ur-X. In this case, the population stems from a single physical cell.

Well here is what your Uncle Chuck said: the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created.

I agree. Darwin had stupid ideas. No question.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Take a species. Divide into two subpopulations via some catastrophe in the middle. In the first subpopulation, molecular character 1 arises on gene A. In the second population, molecular character 2 arises on gene B. Each character spreads to a high frequency in its respective subpopulation. Then, migration or environmental recovery brings the two subpopulations back together. Mating/conjugation occurs and suddenly 20% or so of the population now has characters 1+2, but without anyone ever having inherited 1+2 from an single individual organism with 1+2. In other words, a single character can trace back to a single organism, but the inference that ALL shared characters therefore trace back to the SAME single organism is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Aside from Popper's Ghost's use of stupid and moron (with which I have some sympathy. How many times, now, has Sal been told that biologists don't worship Darwin?) this thread is a wonderful example of discussing a scientific issue, not just slamming creationists. It would be good to remember when creationists complain that these threads are only profanity and griping.
Of course, it would help a lot if Paul Nelson would read Popper's Ghost's entry #187475 and acknowledge his point. That's the way science works. Researchers correct their mistakes and move on. If that's not the way ID works, then it simply isn't science.

What's really a shame is that Paul didn't realize the error he was making until after he put it into his creationist textbook Explore Evolution, which the Discovery Institute is now going to push into the public schools.

Of course, it would help a lot if Paul Nelson would read Popper's Ghost's entry #187475 and acknowledge his point.

That's why you so badly understand evolution.

— Glen Davidson

I can't prove it, and he certainly will not utter the words that would support my claim, but I think that he understands evolution quite well.

Characters arise in species; but they first appear in particular organisms within those species, as unique spatiotemporal events. The first chordate (for instance) was not a species; it was a particular, distinguishably unique organism.

I agree. Darwin had stupid ideas. No question.

Incorygible: Wasn't that book Dawkins's "The Ancestor's Tale"? I remember that he discussed these things in there.

Might be the best popular book dealing with ancestors I read.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Take a species. Divide into two subpopulations via some catastrophe in the middle. In the first subpopulation, molecular character 1 arises on gene A. In the second population, molecular character 2 arises on gene B. Each character spreads to a high frequency in its respective subpopulation. Then, migration or environmental recovery brings the two subpopulations back together. Mating/conjugation occurs and suddenly 20% or so of the population now has characters 1+2, but without anyone ever having inherited 1+2 from an single individual organism with 1+2. In other words, a single character can trace back to a single organism, but the inference that ALL shared characters therefore trace back to the SAME single organism is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Perhaps in almost the same way that sexually reproducing species speciate, giving rise to daughter species whose gene pools are initially similar to those of the parent species and contain very many more different alleles than are borne by any one genome. (What is crucially not the same is that the genomes of the progenote population --- like those of different modern prokaryotes --- bore many different genes, not just different alleles.) Thus, there is no more reason to imagine only a single first kind of cell as the progenitor of all contemporary life than there is to imagine only Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human species.

[...] odds are the entire ancestral basis for existing life on this planet was probably never localized within anything we might call a single cell.

Imagine two characters, X and Y, each of which evolved once, in two different cells Ur-X and Ur-Y. Which of these two single physical cells must the population have stemmed from?

There was no discrete character that suddenly marks the appearance of a new species. There is an accumulation of a constellation of genetic traits in a whole population of animals. There was no first chordate, not as an individual.

if the theory of common descent means that all organisms trace their ancestry to a single physical cell, that theory is false.

— Paul Nelson

Let's take the specific character "notochord." In some population, notochords first appeared as anatomical features during ontogeny. How? In one organism? More than one? Nick writes that "a single character can trace back to a single organism." Do you agree?

— Paul Nelson

In other words, if the theory of common descent means that all organisms trace their ancestry to a single physical cell, that theory is false.

I think you're making the same argument as Nick

Nick writes that "a single character can trace back to a single organism." Do you agree?

In other words, a single character can trace back to a single organism, but the inference that ALL shared characters therefore trace back to the SAME single organism is wrong, wrong, wrong.

There was not one individual who lacked a notochord that gave birth to an individual that had one.

there was no single "chordate" mutation that resulted in a chordate offspring from non-chordate parents --- that's a sorites fallacy, which even Paul Nelson must have learned about in his philosophy courses. But perhaps he misunderstood the lesson and thought he was being taught to employ them rather than to avoid them.

W.F. Doolittle, "The nature of the universal ancestor and the evolution of the proteome," Current Opinion in Structural Biology 10 (2000):355-358; p. 357; emphasis added.

And it should not be an essential element in our struggle against those who doubt the validity of evolutionary theory, who can take comfort from this challenge to the TOL only by a willful misunderstanding of its import.

Hello, Sal. Are you going to apologize for equating my words with the (alleged) surgical mutilation of innocent children? If not, why should we take you seriously as anything but a hateful scapegoating liar?

Paul: as long as you're posting here with impunity (again), why do you feel the need to move a proposed discussion onto a forum we all know to be much less tolerant of us than we are of you?

if the theory of common descent means that all organisms trace their ancestry to a single physical cell, that theory is false.

It doesn't. That's what we're telling you.

I think it's obvious that many of these characters are not so discrete as simplistic black-and-white creationist thinking would have you believe.

There are gradual transitions and ambiguities in even the most concrete characters we use to classify clades --- and that means their evolution would have involved many generations and many contributing individuals.

Okay, Paul. I have an idea. Why don't you make it VERY clear to EVERYONE in the ID "Big Tent" that a cursory understanding of genetics and phylogeny demonstrates that living organisms on this planet cannot possibly trace their lineage back to a single individual. For example, the genetic material contained within existing humans could NEVER have been contained within one lone Ur-Human (perhaps we could give him a certain proper name?). That's likely to shake a few of your erstwhile supporters, methinks. In the meantime, we and all those woefully inaccurate evolution books (including the Ancestor's Tale -- thanks Marek, that was probably the one) will be there waiting for the people who might be up to exploring the concepts underlying all those pretty pictures. I would wager a good number of them might actually be able to grasp something analogous to a simple family tree. For example, they might understand the fact that although my brother and I do not share a single individual LUCA, we are nevertheless the products of obvious common descent.

Paul Nelson wrote:

"In other words, if the theory of common descent means that all organisms trace their ancestry to a single physical cell, that theory is false. The first populations of cells on Earth contained many organisms which did not share common ancestry from any single cell. Thus, there never was a universal common ancestor, if that means a particular discrete organism.

This is exactly what Doolittle and Woese have been arguing vigorously for nearly a decade. As you put it, 'the inference that ALL shared characters therefore trace back to the SAME single organism is wrong, wrong, wrong.'"
------------

Here is an important question: Was there a specific cell on earth about 3.8 billion years ago that is the common ancestor of every other organism to live on earth? First, some people believe that there were subsequent cells on earth that didn't leave descendants that are as complex as plants. In other words, different cells formed on different parts of the planet at different times and some of those cells did not leave descendants that are at all complex. Here is a quote from Ernst Mayr in which he addresses the issue of whether life may have originated repeatedly:

"Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun's energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living" (p. 40).

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that life did not originate repeatedly on earth. Let's assume that there was one and only origination of life. In other words, in a single square foot on earth the self-replicators changed into life, and said life is the ancestor of every other organism to have lived on earth. Here is the question: What did this original life look like? Was it a single cell? I don't know. AT this moment in time, no person knows exactly which series of events resulted in the first cell forming on earth. It is an important question, and we should keep working on it.

But, Paul, it is important to understand that regardless of the structure of the first life on earth, I share common ancestors with all the daisies that are alive today, and I have ancestors that are fish and amphibians. You seem to be suggesting that this is not the case. It is the case. And it is very important.

Of course, some people believe that an intelligent super being turned inert matter directly into the first human that lived on earth. In other words, at time T there were no humans on earth. And then a super being used a power and turned some of the dust on earth ---- poof! ---- directly into the first human so that at time T + .2 seconds there was one human on earth. And then the super being removed a rib from this human, and from this rib the super being made the second human. But this didn't happen. People who believe this are wrong. All the humans descended from ape-like organisms. In fact, all the humans that have lived on earth have ancestors that are fish and bacteria.

Finally, I think it reasonable to believe that a single cell is the ancestor of all the organisms that are alive today. Because before you have two cells you need one cell. But another possibility is that multiple cells formed in close proximity to each other, and that they then came close together and formed into something more singular. And a third possibility is that there was life before a cell evolved. Maybe self-replicating RNA wasn't really cellular in nature, but we should call that RNA "life."

Yes, but then --- to my surprise ---

the commenters here largely, if not indeed unanimously (thus far), agree with Ford Doolittle. Universally-shared molecular characters do not indicate common ancestry from a single (discrete) progenitor cell, but could have arisen multiple times independently in a common prebiotic milieu.

A very long history. But I don't see how that's relevant. As a matter of logic --- set theory, really --- either all organisms on Earth share a common ancestor that was itself an organism, or they don't.

There are gradual transitions and ambiguities in even the most concrete characters we use to classify clades --- and that means their evolution would have involved many generations and many contributing individuals. So could "vertebrae," another of Doug's diagnostic characters, have evolved in multiple independent lineages?

For example, they might understand the fact that although my brother and I do not share a single individual LUCA, we are nevertheless the products of obvious common descent.

In other words, if the theory of common descent means that all organisms trace their ancestry to a single physical cell, that theory is false.

Yes, but then --- to my surprise --- the commenters here largely, if not indeed unanimously (thus far), agree with Ford Doolittle. Universally-shared molecular characters do not indicate common ancestry from a single (discrete) progenitor cell, but could have arisen multiple times independently in a common prebiotic milieu. As Nick put it, "the inference that ALL shared characters therefore trace back to the SAME single organism is wrong, wrong, wrong."

Paul: Your original objection seems to be the use of "ancestor," as in "last universal common ancestor," to describe a population. I can understand; this is not the common usage of the word. However, scientists are rather infamous for using a nonscientific word differently in a scientific context -- especially physicists, but biologists do it, too. Ever hear the story of how the cell got its name? A guy was looking through a microscope at cork, which appeared to be divided up into tiny compartments, resembling cells in a monastery.

Similarly, biologists have this huge ongoing metaphor with evolution and its terminology. The whole evolutionary tree -- looks a lot like a family tree, doesn't it? And yet family trees describe relationships between individuals, and the evolutionary tree describes relationships between populations. They're fundamentally different objects describing different relationships, yet there's just enough similarity that the evolutionary tree is a useful intellectual tool for simplifying a bunch of information into a smaller set of information, making the data more easily handled. Biologists, understanding full well the scientific context, can afford to relax a bit, and use language which would be confusing to the layperson -- such as describing a population as being an "ancestor." But they know the difference just as well as physicists know that gluons ("glue-ons") aren't manufactured by Elmer's.

I imagine that Paul Nelson still gets all hot and bothered trying to work out which came first, the chicken or the egg...

(PS: I agree with PZ that something like a notochord is not a single character, viewed genetically. But we were talking about molecular/genetic "characters.")

I imagine that Paul Nelson still gets all hot and bothered trying to work out which came first, the chicken or the egg...

So, unknowingly, you have argued that your "population of 1000 cells" have simultaneously stemmed from numerous "single physical cell"s, since the population has more than one trait and each of those traits could have originated in a different cell. In other words, your population of 1000 cells stemmed from an ancestral population, not necessarily from a single cell.

[...] he portrays as revolutionary and contradictory a conclusion ("no single organism was the ancestor") that in fact is a completely standard and prosaic result of utterly standard neo-Darwinian theory.

Okay, this layman still doesn't get it.

Mr. Nelson:

If Explore Evolution really isn't just religious prosletysing, why is it so important to you that it be used as a teaching aid to young, impressionable students, especially since most of the mainstream scientific community thinks it's a bunch of crap? I've never heard of this happening with any other 'controversial' idea.

Please explain. Thank you.

Rolf Aalberg

And it is clear throughout the Origin that Darwin often uses a singular ("form", "progenitor", etc.) to refer to a singular species rather than individual organism.

Let's say traits X, Y, and Z are shared universally across terrestrial (Earth) life. These traits either stem (1) from a single cell, or (2) from multiple cells. If (2) is the case, Woese and Doolittle are right, and the cellular state arose polyphyletically (multiple times independently) in Earth history.

Yes, I noted that explicitly, above. It's option 2 in my original thought experiment.

Let's say traits X, Y, and Z are shared universally across terrestrial (Earth) life. These traits either stem (1) from a single cell, or (2) from multiple cells.

If (2) is the case, Woese and Doolittle are right, and the cellular state arose polyphyletically (multiple times independently) in Earth history.

Actually Nick, Darwin's work had several incoherencies.

And if you are suggesting Darwin argued for multiple first creations, then you've just made Darwin a poly-phyletic creationist of sorts. Well done, Nick.

I've actually NEVER seen him take a challenge to one of his inane notions head on. Not in all the years he has been a public figure.

That's quite the equivocation/non-sequitur there, Paul.

Sal: What are you talking about? Of course Darwin may have said things which were wrong. That's why it's called scientific progress -- it doesn't start in a perfect state! All that matters is how good Darwin's basic arguments are, and how well they extend to other circumstances. I mean, every groundbreaking theory has holes. Newton didn't anticipate the speed of light being constant in all reference frames; Einstein's field equations don't make good predictions on the quantum level. Even Euclid is considered to be woefully lacking according to modern standards of mathematical rigor. It seems you expect the first to be the greatest, which is having it totally backwards.

I should note that being called as a hostile witness is something that I've given some consideration to, myself. I've published on the topic and have been a pretty high-profile critic. I recall the questioning I got on my first outing with ID back in 1997, so I'm taking that as a guide to where the hostile questions would come from and be about. I think I'm ready.

Woese argues that this happened three times: "Extant life on Earth is descended not from one, but from three distinctly different cell types" (2002, p. 8746).

A theory for the evolution of cellular organization is presented. The model is based on the (data supported) conjecture that the dynamic of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is primarily determined by the organization of the recipient cell. Aboriginal cell designs are taken to be simple and loosely organized enough that all cellular componentry can be altered and/or displaced through HGT, making HGT the principal driving force in early cellular evolution. Primitive cells did not carry a stable organismal genealogical trace. Primitive cellular evolution is basically communal. The high level of novelty required to evolve cell designs is a product of communal invention, of the universal HGT field, not intralineage variation. It is the community as a whole, the ecosystem, which evolves. The individual cell designs that evolved in this way are nevertheless fundamentally distinct, because the initial conditions in each case are somewhat different. As a cell design becomes more complex and interconnected a critical point is reached where a more integrated cellular organization emerges, and vertically generated novelty can and does assume greater importance. This critical point is called the "Darwinian Threshold" for the reasons given.

Sal, once again, evolution's best defender...

Actually Nick, Darwin's work had several incoherencies. Perhaps owing to the possibility he plagiarized ideas and maybe had others help ghost write his book. I merely pointed out there were parts of his book that would lead one to presume a one organism beginning. And if you are suggesting Darwin argued for multiple first creations, then you've just made Darwin a poly-phyletic creationist of sorts. Well done, Nick.

Nodes are defined by characters. Characters arise in species; but they first appear in particular organisms within those species, as unique spatiotemporal events. The first chordate (for instance) was not a species; it was a particular, distinguishably unique organism.

Species are defined by characters. Let's take character X, from my thought experiment: it is shared (diagnostically) by every member of LUCA, if we take LUCA to be a population. So, did X originate once, or more than once?

Yes, but then --- to my surprise --- the commenters here largely, if not indeed unanimously (thus far), agree with Ford Doolittle.

Universally-shared molecular characters do not indicate common ancestry from a single (discrete) progenitor cell, but could have arisen multiple times independently in a common prebiotic milieu.

As Nick put it, "the inference that ALL shared characters therefore trace back to the SAME single organism is wrong, wrong, wrong."

What Incorygible said.

Paul, I would be happy to have us point out the flaws in your new textbook on the exploreevolution.com website in an unmoderated discussion. Given the past history of discussions on DI-run blogs etc., I won't get my hopes up for this actually happening.

This thread (like many others before it) demonstrates (again) that Nelson doesn't understand evolution, in just the way that you so brazenly snipped from Glen's statement, as so well demonstrated by Nick and others.

— Popper's Ghost

I can say that "NaOH is a strong acid." Does that mean that I don't understand chemistry? Not necessarily, especially if I had a reason to misrepresent it as such.

Suppose we want to say that LUCA was a population of cells, not a particular (distinguishably unique) cell. If those cells possessed any shared characters, we must infer a common ancestor for them --- which would make LUCA a particular unique cell --- or show that the characters could have arisen independently, which entails the possible falsity of common descent for that population. In either case, however, LUCA cannot be a population.

Often, a true, honest lack of understanding is accompanied by a willingness to update previous positions in light of corrections, and even occasionally concede those corrections. Anti-evolution activists show no signs of any willingess to do that, or do anything but grossly misrepresnting evolution to those who don't care how the activists appear to misunderstand it. And the activists certainly don't care what their critics think.

But like I admitted, I could be wrong.

Paul Nelson pretends thusly:

I'm serious about setting up a moderation-free discussion at the Explore Evolution website.

I'll ask you again: why not have that discussion HERE? You know as well as we do that there's no moderation, and no censorship.

Actually Nick, Darwin's work had several incoherencies. Perhaps owing to the possibility he plagiarized ideas and maybe had others help ghost write his book. I merely pointed out there were parts of his book that would lead one to presume a one organism beginning.

And if you are suggesting Darwin argued for multiple first creations, then you've just made Darwin a poly-phyletic creationist of sorts. Well done, Nick.

If Glen's statement were not on this page I would have provided a link.

I can say that "NaOH is a strong acid." Does that mean that I don't understand chemistry? Not necessarily, especially if I had a reason to misrepresent it as such.

But like I admitted, I could be wrong.

Often, a true, honest lack of understanding is accompanied by a willingness to update previous positions in light of corrections, and even occasionally concede those corrections. Anti-evolution activists show no signs of any willingess to do that, or do anything but grossly misrepresnting evolution to those who don't care how the activists appear to misunderstand it. And the activists certainly don't care what their critics think.

Suppose we want to say that LUCA was a population of cells, not a particular (distinguishably unique) cell. If those cells possessed any shared characters, we must infer a common ancestor for them --- which would make LUCA a particular unique cell

We've got a dedicated thread for the "Explore Evolution" discussion at AtBC.

I've put up the press release on AtBC in response to someone wondering how to request a review copy, something that they said they couldn't find on the DI's website. Probably ought to have the web guru in DI-land fix that oversight.

PG's right that I did make a case and you did not

I noticed, many comments ago on this thread, a misconception which I can correct. The issue is the number of ancestors, as a function of reverse time. So, I have two parents and they had two parents each, so I had four grandparents, etc. We have the geometric series

1 2 4 8 16 32 ...

which gives rise to the temptation that this continues indefinitely. Not so. Eventually the erstwhile number of ancestors exceeds the population size at some time depth. This is made a bit simpler by assuming a fixed population size, say 2048 individuals. Then at eleven generations back everybody was one of my ancestors and I never had any more than everybody at twelve generations back.

a misconception which I can correct

Popper's Ghost --- It wasn't Paul nor a regular here.

But you are welcome to read the entire thread yourself to find out the poster's handle...

Either way, you should have made a case instead of merely stating a belief that you have about Nelson.

— Glen Davidson

I have stated repeatedly that Nelson is either an idiot or he is pretending to be. But that someone pretends to be an idiot doesn't imply that he's a genius.

— Popper's Ghost

But you are welcome to read the entire thread yourself to find out the poster's handle...

I noticed, many comments ago on this thread, a misconception which I can correct. The issue is the number of ancestors, as a function of reverse time. So, I have two parents and they had two parents each, so I had four grandparents, etc. We have the geometric series 1 2 4 8 16 32 ... which gives rise to the temptation that this continues indefinitely. Not so. Eventually the erstwhile number of ancestors exceeds the population size at some time depth. This is made a bit simpler by assuming a fixed population size, say 2048 individuals. Then at eleven generations back everybody was one of my ancestors and I never had any more than everybody at twelve generations back.

I noticed, many comments ago on this thread, a misconception which I can correct. The issue is the number of ancestors, as a function of reverse time. So, I have two parents and they had two parents each, so I had four grandparents, etc. We have the geometric series 1 2 4 8 16 32 ... which gives rise to the temptation that this continues indefinitely. Not so. Eventually the erstwhile number of ancestors exceeds the population size at some time depth. This is made a bit simpler by assuming a fixed population size, say 2048 individuals. Then at eleven generations back everybody was one of my ancestors and I never had any more than everybody at twelve generations back.

I admit that I can't make that case, because of my usual caveat that we can never really know what another truly believes.

No misconception --- merely simplification/omission

Posted by Paul Nelson on July 13, 2007 8:30 AM (e) I have to attend a meeting at the Hilton O'Hare...When the Discovery Institute webmaster is available...what needs to be done to set up moderation-free discussion threads at the Explore Evolution webpage.

Posted by Paul Nelson on July 13, 2007 9:34 AM (e) I'm trying to understand origin of the characters in Doug Theobald's cladogram

Posted by Paul Nelson on July 13, 2007 10:27 AM(e) Guys! Are you serious or what. I can't come up with another excuse. No one is buying that O'Hare thing

incorygible --- Thanks for the prompt reply. I should have been more careful to scribe apparent misconception. And I certainly wasn't disagreeing with your main point.

But I do need to correct both you and Glen D. Here goes:

ancestor, n. 1. One from whom a person is descended, esp. at a distance of time; a forefather.

Note this is a binary relationship; either King David is an ancestor of Jesus of Nazareth or he is not. The number of paths possible between descendant and remote ancestor does not matter. Thus in counting ancestors one has to be more careful than either you, or Glen D, or I have been, if one wants accuracy.

So I should revise my earlier comment to state that at the eleventh generation back, one has between 2 and 2048 ancestors, inclusive.

I suppose this is quite a small matter given the subject of this thread.

But I do need to correct both you and Glen D.

Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova are no longer with us. - D. Carlson

. . .

Oh wait, I'm sorry. I forgot which site this is.

Popper's Ghost --- Then why didn't you just ignore it?

I don't find it a quibble.

The maximum likelyhood time estimate, based on genetics, (see Alex Templeton's recent papers), is that H. sapiens sapiens left Africa for Southwest Asia and the rest of the world about 135,000 years ago. Assume that date is exact. Assume 20 years per generation is correct.

Do I really have 2 raised to the 6750 power ancestors at that remove? No, probably five hundred to a few thousand.

While I suppose most who post here on PT understand this, it is a point easily misunderstood, or misinterpreted, and perhaps needs greater care than is ordinarily given.

If either incorygible or Glen D find that apologies are due, then I freely extent my apologies in advance, assuming my problem is my reading entirely and their writing not at all.

I disagree with Nick on that point. A single character, such as a notochord, is not the product of a single genetic event, in most cases. What part of the notochord is the important one? Its inductive role in early development? And which of the several inductive events matters? Its structural role?

here is that Nelson takes being a chordate to be a single "character" that arose in a single organism. But there was no single "chordate" mutation that resulted in a chordate offspring from non-chordate parents --- that's a sorites fallacy

In other words, if the theory of common descent means that all organisms trace their ancestry to a single physical cell, that theory is false.

Actually Nick, Darwin's work had several incoherencies[sic].

Let's not trouble Sal with asking him to do real science or research.

The DI has been angling for a court case for years now.

I wasn't familiar with the term "Muller's Ratchet", so here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullers_ratchet

My own favorite asexual organism, (not a pop singer) is the dandelion.
There are papers that claim that dandelions sometimes reverse their apomixis, and revert to sexual reproduction, allowing to fix charachters. Dandelions aggregate species is well-adapted to lawns.

Thanks to all the PT regulars for this discussion. As an interested layman and sometime lurker, it's actually quite enlightening. While it's great to learn a linear narrative of a subject (in this case, individual vs population, and the true "fuzziness" of the apparently "sharp" junctures in a cladogram), it also helps to learn how a subject can be misunderstood, what points were missed, and so avoid those misunderstandings.

While it seems that education is wasted on creationists, it sure helps the rest of us.

Thanks! :-)

P.S. The word "cladogram" is not in your spell checker's dictionary.

Paul, I would be happy to have us point out the flaws in your new textbook on the exploreevolution.com website in an unmoderated discussion. Given the past history of discussions on DI-run blogs etc., I won't get my hopes up for this actually happening.

X arose once, Y arose once, Z arose once. But neither Ur-X, Ur-Y, nor Ur-Z counts as the common ancestor of all descendants, since not all of the traits of the descendants can be traced back to any of them. But all of the traits can be traced back to the population containing Ur-X, Ur-Y, and Ur-Z.

...therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

I . . . will do whatever I can to set up a moderation-free discussion at the EE webpage, debate section

Either those traits arose from unique spatiotemporal events, with the probabilities of singleton occurrences, or they did not (with associated higher probabilties). If the latter is the case, the tree of life comes apart from the bottom up.

Exploring Evilution, or Purple Pandas Redeux, is ripe for the shredding.

Even a "lively, open and honest" exchange between EE's authors and the scientific denizens of the internet would be unprecedented on a creationist website.

Paul will report back that there are technical issues that will prevent an unmoderated discussion thread, not enough bandwidth, higher priority work for the web master to do, against policy or any trumped-up excuse one may imagine, but one thing will be clear: it won't be Paul's fault; he tried.

Paul wrote: "Either those traits arose from unique spatiotemporal events, with the probabilities of singleton occurrences, or they did not (with associated higher probabilties). If the latter is the case, the tree of life comes apart from the bottom up."

I have ancestors that are fish. Whatever we find out about the series of events that resulted in the first cell forming on earth, and whatever we find out about the structure of the first "life" on earth, I realize that I have ancestors that are fish. Here is a link to some of the kinds of information that has enabled some people to determine that I have ancestors that are fish:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It is reasonable to believe that one cell that formed on earth bout 3.8 billion years ago is the ancestor of every other organism that has lived on earth. A second possibility is that other cells formed subsequently to the first cell, and that the other cells did not leave descendants as complex as plants. A third possibility is that the first life was self-replicating RNA rather than something cellular in structure. Finally, perhaps a number of life forms formed at the very same moment in time, each life form physically touching at least one other life form. And perhaps this cluster of entities is the ancestral population of all the organisms that are alive today. But whichever of those events occurred, or whether some other event occurred, I have ancestors that are fish and so do you. And that is very important.

Moreover, if a number of simple life forms formed at the very same moment in time, each of the forms touching at least one other form, it is not the case that one life form in this cluster evolved into humans while another evolved into fish. The whole cluster together would have evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, first evolving into fish, then into amphibians, then into reptiles and then into mammals. Here is a link to some of the kinds of information that has enabled some people to determine this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

ben, in addition to wanting the "discussion" at a venue that he can control, Paul also wants it at a venue where the "Amen chorus" of UD sycophants will post. That would give an innocent bystander the impression that there really is a "controversy", because there would be all these people debating the book, some on one side, some on the other. For him, it's all about style, since there is no substance.

Either those traits arose from unique spatiotemporal events, with the probabilities of singleton occurrences, or they did not (with associated higher probabilties). If the latter is the case, the tree of life comes apart from the bottom up.

Some biologists find these notions confusing and discouraging. It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life. But in fact, our science is working just as it should. An attractive hypothesis or model (the single tree) suggested experiments, in this ase the collection of gene sequences and their analysis with the methods of molecular phylogeny. The data show the model to be too simple. Now new hypotheses, having final forms we cannot yet guess, are called for.

Paul Nelson wrote:

If you picture LUCA as a population --- a "species" of some form --- bear in mind that the members of that species will by necessity share traits, whose origin require causal explanation.

Glen wrote "billions of H. sapiens ancestors (though many are counted more than once)", but only a foolish quibbler who had nothing worthwhile to contribute would treat that as something needing correcting.

— Popper's Ghost

But I do need to correct both you and Glen D. Here goes:

— Benson at his usual abysmal self

If either incorygible or Glen D find that apologies are due, then I freely extent my apologies in advance, assuming my problem is my reading entirely and their writing not at all.

Hey Paul, as long as you're avoiding all of the questions you can't answer, which is about all of them, I'd like to ask you how anyone would know if humans are related to each other. I mean, apparently you're willing to think that it's just a coincidence that humans and chimps share 95% + of the same DNA, or that for some unfathomable reason your creator decided to design in a way that would look like evolution occurred. Now all humans share 99.5 to 99.8 percent of the same genetic information, but I don't see why we should expect common inheritance to account for this fact if the similarities between chimps and humans aren't supposed to stem from common inheritance. So will you bite the bullet and admit that it may very well be that humans in South America are not actually related to humans in Australia? As you asked previously (and obtusely), if the similarities are supposed to mean common descent, what are the differences supposed to mean? And please give us a sound scientific epistemology based upon your inconsistent view of things. See, I don't know how to tell if chimps are related to humans, if Australian aborigenes are related to Eskimos, or if I'm related to my (purported) Mom (note that I didn't witness my own birth [or for the pedants out here, I didn't coherently witness it, nor remember it---this is a later addiction], and if there are similarites, then what of the differences? Come on Paul, you try to pretend that you have answers, cough them up). Inform us about pattern recognition, relationships, and the cause-effect expectations from your design model. If you don't answer again I just might have to suspect that you have nothing legitimate to say. Huh, imagine that conclusion. Glen D http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic

Glen D --- While with the parenthetical comment, I suppose your wording can be interpreted in a correct manner, there may be some who would not do so, thinking something like "Kind David is my ancestor 25,000 times over," whatever they might mean by that.

Proper application of reason begins with careful definitions and attempts to proceed from there. Given the readership here, it is possible that at least one reader needed, after that four-way exchange, to actually see the definition.

Finally, I must wonder about the state of mind of somebody who would post that comment regarding what amounts to a tempest in a teapot. Hmmm...

Proper application of reason begins with careful definitions and attempts to proceed from there.

Given the readership here, it is possible that at least one reader needed, after that four-way exchange, to actually see the definition.

Finally, I must wonder about the state of mind of somebody who would post that comment regarding what amounts to a tempest in a teapot. Hmmm...

And a pedant is one who insists on exact wording at every turn.

— Glen D #187986

Given how you mangled the definition of the noun lie in comment #187981 on another thread,

some pedantry appears to be necessary.

Now the non-pejorative portion of the definition of a pedant in my copyright 1947 desk dictionary reads: a formalist or precisionist in teaching or scholarship.

Sounds to me to be good traits for, at least, mathematicians and computer scientists. (Not that motivation, intuition, humor and empathy are not also desirable traits, amongst others.)

Given that PT has now enjoyed more than a half-million site visits, I'll stick by the claim that readers should be misled as little as possible. So on the rare occasions I notice (what I believe to be) mistakes or simply phrasings which might lead readers to confused or wrong conclusions, I'll continue to point these out.

more than a half million site visits

— David B. Benson #188004

Comment #187372 Posted by Henry J on July 12, 2007 4:35 PM (e) Maybe I'm confused, but isn't it likely that for a strictly asexual species, that living members of that species would have a common ancestral individual? (Granted that wouldn't apply to sexual species.) Henry

Right --- three cells (physically distinct objects), Ur-X, Ur-Y, Ur-Z. Now, do the three Urs share a common ancestor that was itself a cell, or not?

— Paul Nelson

We have two options: 1. Yes. Then LUCA is a cell, not a population.

Proper application of reason begins with careful definitions and attempts to proceed from there.

Right --- three cells (physically distinct objects), Ur-X, Ur-Y, Ur-Z. Now, do the three Urs share a common ancestor that was itself a cell, or not?

While with the parenthetical comment, I suppose your wording can be interpreted in a correct manner, there may be some who would not do so, thinking something like "Kind David is my ancestor 25,000 times over," whatever they might mean by that.

If you picture LUCA as a population --- a "species" of some form --- bear in mind that the members of that species will by necessity share traits, whose origin require causal explanation.

Either those traits arose from unique spatiotemporal events, with the probabilities of singleton occurrences

or they did not (with associated higher probabilties).

If the latter is the case, the tree of life comes apart from the bottom up.

the boundary between the biotic and prebiotic realms

Have Paul Nelson or any of the ID-Creos ever heard of "emergence" and complexity from simplicity? Well may be the only emergence they know of is the one they call POOF!
What a bunch of malicious spreaders of ignorance to suit their own preconceptions and desires these people are.

Oh Paul, I just had to ask another question of you, because I don't see why the embarrassing stream of questions you can't answer should end just because you ignore them.

Why do you suppose that the patterns of evolution differ significantly between eukaryotes which essentially breed "within species", and prokaryotes which share DNA "across species"? I mean, evolution predicts that the patterns would differ, based on the differing mechanisms, while "design" would predict, well, what?

And of course, what is so obvious, the fact that there is no actual break between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" (the scare quotes are because of the abuse IDists make of those terms) is not true simply of eukaryotes, it is true of prokaryotes as well. That is to say, your "designer" happens to "design" prokaryotes as if they had evolved according to known prokaryotic mechanisms of recombination, and your "designer" also "designs" eukaryotes as if they had evolved according to eukaryotic mechanisms of recombination.

My my, isn't that another tremendous miracle that you can sock away into your list of miracles? I mean, of course evolution isn't possible (you know, due to souls and other theological reasons), but miraculous coincidence of design with what would be expected from evolution, those are dime a dozen.

Poof, poof, and more poof. We asked for "proof", but "poof" is even better, isn't it? And you can even predict God's miracles, just use evolutionary theory to make the predictions, and you know that God will follow it's dictates.

But then, is God really God, or is he somehow some little slave of evolutionary predictions? See how nice I am, Paul, I'm giving you some good material to work into your previous fantasies. Maybe you can discover some even greater God, the one that orders your silly little God (and note, I'm not calling all theists' gods silly, just these ridiculous IDC/creo "designers") to follow the dictates of evolution.

Glen D
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic

That Sal.

Unlike the rest of us, who can claim to have benefitted from at least the occasional fortunate accident along the way, in Sal's case it's not "from the goo to you"--

--it's just "from the goo to goo."

Slime all the way down.

ordova:
"I agree. Darwin had stupid ideas. No question."

Well, Cordova, you would be the person to go to when discussing stupid ideas, that much is certain. How can evolution explain the fusing of ribs to the sternum, right Sal? Why, this would require a reorganization of the abdominal viscera!

LOL!

Laughing AT you....

Hi Larry

hey Nick, greetings from the library. I like my pc much better than this ine but mine was stolen. So I lost all my files - a couple years worth of emails, downloads and lots of photos and etc etc. The box was missing the side panel so that the circuit boards are visible also missing the front panel that is just for looks. So it may be hard to pawn (but not the nice monitor)so it may become someone's personal computer -- neighbiors are suspect but no evidence. so the crew won't hear from me fopr a while. Jeeze what a lousy screen I am working on. For some reason speloling errors are not marked and the screen is a bit hard to read. there is an interesting paper in nature on inferring the evolutionary history of protein folding if I got it right on a quick look. One Eric Smith in The Scientist writes something about Evolution's ""real problem"" meaning OOL. Seems to be a complexity enthusiast but he concludes that life started from something simpler than what it now is - duh.

In Barnes and Nobel I have not seen Behe DBB or othe rbook on the shelves recrerntly -- two days ago I saw dbb remeindered.