Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: `The complexity of the organism was once the complexity of an ecosystem' (was 1. ... Quotes: Definitions/usage of `evolution' ...)

Expand Messages
  • Stephen E. Jones
    Group ... CL I hope Steve at some point reads Spencer for himself, and maybe ... This is the same Herbert Spencer whose belief in natural causation ... led
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 18, 2005
      Group

      On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:33:08 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:

      >SJ>coined by the atheist Herbert Spencer

      CL>I hope Steve at some point reads Spencer for himself, and maybe
      >some of the biographical stuff. A true philosopher, his personal
      >life was a total loss. Late in life he was lionized by right-wing
      >industrialists and made a little money with his writing, but he
      >was quite impoverished until then. TH Huxley, with whom he had
      >a regular Sunday walk, despaired of finding a way for him to
      >make a living.

      This is the same "Herbert Spencer" whose "belief in natural causation ...
      led him to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice versa":

      "Spencer's belief in the universality of natural causation was,
      together with his laissez-faire political creed, the bedrock of his
      thinking. It was this belief, more than anything else, that led him to
      reject Christianity, long before the great conflict of the eighteen-
      sixties Moreover, it was his belief in natural causation that led him
      to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice versa." (Burrow J.W.,
      "Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory,"
      [1966], Cambridge University Press: London, 1968, reprint,
      pp.180-181)

      and whose "faith was so strong that it did not wait on scientific proof. ...
      for him the belief in natural causation was primary, the theory of evolution
      derivative":

      "His faith was so strong that it did not wait on scientific proof.
      Spencer became an ardent evolutionist at a time when a cautious
      scientist would have been justified at least in suspending
      judgement. ... for him the belief in natural causation was primary,
      the theory of evolution derivative." (Burrow J.W., "Evolution and
      Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge
      University Press: London, 1968, reprint, p.205)

      Sounds like Spencer could be the `patron saint' of Internet evolutionists!

      Indeed, the above describes most evolutionists. Maybe they should
      be called Spencerians, rather than Darwinians (or Cliffians!).

      [...]

      >SJ>[serial endosymbiosis theory (SET) ...]
      >>But it does not really `create complexity' because the original
      >>components of the merger have to already be *immensely* complex
      >>Von Neumann machines and then complexity is lost after the merger.
      >>So the total net effect is a *loss* of complexity.

      CL>That is ignoring the point, that the original organisms don't have
      >to be complex.

      This is simply *false*. The fact is that *any* free-living organism has to
      be a "Von Neumann machine", just to survive and reproduce.

      See my previous posts on how complex even the *minimum*
      "Von Neumann machine" has to be. Or wait until tomorrow for
      me to post on my blog <http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/> ,
      "The Minimal Cell: A Problem of Evolution 2/2".

      CL>Only their *ecosystems* are complex at first. The
      >complexity of the organism was once the complexity of an
      >ecosystem.

      Does Margulis actually *say* this? If so, could Cliff provide a quote, or at
      least a page number. If the latter, I won't have time to check it up before
      CED is terminated (on Fri 22 July at 6PM GMT +8:00).

      [...]

      On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:31:40 -0400, Alan C wrote:

      AC>That's only putting off the complexity question, making it a slippery as
      >the snake. The evolutionist moves the dividing line. The difficuly of
      >getting an ecosystem complex enough and self-organizing enough to
      >incubate a complex organism that reproduces its own complexity... You
      >have the same problem only still more diffuse.

      Agreed. An "ecosystem complex enough" to "incubate a complex organism that
      reproduces its own complexity" would be so contrived that all but the hard-core
      materialists would take it to be designed:

      "Miller had performed the first prebiotic chemistry experiment He
      had discovered plausible means whereby the building blocks of
      proteins might have been formed on the early earth. .... Similar
      experiments have shown that it is possible (though with much
      greater difficulty) to form the nucleotide building blocks of DNA
      RNA, and fatty molecules and hence, through them, the structural
      material for cellular membranes. Many other small molecular
      components of organisms have been synthesized abiogenically. But
      substantial puzzles remain. Robert Shapiro notes in his book
      Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth that
      even though scientists can show that it is possible to synthesize the
      various ingredients of life, it is not easy to get them to cohere into a
      single story One group of scientists discovers that molecule A can
      be formed from molecules B and C in a very low yield under a
      certain set of conditions Then, having shown that it is possible to
      make A, another group starts with a high concentration of the
      molecule and shows that by adding D one can form E-again in a
      very low yield and under quite different conditions. Then another
      group shows that E, in high concentration can form F under still
      different conditions. But how, without supervision, did all the
      building blocks come together at high enough concentrations in
      one place and at one time to get a metabolism going? Too many
      scene changes in this theater, argues Shapiro, with no stage
      manager." (Kauffman S.A., "At Home in the Universe: The Search
      for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity," [1995], Penguin:
      London, 1996, reprint, p.36)

      "But suppose that cells could not have originally arisen by purely
      natural means. In that case the initiating of the cell line-the line
      whose products, properties and reproductive processes are purely
      natural and exhibit no direct evidences of design-would embody
      direct design. That could occur in a number of ways. For instance,
      it might involve the direct, complete, de novo originating of an
      ancestor cell from which all other cells descended by purely
      ordinary means. Or it might involve constructing specially
      designed "artificial" conditions from which the ancestor cell itself
      could arise. For instance, suppose that we finally discover that life
      can arise spontaneously but only under exactly one set of
      conditions. One must begin with 4003.6 gallons of eight specific,
      absolutely pure chemicals, exactly proportioned down to the
      molecule. The mixture must then be sealed into a large, light green
      Tupperware container with one sterile copy of "Sergeant Pepper's
      Lonely Hearts Club Band." Do that, and life develops
      spontaneously by natural means (catalyzed by the precise surface
      characteristics of "Sgt. Pepper"). Its development, subsequent
      reproductions and characteristics are completely according to
      normal natural laws. And life in this case was not directly specially
      created. But those initial conditions involve interjection of
      deliberate intent and design with a vengeance." (Ratzsch D.,
      "Design, Chance & Theistic Evolution," in Dembski W.A., ed.,
      "Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design," InterVarsity
      Press: Downers Grove IL, 1998, p.291)

      It would in fact be the natural equivalent of a modern chemistry lab (see
      tagline), except no modern chemistry lab can yet (if it ever will) synthesise
      even a minimal, self-replicating cell.

      [...]

      Steve

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "In Genetic Takeover I listed 14 major hurdles that would have to be
      overcome for primed nucleotides to have been made on the primitive Earth
      - from the build-up of sufficient and separate concentrations of
      formaldehyde and cyanide to the final 'winding-up' of the nucleotides. In
      practice each of these processes would be subdivided into separate unit
      operations that would have to be suitably sequenced. In carrying out an
      organic synthesis in the laboratory there are tens or hundreds of little
      events: lifting, pouring, mixing, stirring, topping-up, decanting, adjusting
      etc., etc. There may not be much to these unit operations in themselves,
      but their sequencing has to be right. There is a manufacturing procedure
      that has to be followed, and when such a procedure is at all prolonged it
      becomes absurd to imagine it being carried out by chance. That is why
      simple amino acids are plausible probiotic products, primed nucleotides
      are not. It is not that one cannot imagine plausible unit processes on the
      primitive Earth that, taken together, might have yielded primed
      nucleotides - as one can imagine a coin falling heads a thousand times in a
      row. Yes, you can imagine the primitive Earth doing the kinds of things
      that the practical organic chemist does. you can see a pool evaporating in
      the sun to concentrate a solution, or two solutions happening to mix
      because a stream overflows, or a catalytic mineral dust being blown in by
      the wind. you can imagine filtrations, decantations, beatings,
      acidifications: you can imagine many such operations taking place through
      little geological and meteorological accidents. But to show that each step
      in a sequence is plausible is not to show that the sequence itself is
      plausible. But, you may say, with all the time in the world, and so much
      world, the right combinations of circumstances would happen some time?
      Is that not plausible? The answer is no: there was not enough time, and
      there was not enough world. Let me try to justify this. It would be a safe
      oversimplification, I think, to say that on average the 14 hurdles that I
      referred to in the making of primed nucleotides would each take 10 unit
      operations - that at least 140 little events would have to be appropriately
      sequenced. (If you doubt this, go and watch an organic chemist at work;
      look at all the things he actually does in bringing about what he would
      describe as 'one step' in an organic synthesis.) And it is surely on the
      optimistic side to suppose that, unguided, the appropriate thing happened
      at each point on one occasion in six. But if we take this as the kind of
      chance that we are talking about, then we can say that the odds against a
      successful unguided synthesis of a batch of primed nucleotide on the
      primitive Earth are similar to the odds against a six coming up every time
      with 140 throws of a dice. Is that sort of thing too much of a coincidence
      or not? There are 6 possible outcomes from throwing a dice once; 6 x 6
      from a double throw; 6 x 6 x 6 from a triple throw; and 6 multiplied by
      itself 140 times from 140 throws. This is a huge number, represented
      approximately by a 1 followed by 109 zeros (i.e. ~ 10^109). This is the
      sort of number of trials that you would have to make to have a reasonable
      chance of hitting on the one outcome that represents success. Throwing
      one dice once a second for the period of the Earth's history would only let
      you get through about 10^15 trials: so you would need about 10^94 dice.
      That is far more than the number of electrons in the observed Universe
      (estimated at around 10^80). Of course you might argue that in practice a
      synthesis might be carried through in different ways, and that is true, but
      remember what generous allowances we made in cutting down the actual
      amount of sheer skill that organic synthesis requires. And remember 48
      Seven clues to the origin of life too that a manufacturing procedure is not
      usually very forgiving about arbitrary modifications: it all too easily goes
      off the rails never to recover. This is especially true of chemical processes,
      where it is usually not good enough to add the acid at the wrong time or
      throw away the wrong solution, or even use an ultraviolet lamp of the
      wrong sort. Careless organic synthesis only works when the product that is
      wanted belongs to that inevitably small set of molecules that are especially
      stable - molecules like carbon dioxide and water, even perhaps glycine and
      adenine in a much more limited way. But nucleotides are not like that to
      judge from the price. One's intuition can lead one astray when thinking of
      the role of vast times and spaces in generating improbable structures. The
      moral is that vast times and spaces do not make all that much difference to
      the level of competence that pure chance can simulate. Even to get 14
      sixes in a row (with one dice following the rules of our game) you should
      put aside some tens of thousands of years. But for 7 sixes a few weeks
      should do, and for 3 sixes a few minutes. This is all an indication of the
      steepness of that cliff-face that we were thinking about: a three-step
      process may be easily attributable to chance while a similar thirty-step
      process is quite absurd." (Cairns-Smith A.G., "Seven Clues to the Origin
      of Life: A Scientific Detective Story," [1985], Cambridge University
      Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, reprint, pp.46-48)
      Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
      Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
      Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Cliff Lundberg
      From: Stephen E. Jones ... Give him credit, that s the way it should be. I don t know eny evolutionists who think they ve been taught
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 18, 2005
        From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>

        > This is the same "Herbert Spencer" whose "belief in natural
        > causation ...
        > led him to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice versa":

        Give him credit, that's the way it should be. I don't know eny
        evolutionists who think they've been taught a sufficient picture
        of evolutionary history based on the evidence alone.

        > and whose "faith was so strong that it did not wait on
        > scientific proof. ...
        > for him the belief in natural causation was primary, the theory
        > of evolution
        > derivative":

        > Sounds like Spencer could be the `patron saint' of Internet
        > evolutionists!

        Steve's not just an 'internet creationist' now; he has an
        undergrad biology
        degree. But I see philosophy around here, not biology, and my MA
        serves me
        well enough.

        > Indeed, the above describes most evolutionists. Maybe they
        > should
        > be called Spencerians, rather than Darwinians (or Cliffians!).

        That would be reasonable. And we'd be free of the weight of
        Darwin's
        obligatory gradualism. If only Spencer were more readable.
        But his social Darwinism would make this impossible. He decried
        women's suffrage, claiming that it would result in public money
        being spent for parks and such. He got hung up his idea
        (evolution)
        and took it to an extreme, which is perhaps what philosophers
        should do.

        >...
        > The fact is that *any* free-living organism has to
        > be a "Von Neumann machine", just to survive and reproduce.

        Wrong; some of the necessary components of the machine may be
        other organisms. Margulis would not say 'may be', she'd say 'are'.

        > CL> The complexity of the organism was once the complexity of an
        >>ecosystem.
        >
        > Does Margulis actually *say* this?

        That's paraphrase but accurate. Open virtually any page of
        her popular books.

        > AC>That's only putting off the complexity question, making it a
        > slippery as
        >>the snake.

        'Complexity' isn't a scientific term, unless you limit it to some
        quantifiable aspect, such as number of skeletal parts, for
        example.
        It's slippery because it doesn't refer to anything defined.

        > But how, without supervision, did all the
        > building blocks come together at high enough concentrations in
        > one place and at one time to get a metabolism going?(Kauffman
        > S.A.)

        Good question, but hardly a criticism of the Miller-Urey article,
        which led to these good questions being asked.

        Cliff
      • Stephen E. Jones
        Group ... CL That s paraphrase but accurate. Open virtually any page of ... Sorry, but I don t accept a paraphrase . I want to see a *quote* so I can see what
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 18, 2005
          Group

          On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:22:30 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:

          >>CL>The complexity of the organism was once the complexity of an
          >>>ecosystem.

          >SJ>Does Margulis actually *say* this?

          CL>That's paraphrase but accurate. Open virtually any page of
          >her popular books.

          Sorry, but I don't accept a "paraphrase". I want to see a *quote* so I
          can see what Margulis *actually* said, rather than what Cliff *thinks*
          she said.

          Steve

          PS: I will try to empty my "Unposted quotes: Daniel's prophecy of the
          70 `weeks' (Dn 9:24-27)" <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/ceqnpdn9.html>
          in taglines before this list is terminated on Fri 22 July 2005, at 6PM (Perth
          time GMT +8:00).

          BTW, I have been making progress on my "Daniel's prophecy of the seventy
          `weeks' (Dn 9:24-27)" <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/ceqnpdn9.html>
          which is empirical evidence amounting to virtual *proof* that: 1) materialism/
          naturalism is false (in which case evolution cannot depend anymore on those
          twin underpinning philosophical pillars, but must support itself based on the
          evidence alone); and 2) Christianity is true.

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          "The linguistic evidence has not always been given its proper weight in
          dating the book [of Daniel]. Scholars have long been aware that the
          language of Daniel is earlier than the second century. The consensus was
          that the Hebrew resembled that of the Chronicler and was earlier than that
          of the Mishnah; it is noticeably closer to Chronicles than to Qumran [site of
          Dead Sea Scrolls] (second-first centuries). Similarly the Aramaic (2:4b-
          7:28) is closer to that of Ezra and the fifth-century papyri than to that from
          Qumran. ... All evidence (except the inference that Antiochus Epiphanes
          and other historical data are in the author's view) points to a date earlier
          than the second century. The historical data of all chapters, from
          Babylonian to Ptolemaic and Seleucid, indicate an earlier date. The
          linguistic evidence, both Hebrew and Aramaic, suggests a date possibly in
          the fourth or even fifth century. The evidence of the LXX and Qumran
          indicates that Daniel was in existence in its full form, and had been
          distributed over a relatively wide area, prior to the time of Antiochus
          Epiphanes [215-164 BC]." (La Sor W.S., Hubbard D.A. & Bush F.W., "Old
          Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old
          Testament," [1982], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, reprint, pp.666-667)
          Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
          Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
          Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        • Cliff Lundberg
          ... I discuss things but don t necessarily deal in quotes, as I m not compiling them for a book like Steve. The ideas are what I care about. It s incredible
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 19, 2005
            >>>CL>The complexity of the organism was once the complexity of an
            >>>>ecosystem.
            >
            >>SJ>Does Margulis actually *say* this?
            >
            > CL>That's paraphrase but accurate. Open virtually any page of
            >>her popular books.
            >
            > Sorry, but I don't accept a "paraphrase". I want to see a
            > *quote* so I
            > can see what Margulis *actually* said, rather than what Cliff
            > *thinks*
            > she said.

            I discuss things but don't necessarily deal in quotes, as I'm not
            compiling
            them for a book like Steve. The ideas are what I care about. It's
            incredible
            that Steve doubts this is what Margulis is saying. Since I have
            Acquiring
            Genomes at hand, I'll thumb through it and note some sentences:

            p.6 "All of the larger, more familiar organisms originated by
            symbiont
            integration that led to permanent associations. The once-separate
            symbiotic
            components become genetically integrated to make new whole
            individuals..."

            p.7 "Eukaryotes acquire and integrate entire complete genomes to
            form
            'individuals'..."

            p.12 "long-term stable symbiosis that leads to evolutionary change
            is
            called 'symbiogenesis'. These mergers, long-term biological
            fusions
            beginning as symbiosis, are the engine of species evolution..."

            p.14 "...this book is replete with examples where symbiogenesis
            serves
            as the source of evolutionary novelty in familiar animals."

            p.15 "...the acquisition of heritable genomes can be depicted as
            an
            anastomosis, a fusing of branches..."

            And on and on quite repetitively. If Steve thinks it's not
            accurate
            to say Margulis thinks the complexity of the ecosystem becomes the
            complexity of the organism, when genomes of symbionts fuse, let
            him
            explain his reasoning.

            I have to say that Margulis doesn't deliver the goods with regard
            to
            higher organisms. She would claim the complexity of the cow arose
            symbiotically, and gives an example of the cow and its intestinal
            bacteria living in symbiosis. If the first place, those two aren't
            showing any signs of merging their genomes. And more importantly,
            that association is miles away from explaining the origin of the
            complex animal. It's like Dawkins claiming genes for e.g.,
            eye-color,
            are adequate examples of how complex organisms came to be.
            She seems unwilling to come out and say that the organs of our
            bodies were once free-living organisms, but I would think that's
            an inevitable idea, given her system.

            Cliff
          • Stephen E. Jones
            Group ... CL I discuss things but don t necessarily deal in quotes, as I m not ... I do doubt... this is what Margulis is saying , i.e. The complexity of the
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 19, 2005
              Group

              On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:51:38 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:

              >>>>CL>The complexity of the organism was once the complexity of an
              >>>>>ecosystem.

              >>>SJ>Does Margulis actually *say* this?

              >>CL>That's paraphrase but accurate. Open virtually any page of
              >>>her popular books.

              >SJ>Sorry, but I don't accept a "paraphrase". I want to see a
              >>*quote* so I can see what Margulis *actually* said, rather than what Cliff
              >>*thinks* she said.

              CL>I discuss things but don't necessarily deal in quotes, as I'm not
              >compiling them for a book like Steve. The ideas are what I care about. It's
              >incredible that Steve doubts this is what Margulis is saying. Since I have
              >Acquiring Genomes at hand, I'll thumb through it and note some sentences:

              I do "doubt... this is what Margulis is saying", i.e. "The complexity of the
              organism was once the complexity of an ecosystem", in the context of
              the origin of the Von Neumann machine components of the endosymbiotic
              origin of eukaryotes.

              It seems such a strange statement (I did four ecology units in my biology
              degree, which involved a lot of work on ecosystems and I cannot recall
              anything even remotely like it). For starters, an organism is *part* of its
              ecosystem, as well as other biotic and abiotic components. So it is hard
              to see how Margulis could say "The complexity of the organism was once
              the complexity of an ecosystem". Therefore I suspect that Cliff has just
              misunderstood her.

              CL>p.6 "All of the larger, more familiar organisms originated by
              >symbiont integration that led to permanent associations. The once-separate
              >symbiotic components become genetically integrated to make new whole
              >individuals..."

              This says nothing about "ecosystems". And it says there were "once-separate
              symbiotic components", i.e. free-living Von Neumann machines of *enormous*
              complexity (see now my blog article, "The Minimal Cell: A Problem of Evolution
              2/2" <http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/>

              CL>p.7 "Eukaryotes acquire and integrate entire complete genomes to
              >form 'individuals'..."

              Nothing about "ecosystems". And "entire complete genomes" are in "entire
              complete" *organisms*.

              CL>p.12 "long-term stable symbiosis that leads to evolutionary change
              >is called 'symbiogenesis'. These mergers, long-term biological
              >fusions beginning as symbiosis, are the engine of species evolution..."

              Nothing about "ecosystems". And " mergers" are between already
              enormously complex *organisms*.

              CL>p.14 "...this book is replete with examples where symbiogenesis
              >serves as the source of evolutionary novelty in familiar animals."

              See above.

              CL>p.15 "...the acquisition of heritable genomes can be depicted as
              >an anastomosis, a fusing of branches..."

              See above.

              CL>And on and on quite repetitively. If Steve thinks it's not
              >accurate to say Margulis thinks the complexity of the ecosystem becomes the
              >complexity of the organism, when genomes of symbionts fuse, let
              >him explain his reasoning.

              See above. The word "ecosystem" does not even appear in Cliff's quotes of
              Margulis.

              Cliff might *think* this is what she is saying, that "The complexity of the
              organism was once the complexity of an ecosystem", but his quotes to date
              do not say it.

              CL>I have to say that Margulis doesn't deliver the goods with regard
              >to higher organisms. She would claim the complexity of the cow arose
              >symbiotically, and gives an example of the cow and its intestinal
              >bacteria living in symbiosis. If the first place, those two aren't
              >showing any signs of merging their genomes.

              Agreed. Symbiosis is *very* important: many (if not most) plants have
              symbiotic relationships with fungi, and many (if not most) animals have
              symbiotic relationships with plants, but it is not the same as *endo*symbiosis
              where there is a "merging [of] ... genomes."

              CL>And more importantly,
              >that association is miles away from explaining the origin of the
              >complex animal. It's like Dawkins claiming genes for e.g.,
              >eye-color, are adequate examples of how complex organisms came to be.

              Agreed.

              CL>She seems unwilling to come out and say that the organs of our
              >bodies were once free-living organisms, but I would think that's
              >an inevitable idea, given her system.

              Now *that* would be an interesting claim!

              [...]

              Steve

              PS: Here is another quote from my "Unposted quotes: Daniel's prophecy
              of the 70 `weeks' (Dn 9:24-27)" file
              <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/ceqnpdn9.html>.

              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
              "Despite the numerous objections which have been advanced by scholars
              who regard this as a vaticinium ex eventu (or prophecy written after the
              event), there is no good reason for denying to the sixth century Daniel the
              composition of the entire work. This represents a collection of his memoirs
              made at the end of a long and eventful career which included government
              service from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in the 590's to the reign of Cyrus
              the Great in the 530's. The appearance of Persian technical terms indicates a
              final recension of these memoirs at a time when Persian terminology had
              already infiltrated into the vocabulary of Aramaic. The most likely date for
              the final edition of the book, therefore, would be about 530 B.C." (Archer
              G.L., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction," [1964], Moody Press:
              Chicago IL, 1966, Third printing, p.367)
              Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
              Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
              Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
            • Cliff Lundberg
              From: Stephen E. Jones ... The word symbiont says ecosystem . Symbiotic relations are ecological relations. ... I have to wonder
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 19, 2005
                From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>
                > See above. The word "ecosystem" does not even appear in Cliff's
                > quotes of
                > Margulis.

                The word 'symbiont' says 'ecosystem'. Symbiotic relations are
                ecological relations.

                > Cliff might *think* this is what she is saying, that "The
                > complexity of the
                > organism was once the complexity of an ecosystem", but his
                > quotes to date
                > do not say it.

                I have to wonder about Steve's non-ecological conception of
                symbiosis.

                > CL>I have to say that Margulis doesn't deliver the goods with
                > regard
                >>to higher organisms. She would claim the complexity of the cow
                >>arose
                >>symbiotically, and gives an example of the cow and its
                >>intestinal
                >>bacteria living in symbiosis. If the first place, those two
                >>aren't
                >>showing any signs of merging their genomes.
                >
                > Agreed. Symbiosis is *very* important: many (if not most) plants
                > have
                > symbiotic relationships with fungi, and many (if not most)
                > animals have
                > symbiotic relationships with plants, but it is not the same as
                > *endo*symbiosis
                > where there is a "merging [of] ... genomes."
                >
                > CL>And more importantly,
                >>that association is miles away from explaining the origin of the
                >>complex animal. It's like Dawkins claiming genes for e.g.,
                >>eye-color, are adequate examples of how complex organisms came
                >>to be.
                >
                > Agreed.
                >
                > CL>She seems unwilling to come out and say that the organs of
                > our
                >>bodies were once free-living organisms, but I would think that's
                >>an inevitable idea, given her system.
                >
                > Now *that* would be an interesting claim!
                >
                > [...]
                >
                > Steve
                >
                > PS: Here is another quote from my "Unposted quotes: Daniel's
                > prophecy
                > of the 70 `weeks' (Dn 9:24-27)" file
                > <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/ceqnpdn9.html>.
                >
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > "Despite the numerous objections which have been advanced by
                > scholars
                > who regard this as a vaticinium ex eventu (or prophecy written
                > after the
                > event), there is no good reason for denying to the sixth century
                > Daniel the
                > composition of the entire work. This represents a collection of
                > his memoirs
                > made at the end of a long and eventful career which included
                > government
                > service from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in the 590's to the
                > reign of Cyrus
                > the Great in the 530's. The appearance of Persian technical
                > terms indicates a
                > final recension of these memoirs at a time when Persian
                > terminology had
                > already infiltrated into the vocabulary of Aramaic. The most
                > likely date for
                > the final edition of the book, therefore, would be about 530
                > B.C." (Archer
                > G.L., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction," [1964], Moody
                > Press:
                > Chicago IL, 1966, Third printing, p.367)
                > Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
                > http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
                > Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book,
                > "Problems of
                > Evolution"
                > http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Cliff Lundberg
                From: Stephen E. Jones ... The fact of the Cambrian Explosion implies that some fast-acting mechanism created our metazoan physiology.
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 19, 2005
                  From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>

                  > CL>She seems unwilling to come out and say that the organs of
                  > our
                  >>bodies were once free-living organisms, but I would think that's
                  >>an inevitable idea, given her system.
                  >
                  > Now *that* would be an interesting claim!

                  The fact of the Cambrian Explosion implies that some fast-acting
                  mechanism created our metazoan physiology. It wasn't a gradual
                  Darwinian teleological budding-out of new organs in the right
                  places. We can see how the organs adapt during ontogeny when
                  development is disturbed, somehow finding their way and making
                  the best of it, like parasites might. Why would an organ that had
                  evolved in situ have that ability? You read it here first
                  (apparently).

                  Cliff
                • Stephen E. Jones
                  Group ... CL The word symbiont says ecosystem . No. symbiont literally means life together . A symbiont is an organism that is in a symbiotic
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 19, 2005
                    Group

                    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:30:16 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:

                    >SJ>See above. The word "ecosystem" does not even appear in Cliff's
                    >>quotes of Margulis.

                    CL>The word 'symbiont' says 'ecosystem'.

                    No. "symbiont" literally means "life together". A symbiont is an
                    organism that is in a symbiotic relationship with another organism,
                    usually of a different species:

                    symbiont An organism that is a partner in a symbiotic relationship
                    (see symbiosis).
                    symbiosis An interaction between individuals of different species
                    (symbionts). The term symbiosis is usually restricted to
                    interactions in which both species benefit (see cooperation;
                    mutualism), but it may be used for other close associations, such as
                    *commensalism, *inquilinism, and *parasitism. Many symbioses
                    are obligatory (i.e. the participants cannot survive without the
                    interaction); for example, a lichen is an obligatory symbiotic
                    relationship between an alga or a blue-green bacterium and a
                    fungus."
                    (Martin E. & Hine R.S. eds., "Oxford Dictionary of Biology,"
                    [1985], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Fourth Edition,
                    2000, pp.576-577)


                    "symbiont, n. an organism living in a state of SYMBIOSIS with
                    another.
                    symbiosis or mutualism, n. a relationship between dissimilar
                    organisms in which both partners benefit. For example, the hermit
                    crab Pagarus and the sea anemone Adamsia palliata which lives
                    attached to the shell; here the anemone obtains food scraps from
                    the crab and the crab is camouflaged by the anemone and also
                    defended by its stinging cells (NEMATOCYSTS)."
                    (Hale W.G. & Margham J.P., "Collins Reference Dictionary of
                    Biology," Collins: London, 1988, reprint, p.507)

                    "symbiont A symbiotic organism. See SYMBIOSIS,
                    MYCOBIONT, PHYCOBIONT.
                    symbiosis The living together in permanent or prolonged close
                    association of members (symbionts) of usually two different
                    species, with beneficial or deleterious consequences for at least one
                    of the parties. Included here are: commensalism, where one parry
                    (the commensal) gains some benefit (often surplus food) while the
                    other (the host) suffers no serious disadvantage; inquilinism, where
                    one party shares the nest or home of the other, without significant
                    disadvantage to the 'owner'; mutualism, where members of two
                    different species benefit and neither suffers (symbiosis in a
                    restricted sense; e.g., see LICHENS, MYCORRHIZA) and
                    parasitism, where one party gains considerably at the other's
                    expense (see PARASITE). In amensalism, one party is harmed
                    while the other is unaffected. Some include certain intraspecific
                    relationships within symbiosis."
                    (Abercrombie M., Hickman M., Johnson M.L. & Thain M., "The
                    New Penguin Dictionary of Biology," [1951], Penguin Books:
                    London, Eighth Edition, 1990, p.613)

                    CL>Symbiotic relations are ecological relations.

                    That is so vague as to be meaningless.

                    Steve


                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    "The presence of three Greek names for musical instruments translated as
                    "harp" Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15; RSV "lyre"), "sackbut" ([cabbeka']), 3:5, 7, 10,
                    15; RSV Arigon"), and "psaltery" 3:5, 7, 10, 15; RSV "harp") was also
                    adduced by earlier critics as pointing to a Maccabean rather than an earlier
                    period of composition. This argument no longer constitutes a serious
                    problem in the criticism of the book, because as Albright has shown, it is
                    now well recognized that Greek culture bad penetrated the Near East long
                    before the Neo-Babylonian period. The early nature and extent of Greek
                    influence in the entire area can be judged from the presence of Greek
                    colonies in mid-seventh-century B.C. Egypt at Naucratis and Tahpanhes, as
                    well as by the fact that Greek mercenary troops served in both the Egyptian
                    and Babylonian armies at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.
                    Furthermore, while the names of the instruments mentioned may appear to
                    be Greek in nature, the instruments themselves are of Mesopotamian origin.
                    ... In the light of the foregoing evidence, therefore, the arguments for the
                    Maccabean dating of Daniel can hardly be said to be convincing." (Harrison
                    R.K., "Introduction to the Old Testament," [1969], Tyndale Press: London,
                    1970, p.1126)
                    Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
                    Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
                    Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  • Cliff Lundberg
                    From: Stephen E. Jones ... Evolution is the philosophical side of biology, and when we philosophize, we make fresh analyses of
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 20, 2005
                      From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>

                      > "symbiont A symbiotic organism. See SYMBIOSIS,
                      > MYCOBIONT, PHYCOBIONT.
                      > symbiosis The living together in permanent or prolonged close
                      > association of members (symbionts) of usually two different
                      > species, with beneficial or deleterious consequences for at
                      > least one
                      > of the parties. Included here are: commensalism, where one parry
                      > (the commensal) gains some benefit (often surplus food) while
                      > the
                      > other (the host) suffers no serious disadvantage; inquilinism,
                      > where
                      > one party shares the nest or home of the other, without
                      > significant
                      > disadvantage to the 'owner'; mutualism, where members of two
                      > different species benefit and neither suffers (symbiosis in a
                      > restricted sense; e.g., see LICHENS, MYCORRHIZA) and
                      > parasitism, where one party gains considerably at the other's
                      > expense (see PARASITE). In amensalism, one party is harmed
                      > while the other is unaffected. Some include certain
                      > intraspecific
                      > relationships within symbiosis."
                      > (Abercrombie M., Hickman M., Johnson M.L. & Thain M., "The
                      > New Penguin Dictionary of Biology," [1951], Penguin Books:
                      > London, Eighth Edition, 1990, p.613)
                      >
                      > CL>Symbiotic relations are ecological relations.
                      >
                      > That is so vague as to be meaningless.

                      Evolution is the philosophical side of biology, and when we
                      philosophize,
                      we make fresh analyses of concepts. Philosophy can't be bound by
                      the
                      endless practical distinctions that lower-level writers delight in
                      making.

                      What exactly is 'living together'? How long is 'prolonged', and
                      does
                      length of time always correspond to importance? How enlightening
                      is it
                      to speak of "beneficial or deleterious consequences"? Talk about
                      vague!
                      If we say simply sharing the same environment or ecosystem is
                      symbiosis,
                      we lose some possibly useful distinctions, but we also become free
                      of the
                      error that must creep in when using distinctions that are handy,
                      but don't
                      hold up well enough for the philosopher. If we're going to focus
                      on
                      defining amensalism etc, we will never have a clue about what
                      Margulis
                      is saying.

                      Cliff
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.