PZ Meyers, effusing about complexity while teaching us that evolution is not just mutation and selection (it is, of course, unless you redefine mutation[1] to mean something else, as PZ and other evolutionistas have done[2]), claims multiple pathways for the gene creation path chart above. Says PZ (with my emphasis):
”That is awesomely complex, and yes, if you're a creationist you're probably wrongly thinking there is no way that can evolve. The curious thing is, though, that the more elaborate the network, the more pieces tangled into the pathway, the smaller the effect of any individual component (in general, of course). What we find over and over again is that many mutations to any one component may have a completely indetectable effect on the output. The system is buffered to produce a reliable yield.This is not so complex as PZ lets on. There are 8 components at the bottom, and there are 4 necessary pathways to get there from the top. There are intermediate process components that act on the 4 pathways. The complexity is an illusion due to putting it all on the same chart. The process which is shown is exclusively linear (serial), not massively parallel.
This is the way networks often work. Consider the internet, for example: a complex network with many components and many different routes to get a single from Point A to Point B. What happens if you take out a single node, or even a set of nodes? The system routes automatically around any damage, without any intelligent agency required to consciously reroute messages."
The appearance of complexity is in the quantity of processing steps involved in the creation of genes (assuming the chart to be a representation of the actual real-life process), not in the number of pathways. Starting at the bottom of the chart and following pathways back up toward the top, there should be branching off to parallel paths, if what PZ claims is valid.
But for each of the end points in the gene at the bottom, there is only one path from the bottom back up to the top. One path, the SOS path which intersects with MKK4/7, has an element not mentioned in the Sabioscience text: MLK2. However it appears to be an enabling element, not a true pathway, since SOS is an enabling element, presumed to be a catalyst.
So each element has A Single Pathway; this is entirely unlike the internet.
So PZ’s contention that "The system routes automatically around any damage, without any intelligent agency required to consciously reroute messages", if it depends on the pathways in this diagram, is patently FALSE.
PZ seems to suggest that we should stand in awe of a complexity that is beyond our comprehension. But that presupposes that we have no analytical skills that enable us to probe his assertions. No one should be dazzled into incomprehension by a bunch of colored balloons.
[1] Mutation: noun; 1: CHANGE 2: an inherited physical or biochemical change in genetic material; also: the process of producing a mutation; 3: an individual strain or trait resulting from mutation. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004.
[2] In Evo-parlance, mutation is sometimes restricted to single referencing point mutations. There are many other mechanisms of course, all of which require a change; but the word “mutation” is not allowed to be used in those cases. And, as PZ points out, it takes a bunch of mutations to make a novel, useful feature. Hence, evolution is “very complex”, well beyond just mutation and selection – at least in the narrative of evo-parlance. In reality, though, evolution theory is change and selection: i.e. mutation and selection. And the change required is multiple, very lucky, cooperative changes that add up to a new feature, even though they didn’t do anything in particular before.
6 comments:
Too complex to understand but simple enought to plot on a chart.
Stan- maybe you can help me--
Perhaps I misunderstand--
PZ- says-
"The concept of evolution as a change in allele frequencies over time is one small part of the whole of evolutionary processes. You've got to include network theory and gene and environmental interactions to really understand the phenomena."
But change in allele frequencies over time is the definition of the evolutionary process.
The way genes interact with each other and how that plays out through natural selection might involve network theory, but gene and environmental interactions are natural selection, so what is he saying?
It sounds like he is trying to make the point that mutation + selection does not equal mutation + selection.
(The complexity of the way mutations and selection actually work does not change the fact that it is mutation and selection at work)
What am I missing?
Sonic said,
"The complexity of the way mutations and selection actually work does not change the fact that it is mutation and selection at work"
Exactly. These are vulnerable concepts. In my opinion, there is a movement toward obfuscation using terms that he assumes no one understands, certainly not himself, such as "network theory" (which I do understand), and incomprehensible variables such as "environment". By adding these immensurables to the mix, evolutionists can claim complexity beyond the mental capabilities of any sub-PhD in biology. This is a tactic, not science.
Science is a discipline for attaching an effect to a cause, using experiments to solidify the attachment. Evolution is an inferred cause that explains ALL effects regardless of what they might be - but the cause itself is not experimentally producible or experimentally replicable or experimentally falsifiable.
For any other pursuit, such a "science" would be laughed into non-existence. But, for the pursuit of a material origin, it is dogma, legally protected.
As an aside, Feynman said that if you can't explain it in simple terms that a layman can understand, then you don't understand it yourself. PZ's approach is to claim that he can understand it, but it is way too complicated for the layman. Or maybe it's that he can't understand it either, but he knows that it is true by inference. Either way doesn't speak well for a science / scientist.
Stan, check your comment approval queue.
Stan- thanks.
I think that his version of biology 101 is probably a strawman as well- (Don't know what is taught in biology 101).
Odd aside--I do find it interesting that he likens the way evolution works to an intelligently designed network (Internet).
Martin has produced an interesting case of presumed mutation and selection, over on the side-bar "Challenge to Evolutionists"; see the comments around #100 -105.
Post a Comment