Some present may remember an entertaining (not to mention illuminating (pun intended) ) blog by Professor Larry Moran:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/04/fun-and-games-with-otangelo-grasso.html
I am a high school Biology teacher and Professor Moran threw out some challenges which cut me to the quick.
Here is a very brief and incomplete summary:
The dual photosystems of Blue-Green Algae clearly evolved late from a combination of a type I reaction center in species like Heliobacter and green sulfur bacteria and a type II reaction center from species like purple bacteria and green filamentous bacteria. The oxygen evolving complex was a late addition.
Both photosystems employ Porphyrins and Carotenoids which are important in various metabolic processes (not just photosynthesis) meaning their evolutionary history may reflect many other functions only to be co-opted later for photosynthesis. Meanwhile both can be demonstrated to have abiogenic origins.
Meanwhile RuBisCO is found in non-photosynthetic species…
According to Professor Moran, many misconceptions are perpetuated when teaching according to textbook orthodoxy. Instead we should consider Photoreduction and Photophosphorylation as two stand-alone processes, and that the capture of light energy to produce carbohydrates is a highly specialized phenomenon; which, from an evolutionary point of view is not really (at least not originally) part of “photosynthesis” (i.e. carbohydrate anabolism).
Even Flowering Plants not only can, but in fact most of the time do, decouple ATP/NADPH production from Carbon fixation. Indeed, much of the ATP & NADPH generated by Photosystems II & I respectively are in fact redirected to immediate energy needs, even in flowering plants.
Meanwhile, I heartily agree with Larry Moran’s thesis that it is important (nay, let’s say instead imperative) to teach students that there’s more to life than just flowering plants and humans?
Larry Moran (in very unsubtle and less than gentle terms) “suggests” such strategies should apply to teaching of all biochemistry; i.e. from simple pathways to more complex pathways.
A recent “must-read” article inspired me to respond to Larry Moran’s challenge,
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13924.pdf
… and I have cobbled together a worksheet, where I attempt to prove that photosynthesis is
1 – misunderstood (tis not really about Glucose and it’s not even about the Calvin Cycle) at least from a Biochemist’s evolutionary POV. Ecologists have justification to differ.
2 – NOT “irreducibly complex” but rather a hodge-podge cobbling by evolution over a long period of time. (cf https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/evolution-and-tinkering-1977-francois-jacob)
Larry Moran’s fingerprints are all over this work of mine, for which I really cannot claim any originality on my part.
I would be grateful for any constructive input and suggestions for improvement. Remember, the intended target audience remains high school students.
Thanks in advance and best regards,
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By6ZKSkkTEG-QXFtWVhKOWNwREE/view
Bill,
Separate creation is a crackpot idea that the scientific community — including even Behe — rejects, based on the evidence.
You might as well be a flat-earther or a Scientologist.
John Harshman,
Is that really what you got out of the video? Interesting, Dazz shows the strongest ability to comprehend here.
keiths,
Sure, assuming the bottom of the well is complete reality.
To start, I’m glad you’re finally admitting that you’re a committed creationist rather than the innocent seeker after truth you played for a while. If you have something to say, please quote from the video and explain what you think it means. You have in the past shown poor skills at interpreting written sentences, and it’s reasonable to suppose that this lack of talent extends to spoken ones.
Bill,
This is amusing, but also a little sad.
Behe accepts common descent based on the evidence. Do you think he should ignore the evidence and become a crackpot creationist instead?
John Harshman,
John,
The video conversation is my reference for Behe’s view on common descent. You showed through your comments that you did not comprehend it well. You also need to study the scientific method. You don’t seem open so I am honestly a little frustrated going through this with you. I honestly believe you are a very smart guy and if you go through the video with an open mind you will comprehend it.
If you have not figured it out yet despite being a Christian I am interested in real science.
I think there is very good science in the subjects we discuss like population genetics but the grand claims of evolution like universal common descent I find very shaky.
I think Behe’s arguments are far superior to the current evolutionary story of random change and selection being the driver of life’s diversity.
Bill,
You wrote:
Behe accepts common descent. You are wrong. Try to cope.
keiths,
If you produce any more spin you are going to get dizzy 🙂
It’s a textbook case of denial.
Bill is rejecting Behe’s own words, because he simply cannot accept that his hero disagrees with him on common descent.
keiths,
If I asked Mike if he thinks we can explain the diversity of life solely through reproduction and random events and reproductive advantage what do you think he would say?
LMFAO, what I posted shows that Behe told YOU that he believes in common descent. Right in your face: he believes the evidence for CD is strong in the similarities. How can you be so fucking… *gasp*
dazz,
But then he said you have to explain the differences. Have you followed Salvador’s posts?
Why are the differences built derivatively out of commonly-descended information?
Behe’s separation of the common and the different is simplistic and inadequate to supporting intelligent intervention.
Glen Davidson
colewd,
Who cares? The question here is whether he accepts common descent.
You claimed that he doesn’t:
You are wrong. Your hero accepts common descent and rejects separate creation. Be a big boy and accept that.
As dazz points out, Behe told you that right to your face.
You’re in denial, Bill.
Remember we’re talking about what Behe believes here: he believes common descent explains the similarities (which it clearly does) while “design” explains the differences (which it doesn’t). So Behe believes in BOTH common descent AND design. He rejects RM+NS as the only mechanism, but as explained a fucking gazillion times to you THE MECHANISM IS A SEPARATE ISSUE. Behe understands that. You fail miserably, as always
keiths,
What is the definition of common descent he accepts? Is it Harshman’s or is it keiths that claims the it is solely due to reproduction?
dazz,
What is your explanation of the differences since you claim design does the explain them?
colewd:
The same one John and I accept. Jesus, Bill.
For example, the three of us agree that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Behe understands how stupid it would be to deny that. You don’t.
He would say he doesn’t. So? What does that have to do with common descent?
keiths,
Did he propose any challenge when I brought up the splicing and gene expression differences? Do you have an answer to this issue?
Bill,
Instead of trying to change the subject, it’s time for you to admit the obvious: Behe accepts common descent.
You don’t get to claim him as a fellow separate creationist. He’s got some questionable beliefs, but he isn’t stupid enough to deny common descent.
colewd,
Chimps and humans are not identical in every respect? The hell you say!
Getting Bill to believe that Behe accepts common descent is like getting CharlieM to admit that Rudolf Steiner was wrong about tomatoes.
Yes, they’re nonsensical and completely ignore the issue: Nesting hierarchical data.
Sal says “god did it”. Nothing about why or how. Notice how Sal never explains anything. He just says God did it. Why is it that way? God did it. What purpose does that serve? God did it because he’s an artist. He likes to be extravagant. Or some ridiculous bullshit.
Sorry, but when you came on it became so boring and incoherent that I couldn’t get through it to Behe’s response. Do you think he considered it a challenge to common descent, and, if so, why?
John Harshman,
This is orthodox common descent or what keiths has been arguing. I believe this is Darwin’s argument but correct me if I am wrong.
Keiths has been trying to argue Behe is supporting common descent but his version includes design Keiths does not. Behe’s version of common descent is very different then Keiths.
I also don’t think Mike has looked deeply into the issue of common descent as he admitted in our conversation.
I am going to send him Sal’s flower and see what he thinks.
Still in denial.
Bill,
How many fucking times does it need to be repeated? The question of common descent is separate from the question of design or guidance.
keiths,
He is not a special creationist we have common ground here. He is open to arguments and evidence on both sides.
Holy shit that is the most incoherent ranting collection of bullshit I have heard in years. How the hell do you guys even make sense of what you say to each other? Behe was just about coherent enough to make out the semblances of a point, but then when you speak it’s just flailing gibberish, namedropping and a garbled mess of technical jargon. Fifty percent splicing in chimps compared to humans? What the flying fuck does that even mean? Do you just say words, is that how this works? It’s like you start a sentence with mabye some tiny idea in your head about what you want to talk about, but then you just start babbling and stuffing words into the sentence that make no sense.
Perhaps the greatest travesty in all this is that Behe apparently felt forced to pretend that you made even a single coherent point.
Read it again, Bill:
Behe, from The Edge of Evolution, p. 71:
Seriously, that whole conversation on “Apologetics Academy” (LOL, btw) is the clusterfuck nexus of religious internet lunacy. What the actual fuck?
It’s Jesus and Biff.
How stupid would it be?
keiths,
Paper cited from Larry’s last post here is an issue of mutations that are age related in the germ line>
As I said I don’t think Mike has looked deeply into this.
colewd,
It’s hilarious that Bill is just now figuring out that his hero accepts common descent. It’s precipitating a full-blown crisis.
First Bill tried to argue that Behe had changed his mind since his last book:
Now he’s trying to claim that Behe hasn’t “looked deeply into the issue”:
Get a grip, Bill. Behe accepts common descent, because the evidence is too strong even for him to deny.
Incredibly stupid. Mindbogglingly so.
colewd,
Are you actually saying that you think that paper is evidence against common descent?
keiths,
As the Zen master said……we will see 🙂
colewd,
I see Bill has learned the Gish Gallop, perhaps from Sal’s example.
Reality-based people:
Bill:
keiths,
No but it is showing that age related germ line mutations are highly concentrated so Behe’s argument is not as strong since we not talking about a similar mutation among 3.2 billion possible locations.
keiths,
Difficult but I can learn to live with it 🙂
colewd:
I wonder how many emails poor Behe gets from guys like Bill.
I’m betting that it’s enough that it should clue him in. ‘Why do my fans fail to understand simple facts?’
No doubt he has some sort of conspiracy theory that explains why those supporting his ideas typically don’t understand things, though. Can’t be that making things up isn’t good enough for the better thinkers, can it?
Glen Davidson
Hi Keiths
The problem is that I answered an earlier question at a later point and out of sequence:
http://tinyurl.com/y9l6bpkb
examine my later posts:
http://tinyurl.com/ydx5lpbs
http://tinyurl.com/y9fqjuv5
As I explained more than once already on this very thread and in the worksheet, yes indeed there are IC systems in biology, but that poses no barrier to evolution!
I am not current with all of Keiths’ posts… I guess great minds can think alike. 😉
TomMueller,
If one of your students asked how the transcription translation mechanism evolved what would your answer be?
Let’s keep it simple:
On an earlier occasion colewd asked me about my worksheet’s narrative regarding the abiogenic origins of life and he challenged me with the question:
In the paper you claim that life arose from inorganic chemicals.If a student asked how do you know this, what would your answer be?
I responded with my own challenge asking colewd to explain to me how he knew that a literal reading of Genesis is incorrect and that astronauts really did land on the moon according to the standard heliocentric model everyone agrees upon.
colewd responded with the claim that the planets rotate around the sun is consistent with general relativity which is modeled and experimentally validated.
I then threw back his own retort back at him:
How do you know this?
On an earlier occasion colewd suggested any of my conclusions had been tentative – whereupon I responded with an epistemological rebuttal yhat ALL Knowledge is tentative.
I suppose that colewd is taking the tack that some empirical conclusions are more tentative than others…
bringing me back full circle:
The notion of a heliocentric solar system is no less tentative than the notion of Common Descent and Natural Selection… one is not less “extrapolative” than the other.
The movie Groundhog Day! why oh why do I recall that movie?
I am honest and I and Keiths already answered your question more than once!