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
Looks like TomMueller is not going to address the quantum coherence related efficiency in photosynthesis…
I have found that most neo-delusionists are afraid of quantum mechanics or its implications… No wonder…
🙂
Associating people with Trump seems to be the popular thing to do these days. I don’t mind pointing out when people are more Trump-like than Trump himself.
Wrong again!
You obviously did not follow the thread in its entirety , especially the bit where I cite Leviticus in earnest terms
When you claim that common descent doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy you are in fact questioning the underlying reasoning for accepting common descent. There’s no evidence for CD if it can’t explain the nested hierarchy. Behe would clearly disagree with you, and quite honestly, it’s a rather stupid thing to say because common descent produces family trees as you seem to understand considering your previous comment.
You believe in common descent because “It’s intuitively obvious” and not based on the evidence. It’s your underlying rationale that is suspect here
Freudian slip?
Simple. My belief is based on my confidence that a nested hierarchy exists, and understanding that common descent explains it.
Yeah, and as pointed out a trillion times, you believe in your own ridiculous version of saltationist “hyper-evolution”. Who’s the hypocrite?
Hi again Cornell
To repeat: Mung’s confabulations regarding his own particular endorsement of “COMMON DESCENT” are indeed incohate and incoherent , exactly as I described.
It would appear that COMMON DESIGN and COMMON DESCENT are conflated in his mind
TomMueller,
Can you come up with a clear definition of “common descent” to help clear things up?
Mung:
That made me laugh.
Just as I suspected! You fell into my trap, even though I generously dripped a pregnant hint for your benefit.
My students understand a human could not have a chimpanzee ancestor for the same reason a Chimpanzee cannot have a human ancestor
Both however can have a COMMON ancestor i.e. Common descent no differently from the donkey-horse story whose common ancestor was even more distant than Chimps and humans.
Mung says:
“The fact of the matter is that I have an established history of providing direct and non-evasive answers about what I believe if asked directly to do so. “
I am delighted with your promise to be straightforward and nonevasive
Just to be clear here:
When you say “universal common ancestry” you are in fact using those three words no differently than scientists (like Behe)
That is to say, every species can trace their ancestry far back in geological time to LUCA
— meaning LUCA’s descendants diverged into different lineages (yes or no)
… including Equidae (yes or no) and more recently, Hominidae (yes or no)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
Just to be clear here and save everyone time
I do look forward to your upfront and nonevasive three word quick reply
Yup… my colleagues appreciate I do not suffer fools gladly and become very impatient width sophistry and dissimultude
Your point is well taken, I should not have employed such a rude metaphor
My apologies are public
uhmmm… yes I did when I juxtaposed your contention with mregnor’s
Check out the thread
Tom, to Mung:
Mung understands that too, Tom. You’re badly misinterpreting him.
Each of you is trying to pin the same stupid belief — that humans descended from chimps — on the other.
Bill,
Have you “learned to live with” Behe’s acceptance of common descent, or is the dissonance still too great?
The problem for neo-delusional-ists with photosynthesis using quantum superposition is how thei system evolved a mechanism to harvest photons of sunlight that can occupy multiple positions at the same time or travel along all possible ways at the same time…
I’m not going to even mention how a systems could evolve that operates by a mechanism where sub-particles can “travel back in time” and change their properties if “there is a conscious observer even thousands of miles away from them”…
I suspect you are according Mung far too much credit!
I note with bemusement that Mung has indeed evaded a very simple and straight forward three word answer to whether or not he understand the three words: “universal common ancestry” no differently than scientists (like Behe).
My reading of Mung is that he in fact is VERY evasive and conflating Common Descent with Common Design without admitting as much in public.
Would you like to attempt an explanation for what you think you just said?
Tom,
Mung, just hours ago:
Again, each of you is trying to pin the same stupid belief — that humans descended from chimps — on the other.
I hear ya Keiths. I read through Mung’s posts and his OP where he claims he subscribes to the “Michael Behe school if ID”
But reading his follow up comments in his own OP not to mention his most recent protests upon witnessing colewd writhing in your syllogistic talons…
… I am convinced Mung is confused which explains why he he more than a little confusing to decipher.
But let’s banter no more on the subject. Let’s get a three word response from Mung himself!
Mung, you just reported that: …The fact of the matter is that I have an established history of providing direct and non-evasive answers about what I believe if asked directly to do so. “ …
So here goes
Question 1: a simple “Yes”or “No”
When you say “universal common ancestry” you are in fact using those three words no differently than scientists (like Behe) meaning there was originally at the beginning of life on our planet, a one-celled progenitor of all life commononly identified as LUCA.
Question 2 ( again a simple yes or no) LUCA’s descendants diverged into different lineages that means they evolved (evolution = change over time) and one small twig of the Tree of Life (rooted in LUCA) would be Equidae explaining why horses and donkeys are relatively similar, because they both share a relatively recent common ancestor
Question 3 (yes or no again if you please). And this same story repeats itself with another lineage called Hominidae, such that Humans and Chimpanzees also share a common ancestor
Now Behe is on public record to answering an emphatic YES to all three questions
I am curious who in fact is closer to understanding you: me or Keiths!
The only difference between Keiths and Behe is that Keiths has no difficulty proposing a process of genetic variation was generated randomly and this random generation of variation was grist for evolution’s mill (Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Neutral Theory, Almost Neutral Theory, etc)
… whereas Behe proposes that much of the above may be correct some of the time but not all of the time. Behe proposes that some Biological Systems are Ireducibly Complex, so much so that Intelligent Design must be invoked.
Now I am not asking you whether or not you believe in ID! I am asking you whether you would answer “YES” to those same three questions Behe has answered in the affirmative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
What happened to Bill?
Tom,
Mung is confused about a lot of things, but he did not “fall into your trap”. He knows that humans did not descend from chimps, which is why he ridiculed that notion in this comment, which I’ve already quoted:
Don’t pull a colewd. Mung’s words are right in front of you.
Mung says plenty of goofy things worth disagreeing with, but “humans are descended from chimps” is not one of them.
Keiths
We do not disagree
I hope Mung deigns to answer those three questions.
I have a sneaking suspicion he will not ante up
I have an explanation you are not going to like, accept or even respond to…not in a logical sense… I’m giving you a chance to at least try to attempt to explain your “baby” in view of QM… because it is not going to go away…I’m mean, you can pretend like Larry Moran did on his blog… but this is not going to change the reality of QM involved in not only photosynthesis, but mitosis, non-random mutations, consciousness, and so on…
Do you feel qualified to discuss this? If not, ask Joe Felsenstein…He seems to be an expert in QM as he recently attempted to unify QM and GTOR… The jury is still out regarding the verdict… 😉
I think I’ll change my avatar to Goofy. But I also say plenty of non-goofy things worth agreeing with. What a quandry.
That is good because you have yet to show any evidence that is true
OK, I agree LM is an expert in PS I & PS II in the ETC
But I never was apprised that JF was an expert in QM and was bent on unifying QM and GTOR
to which I can only reply: WTF?!
blah blah blah your bedside manner could use an upgrade. I may or may not respond. Given your attitude I’m leaning towards not. I’m perfectly willing to have a discussion, but not so much when it comes to people who clearly flaunt the rules.
You do know the rules, don’t you Tom?
He evolved.
FFS. What else could it mean? I’ve clearly aligned myself with Behe. You think “universal common ancestry” is code for “not universal common ancestry”?
Yes. Whatever “science” means by a LUCA. All extant life evolved from that. And humans are no exception.
ETA: I think that answers all three of your questions. Do you agree?
Now now… I’ll play fair if you do
Remember, you yourself claimed: …The fact of the matter is that I have an established history of providing direct and non-evasive answers about what I believe if asked directly to do so. “ …
So three words is all I am asking
I suspect from your surprised reactions to Keiths posts you really did not comprehend the implications of endorsing Behe’s version of ID
Illuminate us por favor
Mung, to Tom:
Says Mung, who earlier today made this (laughable) claim:
Mung:
You might want to look up “flaunt” and “flout”.
Good luck with that! 🙂
keiths would never do that. 😉
Huh? Where? How?
This is just more uninformed nonsense. There’s a massive thread on Common Design vs. Common Descent right here at TSZ in which I’ve consistently rejected and even mocked the idea of common design as an explanation.
LoL. You’re right. Tom is certainly not flaunting the rules.
ETA: Though: display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
Mung,
Like common descent LUCA is ambiguously defined term. Just to start this process you have to say the eukaryotic cell evolved. Evolved from what? Whats the proposed test for this hypothesis? I want to share what you and Behe are smoking because it has to be good 🙂
dazz wins though, with his Q.E.D.
How quaint. So dazz accepts common descent because common descent explains the nested hierarchy.
ETA: And dazz still hasn’t provided me with the name of a book that he has read that convinced him that common descent explains the nested hierarchy. It’s almost like he hasn’t done any actually reading on the subject and is just trusting that other people who accept common descent have good reasons for doing so. A sheep, our dazz. No need to ask questions. Or to understand.
Saltation and hyper-evolution are two separate things.
Did you get your degree in mind-reading from The keiths School of Scientific Mind Reading?
If not, it’s worthless. Demand a refund.
I’d really like an explanation from you on this.
Why is it not possible that humans evolved from chimpanzees? What theory of evolution forbids this?
Why is it not possible that chimpanzees evolved from humans? What theory of evolution forbids this?
What do you teach your students about this, and why?
keiths:
Mung:
That doesn’t help you. In that usage, what you flaunt is not what you are defying. A polygamist might flaunt his multiple wives to show his defiance of the marriage laws, but he’s flouting the laws, not flaunting them.
YECs could also invoke your absurd saltationism to rationalize their beliefs. It’s pretty much the same line of faulty reasoning. You and your arguments are almost indistinguishable to YEC’s
I haven’t read anything on biology apart of blogs like this one or Sandwalk. So what? most of it goes over my head anyway. Incidentally, that seems to also be your case. One doesn’t need to understand phylogenetics to know that common descent explains the nested hierarchy anyway. You fail there because yours is a much more fundamental reasoning problem
What is the position of design theory on this, allow or forbid?
Sadly, all too sadly, that was far too easy a prediction.
Cute… 4 and not 3
Yet my original prediction stands
QED!
Keiths
I draw your attention to Mung’s challenge. So I ask you: is Mung being deliberately coy or is Mung demonstrating confusion?
Hi Dazz
You, Corneel and Keiths frequent this site more than I.
Since Mung is flaunting evasiveness yet again in his own peculiar idiom, perhaps you could tell us how Mung would answer my series of three questions.
I am guessing 1- No. 2-Yes 3- No
Does anyone present have evidence to suggest otherwise?
I would say he will answer yes or no to any (of those) questions depending on who he’s trolling
Makes sense to me. Mung merely pretends to endorse Behe’s brand of ID when it suits his purposes
So the correct answer would be 1- Yes & No. 2- Yes & No 3- No!