UD commenter Andre has a bad case of PCD OCD.
PCD stands for “programmed cell death”. Andre is convinced that it is the death knell not only of cells, but of modern evolutionary theory. He has been spamming the “bomb” thread at UD in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade us of this. (112 mentions of PCD in that thread, but no intelligible argument from Andre.)
Rich suggested that we set up a thread for him here, which I think is a great idea.
Here you go, Andre. Tell us why PCD is an unguided evolution killer, and be prepared to learn why it is not.
To say anything like that, you’d have to not understand the distinction between somatic cells and germ cells, and not understand natural selection as well.
wow, this thread is off to a great start.
it’s a slam dunk for TSZ.
sorry, andre you lose. your logical observation has been blown to smitherines by a single flashbomb.
but wait, wait….there’s just this little bit of a question about how early MCO’s cells evolved into somatic and germ cells.
….never mind. No evolutionary biologist is interested in such tawdry details. Heck, we ALL know evolution did.
Long live The Evolution.
Now the ungrateful little twerp is refusing to comment here. I’ve put him back on my ‘ignore’ list.
Joe:
Yes, Alan pointed that out, but to no avail.
First thing first. Forget stopping unguided evolution – Apoptosis (PCD) itself is not a simple process. Please read about it. I can’t imagine it evolving from an unguided process.
Next macro evolution – what is the point of a theory which says something like this:
-Many lineages on the tree of life exhibit stasis (don’t change at all in million years ) (or) Lineages can change quickly (or) slowly.
-Character change can happen in a single direction (or) it can reverse itself by gaining and then losing segments.
-Changes can occur within a single lineage (or) across several lineages
-Particular lineage may undergo unusually frequent lineage-splitting (or) a lineage may have unusually low rate of lineage-splitting
-Extinction can be a frequent (or) rare event within a lineage, (or) it can occur simultaneously across many lineages (mass extinction)
From Evolution101
Does it help anyone at all ? Is this a theory ? If the compass keeps spinning in every direction, what’s the use of the compass ?
Perhaps you could explain this from an ID perspective?
Then it must not be true, if *you* can’t imagine it.
lol.
Andre’s Reply at UD :
Now why exactly are you calling me ungrateful? ( Exactly my view. Andre didn’t force you to post this thread – the bystander ) Also what exactly do you mean by twerp? Am I annoying you because I’ve used proven science to refute your argument? Or am I Twerp for being silly in refusing to let this go until you defend yourself?
This is why I refuse to comment on your site, you are not a honourable person and you belittle people any way you see fit….
O and you’re a liar for misrepresenting my claim…..
I represent an average human intellect. If I can’t believe PCD process evolved stochastically (by the way, do you have any idea how complex Apoptotic Mechanism is ? Google it, please ) then there is definitely no truth in it.
http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v9/n4/abs/4400991a.html
You mean the entire pathway (http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v9/n4/fig_tab/4400991t1.html) evolved randomly ?
No, that would be the 747 fallacy. But wait, does this mean you can now imagine it but just dispute if it was guided or not? Please clarify.
Describing someone you are hoping to join you in a discussion “an ungrateful little twerp” is counter-productive and makes you seem insincere, in my view. I commented on the same lines at UD.
Exactly!
However this paper discusses PCD in single-celled protists such as Plasmodium. A two-edged sword that both suggests an evolutionary pathway for PCD and yet suggests the question of how “altruism” can work in single-celled organisms.
As there are new participants, I should refer people to the rules. The intent is not to prevent open discussion but to respect fellow commenters. Here you must at least assume others are posting in good faith, and address arguments rather than the commenter. Calling a fellow commenter a liar, for example, is against the rules. We have been experimenting with moderation on demand but I’m reverting to Lizzie’s original final rule-set for this thread to encourage discussion with new commenters.
I guarantee moderation will at least be irregular, haphazard and whimsical. 😉
[OT:
I glanced at the thread on the other site, and I’m wondering if I’m one of the “foul mouthed zealots” that poisons this place. I AM foul-mouthed, certainly.
Anyhow, I can see this guy doesn’t like keiths (who I don’t get along with that well myself, obv), but I’m wondering who else is making this place just too awful for ID types to feel comfortable posting here….]
No. I still can’t imagine a random, stochastic or even an iterative process evolving the path way. For a moment forget you are defending Darwin. Now tell me – Do you seriously believe that a random, stochastic or even an iterative process can build that pathway ? Don’t you see how absurd it is ? Try fitting facts to theory – not the other way round.
To be fair, giving a man rope to hang himself is no reason to expect gratitude.
If science were limited to the things the average person could imagine then everything discovered, and every invention, would have been foreseen by the public. Is that the case?
ME!!! I AM!!!
Actually, its the construct of open dialogue that they can’t control. They never fair well in open venues.
All the more reason not to create opportunity for spurious excuses not to participate.
I am sure an average person can imagine the limits of a random process. We are not discussing Quantum Mechanics !
Well I look forward to the discussion, and hope IDists can give us the “how and when” from an ID perspective should they find the evolutionary narrative lacking.
Playing devil’s advocate, whilst PCD is essential in multicellular organisms, one could wonder about the “chicken and egg” where multicellularity needs PCD as a precursor and how can PCD have evolved in a unicellular situation?
Eugene Koonin here
…in multicellular eukaryotes, PCD appears to be universally present and indeed should be regarded as one of the hallmarks of the multicellular state itself. From a purely systemic point of view, PCD in a multicellular organism appears to be just as inevitable as law enforcement in a state. In any differentiated community (of specialized cells or of citizens), rogue elements will necessarily emerge in as (pre)cancerous cells with impaired division control or as criminals with impaired social responsibility, and to protect the community, these need to be subdued or destroyed by dedicated agencies. Those agencies also contribute to the defense against invaders, such as viruses, pathogenic bacteria or rival states, and, at least in the case of PCD, to the normal development of the multicellular organism. In a sense, the teleology of the emergence of the eukaryotic apoptosis machinery may be best described in terms of the anthropic principle eukaryotes had to come up with a PCD systems in order for any complex form of multicellularity to emerge and, accordingly, for us to be here and ponder the mysteries of biological evolution, the origin of apoptosis among them.
Exactly. You need to get out of ‘everything evolved by random process’ mindset. Something else is at work ( No. I am not asking you to embrace ID). Just start thinking beyond ToE.
Alan,
Insincere about what?
Perhaps you could help by explaining what can be added to ToE that enables it to build the pathway(s) in question?
And so? Others can, and they have provided their reasoning. I note you have not addressed anything of substance in the article I linked to other then to repeat your argument from incredulity.
I’d guess about wanting a serious discussion. However given Andre’s comments I’d not diverge from your opinion of him that much myself…
Just lose the ‘unguided’ part. Try finding a way to explain using a chemical, physical or Quantum Mechanical force. Get help from experts from other disciplines of science.
What reasoning ? I haven’t seen any.
For science, the point would be to explain things, like PCD, and the limitations of life that appear for all of the world to be the limitations of heredity (thus evolutionary).
For ID, the point is never to explain things at all, but to come up with “showstoppers” that supposedly make evolution and/or abiogenesis impossible. Then the fact that only evolution explains the patterns seen in life supposedly no longer matters.
Of course, if we don’t know everything about evolution it’s pretty hard to come up with real showstoppers, and we don’t know everything about evolution. What we do know is that evolution explains so much of what had been inexplicable when “design” was the most common default (even though many biologists didn’t find Paley terribly convincing). Explanation vs. handwaving. In science, explanation wins every time over handwaving.
So that’s all we get, “showstoppers” like PCD (an especially unconvincing one, but none is good), and non-explanation from IDists. Not only doesn’t science work with such sorry material, it can’t work with it.
Glen Davidson
*CLASP*
So, you don’t actually know what is missing, but you know something is?
Well, color me unimpressed. Adding unspecified quantum “woo” solves it does it?
The paper I linked to. What line contains the first error?
Can you imagine 3 billion years? Or even a few thousand generations of change, let alone 10^9 and more ?
Evolution is not a random process.
Missing ? There is nothing missing except an explanation of how PCD pathway ’emerged’ by random ‘unguided’ process. If you are happy with ’emerged’ as an explanation, so be it.
Quantum ‘woo’ is what biologists call QM cause they have no clue what it is. They can’t even begin to understand Bra-kets and vectors. I suspect most have no clue how to work with matrix.
Now don’t tell me it is guided by ID.
Everyone is missing the point.
What good is half a PCD?
It’s your contention that it was designed. If you have no evidence for that then please take a ticket and go to the back of the queue.
And, as just noted, evolution is not a random process. That you think it is basically disqualifies you from having an opinion on it as how can you have a (worthwhile, interesting) opinion on something that you do not understand the basics of?
No, the “woo” is what you want to add. When I asked you what was missing you said:
You want to add in some unspecified “woo”, not me.
You don’t understand even the basics. Yet you think you can critique.
Good luck with that! Write a paper would be my advice, there are plenty of ID journals *desperate* for content.
Then define those limits.
What is:
A) inside the power of evolution to create
B) outside the power of evolution to create
?
If you can’t answer the question then everything else you’ve said you’ve undermined completely.
I guess I hit a raw nerve of a biologist. Adding terms like ‘Natural Selection’ and ‘ fitness’ doesn’t make an essentially random process non-random.
Those who can’t think beyond an SPSS Mann Whitney test can’t understand evolution of life. Leave it to other disciplines of science. You guys are fit just for field work.
I’m no biologist. But I know enough to know that you don’t know what you are talking about.
You’ve hit no nerve. I’ve just judged your opinion as not worth listening to as you have nothing to add other then criticisms, nothing constructive.
It’s easy to knock things down, not so easy to build.
Once again, what are the limits of this “random process” strawman you are calling evolution?
If you can’t answer then on what basis are you saying that anything is unachievable by such a process?
Shrug. Whatever. Wake me up when you have something to contribute other then poking at something you don’t understand.
Well, if you are not even a biologist ( I mean is there a lower level ? 🙂 ), what is there to discuss ? See you in some other thread. I am not going to run away.
I ask again, what are those limits?
Your avoidance of detailing your own claim is noted!
In the context of this thread which is discussing PCD ( also called Apoptosis), the limit of random process is that it is not going to build pathways.
Here is the full Quote so you don’t take it out of context :
the bystander: No. I still can’t imagine a random, stochastic or even an iterative process evolving the path way.
I’m trying to find a fuck to give, regarding what you can imagine. But I can’t imagine one existing.
I imagine your are unimaginative.