Glancing at Uncommon Descent (I still do as Denyse O’Leary often reports on interesting science articles, as here*, and the odd comment thread can still provide entertainment), I see an OP authored by gpuccio (an Italian medical doctor) entitled The Ubiquitin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis joined together, telling the story of the ubiquitin protein and its central role in eukaryote biochemistry in some considerable detail. The subtext is that ubiquitin’s role is so widespread and diverse and conserved across all (so far known) eukaryotes, that it defies an evolutionary explanation. This appears to be yet another god-of-the-gaps argument. Who can explain ubiquitin? Take that, evolutionists! I’m not familiar with the ubiquitin system and thank gpuccio for his article (though I did note some similarities to the Wikipedia entry.
In the discussion that follows, gpuccio and others note the lack of response from ID skeptics. Gpuccio remarks:
OK, our interlocutors, as usual, are nowhere to be seen, but at least I have some true friends!
and later:
And contributions from the other side? OK, let’s me count them… Zero?
Well, I can think of a few reasons why the comment thread lacks representatives from “the other side” (presumably those who are in general agreement with mainstream evolutionary biology).
- In a sense, there’s little in gpuccio’s opening post to argue over. It’s a description of a biochemical system first elucidated in the late seventies and into the early eighties. The pioneering work was done by Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko, Irwin Rose (later to win the Nobel prize for chemistry, credited with “the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation”, all mainstream scientists.
- Gpuccio hints at the complexity of the system and the “semiotic” aspects. It seems like another god-of-the-gaps argument. Wow, look at the complexity! How could this possibly have evolved! Therefore ID! What might get the attention of science is some theory or hypothesis that could be an alternative, testable explanation for the ubiquitin system. That is not to be found in gpuccio’s OP or subsequent comments.
- Uncommon Descent has an unenviable history on treatment of ID skeptics and their comments. Those who are still able to comment at UD risk the hard work involved in preparing a substantive comment being wasted as comments may never appear or are subsequently deleted and accounts arbitrarily closed.
I’m sure others can add to the list. So I’d like to suggest to gpuccio that he should bring his ideas here if he would like them challenged. If he likes, he can repost his article as an OP here. I guarantee that he (and any other UD regulars who’d like to join in) will be able to participate here without fear of material being deleted or comment privileges being arbitrarily suspended.
Come on, gpuccio. What have you got to lose?
Cute subtext:
The sudden appearance and inerrant conservation of Ubiquitin indicates ID is operative
That prompted some google-whacking on my part, whereupon I stumbled upon:
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2006-7-7-r60
Quote:
Several of these [prokaryotic] Ub-like proteins and the associated protein families are likely to function together in signaling systems just as in eukaryotes.
Another quote from elsewhere:
“The great tragedy of [creation] science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” – Thomas Huxley
In any case, evolution has not been dethroned by the paradigm of Uniquitin, if this paper bears on topic
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/20/10866
Joe Harshman or Joe Felsenstein will need to comment, at this point I am in over my head
?
My temptation to post at UD vanishes as soon as I see that shit saying that I have to subscribe to their site in order to comment.
Not worth it.
P.S. there’s also the nastiness displayed by the likes of kairosfocus, combined with their taking offence at any insinuation that they might be a tad wrong.
Hi John
My sincerest apologies
My only excuse: I was tapping on an iPhone with sore thumbs
Still would like your take on the PNAS paper
Best regards
Same old bullshit. And he wonders why no one cares to address the emptienth Paley’s watch rehash.
I love these little gems:
I’ll wait for the design explanation for ubiquitin before I get excited about discussing it.
You know, the evidence for an intelligence capable of making ubiquitin, the evidence that it actually did, and the meaningful design explanation for why ubiquitins appear to present the patterns of evolution that we see in other biomolecules (and not some meaningless bleat of “directed evolution,” either).
So far it’s the wholly unscientific, ooh, it’s so complex, evolution couldn’t do it so Designer must have, with absolutely no evidence for the latter claim. It’s pathetic that they whine that the other side doesn’t jump to discuss the same empty claims that the IDists have always made.
What we want is some actual evidence for design, and not the fallacy of the false dilemma that lies at the root of ID.
Glen Davidson
…but…. but… but… 155 bits of functional information!!11!1!11!
y u see no design?
gpuccio,
Why not venture out from behind Mama Arrington’s skirt?
Will gpuccio be posting over here?
Seems fine to me, but I don’t see its relevance to the OP.
Hi gpuccio,
Come here to TSZ where you can be insulted and slandered you gutless wonder!
From the OP:
That’s not his argument. No wonder he doesn’t post here.
Alan
The ubiquitin system is a candidate for Behe’s irreducibly complexity argument. Eukaryotic multicellular organisms require variation in cell division rates through the life cycle. This system helps control cell division.
He says not.
Welcome to TSZ, lantog.
So what is his argument, in your view?
Why? Because he’ll come up against some criticism of ID? As a participant here, he can comment freely within the not-very-onerous rules and rule-breaking comments directed at him will move to guano.
But my invitation was consequent upon his complaint at not hearing from ID critics. I was pointing out that UD has banned a considerable number and arbitrarily deleted comments, actions which hardly encourage others who are not banned to comment there. Here, at least we try to provide a level playing field.
Yes, indeed. Except that it’s not a scientific argument. It claims a false dichotomy; no current scientific explanation for an evolutionary pathway, then that pathway must, by default, have a “design” explanation. And that “design” explanation has no content. There’s no mechanism. There’s no candidate. There’s just wishful thinking.
I believe a fair description of Behe’s position is that there must be at least two steps, at least one of which is detrimental, traversed to reach a new, favored sequence.
Noting gpuccio has responded at UD to my OP, let me quote and respond Gpuccio writes:
Well, no. If that’s what you read in to it, that’s fine. The honest conclusion is that as of today, insufficient scientific evidence exists to give a clear, unequivocal pathway for the evolution of the eukaryotic ubiquitin system. That is hardly surprising as its ubiquitous (heh) presence across the board so far in eukaryotes means it was present in the common eukaryote ancestor (good evidence of common descent there!). As Tom Mueller (and you) mentioned, there are indications that the similar PuP (prokaryote ubiquitin-like protein) found in prokaryotes and performing a similar role may be a precursor. As two billion years has elapsed since the first eukaryotes arose no direct evidence survives, we only have their modern descendants to work with. So while evolutionary biologist and biochemists cannot more than propose plausible pathways currently, there are no alternative pathways that I’m aware of being proposed by ID theorists. Please explain how your argument is not as I have understood it and is more than “evolution fails to explain X, therefore design”.
That is my impression of your exposition on ubiquitin, yes. Prior to reading it, I knew very little about ubiquitin and its role in protein degradation. I don’t know what is currently on the table as detailed evolutionary pathways. I hope others with expertise in the field might chime in.
But I missed the ID explanation for ubiquitin in your OP. If I missed it, perhaps you could direct me to it.
OK, thanks for the correction. But following that, what? Therefore design?
Yes, in spite of the rules of this site, which are quite unambiguous on the matter:
Why not, in your OP, just stick to gpuccio’s OP? Is your OP about his OP or is it about UD? If it’s not your intent for this thread to discuss the moderation at UD why bring it up in your OP and invite people to comment on it?
No. You know gpuccio is not afraid of criticism of his ideas. So why pretend that he is or may be? It’s really unfair of you. Why the unnecessary motive mongering?
People here misrepresent the facts. A pattern emerges that suggests it is done willfully.
My OP was intending to answer the question often asked in that thread at UD “where are all the critics?” The fact I and others are banned there is one reason there are no critics.
Gotta agree with the TSZ consensus – that “design” is regarded by creationists as the default mechanism for everything. “Weak” creationists are usually willing to concede that solid plausible demonstrated scientifically-based explanations can override the default. “Centrist” creationists regard scientific explanations as elucidations of God’s chosen methods. “Strong” creationists reject the notion that science is even relevant. All flavors of creationists find the presupposition of design proper, basic common sense, differing only in how resistant they are to any alternative explanation.
Behe generally acknowledges the ability of evolution to proceed by single steps. His Edge is new functions that require two steps.
I suppose people who don’t believe in evolution at all prefer to ignore the fact that Behe accepts 99.9 percent of evolution. You really have to work hard to find anything that crosses he edge.
Poof, and a cloud of smoke.
I agree! When presented with a body of related facts, the question is who shall be master, me or reality. I vote for me, because reality has an unsavory history of misrepresenting my convictions.
I got the hint that TSZ is a little too bearpit-like.
Participation here is voluntary. If gpuccio would rather talk over the garden wall, that’s fine.
Over the years, I’ve tended to see people with whom I disagree less as caricatures than I used to. I suspect, on a personal level, gpuccio would be a pleasant and interesting guy to spend time with. But there’s politics at the heart of ID vs academia that emphasises the rough edges on both sides.
So indistinguishable from evolutionary explanations then.
Add meiosis, and the experimentation with recombinant DNA that meiosis allows, and two steps does not seem to be a problem.
I wish he would. I had several good interactions with him over there under rodw but now I’m banned.
If anyone could pass it on, or persuade him to visit I’d say what is essentially said in the OP:
If IR is a valid idea then any one system, such as the flagellum, is enough to prove the existence of the designer. Trotting out one biological phenomena after another may be informative for many but its superfluous. If IR is not valid then it doesn’t matter how many complex phenomena he describes, it doesn’t help his case.
In one post he presented a hypothetical scenario of travelling to an uninhabited planet and finding what looked like writing. I think that could have led to a productive discussion.
lantog1,
What is “IR”?
Why would one system be proof of anything, when there is no such thing as proof in science. Wouldn’t it actually be strong evidence, and if so wouldn’t multiple such systems be stronger evidence? We might agree that after some point the increment of confidence would be negligible, but is that point one example?
I think lantog meant IC – “irreducible complexity”.
Of course this is where the “design” nonsense gets so bad. Gpuccio:
The only “safe” examples of functional complexity for ID are designed objects. What open minds know is that there is no example of life being designed by humans, apart from slight changes, or the deliberate copying that Venter did (even then he put the DNA into living cytoplasm). And if that ever changes to human designers being able to design life, it won’t have any relevance to what made life in the first place.
ID always resorts to absurd reductionism to try to make life fit into the category of the “designed.” Then a bunch of blather about information, totally ignoring the fact that life exhibits the limitations of mindless evolutionary processes, not the abilities of intelligence.
Yes the nested hierarchy. Yes, mammals stuck with the descent of the testes from the basically ancestral position, rather than having them develop where they end up. Or better, simply transferring the testes of birds into mammals so that the testes can stay where they develop. Yes, bird bones that fuse to form larger rigid wing structures, rather than simply beginning with bones that would develop as wholes to begin with (colewd admitted that this points to evolution, and simply had to claim sans evidence that the published evidence was fitted to the model).
No, it’s not just that they have no evidence that intelligence ever has designed life de novo, there’s quite good reason that intelligence has not affected wild-type life–unless it was a trickster designer who took pains to make sure that such evidence would not be left behind. And if that were true, presumably we would never be able to tell, since God (the only designer they’ve ever cared about) presumably could hide the fact from humans.
Paley’s standard was at least honest, as he tried to show that life exhibited the effects of an architect or artificer. That would be an intellectually honest analogy of life with designed objects, had he seriously applied it across the board. Today’s IDists use a wholly intellectually dishonest criterion, not looking for what actually is typical of intelligence acting upon designed objects (for example, rampant borrowing from unrelated designed objects), but claiming that functional complexity indicates design regardless of how devoid of intelligent reasoning the resulting complexity actually is.
But be assured that Gpuccio will not face up to the falsification of any reasonable design hypothesis, nor ever come up with good evidence that life was designed. Resting on the appalling anti-logic of IDists is all that they ever manage to do, because if they do anything else ID becomes completely untenable.
Glen Davidson
Well, I disagree there. I don’t accept the concept, to be honest, but there seem two linked refutations: one that IC is not a barrier to evolution (Matzke and the bacterial flagellum, for instance) and two that an irreducibly complex system WRT to living organisms is an incoherent concept.
But the essential IC argument is a false dichotomy. Accepting for the sake of argument there were some “irreducibly complex” system for which no evolutionary pathway could be found is merely a state of ignorance. We have no explanation rather than we default to “Design”. The “Design Inference” is just an empty concept.
I meant Irreducibly Complex – IC
I think if one system could be shown to be IC according to Behe’s definition that would essentially prove the case. Its philosophical hair splitting to say that science never proves anything.
Thanks for the clarification.
I think you misunderstand both Behe’s definition of IC and the nature of science. The definition is simple: a system with some function and multiple parts that, if one part is removed, ceases to function. Note that inability to arise through evolution and a need for intelligent design are not part of the definition. And in fact many different, plausible scenarios have been advanced for how IC systems could evolve.
I also disagree that rejection of the word “proof” is hair-splitting; the word encourages a common creationist misconception.
It’s refreshing to see that you can learn John. Just a few days ago you were saying something quite different.
In observing gpuccio over the years he appears to be quite the gentleman.
I have debated him on UD. And, yes, I see him as fair minded in debating. Neither of us persuaded the other, but we were able to keep to a calm discussion.
Behe’s goal was always to imply that if a system is IC it couldn’t have evolved and therefore its overwhelmingly likely that it was designed. Hes been forced to qualify that position over the years but I think his goal has remained the same and its what every IDer who recounts some complex system is trying to suggest.
I think creationist errors are far more substantial than that. In common parlance science does prove things. Hershey and Chase presented strong evidence that DNA rather than protein was the genetic material in the 40s but since then its been proven beyond a doubt.
Everyone should learn, absorb and understand the reasons why a philosopher of science would say that science cannot prove anything. Its part of rigorous thinking . But we can expand the context of that claim and the same philosopher would say that the only thing we can be certain of is that we ourselves exist. Again, its useful to understand that but not very practical for our day to day lives
Gpuccio writes:
Well, that presupposes that there is a scientific aspect to ID, which I have yet to see. Also, you post is fairly technical for the layman. It’s difficult for scientists to be polymaths these days, such are the demands in any particular field at the professional level. What is there to say about the science? You have accept the primary research at face value, unless you can repeat experiments or question the methodology or conclusions.
Bans don’t just affect the banned individual. It sends a strong signal to other potential contributors. Why bother? Can I trust UD not to trash my comments? And it’s not just ID critics. Sal Cordova? Vincent Torley? Politics matters more than science at UD these days. (Not sure if it wasn’t always so but I’ll give Bill Dembksi the benefit of the doubt).
Getting to be about time to put you back on “ignore”. I, for one, didn’t miss you.
Yes, that was his goal, but don’t confuse the goal with the definition, The question isn’t necessarily whether ubiquitin is part of an IC system or is IC itself (whatever that would mean). It’s whether ubituitin could evolve, and you should remember that those are different questions.
Goes without saying. But that’s one error, and it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Gpuccio continues:
And this is a bogus idea that I’ve rejected many times. Islands of function, indeed! 🙂
Unconvincingly. RNA world as a plausible precursor rebuts his claim of a chicken-and-egg impasse.
Some think this has at least enough merit for an argument. We have commenter lantog1 who posted as RodW at UD (until he was banned), saying he had some interesting exchanges with you on that.
That’s a negative argument for a, b and c. Responses (if allowed as provisionally supported by evidence) are “we can’t explain”.
There you go! Check-mate! It is not an explanation, it is an emotional reaction. 🙂
It is classic god-of-the-gaps.
UD commenter ET writes:
Actually, nobody is currently banned at TSZ. Two members are currently suspended due to continued failure to abide by our not-very-onerous rules.
Are you talking about a friend? A really close friend???
If creationists could face the refutations of their claims then they would not be creationists.
Gpuccio continues:
That’s fair. I really don’t. We had Paul Nelson pop in to TSZ recently and he confirmed, in his view, there still is no scientific theory of ID. Where can I find about a scientific theory of “Intelligent Design”?
I don’t understand this.
I know what human design is. I know what environmental design is. What is “Intelligent Design”? What’s the mechanism? How can I observe it?
Humans design. The environment (the niche) designs. How does the “Intelligent Designer” design? Actually, I can quite imagine some creator of the universe (had she the power to create an utterly deterministic universe) pulling it off in one fell swoop at the beginning and everything else follows. But I digress…
If ID scientists were testing limits, rather than just you making assertions, that would be something.
I’m sorry but the best I can say here is this is not scientific.
Well, there have been no demonstrations of how evolutionary processes fail to achieve results. Or if there have, they’ve passed me by unnoticed.
But ID makes no testable predictions. It is not an alternative to evolutionary theory. There are just ad hoc arguments asserting why evolutionary explanations are no good. And if evolutionary explanations are no good – Design! Yet you can offer no alternative biological explanation, None! None at all! There is no scientific theory of “Intelligent Design”.
Does this really close friend still insist that Frequency = Wavelength?
There is no scientific theory of evolution. If there was, you could provide a link to it.
Oops, the devilish toaster repair man made me say it. 🙂
Is not.
And what of your own fallacy of the unfulfilled promissory note?