|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Please do not reply to Lucytheape, she is off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again, traderdrew, I think you have missed the whole point of IC in the ID world.
The very fact (THAT CERTAIN) IC systems could evolve from its intended design tells me that it is even more IC than I thought it was. It has the miraculous capacity to adapt. Sorry, but the fact that an IC system not only can evolve by plausible means, with the plausibility provided by evidence of similar intermediate forms (as in the case of the flagellum), but that one has actually been documented\observed to occur means that the idea that an IC system would invalidate evolution is proven to be a false concept. Let me say that again: an IC system has been observed to evolve, ergo it is false to say that an IC system cannot arise by evolution. This means IC systems are now pointless in the debate. The same can be said for claims of no increase in information. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Rgr, sorry about that. Will do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Let me say that again: an IC system has been observed to evolve, ergo it is false to say that an IC system cannot arise by evolution. Hang on RAZD. If a system can be shown to have evolved by a series of step changes (which is what the above demonstrates) then by definition it is NOT IC. I think what has been demonstrated here is that a system alleged to be IC is not in fact IC. Of course, the IC concept is completely valueless. For an individual system alleged to be IC, we can never tell which of these statements is true :- - there is no way it could have arisen through evolution- our imagination cannot come up with a way in which it could have arisen through evolution. Therefore we can never truly demonstrate that a system is IC, and so the concept is useless. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Adaptation is not IC. I will attempt to explain this to someone who is interested in what I am thinking. I have the impression that you are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Darn it. I had this nice long response and it got wiped out just as I finished it. Login was required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
The reason is simple: after the lactose mechanism was disabled the organisms were unable to process lactose, even though it was readily available, then a couple of mutations occurred that enabled the bacteria to metabolize lactose - by a different mechanism. Does anyone else see what is wrong with this?
However, when Hall grew the bacteria under selective conditions designed to favor re-evolved galactosidase activity, Behe cried foul. As he should know, and as Futuyma wrote, "... mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." All that Hall had done was to set up conditions where the bacteria would survive (although just barely), and would prosper only if they evolved a system to replace the one he had deleted. All that IPTG provides is an environment where the bacteria could survive and where adaptation to metabolize lactose would result in increased survival and reproduction. Then tell me why this is the case: The sole function of the IPTG is to induce synthesis of the lactose permease, and thus to deliver lactose to the inside of the cell. Neither the constitutive nor the inducible evolved strains grew on lactose in the absence of IPTG. (Hall 1982b)
Which, incredibly, is not the way it happened, so pretending that it did is just another falsehood\lie\fabrication, that you seem to need to tell yourself to avoid dealing with reality. It's a perfect example of someone thinking their opinion alters the reality to suit their belief. Oh my gosh,,,now I am being accused of something I never stated. I never stated that I thought that this experiment was the result of "unguided" multiple coherent mutations. Forget it RAZD. Your post means nothing if the system was irreducibly complex to begin with. I intend to show you that some IC systems can be mutated but not evolve into novel structure. It is like making an engine run on alcohol but not gasoline. What we had was a lateral move. Where were the novel structures if they were there 2.2 billion years ago? I found the below in pubmed.gov:
[i]Multiple alignment and phylogenetic analysis of EbgA, LacZ, and 12 other related beta-galactosidases showed that EbgA and LacZ diverged from a common ancestor at least 2.2 billion years ago, that they belonged to different subclasses of the family of 14 beta-galactosidases, that the two subclasses differed at 12 of the 15 active site residues, and confirmed that the two previously identified mutations in ebgA are the only ones that can lead to enzyme with sufficient activity on lactose to permit growth. Studies of the catalytic mechanism of Ebg beta-galactosidase have allowed the widely accepted Albery and Knowles model for the evolution of catalysis to be rejected. (Hall, 1999) Edited by traderdrew, : More info Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Trader writes: I will attempt to explain this to someone who is interested in what I am thinking. I have the impression that you are not. Stop with the martyr complex. If you have evidence present it. We wouldn't be debating/discussing on this discussion board if we were not interested in hearing from the other side. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Trator writes: I intend to show you that some IC systems can be mutated but not evolve into novel structure. So you admit that genetic mutations occur? So do you agree that natural selection occurs and weeds out the defective 'structures'? If so why could cumulative genetic mutation guided by natural selection not produce a 'novel structure'?
It is like making an engine run on alcohol but not gasoline. What we had was a lateral move. How do you know this?
Where were the novel structures if they were there 2.2 billion years ago? How do you know what are and are not 'novel' structures? How would we know 2.2 billion years ago what these 'novel' structures are? By what standard are you determining this criteria for 'novel structures'? Is a flagellum a novel structure? How about the individual proteins and other molecules they are comprised of? For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I was almost going to call it the day but I couldn't resist.
So you admit that genetic mutations occur? I don't have to admit it. I would freely declare it. Haven't you ever read any of Michael Behe's books?
So do you agree that natural selection occurs and weeds out the defective 'structures'? I believe it potentially can. I wouldn't say that natural selection would be the only process.
If so why could cumulative genetic mutation guided by natural selection not produce a 'novel structure'? If I can briefly explain it. It is because in the random world of neo-Darwinism, a single mutation would have to be preserved by natural selection. So what are the chances of two or more ("complimentary or coherent") mutations that can occur at pinpoint areas of the informational areas of DNA or proteins of occurring? The odds start to greatly decrease when you have to simultaneous mutations. And what about three or more? I wouldn't say that it is impossible. The mutations have to be integrated and provide specific functions. So if the odds start to become astoundingly great, how can neo-Darwinism explain a severely IC system?
How do you know this? Do me a favor and show us how the structures in the experiment were created by an uphill process. I am not a traitor (first line of your post) since I never considered myself to be a Darwinist. I am partly a scientist at heart.
How do you know what are and are not 'novel' structures? How would we know 2.2 billion years ago what these 'novel' structures are? I am going by the science that Barry Hall is citing. He doesn't appear to be a proponent of ID. Can you ask more from me?
By what standard are you determining this criteria for 'novel structures'? Good question. I would have to say that novel protein contain specific specified complex informattion in their genes that is unlike other proteins. Believe it or not, science is still discovering new proteins.
Is a flagellum a novel structure? How about the individual proteins and other molecules they are comprised of? Some of their proteins are found in the TTSS and others might be found in other biological structures. Behe never stated that the parts of the flagellum couldn't be used in other structures. Some opponents of the theory try to make IC as brittle as possible. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
traderdrew writes:
Can you define "novel structure" in a manner that won't cause it to slide all over the place like a panicked, greased pig on an ice skating rink firmly clutching goal posts in its squealing mouth?
I intend to show you that some IC systems can be mutated but not evolve into novel structure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
If I can briefly explain it. It is because in the random world of neo-Darwinism, a single mutation would have to be preserved by natural selection. So what are the chances of two or more ("complimentary or coherent") mutations that can occur at pinpoint areas of the informational areas of DNA or proteins of occurring? The odds start to greatly decrease when you have to simultaneous mutations. And what about three or more? I wouldn't say that it is impossible. The mutations have to be integrated and provide specific functions. So if the odds start to become astoundingly great, how can neo-Darwinism explain a severely IC system? All you need is a mutation to occur at a spor that doesn't do any harm to the organism. Then that mutation will be passed down in that family line. At some point, perhpas hundreds of years later, you have another mutation that builds on the previous one. It may help, it may do nothing, but as long as it doesn't hurt the survival of an organism, again, it gets preserved. How would it be difficult for mutations to build up? Especially if the area they're building up in is an unused copy of another gene, and if one of those mutations reactivates the copy, and the new process is better than the original, how would that not make a novel feature? Tell me one process seen in nature that would hinder this from happening. Incredulity at the amount of time needed is not a logical argument because time we have in plenty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If a system can be shown to have evolved by a series of step changes (which is what the above demonstrates) then by definition it is NOT IC Those who are attempting to push IC have been careful not to define IC as "cannot evolve by a series of step changes". So your statement is wrong. What they have done is assume that IC systems, defined in various other ways, cannot evolve. So if they demonstrate that a system is IC by whatever definition they use, that leads to the conclusion that is cannot have evolved. Hall's experiments demonstrated that a system that is IC by Behe's original definition can evolve. That's one reason Behe changed his definition to one for which it is impossible to figure out if a sytem is IC. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It is because in the random world of neo-Darwinism, a single mutation would have to be preserved by natural selection. So what are the chances of two or more ("complimentary or coherent") mutations that can occur at pinpoint areas of the informational areas of DNA or proteins of occurring? The odds start to greatly decrease when you have to simultaneous mutations. And what about three or more? I wouldn't say that it is impossible. The mutations have to be integrated and provide specific functions. So if the odds start to become astoundingly great, how can neo-Darwinism explain a severely IC system? Look up "neutral drift" and be prepared to change your first sentence. Please provide an operational definition of "severely IC", and give two examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peepul,
If a system can be shown to have evolved by a series of step changes (which is what the above demonstrates) then by definition it is NOT IC. No, the original definition proposed by Behe was that an IC system was one composed of several interactive parts, where the removal of any one rendered the system inoperative. The implication is that such a system cannot evolve as the evolution of one part is considered useless until the whole system is in place. This of course is the logical failure built into the concept. In this case the original system involve the functional mechanism to metabolize lactose, one part was removed and the sytem ceased to function.
- there is no way it could have arisen through evolution Curiously, evolution predicts the formation of "IC" systems, as previously functional parts are rendered useless by the new process, and are discarded where it is convenient to conserve energy during development.
Therefore we can never truly demonstrate that a system is IC, and so the concept is useless. Interestingly, if you stick to the basic definition, almost every function can be considered an IC system, as there are few systems that you can disturb\intervene and not have failure. Of course biologists looked at that definition and concluded that of course those type systems evolve, and it is only those who are ignorant of biology in general and evolution in particular, that seem to be impressed by the argument. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024