Message 90 of 136 (515353) 07-17-2009 12:15 PM

Reply to: Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate 07-14-2009 9:06 PM

If you look at the post that this post is responding to, you will see that I was mostly kidding. Aren't we all wasting time with attempting to equivocate each others points?

If you want to, you can take the historical account of junk DNA from the Devil's Advocate, an interesting avatar by the way, or you can take it from the Natural Standard below:

http://www.naturalstandard.com/index-abstract.asp?create-abstract=/monographs/genomics/genomic-junkdna.asp

Researchers originally called these sections of DNA "junk DNA" because they thought they served no functional purpose.

Better Yet

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203730.htm

Scientists used to believe that most of the DNA outside of genes, the so-called non-coding DNA, is useless trash that has sneaked into our genome and refuses to leave. One commonly known example of such 'junk DNA' are the so-called tandem repeats, short stretches of DNA that are repeated head-to-tail. "At first sight, it may seem unlikely that this stutter-DNA has any biological function," says Marcelo Vinces, one of the lead authors on the paper. "On the other hand, it seems hard to believe that nature would foster such a wasteful system."

Why would they think it is "junk"? Because the theory that says life emerged by unintelligent causes says that it there should be evidence that supports it. Hence, junk DNA is evidence for neo-Darwinism.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Message 92 of 136 (515357) 07-17-2009 12:28 PM

Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD 07-15-2009 6:59 PM

I didn't write that correctly. I should have stated something like this:

At least it would have not been done without simultaneous multiple coherent mutations. If this occurred then the possibility of many IC systems, which would have required this, would arguably be entering into the realm of metaphysical miracles.

I am working on a final response in this thread.

Message 93 of 136 (515360) 07-17-2009 12:34 PM

Reply to: Message 91 by Rahvin 07-17-2009 12:23 PM

HIV mutates at a rate of about 10,000 times faster of multicellular lifeforms. It seems to me that the lack of the sophisticated error correction mechanisms (which is there in the cell) plays a part in the rapid mutations in the HIV virus. By the way, what has all of these rapid mutations done to the HIV virus anyway? Has it evolved into a new type of virus?

Message 98 of 136 (515479) 07-18-2009 10:10 AM

Reply to: Message 94 by themasterdebator 07-17-2009 12:41 PM

I also believe that some humans are naturally immune to the HIV virus. Has the virus found a way around this particular defense?

The virus also bonds to a particular type of protein. Has the virus found another type of protein to bond with?

Once again, the virus mutates at the evolutionary speed limit (10,000 times faster than we do) far faster than we can keep up with it.

Message 99 of 136 (515482) 07-18-2009 10:29 AM

Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD 07-17-2009 9:08 PM

No it is not. What I post is relevant and not my education. Defeat my debate on substance, not who I am. I think Perdition knew he or she was cornered and Perdition tried to equivocate a way out of it. Think of it, how many people remember much of what they learned in biology class years ago?

Science itself is not irrational but I think that depends on how you define it. If science is defined by ONLY citing natural causations that you must analyze with methodological processes, then that definitely automatically disqualifies certain possibilities.

By the way despite one of your previous posts, irreducible complexity is a test for an unguided process of evolution not intelligent design. Nobody in their right mind says, "OK creator, you can't make an irreducibly complex system."

Thanks for being honest and citing something. Now can it build a flagellum?

If you or Perdition or anyone else can show me a peer reviewed science journal that realistically demonstates this with a step by step process, then I will leave this forum.

Common sense told me that a lot of scientists don't like what Michael Behe has to say. Obviously, some people around here don't like what I have written. Behe is a target.

Message 100 of 136 (515485) 07-18-2009 10:37 AM

Reply to: Message 95 by Rahvin 07-17-2009 1:03 PM

Probably because I didn't disagree with it.

I'm wondering how you thought that I think that evolution has goals. In fact, this is my biggest issue I have with evolutionists. Why would I be here if the current prevailing paradigm says that there is no need for an intelligent designer?

I think the "dirty little secret" is that all the other theories that attempt to explain evolution leave at least a small gap for the possibility of a creator being involved.

Message 102 of 136 (515666) 07-20-2009 12:35 PM

Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD 07-18-2009 2:40 PM

Do you claim to be a scientist? I have the impression that you are a student. It wouldn't be the first time that I have pissed off a scientist.

I have not attacked scientists on this forum to my knowledge. I believe that many Darwinists are irrational but that doesn't mean that scientists are. Everyone is irrational including ME. Some are just more rational than most of the others.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my knowledge on this forum. This way I can correct my thinking. Do you see that I am not trying to be totally dogmatic here? I think Darwinists (not all scientists) can get dogmatic.

I believe that Darwinism has transcended into metaphysical implications inside the minds of certain amount of Darwinists. I think Daniel Dennett was partly correct that Darwinism is a "universal acid". I think that "Darwinian Dogma" is the universal acid.

IC is not a test for ID. IC is an argument for ID. This isn't rocket science.

The TTSS Pilus Model

I never heard of that argument before. I have learned many things from Stephen Meyer and one of those things is that models like those typically conceal a host of problems and/or questions. I just researched it and I see that William Dembski refuted it.

Also, I saw a BIG problem with it.

Science has become sophisticated enough to provide a body of evidence that shows the flagellum was precursor for the TTSS. This means that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum. Sean Pitman provides the information. I also saw a reference of some documented evidence of it somewhere in "Signature in the Cell".

Behe is a biochemist. I never had the impression that is a philosopher of science. What is to stop science from investigating astrology? Maybe the gravitational and electromagnetic forces of the moon and the sun could affect something inside of ourselves???

OK,... You just MIGHT have gotton me on that one. I am still not sure what that statement means. I believe that a flagellum can evolve. I believe Smoke coauthored a paper with Behe. I will have to research on this sometime. Do you see now that I am not totally dogmatic with this?

Ever heard of the lab called Biologic???

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor corrections

Message 105 of 136 (515672) 07-20-2009 1:20 PM

The intelligent design perspective is different than that of a Creationist. A proponent of ID has the room to contemplate the possibilities. In fact, a system that can make necessary mutations in adaptation or response to environmental factors is further testament to a creator. It would add to what is already irreducibly complex.

A Hypothetical Story

Certain species of bacteria use flagellum for locomotion as they propel themselves through liquids such as water or liquids primarily of water. Consider it if the flagellum would be forced into a new habitat of liquid of higher tension such as oil. Let’s say that the flagellum wouldn’t be able to function very well in this particular oil. But scientists are able to tinker with the struggling flagellum. They induce the right mutations which make the flagellum evolve a stronger rod and a larger heavy duty filament (propeller). But still the colonies of bacteria don’t quite have the torque to propel themselves through the oil. What do the bacteria do?

They call upon their natural genetic engineering and resurrect something their ancestors used over 2 billion years ago. A stronger motor evolved in response to the other factors. Scientists quickly realized why they didn’t have a stronger motor to begin with since it would have to utilize more energy. (The same is the case with automobiles. More powerful motors use more fuel.) So the previous motor, which as sufficient for movement through water, didn’t use as much power.

Wait,.. there was something that wasn’t mentioned in the experiment. At first, the bacteria had problems finding food in the oil. The scientists had to thoroughly mix a solution of organic food called “LPGT” in the oil in order for the bacterial colonies to survive.

It is true that this was just a story but it gives the reader somewhat of idea of how a flagellum could evolve.

Back in the real world, there are different variations of the flagellum. Some have extra parts such as extra rings for example. But the mutated flagellum is still a flagellum.

Inside the book “The Edge of Evolution” describes another IC system discovered fairly recently. It is called a “gene regulatory network” or “kernel”. Kernels specify the embryonic development of body plans. To me, their schematic drawings look like a complex electrical schematic of a circuit board. Unlike the five or six part system of the E.coli above, any interference of this network will destroy the overall function.

Message 108 of 136 (515678) 07-20-2009 1:30 PM

An operon consists of several genes which are transcribed together. It turns out that E. coli has many operons and the lac operon is just one of them. (See link below)

http://www.cib.nig.ac.jp/dda/taitoh/ecoli.operon.html

So what did E. coli do in response to the deletion? It took a part from the ebg operon that was homogenous to the lacZ gene.

This experiment was beginning to painting a picture that E. coli could evolve an irreducibly complex system through natural selection acting on random mutations. There is a problem I have with the random mutation thinking as applied or derived from this experiment. If this experiment can be conducted over and over again with the same results occurring every time, then where were the random mutations? The 1st time says it helps support the current paradigm. The 2nd casts a shadow of a doubt so it was a coincidence. The 3rd time says, “What is going on here?” By the 5th time I would say that the mutations were not random.

However, it wasn’t until years later when Hall made some conclusions that didn’t support that hypothesis. It resurrected genes from over 2 billion years ago to fill in for the one that was removed. I

A comparison of Ebg beta-galactosidase with those 13 beta-galactosidases shows that Ebg is part of an ancient clade that diverged from the paralogous lacZ beta-galactosidase over 2 billion years ago. (Hall, 1998)

The new system did not evolve the ability to bring lactose into the cell. The lac-permease (in the lac operon) already does this. However, the E. coli were on life support due to the artificial drug called IPTG. The results can’t be reproduced without IPTG.

IPTG cannot be broken down by the enzyme that degrades lactose. Consequently IPTG continues to induce the lac operon over the long term, whereas natural inducers would only induce the genes of the lac operon for a short period of time before they are broken down.

This doesn’t really answer the question that the IPTG was really necessary but I can assume that it was if it is used against irreducible complexity. Why not attempt to form a more convincing argument for Darwinism by taking the IPTG out of the experiment?

Instead of this experiment supporting the mechanisms for neo-Darwinism, I really think this supports is natural selection acting on NGE (natural genetic engineering), with the help of IPTG of course. The cell obviously had the ability to find replacement parts and engineer them into a useful system. (NGE is the result of years of research done by James Shapiro.)

This is what I recently realized when I studied this experiment.

What E. coli did was use “adaptive mutations” in order to respond to the immediate environment.

It is one thing to reengineer and existing system by removing a single part of a five or six part system 1. Find familiar genetic substitutes 2. Force IPTG into it in order to keep it alive. 3. Give E. coli a challenge so it had a particular aim or foresight – (Not Darwinian).

It is something else for a bacteria (without an irreducibly complex system such as a flagellum) to have the foresight and know how (master control genes in collaboration with body part genes) in order to build an irreducibly complex system from scratch from so-called junk DNA.

Why wouldn't an intelligent designer program life with the genetic versatility to make necessary changes???

Not only that, Barry Hall stated that this system in E. coli had limited evolutionary potential years later. Let’s look at what Barry Hall stated years later after this experiment.

In a trivial sense, each genome’s potential is infinite, because given enough additions, deletions, rearrangements, and base substitutions, any sequence can evolve into any other sequence. In reality, however, evolution is subject to a variety of constraints that limit this potential, and understanding evolutionary processes amounts to understanding those constraints. (Hall, 1998)

Evolutionary biologists are usually forced to infer historical evolutionary processes by examining the present day outcomes of those processes. That is an unsatisfactory means of understanding a dynamic process, partly because neither the historical selective constraints nor the detailed molecular functions of ancestral states are well understood. (Hall,1998)

Just from those two statements, I can say that you either have “faith” that this experiment proves macroevolution through a neo-Darwinian process or you have “faith” that it can’t.

Because multiple mutations require that the organism traverse one or more intermediate steps, evolutionary potential is limited by the fitness associated with those intermediate steps. For some possible protein changes, it may well be the case that ‘‘you can’t get there from here’’ because the intervening single-step mutations are too deleterious. (Hall,1998)

“Too deleterious” was in reference to the E. coli experiment. Obviously Hall doesn’t seem to be very optimistic that the E. coli can evolve any further.

The experiment demonstrates that the E. coli system had certain flexibility but that flexibility only allowed the E. coli to evolve before it was faced with barriers.

Do you want to believe the words of the one who ran the experiment or, do you want to believe the words of the Darwinists around here?

Conclusions

This experiment does not disprove microevolution. However, this experiment does not falsify intelligent design.

It also seems to support another one of Michael Behe’s statements that says evolution isn’t an arms race; it is more like trench warfare.

Edited by traderdrew, : Title

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor HTML corrections

Edited by traderdrew, : Just more "intelligently designed complex specified information"

Message 111 of 136 (515694) 07-20-2009 3:30 PM

Reply to: Message 110 by NosyNed 07-20-2009 2:09 PM

No but I don't think it would disprove that the dice were rigged.

This is true. But are you insinuating that the mutations were random? If so, why?

I don't think so.

You are entitled to your point of view and so we agree to disagree on some things. I wonder if you can elaborate on your belief. I already made that connection and explained it in the form of one large post today that I'm sure you read.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.