Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 3:40 PM
452 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 446 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,967 Year: 6,573/21,208 Month: 2,334/2,634 Week: 522/572 Day: 8/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 61 of 136 (515027)
07-14-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by bluescat48
07-14-2009 5:56 PM


Lucytheape is offtopic
Please do not reply to Lucytheape, she is off-topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by bluescat48, posted 07-14-2009 5:56 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 62 of 136 (515028)
07-14-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 12:13 PM


Logic and reality please.
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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:13 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peepul, posted 07-15-2009 9:32 AM RAZD has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 63 of 136 (515030)
07-14-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
07-14-2009 10:42 PM


Re: Junk DNA is off topic
Rgr, sorry about that. Will do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 64 of 136 (515064)
07-15-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
07-14-2009 10:52 PM


Re: Logic and reality please.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:52 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by JonF, posted 07-15-2009 5:35 PM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 5:55 PM Peepul has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 65 of 136 (515072)
07-15-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Perdition
07-14-2009 1:24 PM


Re: IC or not
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Perdition, posted 07-14-2009 1:24 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:56 AM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 68 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 11:37 AM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 5:58 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 66 of 136 (515081)
07-15-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 10:05 AM


Re: IC or not
Darn it. I had this nice long response and it got wiped out just as I finished it. Login was required.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:05 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Admin, posted 07-17-2009 6:49 AM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 67 of 136 (515087)
07-15-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
07-14-2009 10:37 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 11:56 AM traderdrew has responded
 Message 71 by Phage0070, posted 07-15-2009 12:38 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 6:59 PM traderdrew has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 68 of 136 (515088)
07-15-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 10:05 AM


Re: IC or not
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:05 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 69 of 136 (515097)
07-15-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 11:35 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 12:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 70 of 136 (515104)
07-15-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by DevilsAdvocate
07-15-2009 11:56 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 11:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Perdition, posted 07-15-2009 12:56 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 07-15-2009 5:41 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 77 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 6:42 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 136 (515109)
07-15-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
traderdrew writes:

I intend to show you that some IC systems can be mutated but not evolve into novel structure.


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 11:35 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 587 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 72 of 136 (515114)
07-15-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 12:31 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 7:26 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 87 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 10:50 AM Perdition has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 73 of 136 (515133)
07-15-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peepul
07-15-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Logic and reality please.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Peepul, posted 07-15-2009 9:32 AM Peepul has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 74 of 136 (515134)
07-15-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 12:31 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 75 of 136 (515135)
07-15-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peepul
07-15-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Logic and reality please.
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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Peepul, posted 07-15-2009 9:32 AM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Peepul, posted 07-16-2009 10:30 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017