Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2017 4:43 PM
374 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,406 Year: 19,012/21,208 Month: 1,771/3,111 Week: 566/707 Day: 30/112 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 656 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 91 of 136 (515355)
07-17-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
Obviously we are more sophisticated than E. coli. Has any bacteria ever developed cancer?

...I'm sorry, did you just ask whether a single-celled organism has ever gotten cancer, a disease characterized by unregulated cell replication and almost by definition only happens in multicellular organisms?

How exactly would that happen? That's like asking whether an amoeba has ever gotten heart disease, or whether a virus has ever had an aneurysm!

"Sophistication" depends on how you define the term. Do you mean more vs. less genetic information, as implied by the context of the discussion? Do you mean relative unicellular vs. multicellular life? Size? Adaptability? Behavior patterns? Reproduction methods? Variety of closely related species?

Depending on how you define "sophistication," humans could be the most sophisticated; or the duck-billed platypus could; or the blue whale could; perhaps the giant sequoias; a giant Argentine ant colony that spans 6 continents...

...or even a lowly species of bacteria.

And cell replication does go wrong in bacteria. Sometimes it results in a mutation. Sometimes the child cell simply dies. Relative "complexity" or "sophistication" in an organism doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether that organism is likely to develop a problem like cancer. Mutations, meaning spontaneous genetic differences not directly inherited from a parent organism and usually resulting from a DNA replication error, happen across all life.

In fact, some of the most frequently mutating organisms we know of are viruses and bacteria. HIV, the flu virus, and E. Coli all mutate at incredibly rapid rates, which is why flu vaccines don't always work, and we can't yet cure HIV.

HIV isn't even cellular. It uses RNA instead of DNA, and it mutates at a rate that puts human cells to shame. If your definition of "sophistication" is "susceptibility to copying errors," HIV is one of teh most "sophisticated" things on the planet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 11:54 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 12:34 PM Rahvin has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 92 of 136 (515357)
07-17-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
07-15-2009 6:59 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
At least it would have not been done without simultaneous multiple coherent mutations and that would arguably be entering into the realm of metaphysical miracles.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 6:59 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2009 9:08 PM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 93 of 136 (515360)
07-17-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Rahvin
07-17-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
That question wasn't a question that I was asking her. The question was a question in an attempt to clarify one of my points.

HIV isn't even cellular. It uses RNA instead of DNA, and it mutates at a rate that puts human cells to shame. If your definition of "sophistication" is "susceptibility to copying errors," HIV is one of teh most "sophisticated" things on the planet.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Rahvin, posted 07-17-2009 12:23 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by themasterdebator, posted 07-17-2009 12:41 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 95 by Rahvin, posted 07-17-2009 1:03 PM traderdrew has responded

    
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 136 (515362)
07-17-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 12:34 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
Trade, it has worked out extremely well for HIV. There are dozens of different strains in many different types.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-types.htm

That is a large part of what makes HIV so hard to stop.

Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 12:34 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:10 AM themasterdebator has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 656 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 95 of 136 (515364)
07-17-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 12:34 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
That question wasn't a question that I was asking her. The question was a question in an attempt to clarify one of my points.

Yes, your point that humans are more "sophisticated" than bacteria. But you chose to ignore everything I said on that subject, instead focusing on my mockery of your cancer question - which, rhetorical or not, demonstrated a total ignorance of the subject.

Would you care to actually address my points regarding sophistication and complexity?

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?

It depends entirely on how you define "type." There are many different strains of HIV due to its rapid mutation - new strains continuously branch off and continue to evolve separately in each unfortunate host.

HIV patients tend to be at risk of mingling a different strain of HIV with their own (say, through intercourse with another HIV-positive person), and the "new" strain can be less effected by the patients current drug regimen. This can result in the "new" strain outcompeting the patient's initial infection and requiring a change in medication, very much like the antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" that keep popping up in the world of bacteria.

Basically, the rapid mutation rate has worked extremely well from the perspective of the virus - we're unable to cure it, and it continually frustrates our attempts to restrict its spread.

Your concept of the "goal" of evolution seems to be rather misguided. Forming a "new type" of virus is not necessarily the "goal." There is, in fact, no goal at all. Organisms that are more successful in reproducing outcompete those who are less successful. That's all. Nothing more. If a new strain outcompetes a previous strain, fine. If the new strain is inferior and dies out, that's fine too. Evolution is not a guided process, it is not intelligent, and it does not have any objective. It's simply the result of mutation and natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 12:34 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:37 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 707 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 96 of 136 (515372)
07-17-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
I never said that the world is perfect. I am starting to get the impression that you attempting to equivocate my points.

So you don't think that an error/mutation that occurs in a strand of DNA will get weeded out every time? So it can be passed on? So it can then be built upon by other errors/mutations? So evolution can occur? Awesome, thanks for agreeing with me.

Obviously we are more sophisticated than E. coli. Has any bacteria ever developed cancer?

More sophisticated? Hardly. More complex? Definitely. More complexity means more areas and things that can go wrong.

How can an error that affects multicellular life affect unicellular life? Surely a car is more sophisticated than a block of wood. Has a block of wood ever developed bad brakes? I guess bad brakes don't happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 11:54 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18782
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 97 of 136 (515434)
07-17-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 12:28 PM


what's special about IC?
Hi Traderdrew, please see Message 1 and Message 53.

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.

The problem is in the assumption of simultaneous mutations rather than a sequential evolution. I can wait for your fuller explanation (or your response on the above thread).

Message 87

Where I learned biology is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Actually, it is relevant, because it appears that you do not fully understand evolutionary biology and have only a surface impression of it, yet you freely make assertions about scientists being wrong or "irrational" - something that can only be properly stated from a strong foundation in the science.

In a post that I am writing for this thread shows that the preservation of such "nonessential" mutations that create would need energy to maintain. Due to the complexities of DNA and the cell, a lot of things can go wrong. It would seem to me that if your explanation was plausible, then bacteria would be carrying about a lot of luggage around with them. Do you really think that these bacteria are so poorly organized?

Why haven't the staunch supporters of Darwin such as Kenneth Miller and Jerry Coyne proposed such a theory in their books???

Which ones? A better approach would be for you to email Miller and ask. Yes it is common. It is what is called a neutral mutation, and they are the most numerous. Mayr says that neutral mutations are not part of evolution because they are not subject to being selected - either for nor against. That means that their survival and spread within a population is due to purely stochastic processes, such as piggy-backing on a beneficial gene.

You should learn about these types of mutations, or your hypothesis of "assemblism" will lack explaining the evidence that exists.

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 92 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 12:28 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:29 AM RAZD has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 98 of 136 (515479)
07-18-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by themasterdebator
07-17-2009 12:41 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
This is from my memory:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by themasterdebator, posted 07-17-2009 12:41 PM themasterdebator has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 99 of 136 (515482)
07-18-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
07-17-2009 9:08 PM


Re: what's special about IC?
Actually, it is relevant, because it appears that you do not fully understand evolutionary biology and have only a surface impression of it, yet you freely make assertions about scientists being wrong or "irrational" - something that can only be properly stated from a strong foundation in the science.

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."

Mayr says that neutral mutations are not part of evolution because they are not subject to being selected - either for nor against. That means that their survival and spread within a population is due to purely stochastic processes, such as piggy-backing on a beneficial gene.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2009 9:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2009 2:40 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 113 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 4:46 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 100 of 136 (515485)
07-18-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rahvin
07-17-2009 1:03 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
But you chose to ignore everything I said on that subject

Probably because I didn't disagree with it.

Your concept of the "goal" of evolution seems to be rather misguided. Forming a "new type" of virus is not necessarily the "goal." There is, in fact, no goal at all.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rahvin, posted 07-17-2009 1:03 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18782
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 101 of 136 (515522)
07-18-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by traderdrew
07-18-2009 10:29 AM


issues and how to resolve them
Hi traderdrew,

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?

Sorry, but the issue I have, is that you have criticized scientists from an apparently weak knowledge basis -- if your schooling and accumulated knowledge in the field IS weak then you have no basis for criticism.

It is when you criticize others that you need to show your credentials. Of course you could instead follow your own advice, and attack the evidence and the argument, rather than attack the scientists, especially with silly blanket statements that are inane to begin with.

So if you agree to follow your own advice, and refrain from criticizing others, I will allow you to refrain from exposing your (weak) knowledge of evolution.

By the way despite one of your previous posts, irreducible complexity is a test for an unguided process of evolution not intelligent design.

Ah, so you agree that it is not an argument for ID. Excellent. Now all you need to do is admit that IC systems arise all the time by natural processes, and we can agree that there is essentially no point to IC.

Now can it build a flagellum?

The evidence shows that it has, however the evidence also shows that this took more than a couple of afternoons in a lab twiddling with dials. There have been several articles about how a flagellum could evolve, using existing systems found in other bacteria for evidence of the plausibility.

This is a youtube video showing the steps hypothesised and tested 6 years ago:

I ran across it in my continued search for the reference to Behe's admission that evolution explains IC systems.

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.

When you make a lot of groundless claims and ignore contradictory evidence to your claims, you are bound to find critics and become a target to those interested in reality.

Didn't you agree that the evidence is the key, the argument is the issue, and not the people?

By the way, here is Behe claiming that IC is an argument for ID:

Now, I also think that both sides of the design argument need to be addressed, so here is an alternate view on the flagellum:

Message 1
Message 33

Unfortunately the pictures seem to be bolluxed at the moment (due to new board changes), but at least the links are fixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

quote:
Dover testimony

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[42] During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[43] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[44] [45]
...
44. ^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139
45. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Testimony


#44: Page 88 of 139:

quote:
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,
17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).

#45: transcripts of Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1

It's rather rambling, but you can see that Behe essentially concedes evolution can explain the formation of an IC system: search the page for "Yes, that's correct. It does imply irreducible complexity but not intelligent design" and follow the argument from there.

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 99 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:29 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 12:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 102 of 136 (515666)
07-20-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
07-18-2009 2:40 PM


Re: issues and how to resolve them
Sorry, but the issue I have, is that you have criticized scientists from an apparently weak knowledge basis -- if your schooling and accumulated knowledge in the field IS weak then you have no basis for criticism.

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.

It is when you criticize others that you need to show your credentials. Of course you could instead follow your own advice, and attack the evidence and the argument, rather than attack the scientists, especially with silly blanket statements that are inane to begin with.

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.

So if you agree to follow your own advice, and refrain from criticizing others, I will allow you to refrain from exposing your (weak) knowledge of evolution.

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.

Ah, so you agree that it is not an argument for ID. Excellent. Now all you need to do is admit that IC systems arise all the time by natural processes, and we can agree that there is essentially no point to IC.

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".

During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[43]

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???

Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

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?

In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.

Ever heard of the lab called Biologic???

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor corrections


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2009 2:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2009 1:09 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 106 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2009 1:21 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2009 8:32 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2009 9:12 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 103 of 136 (515669)
07-20-2009 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 12:35 PM


Re: issues and how to resolve them
Ever heard of the lab called Biologic???

Want to fill us in?

Either present evidence or don't.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 12:35 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:15 PM Theodoric has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 104 of 136 (515671)
07-20-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Theodoric
07-20-2009 1:09 PM


Biologic
Biologic is a laboratory at the Discovery Institute. News media reporters once demanded to see the laboratory as though (pointed out by Stephen Meyer) doing experiments was the only kind of activity that scientists pursue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2009 1:09 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2009 1:27 PM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


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


Evolving an Irreducibly Complex System
I don’t understand the perspective that an irreducibly complex system can’t evolve through minor mutations. This perspective probably comes from the idea that if God made an IC system, it is therefore sufficient in function and has no need for any other mutations or finishing touches. Logically, biological IC systems are subject to the same forces that proteins are. What is stated is an IC system can’t evolve through a step by step process of natural selection acting on random mutations.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2009 10:25 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017