Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 10:27 PM
421 online now:
glowby, halibut, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 417 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,909 Year: 27,515/21,208 Month: 1,428/1,714 Week: 271/365 Day: 40/73 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 106 of 136 (515674)
07-20-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 12:35 PM


Re: issues and how to resolve them
OK found it.

You know if you present something as evidence you should at least know what the places name is.

Biologic Institute

quote:
It is funded by the Discovery Institute[2][3] with the stated purpose of doing biological research. The main goal of the Biologic Institute is to produce experimental evidence of intelligent design.

quote:
The original Discovery Institute plan laid out in the Wedge Document, leaked in 1999, called for Douglas Axe, the current Biologic Institute director, senior researcher and spokesman, to head up a research effort in support of intelligent design.

Hmm, if they are doing scientific research they ain't publishing anything.

quote:
The scientific community remains skeptical and commentators note that no publications containing results which support intelligent design have yet appeared.[26][27][3] Reason magazine compared the research efforts at the Biologic Institute to those of "Big Tobacco"[28] and the 2006 New Scientist editorial noted that this sort of research is similar to the agenda-driven research of the tobacco and oil industries.[20] University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers likens the Biologic Institute's research program to cargo cults, with "Intelligent Design creationists pretend[ing] that they're doing science."

If you read the article these people are real secretive. Wonder why?

quote:
Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium held from June 3 through June 7, 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts. As reported by Daniel Brooks, "...she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning."[30]

Damn, they proved evolution. Good for them.

Using The Biologic Institute as evidence of ID research and testing is a big fail. Maybe they are researching, but obviously they have nothing to show for it. The few times they present anything they are shown to be failures.

Maybe you should do some research on this things before you present them.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2009 4:32 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 107 of 136 (515677)
07-20-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 1:15 PM


Re: Biologic
You need to get you ID talking points straight

quote:
Both Axe and Discovery spokesperson Rob Crowther insist that it is a "separate entity".

Source

Edited by Theodoric, : spelling


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:15 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:41 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2747 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


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


Back to the True Acid Test
This thread started with a post by RAZD. I think that I offered at least one solid counter argument to it above and that was the system was irreducibly complex to being with but RAZD and I continue to agree to disagree. I don't expect anything to change.

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"


Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2009 2:09 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2009 11:20 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2747 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 109 of 136 (515680)
07-20-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Theodoric
07-20-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Biologic
That is what you are here for. There is so much information out there that it is hard for me to keep up with it. I'm spending enough time with this forum. I read part of your link. Care to start a thread about Robert Pennock's work?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2009 1:27 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 110 of 136 (515684)
07-20-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 1:30 PM


The topic is IC
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.

This will seem to be too simple but it seems you're misunderstandings are on a very simple level.

If I roll a pair of dice and they come up 11, roll again and they come up 3, again and they come up 6 are they random?

If I roll 11, 3 and 11 are they random?

You are forgetting that there are billions of "rolls" involved in the case of the bacteria. Many do not produce a "win". The fact that one "number" comes up a 2nd or 3rd or 5th time doesn't show they are not random.

Why not attempt to form a more convincing argument for Darwinism by taking the IPTG out of the experiment?

Why not show that mice can not evolve by taking oxygen out of the experiment? This is as silly as your first argument.

Barry Halls statements don't say what you think they say but that is for another thread. "Limited evolutionary potential" has nothing to do with IC evolving or not. Please try to maintain some focus and stop thrashing about.

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

The topic is IC and if it can evolve or not. This experiment shows that it can. That is all that is involved.

If you think that intelligent design is falsified if the idea that IC can't evolve is wrong then ID is, indeed, falsified. I don't know how you make that connection though. It is also a topic for another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:30 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 3:30 PM NosyNed has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2747 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 111 of 136 (515694)
07-20-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NosyNed
07-20-2009 2:09 PM


Re: The topic is IC
If I roll a pair of dice and they come up 11, roll again and they come up 3, again and they come up 6 are they random?

If I roll 11, 3 and 11 are they random?

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

You are forgetting that there are billions of "rolls" involved in the case of the bacteria. Many do not produce a "win". The fact that one "number" comes up a 2nd or 3rd or 5th time doesn't show they are not random.

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

Why not show that mice can not evolve by taking oxygen out of the experiment? This is as silly as your first argument.

I don't think so.

If you think that intelligent design is falsified if the idea that IC can't evolve is wrong then ID is, indeed, falsified. I don't know how you make that connection though. It is also a topic for another thread.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2009 2:09 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2009 4:28 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 112 of 136 (515703)
07-20-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 3:30 PM


Re: The topic is IC
No but I don't think it would disprove that the dice were rigged.

What does that mean? "No" the dice are not random if 2 11's come up in 3 rolls? Or what do you mean?

And why the off the wall statement about rigging? Of course it would not disprove (or prove) they were rigged. Can you elaborate please?

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

Mutations have been shown to be random to a great extent. If you want to dive into it then another thread would be appropriate.

Also what kind of "non-randomness" would you be looking for? That could be an interesting thread too. Note that random or not doesn't make any difference to the evolution of an IC system. If you think it does please explain why. An IC system can evolve. Why haven't your grappled with that yet?

[qs]I don't think so.[/i]

Just why don't you think so? If we remove something the mice need to be able to survive at all they are not going to evolve are they? Same with the crippled bacteria. How is this different exactly?

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.

It would be appropriate to point the the post since I don't see one that is relevant.

Since I don't think that ID is necessarily falsified if IC can evolve and you say we disagree I can only conclude that you are saying that you believe that if IC can evolve then ID is falsified. If that is not true, please clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 3:30 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 113 of 136 (515708)
07-20-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by traderdrew
07-18-2009 10:29 AM


Re: what's special about IC?
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?

I felt no such cornering. I'm just taken aback that you have such a poor understanding of biology. This was first taught to me in my first biology class, it was built upon in every subsequent biology class, and is essentially a very basic concept in biology. The fact that you do not know this implies you are either completely uneducated in Biology, or have forgotten the very basic tenets upon which all other biological exploration is based.

I remember much of what I learned in most classes when what I learned was built upon many times and referenced ad nauseum in every subsequent class in the subject. Much like I remember what a noun or a verb is, despite learning that in first grade, or perhaps even earlier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:29 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 114 of 136 (515735)
07-20-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 12:35 PM


oops
deleted

Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post


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 102 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 12:35 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 115 of 136 (515738)
07-20-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 12:35 PM


Re: issues and how to resolve them
Hi traderdrew, welcome back.

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'm 62, first learned about evolution and biology as a child on field trips with my dad, who taught biology at the University of Michigan, I have three degrees, and I am still a student. If you want to learn more you can refer to Cancer Survivors

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.

These are weasel words. When you consistently modify "darwinist" with "irrational" you are indeed painting all biologists and other scientists as irrational. It's called bigotry.

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.

There you go with your bigotry again. Here's a hint: you are denigrating people you don't even know, because of what they are, not on what they have said.

Now if you say something like "traderdrew is irrational because he classifies people based on bigotry rather than on any factual information" then that is not bigotry, but an argument based on facts.

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.

Curiously, what you think STILL has no bearing on reality, and when we couple that with examples of, say, irrational thinking on your part (see above), then we can logically conclude that your opinion is worthless - at best.

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

No, it isn't rocket science, it is poor logic. IC has evolved, therefore - by your reasoning - evolution is an argument for ID.

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.

And, interestingly, you don't provide any link nor quote what you think is the most telling argument from Dembski. That this one example is 6 years old and no creationist has mentioned it should make you wonder about their honesty (dogma, irrationality) eh?

Do you dispute that (a) it shows a plausible explanation supported by (b) evidence found in other existing systems?

Behe is a biochemist. I never had the impression that is a philosopher of science. What is to stop science from investigating astrology?

Do you really miss the implication of that argument? You think you can criticize scientists with blanket insults, and you don't even know what separates science from pseudo-sciences like astrology? Or even consider the distinction important?

Ever heard of the lab called Biologic???

Yes I have, it is run by the Discovery Institute to make people think they are doing science.

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?

Well, it's not rocket science, and relatively self-evident: Behe and Snokes wrote a paper published in a journal, where they purported to provide an argument that the flagellum could not have evolved, but under oath Behe admitted that the conditions of the argument did not reflect reality, and that there was more -- orders of magnitude more -- possibility for the evolution than their model addressed, so much more that it becomes a logically high probability instead of an argument of impossibility.

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".

And, sadly, this is irrelevant, because what can evolve in one direction can evolve in the other under different circumstances.

What you still have is one out of the 40 known of the 42 proteins where there may be some doubt about the lineage - one from the other or both from a common ancestor.

That still leaves 39 to account for - what about all of those inconvenient bits of evidence?

Dembski doesn't scare me, so if you think he really dealt with the issue then you need to present some evidence of his argument rather that argue from implication, ad hominem, argument from authority, argument from consequences, argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance (just for starters). Note those are logical fallacies.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my knowledge on this forum. This way I can correct my thinking.

Don't worry, start posting something you think is fact rather than just making insinuations, and we'll see how well your argument holds up.

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 102 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 12:35 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 116 of 136 (515745)
07-20-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 1:20 PM


More bad logic and false thinking ...
Hi traderdrew, you asked for it.

Message 102

Feel free to point out the flaws in my knowledge on this forum.

I'll be glad to oblige, as will several others, I'm sure. It's not difficult when you provide an easy target.

I don’t understand the perspective that an irreducibly complex system can’t evolve through minor mutations.

Then you should agree that IC is not evidence for ID. If you cannot differentiate ID from evolution with IC then it is not evidence for ID.

In fact, a system that can make necessary mutations in adaptation or response to environmental factors is further testament to a creator.

And yet there is zero evidence that mutations occur in response to environmental factors in a way that necessarily produces beneficial adaptation. At best research has shown that the rate of mutation increases in cells under survival stress, due to failure of the repair mechanisms from the stress.

The evidence shows that out of hundreds of mutations, some few have a slight beneficial propensity, and are selected for via increased survival and reproduction. The rest represent the failure of your creator to produce the proper mutation. Not a good grade.

A proponent of ID has the room to contemplate the possibilities.

Such as the possibility that evolution is part of the design, an incredibly simple system for accomplishing so much, from flagella to flamingos, from single simple cells to the total diversity of life known today.

Such as the possibility that the universe was designed for life to develop in many places, including (but not limited to) earth.

Such as the possibility that biologists are scientists of the most rational kind, carefully delving into the evidence of reality to see (a) how it works and (b) what we can know about reality in the process.

Such as the possibility that not one thing known, tested and validated against reality, in all of science cannot be part of the design.

Such as the possibility of arguing against the mountains of evidence for evolution from a molehill of ignorance is irrational?

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

No, this is a rather pathetic example of the logical fallacy of equivocation, where the same word is used with two different meanings.

In Message 30 you say

You cannot show us how the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. Even my dog knows that you can't evolve the flagellum from a TTSS. The TTSS has 10 parts while the flagellum has 40. Pull out some logos and try to make a model of a flagellum with a model of a TTSS.

You were talking about the initial evolution of the flagellum, while here

Certain species of bacteria use flagellum for locomotion as they propel themselves through liquids such as water or liquids primarily of water.

You are starting with an existing flagellum and hypothetically modify it.

So, no, you have not explained what you asked for in Message 30 and it is both a logical fallacy and dishonest to imply that you have.

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.

So if what you present here is really enough of an explanation of "how the flagellum evolved" in Message 30, then there already exist many examples of "how the flagellum evolved" in all these variations.

Do you understand that this is not just bad logic, but that it is pathetic logic?

Consider it if the flagellum would be forced into a new habitat of liquid of higher tension such as oil.

Do you know that (a) surface tension has nothing to do with the behavior of microorganisms living within the liquid, (b) oil has less surface tension than water (which is why it spreads in a sheen on top of water), (c) that oil has less density than water, and finally (d) there is not sufficient difference between water and oil to cause adaptive selection in bacteria, and that many species of bacteria happily live, eat and reproduce in oils and other liquids.

Do you have any idea what the Reynolds Number is and how it applies?

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

quote:
In fluid mechanics and heat transfer, the Reynolds number Re is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces ({\bold \mathrm V} \varrho) to viscous forces (μ / L) and, consequently, it quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.

Reynolds numbers frequently arise when performing dimensional analysis of fluid dynamics and heat transfer problems, and as such can be used to determine dynamic similitude between different experimental cases. They are also used to characterize different flow regimes, such as laminar or turbulent flow: laminar flow occurs at low Reynolds numbers, where viscous forces are dominant, and is characterized by smooth, constant fluid motion, while turbulent flow occurs at high Reynolds numbers and is dominated by inertial forces, which tend to produce random eddies, vortices and other flow fluctuations.

Reynolds number is named after Osborne Reynolds (1842–1912), who proposed it in 1883.[1][2]


If you look at the formula you will see that velocity in a fluid is inversely proportional to the density of the fluid.

The density of water is 62.4 lbs/cu.ft. and the density of diesel fuel is ~59.3 lbs/cu.ft. kerosenes can be ~53.7 lbs/cu.ft.

Not a staggering difference. Given that the speed of bacteria in water range from rest to ~5 body lengths/sec the top speed will be affected slightly. This may have an effect on survival from predation except that the predator would be affected in the same way.

At first, the bacteria had problems finding food in the oil.

As noted, there are bacteria that happily feed on oils.

They induce the right mutations which make the flagellum evolve a stronger rod ...

And this is not the way it works either. First, the mutation either causes a stronger rod directly or it doesn't. Second, the variation in the population already has some with better flagella than others, and these would survive better than the others, causing a generation by generation shift to better flagella.

They call upon their natural genetic engineering and resurrect something their ancestors used over 2 billion years ago.

Pure ad hoc (irrational) fantasy. Ancestral motors would likely be poorly constructed and weakly functional by comparison to ones that have had 2 billion years to refine the process.

That's just a "starter sample" of your poor argument, ignorance of biology, and the flaws in your knowledge.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : an not and


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 105 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:20 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 117 of 136 (515746)
07-20-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 1:30 PM


Re: Back to the True Acid Test take 2
Hi traderdrew, let's review.

I think that I offered at least one solid counter argument to it above and that was the system was irreducibly complex to being with ...

Curiously that the original system was irreducibly complex is irrelevant. The only importance of the original system is that when one element was removed the whole system failed to operate, and thus it demonstrated the essential quality of "IC" - a system composed of several interactive parts and that needs all the parts working to function.

It was expected that another mechanism would evolve to replace the broken function, because the environmental conditions favored selection to use all the available resources. This expectation (prediction) was validated by the experiment. It was expected that the new system would be different from the previous system, because evolution adapts existing elements rather than repairs broken ones. This expectation (prediction) was also validated by the experiment.

However what was unexpected, was that the new system would involve several interactive parts that need all the parts working to function. In fact what evolved was relatively unremarkable at the time, and it wasn't until years later that it was realized that the experiment involved what had since been defined as IC systems.

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)

True, and which, incidentally explains how some deleterious mutations can persist in a population, when they are associated on an operon that is heavily favoured by selection.

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.

The E. coli did nothing. In one organism a random mutation occurred that changed a similar section of DNA to be more similar to the original lacZ gene, however this did not replace the lacZ gene and the original function was still broken.

Why did this not fix the original system? Because the new gene is functionally different from the original, homologous does not mean identical nor does it mean that it can do the same things.

Thus the mere fact of homology is not sufficient to rebut the argument and a (new) IC system evolved.

This experiment was beginning to painting a picture that E. coli could evolve an irreducibly complex system through natural selection acting on random mutations.

Actually, this experiment demonstrated natural selection operating on random mutations.

The new system did not evolve the ability to bring lactose into the cell.

Nor did the original IC system have a mechanism to bring lactose into the cell, thus the evolution of this mechanism is (a) irrelevant to the original IC system, (b) irrelevant to the new IC system and (c) irrelevant to the evolution of the new system that replaced, not repaired, the original system.

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.)

If this were true, then the original system would have been repaired, not replaced with similar but different system, different enough that the parts of one system are not interchangeable with the other.

In other words, this experiment actually invalidates the "NGE" concept. In science falsified concepts are discarded: bye bye NGE.

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

Argument from incredulity.

Why wouldn't an intelligent designer program life to evolve, via random mutation and natural selection? Every generation gets some new mutations, and every generation selects the most successful of those mutations for parenting the next generation.

“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.

In the environment in question. Yes, what you see is the inability of evolution to go back "down the mountain" in order to be able to climb a different peak.

This is why you have eyes with backwards retinas and a blind spot in prime vision real estate, while the octopus has a more functional eye.

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

This experiment validates evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

This experiment was not intended to falsify intelligent design.

This experiment does invalidate the concept that IC systems cannot evolve.

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.

Non sequitur and another appeal to (false) authority.

More bad thinking and false information.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spling


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 108 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:30 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1688 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 118 of 136 (515778)
07-21-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Theodoric
07-20-2009 1:21 PM


Re: issues and how to resolve them
Hmm, if they are doing scientific research they ain't publishing anything.

Lets be fair now, Doug Axe has published several papers since 1999 which clearly have some relevance to evolution and Intelligent Design.

Axe DD, Dixon BW, Lu P. Stylus: a system for evolutionary experimentation based on a protein/proteome model with non-arbitrary functional constraints. PLoS One. 2008 Jun 4;3(6):e2246

Axe DD. Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. J Mol Biol. 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315

Axe DD. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. J Mol Biol. 2000 Aug 18;301(3):585-95

Axe DD, Foster NW, Fersht AR. An irregular beta-bulge common to a group of bacterial RNases is an important determinant of stability and function in barnase. J Mol Biol. 1999 Mar 12;286(5):1471-85

His more recent work is a bit strange, I'm still not sure that Han Chinese characters are really a particularly relevant model for protein evolution but his previous biochemistry papers seem like fairly good solid experimental work. The conclusions he draws from them do have implications for ID but to think that they form some sort of evidence would be to stretch them much further than the research will stand.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2009 1:21 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12535
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 119 of 136 (515883)
07-22-2009 6:20 AM


Credentials and Knowledge
Hi all!

The subjects of credentials and knowledge have been raised in this thread recently, and I want to clarify the moderator position.

Credentials are irrelevant. If you have them it doesn't make you right, and if you don't have them it doesn't make you wrong. Here at EvC Forum you are judged on the depth and breadth of your knowledge and the quality of your arguments and reasoning.

Knowledge is very relevant, but a debate isn't won simply by saying, "You don't know much, do you." It's a significant challenge to take someone whose position is based upon insufficient knowledge and improve that knowledge, let alone change their minds, and along the way you'll find your own knowledge improving. Bear in mind the difficulty of the task.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Feathertail, posted 02-27-2010 5:55 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Feathertail
Junior Member (Idle past 2735 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-27-2010


Message 120 of 136 (548371)
02-27-2010 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Admin
07-22-2009 6:20 AM


Re: This discussion
I came here because I've been questioning my personal religious beliefs. I have already thrown out the specific religion I belong to as being false. I am starting to find evidence that the whole family of religions it belongs to is based on a lie as well.

I understand that religion has no place in a scientific discussion. I just wanted to explain the reason why I came here. And the fact that I'm not married to any particular belief system, and am looking at everything with newly skeptical eyes.

When I was religious, I believed in Intelligent Design. My faith made it an attractive proposition. More than that, though, I could not see the logic behind evolution. Order arising from chaos without an intelligent mind to guide it? Where is that seen in our world? How often, over what duration and on what scale? Is it really the likeliest explanation?

I considered the informational content of the genome to be the ultimate evidence. At the macroscopic level, natural selection produces new biological innovation. But at the genetic level, it's just accumulated copying errors, like scratches on a CD. One can't write a new program from scratch by recording static. Right?

That's what I thought. But I wanted to be sure. A lot of very intelligent people believe that it's just a fallacy. After finding out the myths behind my cherished belief systems -- discoveries made this last month, which have shaken me to my core -- I needed to know whether or not this was true. So I decided to read the discussions again. That's how I found this thread.

I have to say a lot of it's over my head. Because of that, it probably won't surprise anyone that

I'm still convinced of intelligent design. I read RAZD's first few posts. He did two things that convinced me of it:

First, he conflated the physical expression of the genome -- observable biological features -- with the informational content thereof. I'm not convinced this is the correct way of looking at it. Signal loss and copying errors produce biological innovation, but they're still just random errors. Randomness, by definition, involves the increase of entropy in a system, however fit the bearer of that informational system is to survive in its world.

As near as I can tell, evolution is wearing down the genome, which means that there may have been a "Big Bang"-style influx of information. I've tried to listen to "reason," but I'm not sure what makes this idea so controversial, or how it's any more unscientific than the Big Bang itself -- the Big Bang being the foundation of modern cosmology. Although I guess that being a programmer means I have a different perspective than most on the relationship between data and storage media.

The second thing was his attitude. I don't want to call names or go any farther than that. I just want to say that if it appears that somebody's ego is invested in defending a particular position, that's going to speak a lot louder to me than any words that they use. It really is.

So I think that I've made up my mind about this, but if there's something I'm missing then please let me know. Sorry to distract / interrupt, and to probably rehash old arguments. I'm really not trying to troll. I'm just trying to gain peace and closure by presenting my ideas to others for critique.

Edited by Feathertail, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 07-22-2009 6:20 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2010 7:52 AM Feathertail has responded
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2010 5:58 PM Feathertail has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017