Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 10:15 PM
391 online now:
DrJones*, jar, nwr, Riggamortis (4 members, 387 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,380 Year: 16,986/21,208 Month: 2,875/3,593 Week: 342/646 Day: 105/115 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1635
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 106 of 146 (793565)
11-02-2016 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 7:57 AM


Ping me when you actually stop using worthless word salads.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 7:57 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 8:06 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 107 of 146 (793566)
11-02-2016 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Pressie
11-02-2016 8:02 AM


Ping me when you actually stop using worthless word salads.

Ping me when you've shown where I've written something that is unintelligible to most college-educated, English-speaking audiences. You'd have to do that to back your claim of "word salad."

Thx.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Pressie, posted 11-02-2016 8:02 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 108 of 146 (793569)
11-02-2016 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by dwise1
11-02-2016 1:16 AM


But when we look at life on a biochemical/molecular level, the analogy with engineering strengthens, rather than weakens.

What are you seeing at that biochemical/molecular level that strengthens the analogy with engineering?

You don't have proof-reading and error-correcting mechanisms in volcanology (or geology as a whole), and nor does one find codes in astronomy or chemistry.

Chemists don't talk about a nitrogen-chloride circuit that shuttles chloride to nitrogen. And you will not find the scholarly literature discussing how the ocean "senses" the moon and regulates its motion in response, thereby forming tides. Communication (as defined by, e.g., De Loof in "Life is Communication") doesn't happen between the Earth and sun, with a resulting orbit. And you won't read discussions on literal machines ("complex machines," not simple machines, as defined by Bruce Alberts and others) in the discoveries of these scientific disciplines.

Yet this kind of language is at the core of both molecular biology and engineering. Writes Alberts (1998):

"Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like the machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. Within each protein assembly, intermolecular collisions are not only restricted to a small set of possibilities, but reaction C depends on reaction B, which in turn depends on reaction A—just as it would in a machine of our common experience."

Notably, the extensive use of engineering language in biology only began with the birth of the molecular biology and genomics revolution. While words like "machine" or "pump" were used to describe biological features like the human heart, this kind of language becomes much more useful and much more prevalent when we look at the molecular level of life. So the analogy between life and engineering -- fuzzy at best before discoveries in molecular biology -- strengthened, instead of weakened, with further understanding of the cell.

Do you know anything about engineering practices or principles?

Probably.

One principle is modularity.

Life is chock-full of modularity. Protein domains function as molecular modules that can be used in a wide array of biological contexts. Look 'em up.

Let's look at life. What do we see? Complexity. Extreme complexity. Even "irreducible" complexity. Is that consistent with engineering principles? Absolutely not!

"Complexity" is a vague term here, so it'd be useful if you broke down exactly what you mean by "complexity" in the context of engineering and molecular biology. Redundancy, for example, is often considered a form of "complexity," and is frequently cited as an instance of poor engineering.

Yet this fundamentally overlooks the nature of scaling laws as they pertain to machine components of nano-size. Thermal bond cleavage, photochemical disruption through energetic photons, and radiation damage all present challenges to the successful functioning of molecular machine components -- while they aren't particularly relevant when it comes to designing macro-scale machine systems.

One solution for staving off loss of function in molecular machines due to the above phenomena is to create redundant components (generally using a random-damage model). And this, in turn, results in a significant rise in system complexity. Here, complexity is an engineering solution, so the claim that complexity is "Absolutely not" consistent with engineering principles isn't exactly correct. You have to offer a more nuanced perspective of complexity here in order to support your thesis.

Similarly, the elegance of one's design is indicative of the Engineer's skill. So then you believe that your Divine Engineer is an absolutely Schlockmeister?

Well, I'm not a creationist, so you can leave the theological terminology and assumptions about me at the door.

That being said, would you care to explain why so many of the molecular machines which are phylogenetically basal (e.g., F-ATPases, flagella, etc.) actually aren't hodge-podge, jury-rigged designs but instead smack of rational design? Where, exactly, is the "hodge-podge" design in the ur-flagellar core? Where's the kludginess in that bacterial system's architecture and component arrangement?

Reference

Alberts, B., 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by dwise1, posted 11-02-2016 1:16 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 11-02-2016 9:38 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 109 of 146 (793571)
11-02-2016 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 1:34 AM


Genomicus writes:

Robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses aren't ID hypotheses. If I had meant robust ID hypotheses, I would have said robust ID hypotheses. Idk, maybe you should consider upping your verbal comprehension game. Understanding what I wrote isn't hard, but the powers of your imagination were nevertheless able to attach your own story to it.

In other words, you were perfectly clear, if you do say so yourself.

Kinda hypocritical, Percy, because you're not following your own advice. Instead of claiming how I "like to ignore the biological evidence for life's history," it would be better to just attempt to demonstrate that claim through your discussion in this thread, and then let people make up their own minds.

In other words, you won't be coaxed into a defense of your ideas but will instead attack those who seek after such a defense, not in any original way, but just throwing their own criticisms back at them in ways that make no sense.

- Where have I denied the power of mutation and selection in shaping biological life on Earth?

- When have I denied the unambiguous evidence for the nature of life's history on Earth?

- What internally consistent armamentarium of evidence that documents the evolutionary history of life and that also supports the purported transition of non-life to biological life on Earth am I ignoring?

- Where have I baldly stated that DNA couldn't have emerged naturally?

It would do you well to actually read what I write instead of conjuring stuff up.

Discussion abhors a vacuum. If you have a defense of your idea that life here did not arise naturally but was designed by life from elsewhere that did arise naturally, now's the time. Otherwise we're left to ponder over your meager offerings and make of them what we will.

Apparently the meaning of the word "related" escapes the scope of your lexicon. My other argument was related to theology in the origin of life, as I was discussing how theology need not be invoked in an agency-based hypothesis for the origin of biological life on Earth. But sure, go ahead and keep ignoring what I'm actually saying and letting your lack of attention to detail permeate this discussion.

Gosh I'm awful. So what's your evidence again that code-based life couldn't have arisen naturally but non-code based life could? I mean, we're all intimately familiar with "Rebek and colleagues" and that "the analogs of genetic codes, bipartite complementarities found in nucleic acids, and ribosomes are hardly needed for the existence of non-biological autocatalytic systems." Why, I said as much in conversation just the other day.

Or putting it another way, your italicized text quoting yourself from Message 61 isn't exactly word salad, but it has the same effect because you just dumped it out there without preamble or explanation. As I said in my reply in Message 63, if you think any of the researchers you named (Rebek, etc.) has evidence supporting your ideas then you should describe it in this thread.

You mean non-teleologically, not "naturally." If a non-biological intelligence engineered life on Earth, then it'd still be natural.

We don't want to overcomplicate the discussion, though I guess we'll have to if you insist, but differentiating between designed and non-designed objects with the labels "unnatural" and "natural" is very common to both sides of the debate. I don't think we're talking about the natural versus the supernatural, so there should be no confusion.

Most* intelligent adults of sound judgment don't think it mature to draw comparisons between someone they're discussing stuff with and people like Donald Trump. But hey, you do you -- maybe you're the exception to that overall generalization of respectable adults.

*Based solely on personal experience and not statistical studies.

Well, just let me say that in my opinion your vocabulary is vastly superior to Donald Trump's even if your message is not.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 1:34 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 110 of 146 (793575)
11-02-2016 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 8:27 AM


Genomicus writes:

Well, I'm not a creationist, so you can leave the theological terminology and assumptions about me at the door.

You're an IDist. The guy you cited, Bruce Alberts, is cited by IDists all over the Internet, but if you read the paper (The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists) he isn't arguing for ID but for a more multidisciplinary approach to cell biology. Like most creationist and IDist citations, it misrepresents Alberts as advocating views he likely finds antithetical. Likely the same is true of other scientists you mentioned, like Margulis, Rebek and Penrose.

ID has been around for a long time. It's time to move past analogy and get to the evidence.

One principle is modularity.

Life is chock-full of modularity. Protein domains function as molecular modules that can be used in a wide array of biological contexts. Look 'em up.

I don't think DWise1 was arguing that life possesses no modularity but rather noting the lack of strict modularity. What you might like to think of as life's modules probably leak like sieves to provide a host of other related and unrelated side effects. This is consistent with evolution providing solutions that one way or another, and often in unexpected ways, just get the job done. In contrast, a designer would develop neatly and tightly modular designs that are supportable, maintainable and extensible.

"Complexity" is a vague term here, so it'd be useful if you broke down exactly what you mean by "complexity" in the context of engineering and molecular biology. Redundancy, for example, is often considered a form of "complexity," and is frequently cited as an instance of poor engineering.

Complexity is an ID argument. Mike the Wiz introduced the IDist claim that life possesses "specified complexity," and you introduced "irreducible complexity" into the discussion back in Message 33. Discussion of complexity will have to reflect what *you* mean by complexity, because in the absence of ID it would never come up.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Another typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 8:27 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18669
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 111 of 146 (793586)
11-02-2016 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Genomicus
11-01-2016 10:57 PM


But when we look at life on a biochemical/molecular level, the analogy with engineering strengthens, rather than weakens. ...

No. As an engineer, a designer, and a partial micro-biologist (courses taken but no degree), and as the son of a biology professor that I often discussed such things with (before he passed), I can definitively say that this is wrong.

There are two things engineers employ that contradict this assertion:

1. KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid -- means no frills or "spandrels" that don't add to the structure or the function. Think of a bicycle in it's simplest form. Nothing that is not needed.

2. Cost-Benefit Analysis -- to ensure the design is cost efficient with little or no wasted time or material.

So when I "drill down" to the microbiological level I see waste, and over complication, and more of the impression of systems pieced together ad hoc, jury-rigged to accomplish tasks with little control on timing.

This is a rather shoddy argument, ...

The cell design is rather shoddy and make-do, rather than engineered, with a lot of duplication of effort.

... Paley's argument was that life "looks designed," and therefore was designed (by agency). ...

Which, as you should know, is a logical fallacy. A → B does not mean B → A.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 Genomicus, posted 11-01-2016 10:57 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 11-02-2016 3:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 112 of 146 (793615)
11-02-2016 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
11-02-2016 12:45 PM


RAZD writes:

Think of a bicycle in it's simplest form. Nothing that is not needed.


Brakes are for sissies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2016 12:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Pressie, posted 11-03-2016 7:51 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2016 8:50 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 113 of 146 (793636)
11-02-2016 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Taq
10-11-2016 4:50 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
I have seen used pieces of bubble gum on the sidewalk that look more like a machine than that.

I'll be responding to Percy et al. shortly, but Taq, this argument of yours is so bizarre. I'm not sure what part about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components you don't get.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 4:50 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 11-02-2016 9:08 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 114 of 146 (793640)
11-02-2016 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 8:08 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Genomicus writes:

I have seen used pieces of bubble gum on the sidewalk that look more like a machine than that.

I'll be responding to Percy et al. shortly, but Taq, this argument of yours is so bizarre. I'm not sure what part about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components you don't get.

Well we're just on the edge of our seats - what is it about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components that says ATP is a machine?

Your claim to have merely an interesting hypothesis is properly tentative since you offer nothing more than analogy and declarations that some complex molecules "look like" machines, so it makes no sense to suddenly begin arguing as if you had something resembling certainty.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 8:08 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 9:17 PM Percy has responded
 Message 116 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 9:19 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 115 of 146 (793641)
11-02-2016 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
11-02-2016 9:08 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Well we're just on the edge of our seats - what is it about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components that says ATP is a machine?

No, my comment about atomic theory was in response to Taq's apparent surprise that the surfaces of molecular machine components are ball-and-stick-ish. Like duh, what did he/she/it expect? We're dealing with the nano-meter scale here.

ATP isn't a machine, by the way. ATP is a molecule. ATP synthases are machines, however. If you dispute that, then you're more than welcome to cite a single scientific paper that argues that ATP synthases aren't machines. Go ahead. I'll be here writing up other responses while you do that little exercise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 11-02-2016 9:08 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2016 10:16 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 11-03-2016 7:02 AM Genomicus has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Taq, posted 01-04-2017 11:12 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 116 of 146 (793642)
11-02-2016 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
11-02-2016 9:08 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Your claim to have merely an interesting hypothesis is properly tentative since you offer nothing more than analogy and declarations that some complex molecules "look like" machines...

More specifically, these molecular systems are machines. They don't just "look like" machines. But who knows? Maybe you've got publications out there in the scientific literature that argue that ATP synthases and other protein systems aren't actual machines.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 11-02-2016 9:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15942
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 117 of 146 (793643)
11-02-2016 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 9:17 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
ATP isn't a machine, by the way. ATP is a molecule. ATP synthases are machines, however. If you dispute that, then you're more than welcome to cite a single scientific paper that argues that ATP synthases aren't machines.

I say that they're not machines. They're actually musical instruments in the woodwind family. Prove me wrong, find a single scientific paper that argues that they aren't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 9:17 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 10:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 118 of 146 (793648)
11-02-2016 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dr Adequate
11-02-2016 10:16 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
I say that they're not machines. They're actually musical instruments in the woodwind family. Prove me wrong, find a single scientific paper that argues that they aren't.

Oh my gawd. It must be embarrassing to make that kind of argument. Literally every scientific paper that describes the form and function of ATP synthases is an argument against the thesis that they're musical instruments in the woodwind family.

Geez.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2016 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2016 11:03 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15942
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 119 of 146 (793649)
11-02-2016 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 10:57 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Oh my gawd. It must be embarrassing to make that kind of argument.

Quite so. And to be the originator of it should make you want to hang your head in shame.

Literally every scientific paper that describes the form and function of ATP synthases is an argument against the thesis that they're musical instruments in the woodwind family.

You mean, in that they all say it's an enzyme?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 10:57 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 120 of 146 (793656)
11-03-2016 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 9:17 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Replying to both your responses to my Message 114...

Genomicus writes:

No, my comment about atomic theory was in response to Taq's apparent surprise that the surfaces of molecular machine components are ball-and-stick-ish.

Where did Taq express surprise at anything you're said? Seemed like all skepticism to me.

ATP synthases are machines, however.
...
More specifically, these molecular systems are machines. They don't just "look like" machines.

So in the space of just a few short weeks it's gone from analogy to fact? Golly gee whiz, sometimes the pace of scientific progress just makes one's head spin.

If you dispute that, then you're more than welcome to cite a single scientific paper that argues that ATP synthases aren't machines.
...
Maybe you've got publications out there in the scientific literature that argue that ATP synthases and other protein systems aren't actual machines.

Why would any paper argue against an appropriate analogy? Why would I?

We need to hear your evidence for why evolution couldn't produce biological molecular machines like ATP synthase, that it didn't evolve but was designed. The Wikipedia article on ATP synthase briefly describes a couple evolutionary possibilities:

quote:
The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse. This complex then evolved greater efficiency and eventually developed into today's intricate ATP synthases. Alternatively, the DNA helicase/H+
motor complex may have had H+ pump activity with the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+ motor in reverse. This may have evolved to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase.

The fact that "machine" is a convenient analog is not evidence. An analogy can be the inspiration behind your hypothesis, but it can't be evidence. That you're so insistent that the analogy is a compelling argument for design just makes more obvious the degree to which you're ignoring the only known agent of change, descent with modification followed by selection. You could even skip proving evolution insufficient if you could just produce evidence of some other agent of change.

As I'm fond of saying, things that happen leave behind evidence. It is the fingerprints of evolution that are found everywhere in life, not those of some mythical alien race.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 9:17 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017