What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

quote:

---

Are you just mentioning random vaguely-related concepts hoping one of them supports you?

---

Try and guess...

quote:

---

You were quoted three articles that disproved your theory,

---

No, I was quoted 2 articles that tried to refute my arguments. One of them doesn't even mention CSI.

quote:

---

you provided feeble and easily refuted complaints for two,

---

Well I missed the part where you refuted my refutations. Did you actually refute what I said? No you didn't. That's what I thought. That's why I didn't bother refuting all of them. It would be pointless.I started with the first argument from each of the two relevant articles and was waiting for you to refute what I said. If you did I would quote other arguments from the papers you cited. But since you didn't I saw no reason to continue.

quote:

---

and the third you didn't even understand.

---

I did, but it doesn't even mention CSI.

quote:

---

You have been proven wrong on this criticism and your attempts to justify yourself are just digging a bigger hole.

---

Where exactly did you answer what I said about your articles?Where did you actually refute this?EvC Forum: Message Peek

quote:

---

I'm saying your behaviour shows you are not interested in evidence that contradicts your current beliefs.

---

Yes, I am, show me the evidence.

quote:

---

On this point you are quite right.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

I do admit it.

---

You see now how easy it is to get along? Everything can be just fine if we just agree on things...

I just showed you how Kolmogorov complexity does not equate to the probability of said string happening by chance. If you cannot understand that, it is your problem.

I did, the nylon-eating bacterium the result of a frame-shift mutation that created a new enzyme which was not able to digest its previous food source, but only nylon.

quote:

---

When the enzymes were first discovered about 1975 (Kinoshita, et al, 1981), it was at first thought the new enzymes arose through the modification of preexisting enzymes that had similar functions. To test this notion, the discoverers looked to see if the other enzymes in the same organism would react to antibodies made against the new enzymes. But by this criterion the new enzymes were unique. Antibodies against them found nothing similar with which to react among the array of other enzymes in the organism.

​

Again it was reasoned that if the new enzymes were just old enzymes with minor changes to allow digestion of nylon byproducts, they should retain at least a slight amount of activity with their original substrates. But the new enzymes had no activity on biologically derived molecules having similar chemical structures. So, by this attribute as well, the new enzymes were seen to be unique.

---

New Proteins Without God's Help | National Center for Science EducationHere's another example:Big-Benefit Mutations in a Bacteriophage Inhibited with Heat | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicAdaptation of phage phiX174 to higher temperature results in 3 large-benefit mutations. The mutations occur in the structural proteins of the protein capsid which stabilize the the protein at the higher temperature, thus allowing them to function better at the higher temperature. There is no degradation of the proteins, there is no on-off switching. It's new proteins with a different amino acid sequence that optimizes the functioning of the phage a different temperature.Obviously, a mutation is not going to turn an enzyme into a carbohydrate, and a single mutation will not create an arm where there was none, but to say no mutation has ever produce any new information is patently false.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

No, not always. The generation of random numbers is programmed into an algorithm, but the output of the algorithm is a genuine set of (very nearly) random numbers. Random number generators often 'measure' things to generate the seeds for random number generation, eg the system time, or mouse movements on a PC. So the behaviour of a machine can be genuinely random. Then the selection / mutation / reproduction algorithms are applied, so that the most effective random movements are kept,combined and varied. In this way the random start point rapidly coverges on effective movement for the robot.

except that we don't! good, hopefully I'm laying some evidence out for you post by post. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I did, the nylon-eating bacterium the result of a frame-shift mutation that created a new enzyme which was not able to digest its previous food source, but only nylon.

---

This is not what I was asking for. I already told you. Look...The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste - creation.com

quote:

---

Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested.

---

First of all, it is an assumption that this was done by a random frameshift.

quote:

---

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.

---

Second, the real reason, which is verified that does cause those kind of changes, are actual, already existing systems. The so called transposons. They are induced by outside influences to start mutating specific genes. This is called natural genetic engineering. This is not an effect of natural causes but from very sophisticated systems already present inside the cells.

quote:

---

The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days!

---

Not only that but this can be achived in 9 days in the lab. It doesn't take lots of time you see. You just place the bacteria in the presence of nylon, and they will get the ability to digest nylon every time. That's because of the mechanisms they have. Not because of chance.

quote:

---

Adaptation of phage phiX174 to higher temperature results in 3 large-benefit mutations. The mutations occur in the structural proteins of the protein capsid which stabilize the the protein at the higher temperature, thus allowing them to function better at the higher temperature. There is no degradation of the proteins, there is no on-off switching. It's new proteins with a different amino acid sequence that optimizes the functioning of the phage a different temperature.

---

This is the fine-tuning of an already existing protein. It has no new functions.

quote:

---

Obviously, a mutation is not going to turn an enzyme into a carbohydrate, and a single mutation will not create an arm where there was none, but to say no mutation has ever produce any new information is patently false.

---

It's not false. Fine-tuning is not creating something new. It's just modifying it to work better under certain conditions. This change has not produced any new biological function, so there is no new information. What you actually need is a new function altogether.

quote:

---

No, not always.

---

Yes always. Can a calculator give you a number that hasn't been programmed into it?

quote:

---

The generation of random numbers is programmed into an algorithm, but the output of the algorithm is a genuine set of (very nearly) random numbers.

---

The ones that have been programmed into it.

quote:

---

Random number generators often 'measure' things to generate the seeds for random number generation, eg the system time, or mouse movements on a PC. So the behaviour of a machine can be genuinely random.

---

But it's not random. It's programmed. Whatever the time is, and whatever the number the generator get, the result is always the same. It's much more complex than without the random number generator, but it's still the same. Just because it's heavier to visualise it, and it seem like the robot is acting randomly, it doesn't mean it is. Because we know that it is beaing led by it's programming.

quote:

---

Then the selection / mutation / reproduction algorithms are applied, so that the most effective random movements are kept,combined and varied.

---

Yes, and all of these actions are already programmed in advance.

quote:

---

In this way the random start point rapidly coverges on effective movement for the robot.

---

And for any given start point, the robot will do exactly as it was programmed to do.

quote:

---

except that we don't!

---

Well you can't always ask for everything!

quote:

---

good, hopefully I'm laying some evidence out for you post by post.

---

So far so good...

The Japanese researchers you mentioned believe that the genetic change responsible for nylon-eating behavior was caused by random mutation, but you seem to believe that it's something else, that there's some mechanism already inherent in this bacterium that produces the necessary genetic changes when in the presence of nylon. That's an interesting idea. Is there any evidence for this mechanism?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor clarification.

quote:

---

The Japanese researchers you mentioned believe that the genetic change responsible for nylon-eating behavior was caused by random mutation, but you seem to believe that it's something else, that there's some mechanism already inherent in this bacterium that produces the necessary genetic changes when in the presence of nylon. That's an interesting idea. Is there any evidence for this mechanism?

---

No, they do not. Read carefully.

quote:

---

Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:

​

‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

​

‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.

​

‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’

---

The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste - creation.comAnd yes, the mechanisms that produce mutations are called transposons.Transposable element - Wikipedia

Just because something happens predictably, doesn't mean it's not by chance. If I roll a 6 sided die, I will come up with a 2 at least once within an hour. EACH TIME! Holy moley! there must be something else besides chance happening here! Or, maybe it's that the probability of developing the mutation is such that within 9 days, and in the presence of nylon, the bacterium will develop the mutation that allows it to digest nylon. Yes, some bacteria have an adaptation that causes them to increase mutation rates when they are under stress. Sometimes they increase the overall mutation rate of the whole genome, sometimes they increase the mutation rate at a specific place. However, that does not mean that there is any particular mutation they are going for. Nylon is not a naturally occurring polymer. There's no possible way the bacterium could "know" what kind of mutation it could need. Instead, it increases it's mutation rate when under stress which gives it a better chance of creating a beneficial mutation. There is no predetermination. There is no guarantee that the right mutation will occur. But, lucky for the bacteria, there are billions upon billions of them, and even if the right mutation only has a 1 in 10000000000 chance of happening, chances are, in 9 days, through hundreds of generations, it will. It's still a novel mutation that confers a new function, not a physiological response

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Hi Smooth!The Yomo paper can be found here: If you read the paper you'll find that it isn't about mechanisms that might produce the mutations causing nylon-eating capability. It's about the prior evolution of the relevant genes. Apparently these genes have long nonstop frames (lengthy DNA sequences with no stop codons), and the length is unlikely because random mutations should have inserted stop codons and broken them up into much shorter frames. Their speculation about "some special mechanism" concerns what might prevent these mutations.Still, this is the kind of thing you should be looking for as evidence for ID. You believe that nylon-eating behavior is not an example of the evolution of new traits, but that such traits were programmed in from the beginning by the designer. Therefore it was the designer who put in place the mechanism that prevents these long nonstop frames from picking up stop codon mutations. So the next step is to discover and understand this mechanism.Yomo's paper was written in 1992, seventeen years ago, so it is possible that we've learned a great deal about this mechanism since then. You might want to look into the subsequent research.By the way, transposons are only one of many mutational mechanisms.--Percy

quote:

---

Just because something happens predictably, doesn't mean it's not by chance. If I roll a 6 sided die, I will come up with a 2 at least once within an hour. EACH TIME! Holy moley! there must be something else besides chance happening here! Or, maybe it's that the probability of developing the mutation is such that within 9 days, and in the presence of nylon, the bacterium will develop the mutation that allows it to digest nylon.

---

Bacteria are a bit more complicated than dice, don't you agree? If it was that easy to evolve nylon degradation ability by chance, than they would have done it before. Yet they didn't, they only do it in the lab, and in only 9 days.

quote:

---

Yes, some bacteria have an adaptation that causes them to increase mutation rates when they are under stress. Sometimes they increase the overall mutation rate of the whole genome, sometimes they increase the mutation rate at a specific place. However, that does not mean that there is any particular mutation they are going for. Nylon is not a naturally occurring polymer. There's no possible way the bacterium could "know" what kind of mutation it could need. Instead, it increases it's mutation rate when under stress which gives it a better chance of creating a beneficial mutation. There is no predetermination. There is no guarantee that the right mutation will occur.

---

I never said that there is a particular mutations that bacteria want that it happens. Nor are they directing to a specific mutation. Sometimes this can happen with other mechanisms but not with transposons. But the point is that when in the presence of nylon, transposons will start to mutate a specific region of the genome untill bactria can degrade it. That's why they can't do it instantly, but have to wait for about 9 days. Yet the point is that this happens not by random undirected mutations. This happens by an already existing mechanism. Without it, they would not be able to do it.

quote:

---

But, lucky for the bacteria, there are billions upon billions of them, and even if the right mutation only has a 1 in 10000000000 chance of happening, chances are, in 9 days, through hundreds of generations, it will. It's still a novel mutation that confers a new function, not a physiological response

---

A mechanism that is already existing can not give you any new information. This is not a new function but a fine-tuning of an existing one. The initial function was digestion, the new one is also digestion with a wider posibility of materials to digest. No new structures were built. As I said earlier, you need at least 400 informational bits to have new CSI.