Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 128 (437781)
12-01-2007 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TheWay
12-01-2007 12:17 PM


Mutations and information, part 2
What would constitute an opposite point mutation?
Another point mutation. (See below.)
If a point mutation from A to T at a particular point on a genome reduced information, then the mutation back from T to A at the same point would be an increase in information.
Also, by this logic we could assume that no information would ultimately be removed or added.
Sharp.
In that case, though, in particular a deletion mutation would not remove information. In which case any series of deletion mutations would not remove information. In which case, there is no information in any genome. In which case it is not an objection to evolution to say that mutations can't create information, since there isn't any information.
Spetner's main idea, IMO, is that complexity as we see in various organisms have required information that the idea of the ToE cannot supply through mutations. Complexity requires complex information, which has not yet been shown to have been accumulated through natural processes, as the NDT had imagined.
Then Spetner is wrong.
Have a look here. Where does the "information" in these RNA species come from?
Could you elaborate? Or supply some material, I can't find anything.
Well, say you have a chuck of genome that goes
...CAG ACC GGT CGC...
and it undergoes a point mutation so that it now reads
...CAG ACC CGT CGC...
then if the second genome now has less information than the first, it follows that a point mutation from
...CAG ACC CGT CGC...
to
...CAG ACC GGT CGC...
would constitute an increase in information.
In the same way, if an insertion (and frame shift) from
...CAG ACC GGT CGC...
to
...CAG ACT CGG TCG C...
is a decrease in information, then a deletion (and frame shift) from
...CAG ACT CGG TCG C...
to
...CAG ACC GGT CGC...
would be an increase in information.
Since a mutation can be undone by another mutation, it follows that if there are mutations that decrease "information" (whatever that may be) then there are also mutations that increase it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TheWay, posted 12-01-2007 12:17 PM TheWay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TheWay, posted 12-02-2007 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 128 (437792)
12-01-2007 2:13 PM


Muatations and information, part 3
Now lets look at it another way.
Since there are mutations that will change any base anywhere in the genome to any other base, and since there are mutations that will lengthen or shorten the genome, and since there are muations that will change chromosome number, it follows that there is a sequence (indeed, an infinite number of sequences) of mutations that will change any given genome into any other given genome. For example, the genome of a monkey into the genome of a man.
If none of these mutations increases "information" (whatever that is) it follows that evolution can get on just fine without ever increasing "information", and, indeed, we are in the case you mentioned earlier, in which "information" is conserved by mutation and hence there is no "information" in any genome.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 48 of 128 (437887)
12-01-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TheWay
12-01-2007 12:17 PM


Re: Thank you. I'm slow
Complexity requires complex information
Well that is something of an assumption. There are a number of obvious mathematical formulae showing complexity from very simple initial information, for instance many of Wolfram's cellular automata programs are very simple but they produce very complex patterns.
Complexity requires complex information, which has not yet been shown to have been accumulated through natural processes
How can we show it to you unless we agree what it would look like? Without a usable definition for this 'complex information' the IDists can just shift the goalposts any time a counterexample is given.
Do you think Spetner knows how to measure it? Does he give any examples?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TheWay, posted 12-01-2007 12:17 PM TheWay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by TheWay, posted 12-02-2007 6:31 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
TheWay
Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 27
From: Oklahoma City, Ok
Joined: 08-21-2007


Message 49 of 128 (438089)
12-02-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
12-01-2007 1:31 PM


Re: Mutations and information, part 2
Thanks for the reply, it is starting to make more sense.
In that case, though, in particular a deletion mutation would not remove information. In which case any series of deletion mutations would not remove information. In which case, there is no information in any genome. In which case it is not an objection to evolution to say that mutations can't create information, since there isn't any information.
Are you not re-defining information from the abstract? If I laid out a 1 1 1 1 (four ones) sequence we could say that it is information because we can add these up to get something new like the number four. So abstractly a sequence can manifest a certain idea. Also, we can attach meaning to each (1) number and have it be represented accordingly. Furthermore, without a standard, we could no more say that it isn't information as it is information.
As far as I know, the phenotype reflects the genotype and is an expression thereof. So, in the abstract, I do not understand how you can say that there is no information other than redefining information to fit the evolutionary model.
I looked at the article you provided at: NCBI
and was mentally confounded.
That was a tough paper to read. A few questions from it:
They created a self replicating RNA structure from what? They purified the replicase of 95% nucleic acids, I take it that this replicase is now a deadened version of the bacteria? They added the oligonucleotide to the template free RNA and it induced production of different RNA species, so is this like reconstructing RNA from scratch? Or is there another point to this experiment? After they added the bromide and acridine orange some species couldn't reproduce without it, is this evidence of speciation due to environment? Or am I missing the point of the article?
It also sounds as if they are unsure of why this phenomena is occuring. The information could be in the protein as they suggested or influenced by the oligonucleotides. It is rather strange though.

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-01-2007 1:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2007 8:47 PM TheWay has not replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 8:02 AM TheWay has not replied

  
TheWay
Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 27
From: Oklahoma City, Ok
Joined: 08-21-2007


Message 50 of 128 (438093)
12-02-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Wounded King
12-01-2007 5:52 PM


Re: Thank you. I'm slow
Complexity requires complex information
Well that is something of an assumption. There are a number of obvious mathematical formulae showing complexity from very simple initial information, for instance many of Wolfram's cellular automata programs are very simple but they produce very complex patterns.
I believe I over simplified it. Specificity would be an example of small "information" resulting in complexity. I guess I tried to push the idea that the complexity is overwhelming and that subsequently information would be the main factor regardless of the amount.
How can we show it to you unless we agree what it would look like? Without a usable definition for this 'complex information' the IDists can just shift the goalposts any time a counterexample is given.
Do you think Spetner knows how to measure it? Does he give any examples?
I doubt that Spetner knows if no one here knows. As for me, I haven't the slightest clue. So I'll stick around this thread and try to learn more as well as looking for more details externally. Although, abstractly, information would be synonymous with knowledge as one would expect from a design. From a layman's perspective it seems that genetics would fill this requirement. Just tossing that out there.

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2007 5:52 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2007 9:19 PM TheWay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 128 (438117)
12-02-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheWay
12-02-2007 6:25 PM


Re: Mutations and information, part 2
Are you not re-defining information from the abstract? If I laid out a 1 1 1 1 (four ones) sequence we could say that it is information because we can add these up to get something new like the number four. So abstractly a sequence can manifest a certain idea. Also, we can attach meaning to each (1) number and have it be represented accordingly. Furthermore, without a standard, we could no more say that it isn't information as it is information.
As far as I know, the phenotype reflects the genotype and is an expression thereof. So, in the abstract, I do not understand how you can say that there is no information other than redefining information to fit the evolutionary model.
You have missed my point so thoroughly that I can't figure out what you think my point was.
To recapitulate: you asked what I would say to someone who maintained that mutations always conserve information.
My reply was that if this is true, then since deletion is a form of mutation, it would follow that we could delete as much of the genome as we like (or all of it!) without destroying any information.
But this is possible only if there wasn't any information in the genome to start with.
Now, this does not involve me "redefining information" in any way: I am simply showing the logical consequences of any definition of "information" such that mutations conserve information.
Note also that the conclusion that no genome contains information is by no means part of "the evolutionary model". I dodn't claim that. But someone who claimed that all mutations conserve information would be forced by logic and the existence of deletion mutations to claim exactly that. Implicitly, someone who claims that mutations conserve information is claiming that.
---
We might state the result more formally.
Given any measure of genetic information such that two identical genomes contain the same amount of genetic information and such that the "null genome" (i.e. the "genome" consisting of no bases whatsoever) contains no genetic infomation, it follows that either no genome contains any information, or that it is possible for a mutation to increase information.
That was a tough paper to read.
You seem to have grasped it all right, though.
Is that cool or what?
More later, must eat pizza.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheWay, posted 12-02-2007 6:25 PM TheWay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 128 (438123)
12-02-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TheWay
12-02-2007 6:31 PM


Information
I doubt that Spetner knows if no one here knows.
Well, there are plenty of ways to measure information. For example, we could just measure the number of bits. That's easy, it's just twice the length of the genome. Or we could calculate the Kolmogorov complexity --- tricky, but feasible if you have the entire genome mapped.
But when a creationist says that "mutations only decrease information", he will never tell you how he's measuring information, 'cos if he gave any particular measurement, it would be trivial to prove him wrong. An insertion mutation, for example, would increase the number of bits; a duplication followed by a point mutation would increase Kolmogorov complexity; and so forth.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TheWay, posted 12-02-2007 6:31 PM TheWay has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 128 (438168)
12-03-2007 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheWay
12-02-2007 6:25 PM


Re: Mutations and information, part 2
TheWay writes:
Are you not re-defining information from the abstract? If I laid out a 1 1 1 1 (four ones) sequence we could say that it is information because we can add these up to get something new like the number four. So abstractly a sequence can manifest a certain idea. Also, we can attach meaning to each (1) number and have it be represented accordingly.
Information theory, as first conceived by Claude Shannon of Bell Labs, addresses the problem of how to communicate information from sender to receiver in the presence of noise, for example, interference on a telephone landline. There is one particular facet of the definition of "information" in information theory that is of extreme importance, and I'll quote Shannon from his landmark paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication:
Shannon writes:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
In other words, information theory is not concerned with meaning, and in this context it is important not to confuse information with meaning.
Notice that Shannon mentions communicating a message. In order for a sender to communicate with a receiver, both must know the message set. For example, let's say the message set consists of the 26 letters plus some punctuation. When the sender sends a message to the to the receiver, he is sending a letter, say "A" or "G". In order to send that message over a wire the letter must be encoded, and so "A" might be encoded by the bits "01000001" and "G" might be encoded by the bits "01000111". The sender can send the string "AG" by first sending the message "01000001" followed by the message "01000111".
But notice that these numbers "01000001" and "01000111" have no inherent meaning. They have meaning to the sender and receiver in that one means "A" and the other means "B", but the numbers themselves have no meaning. When the sender sends those numbers down the wire, the wire has no knowledge of the meanings of those numbers, and it doesn't matter to the wire or to the larger problem of communication what they actually mean. It could be '"01000001" if by land and "01000111" if by sea' for all the wire cares.
The amount of information being sent down the wire is the log2 of the number of messages in the message set. A message set consisting only of "A" and "G" is of size 2, and so log22 = 1 bit means that it really takes only one bit to encode our message. The encoding would be obvious in this case, you'd define A=0 and G=1, or A=1 and G=0. In other words, if our message set isn't the 26 letters plus punctuation but only two letters then we don't need the longer encodings I mentioned above, which happen to be the ASCII codes for A and G.
You asked how much information is in "1111". Assuming that "1111" is the sequence of bits you're going to send down the wire, and assuming that your message set size is 16 (four bits can take on 16 different values, from "0000" through "1111"), the amount of information in your message is log216, which is 4 bits, which we knew already since we were sending 4 bits.
It would be much more informative to ask something like, "How much information would I have to send in order to communicate the 20 amino acids." This is straightforward. The log220 = 4.32 bits. In other words, 4.32 bits is the minimum number of bits necessary to communicate a single message from a message set of size 20. Unfortunately there are no simple equations to tell you the most efficient encoding, but we can easily invent our own that takes sometimes 4 bits and sometimes 5 bits, because we'll assume that a leading 0 means the message consists of 4 bits, while a leading 1 means it consists of 5 bits, e.g.:
0000   Alanine
 0001   Arginine
 0010   Asparagine
 0011   Aspartic acid
 0100   Cysteine
 0101   Glutamic acid
 0110   Glutamine
 0111   Glycine
10000   Histidine
10001   Isoleucine
10010   Leucine
10011   Lysine
10100   Methionine
10101   Phenylalanine
10110   Proline
10111   Serine
11000   Threonine
11001   Tryptophan
11010   Tyrosine
11011   Valine
We can tell we haven't achieved the most efficient encoding, because assuming each amino acid is equally likely to be sent, then the average number of bits in each message is 4.6, which is above the 4.32 bits that the Shannon equation tells us is the minimum. Finding the most efficient coding is often very difficult.
The first couple pages of the Shannon paper are worth a read, they are very comprehensible. After that point it gets rather complicated mathematically.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheWay, posted 12-02-2007 6:25 PM TheWay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2007 7:09 AM Percy has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 54 of 128 (439734)
12-10-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
12-03-2007 8:02 AM


Re: Mutations and information, part 2
So does that mean that for a system with 4 states, i.e. DNA bases, the optimum encoding for 20 amino acids should be Log420 = 2.16?
So a minimal encoding would only take an average of 2.16 bases to encode a specific amino acid, presumably assuming that the frequencies of the amino acids are equivalent?
Is that right?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 8:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 8:26 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 128 (439743)
12-10-2007 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Wounded King
12-10-2007 7:09 AM


Re: Mutations and information, part 2
Looks right to me. The challenge is to find that encoding. When I was still in school it was believed that there were in many cases no mathematical approaches for deriving the most efficient encoding, but I don't know if that's still the case. But given sufficient computer resources you can always find the most efficient encoding through brute force enumeration.
But finding the most efficient encoding is not very often a goal, while reliability often is. Redundancy used to play a significant role in computer design (e.g., parity on memories and buses), but I go back a ways and that's probably not so much the case anymore with modern IC technology. But redundancy plays a significant role in recorded media such as hard disks and optical media like DVDs. My guess is that the digital encoding of HDTV broadcasts involves a great deal of redundancy, given the significant number of potential sources of signal interference.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2007 7:09 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Suroof
Junior Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 22
From: Birmingham
Joined: 12-12-2007


Message 56 of 128 (440349)
12-12-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rahvin
11-15-2007 11:09 AM


You're starting with a false premise - that irreducibly complex structures exist, at all.
Short answer: they don't.
Medium answer: every single feature of every organism that currently exists or that we have ever examined from fossil evidence is a slightly modified version of the same feature on another organism.
Longer answer: Take the eye as an example. IC proponents tend to point out that, if you remove the lens, or cornea, or any other part of the eye, it ceases to be a useful structure. It therefor must be irreducibly complex, and could not have evolved. But this does not match up with the evidence. The eye, as a general structure, has evolved in several completely different, completely separated trees (all of the steps of eye evolution are just that useful). The first step is simply a photoreactive cell - something that can tell light from dark. This is useful - sunlight is a source of energy, so it's useful for an organism to be able to tell when it is sitting in sunlight. There are many examples of these - various bacteria, for example, and plants. The next step towards an eye would be having only a small cluster of photoreactive cells in a recessed portion of the organism's body. It doesn't have to be recessed much to make the simple light/dark detecting cells now able to sense the direction of the light as well as its presence - obviously more useful
I just wanted to come back on this. Behe, when he coined IC, never intended it to be used on the gross level - it was meant to address complex systems with several well-matching interacting parts at the molecular level. In his book he explains the eye at the macroscopic level is not IC as you have explained, but the molecular mechanism of phototransduction (the conversion of photons to chemical/electric signals) can be an example of IC. For phototransduction to occur, the light absorbing component 11-cis-retinal changes to all-trans-retinal and dissociates from opsin; the now transformed molecule interacts with a G protein (transducin) which sets of an amplifying cascade ultimately converting cGMP to GMP and hence closing cGMP gated channels. This molecular process is irreducibly complex as all the many parts are required, the parts are well-matched (i.e. they wouldn't have effects on other molecules) and they interact. Behe argues that it is these systems, complex at the molecular level, which includes the blood clotting cascade, signalling cascades, bacterial flagellum and cillia, which cannot be created by undirected darwinian evolution.
He never publishes any papers in scientific journals
I'm not much of a scientist but from the academic journals I have seen Behe does contribute. His idea has been attacked and he has responded. For example, he has written in response to Shanks and Joplin (who equated IC to redundant complexity) at the famous jstor and he has other articles to his name on that online collection of journals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 11-15-2007 11:09 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 12-12-2007 7:09 PM Suroof has replied
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2007 6:15 AM Suroof has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 57 of 128 (440358)
12-12-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Suroof
12-12-2007 6:25 PM


Suroof writes:
Behe argues that it is these systems, complex at the molecular level [...] which cannot be created by undirected darwinian evolution.
I'm curious as to what "direction" is required that Darwinian evolution can't provide. Do certain molecules or functional groups need a "nudge" that they can't get in any natural way? How do you (and/or Behe) know it "cannot" happen?

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Suroof, posted 12-12-2007 6:25 PM Suroof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Suroof, posted 12-12-2007 8:05 PM ringo has replied

  
Suroof
Junior Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 22
From: Birmingham
Joined: 12-12-2007


Message 58 of 128 (440377)
12-12-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
12-12-2007 7:09 PM


How do you (and/or Behe) know it "cannot" happen?
Darwinism works by the accumulation of gradual benficial changes in offsprings guided by natural selection. Behe differentiates between an indirect and a direct Darwinian model for creating an IC system. The direct model is where a simple functioning system gradually becomes more complicated and an indirect model is where parts with various other functions come together and create an IC system. The direct route to an IC system is by definition not possible as an IC system requires all the parts for it to function so could not have had a physical (as opposed to conceptual) simpler functional precursor. As for the indirect route, Behe concedes it is possible but highly implausible depending on the number of "parts" and the extent of how well-matched the components are (he makes a distinction between simple interaction - SI - , which have unspecified interactions, and IC). He further argues the more these systems are found the less likely an indirect Darwinian route could account for IC systems. I personally believe Behe gives a satisfactory reason as to why Darwinism cannot account for IC systems at the molecular level.
As to non-Darwinian mechanisms of creating an IC system, Behe suggests only two have been proposed: symbiosis (Margulis) and complexity theory (Kauffman); however neither can account for IC systems as Behe explains.
I'm curious as to what "direction" is required that Darwinian evolution can't provide
Direction is required because to create an IC system an "end-point" must be envisaged. Darwinian evolution is blind, unintelligent and undirected and therefore does not see ahead (Dawkins describes this brilliantly in his Blind Watchmaker); an IC system however requires direction and therefore Darwinism cannot account for it.
The solution Behe proposes to Darwinian and non-Darwinian explanations for IC systems is design, and he argues design is the best explanation. There is no need to know who or what the intelligent designer is, but that one (or many) necessarily exist for IC systems to have come about is the argument. Francis Crick quite seriously said aliens came to earth and planted spores to seed the earth. Religious folk would naturally invoke God as the intelligent designer.
Do certain molecules or functional groups need a "nudge" that they can't get in any natural way?
It's not difficult to imagine how an intelligent designer would direct the genome to create an IC system. Behe offers examples in his book (pg. 199 - 205)
Edited by Suroof, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 12-12-2007 7:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 12-12-2007 8:47 PM Suroof has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 128 (440384)
12-12-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Suroof
12-12-2007 8:05 PM


Suroof writes:
As for the indirect route, Behe concedes it is possible but highly implausible depending on the number of "parts" and the extent of how well-matched the components are....
So the only argument for a designer is that the alternative is possible but "implausible"?
Direction is required because to create an IC system an "end-point" must be envisaged.
But you're assuming that the system is irreducibly complex. If there is no "end-point", if there is no "complete" or "incomplete" system, if there's only molecules - why is direction needed? You might need direction to get from A to B, but what if you just need to get anywhere? Why can't systems be built of "anywheres" instead of specific end-points?
Francis Crick quite seriously said aliens came to earth and planted spores to seed the earth.
That has nothing to do with the topic. If aliens brought something irreducibly complex here, it still had to form initially somewhere. The aliens would not be the "designer".
It's not difficult to imagine how an intelligent designer would direct the genome to create an IC system. Behe offers examples in his book (pg. 199 - 205)
Give us some examples, please - specific examples of which functional groups need to be moved where and why it's "implausible" without an intelligent nudger.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Suroof, posted 12-12-2007 8:05 PM Suroof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 4:59 AM ringo has replied

  
Suroof
Junior Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 22
From: Birmingham
Joined: 12-12-2007


Message 60 of 128 (440432)
12-13-2007 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
12-12-2007 8:47 PM


You seem to have misunderstood the implications of an IC system. The following are two passages from Behe's book which I believe addresses your concerns:
"We must also consider the role of the laws of nature. The laws of nature can organise matter - for example, water flow can build up silt sufficiently to dam a portion of a river, forcing it to change course. The most relevant laws are those of biological reproduction, mutation and natural selection. If a biological structure can be explained in terms of natural laws, then we cannot conclude that it was designed. Throughout this book, however, I have shown why many biochemical systems cannot be built up by natural selection working on mutations: no direct gradual route exists to these IC systems and the laws of chemistry work strongly agaisnt the undirected development of the biochemical systems that make molecules such as AMP. Alternatives to gradualism [darwinism] that work through unintelligent causes, such as symbiosis and complexity theory cannot (and do not even try to) explain the fundamental biochemical machines of life. If natural laws peculiar to life cannot explain a biological system, then the criteria for concluding design become the same as for inanimate systems. There is not magic point of IC at which Darwinism is logically impossible. But the hurdles for gradualism become higher and higher as structures are more complex, more interdependent."
"The designing that is currently going on in biochemistry laboratories throughout the world - the activity that is required to plan a new plasminogen that can be cleaved by thrombin, or a cow that gives growth hormone in its milk, or a bacteria that secretes human insulin - is analagous to the designing that preceded the blood-clotting system. The laboratory work of graduate students peicing together bits of genes in a deliberate effort to make something new is analagous to the work that was done to cause the first cilium."
As for the existence of IC systems, the cilium and the blood clotting cascade, are as good examples as any. The above description of phototransduction is also an example of IC.
Edited by Suroof, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 12-12-2007 8:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 12-13-2007 10:41 AM Suroof has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024