Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
30 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,852 Year: 18,888/19,786 Month: 1,308/1,705 Week: 114/446 Day: 10/104 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does complexity require intelligent design?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 229 (197267)
04-06-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by xevolutionist
04-05-2005 10:02 PM


Re: triple jumps in logic
quote:
I should have made myself easier to understand, forgive me. My point was that the complexity of the simplest living cells is far beyond our ability to assemble, even with the technology to create virtually any environment and any combination of chemical compounds, so to assume that chance produced the same incredibly complex, interdependent, life forms, is not logical. Is that silly?

It is not silly, just not well thought out. Why is it impossible for chance and a selective filter to create complex systems? Please provide positive evidence of why this is impossible.

Second, as Crashfrog mentioned, engineers are now using chance and a selective filter to create new designs (they are called genetic algorithms). One exciting filed of research is software that controls electronic gates. This allows random combinations of different electrical components. All you need is a selective filter that picks out the best random designs. Rinse and repeat, voila, new design that works as well as one intelligently designed, or even better. One example is a radio that was evolved through this process (info here). If random chance and a selective filter can create a radio, why can't it create a replicating chemical reaction that improves over time? More importantly, with evidence that chance and selection can create design, how do we tell the difference between an evolved system and an intelligently designed (from scratch) system?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by xevolutionist, posted 04-05-2005 10:02 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by xevolutionist, posted 04-13-2005 10:58 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 3303 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 197 of 229 (197283)
04-06-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by xevolutionist
04-04-2005 2:05 PM


information from non-intelligent sources
quote:
The barrier is that no new genetic information can be produced by mutation. You only corrupt the information already present.
Please provide evidence that it does occur.

Although this has been answered, here is yet another example of an unambiguous increase in information from
Sylas
. You will notice that there is no requirement of an intelligence to increase information, only mutation.

Second. A mutation alters a gene sequence slightly. Then another mutation restores it back to the previous form (back mutation). If you have some objective measure of information that can distinguish “information levels” of gene sequences; then one of these mutations has increased information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by xevolutionist, posted 04-04-2005 2:05 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by xevolutionist, posted 04-13-2005 11:08 PM bob_gray has not yet responded

    
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 198 of 229 (197655)
04-08-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wounded King
04-05-2005 4:52 AM


Super baby?.
Wow, holding almost 14 pounds up. Hardly what I would call super, but I don't doubt that he has a mutated gene. Whether or not it is advantageous remains to be seen. When he passes this trait on, if it doesn't adversely affect his reproductive ability, we will see. It's a little early to be citing this as an example of random beneficial mutations. Anyway, I think this is off topic, and I'm limiting my replies to ID. I think this is related, but in a roundabout way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wounded King, posted 04-05-2005 4:52 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by NosyNed, posted 04-08-2005 10:19 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 04-08-2005 2:08 PM xevolutionist has responded
 Message 214 by Wounded King, posted 04-10-2005 7:07 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 199 of 229 (197658)
04-08-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by xevolutionist
04-08-2005 10:10 AM


Re: Super baby?.
Whether or not it is advantageous remains to be seen.

Absolutely true. Advantageous (or not) is mostly relative to the environment.

However, this does show that mutations can produce changes which may well be advantageous in a resonable environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by xevolutionist, posted 04-08-2005 10:10 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 200 of 229 (197663)
04-08-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Ooook!
04-05-2005 6:14 AM


Re: Ok, never say never...
Why is it that when IDists talk about all mutations taking away 'information' (whatever that is), they always overlook the process of gene duplication. This changes the genome (ie is a mutation) and can never be considered deleterious because it obviously adds to the genome.

I'm not overlooking it. It sounds very reasonable but every example I've seen described shows the problems associated with tampering with the designer's codes. A very short search found this example on a {pro evo} site about genetics. I'll paste the link below, but this is the first time I've tried this.

From web site:
"Duplications are a doubling of a section of the genome. During meiosis, crossing over between sister chromatids that are out of alignment can produce one chromatid with an duplicated gene and the other (not shown) having two genes with deletions. In the case shown here, unequal crossing over created a second copy of a gene needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormone aldosterone.

However, this new gene carries inappropriate promoters at its 5' end (acquired from the 11-beta hydroxylase gene) that cause it to be expressed more strongly than the normal gene. The mutant gene is dominant: all members of one family (through four generations) who inherited at least one chromosome carrying this duplication suffered from high blood pressure and were prone to early death from stroke."
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Ooook!, posted 04-05-2005 6:14 AM Ooook! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-08-2005 10:55 AM xevolutionist has responded
 Message 217 by Ooook!, posted 04-10-2005 5:59 PM xevolutionist has not yet responded

    
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4312 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 201 of 229 (197665)
04-08-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by xevolutionist
04-08-2005 10:48 AM


citing detrimental mutations does not erase the beneficial ones
I'm not overlooking it. It sounds very reasonable but every example I've seen described shows the problems associated with tampering with the designer's codes.

Well, the single example you cite does involve a duplication that results in a disease state - this appears to be a tactic of yours: to bring up one or two detrimental mutations as "proof" that some beneficial genetic mutation cannot occur.

For every "type" of mutation, whether it be base change, insertion, deletion, inversion, frame-shift, duplication; one can find a pile of detrimental mutations of that type.

That in no way means that beneficial forms of these mutations have not occurred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by xevolutionist, posted 04-08-2005 10:48 AM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by xevolutionist, posted 04-13-2005 11:21 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 202 of 229 (197681)
04-08-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by xevolutionist
04-05-2005 10:37 PM


Re: science
Sure. Easy. Frst tell us which particular definition of "information" you are using, so we can select an appropriate example of it increasing.

Coded material fed to a computer or communications system. Specifically the information that controls the formation, development, and the 5000 or so chemical processes necessary for each cell to perform it's specialized function, and repair and reproduce itself.

Sorry, not usefual good enough.

You said "The barrier is that no new genetic information can be produced by mutation". In order to evaluate that claim we need a way to measure the amount of information, so we can compare it before and after a mutation to see it it has increased or no;, or a way to characterize information as "new" or "old" and then characterize the information present before and after a mutation to see if any of the information after the mutation is "new".

So, to be meaningful your defintion of information must include either a way to measure the quantity of information at any time and/or separate arbitrary information into "new" and "old" categories.

Of course, you wouldn't have made that claim without having made the appropriate measurements and/or determinations, or at least knowing a reference to someone who has ... would you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by xevolutionist, posted 04-05-2005 10:37 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by xevolutionist, posted 04-14-2005 10:26 AM JonF has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 229 (197692)
04-08-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by xevolutionist
04-08-2005 10:10 AM


Re: Super baby?.
Wow, holding almost 14 pounds up. Hardly what I would call super

For a four-year old? Jesus. Where did you go to day care? Charles Xaviers' School for Gifted Youngsters?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by xevolutionist, posted 04-08-2005 10:10 AM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by xevolutionist, posted 04-14-2005 11:29 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 204 of 229 (197867)
04-09-2005 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by nator
03-20-2005 8:39 PM


Re: learning
quote:
Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

What are the different cell types being spoke of above? [This is numbered 6 right before hte references are listed.]

How effective are fosils at revealing cell types?

This message has been edited by Trae, 04-09-2005 02:16 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 8:39 PM nator has not yet responded

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 205 of 229 (197886)
04-09-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
04-01-2005 3:38 PM


unique
Because its a polar molecule. In fact all polar molecules act this way; water is not unique in this regard. (Didn't I cover this once before?) Water's polarity is also the reason its such an efficient solvent.

The list below doesn't even mention the surface tension and capillary action that are cited in most texts as being unusual.

I. Physical properties:
most common liquid on the planet
only common inorganic liquid
exists in all 3 physical states (solid, liquid, gas) on Earth's Surface
excellent solvent for ionic and polar compounds
very high dielectric constant
highest surface tension of any liquid except mercury (at STP)
thermal properties:
Specific Heat = 1 cal / gm
Latent heat of fusion = 80 cal / gm
Latent heat of vaporization = 540 cal / gm (at 100o C)
expands upon freezing by about 11%
These values are all anomolous, and are among the highest values for these parameters for any known substance.

So tell me, what other polar molecules have all, or most of these properties? I did about an hour's research and found that we don't know why water retains heat the way it does, and holds more compounds in solution than any other liquid.

That's your evidence? That, because intelligence cannot create life no matter how hard it tries, that life must be the product of intelligence? Does that really make sense to you?

That since we are unable to intentionally duplicate under controlled conditions a hypothetical process that supposedly occurred by chance, then the likelyhood of it occurring naturally is impossible.

Time plus opportunity does not guarantee that an event will occur. If we physically manipulate a rubic's cube using visual observation, and mental processes to guide our manipulation, then it is possible to solve the puzzle. A person lacking only one sense, vision, may never be able to solve the puzzle, regardless of the number of times he manipulates it, even a billion times a billion. We can organize playing cards in any sequence we desire with our intelligence, observational and physical dexterity, but a billion tornadoes will not ever lay them down perfectly aligned in descending order according to suit, on a card table.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:38 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 11:40 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 229 (197904)
04-09-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by xevolutionist
04-09-2005 11:05 AM


So tell me, what other polar molecules have all, or most of these properties? I did about an hour's research and found that we don't know why water retains heat the way it does, and holds more compounds in solution than any other liquid.

I just told you. Because its a polar molecule. That explains why water has such a high surface tension, why it exhibits capillary action, why its such a great solvent for polar/ionic compounds, why its specific heat is so high, and basically everything else.

Now, it is fairly unique in being an inorganic polar liquid. No, wait, I take that back. Bromine is inorganic, at least weakly polar due to van der Waals forces, and liquid at room temperature. Unless I'm seriously botching the chemistry here.

That since we are unable to intentionally duplicate under controlled conditions a hypothetical process that supposedly occurred by chance, then the likelyhood of it occurring naturally is impossible.

That doesn't follow. You assume that we're able to control or even be aware of all the myriad natural factors that would have come into play; this is clearly not the case.

Time plus opportunity does not guarantee that an event will occur.

No, it pretty much does. Repeated trials make improbabilities certainties. Or rather, sufficiently repeated trials make the likelyhood that you haven't succeeded yet infinitesimal. It's mathematical fact, and not really disputable.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-09-2005 10:45 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by xevolutionist, posted 04-09-2005 11:05 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 207 of 229 (197906)
04-09-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by crashfrog
04-04-2005 3:47 PM


Inference, information
But here's the thing. The drawings are based not on the same idea, but on two different ideas - the idea that you can infer heredity through genetics, and the idea that you can infer heredity through morphology.

So inference is perfectly acceptable in one model, but not in another?

I don't know what information is, exactly, but mutations do produce novel genetic sequences. And its the sequence that determines the result of the gene.

Information consists of the genetic code that determines all the processes necessary for life. The predetermined sequences can be compared to the words in a book. If you change the word "stop" to the word "spot" it doesn't convey the same meaning.

"Corrupted" information is new information. Anything that appears that wasn't already present is new. And DNA sequences don't really "corrupt", they simply change.

If the previous sequence was functioning correctly to produce a specified function, any change would seem to remove a desirable component for an unwanted one in cellular processes, since every process is related to, or complements, other processes in the cells.
If you investigate the link I referred to on the post referencing gene duplication, you will see that every example cited had harmful results, not just the one I showed. Although the researcher did say that beneficial results were possible, no examples were provided there or on any of the other articles and papers I had time to check, with the exception of a type of yeast strain, although no particulars were given as to the actual "improvement."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2005 3:47 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 9:36 PM xevolutionist has not yet responded

    
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 208 of 229 (197910)
04-09-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by pink sasquatch
04-04-2005 6:07 PM


Re: out of curiousity...
The genetic tree of life that you summarily dismiss as a "drawing" uses the same strategy as DNA-based paternity testing. Please respond to message 164 in this thread, where I outline more of the details.

Why do you immediately accept one and reject the other when they are the same process?

The complexity of the genetic code is evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. As I am limiting my discussions in this thread to ID related topics, the similarities of dna in most life forms show only a similar methodology of creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-04-2005 6:07 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

    
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 209 of 229 (197922)
04-09-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Loudmouth
04-05-2005 5:45 PM


Re: Ok, never say never...
How can you test for paternity when conception only happened once? How can you test for the presence of the suspect at a crime scene if the crime only happened once? Do we have to reanimate a corpse and have it rekilled to find out how the person was murdered in the first place?

Actually paternity testing is not an absolute certainty. Usually 99.9 % is good enough for a judge to rule, but what about identical twins? Either one would test the same, but only one could be the father.

For example, let's say that I hypothesize that John murdered Mark. At the crime scene I find two blood types. From this I predict that both John's blood and Mark's blood will be a match to the blood found at the scene. Sure enough, my prediction is born out. The murder only happened once, but I can test the evidence continually.

And suppose John has a twin brother, or John's blood was stolen from a testing facility where he was having lab work done, or John and Mark were both using IV drugs an hour before the murder? When you want to find evidence to support your theory, you tend to find it, even when there are alternative possibilities. Interestingly, researchers found that scientists looking for a specified result, even using modern research methods, tended to skew the results in favor of their theory, unknowingly.

If I showed you mutations that have lead to beneficial outcomes, would you agree that life is not designed? If not, then why even make the argument you have just made?

The theory of ID does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a very few apparently beneficial mutations. The extremely small number of examples that I've seen would not suggest that any significant morphological change is possible. Some of the examples I've been given here, such as the super baby, show little real change and it is yet to be determined that the change is indeed beneficial or capable of being passed down to descendants.

For some, alien intervention for the construction of Stonehenge fits the evidence better. At one time, Zeus throwing down thunderbolts fit the evidence better. Science requires evidence instead of opinion or an unknown force.

So what exactly is gravity? We know some of the effects of gravity, but what causes it? What does it consist of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Loudmouth, posted 04-05-2005 5:45 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

    
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 210 of 229 (197929)
04-09-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
04-05-2005 10:13 PM


Re: triple jumps in logic
We're not talking about "materials", though; we're talking about genetic errors and mistakes being passed down through generations. There's no reason for a designer to copy his own mistakes from one organism to another, now is there?

What is DNA made of if it is not material? Materials are components.
The designer set up a self replicating process that is remarkably resistant to change, but not impervious. The gradual decline of the species shows that the original creation was superior to the existing species. What mistakes were made in the original?

The fact that the galaxies are all moving away from each other, in seeming contradiction to the observed natural force of gravity, does not suggest to you some starting point to the universe?

Yes, it's silly. Natural selection acting on random mutation is considerably more creative than human intelligence. That's why we've learned to apply those processes to the design process.

Random mutation is creative? Now that's silly. Ask a musical composer if it wouldn't be better to just put random notes on the score, or ask an architect if it wouldn't be better to just add walls or windows in a random way. What design process uses random factors as a primary creative function? {I don't consider rap "music" to be a valid example}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:13 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Trae, posted 04-10-2005 7:29 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 04-10-2005 9:05 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019