Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 8:07 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, jar, Jon, Louis Morelli (5 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,974 Year: 12,010/19,786 Month: 1,791/2,641 Week: 300/708 Day: 75/52 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6694
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 14 of 136 (420830)
09-09-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Siggy
09-09-2007 5:28 PM


Hello, Siggy, and welcome to EvC.

The point is this; natural selection by its very nature will eliminate parts that do not benefit the organism immediately so unless all of the parts evolved simultaneously natural selection itself would have gotten rid of them.

This is not true. Consider, for example, A and B are parts of a simple "IC" system. Then C is added -- C is not necessary, but it does help make the process a little bit better. ABC is better than AB alone. But then a mutation turns A into A'. A' works with the combination BC much, much better than A did -- A'BC is much, much better than ABC. The only problem is, if you take away C then A'B doesn't work at all. Thus, it appears as if A'BC is completely irreducible. But it's not -- you just don't currently see how A'BC evolved from simpler, reducible precursors.

So it is not really the case that you can look at a system and tell that it absolutely could not have evolved.

-

but if you have 1% of the machine, can evolution fill in the difference?

Sure. If that 1% works just good enough to impart a reproductive advantage to the possessor, then it will be selected for.

-

And I couldn't resist:

the idea is simple, and i do agree that micro evolution can do such things, but if you remove one piece of a Lego building, any moron can try every piece until one fits correctly, but try removing 5 or how about all of them?

Great! You have just disproved the "Living organisms are made of Legos" theory. And so science advances.


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 5:28 PM Siggy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 6:09 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6694
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 20 of 136 (420853)
09-09-2007 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Siggy
09-09-2007 6:09 PM


you still havent given me what ive asked for sir.

You haven't asked for anything. You stated (if I may paraphrase -- if I misquote you, please feel free to correct me) that an "irreducibly complex system" cannot evolve through gradual improvements. I said that, no, it is possible. Whether it has actually happened is another question -- I was simply commenting on your statement. The technical term for your statement is the argument from personal incredulity. Not only is it a fallacy in general, but I have shown how this particular "problem" can be overcome.

-

i deify you

Oh, don't do that! That would be a violation of the First Commandment!

-

show me that the living thing can come up with ABC on its its own.

What do you mean "on its own"?

We start with a population of organisms with ABC. Most will produce offspring with ABC. Some might produce offspring with a mutation that makes A"BC -- this doesn't work as well, they will be eliminated. Some might produce offspring with the mutation AXC -- this doesn't work at all, and they will be eliminated. Some might produce offspring with the mutation that will make A'BC -- this works better and natural selection will give this individuals an advantage.

At any rate, a real life example is the human blood clotting system. It was claimed that this was an "irreducibly complex system" that could not have evolved; but after comparing the human clotting system with the simpler blood clotting systems of other organisms, they were able to determine how it evolved according to the very scenario that I just described.

-

it starts with nothing not A or B or C.

Nothing ever starts with nothing. Well, maybe the very first replicating systems three and half billion years ago, whose "parts" were simple enough to come together through random chance. But once some sort of compexity was achieved, then evolution would make use of things that were already present, duplicating and modifying already existing "parts".

-

consider the bacterial flagellum

Which has already been shown to be not irreducibly complex. So much for that example.

-

i cant get the quote thing to work, a little help?

Typing
[qs]Try this.[/qs]
produces

Try this.

Typing
[qs=The goober]Try this.[/qs]
produces

The goober writes:

Try this.

Typing
[quote]Try this.[/quote]
produces

quote:
Try this.

Note: no spaces inside the [...]; type [qs] and [/qs], not [ qs ] or [ /qs ]!

This board does not automatically add any quoted material when you reply to a post; you have to cut and past the parts that you wish to quote.

For more hip tips, click where it says "dBCodes On (help)" to the left of your edit window when you are typing a post.


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 6:09 PM Siggy has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6694
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 24 of 136 (420879)
09-09-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Siggy
09-09-2007 5:28 PM


A second response to the same post
Hi, Siggy. I'm sorry that I didn't catch this the first time around.

Mr Hall's experiments eliminated the power of IC machines to prove anything. the point isn't for an already working machine to rebuild itself....

You missed the point of the experiment described in the OP. The machine did not rebuild itself. A new and different machine was built that did the job of the old, broken machine. And this new machine was built from three parts, each of which was necessary for its function -- a new and irreducibly complex machine was built to replace the old, broken one.

-

...the point is that starting with nothing, a machine of that complexity cannot evolve.

What do you mean starting with nothing? A brand new machine was produced -- the new machine did not use the old broken one. It did start with nothing.

Or do you mean that the proteins composing the new machine were modifications of previously existing proteins? Well, as others have said and I have said, that is the way evolution works. Evolution very rarely, if ever, makes use of brand spanking new stuff that appears ex nihilo. Evolution usually works by modifying parts or genes that already exist.


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 5:28 PM Siggy 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