Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
 38 online now: GDR, Hyroglyphx, JonF, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 33 visitors) Newest Member: javier martinez Post Volume: Total: 873,212 Year: 4,960/23,288 Month: 81/1,784 Week: 179/353 Day: 20/39 Hour: 0/3

EvC Forum Science Forums Intelligent Design

# Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
Siggy
Junior Member (Idle past 4495 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 09-09-2007

 Message 16 of 136 (420838) 09-09-2007 6:09 PM Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera09-09-2007 5:39 PM

 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.

you still havent given me what ive asked for sir. using your terminology, im asking for a system where an organism exists and ABC would make it work better, but it does not yet exist. and where ABC is IC. i deify you to show me that the living thing can come up with ABC on its its own. remember, it starts with nothing not A or B or C.

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

I think I understand, and i agree; if A adds an advantage on its own, and AB will work better together then i see how evolution would work, but what if A adds nothing B adds nothing C adds nothing AB adds nothing AC adds nothing and BC adds nothing, but only ABC then i dont see at all how it would work; consider the bacterial flagellum

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

I hope you know as well as i do that I was making an illustration in an attempt to help you understand a simple concept that you seem to miss i was simply trying to illustrate the difficulty in what your suggesting.

Edited by Siggy, : fixing quote system

 This message is a reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 5:39 PM Chiroptera has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 7:08 PM Siggy has not yet responded

Siggy
Junior Member (Idle past 4495 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 09-09-2007

 Message 17 of 136 (420845) 09-09-2007 6:34 PM Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD09-09-2007 5:49 PM

 But evolution doesn't start with nothing. It starts with an existing organism that adapts to changing ecologies & opportunities or dies.

nothing was in reference to the machine not the organism

 And when we switch the topic to abiogenesis and the development of a possible first life, with only the requirements for a very simple self-replicating system, then you would have to show that an IC system would be required for that (and which could not come together with the same processes that developed life). And we won't know that until life is generated eh?

isnt that an origin of life topic?

 This is precisely what is falsified by the experiment. Natural selection eliminates parts that are deleterious or lethal, but it is indifferent to ones that are neutral.

This is completely not true. thus why evolutionists claim that we are losing "unnecessary" biological parts

Evolutionary Loss of Useless Features

survival of the fittest means eliminating everything that isnt fit, and by its very nature eliminating parts that dont benefit the body immediately

 Life is not machines. If you have 1% of an organism, but it is independently alive and can replicate then it will continue to evolve. Look at what "machines" evolved from the basic prokaryotes (after a billion years slow start).

youre making statements based on your assumptions! that would be like me saying look at how great God is because He made all of this; while this is what I believe i dont make that statement because you dont believe He did, so it means nothing to you.

Edited by AdminNosy, : to shorten the URL

Edited by AdminNosy, : to better title the link

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 5:49 PM RAZD has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 18 by jar, posted 09-09-2007 6:59 PM Siggy has responded Message 22 by molbiogirl, posted 09-09-2007 7:22 PM Siggy has not yet responded Message 23 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 7:26 PM Siggy has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1

 Message 18 of 136 (420848) 09-09-2007 6:59 PM Reply to: Message 17 by Siggy09-09-2007 6:34 PM

fittest?
 survival of the fittest means eliminating everything that isnt fit, and by its very nature eliminating parts that dont benefit the body immediately

Total nonsense and the kind of misrepresentation and silly statement we see from Creationists a lot.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

 This message is a reply to: Message 17 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 6:34 PM Siggy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 19 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 7:03 PM jar has responded

Siggy
Junior Member (Idle past 4495 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 09-09-2007

 Message 19 of 136 (420851) 09-09-2007 7:03 PM Reply to: Message 18 by jar09-09-2007 6:59 PM

Re: fittest?
perhaps in your wisdom you would take the time to enlighten me with your superior intellect . . .

 This message is a reply to: Message 18 by jar, posted 09-09-2007 6:59 PM jar has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 21 by jar, posted 09-09-2007 7:13 PM Siggy has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6909
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.1

 Message 20 of 136 (420853) 09-09-2007 7:08 PM Reply to: Message 16 by Siggy09-09-2007 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

jar
Member
Posts: 32363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1

 Message 21 of 136 (420855) 09-09-2007 7:13 PM Reply to: Message 19 by Siggy09-09-2007 7:03 PM

Re: fittest?
well first, go back and shorten your link that is screwing up the board.

But fittest when talking about biology simply refers to living long enough to reproduce. Just being good enough to get past the filter of Natural Selection.

The critters that do not live long enough to reproduce do not pass on their genes. Those who do are fit.

There is also the issue of populations as opposed to individuals. Populations that do not live long enough to reproduce die out and become extinct.

But fitness has nothing to do with anything other than being just barely good enough. A characteristic that does not prevent a critter or species from living long enough to reproduce can be carried forward. And when faced with some different Natural Selection filter, that characteristic might be beneficial or harmful.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

 This message is a reply to: Message 19 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 7:03 PM Siggy has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1096 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007

 Message 22 of 136 (420859) 09-09-2007 7:22 PM Reply to: Message 17 by Siggy09-09-2007 6:34 PM

 nothing was in reference to the machine not the organism

Here's the original quote:

 the point isn't for an already working machine to rebuild itself, the point is that starting with nothing, a machine of that complexity cannot evolve.

I'm not clear what distinction you are drawing between "organism" and "machine".

If a cell is considered a "biological machine", then an organism, which is composed of cells, is a "biological machine" as well.

The mechanisms by which cellular "biological machines" (e.g. ribosomes or bacterial flagella) developed thru evolution are well understood (contrary to Behe's assertions).

 survival of the fittest means eliminating everything that isnt fit, and by its very nature eliminating parts that dont benefit the body immediately

An "unnecessary" part (e.g. eyesight in a cave dwelling animal) is a deleterious part.

A great deal of biological "energy" is used in constructing "useless" parts. That "energy" expenditure could be used in others ways and thus is deleterious to an animal with an "unnecessary" part.

I'd also like to point out that the author of the 30 year old paper you cited, Philip J. Regal, is a zoologist.

http://biosci.umn.edu/~pregal/curriculum_vitae.htm

If you look at his CV you will see that evolution is not his forte.

 youre making statements based on your assumptions!

What assumptions do you think RAZD is making?

He is simply saying that if you have a self replicating molecule it will evolve.

Let's use a virus as an example. A virus is nothing more than a tiny piece of DNA encased in an envelope. It is a very simple self replicating molecule. And a virus, when it replicates, mutates.

A good example of this is HIV's response to the AIDS cocktail. Over the years, resistant strains of HIV have developed thru the viral mutations.

 This message is a reply to: Message 17 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 6:34 PM Siggy has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20628
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 23 of 136 (420860) 09-09-2007 7:26 PM Reply to: Message 17 by Siggy09-09-2007 6:34 PM

Can you edit your post so the url is not so long? It is forcing the window to be too wide to read. Use "peek mode" in the reply window to copy the coding used here:

Evolutionary Loss of Useless Features: Is it Molecular Noise Suppression?

 nothing was in reference to the machine not the organism

Life is not a machine and machine analogies just don't represent what life systems do.

 isnt that an origin of life topic?

That is what abiogenesis is.

 This is completely not true. thus why evolutionists claim that we are losing "unnecessary" biological partshttp: //links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-...survival of the fittest means eliminating everything that isnt fit, and by its very nature eliminating parts that dont benefit the body immediately

Nope. First off, the elimination of structural features by gradually making them vestigial is due to (a) several mutations being involved and (b) the energy used to make them can be employed to make other features, but this doesn't have to happen.

Second, what we are talking about are neutral mutations in the DNA code -- ones that are not involved in the production of a feature in the phenotype. As such they are not subject to natural selection - which acts on the phenotype of whole individuals - and there is no way for natural selection to touch them.

 youre making statements based on your assumptions! that would be like me saying look at how great God is because He made all of this; while this is what I believe i dont make that statement because you dont believe He did, so it means nothing to you.

I would be careful ascribing beliefs to others in any way.

No, I am making statements based on my understanding of evolution and biology, aspects that have been tested and validated.

Life replicates itself, and that makes it fundamentally different from any mechanical device.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

 This message is a reply to: Message 17 by Siggy, posted 09-09-2007 6:34 PM Siggy has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6909
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.1

 Message 24 of 136 (420879) 09-09-2007 10:40 PM Reply to: Message 13 by Siggy09-09-2007 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

Member (Idle past 3608 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009

 Message 25 of 136 (514775) 07-12-2009 2:50 PM Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD12-05-2006 9:46 PM

Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
My attention was bought to this subject by Razd in another thread. It was the first time I had read this argument against irreducible complexity and I considered it as a valid challenge against it.

Upon reading Razd’s post a second time, I came across a name that I was already familiar with and that is Brown University professor Kenneth Miller. I had to investigate Razd's post because I don’t think it is worth being a proponent of irreducible complexity if it doesn’t have any merit. However, I knew there were some things that didn’t jive and there were some questions and beliefs I had in mind.

1. Jason Shapiro has discovered and continues to discover an incredible sophistication of life at the cellular level. Michael Behe stated in his latest book that natural genetic engineering makes evolution (not Darwinian) more plausible.

2. If the lactose-utilizing system in E. coli is irreducibly complex, then why isn’t the more complex TTSS (type three secretory system) NOT irreducibly complex? (page 61, “Only a Theory” by Kenneth Miller)

3. When an irreducibly complex system loses any of its parts, it does indeed cease to function. There is no denying this. So why is there a debate on this? The question should be, how long does the system stay non-functional before it is repaired?

4. Why didn’t Kenneth Miller use the TTSS along with this argument in his book, “Only a Theory”. I consider this bacterial argument the stronger one since he claims that it produced and irreducibly complex system.

5. Irreducible complexity is not necessarily a reality. Don’t think for a moment that I have slipped into the dark side. Irreducibly complexity is derived from the neo-Darwinian paradigm and the complexity of microorganisms. It is a way of looking at the complexity of cellular life through neo-Darwinism. I am not a believer in neo-Darwinism. Since I am not, I.C. isn't a filter for intelligent design.

When I googled the search term “Michael Behe lactose”I started to find some real answers to my confusion. You can find the Miller / Levine link and Michael Behe links with the same search term.

### A True Acid Test

All of the other functions for lactose metabolism, including lactose permease and the pathways for metabolism of glucose and galactose, the products of lactose hydrolysis, remain intact, thus re-acquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new B-galactosidase function. (Hall 1999)

This says that only one part of the multipart system that Miller alluded to was wiped out.

Adaptive mutations are mutations that occur in nondividing or slowly dividing cells during prolonged nonlethal selection, and that appear to be specific to the challenge of the selection in the sense that the only mutations that arise are those that provide a growth advantage to the cell. The issue of the specificity has been controversial because it violates our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations with respect to their effect on the cell. (Hall 1997)

Sounds like they were sensing what Jason Shapiro discovered and that is “natural genetic engineering”. NGE raised a question from proponents of ID. Where did this sophistication come from? The more sophistication inside the cell, the more things could be tinkered with and therefore, mutations would require more precision and larger effects for natural selection to act upon them.

In a recent paper (Hall 1999) Professor Hall pointed out that both the lac and ebg B-galactosidase enzymes are part of a family of highly-conserved B-galactosidases, identical at 13 of 15 active site amino acid residues, which apparently diverged by gene duplication more than two billion years ago.

The genes apparently came from similar preexisting genes. These genes were probably located somewhere in the so-called junk DNA. We do have two mutations so far.

At this point it is important to discuss the use of IPTG in these studies. Unless otherwise indicated, IPTG is always included in media containing lactose or other B-galactoside sugars. The sole function of the IPTG is to induce synthesis of the lactose permease, and thus to deliver lactose to the inside of the cell. Neither the constitutive nor the inducible evolved strains grew on lactose in the absence of IPTG. (Hall 1982b)

Now we have an artificially produced substance called IPTG that was required in order to produce the final results of this experiment otherwise the bacteria would not have been able to use lactose in the wild. We have our third artificially induced mutation produced by human intervention.

The mutations described above have been deliberately selected in the laboratory as a model for the way biochemical pathways might evolve so that they are appropriately organized with respect to both the cell and its environment. It is reasonable to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world outside the laboratory. If it is assumed that the selection is strictly for lactose utilization, then a growth advantage exists only when all three mutations are present simultaneously. (Hall 1982a)

I believe Jason Shapiro (from his website) tells us that the genome has sophisticated error correction mechanisms that actively participate in correcting errors arising out of transcription. So when I add this into the picture, it seems to me that it would be very, very unlikely for these three mutations actually being produced in the wild. It is more likely that the results of this experiment were the results of an intelligent designer.

The content below (is similar to but expressed in my own terms) came from Jason Shapiro who is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Universtiy of Chicago. See the next link below.

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....eeting.pdf

Exonuclease proof reading in the polymerase (that exists in bacteria as well as E. coli) catches and corrects 99.999 percent of the errors as soon as they are made (Kunkel & Bebenek, 2000). If any errors escape the exonuclease, the methyl-directed mismatch repair system detects and fixes over 99% of those errors. (Modrich, 1991) This multilayered proof reading system effectively boosts the error correction precision to over 99.99999999%.

### The Conclusion

The possibility of three simultaneous mutations in these bacteria evolving from neo-Darwinism and maybe even all types of random evolutionary processes seems to be quite impossible without intelligent intervention and guidance.

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor corrections

Edited by traderdrew, : minor editing

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2006 9:46 PM RAZD has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 26 by Coyote, posted 07-12-2009 4:37 PM traderdrew has not yet responded Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 1:00 AM traderdrew has not yet responded Message 28 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 7:49 AM traderdrew has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 561 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 26 of 136 (514783) 07-12-2009 4:37 PM Reply to: Message 25 by traderdrew07-12-2009 2:50 PM

Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
 The possibility of three simultaneous mutations in these bacteria evolving from neo-Darwinism and maybe even all types of random evolutionary processes seems to be quite impossible without intelligent intervention and guidance.

But since there is absolutely no evidence for "intelligent intervention and guidance" what are you left with?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 25 by traderdrew, posted 07-12-2009 2:50 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member

 Message 27 of 136 (514799) 07-13-2009 1:00 AM Reply to: Message 25 by traderdrew07-12-2009 2:50 PM

Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
 traderdrew writes:Neither the constitutive nor the inducible evolved strains grew on lactose in the absence of IPTG. (Hall 1982b)

I might not be getting the idea here, but doesn't this say that neither of the strains were capable of growing on lactose in the absence of IPTG? That is to say, both the original and the evolved strains lacked this capability?

This would indicate to me that we can ignore the significance of this third mutation when examining the point that this example provides. The bacteria developed the ability to metabolize lactose, a seemingly irreducibly complex system. They did not develop the ability to transfer the lactose through their cell membrane, a different matter altogether. The argument is not that cells can arbitrarily develop any quality that is required to live in an environment on demand; for instance neither strain would survive without a petri dish, but it makes no sense to consider this lack a mark for irreducible complexity.

In any case, the question is not if this particular bacterial strain could spontaneously develop the ability to metabolize lactose after devastating genetic damage. The point is that genetic alteration in a specific area does not make the system come tumbling down. The irreducible complexity argument suggests that knocking out one part of the system would prohibit everything from functioning properly, and thus there is no way to develop into such a system gradually. Not only is this argument inherently flawed (it may have been supported by other mechanisms which were selected out as they no longer contributed to survival) but arbitrarily including other lacking factors makes the comparison pointless. It is like arguing that a car is irreducibly complex because if you remove the pistons it cannot climb walls; it never could climb walls, so be frikkin' impressed when it develops pistons out of the blue and leave it at that.

 This message is a reply to: Message 25 by traderdrew, posted 07-12-2009 2:50 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20628
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 28 of 136 (514828) 07-13-2009 7:49 AM Reply to: Message 25 by traderdrew07-12-2009 2:50 PM

Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
Hi Traderdrew, thanks for following the link.

 Upon reading Razd’s post a second time, I came across a name that I was already familiar with and that is Brown University professor Kenneth Miller. I had to investigate Razd's post because I don’t think it is worth being a proponent of irreducible complexity if it doesn’t have any merit. However, I knew there were some things that didn’t jive and there were some questions and beliefs I had in mind.

Yes, Ken Miller is a biologist at Brown University, and he was a witness for the Dover trial that showed Intelligent Design as taught in Dover was just regurgitated Creationism, religion masquerading as science. Behe was also a witness, and he admitted in court that there were no (repeat no) known "irreducibly complex" systems that could not evolve.

 1. Jason Shapiro has discovered and continues to discover an incredible sophistication of life at the cellular level. Michael Behe stated in his latest book that natural genetic engineering makes evolution (not Darwinian) more plausible.

Irrelevant. For one, this is the argument from authority, plus Behe's is the argument from incredulity. Plausibility has nothing to do with what actually happens. How complex things are now is not related to how difficult it is for evolution to accomplish it over billions of years.

 2. If the lactose-utilizing system in E. coli is irreducibly complex, then why isn’t the more complex TTSS (type three secretory system) NOT irreducibly complex? (page 61, “Only a Theory” by Kenneth Miller)

Again, irrelevant. What makes something "irreducibly comples" is defined by Behe - any system where the removal of one part renders the system inoperative.

 3. When an irreducibly complex system loses any of its parts, it does indeed cease to function. There is no denying this. So why is there a debate on this? The question should be, how long does the system stay non-functional before it is repaired?

Once more, irrelevant. Evolution does not repair systems it replaces them if they are beneficial to improve survival or reproduction. If neither purpose is served, broken systems are not repaired nor replaced. Look at ape vitamin C broken gene.

 4. Why didn’t Kenneth Miller use the TTSS along with this argument in his book, “Only a Theory”. I consider this bacterial argument the stronger one since he claims that it produced and irreducibly complex system.

Because there are many systems that have evolved "IC" systems. This is another one.

 5. Irreducible complexity is not necessarily a reality. Don’t think for a moment that I have slipped into the dark side. Irreducibly complexity is derived from the neo-Darwinian paradigm and the complexity of microorganisms. It is a way of looking at the complexity of cellular life through neo-Darwinism. I am not a believer in neo-Darwinism. Since I am not, I.C. isn't a filter for intelligent design.

I think you have this backwards. Behe proposed IC as a test of Intelligent Design - as something that could not evolve, and therefore must have had help. Several evolved IC systems - including this one - show that this concept is false and thus is not indicative of Intelligent Design.

 When I googled the search term “Michael Behe lactose”I started to find some real answers to my confusion. You can find the Miller / Levine link and Michael Behe links with the same search term.

Of course. You will also see links to Behe's response from the Miller site, as well as a reply that still shows that the critical element of the issue is that an IC system evolved - it does not matter how it evolved, just that a new system is now in place where the removal of any one part renders the remainder inoperative.

 This says that only one part of the multipart system that Miller alluded to was wiped out.

Correct, rendering the system inoperative, hence it was an IC system.

 The genes apparently came from similar preexisting genes. These genes were probably located somewhere in the so-called junk DNA. We do have two mutations so far.

It is irrelevant where they came from, as the necessarily start with an existing gene. The genes in question were still changed by mutation and selected for by improved survival or reproductive ability - ie evolution.

 Sounds like they were sensing what Jason Shapiro discovered and that is “natural genetic engineering”. NGE raised a question from proponents of ID. Where did this sophistication come from? The more sophistication inside the cell, the more things could be tinkered with and therefore, mutations would require more precision and larger effects for natural selection to act upon them.

Again this is a red herring to the issue of evolving an IC system and it is just an argument from incredulity: gosh I can't think how such a "sophisticated" system could have evolved, it MUST be helped by something. Bad logic does not make reality.

 Now we have an artificially produced substance called IPTG that was required in order to produce the final results of this experiment otherwise the bacteria would not have been able to use lactose in the wild. We have our third artificially induced mutation produced by human intervention.

Again irrelevant. Evolution operates by mutation and selection. The selection is for greater survival and reproduction in an environment, regardless of the environment.

The issue still remains that a new system evolved that the removal of any one part renders the remaining parts inoperative, hence it is an IC system - an evolved IC system.

 I believe Jason Shapiro (from his website) tells us that the genome has sophisticated error correction mechanisms that actively participate in correcting errors arising out of transcription. So when I add this into the picture, it seems to me that it would be very, very unlikely for these three mutations actually being produced in the wild. It is more likely that the results of this experiment were the results of an intelligent designer.

Curiously, your opinion on what is more likely has absolutely no effect on reality, does not alter biological behavior in any way, nor does it change the FACT that an IC system was observed to evolve.

 The content below (is similar to but expressed in my own terms) came from Jason Shapiro who is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Universtiy of Chicago. See the next link below.http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....eeting.pdfExonuclease proof reading in the polymerase (that exists in bacteria as well as E. coli) catches and corrects 99.999 percent of the errors as soon as they are made (Kunkel & Bebenek, 2000). If any errors escape the exonuclease, the methyl-directed mismatch repair system detects and fixes over 99% of those errors. (Modrich, 1991) This multilayered proof reading system effectively boosts the error correction precision to over 99.99999999%.

Interestingly, this assertion is refuted in this particular experiment by the FACT that the existing system was not repaired. This repair mechanism only repairs errors, it does not create new systems to replace broken systems. Thus the evolution of a different system to replace the broken system was not put into effect by this repair mechanism.

 The ConclusionThe possibility of three simultaneous mutations in these bacteria evolving from neo-Darwinism and maybe even all types of random evolutionary processes seems to be quite impossible without intelligent intervention and guidance.

For one, they were not three simultaneous mutations, but each occurred independently. For seconds, once again your opinion is irrelevant. The fact remains that a system evolved where the removal of any one part renders the whole system inoperative - an IC system.

The fact that an IC system was seen to evolve means that it is absolutely impossible to honestly claim that an IC system cannot evolve.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 25 by traderdrew, posted 07-12-2009 2:50 PM traderdrew has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 29 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 10:35 AM RAZD has responded Message 30 by traderdrew, posted 07-13-2009 4:10 PM RAZD has responded Message 34 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 10:38 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1882 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009

 Message 29 of 136 (514847) 07-13-2009 10:35 AM Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD07-13-2009 7:49 AM

Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
Unfortunately for us fundamentalist Christians, the Hijack system is alive and well. Lets say an organism has a gene A'. The organism undergoes a replication error and now has two A' genes. It only needs one, and having two is not a survival problem. Organisms tolerate a surprising amount of useless DNA for a good reason. With two A' genes, one can mutate randomly without hurting the organism. The organism may find the new gene A'' is useful for a completely different purpose. Sometimes we find both genes active and sometimes A' has disappeared and been replaced, leaving only A''. Sometimes, A' has mutated to A, which does nothing. B' and C' undergo a similar process. Then the organism can combine A,B, and C into an IC process. Then if A', B', and C' disappear, we are left with A,B, and C. Granted it wouldn't happen often, but we do see all these steps happening.

 This message is a reply to: Message 28 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 7:49 AM RAZD has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 31 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 8:28 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3608 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009

 Message 30 of 136 (514867) 07-13-2009 4:10 PM Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD07-13-2009 7:49 AM

Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
 Behe was also a witness, and he admitted in court that there were no (repeat no) known "irreducibly complex" systems that could not evolve.

Once again, I have searched for a quote like this on the internet and in the Dover trial statements you provided in the other thread. Would you care to show us where it is and exactaly what Behe stated?

 Irrelevant. For one, this is the argument from authority, plus Behe's is the argument from incredulity. Plausibility has nothing to do with what actually happens. How complex things are now is not related to how difficult it is for evolution to accomplish it over billions of years.

It is irrelevant to the discussion directly but other than that, I don't agree with the rest of that. First of all, plausibility suggests the best possible scenario. I have noted that the scientific process doesn't directly look for the truth; it looks for the best explanation by looking for what is false. Since we cannot go back and see how it all occurred, then we should look for the best explanation or conduct experiments that could support historical evidence.

 Once more, irrelevant. Evolution does not repair systems it replaces them if they are beneficial to improve survival or reproduction. If neither purpose is served, broken systems are not repaired nor replaced. Look at ape vitamin C broken gene.

Irrelevant seems to be your favorite word so far but how does irrelevant information disprove any of the arguments that directly reference information in the main one?

And some other irrelevant points since you bought up vitamin C.

Vitamin C is another example of how evolution seems to have deconstructed a system and not helped advance or evolve a system. Also, humans and apes are not the only creatures that seemed to have lost this ability. Guinea pigs and certain birds and bats have also lost this ability. Presumably, since our diets once provided enough vitamin C, our genomes shut down the function after a certain number of generations (non-Darwinian) What evolutionists don't tell us is that this loss didn't result in a biochemical dead end because all they want to do is to win the debates. However, the concept of evolving doesn't contradict my belief system as an "assemblist". I am not a creationist. I am an assemblist.

I just thought I would also state that when animals are stressed out, they use a lot more vitamin C than they normally would. So if you are stressed out, look to eat foods that are rich in vitamin C. Don't take ascorbic acid because it was probably synthetically made from sugar and doesn't have cofactors that are present in foods.

 Because there are many systems that have evolved "IC" systems. This is another one.

You cannot show us how the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. Even my dog knows that you can't evolve the flagellum from a TTSS. The TTSS has 10 parts while the flagellum has 40. Pull out some logos and try to make a model of a flagellum with a model of a TTSS.

 I think you have this backwards. Behe proposed IC as a test of Intelligent Design - as something that could not evolve, and therefore must have had help. Several evolved IC systems - including this one - show that this concept is false and thus is not indicative of Intelligent Design.

You cannot explain in detail nor is there any evidence of a Darwinian step by step process that can produce an IC system. Behe has illustrated this. I can illustrate this in the form of stepping stones. The first two stepping stones were resurrected from genes that divurged from the genome (Hall, 1999) and resurrected by a process known as natural genetic engineering. The stepping stones (mutations) were only made posssible with the inclusion of an artifical substance called IPTG. IPTG was obviously synthesized for specific experimental functions.

For the E. coli to have evolved the ability to hydrolyze lactose, multiple coherent mutations would have been necessary. Even Hall stated something like this. See my first post in this thread.

Compounding IC systems, it is one thing to take three steps under human intelligent intervention and another to build a flagellum with 40 proteins or a cilium with 200 proteins. How many of those proteins perform specific functions where they are not found anywhere else but in those complex systems?

 Of course. You will also see links to Behe's response from the Miller site, as well as a reply that still shows that the critical element of the issue is that an IC system evolved - it does not matter how it evolved, just that a new system is now in place where the removal of any one part renders the remainder inoperative.

For you to state something like that then you must not believe in Darwinian evolution. Of course it matters how it evolved. Intelligent design isn't necessarily creationism.

Hall has not demonstrated how the lactose function in E. coli lacking both the lacZ and the ebg gene could really evolve from scratch. Where did those genes come from in the first place? Hall believes they existed in the genome 2 billion years ago.

 Interestingly, this assertion is refuted in this particular experiment by the FACT that the existing system was not repaired. This repair mechanism only repairs errors, it does not create new systems to replace broken systems. Thus the evolution of a different system to replace the broken system was not put into effect by this repair mechanism.

You don't understand me. Genes have to express themselves differently in order for a new function to evolve. Where do the mutations occur in the organism? They have to occur in the way genes express themselves therefore, they occur in the instructions that give the directions for protein assembly. From what I understand, the E. coli in the experiment called upon the lac operon in order to make some steps.

Miller strongly implies that natural selection pieced together the whole pathway in Hall's experiments, but in fact it only replaced one component (and even then it could only replace the component with a spare near-copy of the original component). When two or more components were deleted, or when the bacterium was cultured in the absence of an artificial chemical (called IPTG), no viable bacteria could be recovered. Just as irreducible complexity would predict, when several steps must be taken at once, natural selection is a poor way to proceed. - Michael Behe

Microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago declared in National Review that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Shapiro 1996)

Despite what I state here, Darwinists will always fall back on the same old excuse. "If we give organisms enough time and chance, they will evolve the same sophistication that we see in life today." Just look at the quote below from the above post.

 How complex things are now is not related to how difficult it is for evolution to accomplish it over billions of years.

I think that this belief should be testable or falsifiable. Science has stated this correct? If it is testable in confluence of neo-Darwinism, then there should be evidence in some places in the past that support that belief. Perhaps rapid evolution at first with slow evolution in the last 500 million years but that is not what happened.

Aside from that point, most of them don't want to see the math (something I cannot do but I have seen) that shows us the chances of evolving complex biological systems. Never mind the necessity of multiple coherent mutations that compound the odds of creating an IC system. Never mind that natural selection would have to preserve those mutations and cannot initiate them. Never mind that the complexity in the cell would require pin point mutations. Never mind that those mutations would have been mutated in such a way as to provide specific functions. Never mind that sophisticated error correction mechanisms actually correct transcription errors 99.99999999% of the time.

Edited by traderdrew, : More "complex specified information" from the mind of Traderdrew

 This message is a reply to: Message 28 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 7:49 AM RAZD has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 10:09 PM traderdrew has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic