|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| 4petdinos | |||||||
| lopezeast0211, Theodoric | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member  Posts: 19977 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Exactly, it happens often enough that one cannot use the claim that such a system cannot evolve. It also does not need to involve a whole gene, but just a patch that codes for a certain protein, say one that facilitates the consumption of a previously unused food source. This happens often, without it necessarily being a part of an "IC" system. One can also say that the theory of evolution predicts the evolution of "IC" systems, as there is no reason to maintain A', B', and C' if they serve no purpose or their original purpose has been superseded by the new function/s. Enjoy. 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) • • •
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member Posts: 19977 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
I'll have to get back to you on that. It was discussed on another thread here shortly after the cross examination of Behe, but the search engine is a little funky, presumably with the new board. A link that was supposed to be quote: Except it lead to http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=221&m=1 Curiously it doesn't change the fact that an IC system was seen to evolve in the Barry Hall experiment.
Yes, but the plausibility of an argument is not sufficient on it's own to make a concept scientific, and your personal opinion of what is plausible (or not) is not science.
Interestingly, it would not have been used if you had not posted irrelevant material. It is a common ploy of creationists to try to divert the argument with irrelevant material.
Which is another example of an argument that is not about the development of an IC system in the Barry Hall experiment. This is another diversion attempt. Evolution says natural selection can construct and deconstruct systems, and there is no mechanism known to prevent the construction of systems. That however is a matter for another thread.
Another argument from incredulity. This is also trying to move the goal-post to a different IC system. (ie irrelevant to the specific issue of this thread). Let's stick to the IC system in Barry Hall's experiment first, and then IF you can refute that an IC system did in fact evolve, we can discuss other IC systems.
Don't need to. What we have is an existing IC system (as defined by Behe) that was disabled, and a replacement system evolved. That replacement system just happened to also be an IC system (as defined by Behe).
The stepping stones were mutations that occurred naturally and that were selected by natural selection within the environment the bacteria was grown in. It does not matter that IPTG was there, as it was not involved in the mutation, it was not involved in the natural selection, so it was not involved in the evolution of the IC system. All that it provided was the marginal survival of the bacteria long enough to take advantage of the lactose when a beneficial muation occurred.
Curiously, it does not matter where the original DNA were before the mutation, as any mutation would occur on existing DNA. Interestingly, the fact that a "spare near-copy" was used still ignores the fact that this specific DNA sequence was unable to provide the missing component without the mutation. Fascinatingly, the fact that IPTG was used to keep the bacteria marginally alive while the process of evolution took place only means that it was part of the ecology the bacteria was living in, where mutation and natural selection for the use of lactose occurred. Amazingly, when several steps can be taken in sequence, natural selection is a good way to proceed. This is, in fact, what has occurred. Incredibly, knocking out two components violates the terms of an IC system as defined by Behe, and we now have almost any system you care to name, that can be so disabled. Tellingly, we are still left with the fact that an IC system evolved.
Again, this is irrelevant. The issue is really very simple:
With this system now in place, the e.coli could once again metabolize lactose. The system is also an IC system because if you remove any one of the three elements, the e.coli cannot metabolize lactose.
Irrelevant: an IC system has been observed to evolve. That is the focus of this topic.
Once again, what you think has no - absolutely no - effect on reality, what actually occurred, nor on what is occurring now.
And incredibly, in spite of that irrelevant ramble, and IC system was still seen, observed, confirmed, documented evolving. In other words, your continued incredulity over what can and cannot evolve is not sufficient arguement to refute the fact that an IC system has been seen, observed, confirmed, documented evolving. Once again, for the record:
With this system now in place, the e.coli could once again metabolize lactose. The system is also an IC system because if you remove any one of the three elements, the e.coli cannot metabolize lactose.
Incredibly, I don't care what you call yourself, what you need to do is look at the facts that show that, yes indeed, and IC system evolved, and as such the existence of IC systems cannot be used for the god-of-the-gaps argument. Enjoy. 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) • • •
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
traderdrew Member (Idle past 3346 days)  Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
What kind of reply is that? You can't be thinking that I think my thoughts are going to influence the outcomes of experiments like that, which are experiments of natural laws. It is important to be in tune with reality. Your brief synopsis could be mistakenly construed as an example of neo-Darwinian evolution. It lacks details and leaves out many questions about the known complexities of the cell. Natural selection only replaced one component with a 34% homogenous copy of the original component. Natural selection didn't operate on a random mutation, it operated on NGE. Look what Michael Behe wrote: Miller also writes, "the ebg gene is actually only 34% homologous to the gene whose activity it replaces (meaning that about 2/3 of the protein is quite different from the galactosidase gene whose function it replaces)". Yet he knows as well as I do that 34% general sequence homology makes it virtually certain that the three-dimensional structures of the two enzymes are essentially identical. And since the active sites (the business end) of the enzymes are much more similar (they are identical in 13 of 15 residues), the ebg enzyme is pretty much a spare copy of the lac enzyme. Thus it seems to me that the taking over of lac galactosidase function by ebg hardly even rises to the level of microevolution. Once again Miller shows his deceptiveness. Maybe you should be lecturing Miller (not me) on reality. I don't want to debate or argue about the subject any further. I think we have both stated what we could state.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
RADZ, no-one knows how life works. What you are saying here is that because an organism rises after a kick in the guts that that it is a dimensioneless, undirected, random evolution. If God made orgamisms that had no ability to adjust then there would be no life at all. Did Hall's organism evolve into another kind of organism? There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blɛz paskal
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
traderdrew Member (Idle past 3346 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I would say that this is a good point but according to RAZD's logic, this is irrelevant. However, all of us might be simply talking past everyone. Why do I say this? I can't find anywhere where this example says that the particular irreducibly complex system in the E. coli wasn't already an irreducibly complex system to begin with. Essentially, it seems to me that an irreducibly complex system (that was already in place) was tinkered with and mutated into a similar irreducibly complex system. If this is the case, Intelligent Design wins again despite what anyone says. Hands down!!! Edited by traderdrew, : I just made a small correction to the "intelligently designed complex specified information" in the post.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement. Thus, it was proven not to be irreducibly complex.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
But why tinker with a system that already knows how to deal with the situation Traderdrew, that's how it was designed. Edited by LucyTheApe, : Spell There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blɛz paskal
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
We do the same thing with computer storage sytems, it seems miraculas but it's not. If you arrange a number of things in a certain order then it doesn't matter if one goes down. Consider the order 1,2,3,4,5 that's an arrangement. If 3 goes down then you can reconstruct it. That's the amazing reality of Reality. All's it takes is a bit of intelligence. Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blɛz paskal
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Umm... we can reconstruct it because we know what should go in the order. It does not reconstruct itself, or mutate a new number that can go there. Finally, it isn't even a system since it does not do anything. It is equally effective with or without the number, or even with a mutated new number. Honestly I don't even know what, if anything, you were trying to get at there. Perhaps you could try again?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NosyNed Member  Posts: 8848 From: Canada Joined: |
I might be a bit confused but I think you have this wrong: There are two issues that are on topic for this thread. Are the systems being examined IC or not and did they evolve into place or not. It doesn't really matter if the system which was broken was IC or not but it happens that it was. That is why the removal of part broke it. I think you are wrong that the system did not cease functioning. It was IC and it broke. The system that evolved to replace the function of the broken original system was not the same one. The original one did not "mutate into a working arrangement". Something different evolved. The new system which evolved is IC. The fact that an IC system was shown to evolve removes the use of IC as an argument that they can not evolve by Darwinian evolution. It only takes one counter example. It is done, finished, caput and a very dead parrot.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Wow, the entire thread appears to have whooshed right over your head. Let me summarize here: Some people believe (for a variety of stupid reasons) that organisms were designed, and to try to find proof of this they suggest that organisms are irreducibly complex. A system that it irreducibly complex is suggested to be a system where removing one part of it will cause the entire system to stop working; the significance being that this would prevent it from having developed gradually over time. This was shown not to be the case for bacteria who had a chunk taken out of their metabolic system, and yet managed to acquire a new piece to go there that the previous strain did not. Thus, the metabolic pathway was not irreducibly complex as it previously appeared. Furthermore, the entire concept is rubbish because evolution can produce systems which fail if a portion is removed. This makes irreducible complexity a failed argument for creation anyway.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
traderdrew Member (Idle past 3346 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I disagree with you on two things. I believe it did cease functioning. It has to cease functioning for a least a brief amount of time since those biochemical repairs don't occur at the speed of light. 1. As I had already stated, when you remove a part of any IC system it has to cease functioning. The questions are, How long did it cease to function? Did Barry Hall have to keep these strains of E. coli alive when the part was removed? Could this only be done using IPTG? 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) 2. Was the system of the E. coli not irreducibly complex to begin with? It would seem to be a yes or no question. Other than that, did the complexity increase? If so, by how much? But then again, so what? If it did increase by a little bit, then it was done with intervention. If the person who was conducting the experiment didn't intervene, then E. coli would not have been able to hydrolyze lactose. At least it would have not been done without simultaneous multiple coherent mutations and that would arguably be entering into the realm of metaphysical miracles.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Ok, I'll try again Phagey. We have complete storage systems that know what has to be there. Not because it has it's own intelligence but, because that's they way they were programmed. When you turn on your computer, how does it know what to do? There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blɛz paskal
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
It ceased functioning in the way it used to function, but it did end up functioning in a different manner. One portion of the metabolic pathway was removed and yet the rest of the pathway was perfectly functional with the addition of an alternate piece. Does irreducible complexity demand the removal of one portion without the addition of a substitute? Either way, the argument is dead.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
When you turn on your computer it reads magnetic polarities off of a platter in your computer's hard drive. This storage system does not know what has to be there, rather it retrieves what we put there. Those polarities can and do become corrupted and that will cause the computer to function incorrectly. Perhaps you don't know enough about computers to draw such analogies Lucy-poosy.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
