Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 5:22 AM
41 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (2 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,574 Year: 3,611/19,786 Month: 606/1,087 Week: 196/212 Day: 11/27 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1939 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 241 of 458 (521606)
08-28-2009 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by LucyTheApe
08-28-2009 4:59 AM


Re: What is information?
lucytheape writes:

I'll show you what I mean by adding information. I'll take my example of a piece of code

Okay, you added information. You added code that extended the original subroutine.

The question remains then, finally, as to why other methods of increasing information aren't acceptable (plus, will he get back to adding extra information? will he? we shall see...)

I'd like to quote the moth again - apparently the point mutation arises spontaneously in nature all the time - but you'll just disagree it's adding information (although an increase in alleles IS an increase). If it does (and I could try to prove it does) you'd stick your fingers in your ears, and/or say it's not an increase...because...it's not, amirite?

I could suggest that increasing the sheer number of codons is an increase in information, which...fits your analogy quite nicely. Your new "swap" subroutine is essentially useless because it no longer swaps a and b, but it still does a task, right? It's a valid change, right?

OK, wait for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter's_syndrome

Now, this mutation, this change, this increase in information, isn't entirely beneficial (you could say it's not beneficial at all) - but to fit your analogy, it doesn't have to be.

It's a valid increase in the genetic information makeup, and it's also a relatively common point mutation.

So, we've shown:

* spontaneous point mutations - check
* increase in genetic code (size of subroutine) - check

Now, you'll have to either accept defeat or change your argument.

I wonder which it will be?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 4:59 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Wounded King, posted 08-28-2009 9:03 AM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1939 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 242 of 458 (521609)
08-28-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by traderdrew
08-27-2009 12:23 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

He did not claim to understand it. What he said was that not understanding it is not a basis for the Great Big Fundie Fallacy: "I don't understand this perfectly. Therefore, no-one else in the world understands it perfectly or ever will. Therefore, I do understand it perfectly --- God did it by magic".


damn right I didn't, I don't understand it all. I don't, however, say that because I don't, nobody can.

traderdrew writes:

I don't think there is anything wrong with "God did it" and I will tell you why.


Oh do tell.

There will always be skeptics of the "God did it" idea.

uh huh. They're called "scientists" and "rationalists" and "natural philosphers".

This is what science is for. Science should challenge itself

hey! that's my line!

and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion.

...and fail. No. That's called "god of the gaps" and your own theist thinkers and philosophers warned you creationists not to do that because then for every single forward step by the scientific method, you god is similarly reduced.

If scientists don't know, they say...gasp... "we don't know". And then they try to find out. If they said "godidit", they'd stop there.

Try this on:

"why can birds fly?"
"godidit."
"can humans fly?"
"nope."
"why?"
"godidit."
"oh, ok"

...and that particular pair never created the kittyhawk, because humans can't fly, because godidit.

The process shouldn't dumb down participants. The process should be an exporation and an excercise of intelligence and philosophy.

"godidit" is about as dumbed-down as you can get. Stooping to that level gives most scientists a crick in the neck. Scientists say "hmm, that makes sense, this idea predicts this, this test confirms that, this idea is sound, our tests replicate it, we agree on it, it makes sense, it builds on this idea, that..."

Whether you are a creationist or not doesn't matter, but when you try to say what scientists should say or do, that does. Scientists try to explain and find out. Pointing and saying "godidit" is nothing of the sort, and I will not stoop to it.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 12:23 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by traderdrew, posted 08-29-2009 11:11 AM greyseal has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 243 of 458 (521611)
08-28-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by greyseal
08-28-2009 8:46 AM


I don't think 'Point Mutation' means what you think it means.
I don't think you understand what the term 'point mutation' means. A point mutation is when 1 single nucleotide is changed to another nucleotide. It is one of the smallest possible forms of mutation.

Klinefelter's syndrome is caused by having an additional X chromosome, changes in chromosome number are one of the largest possible forms of mutation.

I am also unaware of any research showing a specific point mutation to be responsible for melanic forms of Biston betularia, as far as I am aware the exact genetic basis is still unclear.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 8:46 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 9:28 AM Wounded King has responded
 Message 246 by pandion, posted 08-28-2009 12:20 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1939 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 244 of 458 (521621)
08-28-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Wounded King
08-28-2009 9:03 AM


Re: I don't think 'Point Mutation' means what you think it means.
wounded king writes:

I don't think you understand what the term 'point mutation' means. A point mutation is when 1 single nucleotide is changed to another nucleotide. It is one of the smallest possible forms of mutation.

I meant some mutation which wouldn't "increase" the amount of chromosomes, merely increase the number of alleles. I don't understand, no, and I bow to your greater knowledge, since I'm NOT a scientist.

Klinefelter's syndrome is caused by having an additional X chromosome, changes in chromosome number are one of the largest possible forms of mutation.

yup, that's why I chose it. It also doesn't really do anything "good" (but then neither did lucy's altered code).

I am also unaware of any research showing a specific point mutation to be responsible for melanic forms of Biston betularia, as far as I am aware the exact genetic basis is still unclear.

I've heard that it's a mutation that spontaneously arises in nature on a continual basis (i.e. it's not always inherited).

That, really, is what I'm after - a better example of "a mutation which is common in nature, spontaneously arises, and produces a change in the number of alleles in any group" (the idea being, it would randomly happen within a group of subjects that don't have the mutation in their genes, and so show an increase in "information").

Cheers,

Greyseal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Wounded King, posted 08-28-2009 9:03 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Wounded King, posted 08-28-2009 9:52 AM greyseal has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 245 of 458 (521624)
08-28-2009 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by greyseal
08-28-2009 9:28 AM


Genetics of melanism
yup, that's why I chose it.

But you then described it as ...

a relatively common point mutation.

Slightly contradictory.

That, really, is what I'm after - a better example of "a mutation which is common in nature, spontaneously arises, and produces a change in the number of alleles in any group"

If you want some examples where the genetic basis is known then you could do worse than to look at Kingsley et al. (2009). They discuss multiple genetic bases for melanic forms in a variety of organisms as well as linking to several wider reviews of the topic.

They discuss spontaneous mutations in four genes involved in colouration: the Agouti signaling protein (Agouti), attractin (Atrn), melanocortin-1 receptor (Mc1r), and mahogunin (Mgrn).

One interesting point in the paper is that ...

mutations in Mc1r are most commonly associated with melanism, although both Agouti and Atrn are larger mutational targets. In addition, mutations in Agouti or Atrn that reduce protein expression or activity lead to melanism; these knock-out mutations are certainly more likely to occur than the gain-of-function Mc1r mutations that cause melanism because there are more ways to “break” a gene than to “improve” a gene's activity. Thus, it is unclear why Mc1r has repeatedly been shown to be associated with melanism in nature and a key question is: are melanism-inducing mutations in Agouti not found because they occur less often, or are they simply more difficult to detect?

So this example in some ways counters the common creationist ploy that even beneficial mutations are the result of a loss of information, in some non-specific platonic sense, since it is the gain of function mutation that is most common found in nature.

It is worth bearing in mind that a gain-of-function mutation doesn't necessarily really map to a creationist gain-of-information but then what does in the field of genetics?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 9:28 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 2:20 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
pandion
Member (Idle past 1078 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 246 of 458 (521661)
08-28-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Wounded King
08-28-2009 9:03 AM


Re: I don't think 'Point Mutation' means what you think it means.
Wounded King writes:

I am also unaware of any research showing a specific point mutation to be responsible for melanic forms of Biston betularia, as far as I am aware the exact genetic basis is still unclear

Journal of Heredity. 2004 Mar-Apr;95(2):97-102.

Allelic melanism in American and British peppered moths.. Grant BS. Department of Biology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA.

quote:
Parallel evolutionary changes in the incidence of melanism are well documented in widely geographically separated subspecies of the peppered moth (Biston betularia). The British melanic phenotype (f. carbonaria) and the American melanic phenotype (f. swettaria) are indistinguishable in appearance, and previous genetic analysis has established that both are inherited as autosomal dominants. This report demonstrates through hybridizations of the subspecies and Mendelian testcrosses of melanic progeny that carbonaria and swettaria are phenotypes produced by alleles (isoalleles) at a single locus. The possibility of close linkage at two loci remains, but the simpler one-locus model cannot be rejected in the absence of contrary evidence.

While this research does not conclusively show a single point mutation is responsible for melanic Biston betularia, it does indicate that it is the most likely explanation "...in the absence of contrary evidence." But, you are essentially correct that the basis is unclear, i.e., there exists the possibility of a close linkage at two loci.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Wounded King, posted 08-28-2009 9:03 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1939 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 247 of 458 (521688)
08-28-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Wounded King
08-28-2009 9:52 AM


Re: Genetics of melanism
wounded king writes:

yup, that's why I chose it.

But you then described it as ...

a relatively common point mutation.

Slightly contradictory.


ack! another mistake! I apologize again.

Removing the word "point" is acceptable?

I meant that the mutation (an extra chromosome) is a relatively common freak-of-nature mutation (when all's said and done).

to clarify:

quote:
The condition exists in roughly 1 out of every 1000 males. One in every 500 males have an extra X chromosome but do not have the syndrome.

sounds relatively common.

The facts are this:

Either the additional chromosome is not extra information (in which case lucy's example isn't either, and so her claim is still unfounded and unexplained and therefore without merit) or it is extra information, in which case her claim is proved false and without merit.

And the other facts are that, however you slice it, mutations which are both huge in nature AND those which are tiny in nature have been proven to not only occur, but be non-fatal and produce noticeable differences in a population which are then passed on (modification through descent).

We know that beneficial mutations can occur, as the humble dessert banana proves it quite happily (human selection not-withstanding, the same process occurs in nature, called natural selection), so handwaving away the extra chromosome as a non-example won't work.

So, we've got these points ALL proven:

* small mutations happen naturally (proved in this thread)
* large mutations happen naturally (proved in this thread)
* beneficial mutations happen as well as deleterious (they're long, thin, yellow and you unzip it and eat the middle)
* "extra information" can be added beneficially (moths, colour, wherever it came from)
* these traits (extra information and all) are happily passed down when non-harmful enough that either no non-benefit or at best some advantage is given (natural selection, yada yada)
* these changed, mutated traits, when combined with new environmental pressures (or the release of old ones) when added up over time (a looonnngggg time) results in...new species.

now she can quibble over the last step (although modification, to ring species, to non-breeding separate populations is kind of...proof), but at least has to accept that her "no new information" theory has been proved bogus, quite extensively.

game, set, match, tumultuous applause, exit stage left.

(oh, and PS both WK and pandion - thanks for the extra info. That's the sort of link-gold that needs to be squirreled away for the next time some creationist trots out the same tired line which you both just proved false).

Edited by greyseal, : added some thanks to WK and pandion

Edited by greyseal, : added clarification of "relatively" common, via a quote.

Edited by greyseal, : and speling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Wounded King, posted 08-28-2009 9:52 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-11-2009 11:17 AM greyseal has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3231 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 248 of 458 (521814)
08-29-2009 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by greyseal
08-28-2009 8:57 AM


...and fail. No. That's called "god of the gaps" and your own theist thinkers and philosophers warned you creationists not to do that because then for every single forward step by the scientific method, you god is similarly reduced.

That is understandable. We shouldn't resort to lame explanations for phenomenon. In the case of information, I am not going there. The information in DNA is precise with little margin for error. The information needs to serve specified functions indicative to particular organisms and overall functions. Shannon information does not explain how the machinery in the cell can work together coherently and how it all was built.

The chances of the nucleotides landing in specific sequences in an origin of life model are extremely unlikely. Adding to this are the forces that are detrimental or potentially damaging to the chemical constituents which were precursors to the model such as UVB radiation, high temperatures, hostile organic molecules and gases. It compounds the already insurmountable chances of the information arising from an accidental process that much more. All of these factors reduce it to a extremely unlikely event of just bare possibility and so -

Bare possibility is a poor basis for forming a judgment about nature. A rational person doesn't give credence to a claim based on bare possibility--a rational person demands positive reasons to believe something. - The Edge of Evolution

We know that CSI can be generated by an intelligence. We do not infer intelligence due to lame explanations. We infer intelligence because materialistic explanations fail and we know of another cause that can produce CSI.

Some on this forum say that we have an agenda to push. However, I can turn the motive mongering game right back on some the participants here. I can say some of you have gone down the road to perdition or have become Devil's advocates (puns intended) who wish to abolish religion or wish to perpetuate the seeds of other ideologies.

Posters should engage the substance and the content of the messages and not the motives behind them.

If scientists don't know, they say...gasp... "we don't know". And then they try to find out. If they said "godidit", they'd stop there.

On the other hand, if they keep trying maybe they will uncover more evidence for the existence of a creator. The trend for ID is up and going. We do not infer explanations based on the bible or the koran. If the evidence isn't there for those historical events, then we don't infer them. On the other hand, some of us believe when there are multiple causes for phenomenon, tends to render the ability to accurately reconstruct history as impossible.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : Just adding more "complex specified information" to the post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 8:57 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Wounded King, posted 08-29-2009 12:01 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 08-30-2009 6:11 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 257 by greyseal, posted 08-31-2009 2:03 AM traderdrew has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 249 of 458 (521819)
08-29-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by traderdrew
08-29-2009 11:11 AM


The information in DNA is precise with little margin for error.

This is the sort of claim that really requires substantial evidence. Didn't we just cover the fact that ~30% of a coding DNA sequence could be changed without even changing a single amino acid in the primary sequence of its protein product? That seem like a pretty big margin of error right there.

The chances of the nucleotides landing in specific sequences in an origin of life model are extremely unlikely.

Please show your working.

We do not infer intelligence due to lame explanations.

No, you infer it even in the absence of lame explanations. You just infer it from nothing but you own incredulity basically.

who wish to abolish religion or wish to perpetuate the seeds of other ideologies

You could say that, but you would look like an idiot to do so. There are vast numbers of people of faith who support modern evolutionary theory and see it as the best explanation of life's history on Earth. You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the people who aren't religiously motivated who want Intelligent Design taught in schools or put on an equal footing with evolution despite its lack of substantiating evidence.

The trend for ID is up and going.

Yes, every couple of years someone publishes a theoretical maths/informatics paper that subsequently sinks without trace. Its not what I'd call a really constructive research cycle.

On the other hand, some of us believe when there are multiple causes for phenomenon, tends to render the ability to accurately reconstruct history as impossible.

It needn't unless one of these causes is ineffable, intangible, indescribable or in some other way inconsistent with our whole understanding of nature.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by traderdrew, posted 08-29-2009 11:11 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by traderdrew, posted 08-29-2009 12:38 PM Wounded King has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3231 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 250 of 458 (521827)
08-29-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Wounded King
08-29-2009 12:01 PM


This is the sort of claim that really requires substantial evidence. Didn't we just cover the fact that ~30% of a coding DNA sequence could be changed without even changing a single amino acid in the primary sequence of its protein product? That seem like a pretty big margin of error right there.

I just looked for this but I couldn't find it. It kind of sounds like you are referring to a frameshift mutation. I did find this in your message #223

You were doing well up until here. There are a number of forms of mutation which could in fact stop a protein being created. The most obvious is a mutation which removes the start codon for the gene.

I also found this in message #214

When for the most part we have no ideas what the allowable margins for error are because we don't know what the functional effects of most possible mutations on a protein/sequence would be.

I'm sure there is documented research on how to induce mutations. I have read about it in hox gene research and among other research.

We do have ideas of what information from viruses can do. I wonder what would happen if we replace RNA from bacteria with human or insect RNA.

Please show your working.

You know that I don't have working model but in turn I could ask you to provide a working model that shows the bonding affinities in an origin of life model which produces a specified sequence of nucleotides. How would those specific arrangements or the lack of them enable protein binding sites to form?

No, you infer it even in the absence of lame explanations. You just infer it from nothing but you own incredulity basically.

Is that a low blow? If any of you infer that something doesn't exist, are you inferring it from your own incredulity also?

You could say that, but you would look like an idiot to do so. There are vast numbers of people of faith who support modern evolutionary theory and see it as the best explanation of life's history on Earth.

True, true and I would wonder why they would invest in both. Perhaps they realize this:

Interestingly enough though, the scientific method does not detect truth directly. The power of the scientific method comes from its ability to detect error, thereby limiting the places where truth may be found. - Sean Pitman

You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the people who aren't religiously motivated who want Intelligent Design taught in schools or put on an equal footing with evolution despite its lack of substantiating evidence.

I think there is a lack of substantial evidence for us to have evolved from blind natural forces. Should we debate this further?

Yes, every couple of years someone publishes a theoretical maths/informatics paper that subsequently sinks without trace. Its not what I'd call a really constructive research cycle.

You should know that we have done better than that.

It needn't unless one of these causes is ineffable, intangible, indescribable or in some other way inconsistent with our whole understanding of nature.

Well then, I would say that you or someone else should have been able to persuade those scientists would believe in a god that materialistic or natural explanations do the trick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Wounded King, posted 08-29-2009 12:01 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Wounded King, posted 08-29-2009 2:07 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 252 by themasterdebator, posted 08-29-2009 5:14 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 251 of 458 (521834)
08-29-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by traderdrew
08-29-2009 12:38 PM


I just looked for this but I couldn't find it.

It was in Message 221. It is a consequence of the redundancies in the 3rd base of codons.

I'm sure there is documented research on how to induce mutations.

There is, but surely it is obvious to you that this doesn't translate into knowing what the functional effects of most mutation in most proteins are, it would take an inconceivable amount of work just to screen all the possible single nucleotide substitutions for 1 gene.

I have read about it in hox gene research and among other research.

In most cases this type of research is specifically based on using heavy mutational methods, such as ionising radiation, and looking for large scale phenotypic effects. The entire point almost of such experiments is to break genes by giving them damaging mutations. this is not a technique easily adapted to small effect mutations with subtle phenotypes.

I wonder what would happen if we replace RNA from bacteria with human or insect RNA.

As I said in Message 221 I think you are thinking of DNA not RNA. In fact experiments have been done where genes from one species have been 'knocked in' to another and they have rescued the mutant phenotype.

You know that I don't have working model

It isn't about a working model. You said you knew the probabilities of 'the nucleotides landing in specific sequences in an origin of life model are extremely unlikely'. I wanted to know how you had calculated them.

If any of you infer that something doesn't exist, are you inferring it from your own incredulity also?

I imagine rather from an absence of evidence. But you aren't inferring an absence you are inferring a presence which surely requires stronger support or at least positive evidence?

You should know that we have done better than that.

Again, this would be a really good place to pull out all of your supporting evidence, particularly the published practical research papers. Are you thinking of stuff like Jonathan wells 'research' on cancer which you mentioned before, but which you didn't actually know anything about?

Well then, I would say that you or someone else should have been able to persuade those scientists would believe in a god that materialistic or natural explanations do the trick.

Unfortunately this makes no sense to me, are you saying evolution should make everyone an atheist if it is true?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by traderdrew, posted 08-29-2009 12:38 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by traderdrew, posted 08-30-2009 1:00 PM Wounded King has responded

    
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 458 (521853)
08-29-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by traderdrew
08-29-2009 12:38 PM


Well then, I would say that you or someone else should have been able to persuade those scientists would believe in a god that materialistic or natural explanations do the trick.

There are plenty of people who believe in a god while still believing in natural explanations for evolution and the origin of life RAZD, for instance is a deist I believe. Just because someone thinks differently than you does not believe they dont believe in a god.

Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by traderdrew, posted 08-29-2009 12:38 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3231 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 253 of 458 (521911)
08-30-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Wounded King
08-29-2009 2:07 PM


There is, but surely it is obvious to you that this doesn't translate into knowing what the functional effects of most mutation in most proteins are, it would take an inconceivable amount of work just to screen all the possible single nucleotide substitutions for 1 gene.

I think you have an indirect point. It is one thing to say what I have posted and another to understand it biochemically. I can sit here and argue it with you and it would be another thing to seek a greater understanding of it. I think it would be better if I took the latter.

It isn't about a working model. You said you knew the probabilities of 'the nucleotides landing in specific sequences in an origin of life model are extremely unlikely'. I wanted to know how you had calculated them.

It is based on common sense and deduction as well as reading about the material. If there were certain bonding affinities where the sugar phosphate backbone preferred certain nucleotides over others then, I would expect a certain amount of redundancy. Proteins have specific complex shapes and their overall structures are not assembled or conform to standard Euclidean mathematics. Specified sequences within DNA determine their specific shapes and functions. There is that problem of coherence also. Common sense says throwing the amino acids together randomly is highly unlikely to generate functional coherence. DNA is also a very complex molecule.

I imagine rather from an absence of evidence. But you aren't inferring an absence you are inferring a presence which surely requires stronger support or at least positive evidence?

I imagine this relies on a certain amount of perspective. You can weigh the evidence that supports a higher intelligence to the what is against it. The problem with that is us thinking, "If I was a god then this is the way I would run things."

Again, this would be a really good place to pull out all of your supporting evidence, particularly the published practical research papers.

Even though I a tendency to venture off the topic, I was trying to pretty much stay on the topic of information in the cell. If I was going to post some of them, I would be giving you bare links without commenting on them. Stephen Meyer has some on his website. The one that was published in the Smithsonian's journal mentioned the term "intelligent design" in it. I read the article online.

1. information in the cell and all of its complexities. 2. Irreducibly complex systems 3. Fine-tuning in the physics of the universe. 4. Fine-tuning in cosmology 5. Unusual patterns and appearances of organisms in the fossil record. And a sixth one might be unusual dispersion patterns of phyla in marine life. On a side note, I have an interest in sea life and I find it amazing how well adapted certain creatures are in that environment and their designs, and their symbiotic relationships. I sometimes try to see it from a Darwinian perspective but that is still hard to believe. One example is the leafy sea dragon off Australia. There is more also. I have been slowly investigating the inverted vs verted retina of the eye. I think I have found a very good counterargument for the Darwinists.

How many articles do proponents of ID need? What arbitrary figure would any of you put on it? There is obviously a certain amount of chaos and change or entropy (whatever you want to call natural processes) that would tend to obscure evidence of an intelligent designer. There is also the subject of resistance or pressure organizations may apply against articles that support ID.

I might get rhrain or (whatever he posts as) criticizing Behe again here. If I saw him in person I would put my hand up to interrupt him and say, "All you have to do is show me or direct me to a model of how one of them evolved with a step by step Darwinian fashion." I will investigate it myself. I believe I understand the concept of dogma. I think we are all guilty of it to a certain extent. RAZD posted a model to me (I call it the pilus model) and it was a nice try.

Unfortunately this makes no sense to me, are you saying evolution should make everyone an atheist if it is true?

I would think Richard Dawkins would argue for that. I think his books belong in philosophy but this being the case, I would think ID books belong there also.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Wounded King, posted 08-29-2009 2:07 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Wounded King, posted 08-30-2009 3:37 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 256 by Rrhain, posted 08-30-2009 8:30 PM traderdrew has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 254 of 458 (521926)
08-30-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by traderdrew
08-30-2009 1:00 PM


I can sit here and argue it with you

I'll take your word for it, so far this doesn't seem to have been the case.

I can sit here and argue it with you and it would be another thing to seek a greater understanding of it.

Wouldn't it be a good thing to have a good understanding of something before criticising it and telling us all what is possible or impossible?

It is based on common sense and deduction as well as reading about the material.

Oh, a guess.

DNA is also a very complex molecule.

Wow, good argument there. You really showed me how you weren't just making an argument from personal incredulity.

The one that was published in the Smithsonian's journal mentioned the term "intelligent design" in it.

Is that your criterion? If so you have totally failed in understanding how science works and what research is. A review article by Stephen Meyer saying how unconvincing he finds evolution and trumpeting theories which have never been published in a peer reviewed article? There is nothing in that paper constituting research supportive of ID, it is a review article. If you think there is solid evidence then you could start a thread and we could discuss it. I thought there already was a thread where I commented on the PBSW paper, but I can't find it now.

How many articles do proponents of ID need? What arbitrary figure would any of you put on it?

If it was a productive field of research I would expect what we see from evolution. A continuing and increasing volume of published research using ID principles to drive it.

There is also the subject of resistance or pressure organizations may apply against articles that support ID.

Oh yes, boo hoo. Mainstream science was mean to ID so it is taking its theory and going home.

I think his books belong in philosophy but this being the case, I would think ID books belong there also.

I'd agree with you about his more recent books, and certainly that the ID books belong there.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by traderdrew, posted 08-30-2009 1:00 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by traderdrew, posted 08-31-2009 10:49 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 255 of 458 (521945)
08-30-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by traderdrew
08-29-2009 11:11 AM


traderdrew writes:

and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion.

greyseal writes:

...and fail. No. That's called "god of the gaps" and your own theist thinkers and philosophers warned you creationists not to do that because then for every single forward step by the scientific method, you god is similarly reduced.

traderdrew writes:

That is understandable. We shouldn't resort to lame explanations for phenomenon. In the case of information, I am not going there. The information in DNA is precise with little margin for error. The information needs to serve specified functions indicative to particular organisms and overall functions. Shannon information does not explain how the machinery in the cell can work together coherently and how it all was built.

The chances of the nucleotides landing in specific sequences in an origin of life model are extremely unlikely.

This is the whole argument from ID in a nutshell. Life is incredibly unlikely, therefore some intelligent agent must have created it. Because any intelligent agent must itself have been at least as complicated as the life it created, it couldn't have come about naturally and must itself have been created by an even more intelligent agent. We can't keep inventing intelligent agents forever, so at some point the intelligent agent must have been God. The whole argument comes down to, "Life is incredibly complex, therefore God was the ultimate creator of life."

It's an interesting idea that an intelligently creative process might leave behind detectable signposts, but instead of demonstrating their principles with simple examples involving a few nucleotides, investigators like Dembski, Durston, Abel and Trevors instead begin with real DNA or entire protein families. Aside from whether what they're doing is a measure of complexity, they haven't shown that complexity requires an intelligence. They haven't even shown the ability to distinguish between a random DNA codon sequence and an actual one. Being able to do that would be the first real demonstration that they're on to something.

Now here's the real kicker from the point of view of science. Instead of building a growing and increasingly persuasive body of research, IDists declare that their conclusions are true before their research has demonstrated this, then when scientists object they demand that schools teach the controversy. The fact of the matter is that there is no controversy within science. IDists and creationists in general are creating a social controversy by placing one group of Christians at loggerheads with the rest of society because they're concerned that science is a threat to faith. There's no scientific controversy.

But how do we convince people like yourself that Dembski et. al. have not yet demonstrated their claims? Certainly Dembski is claiming in no uncertain terms that he's demonstrated CSI, and why would he lie?

I don't believe Dembski is lying. I think few people in the creation/evolution debate are lying. I think they all sincerely believe what they are saying. So how do you decide if Dembski and company are right or wrong?

The fact of the matter is that whether Dembski is right or wrong is not what's important. If you want to believe that Dembski and company are right, then that is your prerogative. Many new scientific ideas begin with someone thinking he is right when everyone else believes he is wrong. What's important is how do you get from just one or a few thinking they're right to most people thinking they're right.

The answer is the scientific process of research, peer review, publication, wider peer review, replication, more research, and so forth. This is the very process that just isn't happening with ID. You can believe that Dembski and company are right if you want, but they haven't convinced many in the scientific community that they are right, and by and large, especially in the case of Dembski, they just bypass the scientific community and take their arguments to those worst qualified to assess them: the general public.

Abel, Trevors and Durston et. al. are doing the right thing by publishing research papers in the legitimate technical literature. The best that can be said for ID right now is that it hasn't caught on yet within the scientific community.

Some on this forum say that we have an agenda to push. However, I can turn the motive mongering game right back on some the participants here. I can say some of you have gone down the road to perdition or have become Devil's advocates (puns intended) who wish to abolish religion or wish to perpetuate the seeds of other ideologies.

I agree with you that motives should be left out of the discussion, but the fact of the matter is that very few in the creation/evolution debate who are on the side of science have any bone to pick with religion. For most it just isn't something they think much about. It is only when creationists muster a threat to science or science education that they become resentful, and usually not of religion, but of those working under its influence. If you would prefer that people not mention religious motivations, then you have to refrain from saying things like, "Maybe if they look harder they'll find evidence of the creator."

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by traderdrew, posted 08-29-2009 11:11 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by traderdrew, posted 08-31-2009 11:06 AM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019