Fine tuning/ programming

No. Remember, my answer to your question (1) in the original post was "variation and selection". The mutations cause the variation, and are certainly not caused by natural selection. Natural selection acts on the variations, with a bias for what works, and for what works best.Nature is biased in favour of function, not "intricate complexity" per se, but when variations increase intricacy and complexity in a way that improves function they will be selected for.Over long periods of time, the effects can be impressive, hence, perhaps, your incredulity in the O.P. in relation to the human heart, a product of hundreds of millions of generations of evolution (most creatures in the history of its development had relatively short generations).It's worth remembering that the average increase in "intricate complexity" per each thousand generations in that history is actually minuscule, and that each small increase in intricacy or complexity takes place initially in one organism out of millions. Far more individuals would have received random variations relating to their hearts which were useless or negative.This mutation/selection process has no goals or purpose, as I said before. What functions will survive.Edited by bluegenes, : typos!

You are correct, that was a needless snip.I suspect why I and Straggler are being somewhat short with you is that the basics of the Theory of Evolution is high-school level material, and it is clear you have not done the slightest research on the subject. As it is the central organizing structure behind modern biological study, it may be that the most helpful explanation this thread can offer is "Go read a book." This isn't intended as an insult, some understanding of the topic before starting a thread like this one will greatly aid the discussion.

The development of an organism relies on genes in order to determine when and what amino acids are produced. Change the sequence of one gene and you potential affect the growth of an organism. The thing is, making changes to an organism doesn't require much tinkering with the genome. For instance, sickle cell anemia is the effect of a single mutation that causes the red blood cell to form into a "sickle" shape. Just a single mutation affects the production of hemoglobin which then affects the shape and function of the red blood cell. So it wouldn't be far from thinking that a single mutation could cause two nerves to fire in sequence rather than in conjunction because that is all that is required to have the different heart chambers beat in sequence. It's not a complicated design but a simple mutation - just have two nerves fire in sequence rather than in conjunction. Every time a creationist talks about mutations working towards a common goal, an angel cries in Heaven.No matter how anyone will anthropomorphize evolution or mutations, evolution is a process and mutations are one part of the process. Evolution and mutation are processes in the same way that gravity is a process; you would never say that gravity's "goal" is to keep you down, would you?Mutations just occur. How an organism evolves depends on the selective pressures of the environment. For instance, a two Big Horn Sheep rams are born, one that acquired a mutation for a thinner skull and that acquired a mutation for a thicker skull. The mutations themselves are neutral until an external force, i.e. the environment, acts upon them. Prior to mating season, rams butt heads to determine the mating hierarchy. Because of the butting heads, the environment has now acted upon the rams and the selective pressure here is for rams with thicker skulls. Thus we can expect our thicker skull ram to do better than our thinner skull ram, allowing the thicker skull ram to have access to more ewes consequently spreading his mutation throughout the Big Horn Sheep population through his progeny while the thinner skull ram may only be able to mate with one ewe. The ram with the thicker skull is more fit due to selective pressures than the ram with the thinner skull.Selective pressures determine which mutations, if any, allow an organism better fitness to survive. But there is no common goal being worked towards. Mutations aren't usually bad nor good. We perceive of mutations as being bad because the visible effects that we do see of mutations are bad. But there are many millions of mutations to which we do not see any visible effect whatsoever. For instance, we wouldn't see a mutation that allows a person to metabolize food faster, nor a mutation that makes a person more agile, or a mutation that decreases reflex speed, or the mutation that doesn't do anything at all. The truth is mutations often do not have any visible signs, so forget about the X-Men. What you'll find instead is that most mutations will occur and propagate with no visible signs or any ill effects.So to say that mutations are generally bad is to ignore the fact that thousands of mutations have and will occur that have had no visible effect on an organism, including humans.

There are elements that can cause a mutation to happen. Errors in DNA replication, radiation, chemicals, viruses, etc. All these can cause a mutation to occur, but where the mutation occurs in the DNA is completely random.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

From within your Wiki source (actually the very same "Causes of mutation" section that contains your other material):

quote:

---

DNA has so-called hotspots, where mutations occur up to 100 times more frequently than the normal mutation rate.

---

Moose

Ah, my mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.I should have said that where the mutations occur is random, although some places have a greater likelihood of mutating than others.

Sort of. But the hot spots themselves are subject to selection, so their existence can be part of the "evolved evolvability" of genomes.The flexibility provided by the tendency to mutate frequently in a certain area could have proved advantageous in the past, and the characteristic could have "piggy backed" to fixation on the back of advantageous mutations it produced.There are also stress induced mutations, and again, the tendency to mutate under stress could be a characteristic which itself has been selected for.So, it's useful to regard mutations as random in a sense, but the tendency to mutate in useful areas and at useful times can be the product of past selection, and therefore, in a sense, not entirely random. The same applies to the varying mutation rates, as these vary within species as well as between them, and can be subject to selection (an increased general rate "piggybacking" like the hot spots when environmental pressure makes change advantageous).I mention all this because such things can contribute to the illusion of design in the system, when really it's because all modern organisms have had plenty of time to evolve evolvability itself!

Well what are you basing it on then? Because it sure sounds like complexity and incredulity to me?What is your point if not that aspects of nature are complex and you cannot see how nature alone can be responsible for such complexity? If you have an argument that amounts to more than that I must have missed it. Excellent. Then what criteria are you using?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. But in the context of incredulity in which we find ourselves I took Dr Singh's comment to mean "I cannot see how mutations can ever result in a beneficial or positive outcome. Why would anyone conclude that they can?". In this context the answer "Think breeding" may admittedly be a little terse but is perfectly valid. I am assuming that we all know what breeding is. I am also assuming that we all consider the effects of breeding to result in "positive", in the sense of "desirable" results. I am also assuming that Dr Singh can see the comparisons between artificial selection and natural selection in this context, or will at least have the wit to ask if she cannot.However I could be wrong. It could have been a genuine question where a more thorough and technical answer was genuinely being sought. In which case I can give it a bash with my popular science level of knowledge. Or one of our more learned colleagues can step in. Or Dr Singh can do some research herself. But I remain unconvinced given the context that this is what was actually being asked for. Well if you are not prepared to think I am not sure why you are here? Isn't that kind of the entire point? Personally I find that whole "thinking thing" invaluable to understanding. What? As people who think?

Well, I don't think your idea of: having a mutation that causes two nerves to fire in sequence rather that in conjunction", will work here. Nerves are not involved in generating heartbeat, FYI. It is the leaky sodium ion channels housed in the plasma membranes of auto-rhythmic cardiac muscle cells that "generate" action potentials/electric impulses which translate as heartbeat when they are received by cardiac muscle. However, I don't deny the general idea of mutations being the key to producing tremendous changes in mechanism/function. Well, you've given an example of how selection (environmental pressures) acts on variation (mutations) to produce the best effect (fittest organism). I see the beauty of the logic of that argument, I do. But I am going to focus of the very basic process of action potential to prove my point. Natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with this process. Natural selection can act on something that already exists. My point is focusing on how do bring something to existence without intelligence?" So, there is a set of mutations that will be selected FOR by the environment and we observe that organisms bearing these mutations will survive and those that lack these mutations will not survive (selected against). On an organismal level, I can picture this argument as being possible and logical in theory. I’ve heard descent with modification countless times before. ButIf you notice my original post, my focus is on the intricacy and complexity of the internal working/anatomy (and I call it programming for reasons explained at the end of this post). Natural and artificial selection are not my focus here at all. I think the main point being discussed was pushed aside amidst other explanations, so, I will get right back to it
Can we go and visit the microscopic level of life and clarify my point using an illustration? Consider skeletal muscle cells...
Skeletal muscle membrane has 4 inter-related parts (note, intricacy) that together make electrical impulse conduction possible within cells
1) There are many voltage-gated Na+ ion channels sitting in the plasma membranes of skeletal muscle cells.2) There are many Na+/K+ ATPase pumps also sitting in the same plasma membranes of skeletal muscle cells.3) There are many leaky K+ ion channels also sitting in the same plasma membranes of these cells.4) There are Ca++ ion channels also sitting in the same plasma membranes of these cells. Please bear with me, long explanation ahead (but I think it will help convey my point).When acetylcholine molecules (a neurotransmitter) bind to Ca++ ion channels and open them, an influx of Ca++ rushes into the skeletal muscle cell--causing muscle contraction(won't get into the details of that process since it's not relevant to our conversation). Sensing voltage, VOLTAGE GATED Na+ ion channels open and allow a HUGE influx of Na+ ions which diffuse throughout the cell opening more voltage gated Na+ ion channels---and the action potential is propagated as a wave of positive charge along the entire cell. The end result (with respect to membrane potential) that action potential causes relevant to our conversation. The end result is: too much unnecessary positive charge inside the cell (which is called action potential), which needs to be pumped out in order to re-establish resting membrane potential (a negative-charge dominated environment inside the cell). For this, we have our Na+/K+ ATPase pumps. They do just what was said---pump OUT sodium ions so that we have a more negatively charged environment within the muscle cell itself. But the problem is that these pumps are slow and can't keep up with how fast depolarization (positive charge build-up) occurs. So, to compensate for their slowness leaky K+ ion channels continuously keep letting out K+ ions (ions present within the cell) and this process helps re-establish resting membrane potential but, 1. in the wrong fashion (because really, K+ will end up being pumped back into the cell ultimately) and 2. to a small extent (leaky doesn't do much). Na+/K+ pumps ultimately do the job in the right way: they pump lost K+ ions back into the cell WHILE pumping unnecessary Na+ ions out of the cell taking their own time. There are many factors that affect the rate of Na+/K+ ATPase pumps including availability of ATP (since this is active transport here). Being back at resting membrane potential, the cell is now ready for another action potential.Here, we observe that all 4 parts are molecular machines coordinate with each other functioning as a single unit to facilitate action potential. And these same 4 parts are present in cardiac muscle cells as well. (note: When I say mechanism, I’m referring to action potential conduction.) Before comparing this mechanism with the heart’s mechanism, I just want to highlight the fact (and this cannot be denied) that action potential will not be produced if one of the parts does not exist/cooperate. (this is an example of Irreducible complexity which is part of my argument). Now, going back to the heart, here are some differences I’ve gathered that make heart muscle structurally and functionally different from skeletal muscle,Difference 1. Unlike skeletal muscle cells , heart muscle cells have leaky sodium channels
Ramification 1. Heart muscle cells generate their own action potential rhythmaticallyDifference 2. Unlike skeletal muscle, heart muscle cells have less extensive Sarcoplasmic Reticulum and no Cisternae. (for clarification, SR stores and releases Ca++, and Cisternae are balls of SR filled with Ca++)
Ramification 2. Responsible for slow onset of contraction and prolonged contraction phaseDifference 3. Desmosomes and gap junctions connect heart cells (none of these occur in skeletal muscle)
Ramification 3. If one heart cell generates action potential, eeevery one else gets the message and guess what, all cells contract in unison. (If skeletal muscle was wired in this fashion, we would never be able to make a precise eye muscle movement)To restate the main idea being focused on, there are 4 parts in skeletal muscle and the same 4 parts in cardiac muscle but, they are programmed differently. Here’s how
1. Difference and Ramification No. 1
2. Cardiac muscle cells have a longer refractory period when compared to skeletal muscle. How this is made possible:1. In cardiac muscle, during the onset of depolarization, K+ channels close.
Therefore, there is a prolonged high positive-charge build-up within the cell2. During early repolarization, only a few K+ channels open.
Therefore, repolarization is slow (as opposed to fast in skeletal)3. Ca++ channels here are voltage gated. They open during depolararization and remain open during repolarization. They close only during the last phase of repolarization.
Therefore, Ca++ influx into cell adds to existing positive charge build up. Also, contributes to prolonged high positive-charge build-up.These differences collectively add to the one effect: long refractory period. Why do we need a long refractory period anyway? Well, having a long refractory period prevents conditions like tetanus and treppe where multiple successive contractions result in abnormally strong contractions. Therefore, the heart is not susceptible to such conditions.(How can you not call this intelligent design?) (it refers to programming)It does. If there was no programming, there’s no point in having cardiac muscle. We might as well use skeletal muscle in the heart. (and of course, fail) Read my post above.It looks like it is not my rationale. Neither is I don’t understand this, so God did it.This is evidence of design. Design demands intelligence and foreknowledge. God is the source of intelligence since nature cannot program itself. If nature had intelligence", the evolutionary theory would never require such a tremendously long time to bring results. If every human on earth knew every single mathematical formula by birth, everyone would be a math whiz. Clearly not everyone is. Similarly, nature does not come packed with intelligence, God maintains and sustains it. It borrows its laws and order from God. The ultimate programmer is God. He does not require a programmer since He is eternal. I argue that without intelligence, intricacy and complexity cannot be attained. Because my argument was missed, I made the huge post that I did. Excuse me sir, if you back up a page and use a magnifying lens, you will find that I did not make the comment ascribed to me. No. The person got what I was saying and he responded back. There’s no doubt that breeding produces desirable effects. However, to talk about natural and artificial selection hardly serves a purpose in our current discussion. My original comment I can’t see how mutations bring about a positive effect was of pure curiosity. It is connected with the idea of mutations working towards a common goal. My illustration above demonstrates what I really mean about working towards a common goal (in my illustration- action potential). Now of course, this is assuming that evolutionists would say mutations in the cell’s genome are responsible for creation/functioning of the 4 parts. If that is not the explanation, I would be interested to know what is Is it wrong to analyze a computer in terms of purpose? Why is this part the way it is? What is the function of this part? How does this part contribute to the overall effect? etc Acetic acid is a chemical compound and it is a weak acid. Does this mean Acetic acid has low self-esteem or something?? Anthropomorphism is how humans understand and explain inanimate/non-living entities. It is the basis for the ontological argument for the existence of God.Few things in conclusion:
1. I’m sure you all have heard about the use of probability in proving that random chance could never have produce a single protein (even the most basic one)
2. Supposing it could, (supposing) we would need all 20 amino acids (which never existed in prebiotic nature, so there...)Intelligence is required to make amino acids, put them together as protein, assemble protein parts, and program them to perform a process. As we see in comparing skeletal and cardiac muscle, the same parts were programmed differently to bring about the functionality of the organ they were located in. THAT is what I call making something work towards a common goal.Edited by Dr. Sing, : formattingEdited by Dr. Sing, : spelling...Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Almost every individual in a population has mutations. Generation after generation, nature is performing experiments by constantly varying the genome. Some of those mutations will affect adaptation to the current environment, and those individuals who are better adapted will be more likely to produce more offspring, passing their mutations on to the next generation. Those individuals less well adapted will be more likely to produce fewer offspring, and so their mutations will be less likely to be represented in the next generation.It doesn't take any intelligence for a population's environment to perform selection. To use some extreme examples for clarity, individuals born with severely deleterious mutations will likely not survive childhood, while individuals with extremely beneficial mutations will likely outcompete their peers in the race to produce progeny. No guiding intelligence is necessary for this to happen.--Percy

But, my dear Doctor, you've just spent a lot of time building up to your claim that "intricate complexity" does require intelligent design. Either it does or it doesn't. If you're going to make arbitrary unevidenced exceptions, your whole "intricate complexity" argument falls apart.My view, that intricate complexity can exist without intelligent design, fits both a no-god and a god scenario, and has no such contradictions. But you present no evidence in support of this. Ah, good. There sometimes are goals if we consider the things made by intelligent animals who can design with intent and purpose. I'm pleased that you seem to be agreeing that computers, and therefore their intelligence designers, are natural in the broad sense of the word.The mistake I was referring to is the human tendency to see design and volition where it isn't, which is how we end up with gods who control the weather, evil spirits which cause disease, and, more recently, intelligent designers of intricately complex pathogens, etc. Edited by bluegenes, : punctuation!

Exactly. What you call "arbitary unevidenced exceptions", I call faith. You have a faith too, in fact the whole evolutionary theory is founded upon a faith. Atheism is what its called. Now, this could take us into proving or disproving the existence of God. Wouldn't it? Oh really? Why do you think I gave an illustration and conclusions based on it to prove my point then? Or did you just skip over them?You have no evidence to prove that I gave no evidence in support of my argument. (Nope, not the intelligent designer of the universe.) Lol!!! Is that a hint?No, really, how do you support your apparent claim that my argument fits into the category of myths and legends? Please don't put yourself in danger of incredulity now. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : inserted a word

First of all, Atheism isn't faith. It's defining characteristic is a LACK of faith. It has a negative defintion, meaning it is defined by what it does not have, instead of what it does have.Secondly, evolution does not require or advocate atheism. There are many theists and deists who study, work on, understand, and believe in evolution. It may not be compatible with your brand of Christianity, but that does not mean no one else can accomplish the fact of reconciling one with the other.AN obvious way to do this is a god that "Big Bangs" the UNiverse and lets everything else go according to the natural laws he put in place. Another is a God who lets things evolve and only tweaks things here and there, perhaps only for humans who pray and whose prayers won't disrupt the natural course he's laid out.It seems to me that anyone who claims that evolution and creation CANNOT be reconciled are those Creationists with the weakest faith.

But if you're here to express your religious faith, why bother explaining to us that the heart is an intricately complex organ, something we know anyway? You mean that there's no evidence to support evolutionary theory? Really? I didn't know that all people who think that evolutionary theory is a very strong theory were atheists. Are you seriously suggesting this?I'm certainly one though, and I assure you it requires no faith to lack a belief in gods or any other supernatural beings. I can also tell you that my lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with my view of biology, as it's easy to conceive of a god who could create a universe in which chemical and biological evolutionary processes happen.If there is a god, and this god wanted life, he got the physics of the universe right. Not at all. You seem to be implying that an interventionist god is required in the life system of this planet in order to achieve "intricate complexity". The opposing view is that "intricate complexity" would be part and product of this universe, whether or not the universe was created by gods.You can find atheist v. theist debates on this site with the evolutionists lined up on both sides. By all means start a thread on the subject, and you'll see what I mean. A good title might be "Atheism requires Faith", because that's like a red rag to a bull for some of us, so you'll certainly get participants. Easy. You have to evoke a supernatural being whom you exempt from your arguments in order to claim that "intricate complexity' requires intelligent design. There is nothing we know of that has more intricate complexity than intelligence itself, so this is special pleading. Anyone can argue anything with an "argument from magic", which is why such arguments are meaningless.If I were to claim to be a wizard with special insights into the universe which told me that the human heart evolved naturally, and then pointed out that you could not disprove my magic claims, what value would that argument have?Yours is on the same level.Welcome to EvC, if I didn't say so before.