Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 9 of 149 (530783)
10-14-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Colin
10-14-2009 3:05 AM


There are calculations, and there are calculations...
I found this book to be carefully and thoughtfully written, and particularly like the way his arguments rely heavily on calculations performed on the available data. I have been unable to find any counter argument, so I have begun this discussion.
The following example does not deal with malaria, but it does deal with the way genetic networks operate, and it does show that these systems are robust: there are indeed many solutions to a given problem.
Based on studies such as this, there seems to be no biological justification for deliberately misrepresenting biology, as creationists are wont to do, and then using that misrepresentation to mathematically "stack the deck" against evolution. It may be good religion and good mathematics, but the evidence is showing that it is neither good biology nor good science.
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Researchchannel.org
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Colin, posted 10-14-2009 3:05 AM Colin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Colin, posted 10-14-2009 8:32 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 11 of 149 (530790)
10-14-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Colin
10-14-2009 8:32 PM


Re: There are calculations, and there are calculations...
As i mentioned in the last post (only posted literally 1 min ago - you probably missed it), Malaria was open to all possible solutions, yet took many trillions of organisms to find it. Even then, the solutions found always included the same two common changes, suggesting that any other possible solutions are even harder to find.
How do you reconcile that with the data in the on-line lecture I posted?
That mathematical model seems to suggest that genetic networks are far more robust than most scientists, and certainly all creationists, have been aware of. And it suggests that there are multiple pathways to a given solution.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Colin, posted 10-14-2009 8:32 PM Colin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Colin, posted 10-15-2009 3:54 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 111 of 149 (533203)
10-29-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kaichos Man
10-29-2009 2:20 AM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
Look at it this way. Let's say evolution has 1000 base pairs to play with. It can do anything it likes with them. There are 41000 possible combinations. One of them will produce an enzyme. The other (41000)-1 will produce nothing useful.
Take a look at the online lecture I referenced in post #9.
It shows that genetic networks are robust. By robust biologists mean that many combinations work. That is in complete opposition to the numbers you are playing with.
The title of the lecture is "Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices."
It is found at the link I provided in post #9, as well as on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbKzFdW2bM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 2:20 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-31-2009 8:32 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 116 of 149 (533506)
10-31-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Kaichos Man
10-31-2009 8:32 AM


Creation "science" again
The title of the lecture is "Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices."
Computer models can return any result you like. You just tweak the variables until you get the desired outcome. Dawkins "Weasel" is a classic example.
That's a classic creationist "what if," and it means nothing in reference to the model of genetic networks in that online lecture.
Do you have any evidence that that model has been tweaked? Any evidence that that model is flawed in any way? Or do you just dislike the results, and are looking for some way to denigrate the model?
Unfortunately, I suspect that creation "science" is nothing more than this in the long run. No evidence, just a bunch of "what ifs" thrown out cast doubt on legitimate science and to fool the gullible.
Why don't you watch that lecture again and see if you can refute the science and math.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-31-2009 8:32 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 137 of 149 (533878)
11-03-2009 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Kaichos Man
11-03-2009 6:52 AM


New subtitle, finally
"Beneficial" mutations are too rare to calculate, according to Kimura.
Haven't you read any of the responses dealing with Kimura and what he actually said?
Or are you just ignoring those responses because you would rather believe your own version of things?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-03-2009 6:52 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024