Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 136 (515027)
07-14-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by bluescat48
07-14-2009 5:56 PM


Lucytheape is offtopic
Please do not reply to Lucytheape, she is off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by bluescat48, posted 07-14-2009 5:56 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 136 (515028)
07-14-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 12:13 PM


Logic and reality please.
Hi again, traderdrew, I think you have missed the whole point of IC in the ID world.
The very fact (THAT CERTAIN) IC systems could evolve from its intended design tells me that it is even more IC than I thought it was. It has the miraculous capacity to adapt.
Sorry, but the fact that an IC system not only can evolve by plausible means, with the plausibility provided by evidence of similar intermediate forms (as in the case of the flagellum), but that one has actually been documented\observed to occur means that the idea that an IC system would invalidate evolution is proven to be a false concept.
Let me say that again: an IC system has been observed to evolve, ergo it is false to say that an IC system cannot arise by evolution.
This means IC systems are now pointless in the debate.
The same can be said for claims of no increase in information.
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 46 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:13 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peepul, posted 07-15-2009 9:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 136 (515135)
07-15-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peepul
07-15-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Logic and reality please.
Hi Peepul,
If a system can be shown to have evolved by a series of step changes (which is what the above demonstrates) then by definition it is NOT IC.
No, the original definition proposed by Behe was that an IC system was one composed of several interactive parts, where the removal of any one rendered the system inoperative. The implication is that such a system cannot evolve as the evolution of one part is considered useless until the whole system is in place. This of course is the logical failure built into the concept.
In this case the original system involve the functional mechanism to metabolize lactose, one part was removed and the sytem ceased to function.
- there is no way it could have arisen through evolution
Curiously, evolution predicts the formation of "IC" systems, as previously functional parts are rendered useless by the new process, and are discarded where it is convenient to conserve energy during development.
Therefore we can never truly demonstrate that a system is IC, and so the concept is useless.
Interestingly, if you stick to the basic definition, almost every function can be considered an IC system, as there are few systems that you can disturb\intervene and not have failure. Of course biologists looked at that definition and concluded that of course those type systems evolve, and it is only those who are ignorant of biology in general and evolution in particular, that seem to be impressed by the argument.
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 64 by Peepul, posted 07-15-2009 9:32 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Peepul, posted 07-16-2009 10:30 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 136 (515136)
07-15-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 10:05 AM


adaptation? start another thread.
Hi traderdrew,
Adaptation is not IC. I will attempt to explain this to someone who is interested in what I am thinking. I have the impression that you are not.
Of course adaptation does not (necessarily) result in IC systems, nobody said it doesn't.
The issue, however, is that an IC system has evolved. Mutations occurred, natural selection occurred, and the result was an IC system, a system where the removal of one component rendered the other components incapable of metabolizing lactose.
If you want to discuss adaptation, please start another thread.
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 65 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:05 AM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 6:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 136 (515142)
07-15-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
Hi again traderdrew, we've all had trouble with disappearing posts.
Message 66
Darn it. I had this nice long response and it got wiped out just as I finished it. Login was required.
I recommend using wordpad or some other text program on your computer for composing long posts, then should anything happen to your internet connection, or accidental hitting of buttons, you still have the post. I usually transfer to wordpad when a post gets long.
Does anyone else see what is wrong with this?
Apparently not: please elucidate. Is that or is that not what happened?
Then tell me why this is the case:
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)
It seems you have trouble with the concept of an environment and the effect of the environment on natural selection. ITPG does not force the bacteria to mutate, nor does it force the bacteria to adapt (again) to the use of lactose. What it does is provide an opportunity to use lactose permease. Every environment provides an opportunity for evolution, some favor some organisms, while others favor different organisms. This is why speciation occurs.
In this instance we have an original bacteria that could not survive on the lactose alone, but it can utilize lactose, the ITPG allows this original bacteria to survive and reproduce. As Phage0070 said in Message 27:
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?
... 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. ...
They just used the lactose permease that was readily available due to the environment they were in, however neither the original strain, nor the evolved strain could do so without the genes that are the issue of this discussion.
Evolutionary potential of the ebgA gene. | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
quote:
The wild-type enzyme, whose function in nature is unknown, is a very feeble β-galactosidase whose activity toward lactose (galactosyl-β- 1,4-D-glucose) and its analog lactulose (galactosyl-β- 1,4-D-fructose) is so ineffective that, in ΔlacZ strains, those sugars cannot be utilized for growth even when the operon is expressed constitutively (ebgR-) at a level such that EBG enzyme constitutes 5% of the cell’s soluble protein (Hall 1982).
In other words, lactose provides a marginal resource for the organisms. Thus we have bacteria grown on a culture with two marginal resources - lactose and IPTG.
Isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside - Wikipedia
quote:
Isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside, abbreviated IPTG, is a molecular biology reagent.
This compound is used as a molecular mimic of allolactose, a lactose metabolite that triggers transcription of the lac operon. Unlike allolactose, the sulfur (S) atom creates a chemical bond which is non-hydrolyzable by the cell, preventing the cell from "eating up" or degrading the inductant; therefore the IPTG concentration remains constant.
Oh my gosh,,,
now I am being accused of something I never stated. I never stated that I thought that this experiment was the result of "unguided" multiple coherent mutations.
Curiously, I quoted you directly. Here it is again, as quoted:
Message 42
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.
Is that not what you said? Of course the one option you left out was the one that is substantiated by the facts: that an IC system evolved.
I intend to show you that some IC systems can be mutated but not evolve into novel structure.
and Message 42
Adaptation is not IC. I will attempt to explain this to someone who is interested in what I am thinking.
So mutations do occur and they lead to adaptation of the organism to the environment. Curiously, that is evolution. Of course, not every mutation is selected for increased survival and reproduction, as many are neutral in their current environment, and even potentially lethal mutations can piggy-back on heavily selected traits, however not every mutation results in a novel structure, so what you have is a straw man argument.
And, interestingly, and IC system was still seen\observed\documented to evolve in a petri dish.
You spend a lot of time yapping, but little time addressing the issues of this thread: the evolution of an IC system and the evolution of increased "information" in the process.
Perhaps you need to start a thread of your own.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : mid

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 67 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 11:35 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 12:28 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 136 (515143)
07-15-2009 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by DevilsAdvocate
07-15-2009 6:44 PM


Re: adaptation? start another thread.
Hi Dr Adequate,
If an IC system evolved from simpler structures can you really call it IC? I think not.
There seems to be a popular misconception that if a system can be explained how it evolved that it cannot be an IC system. This is false, an IC system is defined as one that has several interrelated parts necessary to function in a specific manner, where the removal of any one part renders the whole system inoperable.
So to answer your question, it does not matter how simple the basal structures are, what matters is the final configuration into an interrelated complex of parts that all are needed for a specific function to occur.
A mortar-less stone arch is composed of simple parts, but they all have to act together, you can't build the arch a stone at a time as it will fall down.
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 78 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 6:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 8:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 136 (515144)
07-15-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Perdition
07-15-2009 12:56 PM


Neutral mutations as a platform for later novel features
Hi Perdition, this is a little to the side of the topic, but it does address how IC systems can evolve.
All you need is a mutation to occur at a spor that doesn't do any harm to the organism. Then that mutation will be passed down in that family line. At some point, perhpas hundreds of years later, you have another mutation that builds on the previous one. It may help, it may do nothing, but as long as it doesn't hurt the survival of an organism, again, it gets preserved. How would it be difficult for mutations to build up? Especially if the area they're building up in is an unused copy of another gene, and if one of those mutations reactivates the copy, and the new process is better than the original, how would that not make a novel feature?
Again, this very thing has been observed, where a later mutation enabled a bacteria (e.coli again I believe, a common lab organism) evolved an ability to utilize a new substrate, however only the ones descended from a specific generation of one branch evolved the ability, and this was tracked back to a mutation in that generation population that was the foundation for the new feature.
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 72 by Perdition, posted 07-15-2009 12:56 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Perdition, posted 07-16-2009 12:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 136 (515434)
07-17-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 12:28 PM


what's special about IC?
Hi Traderdrew, please see Message 1 and Message 53.
At least it would have not been done without simultaneous multiple coherent mutations. If this occurred then the possibility of many IC systems, which would have required this, would arguably be entering into the realm of metaphysical miracles.
The problem is in the assumption of simultaneous mutations rather than a sequential evolution. I can wait for your fuller explanation (or your response on the above thread).
Message 87
Where I learned biology is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Actually, it is relevant, because it appears that you do not fully understand evolutionary biology and have only a surface impression of it, yet you freely make assertions about scientists being wrong or "irrational" - something that can only be properly stated from a strong foundation in the science.
In a post that I am writing for this thread shows that the preservation of such "nonessential" mutations that create would need energy to maintain. Due to the complexities of DNA and the cell, a lot of things can go wrong. It would seem to me that if your explanation was plausible, then bacteria would be carrying about a lot of luggage around with them. Do you really think that these bacteria are so poorly organized?
Why haven't the staunch supporters of Darwin such as Kenneth Miller and Jerry Coyne proposed such a theory in their books???
Which ones? A better approach would be for you to email Miller and ask. Yes it is common. It is what is called a neutral mutation, and they are the most numerous. Mayr says that neutral mutations are not part of evolution because they are not subject to being selected - either for nor against. That means that their survival and spread within a population is due to purely stochastic processes, such as piggy-backing on a beneficial gene.
You should learn about these types of mutations, or your hypothesis of "assemblism" will lack explaining the evidence that exists.
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 92 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 12:28 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:29 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 136 (515522)
07-18-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by traderdrew
07-18-2009 10:29 AM


issues and how to resolve them
Hi traderdrew,
No it is not. What I post is relevant and not my education. Defeat my debate on substance, not who I am. I think Perdition knew he or she was cornered and Perdition tried to equivocate a way out of it. Think of it, how many people remember much of what they learned in biology class years ago?
Sorry, but the issue I have, is that you have criticized scientists from an apparently weak knowledge basis -- if your schooling and accumulated knowledge in the field IS weak then you have no basis for criticism.
It is when you criticize others that you need to show your credentials. Of course you could instead follow your own advice, and attack the evidence and the argument, rather than attack the scientists, especially with silly blanket statements that are inane to begin with.
So if you agree to follow your own advice, and refrain from criticizing others, I will allow you to refrain from exposing your (weak) knowledge of evolution.
By the way despite one of your previous posts, irreducible complexity is a test for an unguided process of evolution not intelligent design.
Ah, so you agree that it is not an argument for ID. Excellent. Now all you need to do is admit that IC systems arise all the time by natural processes, and we can agree that there is essentially no point to IC.
Now can it build a flagellum?
The evidence shows that it has, however the evidence also shows that this took more than a couple of afternoons in a lab twiddling with dials. There have been several articles about how a flagellum could evolve, using existing systems found in other bacteria for evidence of the plausibility.
This is a youtube video showing the steps hypothesised and tested 6 years ago:
I ran across it in my continued search for the reference to Behe's admission that evolution explains IC systems.
Common sense told me that a lot of scientists don't like what Michael Behe has to say. Obviously, some people around here don't like what I have written. Behe is a target.
When you make a lot of groundless claims and ignore contradictory evidence to your claims, you are bound to find critics and become a target to those interested in reality.
Didn't you agree that the evidence is the key, the argument is the issue, and not the people?
By the way, here is Behe claiming that IC is an argument for ID:
Now, I also think that both sides of the design argument need to be addressed, so here is an alternate view on the flagellum:
Message 1
Message 33
Unfortunately the pictures seem to be bolluxed at the moment (due to new board changes), but at least the links are fixed.
Michael Behe - Wikipedia
quote:
Dover testimony
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[42] During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[43] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[44] [45]
...
44. ^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139
45. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Testimony
#44: Page 88 of 139:
quote:
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred. (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex.17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,
17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).

#45: transcripts of Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1
It's rather rambling, but you can see that Behe essentially concedes evolution can explain the formation of an IC system: search the page for "Yes, that's correct. It does imply irreducible complexity but not intelligent design" and follow the argument from there.
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 99 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:29 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 12:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 136 (515735)
07-20-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 12:35 PM


oops
deleted
Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post

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 102 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 12:35 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 115 of 136 (515738)
07-20-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 12:35 PM


Re: issues and how to resolve them
Hi traderdrew, welcome back.
Do you claim to be a scientist? I have the impression that you are a student. It wouldn't be the first time that I have pissed off a scientist.
I'm 62, first learned about evolution and biology as a child on field trips with my dad, who taught biology at the University of Michigan, I have three degrees, and I am still a student. If you want to learn more you can refer to Cancer Survivors
I have not attacked scientists on this forum to my knowledge. I believe that many Darwinists are irrational but that doesn't mean that scientists are. Everyone is irrational including ME. Some are just more rational than most of the others.
These are weasel words. When you consistently modify "darwinist" with "irrational" you are indeed painting all biologists and other scientists as irrational. It's called bigotry.
Feel free to point out the flaws in my knowledge on this forum. This way I can correct my thinking. Do you see that I am not trying to be totally dogmatic here? I think Darwinists (not all scientists) can get dogmatic.
There you go with your bigotry again. Here's a hint: you are denigrating people you don't even know, because of what they are, not on what they have said.
Now if you say something like "traderdrew is irrational because he classifies people based on bigotry rather than on any factual information" then that is not bigotry, but an argument based on facts.
I believe that Darwinism has transcended into metaphysical implications inside the minds of certain amount of Darwinists. I think Daniel Dennett was partly correct that Darwinism is a "universal acid". I think that "Darwinian Dogma" is the universal acid.
Curiously, what you think STILL has no bearing on reality, and when we couple that with examples of, say, irrational thinking on your part (see above), then we can logically conclude that your opinion is worthless - at best.
IC is not a test for ID. IC is an argument for ID. This isn't rocket science.
No, it isn't rocket science, it is poor logic. IC has evolved, therefore - by your reasoning - evolution is an argument for ID.
I never heard of that argument before. I have learned many things from Stephen Meyer and one of those things is that models like those typically conceal a host of problems and/or questions. I just researched it and I see that William Dembski refuted it.
And, interestingly, you don't provide any link nor quote what you think is the most telling argument from Dembski. That this one example is 6 years old and no creationist has mentioned it should make you wonder about their honesty (dogma, irrationality) eh?
Do you dispute that (a) it shows a plausible explanation supported by (b) evidence found in other existing systems?
Behe is a biochemist. I never had the impression that is a philosopher of science. What is to stop science from investigating astrology?
Do you really miss the implication of that argument? You think you can criticize scientists with blanket insults, and you don't even know what separates science from pseudo-sciences like astrology? Or even consider the distinction important?
Ever heard of the lab called Biologic???
Yes I have, it is run by the Discovery Institute to make people think they are doing science.
OK,... You just MIGHT have gotton me on that one. I am still not sure what that statement means. I believe that a flagellum can evolve. I believe Smoke coauthored a paper with Behe. I will have to research on this sometime. Do you see now that I am not totally dogmatic with this?
Well, it's not rocket science, and relatively self-evident: Behe and Snokes wrote a paper published in a journal, where they purported to provide an argument that the flagellum could not have evolved, but under oath Behe admitted that the conditions of the argument did not reflect reality, and that there was more -- orders of magnitude more -- possibility for the evolution than their model addressed, so much more that it becomes a logically high probability instead of an argument of impossibility.
Science has become sophisticated enough to provide a body of evidence that shows the flagellum was precursor for the TTSS. This means that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum. Sean Pitman provides the information. I also saw a reference of some documented evidence of it somewhere in "Signature in the Cell".
And, sadly, this is irrelevant, because what can evolve in one direction can evolve in the other under different circumstances.
What you still have is one out of the 40 known of the 42 proteins where there may be some doubt about the lineage - one from the other or both from a common ancestor.
That still leaves 39 to account for - what about all of those inconvenient bits of evidence?
Dembski doesn't scare me, so if you think he really dealt with the issue then you need to present some evidence of his argument rather that argue from implication, ad hominem, argument from authority, argument from consequences, argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance (just for starters). Note those are logical fallacies.
Feel free to point out the flaws in my knowledge on this forum. This way I can correct my thinking.
Don't worry, start posting something you think is fact rather than just making insinuations, and we'll see how well your argument holds up.
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 102 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 12:35 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 116 of 136 (515745)
07-20-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 1:20 PM


More bad logic and false thinking ...
Hi traderdrew, you asked for it.
Message 102
Feel free to point out the flaws in my knowledge on this forum.
I'll be glad to oblige, as will several others, I'm sure. It's not difficult when you provide an easy target.
I don’t understand the perspective that an irreducibly complex system can’t evolve through minor mutations.
Then you should agree that IC is not evidence for ID. If you cannot differentiate ID from evolution with IC then it is not evidence for ID.
In fact, a system that can make necessary mutations in adaptation or response to environmental factors is further testament to a creator.
And yet there is zero evidence that mutations occur in response to environmental factors in a way that necessarily produces beneficial adaptation. At best research has shown that the rate of mutation increases in cells under survival stress, due to failure of the repair mechanisms from the stress.
The evidence shows that out of hundreds of mutations, some few have a slight beneficial propensity, and are selected for via increased survival and reproduction. The rest represent the failure of your creator to produce the proper mutation. Not a good grade.
A proponent of ID has the room to contemplate the possibilities.
Such as the possibility that evolution is part of the design, an incredibly simple system for accomplishing so much, from flagella to flamingos, from single simple cells to the total diversity of life known today.
Such as the possibility that the universe was designed for life to develop in many places, including (but not limited to) earth.
Such as the possibility that biologists are scientists of the most rational kind, carefully delving into the evidence of reality to see (a) how it works and (b) what we can know about reality in the process.
Such as the possibility that not one thing known, tested and validated against reality, in all of science cannot be part of the design.
Such as the possibility of arguing against the mountains of evidence for evolution from a molehill of ignorance is irrational?
It is true that this was just a story but it gives the reader somewhat of idea of how a flagellum could evolve.
No, this is a rather pathetic example of the logical fallacy of equivocation, where the same word is used with two different meanings.
In Message 30 you say
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.
You were talking about the initial evolution of the flagellum, while here
Certain species of bacteria use flagellum for locomotion as they propel themselves through liquids such as water or liquids primarily of water.
You are starting with an existing flagellum and hypothetically modify it.
So, no, you have not explained what you asked for in Message 30 and it is both a logical fallacy and dishonest to imply that you have.
Back in the real world, there are different variations of the flagellum. Some have extra parts such as extra rings for example. But the mutated flagellum is still a flagellum.
So if what you present here is really enough of an explanation of "how the flagellum evolved" in Message 30, then there already exist many examples of "how the flagellum evolved" in all these variations.
Do you understand that this is not just bad logic, but that it is pathetic logic?
Consider it if the flagellum would be forced into a new habitat of liquid of higher tension such as oil.
Do you know that (a) surface tension has nothing to do with the behavior of microorganisms living within the liquid, (b) oil has less surface tension than water (which is why it spreads in a sheen on top of water), (c) that oil has less density than water, and finally (d) there is not sufficient difference between water and oil to cause adaptive selection in bacteria, and that many species of bacteria happily live, eat and reproduce in oils and other liquids.
Do you have any idea what the Reynolds Number is and how it applies?
Reynolds number - Wikipedia
quote:
In fluid mechanics and heat transfer, the Reynolds number Re is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces ({\bold \mathrm V} \varrho) to viscous forces (μ / L) and, consequently, it quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.
Reynolds numbers frequently arise when performing dimensional analysis of fluid dynamics and heat transfer problems, and as such can be used to determine dynamic similitude between different experimental cases. They are also used to characterize different flow regimes, such as laminar or turbulent flow: laminar flow occurs at low Reynolds numbers, where viscous forces are dominant, and is characterized by smooth, constant fluid motion, while turbulent flow occurs at high Reynolds numbers and is dominated by inertial forces, which tend to produce random eddies, vortices and other flow fluctuations.
Reynolds number is named after Osborne Reynolds (1842—1912), who proposed it in 1883.[1][2]
If you look at the formula you will see that velocity in a fluid is inversely proportional to the density of the fluid.
The density of water is 62.4 lbs/cu.ft. and the density of diesel fuel is ~59.3 lbs/cu.ft. kerosenes can be ~53.7 lbs/cu.ft.
Not a staggering difference. Given that the speed of bacteria in water range from rest to ~5 body lengths/sec the top speed will be affected slightly. This may have an effect on survival from predation except that the predator would be affected in the same way.
At first, the bacteria had problems finding food in the oil.
As noted, there are bacteria that happily feed on oils.
They induce the right mutations which make the flagellum evolve a stronger rod ...
And this is not the way it works either. First, the mutation either causes a stronger rod directly or it doesn't. Second, the variation in the population already has some with better flagella than others, and these would survive better than the others, causing a generation by generation shift to better flagella.
They call upon their natural genetic engineering and resurrect something their ancestors used over 2 billion years ago.
Pure ad hoc (irrational) fantasy. Ancestral motors would likely be poorly constructed and weakly functional by comparison to ones that have had 2 billion years to refine the process.
That's just a "starter sample" of your poor argument, ignorance of biology, and the flaws in your knowledge.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : an not and

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 105 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:20 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 136 (515746)
07-20-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 1:30 PM


Re: Back to the True Acid Test take 2
Hi traderdrew, let's review.
I think that I offered at least one solid counter argument to it above and that was the system was irreducibly complex to being with ...
Curiously that the original system was irreducibly complex is irrelevant. The only importance of the original system is that when one element was removed the whole system failed to operate, and thus it demonstrated the essential quality of "IC" - a system composed of several interactive parts and that needs all the parts working to function.
It was expected that another mechanism would evolve to replace the broken function, because the environmental conditions favored selection to use all the available resources. This expectation (prediction) was validated by the experiment. It was expected that the new system would be different from the previous system, because evolution adapts existing elements rather than repairs broken ones. This expectation (prediction) was also validated by the experiment.
However what was unexpected, was that the new system would involve several interactive parts that need all the parts working to function. In fact what evolved was relatively unremarkable at the time, and it wasn't until years later that it was realized that the experiment involved what had since been defined as IC systems.
An operon consists of several genes which are transcribed together. It turns out that E. coli has many operons and the lac operon is just one of them. (See link below)
True, and which, incidentally explains how some deleterious mutations can persist in a population, when they are associated on an operon that is heavily favoured by selection.
So what did E. coli do in response to the deletion? It took a part from the ebg operon that was homogenous to the lacZ gene.
The E. coli did nothing. In one organism a random mutation occurred that changed a similar section of DNA to be more similar to the original lacZ gene, however this did not replace the lacZ gene and the original function was still broken.
Why did this not fix the original system? Because the new gene is functionally different from the original, homologous does not mean identical nor does it mean that it can do the same things.
Thus the mere fact of homology is not sufficient to rebut the argument and a (new) IC system evolved.
This experiment was beginning to painting a picture that E. coli could evolve an irreducibly complex system through natural selection acting on random mutations.
Actually, this experiment demonstrated natural selection operating on random mutations.
The new system did not evolve the ability to bring lactose into the cell.
Nor did the original IC system have a mechanism to bring lactose into the cell, thus the evolution of this mechanism is (a) irrelevant to the original IC system, (b) irrelevant to the new IC system and (c) irrelevant to the evolution of the new system that replaced, not repaired, the original system.
Instead of this experiment supporting the mechanisms for neo-Darwinism, I really think this supports is natural selection acting on NGE (natural genetic engineering), with the help of IPTG of course. The cell obviously had the ability to find replacement parts and engineer them into a useful system. (NGE is the result of years of research done by James Shapiro.)
If this were true, then the original system would have been repaired, not replaced with similar but different system, different enough that the parts of one system are not interchangeable with the other.
In other words, this experiment actually invalidates the "NGE" concept. In science falsified concepts are discarded: bye bye NGE.
Why wouldn't an intelligent designer program life with the genetic versatility to make necessary changes???
Argument from incredulity.
Why wouldn't an intelligent designer program life to evolve, via random mutation and natural selection? Every generation gets some new mutations, and every generation selects the most successful of those mutations for parenting the next generation.
Too deleterious was in reference to the E. coli experiment. Obviously Hall doesn’t seem to be very optimistic that the E. coli can evolve any further.
In the environment in question. Yes, what you see is the inability of evolution to go back "down the mountain" in order to be able to climb a different peak.
This is why you have eyes with backwards retinas and a blind spot in prime vision real estate, while the octopus has a more functional eye.
This experiment does not disprove microevolution. However, this experiment does not falsify intelligent design.
This experiment validates evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
This experiment was not intended to falsify intelligent design.
This experiment does invalidate the concept that IC systems cannot evolve.
It also seems to support another one of Michael Behe’s statements that says evolution isn’t an arms race; it is more like trench warfare.
Non sequitur and another appeal to (false) authority.
More bad thinking and false information.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : spling

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 108 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 1:30 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 136 (548448)
02-27-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Feathertail
02-27-2010 5:55 AM


Reasons and Understandings
Hi Feathertail, and welcome to the fray,
Most of this is off topic, but I will answer briefly. If you want to discuss in greater depth then ask and we can move to an appropriate thread.
I came here because I've been questioning my personal religious beliefs. I have already thrown out the specific religion I belong to as being false. I am starting to find evidence that the whole family of religions it belongs to is based on a lie as well.
I understand that religion has no place in a scientific discussion. I just wanted to explain the reason why I came here. And the fact that I'm not married to any particular belief system, and am looking at everything with newly skeptical eyes.
When I was religious, I believed in Intelligent Design. My faith made it an attractive proposition. More than that, though, I could not see the logic behind evolution. Order arising from chaos without an intelligent mind to guide it? Where is that seen in our world? How often, over what duration and on what scale? Is it really the likeliest explanation?
In my personal opinion, the best approach is one of open-minded skepticism - willing to consider new ideas, but unwilling to accept just any concept without some validation for it. Often there are ideas where I cannot judge one way or the other, and so I wait for more information.
Can order rise out of chaos? Mandelbrot diagrams come to mind, as does crystal formations.
Crystals occur because chemicals do not combine in genuinely random ways, but according to their molecules and the ion valences.
I considered the informational content of the genome to be the ultimate evidence. At the macroscopic level, natural selection produces new biological innovation. But at the genetic level, it's just accumulated copying errors, like scratches on a CD. One can't write a new program from scratch by recording static. Right?
Ultimate evidence of what?
Certainly the genome carries a lot of information about ancestry, about the genetic history that resulted in the current genome.
Natural selection does not produce new innovation, it only selects among the variations currently within populations for those that improve the possibilities of survival and reproduction versus the variations that hinder the possibilities of survival and reproduction. The new information is provided by mutations.
If you want to discuss evolution several threads are open, and you may be interested in one of these:
Evolution and Increased Diversity
Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
Rapid Evolution in Lizards
Evolving New Information
A lot of very intelligent people believe that it's just a fallacy. After finding out the myths behind my cherished belief systems -- discoveries made this last month, which have shaken me to my core -- I needed to know whether or not this was true. So I decided to read the discussions again. That's how I found this thread. I have to say a lot of it's over my head.
A lot of ID is based on poor logical and unsupported assumptions, but there are other threads to discuss this, such as:
A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
What exactly is ID?
Is ID properly pursued?
I'm glad your search came here, as this forum (not just this thread) can help a person willing to learn, as there are many people that really know what they are talking about.
I'm a bit disappointed, however, to see
Because of that, it probably won't surprise anyone that ... I'm still convinced of intelligent design. I read RAZD's first few posts. He did two things that convinced me of it:
...
The second thing was his attitude. ... I just want to say that if it appears that somebody's ego is invested in defending a particular position, that's going to speak a lot louder to me than any words that they use. It really is.
So says your ego and your continued emotional attachment to ID?
It seems you skipped over the logic of the issue and focused on a perception of ego rather than look at the facts involved.
First, he conflated the physical expression of the genome -- observable biological features -- with the informational content thereof.
I'm not sure what you mean here. You have genetic information, and the observed ability to use, or not use, Lactose. I'm not aware of any other "biological features" involved in this issue.
Are you saying that the ability of an organism to use, or not use, Lactose is a "physical expression of the genome" that is somehow separate from and distinct from the information content of the genome? ie that such ability can occur without any information in the genome? I hope you realize that such a case would mean that "information" then is irrelevant to evolution.
So I think that I've made up my mind about this, but if there's something I'm missing then please let me know.
An open-minded and skeptical evaluation of the evidence. You've jumped backwards to your a priori conclusion that ID is valid based on rejection of argument that IC is invalidated (not ID btw) because of your reaction to an assumed attitude?
I have to say a lot of it's over my head.
So therefore it is wrong?
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
I notice you used html commands, which is fine, but dBcode is simpler with no loss in information. See Posting Tips for some other formatting tips.
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
Edited by RAZD, : wrdng

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 120 by Feathertail, posted 02-27-2010 5:55 AM Feathertail has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 126 of 136 (548452)
02-27-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Feathertail
02-27-2010 3:37 PM


TOPIC please
Hi again Feathertail,
I just see the biological and informational processes separately.
  • The organism adapts to its environment;
  • The genome degrades and wears away.
I've discussed this before with others, and only ever received the same response: Dismissing the informational content of the genome, and concentrating solely on biological innovation as the measure of evolution. RAZD's (second?) post even suggested that biological innovation equals new informational content, when -- as I understand it -- it's really just line noise that happens to produce a beneficial result for the organism which carries it.
Can you focus on the topic (see Message 1) and then talk about how you think things work and what happened in those experiments?
We generally like to keep topics focused so they don't wander all over the place.
If you can't find a topic you want to address directly, you can start one:
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
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 122 by Feathertail, posted 02-27-2010 3:37 PM Feathertail 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