Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 377 (607659)
03-05-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
03-05-2011 1:10 PM


Living things are really complicated.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 03-05-2011 1:10 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 156 of 377 (608177)
03-09-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by havoc
03-09-2011 9:46 AM


You might not like Dembski’s method of getting there but I think most would admit that if a thing has specified complexity then it is designed.
I really doubt it, unless you also think that they would then go on to disagree with Dembski's assertion that there is specified complexity observable in living systems.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 9:46 AM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:23 AM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 284 of 377 (608502)
03-10-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Perdition
03-10-2011 4:01 PM


Re: Is this true, Wounded King?
The exact basis for the genetic code is still fairly open to debate. There are several distinct but not mutually exclusive lines of thought on the matter. A review paper (Bollenbach et al., 2007) which has an interesting discussion of a variety of theories on the evolution of the genetic code summarises three principle ones as ...
(1) the code has evolved under selection pressure to optimize certain functions such as minimization of the impact of mutations (Sonneborn 1965) or translation errors (Woese 1965a); (2) the number of amino acids in the code has increased over evolutionary time according to evolution of the pathways for amino acid biosynthesis (Wong 1975); and (3) direct chemical interactions between amino acids and short nucleic acid sequences originally led to corresponding assignments in the genetic code (Woese et al. 1966b).
They also go on to discuss more recent work supporting these various theories.
Of particular interest to this discussion is the work of Lozupune et al. (2003) and Knight and Landweber (2000). These discuss affinities for amino acids to RNA sequences corresponding or closely resembling those of the codon (and sometimes anticodon) corresponding to that amino acid.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Perdition, posted 03-10-2011 4:01 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Perdition, posted 03-11-2011 9:21 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 292 of 377 (608561)
03-11-2011 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Perdition
03-11-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Is this true, Wounded King?
Am I sort of right?
Yes. The problem with this, as with much origins of life research, is that we may never have a definitive answer for how it did happen but rather several plausible mechanisms by which it could have happened.
The original hypothesis put forward by Crick, often called the 'frozen accident', is that the correspondences are essentially arbitrary and that at some point the modern genetic code simply became fixed in the common ancestral population although many other codes are equally viable, and some more optimal (Koonin and Novozhilov, 2009).
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Perdition, posted 03-11-2011 9:21 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Perdition, posted 03-11-2011 10:30 AM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 302 of 377 (608608)
03-11-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by slevesque
03-11-2011 3:49 PM


But it wasn't because of any particular physical interaction.
Given all the evidence you presumably have for putting forward this assertion as if it were conclusive where is your Nobel prize? You seem to have magically excluded a whole set of potential natural mechanisms just by wishful thinking.
The 'universal genetic code' is not universal we know that the code can vary substantially and there is no theoretical reason why we couldn't produce a system with a wholly different set of codon complementations. None of these prove that the current modern genetic code is not the result of specific physicochemical tendencies, probably with a bit of contingency mixed in as is standard in biological systems.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 3:49 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 4:53 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 305 of 377 (608612)
03-11-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by slevesque
03-11-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Many ways to create an IC system.
If you doubt this, consider that all researches that try to find a mechanism to evolve such systems approach it by trying to find a mechanism in which multiple simultaneous mutations will become visible to selection.
This simply isn't the case, I'm surprised you can have been here for nearly 2 years and never encountered the arch metaphor before. It is the one where it is pointed out that an arch is irreducibly complex, in that removal of any stone causes the collapse of the structure, but can be constructed with the aid of a supporting scaffolding. After construction the scaffolding can be removed and the arch stands unsupported.
Multiple mutations aren't necessarily impossibly unlikely, within reason, but they are also not required to evolve an IC system.
Maybe to support your case you can provide a citation for some of the researches which have tried the approach you put forward?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 4:35 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 5:00 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 308 of 377 (608615)
03-11-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by slevesque
03-11-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Many ways to create an IC system.
Well we have discussed one already
So this is an irreducibly complex system that suddenly appeared?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 5:00 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 5:10 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 348 of 377 (608677)
03-12-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Dr Jack
03-12-2011 12:44 PM


Maybe he is getting confused with bioinformatics, I can see a valid case being made that bioinformatics is the best way to study modern genetics, i.e. whole genome association studies, high throughput transcriptomics such as CAGE, ChIP-Seq, large scale cross species alignments, resequencing of traits in long term evolution experiments.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2011 12:44 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but 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