Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
754 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 748 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,860 Year: 21,896/19,786 Month: 459/1,834 Week: 459/315 Day: 55/82 Hour: 5/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 676 of 752 (607206)
03-02-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by havoc
03-02-2011 1:36 PM


Re: DNA, mutation AND selection
Open the operating code for you pc and just start hitting the keys on the keyboard. Then hire a Microsoft employee who is Adept at writing code. Your attempt could generate twice the “bits” of info as measured by Shannon but which program do you want running on your pc?

In evolution, you can put in random code and it can develop function:

J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):162-8.

Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological function?
Hayashi Y, Sakata H, Makino Y, Urabe I, Yomo T.

Department of Biotechnology, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, 565-0871, Suita City, Osaka, Japan.

Abstract
To explore the possibility that an arbitrary sequence can evolve towards acquiring functional role when fused with other pre-existing protein modules, we replaced the D2 domain of the fd-tet phage genome with the soluble random polypeptide RP3-42. The replacement yielded an fd-RP defective phage that is six-order magnitude lower infectivity than the wild-type fd-tet phage. The evolvability of RP3-42 was investigated through iterative mutation and selection. Each generation consists of a maximum of ten arbitrarily chosen clones, whereby the clone with highest infectivity was selected to be the parent clone of the generation that followed. The experimental evolution attested that, from an initial single random sequence, there will be selectable variation in a property of interest and that the property in question was able to improve over several generations. fd-7, the clone with highest infectivity at the end of the experimental evolution, showed a 240-fold increase in infectivity as compared to its origin, fd-RP. Analysis by phage ELISA using anti-M13 antibody and anti-T7 antibody revealed that about 37-fold increase in the infectivity of fd-7 was attributed to the changes in the molecular property of the single polypeptide that replaced the D2 domain of the g3p protein. This study therefore exemplifies the process of a random polypeptide generating a functional role in rejuvenating the infectivity of a defective bacteriophage when fused to some preexisting protein modules, indicating that an arbitrary sequence can evolve toward acquiring a functional role. Overall, this study could herald the conception of new perspective regarding primordial polypeptides in the field of molecular evolution.

So it would appear that your analogy doesn't apply.

The SETI project looks for specified complexity in the form of radio waves in space. They can tell the difference of ordered complexity like a pulsar and random background noise and specified complexity which interestingly enough would be touted by most everyone as proof of intelligent life. That is that a code containing specified complexity is proof of an intelligent code maker.

SETI looks for narrowband transmissions, not specified complexity or codes.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate how specified complexity is measured in the DNA sequence I posted. If you can't show how specified complexity is measured in DNA then it does not apply to DNA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:36 PM havoc has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 677 of 752 (607207)
03-02-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 675 by havoc
03-02-2011 1:41 PM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
Well thenneither is the vertebrate bone structure.

Why not? The backbone in all vertebrates develops same way in the same embryonic tissues. Backbones all have homologous structures across all vertebrates. Why aren't these homologous structures?

Denying the facts really isn't helping your position?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:41 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:05 PM Taq has responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 678 of 752 (607216)
03-02-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by Taq
03-02-2011 1:47 PM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
The backbone in all vertebrates develops same way in the same embryonic tissues

And the finger digits do not so is this evidence against common ancestor or do u pick and choose what you like?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 1:47 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 3:07 PM havoc has responded
 Message 685 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2011 4:31 PM havoc has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 679 of 752 (607217)
03-02-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 678 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:05 PM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
And the finger digits do not so is this evidence against common ancestor or do u pick and choose what you like?

Please explain.

Also, I am still waiting for you to show us how to measure the specified complexity in that DNA sequence. Working on that yet?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:05 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:38 PM Taq has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 680 of 752 (607219)
03-02-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by havoc
03-02-2011 1:06 PM


goalposts on the run.
Hi havoc,

That was my point Shannon theory is an inadequate way of measuring the information content of the genome. Specified complexity is how the code works not just random “bits” which is what Shannon measures.

And another goal post is moved.

Suddenly you are no longer using "information" but an even worsely defined "Specified complexity" because the real definition of information didn't work out -- it could increase in any genome.

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 670 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:06 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:43 PM RAZD has responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 681 of 752 (607222)
03-02-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 679 by Taq
03-02-2011 3:07 PM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
And the finger digits do not so is this evidence against common ancestor or do u pick and choose what you like?

Please explain.

One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide

this was taken from a paper by Dr sarfati. Sorry couldnt recall how to quote.

Does this cause you to question your belief? If not why does the backbone development count as proof but finger development does not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 3:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2011 4:03 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 686 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2011 4:47 PM havoc has responded
 Message 693 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 5:41 PM havoc has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 682 of 752 (607223)
03-02-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 680 by RAZD
03-02-2011 3:15 PM


Re: goalposts on the run.
Hi havoc,

That was my point Shannon theory is an inadequate way of measuring the information content of the genome. Specified complexity is how the code works not just random “bits” which is what Shannon measures.

And another goal post is moved.

I never said Shannon was the propper way to measure information in the genome. Sorry you think that I did but I did not.
Read "In the begining was information" Well thought out. Any one who studys information theory knows that shannon theory is usefull for somethings but comes short in others.

Edited by havoc, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 3:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 5:43 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 695 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 5:46 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 697 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2011 6:45 PM havoc has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 683 of 752 (607225)
03-02-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:38 PM


One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern,

Wierd... I've been here for years and this is the first time I've seen it.

From my point of view, the most commonly argued proof of evolution is that its as blindingly fucking obvious as gravity and the only reason to deny it is because it conflicts with your theological views.

Well that, and the simple fact that not one single example of any animal has ever been shown to be unable to be produced by the process of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:38 PM havoc has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6879
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 684 of 752 (607227)
03-02-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 657 by havoc
03-02-2011 10:18 AM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
Blind cave fish can regain sight, I think there must still be the information in the genome that can sometimes be manifest. The information already exists.

So you are saying there is no information lost?

Make up your mind either the change was caused by loss of information or it was not. You seem to want to have it both ways.

Lets step through this.

Cave fish losses sight. This is caused by a loss of information in its DNA(according to your argument).
Cave fish then again regain ability to see. You now say that the information is still in the genome? So there was no loss of info after all?

You really need to review your arguments to make sure they mesh a little better.

ABE sorry for pile on. I didn't see this was addressed by others until I posted this.

Edited by Theodoric, : Abe Sorry for this pile on. I did not see this was addressed by others until I posted this.

Edited by Theodoric, : oops typed in wrong spot


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 10:18 AM havoc has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6879
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 685 of 752 (607228)
03-02-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 678 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:05 PM


Address posts please
Instead of addressing responses to you, all you are doing is a gish gallop.

The discussion was eyes. When you were soundly trounced on this you didn't address the issues and switched to the backbone. Now that you have been shown wrong there you switch to finger digits.

How about you grow a backbone and address the issues presented in posts to you.

You are not a very honest or ethical debater.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:05 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 5:02 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 686 of 752 (607231)
03-02-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:38 PM


my karma ran over your frogma
Hi havoc,

There is a very simple solution to the AER problem raised by Jonathon Sarfati; it's bollocks and Safarti is an idiot.

Most frogs do have an apical ectodermal ridge. The only ones that don't are a few species of direct developing frogs (i.e. they have no tadpole stage). Other than that, frogs have AERs just like we do and Sarfati is a bungling fool.

Does this cause you to question your beliefs? Because it only took me a few minutes of googling to find this out. It did not require much in the way of effort or intellectual curiosity. Perhaps you should stop listening to Sarfati. He is a douchebag.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:38 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:55 AM Granny Magda has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 687 of 752 (607233)
03-02-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by havoc
03-02-2011 1:25 PM


my karma catagorically ran over your dogma
Hi havoc, still struggling with denial I see.

First let me ask you to admit that you are making a theological statement here. That you know how a designer would design.

Not at all.

What I am arguing is that these are the kinds of things we would likely see from design that would differentiate it from evolution -- it is no good to say that you have a theory that explains exactly the same thing as existing theory and nothing new: all we need is the original theory then to explain the evidence. Once again this is how science works, by differentiating between explanations through tests and experiments, and then picking the best explanation for all the facts as tentative truth until the next theory does a better job of explaining ALL the evidence.

And THAT is why you need evidence that evolution cannot explain.

Second there are numerous reasons for the eye to orientated the way it is including prevention of blindness at bright lights.

Not really a problem, sorry. Again, this is solved in human design by the use of filters over binoculars, telescopes and cameras that enable them to, among other things, look directly at the sun without harm.

Many animals have nictitating membranes ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nictitating_membrane

quote:
The nictitating membrane (from Latin nictare, to blink) is a transparent or translucent third eyelid present in some animals that can be drawn across the eye for protection and to moisten the eye while also maintaining visibility. Various reptiles, birds, and sharks have a full nictitating membrane, ...

Nictitating membranes are found in birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, but are less common in mammals, mainly being present in monotremes and marsupials.[1] ...


So now we can copy and paste the fully functional nictitating membrane from reptile\birds to the composite mammal\cephalopod eye. This is an even better design as it also provides some additional protection for the eye, and results in an eye fully functional over a larger range of light environments, with improved vision in all situations, from dim light to looking directly at the sun.

So instead of calling someone an eagle eye we should be calling them an octopus eye?

No, eagles have the same sort of eye that mammals have, with a backwards retina. They do have nictitating membranes though, which helps them stare at prey longer without blinking. They have trouble seeing in dusk and dark, which is why they hunt in daylight.

Is the Octopus eye not a violation of your Nested Hierarchy?

No, because the eye evolved in divergent lineages after the last common ancestor between cephalopods and tetrapods. Just as the eye evolve independently in insects.

Instead it is just more additional evidence for nested hierarchy due to common descent.

You call it convergent evolution which is a catch all for everything that doesn’t fit you neat little line charts.

Not really -- it is convergent evolution of the eye to take advantage of the opportunities provided by being able to see, which is why you see eyes evolving again and again: they have a definite survival benefit. It is called convergent because it starts with different parent organisms and evolves to similar traits to take advantage of similar ecological opportunities.

So again my point from earlier there is no way to disprove your theory because it is dogma.

And still you miss the point of how falsification works: evolution has not been falsified because it can't be, it has not been falsified because there is no existing evidence that shows it is falsified.

I've listed several ways that it could be falsified by a design process that voids the evolutionary path, but there is no evidence of such combinations or changes to improve traits inherited by common ancestry -- from traits that are readily available in other organisms to copy and paste, but which cannot be transmitted horizontally by any known evolutionary processes.

In addition, when a theory is falsified in science that does not mean that all the evidence explained by that theory disappears in smoke, as it needs to be included in the new theory that explains all the current evidence PLUS the evidence that the old theory cannot explain.

Einstein's theory of gravity works by explaining anomalies that Newton's theory did not AND by explaining all the evidence that Newton's theory explains: in fact it reduces to Newton's theory in local situations. This is why Newton can still be used in rocket science.

I’m still looking for the mermaid but something tells me this would not shake your unequivocal FAITH.

You are mistaken in two different ways. First, it would not shake my faith (see signature), and second it would only alter what we know about existing organisms: if there were objective empirical evidence that mermaids exist or had existed then they become part of the known diversity of life that would need to be explained. If that explanation needs to include horizontal composites of fish and mammal, then that would falsify common descent in the same way that horizontal composites of different eye designs would, and evolutionary science would adjust to that reality.

It would not falsify all the known existing objective empirical evidence for evolution, it would be included as an alternate path for new features to arise, and as such may cause some rethinking of the nested hierarchies of descent.

Unfortunately, for you anyway, it cannot change the factual objective empirical evidence of evolution that has occurred and that has been observed and that has been documented.

You can't falsify evidence, you can't falsify history and you can't falsify science. All you can falsify are theories that explain the evidence and the history and that are used in the various sciences and that are modified as needed to keep up to date with the evidence, history and all the other sciences that are known.

You can't go backwards.

That evolution happens is a fact, not a theory. Any new theory would need to explain something that evolution does not AND explain all the known evidence that evolution does explain.

And THAT is why you need evidence that evolution cannot explain.

But it won't make evolution go away, rather it will incorporate it into a new theory that explains ALL the evidence. That is the way science works.

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 672 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:25 PM havoc has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31757
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 688 of 752 (607234)
03-02-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by havoc
03-02-2011 1:25 PM


More very basics
havoc writes:

First let me ask you to admit that you are making a theological statement here. That you know how a designer would design.

Utter bullshit.

We do know how a designer SHOULD design because we have lots of designers we can look at and test. It is not a matter of theology; the claim it is theology is another falsehood pushed by the Christian Cult of Ignorance; it is a conclusion based on the evidence.

The problem is that the life we see around us does NOT show the characteristics found in designed things and there is no evidence of some "DESIGNER" and no model for the "DESIGNER" to influence the design.

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:25 PM havoc has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 689 of 752 (607235)
03-02-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Theodoric
03-02-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Address posts please
Instead of addressing responses to you, all you are doing is a gish gallop.
The discussion was eyes. When you were soundly trounced on this you didn't address the issues and switched to the backbone. Now that you have been shown wrong there you switch to finger digits.

How about you grow a backbone and address the issues presented in posts to you.

Simply not how it happened. Granted these discussions have tended to spiral in new directions. But generally I have responded to what was put before me. Someone brought up the backward wired eye and compared it to the octopus. I commented on this and how its design was not flawed and how this was one of the examples of convergent evolution that evos use as a “just so” explanation of violations of their theory. Someone retorted that it was not homologous since it develops differently in octopus and mammals. So I said the same could be said for vertebrate bone development. They said no way vertebrates backbone develops the same to which I said but their fingers don’t. The point being that if one is proof for common ancestor than the other has to be proof against.

I have enjoyed most of the conversations here. I don’t think I have been a bad debater and hope I have answered questions in an honest way. I have not tried to “move the goal posts”.

I don’t need to be lectured about ethics from a REDSOX fan.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2011 4:31 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2011 5:07 PM havoc has responded
 Message 696 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 5:47 PM havoc has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 632 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 690 of 752 (607236)
03-02-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by havoc
03-02-2011 5:02 PM


Re: Address posts please
havoc writes:

I commented on this and how its design was not flawed and how this was one of the examples of convergent evolution that evos use as a “just so” explanation of violations of their theory.


There are no violations of evolutionary theory, that is why it is a theory.

Someone retorted that it was not homologous since it develops differently in octopus and mammals. So I said the same could be said for vertebrate bone development. They said no way vertebrates backbone develops the same to which I said but their fingers don’t.

And as has been shown, their fingers do. So you still haven't provided any evidence for your assertions.

The point being that if one is proof for common ancestor than the other has to be proof against.

Only if you can produce one.

I don’t need to be lectured about ethics from a REDSOX fan.

And here you were saying how people attacked you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 5:02 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 5:15 PM Huntard has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019