Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 10:50 PM
25 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 57 of 136 (515019)
07-14-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 12:27 PM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
Trader writes:

It is called the "Darwin of the Gaps" argument. Then along comes ID again and explains how and where Darwinism had it wrong. Such was the case in the so-called junk DNA.

It was practicing professional biological scientists not IDers and creationists who refined the definition of what "junk" DNA actually was.

The term "junk" DNA was collequiel term coined by a Japanese scientist in 1972 to describe portions of the genome which are not used to translate proteins. However even before this term was coined scientists suspected that some portions (though not all, some of it really is "junk" in that is left-over remnants of viral and other evolutionary mutations of the genome which are now useless) of the genome called "junk", which at one time was once unknown and mysterious in its purpose and function, had other functions besides protein translation. It was these same scientists themselves (not the creationists and IDers) using the scientific method who continued to correct this misunderstanding (or more accurately gap in knowledge) and revise these theories about what different portions of the genome actually do.

This is the problem with creationists and IDers. Instead of conducting there own scientific experiments, research, analysis, etc to explain natural phenomena; they capitilize on, misconstrue, distort, quote mine and flat out lie about the research conducted by hard work scientists who are putting thousands of hours into conducting real science using the tried and true scientific method.

Trader writes:

Once ID explained it..

Bullshit. Show me. This is pinnacle of the deceitful nature of the ID and creationist movements. Not only are you claiming that biological evolution is wrong, now you are claiming the work done by scientists themselves was actually done by IDers. What a joke.

In academics we call this plagerism. That is exactly what you just did here. And you wonder why scientists get angry at ignorant people like you. I would be hopping mad if I was one of these scientists who conducted this research.

Trader writes:

But you can see how their argument was put into a form that brainwashes.

It is you and your ilk who are doing the brainwashing of unsuspecting and ignorant people.

BTW here is some real scientific articles written by real scientists who have conducted research in this field:

DNA Study Forces Rethink of What It Means to Be a Gene

Junk DNA Yields New Kind of Gene (2004)

Parasite or partner? Study suggests new role for junk DNA

Hints of a language in junk DNA (1994)

Thus this bullshit argument creationists are dragging out about junk 'DNA' is actually quite old and has been know in the scientific community for 40 years. This is another case of a thoroughly debunked dog-eared PRATT.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:27 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 12:15 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 58 of 136 (515020)
07-14-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 12:21 PM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
Trader writes:

One of the many functions of so-called junk DNA is to mark genetic sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material. ("The Role of Translocation and Selection" by Green)

And who conducted this research to determine what 'junk DNA' does? Not the IDers or creationists, rather the same scientists who coined this term in the first place. Science is self-revising and self-correcting. ID and creationism is not.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:21 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 63 of 136 (515030)
07-14-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
07-14-2009 10:42 PM


Re: Junk DNA is off topic
Rgr, sorry about that. Will do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 68 of 136 (515088)
07-15-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 10:05 AM


Re: IC or not
Trader writes:

I will attempt to explain this to someone who is interested in what I am thinking. I have the impression that you are not.

Stop with the martyr complex. If you have evidence present it.

We wouldn't be debating/discussing on this discussion board if we were not interested in hearing from the other side.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:05 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 69 of 136 (515097)
07-15-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
Trator writes:

I intend to show you that some IC systems can be mutated but not evolve into novel structure.

So you admit that genetic mutations occur? So do you agree that natural selection occurs and weeds out the defective 'structures'? If so why could cumulative genetic mutation guided by natural selection not produce a 'novel structure'?

It is like making an engine run on alcohol but not gasoline. What we had was a lateral move.

How do you know this?

Where were the novel structures if they were there 2.2 billion years ago?

How do you know what are and are not 'novel' structures? How would we know 2.2 billion years ago what these 'novel' structures are? By what standard are you determining this criteria for 'novel structures'? Is a flagellum a novel structure? How about the individual proteins and other molecules they are comprised of?


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 11:35 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 12:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 77 of 136 (515139)
07-15-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
Trader writes:

I don't have to admit it. I would freely declare it. Haven't you ever read any of Michael Behe's books?

Actually I have Darwin's Black Box sitting upstairs on my bookshelf in my home office with the rest of the Christian apologetic books I have accumulated over the years. BTW, I wasn't asking Behe, I was asking you; for reasons of clarity of your position on this issue.

Trader writes:

Myself writes:

So do you agree that natural selection occurs and weeds out the defective 'structures'?

I believe it potentially can. I wouldn't say that natural selection would be the only process.

True there other factors such as genetic drift and gene flow (migration) but natural selection is more directive in its nature in weeding out genetic variation that may be harmful to that population of organisms.

Trader writes:

Myself writes:

If so why could cumulative genetic mutation guided by natural selection not produce a 'novel structure'?

If I can briefly explain it. It is because in the random world of neo-Darwinism, a single mutation would have to be preserved by natural selection. So what are the chances of two or more ("complimentary or coherent") mutations that can occur at pinpoint areas of the informational areas of DNA or proteins of occurring?

That is a simplistic way of looking at it.

I assume by "informational areas of DNA" you are talking about areas of the genome that are used in protein replication aka coding vs non-coding ("junk") DNA. Other portions of the genome may serve other purposes that can be beneficial to an organism i.e. gene regulatory functions, etc.

Why does it have to occur first in informational areas of DNA? Could not these mutations occur anywhere in the genome and later be incorporated into the coding region of the genome and then be able to replicate new proteins?

Trader writes:

The odds start to greatly decrease when you have to simultaneous mutations.

You are throwing a lot of bogus criteria for the ability of mutations in the genome being able to create new proteins that really do not exist. Why do all the mutations have to occur simultaneous? Again buildup of mutations guided by natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms (genetic drift) can result in a small step by step advancement of simple structures into more complex structures. Simultaneous mutations is not necessary. If so please explain why? Give me an real-life example.

And what about three or more? I wouldn't say that it is impossible. The mutations have to be integrated and provide specific functions.

No, they don't have to provide specific functions much less beneficial ones all at one time. Some of these proteins can be co-opted from other simpler structures. That is why Behe's IC argument fell completely apart at the Dover Trial. Some genetic mutations may result completely different structures/functions that later may be combined to form totally different structures/functions. This was exemplified by Dr. Ken Miller's example that many of the proteins that constitute the flagellum that serve a different purpose in a protein pump.

So if the odds start to become astoundingly great, how can neo-Darwinism explain a severely IC system?

Because #1 they are not necessarily IC systems but rather are systems in which we still have gaps in our knowledge of exactly how they evolved and #2 the odds you present are contrived and unfounded.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 12:31 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 78 of 136 (515140)
07-15-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
07-15-2009 5:58 PM


Re: adaptation? start another thread.
RAZD writes:

The issue, however, is that an IC system has evolved.

If an IC system evolved from simpler structures can you really call it IC? I think not.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 5:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 7:21 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1326 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 82 of 136 (515146)
07-15-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
07-15-2009 7:21 PM


Re: adaptation? start another thread.
RAZD writes:

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.

Sorry I guess I misunderstood how your were defining IC. Makes sense now. Thanks.

RAZD writes:

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.

I am not sure if this is what you intended by this is a great analogy for biological evolution.

Just as a natural arch made out of rock is caused by the gradual wearing away of underlying material by natural causes (i.e. the erosive power of flowing water over millions of years) so to is the evolution of seemingly irreducibly complex biological structures caused by the gradual build-up of mutational changes to the genome and shaped by natural selection.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 7:21 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019