Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 12:31 PM
36 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, dwise1, jar, JonF, PaulK, Tanypteryx (7 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,395 Year: 15,431/19,786 Month: 2,154/3,058 Week: 12/516 Day: 12/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 25 of 136 (514775)
07-12-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-05-2006 9:46 PM


Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
My attention was bought to this subject by Razd in another thread. It was the first time I had read this argument against irreducible complexity and I considered it as a valid challenge against it.

Upon reading Razd’s post a second time, I came across a name that I was already familiar with and that is Brown University professor Kenneth Miller. I had to investigate Razd's post because I don’t think it is worth being a proponent of irreducible complexity if it doesn’t have any merit. However, I knew there were some things that didn’t jive and there were some questions and beliefs I had in mind.

1. Jason Shapiro has discovered and continues to discover an incredible sophistication of life at the cellular level. Michael Behe stated in his latest book that natural genetic engineering makes evolution (not Darwinian) more plausible.

2. If the lactose-utilizing system in E. coli is irreducibly complex, then why isn’t the more complex TTSS (type three secretory system) NOT irreducibly complex? (page 61, “Only a Theory” by Kenneth Miller)

3. When an irreducibly complex system loses any of its parts, it does indeed cease to function. There is no denying this. So why is there a debate on this? The question should be, how long does the system stay non-functional before it is repaired?

4. Why didn’t Kenneth Miller use the TTSS along with this argument in his book, “Only a Theory”. I consider this bacterial argument the stronger one since he claims that it produced and irreducibly complex system.

5. Irreducible complexity is not necessarily a reality. Don’t think for a moment that I have slipped into the dark side. Irreducibly complexity is derived from the neo-Darwinian paradigm and the complexity of microorganisms. It is a way of looking at the complexity of cellular life through neo-Darwinism. I am not a believer in neo-Darwinism. Since I am not, I.C. isn't a filter for intelligent design.

When I googled the search term “Michael Behe lactose”I started to find some real answers to my confusion. You can find the Miller / Levine link and Michael Behe links with the same search term.

A True Acid Test

All of the other functions for lactose metabolism, including lactose permease and the pathways for metabolism of glucose and galactose, the products of lactose hydrolysis, remain intact, thus re-acquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new B-galactosidase function. (Hall 1999)

This says that only one part of the multipart system that Miller alluded to was wiped out.

Adaptive mutations are mutations that occur in nondividing or slowly dividing cells during prolonged nonlethal selection, and that appear to be specific to the challenge of the selection in the sense that the only mutations that arise are those that provide a growth advantage to the cell. The issue of the specificity has been controversial because it violates our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations with respect to their effect on the cell. (Hall 1997)

Sounds like they were sensing what Jason Shapiro discovered and that is “natural genetic engineering”. NGE raised a question from proponents of ID. Where did this sophistication come from? The more sophistication inside the cell, the more things could be tinkered with and therefore, mutations would require more precision and larger effects for natural selection to act upon them.

In a recent paper (Hall 1999) Professor Hall pointed out that both the lac and ebg B-galactosidase enzymes are part of a family of highly-conserved B-galactosidases, identical at 13 of 15 active site amino acid residues, which apparently diverged by gene duplication more than two billion years ago.

The genes apparently came from similar preexisting genes. These genes were probably located somewhere in the so-called junk DNA. We do have two mutations so far.

At this point it is important to discuss the use of IPTG in these studies. Unless otherwise indicated, IPTG is always included in media containing lactose or other B-galactoside sugars. 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)

Now we have an artificially produced substance called IPTG that was required in order to produce the final results of this experiment otherwise the bacteria would not have been able to use lactose in the wild. We have our third artificially induced mutation produced by human intervention.

The mutations described above have been deliberately selected in the laboratory as a model for the way biochemical pathways might evolve so that they are appropriately organized with respect to both the cell and its environment. It is reasonable to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world outside the laboratory. If it is assumed that the selection is strictly for lactose utilization, then a growth advantage exists only when all three mutations are present simultaneously. (Hall 1982a)

I believe Jason Shapiro (from his website) tells us that the genome has sophisticated error correction mechanisms that actively participate in correcting errors arising out of transcription. So when I add this into the picture, it seems to me that it would be very, very unlikely for these three mutations actually being produced in the wild. It is more likely that the results of this experiment were the results of an intelligent designer.

The content below (is similar to but expressed in my own terms) came from Jason Shapiro who is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Universtiy of Chicago. See the next link below.

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....eeting.pdf

Exonuclease proof reading in the polymerase (that exists in bacteria as well as E. coli) catches and corrects 99.999 percent of the errors as soon as they are made (Kunkel & Bebenek, 2000). If any errors escape the exonuclease, the methyl-directed mismatch repair system detects and fixes over 99% of those errors. (Modrich, 1991) This multilayered proof reading system effectively boosts the error correction precision to over 99.99999999%.

The Conclusion

The possibility of three simultaneous mutations in these bacteria evolving from neo-Darwinism and maybe even all types of random evolutionary processes seems to be quite impossible without intelligent intervention and guidance.

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor corrections

Edited by traderdrew, : minor editing


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2006 9:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 07-12-2009 4:37 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 1:00 AM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 7:49 AM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 30 of 136 (514867)
07-13-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
07-13-2009 7:49 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
Behe was also a witness, and he admitted in court that there were no (repeat no) known "irreducibly complex" systems that could not evolve.

Once again, I have searched for a quote like this on the internet and in the Dover trial statements you provided in the other thread. Would you care to show us where it is and exactaly what Behe stated?

Irrelevant. For one, this is the argument from authority, plus Behe's is the argument from incredulity. Plausibility has nothing to do with what actually happens. How complex things are now is not related to how difficult it is for evolution to accomplish it over billions of years.

It is irrelevant to the discussion directly but other than that, I don't agree with the rest of that. First of all, plausibility suggests the best possible scenario. I have noted that the scientific process doesn't directly look for the truth; it looks for the best explanation by looking for what is false. Since we cannot go back and see how it all occurred, then we should look for the best explanation or conduct experiments that could support historical evidence.

Once more, irrelevant. Evolution does not repair systems it replaces them if they are beneficial to improve survival or reproduction. If neither purpose is served, broken systems are not repaired nor replaced. Look at ape vitamin C broken gene.

Irrelevant seems to be your favorite word so far but how does irrelevant information disprove any of the arguments that directly reference information in the main one?

And some other irrelevant points since you bought up vitamin C.

Vitamin C is another example of how evolution seems to have deconstructed a system and not helped advance or evolve a system. Also, humans and apes are not the only creatures that seemed to have lost this ability. Guinea pigs and certain birds and bats have also lost this ability. Presumably, since our diets once provided enough vitamin C, our genomes shut down the function after a certain number of generations (non-Darwinian) What evolutionists don't tell us is that this loss didn't result in a biochemical dead end because all they want to do is to win the debates. However, the concept of evolving doesn't contradict my belief system as an "assemblist". I am not a creationist. I am an assemblist.

I just thought I would also state that when animals are stressed out, they use a lot more vitamin C than they normally would. So if you are stressed out, look to eat foods that are rich in vitamin C. Don't take ascorbic acid because it was probably synthetically made from sugar and doesn't have cofactors that are present in foods.

Because there are many systems that have evolved "IC" systems. This is another one.

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.

I think you have this backwards. Behe proposed IC as a test of Intelligent Design - as something that could not evolve, and therefore must have had help. Several evolved IC systems - including this one - show that this concept is false and thus is not indicative of Intelligent Design.

You cannot explain in detail nor is there any evidence of a Darwinian step by step process that can produce an IC system. Behe has illustrated this. I can illustrate this in the form of stepping stones. The first two stepping stones were resurrected from genes that divurged from the genome (Hall, 1999) and resurrected by a process known as natural genetic engineering. The stepping stones (mutations) were only made posssible with the inclusion of an artifical substance called IPTG. IPTG was obviously synthesized for specific experimental functions.

For the E. coli to have evolved the ability to hydrolyze lactose, multiple coherent mutations would have been necessary. Even Hall stated something like this. See my first post in this thread.

Compounding IC systems, it is one thing to take three steps under human intelligent intervention and another to build a flagellum with 40 proteins or a cilium with 200 proteins. How many of those proteins perform specific functions where they are not found anywhere else but in those complex systems?

Of course. You will also see links to Behe's response from the Miller site, as well as a reply that still shows that the critical element of the issue is that an IC system evolved - it does not matter how it evolved, just that a new system is now in place where the removal of any one part renders the remainder inoperative.

For you to state something like that then you must not believe in Darwinian evolution. Of course it matters how it evolved. Intelligent design isn't necessarily creationism.

Hall has not demonstrated how the lactose function in E. coli lacking both the lacZ and the ebg gene could really evolve from scratch. Where did those genes come from in the first place? Hall believes they existed in the genome 2 billion years ago.

Interestingly, this assertion is refuted in this particular experiment by the FACT that the existing system was not repaired. This repair mechanism only repairs errors, it does not create new systems to replace broken systems. Thus the evolution of a different system to replace the broken system was not put into effect by this repair mechanism.

You don't understand me. Genes have to express themselves differently in order for a new function to evolve. Where do the mutations occur in the organism? They have to occur in the way genes express themselves therefore, they occur in the instructions that give the directions for protein assembly. From what I understand, the E. coli in the experiment called upon the lac operon in order to make some steps.

Miller strongly implies that natural selection pieced together the whole pathway in Hall's experiments, but in fact it only replaced one component (and even then it could only replace the component with a spare near-copy of the original component). When two or more components were deleted, or when the bacterium was cultured in the absence of an artificial chemical (called IPTG), no viable bacteria could be recovered. Just as irreducible complexity would predict, when several steps must be taken at once, natural selection is a poor way to proceed. - Michael Behe

Microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago declared in National Review that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Shapiro 1996)

Despite what I state here, Darwinists will always fall back on the same old excuse. "If we give organisms enough time and chance, they will evolve the same sophistication that we see in life today." Just look at the quote below from the above post.

How complex things are now is not related to how difficult it is for evolution to accomplish it over billions of years.

I think that this belief should be testable or falsifiable. Science has stated this correct? If it is testable in confluence of neo-Darwinism, then there should be evidence in some places in the past that support that belief. Perhaps rapid evolution at first with slow evolution in the last 500 million years but that is not what happened.

Aside from that point, most of them don't want to see the math (something I cannot do but I have seen) that shows us the chances of evolving complex biological systems. Never mind the necessity of multiple coherent mutations that compound the odds of creating an IC system. Never mind that natural selection would have to preserve those mutations and cannot initiate them. Never mind that the complexity in the cell would require pin point mutations. Never mind that those mutations would have been mutated in such a way as to provide specific functions. Never mind that sophisticated error correction mechanisms actually correct transcription errors 99.99999999% of the time.

Edited by traderdrew, : More information.

Edited by traderdrew, : More "complex specified information" from the mind of Traderdrew


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 7:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 10:09 PM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 33 of 136 (514939)
07-14-2009 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
07-13-2009 10:09 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic.
Once again, what you think has no - absolutely no - effect on reality, what actually occurred, nor on what is occurring now.

What kind of reply is that? You can't be thinking that I think my thoughts are going to influence the outcomes of experiments like that, which are experiments of natural laws. It is important to be in tune with reality.

Your brief synopsis could be mistakenly construed as an example of neo-Darwinian evolution. It lacks details and leaves out many questions about the known complexities of the cell.

Natural selection only replaced one component with a 34% homogenous copy of the original component.

Natural selection didn't operate on a random mutation, it operated on NGE.

Look what Michael Behe wrote:

Miller also writes, "the ebg gene is actually only 34% homologous to the gene whose activity it replaces (meaning that about 2/3 of the protein is quite different from the galactosidase gene whose function it replaces)". Yet he knows as well as I do that 34% general sequence homology makes it virtually certain that the three-dimensional structures of the two enzymes are essentially identical. And since the active sites (the business end) of the enzymes are much more similar (they are identical in 13 of 15 residues), the ebg enzyme is pretty much a spare copy of the lac enzyme. Thus it seems to me that the taking over of lac galactosidase function by ebg hardly even rises to the level of microevolution.

Once again Miller shows his deceptiveness. Maybe you should be lecturing Miller (not me) on reality.

I don't want to debate or argue about the subject any further. I think we have both stated what we could state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 10:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:37 PM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 35 of 136 (514941)
07-14-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by LucyTheApe
07-14-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
If God made orgamisms that had no ability to adjust then there would be no life at all. Did Hall's organism evolve into another kind of organism?

I would say that this is a good point but according to RAZD's logic, this is irrelevant.

However, all of us might be simply talking past everyone. Why do I say this?

I can't find anywhere where this example says that the particular irreducibly complex system in the E. coli wasn't already an irreducibly complex system to begin with.

Essentially, it seems to me that an irreducibly complex system (that was already in place) was tinkered with and mutated into a similar irreducibly complex system.

If this is the case, Intelligent Design wins again despite what anyone says. Hands down!!!

Edited by traderdrew, : I just made a small correction to the "intelligently designed complex specified information" in the post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 10:38 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:26 AM traderdrew has responded
 Message 37 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 11:27 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 42 of 136 (514949)
07-14-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 11:26 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement.

I disagree with you on two things. I believe it did cease functioning. It has to cease functioning for a least a brief amount of time since those biochemical repairs don't occur at the speed of light.

1. As I had already stated, when you remove a part of any IC system it has to cease functioning. The questions are, How long did it cease to function? Did Barry Hall have to keep these strains of E. coli alive when the part was removed? Could this only be done using IPTG?

At this point it is important to discuss the use of IPTG in these studies. Unless otherwise indicated, IPTG is always included in media containing lactose or other B-galactoside sugars. 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)

2. Was the system of the E. coli not irreducibly complex to begin with? It would seem to be a yes or no question. Other than that, did the complexity increase? If so, by how much? But then again, so what? If it did increase by a little bit, then it was done with intervention. If the person who was conducting the experiment didn't intervene, then E. coli would not have been able to hydrolyze lactose. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:26 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 46 of 136 (514953)
07-14-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by NosyNed
07-14-2009 11:54 AM


Re: IC or not
The fact that an IC system was shown to evolve removes the use of IC as an argument that they can not evolve by Darwinian evolution. It only takes one counter example. It is done, finished, caput and a very dead parrot.

OK... I want you to show me where Behe states that an IC system can't evolve.

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.

I wrote (that certain) is because in this case, the bacteria was arguably presented with the challenge of hydrolyzing lactose. You might say that it had to adapt or die. The flagellum serves its purpose and doesn't have any forseeable challenges that it must adapt too. Therefore, it doesn't have to change.

I can also state that none of my arguments have been arguments from perfection for reasons why I won't go to in this particular thread.

Do you understand me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2009 11:54 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Perdition, posted 07-14-2009 1:24 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2009 5:35 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:52 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 47 of 136 (514954)
07-14-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by LucyTheApe
07-14-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
We have complete storage systems that know what has to be there. Not because it has it's own intelligence but, because that's they way they were programmed. When you turn on your computer, how does it know what to do?

Yes...very good. Sometimes I feel alone or outnumbered in these debates. I just thought I would give you some support.

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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 12:07 PM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:27 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 52 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 1:53 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 58 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-14-2009 9:21 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 48 of 136 (514956)
07-14-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 12:21 PM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
You see, ID can explain everything. When the Darwinists come along and cry foul, they tell us that Darwinism explained many things with natural processes.

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. Once ID explained it, the Darwinists had to fall back and another one of their gaps was proven simply not to be true. At the same time their gaps continue to become bigger and our gaps become smaller.

Sound familiar?

Ha Ha Ha... Just kidding for the most part. But you can see how their argument was put into a form that brainwashes.

Edited by traderdrew, : Just adding more "Intelligently Designed Complex Specified Information"


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 53 by Son, posted 07-14-2009 1:57 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-14-2009 9:06 PM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 65 of 136 (515072)
07-15-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Perdition
07-14-2009 1:24 PM


Re: IC or not
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Perdition, posted 07-14-2009 1:24 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:56 AM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 68 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 11:37 AM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 5:58 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 66 of 136 (515081)
07-15-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 10:05 AM


Re: IC or not
Darn it. I had this nice long response and it got wiped out just as I finished it. Login was required.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:05 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Admin, posted 07-17-2009 6:49 AM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 67 of 136 (515087)
07-15-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
07-14-2009 10:37 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
The reason is simple: after the lactose mechanism was disabled the organisms were unable to process lactose, even though it was readily available, then a couple of mutations occurred that enabled the bacteria to metabolize lactose - by a different mechanism.

Does anyone else see what is wrong with this?

However, when Hall grew the bacteria under selective conditions designed to favor re-evolved galactosidase activity, Behe cried foul. As he should know, and as Futuyma wrote, "... mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." All that Hall had done was to set up conditions where the bacteria would survive (although just barely), and would prosper only if they evolved a system to replace the one he had deleted.

All that IPTG provides is an environment where the bacteria could survive and where adaptation to metabolize lactose would result in increased survival and reproduction.

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)

Which, incredibly, is not the way it happened, so pretending that it did is just another falsehood\lie\fabrication, that you seem to need to tell yourself to avoid dealing with reality. It's a perfect example of someone thinking their opinion alters the reality to suit their belief.

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.

Forget it RAZD. Your post means nothing if the system was irreducibly complex to begin with.

I intend to show you that some IC systems can be mutated but not evolve into novel structure. It is like making an engine run on alcohol but not gasoline. What we had was a lateral move. Where were the novel structures if they were there 2.2 billion years ago?

I found the below in pubmed.gov:

[i]Multiple alignment and phylogenetic analysis of EbgA, LacZ, and 12 other related beta-galactosidases showed that EbgA and LacZ diverged from a common ancestor at least 2.2 billion years ago, that they belonged to different subclasses of the family of 14 beta-galactosidases, that the two subclasses differed at 12 of the 15 active site residues, and confirmed that the two previously identified mutations in ebgA are the only ones that can lead to enzyme with sufficient activity on lactose to permit growth. Studies of the catalytic mechanism of Ebg beta-galactosidase have allowed the widely accepted Albery and Knowles model for the evolution of catalysis to be rejected. (Hall, 1999)

Edited by traderdrew, : More info

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 11:56 AM traderdrew has responded
 Message 71 by Phage0070, posted 07-15-2009 12:38 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 6:59 PM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 70 of 136 (515104)
07-15-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by DevilsAdvocate
07-15-2009 11:56 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
I was almost going to call it the day but I couldn't resist.

So you admit that genetic mutations occur?

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

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.

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? The odds start to greatly decrease when you have to simultaneous mutations. And what about three or more? I wouldn't say that it is impossible. The mutations have to be integrated and provide specific functions. So if the odds start to become astoundingly great, how can neo-Darwinism explain a severely IC system?

How do you know this?

Do me a favor and show us how the structures in the experiment were created by an uphill process. I am not a traitor (first line of your post) since I never considered myself to be a Darwinist. I am partly a scientist at heart.

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?

I am going by the science that Barry Hall is citing. He doesn't appear to be a proponent of ID. Can you ask more from me?

By what standard are you determining this criteria for 'novel structures'?

Good question. I would have to say that novel protein contain specific specified complex informattion in their genes that is unlike other proteins. Believe it or not, science is still discovering new proteins.

Is a flagellum a novel structure? How about the individual proteins and other molecules they are comprised of?

Some of their proteins are found in the TTSS and others might be found in other biological structures. Behe never stated that the parts of the flagellum couldn't be used in other structures. Some opponents of the theory try to make IC as brittle as possible.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 11:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Perdition, posted 07-15-2009 12:56 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 07-15-2009 5:41 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 77 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-15-2009 6:42 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 86 of 136 (515330)
07-17-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Admin
07-17-2009 6:49 AM


Re: IC or not
I really thought I logged into the system. I think I spent about 25 minutes typing out a response to NoseyNed. I hit the submit reply tab and then the page blanked out. I guess it was an anomaly due the occasional chaos within or between computer systems.

But it is all good. I am writing a larger and more general article on this subject and hopefully it will answer some other questions from other forum participants as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Admin, posted 07-17-2009 6:49 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 87 of 136 (515331)
07-17-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Perdition
07-15-2009 12:56 PM


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

The problem I have with this senario are two different reasons. 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??? I don't think they have the luxury of giving casual step by step explanations for irreducibly complex structures like we do here on this forum. They have all of science reading what they say. Instead we see this:

There is no doubt that many biochemical systems are dauntingly complex. But biologists are beginning to provide plausible scenarios for how "irreducibly complex" biochemical pathways might have evolved. - Jerry Coyne

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Perdition, posted 07-15-2009 12:56 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 11:17 AM traderdrew has responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 89 of 136 (515348)
07-17-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Perdition
07-17-2009 11:17 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
If you don't mind, may I ask where you learned biology. The process I told you is pretty much exactly what I was taught in Biology class in high school.

Where I learned biology is irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you are so confident in what you are claiming, then why not just give us an article that totally supports your explanation?

Even if they did, what makes you think they'd be perfect in their execution.

I never said that the world is perfect. I am starting to get the impression that you attempting to equivocate my points.

As it turns out, not only can a lot of things go wrong, but a lot of things do go wrong. That's why we have miscarriages, cancer, genetic diseases, and general cell death.

Obviously we are more sophisticated than E. coli. Has any bacteria ever developed cancer?

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 11:17 AM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rahvin, posted 07-17-2009 12:23 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 96 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 2:00 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019