Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 4:40 PM
34 online now:
dwise1, edge, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Sarah Bellum, xongsmith (8 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,195 Year: 12,231/19,786 Month: 2,012/2,641 Week: 521/708 Day: 80/135 Hour: 11/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 49 of 136 (514961)
07-14-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 12:13 PM


Re: IC or not
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.

Wow, you're either missing the point entirely or moving the goal posts out of the stadium, down the street, and into another city.

Argument: Organisms have IC functions. IC can't evolve because only part of an IC system is useless and wouldn't be selected for.

Counter-argument: We have shown an IC system, removed one part to make it not work, and shown a new, albeit similar, one evolve thus proving that an IC system can evolve.

Traderdrew's rebuttal: This just shows IC even more, adaptation itself is IC, and thus evolution is IC, therefore evolution disproves evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:13 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 10:05 AM Perdition has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 72 of 136 (515114)
07-15-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by traderdrew
07-15-2009 12:31 PM


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

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?

Tell me one process seen in nature that would hinder this from happening. Incredulity at the amount of time needed is not a logical argument because time we have in plenty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 07-15-2009 12:31 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 7:26 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 87 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 10:50 AM Perdition has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 84 of 136 (515234)
07-16-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
07-15-2009 7:26 PM


Re: Neutral mutations as a platform for later novel features
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.

I know. I was responding to traderdrew and explaining why his little rant on mutations was wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2009 7:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 88 of 136 (515338)
07-17-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 10:50 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
Why haven't the staunch supporters of Darwin such as Kenneth Miller and Jerry Coyne proposed such a theory in their books???

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.

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.

Preservation doesn't require as much energy as "pruning" would. If something changes in an unused piece of DNA, why would our cells waste energy trying to ferret out those minor changes and remove them? Even if they did, what makes you think they'd be perfect in their execution.

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.

Let's see you read through billions of lines of letters and find the one change that occured, like those pictures in kids' magazines where you have to circle the things that change from one to the other. If you can't reliably do it every time, what makes you think an automated process could do better?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 10:50 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 11:54 AM Perdition has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 96 of 136 (515372)
07-17-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Sticking to the topic/s, and avoiding deceptions.
I never said that the world is perfect. I am starting to get the impression that you attempting to equivocate my points.

So you don't think that an error/mutation that occurs in a strand of DNA will get weeded out every time? So it can be passed on? So it can then be built upon by other errors/mutations? So evolution can occur? Awesome, thanks for agreeing with me.

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

More sophisticated? Hardly. More complex? Definitely. More complexity means more areas and things that can go wrong.

How can an error that affects multicellular life affect unicellular life? Surely a car is more sophisticated than a block of wood. Has a block of wood ever developed bad brakes? I guess bad brakes don't happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 11:54 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 113 of 136 (515708)
07-20-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by traderdrew
07-18-2009 10:29 AM


Re: what's special about IC?
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?

I felt no such cornering. I'm just taken aback that you have such a poor understanding of biology. This was first taught to me in my first biology class, it was built upon in every subsequent biology class, and is essentially a very basic concept in biology. The fact that you do not know this implies you are either completely uneducated in Biology, or have forgotten the very basic tenets upon which all other biological exploration is based.

I remember much of what I learned in most classes when what I learned was built upon many times and referenced ad nauseum in every subsequent class in the subject. Much like I remember what a noun or a verb is, despite learning that in first grade, or perhaps even earlier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:29 AM traderdrew has not yet 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