Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
47 online now:
Faith, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,619 Year: 18,655/19,786 Month: 1,075/1,705 Week: 327/518 Day: 3/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4640
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 166 of 294 (847672)
01-25-2019 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Theodoric
01-25-2019 12:16 AM


Re: Heard it all before
I am going to Puerto Rico in March. Anything you want pics of?

Girls. Pretty girls in flowery flowing robes over skimpy bikinis.

Wait ...

That wasn't an open request was it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Theodoric, posted 01-25-2019 12:16 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2324
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 167 of 294 (847673)
01-25-2019 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Theodoric
01-25-2019 12:16 AM


Re: Heard it all before
Every dragonfly you see.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Theodoric, posted 01-25-2019 12:16 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 01-25-2019 9:59 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6667
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 168 of 294 (847684)
01-25-2019 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Tanypteryx
01-25-2019 2:08 AM


Re: Heard it all before
I will keep an eye out.

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

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-25-2019 2:08 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 169 of 294 (847688)
01-25-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Tanypteryx
01-24-2019 10:29 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Tanyteryx writes:

Nope, in 150+ years that people have been studying life and evolution no evidence of a guiding entity has been found. If someone finds evidence they need to report it....
Those questions were unanswerable without evidence so we left it to those who want to spend their time trying to find that evidence....
Oh, I realize that's what you want, I'm waiting for evidence of guided, intelligent, purposeful, immaterial processes, in other words magic...
Yep, I've heard of it, but once again you have no evidence of an intelligent guide...
Yeah, I get that. Present your evidence for your intelligent designer....
It's still about evidence. EVIDENCE!!! Get it?


Nope!
You were complaining about a definition i provided. You were complaining about descriptive words in that definition that you apparently didnt like, but admitted you agreed with.
Everything you quoted by me here was in response to your objections about a definition.
In this instance, we were not talking about evidence for evolution. This was a dispute over language.
So you're now changing the subject and putting forth responses that are irrelevant to my statements.
This is an informal fallacy - Ignoratio elenchi.
It's also referred to as the Chewbacca defense, which is really offensive to me if you couldn't tell by my username.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-24-2019 10:29 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 01-25-2019 12:21 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 171 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-25-2019 1:05 PM WookieeB has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17413
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 170 of 294 (847689)
01-25-2019 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by WookieeB
01-25-2019 11:57 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

It's also referred to as the Chewbacca defense, which is really offensive to me if you couldn't tell by my username.


This isn't a jury trial, so the Chewbacca defense doesn't apply.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 11:57 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2324
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


(2)
Message 171 of 294 (847693)
01-25-2019 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by WookieeB
01-25-2019 11:57 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
You were complaining about a definition i provided. You were complaining about descriptive words in that definition that you apparently didnt like, but admitted you agreed with.

I still reject your definition. I've spent my life as a biological scientist and I have never heard another scientist use your definition. If you want to discuss evolution with scientists you will find that most will reject descriptive words that have no other purpose than to ridicule the theory, because science does not include your imaginary fantasy bullshit.

If you wanted to have an honest discussion you wouldn't have played your gotcha "oh that's the first time I've heard Dawkins called a creationist, gotcha". Then it turns out that Dawkins didn't say what you implied.

A behavior we see universally from creationists here at EvC is the habit of redefining terminology and theories used by science.

Scientists are the ones who define the terminology and theories used by science. No matter how puffed up you get, we are not going to let you redefine it.

If you have evidence of an intelligent entity guiding biology present it.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 11:57 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 6:32 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 172 of 294 (847718)
01-25-2019 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by PaulK
01-24-2019 5:32 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
Does that satisfy you ?

Yes it does. But that quote is NOTHING like what you said. Your statement used English words, but it was rambling and incoherent. Glad you stepped up and produced something understandable. Now maybe we can proceed.

PaulK writes:

WookieeB writes:

"one or more of the parts making up a system" - I will assume you mean an IC system.


Since I am speaking of how a system can become IC, I obviously include systems that are not (yet) IC. Even without that consideration I see no good reason why you would assume that I meant only IC systems.

Well which is it? If you are not talking about an IC system, then what is the point? A non-IC system is irrelevant to our discussion. Plus, as you comment further, you ARE talking about an IC system, so I will continue to assume that is what you meant here.

BUT.... I'm getting a feeling you may not understand what IC is. Behe's quote is not talking about evolving an IC system, but he is describing what an IC system is...assuming it exists. For example, lets assume we have an IC system that is made of 100 parts. That 1 IC system has a function. The 100 parts have a 'sub-function', that when combined in their particular configuration, produce the function of the IC system (In Behe's quote that is the "that contribute to the basic function"). Now if you have 2 of the parts present, you do not have 2% of the IC function available. If you have 99 of the parts present, you do not have 99% of the IC function available. In both cases, you have 0% of the IC function availalble, and thus you have no IC system, nor an 'almost' IC system.

So if you truly are talking about how a system can become IC (evolving IC?), then realize that the concept of (yet) IC might be problematic.

PaulK writes:

WookieeB writes:

"may change" - OK. But I might need to you flesh out how they are supposed to change (trust me, it's important)


That is going to be specific to the sort of system you are looking at.

"You're killin me Smalls!"
Provide an example, or analogy please. In other words, pick a specific system (real or imagined) and describe "change".

...
Your next responses are OK and understood up until -

PaulK writes:

WookieeB writes:

"dependent on one or more other parts of the system" - OK. But the parts within an IC system are already dependent on one or more parts. So what is changing? Is it a change in how they depend on each other?


It is an additional dependency. After all I am describing how IC systems can evolve, remember ? The creation of dependencies between existing parts has rather obvious relevance to that

I have to assume that any "dependency", whether current or new, refers to the sub-function of any part in how it interacts with the sub-function of one or more other parts. So any existing 'dependency' is one part well-matched and interacting with other part(s). Adding an "additional dependency" I suppose could be allowed, but it would also have to be well-matched and interacting with another part(s) and could NOT interfere with the sub-function of any of the prior existing parts. That in itself would be highly unlikely to occur.

So that is all possible, but not probable. Adding another dependency just complicates what is already working, and NS would tend to weed that out unless it somehow improves function (not new function) of the IC system. But then, so what? It does nothing to explain how the IC system came about in the first place.

I'm trying to envision what you mean by a part getting an additional dependency. Say I have 4 parts (W,X,Y,Z) in order among many other parts (A, B, C, D,...) in an IC system. W interacts with one side of X. X's other side interacts with Y and Z. They are "dependent' on each other in this arrangement. So adding a new dependency would be like X matching it's function to yet another part: A, perhaps. It's counter-intuitive that such a new dependency would convey some advantage, but suppose it did. It cannot change the sub-function of any parts, otherwise the IC system breaks. It can enhance, or more likely degrade a sub-function, but only so long as the parent IC system still functions.

Beyond that, and also applied to the rest of your comments on IC, I'm not seeing the point.

we are talking about the significance of the 10^-77 figure. Specifically the point is that you can’t use it as the probability of evolving a new functional protein because evolution is not the same as random search.

What do you mean? Of course evolution is doing a random search. (Random search or blind search, however you want to describe it) Anything other than a blind search means you have information added to filter the search parameters. But evolution is unguided, purposeless, so it has no thought, no target, and cannot set filter information as to what it is searching for. Navigating the search space is done by mutations, which are random/blind. Natural selection is the selector, but it has no power over how it traverses search space.

That is why Hunt brought up the point about isolation. That objection doesn't dispute the 10^77 number in general, it just says that maybe all the positives are clusted together. If it turns out proteins are not isolated (which is supported by work since the 2004 paper we've been covering), then Hunt's point loses any punch. (And that is to a great extent what Axe's analogy was demonstrating. If no isolation, the search space is too big to realistically cover by evolution)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2019 5:32 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2019 2:30 AM WookieeB has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 173 of 294 (847728)
01-25-2019 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Tanypteryx
01-25-2019 1:05 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
I still reject your definition. I've spent my life as a biological scientist and I have never heard another scientist use your definition.

Than I hope your science is better than your rhetoric.

So which scientist has used the definition: "The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats."

Is that the OFFICIAL definition? Is there an official one? Hmm, are definitions usually set in stone by exact wording?

If you want to discuss evolution with scientists you will find that most will reject descriptive words that have no other purpose than to ridicule the theory, because science does not include your imaginary fantasy bullshit.

Really?
So what do you specifically reject in the definition?:

Wookieeb writes:

the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Doesn't matter how many words, what specific words, or who is composing it are unless the idea is wrong. What is wrong with the idea? How am I "redefining" it?

If you wanted to have an honest discussion you wouldn't have played your gotcha "oh that's the first time I've heard Dawkins called a creationist, gotcha". Then it turns out that Dawkins didn't say what you implied.

And again, never said or implied it was a quote. If you still think so, you need to look up the definition of DEFINITION.

Oh, and by the way. I got this from a little letter signed by 38 Nobel Laureates to the Kansas State Board of Education -

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Signed by -
Alexei A. Abrikosov Nobel Prize, Physics (2003)
Richard Axel Nobel Prize, Medicine (2004)
Gunter Blobel Nobel Prize, Medicine (1999)
Linda B. Buck Nobel Prize, Medicine (2004)
Aaron Ciechanover Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2004)
Mairead Conigan Maguire Nobel Prize, Peace (1976)
Robert F. Curl, Jr. Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1996)
John B. Fenn Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2002)
Clive W.J. Granger Nobel Prize, Economics (2003)
David J. Gross Nobel Prize, Physics (2004)
Leland H. Hartwell Nobel Prize, Medicine (2001)
Herbert A. Hauptman Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1985)
Dudley R. Herschbach Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1986)
Avram Hershko Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2004)
Roald Hoffmann Nobel Prize, Chemistry (198 1)
H. Robert Horvitz Nobel Prize, Medicine (2002)
Eric R. Kandel Nobel Prize, Medicine (2000)
Wolfgang Ketterle Nobel Prize, Physics (2001)
Aaron Klug Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1982)
Sir Harold Kroto Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1996)
Anthony J. Leggett Nobel Prize, Physics (2003)
Jean-Marie Lehn Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1987)
Ferid Murad Nobel Prize, Medicine (1998)
Erwin Neher Nobel Prize, Medicine (1991)
Sir Paul Nurse Nobel Prize, Medicine (2001)
Stanley B. Prusiner Nobel Prize, Medicine (1997)
Irwin Rose Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2004)
K. Barry Sharpless Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2001)
Horst L. St6rmer Nobel Prize, Physics (1998)
Gerardus ‘t Hooft Nobel Prize, Physics (1999)
Daniel C. Tsui Nobel Prize, Physics (1998)
Harold E. Varmus Nobel Prize, Medicine (1989)
John E. Walker Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1997)
Carl E. Wieman Nobel Prize, Physics (2001)
Elie Wiesel Nobel Prize, Peace (1986)
Frank Wilczek Nobel Prize, Physics (2004)
Jody Williams Nobel Prize, Peace (1997)
Betty Williams Nobel Prize, Peace (1976)

So if scientists never use such descriptive words....then you need to look up the definition of SCIENTIST too.

Have fun!

P.S. - Your whole rail against me is an informal fallacy: argumentum ab auctoritate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-25-2019 1:05 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-25-2019 7:28 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 01-26-2019 11:05 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2324
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


(1)
Message 174 of 294 (847734)
01-25-2019 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by WookieeB
01-25-2019 6:32 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
So which scientist has used the definition: "The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats."

It is from a member here at EvC named RAZD.

Oh, and by the way. I got this from a little letter signed by 38 Nobel Laureates to the Kansas State Board of Education -
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Well, like you said earlier, context.

These guys were informing the idiots in the Kansas State Board of Education who were advocating some sort of bill to teach creationism is science classes, so they made it very specific that the creationists were wrong.

So if scientists never use such descriptive words....then you need to look up the definition of SCIENTIST too.

I admit I've been distracted. Are you ever going to present evidence? Or are you just going to continue being a rude jerk?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 6:32 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15440
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 175 of 294 (847745)
01-26-2019 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by WookieeB
01-25-2019 5:33 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
quote:

Yes it does. But that quote is NOTHING like what you said. Your statement used English words, but it was rambling and incoherent. Glad you stepped up and produced something understandable. Now maybe we can proceed.

By which you mean that you were unfamiliar with Behe’s definition of IC - which I quoted - and therefore unable to follow an informal discussion of the subject.

quote:

Well which is it? If you are not talking about an IC system, then what is the point? A non-IC system is irrelevant to our discussion.

You are, of course, completely wrong. Since the point of the discussion is how evolution can produce IC systems it would be pointless to start with a system that is already IC.

quote:

BUT.... I'm getting a feeling you may not understand what IC is. Behe's quote is not talking about evolving an IC system, but he is describing what an IC system is...assuming it exists.

This is an amusing piece of idiocy. Are you imagining that the terminology in the definition is only applicable to IC systems ? That only an IC system can have “parts” ? I can see no other reason for such foolishness.

quote:

For example, lets assume we have an IC system that is made of 100 parts. That 1 IC system has a function. The 100 parts have a 'sub-function', that when combined in their particular configuration, produce the function of the IC system (In Behe's quote that is the "that contribute to the basic function"). Now if you have 2 of the parts present, you do not have 2% of the IC function available. If you have 99 of the parts present, you do not have 99% of the IC function available. In both cases, you have 0% of the IC function availalble, and thus you have no IC system, nor an 'almost' IC system.

This is unrelated to any point I have made. My points are about changing or removing parts. If you have a non-IC system with 100 parts it must - by the definition of IC - have at least one part that may be removed without ceasing to function. And if a part changes it still has the same number of parts.

quote:

So if you truly are talking about how a system can become IC (evolving IC?), then realize that the concept of (yet) IC might be problematic.

Only to someone who fails to understand that a system becoming IC means that the system was not originally IC.

quote:

I have to assume that any "dependency", whether current or new, refers to the sub-function of any part in how it interacts with the sub-function of one or more other parts. So any existing 'dependency' is one part well-matched and interacting with other part(s). Adding an "additional dependency" I suppose could be allowed, but it would also have to be well-matched and interacting with another part(s) and could NOT interfere with the sub-function of any of the prior existing parts. That in itself would be highly unlikely to occur.

Since the parts are already functioning in a system they are already interacting with other parts. Also, they must be adequately “well-matched”. Of course if this is not true then a system with “ill-matched” parts could become IC just by becoming better matched.

quote:

So that is all possible, but not probable. Adding another dependency just complicates what is already working, and NS would tend to weed that out unless it somehow improves function (not new function) of the IC system. But then, so what? It does nothing to explain how the IC system came about in the first place.

It is not intended to be an explanation of how a system evolves, simply a sketch of how a system might acquire the feature of being IC.

Now a new dependency might be a consequence of improved function, but it is not necessary to have any benefit. Neutral changes can and do spread through drift.

quote:

What do you mean? Of course evolution is doing a random search. (Random search or blind search, however you want to describe it)

No, evolution is more like a hill-climbing search. I.e. it perturbs a parameter and moves to that value if it is higher, then it perturbs again and so on. A random search simply chooses completely random points until it hits the target with no feedback at all.

[/quote]
Anything other than a blind search means you have information added to filter the search parameters. But evolution is unguided, purposeless, so it has no thought, no target, and cannot set filter information as to what it is searching for. Navigating the search space is done by mutations, which are random/blind. Natural selection is the selector, but it has no power over how it traverses search space.
[/quote]

Natural selection does provide guiding information. See above.

quote:

That is why Hunt brought up the point about isolation. That objection doesn't dispute the 10^77 number in general, it just says that maybe all the positives are clusted together. If it turns out proteins are not isolated (which is supported by work since the 2004 paper we've been covering), then Hunt's point loses any punch. (And that is to a great extent what Axe's analogy was demonstrating. If no isolation, the search space is too big to realistically cover by evolution)

You mean that if it turns out that proteins are not isolated Axe’s point loses any punch.

And that they were not isolated was supported by work before 2004. One of the papers Hunt cited was published in 1996.

You also misunderstand Axe’s “analogy”. It was meant to show that rarity entails isolation which is obviously false - and not something that can be shown by anything less than a genuine analogy - and Axe gave us no reason at all to believe that his “analogy” was genuine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 5:33 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 3:19 PM PaulK has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 176 of 294 (847757)
01-26-2019 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 6:16 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
So, no defense of your claims other than repeating your contradictory claims. Sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 6:16 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 3:30 PM JonF has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17413
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 177 of 294 (847764)
01-26-2019 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by WookieeB
01-25-2019 6:32 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

I got this from a little letter signed by 38 Nobel Laureates to the Kansas State Board of Education....


You're shooting yourself in the foot, trying to support your position by quoting scientists who disagree with you.

When you get on an airplane, do you go up to the cockpit and tell the pilot he's flying all wrong?


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 6:32 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3765
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 178 of 294 (847834)
01-27-2019 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Minnemooseus
01-21-2019 11:21 PM


BUMP to WookieeB - What is "design"?
BUMP

Minnemooseus writes:

WookieeB writes:

That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it, including Porkncheese. With that definition, design would apply as equally as M+NS or any other proposed material process.

As I see it, "intelligent design" is just another way of saying "theistic evolution". And apparently the "design" is God doing some genetic engineering (aka guiding evolution to some degree). Now, the question is, how does one tell the difference between a Godly genetic tweak and a non-Godly random mutation?

As I recall, Michael Behe (one of the big guns of "intelligent design") is a big believer in the bulk of mainstream biological evolutionary theory. He just thinks that God had his fingers in the operation in some subtle way.

Bottom line - "Design" is at best an undetected and probably undetectable detail in standard biological evolutionary theory.

God, the genetic engineer (or something like that).

What is this "design"?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2019 11:21 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 179 of 294 (847858)
01-28-2019 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
01-26-2019 2:30 AM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
PaulK writes:

By which you mean that you were unfamiliar with Behe’s definition of IC - which I quoted - and therefore unable to follow an informal discussion of the subject.

I understand the Behe quote just fine. But well before you quoted Behe, you said the following:

PaulK writes:

I notice that you mention nothing about changes in parts (causing a reliance on other parts that was not previously present) or loss of parts...


THAT is the statement you we're basing your argument on. And THAT statement is what I was referring to as being incoherent.

Your attempted clarification of that statement was:

PaulK writes:

one or more of the parts making up a system may change such that their operation becomes dependent on one or more other parts of the system

.. to which was better, but I still had to break down into components to ascertain what you meant.

Your statement(s) are much different that what Behe said:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

And here is a complemetary defintion (to Behe's) of what IC is:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

so continuing....

You are, of course, completely wrong. Since the point of the discussion is how evolution can produce IC systems it would be pointless to start with a system that is already IC.

You're not making sense. Look again at your statement, the second one I was breaking down for understanding. The "system" in that context is an already complete, functioning system made up of 'parts'. We are talking about IC systems I thought. That is what Behe and the other definition are referring to. That is the subject of what you are talking about evolving, isnt it? IF we are not talking about what in the end is an IC system, what is the point?

This is an amusing piece of idiocy. Are you imagining that the terminology in the definition is only applicable to IC systems ? That only an IC system can have “parts” ? I can see no other reason for such foolishness.

You're not getting it. If we are talking about an IC system, then YES!!!, the terminology is only applicable to an IC system. It doesn't apply to a non-IC system. The terminology isn't just "have parts", it also relates to what those parts do.

Lets say you have an IC system, and you have a non-IC system. Yes, they both can have parts, but so what? That is not what the terminology is saying. How does the terminology differentiate those two systems???
For the non-IC system, you can remove a part, and the function of that system may remain. (Each and every part is not necessarily critical to function of the system as a whole)
For the IC system, if you remove a part, the system function fails. (Each part is critical to the function as a whole, so you cannot remove a part without breaking the system)

My points are about changing or removing parts. If you have a non-IC system with 100 parts it must - by the definition of IC - have at least one part that may be removed without ceasing to function. And if a part changes it still has the same number of parts.

OK, fine. But I thought we were trying to speak about IC systems, not non-IC systems. Your non-IC system with 100 parts is.... non-IC. Add a part, it is still non-IC. Take away a part, still non-IC. so what?

My example was about an IC system.
So ya, my system and your system are unrelated. Ummm, ok. So, lets talk about IC then.

Only to someone who fails to understand that a system becoming IC means that the system was not originally IC.
...
Since the parts are already functioning in a system they are already interacting with other parts. Also, they must be adequately “well-matched”. Of course if this is not true then a system with “ill-matched” parts could become IC just by becoming better matched.

No. You're not getting what IC means. *sigh*
Becoming an IC system is not a matter of a having a non-IC system and then adding/changing a part (unless you are talking about the creation of the whole IC system from scratch, but I don't think you are going there).

If a non-IC system is functioning, taking a part away, by definition, will not necessarily crash the function.
If a non-IC system is functioning, adding a part, may not crash the system, and if it doesn't crash the system, you still have a non-IC system, just one more part than normal. It is not IC.

Now take an IC system. If you take away a part, by definition, the function will crash.
Take an IC system, and add a part. That may not crash the system, but if it doesn't crash, you have an IC system (core) plus a part. Adding that part doesn't change the status of it being IC.

When you say "ill-matched", what does that mean? From the sound of it, though, 'ill-matched' would indicate the parts are not contributing as a whole to the system function. So you wouldn't have a functioning system.

Now a new dependency might be a consequence of improved function, but it is not necessary to have any benefit. Neutral changes can and do spread through drift.

Ok, but it seems like you are weaseling on definitions. If something is 'dependent', than it is not 'neutral'. That is a contradiction in terms.

An IC system could have something added or changed about it that is 'neutral', but that wouldn't change the relationship of the core parts as they relate to the function of the system as a whole, thus no 'dependency'.

If you have something as an example in mind, please share.

No, evolution is more like a hill-climbing search. I.e. it perturbs a parameter and moves to that value if it is higher, then it perturbs again and so on. A random search simply chooses completely random points until it hits the target with no feedback at all.
...
Natural selection does provide guiding information. See above.

You're assuming a lot about the landscape of the search space. In your hill-analogy, the only way Darwinism works is if the landscape is a smooth, gradual sloping up the whole way. But you are not taking into account any peaks or valleys, the steepness of a slope, nor that function lives on islands in a vast ocean, which is more accurate a description of the topology.

The randomness relates to the mechanism of change - mutations. NS cannot guide those. NS can pick the best of whatever is provided to it, but that is not accounting for whether it is presented with an upward option.

What does NS do when it reaches a peak? It doesn't know that there is another, higher point in the vicinity. Unless you have very smooth transition from one to the other, NS gets stuck.

You mean that if it turns out that proteins are not isolated Axe’s point loses any punch.

And that they were not isolated was supported by work before 2004. One of the papers Hunt cited was published in 1996


But if proteins families/superfamilies are isolated even a little, then Axe's point is fine. And with more recent information, that does appear to be the case.
The citation in Hunt's paper only relates to the TEM-1 and DD-peptidases having some related structures. But that similarity doesn't extend to across all proteins. So unless you want to focus on a very narrow area, it doesn't help the broader point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2019 2:30 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2019 3:57 PM WookieeB has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 180 of 294 (847860)
01-28-2019 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by JonF
01-26-2019 9:02 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
JonF writes:

So, no defense of your claims other than repeating your contradictory claims. Sad.

Analogy - I go to the pound and say I want a dog. The pound-guy asks: "What kind of dog do you want?"
I answer: "I don't care, just a dog."
Pound-guy says: "What do you mean? Don't you care if it is family friendly, good with the kids, or barks all night, or bites intruders, or pees on your leg, or has long-shedding hair, or is hairless, flat face, smooshed face...?"
I say, "Don't care, just as long as it's a dog. You know: wags tail, pants when tired, barks, chases cats."
Pound-guy asks: "Pure bred? Mutt? Old? Puppy?"
Me: "Not really. Just a dog."
Pound-guy leaves and comes back with a cat. I sigh.

Don't give me a cat JonF.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by JonF, posted 01-26-2019 9:02 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by JonF, posted 01-28-2019 4:28 PM WookieeB 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