Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
42 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,627 Year: 16,663/19,786 Month: 788/2,598 Week: 34/251 Day: 11/23 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 181 of 294 (847861)
01-28-2019 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by WookieeB
01-28-2019 3:19 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
quote:

I understand the Behe quote just fine

I didn’t say otherwise. My point is that you needed me to quote it.

quote:

You're not making sense.

On the contrary. My argument would be nonsense if it started with an IC system. Do try thinking about it.

quote:

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.

We are talking about how we can GET an IC system without running foul of Behe’s argument. Obviously it makes no sense to start with a system that is already IC.

quote:

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.

I’m “not getting it” because it is obviously stupid. The terminology is applicable to systems in general. If it didn’t you couldn’t use the definition to see if a system was IC - you’d have to know if the system was IC before you could even think about it.

quote:

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???

The question only makes sense if the terminology applies to both systems. So a non-IC system can have parts (it’s not a system if it doesn’t). They can even be well matched. If you want to be pedantic it can even lose function if any part is removed. It just has to fail to meet the definition in at least one respect.

quote:

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?

Really ? If you take away all the non-essential parts you will have an IC system, certainly in the important sense that taking away any part will stop the system from functioning.

quote:

No. You're not getting what IC means. *sigh*

Wrong, as usual.

quote:

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).

Subtracting - not adding - a part can make a system IC. Changing a part so that it or another part become essential to the system’s function can make a system IC. This is not difficult.

quote:

If a non-IC system is functioning, taking a part away, by definition, will not necessarily crash the function.

Congratulations on understanding one of the essential points of my argument.

quote:

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.

I mean not-well-matched, of course. And if the parts of any functioning system are automatically well-matched then that part of the definition of IC is redundant. (Not that that is a bad thing, it does Behe’s argument more harm than good anyway)

quote:

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.

Wrong again. I simple mean “neutral” as opposed to “beneficial” or “deleterious” (which should be obvious from the context).

quote:

You're assuming a lot about the landscape of the search space.

No, I’m not. Describing an algorithm says nothing about the search space.

quote:

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.

Again you are wrong. Peaks and valleys are not an issue. And the idea that function “lives on islands in a vast ocean” is so,etching you have yet to demonstrate.

quote:

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

If it isn’t presented with an upward option it stays where it is. And that’s pretty common.

quote:

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.

In the simplified version I gave you, yes. In reality it isn’t so simple.

quote:

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.

I note that you have yet to give any such information. I also note that despite Axe responding to Hunt he said nothing about Hunt’s more general point:


...distinct activities and enzymes are often derived from common structural and sequence themes.

quote:

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.

It doesn’t have to extend across all of them. I don’t think that it makes any sense to assume that all proteins are derived from a single ur-protein. More likely by the time genes came along life was already using multiple proteins.

But I will add the fact that the functions overlap is certainly evidence against complete isolation, and certainly a problem for the assertion that rarity strongly implies isolation as Axe claimed in his response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 3:19 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 7:20 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 189 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 1:57 PM PaulK has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 182 of 294 (847862)
01-28-2019 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by WookieeB
01-28-2019 3:30 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
That is totally unrelated to my post. I'm not giving you anything and you aren't asking for anything

"I'm not going to assume anything about the designer's motives"

Followed immediately by

"I'm assuming the designer was constrained by 'normal design constraints' (whatever that means)."

This isn't rocket science. Those two claims are contradictory.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 3:30 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 6:21 PM JonF has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 183 of 294 (847875)
01-28-2019 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by JonF
01-28-2019 4:28 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
This isn't rocket science. Those two claims are contradictory.

Then you have a problem with language.
Beyond being a "designer" and everything the meaning of that word entails, there is nothing else being said about....a designer.

If you won't let me even use the definition of a word that you yourself included, then there is no point in continuing.

The simplest definition I could think up on the spot for a designer: the activity of an intelligent mind to realize a functional goal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by JonF, posted 01-28-2019 4:28 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 01-29-2019 9:12 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 184 of 294 (847880)
01-28-2019 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
01-28-2019 3:57 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
I didn’t say otherwise. My point is that you needed me to quote it.

No, I didnt need help to understand Behe. I needed help to understand you. Your words were not Behe's.

The terminology is applicable to systems in general. If it didn’t you couldn’t use the definition to see if a system was IC - you’d have to know if the system was IC before you could even think about it.

Ok, I understand now what you meant by "applicable". You're using in more of a manner of "to test by". I was taking that more as "confers the property to".

PaulK writes:

Wookieeb writes:

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?


Really ? If you take away all the non-essential parts you will have an IC system, certainly in the important sense that taking away any part will stop the system from functioning.

Yes, I get that. But this is the reverse of 'building' up an IC system. So how does building up an IC system work?

Subtracting - not adding - a part can make a system IC.

Umm, ok. But before you 'subtract' a part, the system is already IC + some part. So you haven't shown how to make IC yet.

Changing a part so that it or another part become essential to the system’s function can make a system IC. This is not difficult.

No. The part(s) are ALREADY essential to the system if it is IC. You cannot 'change' part(s) to become essential.
Because if you do happen to do that, than if you reverse what you just did, per the test in the Behe definition of IC, your system fails. And that means that before you added/changed part(s), you did not have had a functioning system, thus no system would have been built up to the point of: add part > IC. The only way this works is if all parts appear together, de novo.

Congratulations on understanding one of the essential points of my argument.

Aye. But again, this is not talking about building up an IC system. Your talking about breaking or building down to something that is already there.

I mean not-well-matched, of course. And if the parts of any functioning system are automatically well-matched then that part of the definition of IC is redundant.

Perhaps. But then again, it could be there to prevent someone trying to say "ill-matched" parts are functioning. The basic idea is the parts work with each other. Ill-matched implies the opposite of that.
......

With all this back and forth, please try to use a real example of something that is IC, or non-IC to IC if you think that works.
Behe has used a mousetrap as an example in the past, so use that if you want. But come up with your own if preferred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2019 3:57 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 12:27 AM WookieeB has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 185 of 294 (847888)
01-29-2019 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by WookieeB
01-28-2019 7:20 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
quote:

No, I didnt need help to understand Behe. I needed help to understand you. Your words were not Behe's

And quoting Behe's definition was part of the help you needed.

quote:

Ok, I understand now what you meant by "applicable". You're using in more of a manner of "to test by". I was taking that more as "confers the property to".

The real issue is your failure to understand “terminology”. When you said that theterminology didn’t apply you were claiming that at least some of the words in the definition could not be used to describe systems that were not IC.

quote:

Yes, I get that. But this is the reverse of 'building' up an IC system. So how does building up an IC system work?

But I was never talking about building a system. I was talking about how the system gets to be IC. That, after all, is the important issue.

quote:

Umm, ok. But before you 'subtract' a part, the system is already IC + some part. So you haven't shown how to make IC yet.

Really ? The original system is not IC, the system without non-essential parts is IC. That looks like “making IC” (sic) to me.

quote:

No. The part(s) are ALREADY essential to the system if it is IC. You cannot 'change' part(s) to become essential.

Since the system is not IC the first point doesn’t apply. Even if the second point is true it is certainly true that a part can change so that it needs one or more of the other parts,

quote:

Aye. But again, this is not talking about building up an IC system. Your talking about breaking or building down to something that is already there.

I never intended to - or need to - discuss how systems evolve. The only point that matters is how systems get to be IC. That is the problem Behe posed. After all if there was a case that non-IC systems couldn’t evolve there wouldn’t be much point in singling out IC systems.

quote:

Perhaps. But then again, it could be there to prevent someone trying to say "ill-matched" parts are functioning. The basic idea is the parts work with each other. Ill-matched implies the opposite of that.

No. That restriction is there to rule out some simple working systems where the parts interact usefully. If an alleged “part” doesn’t do something for the system there is no way in which it can be seen as a part of the system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 7:20 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 1:27 PM PaulK has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 186 of 294 (847896)
01-29-2019 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by WookieeB
01-28-2019 6:21 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Beyond being a "designer" and everything the meaning of that word entails, there is nothing else being said about....a designer.

You said something else about your designer in Message 158:

The only characteristic it would attempt to infer is qualities directly related to a design paradigm. Thus, if someone was designing a semiotic system, and it displayed the many checks and error-correction mechanisms that DNA has, then it would be very unlikely to be a system that generated or allowed a significant amount of junk (per the evolutionary explanation). It's just a matter of normal design constraints. Which leads to the conclusion that there would more likely be less junk rather than more junk in the system.

What are "normal design constraints" and why do you assume your designer is subject to them? No definition of "designer" entails anything like that

"a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail".

"one that designs: such as. a : one who creates and often executes plans for a project or structure urban designers a theater set designer. b : one that creates and manufactures a new product style or design"

"a person who devises or executes designs, especially one who creates forms, structures, and patterns, as for works of art or machines"

"One that produces designs"

So what else does "designer" entail? Citation required, of course.

ABE

The simplest definition I could think up on the spot for a designer: the activity of an intelligent mind to realize a functional goal.

I have no problem with that definition. I see it doesn't even mention "normal design constraints" necessarily being applicable. So you are assuming characteristics of your designer with any support.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 6:21 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by JonF, posted 01-29-2019 6:02 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 187 of 294 (847911)
01-29-2019 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by PaulK
01-29-2019 12:27 AM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
But I was never talking about building a system. I was talking about how the system gets to be IC. That, after all, is the important issue.

You are making a very fine distinction here. You're implying that "building a system" is very different from ""how the system gets to be". But you haven't explained how a system gets to be IC or given an example.

Really ? The original system is not IC, the system without non-essential parts is IC. That looks like “making IC” (sic) to me.

Yes, really. As I explained before, if you have an IC system and you add a some part that is not essential to the function of the system, it does not become a non-IC system. It is just an IC system with an extra part. So yes, "the system without non-essential parts is IC". But the (system without non-essential parts) + non-essential part still has an IC core. Explaining how you get to an IC system via a Darwinian process is what you need to explain.

Making IC does not consist of taking a system that is pretty much already IC + a non-essential part, and removing that non-essential part.

Provide an example of an non-IC system, one where you take a part away and make IC.

Even if the second point is true it is certainly true that a part can change so that it needs one or more of the other parts,

I really don't know what you mean by this. If a system is already functioning, parts already "need" other part(s) to have the system function. I think you might be equivocating on what "need" or "essential" means in this hypothetical system you are referring to. How would you take a part that is already finely tuned to work with other parts, and then change it to necessarily work with other parts without affecting it's first task?

I never intended to - or need to - discuss how systems evolve

I thought you brought this up at the very beginning to talk about how to evolve IC.

The only point that matters is how systems get to be IC.

I agree. And how do you get IC systems? The only demonstrated way to get an IC system is via design!

That is the problem Behe posed. After all if there was a case that non-IC systems couldn’t evolve there wouldn’t be much point in singling out IC systems.

Perhaps, but you haven't really given an example of non-IC either. Other than a couple materials being in proximity to each other by happenstance, I'm having difficulty in even conceiving of a non-IC system that has something akin to "parts". Give an example of a system with parts that is non-IC.

Behe's point in highlighting IC is because life appears full of IC systems, and there is no plausible route to creating IC via Darwinian processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 12:27 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 1:49 PM WookieeB has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 188 of 294 (847913)
01-29-2019 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by WookieeB
01-29-2019 1:27 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
quote:

You are making a very fine distinction here. You're implying that "building a system" is very different from ""how the system gets to be". But you haven't explained how a system gets to be IC or given an example.

The distinction between how the system is built and how it becomes IC doesn’t seem that great to me. And I am explaining how a non-IC system can become IC.

quote:

Yes, really. As I explained before, if you have an IC system and you add a some part that is not essential to the function of the system, it does not become a non-IC system. It is just an IC system with an extra part.

A system with a non-essential part is not IC therefore it is a non-IC system.

quote:

Making IC does not consist of taking a system that is pretty much already IC + a non-essential part, and removing that non-essential part.

Changing a non-IC system into an IC system seems to qualify to me.

quote:

I really don't know what you mean by this. If a system is already functioning, parts already "need" other part(s) to have the system function. I think you might be equivocating on what "need" or "essential" means in this hypothetical system you are referring to. How would you take a part that is already finely tuned to work with other parts, and then change it to necessarily work with other parts without affecting it's first task?

Of course there is nothing wrong with changing functions, so long as it doesn’t break the system. And let me remind you that you were insisting that the parts don’t need to be “finely tuned”, just to work with each other. Indeed, it might change by becoming more finely tuned, or losing a non-essential part of its function, or gaining an additional function.

quote:

I thought you brought this up at the very beginning to talk about how to evolve IC.

And I tell you again that it is only the feature of being IC that is of concern.

quote:

I agree. And how do you get IC systems? The only demonstrated way to get an IC system is via design!

I’m going to repeat a question I asked you before. Do you know when a scientist first suggest that evolution should be expected to produce IC systems ?

quote:

Perhaps, but you haven't really given an example of non-IC either. Other than a couple materials being in proximity to each other by happenstance, I'm having difficulty in even conceiving of a non-IC system that has something akin to "parts".

In other words you can’t conceive of a non-IC system.

quote:

Behe's point in highlighting IC is because life appears full of IC systems, and there is no plausible route to creating IC via Darwinian processes.

No plausible route that Behe could think of. Sadly for him, the flaw was in his thinking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 1:27 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 3:09 PM PaulK has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 189 of 294 (847914)
01-29-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
01-28-2019 3:57 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
No, I’m not. Describing an algorithm says nothing about the search space.

But how well that algorithm can climb the hill does depend on the landscape.

If it isn’t presented with an upward option it stays where it is. And that’s pretty common.

Yes, but if you do not have much in the way of options to climb, and you are limited by time, then your climb ends up remaining static. When you can work out the probabilities, Darwinian mechanisms have a tremendous problem going anywhere.

In reality it isn’t so simple.

Yes, I know. You're hill climb is not as simple as you make it sound to be.

More likely by the time genes came along life was already using multiple proteins.

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? How would proteins exist apart from genes?

But I will add the fact that the functions overlap is certainly evidence against complete isolation, and certainly a problem for the assertion that rarity strongly implies isolation as Axe claimed in his response.

This may depend on what you mean by overlap, but I don't think this helps as much as you think it would. In the vast expanse of all protein function, there is little overlap to be found.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2019 3:57 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 2:11 PM WookieeB has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 190 of 294 (847917)
01-29-2019 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by WookieeB
01-29-2019 1:57 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
quote:

But how well that algorithm can climb the hill does depend on the landscape.

Indeed. But since I was only describing the basic algorithm I still wasn’t making any assumptions about the landscape.

quote:

Yes, but if you do not have much in the way of options to climb, and you are limited by time, then your climb ends up remaining static. When you can work out the probabilities, Darwinian mechanisms have a tremendous problem going anywhere.

Now you are making assumptions.

quote:

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? How would proteins exist apart from genes?

No, it’s not. It’s quite possible that RNA-based life was using proteins before DNA-based life existed.

quote:

This may depend on what you mean by overlap, but I don't think this helps as much as you think it would. In the vast expanse of all protein function, there is little overlap to be found.

Of course I was referring to an actual example of an overlap. It’s interesting that Axe’s chosen example isn’t isolated, isn’t it ? If overlap is so rare what is the probability against that ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 1:57 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 5:30 PM PaulK has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 191 of 294 (847922)
01-29-2019 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
01-29-2019 1:49 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
And I am explaining how a non-IC system can become IC.

No, your not really. Because whatever you have up till now been saying is non-IC is actually turning out to be IC with something irrelevant on top.....

A system with a non-essential part is not IC therefore it is a non-IC system.

No. You're not using the definition correctly. If that part is non-essential than it is not being used to contribute to the essential function (of the IC portion) and it doesn't qualify in the IC definition. I think you are getting hung up in the semantics now.

If you take a car (that has an IC core function: drive) and slap a sticker on it (part with a function: to look pretty, get noticed, etc), that sticker-part is not germaine to the IC part of the car. Adding that sticker doesn't now make the car non-IC. Neither does adding Christmas antlers to the roof of the car, nor a tune-playing horn. Those all might be "parts", but they are not contributing to the essential function of the car (driving) and thus don't qualify as any of the "parts" that the IC test would flag as a positive.

Look at my other definition for IC -

Wookieeb writes:

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.


A "non-essential" part is not "indispensable to maintaining the systems basic function"

And then back to you needing to explain how an IC system is made? That is the central question. How could evolution do it? So far you only have already assumed some functioning system is already in place with some fluff, and remove the non-important fluff and voila! - an IC system. IC doesn't work that way. You need to explain how to get the stuff without the fluff.

Of course there is nothing wrong with changing functions, so long as it doesn’t break the system.

Umm, normally it would break a system. In any working system, a part is tuned to have a particular interaction with another part. (Remember Behe's "well-matched" criteria?) Changing a function would mean something that is doing function X is now doing function Y. If it no longer does X, then you broke the system. Typically, changing the function will negate the prior function. But, if you can give an example where changing a part function does NOT negate the prior function, please let me know.

I don't think things realistically work like you have described it, but let's assume it can....

And let me remind you that you were insisting that the parts don’t need to be “finely tuned”, just to work with each other.

"Fine tuned", "work with each other", "well-matched" - tere all the same to me. By tuned, I mean of all the possible configurations a part could take, it's form and effect have to conform with another part, whose form and effect also has to conform back, just to get the 'interaction' (sub-function) of the parts. That leaves a very narrow range of possibilities. Anything within that range is probabilistically very low, ie: "finely tuned".

it might change by becoming more finely tuned, or losing a non-essential part of its function, or gaining an additional function.

"finely tuned" - more to the center of the efficiency of it's function. Nothing changes as to how it applies to IC.
"losing a non-essential part of function" - irrelevant. It's non-essential.
"gaining an additional function" - dangerous (see above), but irrelevant as long as it's first function doesn't stop.

And I tell you again that it is only the feature of being IC that is of concern.

So, can you describe how this happens without assuming an IC core pre-exists?

Do you know when a scientist first suggest that evolution should be expected to produce IC systems ?

Can't say with confidence I know the "first". Without using the specific words (irreducible complexity), I do know that Darwin alluded to it when speaking about the eye, and Aristotle (or maybe it was Plato) made statements of a fashion describing it. Why is this important?

In other words you can’t conceive of a non-IC system.

No, I can. It's just that many examples are happenstance of proximity and/or rely on rarely random events. Even then, more than two or three parts, and I'm not getting much. The problem comes when ascertaining a system is in place, defining the function, without placing a dependency on whatever is constituting "parts"

No plausible route that Behe could think of. Sadly for him, the flaw was in his thinking.

And your plausible route is.....?
Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity was always intended to test a Darwinian explanation where some function is built up gradually over time, a direct evolutionary pathway. You haven't even begun to do that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 1:49 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 4:18 PM WookieeB has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 192 of 294 (847931)
01-29-2019 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by WookieeB
01-29-2019 3:09 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
quote:

No, your not really. Because whatever you have up till now been saying is non-IC is actually turning out to be IC with something irrelevant on top.....

Which only means that they are non-IC systems.

quote:

No. You're not using the definition correctly. If that part is non-essential than it is not being used to contribute to the essential function (of the IC portion) and it doesn't qualify in the IC definition. I think you are getting hung up in the semantics now.

No, you only wish I was getting hung up in your semantic games.

Remember we are talking about part of the system, just one that is not essential. Which is necessary for the system to be non-IC.

quote:

A "non-essential" part is not "indispensable to maintaining the systems basic function"

There’s a perfect example of not using a definition properly. An IC system cannot have non-essential parts. But we are talking about a non-IC system! Which is not an IC system, and so cannot fit the definition of IC !

quote:

And then back to you needing to explain how an IC system is made? That is the central question. How could evolution do it? So far you only have already assumed some functioning system is already in place with some fluff, and remove the non-important fluff and voila! - an IC system. IC doesn't work that way. You need to explain how to get the stuff without the fluff.

And that is the way - by losing the “fluff”. No I do not have to start with an IC system. If I did you would immediately declare my argument a failure - or you would if you had the sense to realise it.

quote:

Umm, normally it would break a system. In any working system, a part is tuned to have a particular interaction with another part. (Remember Behe's "well-matched" criteria?)

Not if the original function was still performed. Adding an extra function is fine, modifying the function in a way that keeps the essential elements of the original function is fine.

quote:

"Fine tuned", "work with each other", "well-matched" - tere all the same to me

That is really your problem

quote:

So, can you describe how this happens without assuming an IC core pre-exists?

By which you mean “without having a working system” ? Or can you tell me how it is possible to have a working non-IC system without a minimal subset of parts that would adequately perform the necessary functions of the system.

quote:

Can't say with confidence I know the "first". Without using the specific words (irreducible complexity), I do know that Darwin alluded to it when speaking about the eye, and Aristotle (or maybe it was Plato) made statements of a fashion describing it. Why is this important?

I didn’t ask about mentions of irreducible complexity. I mean that idea that evolution would produce irreducible complexity. Seriously, if the theory predicts that there should be some IC systems around Behe’s argument is in trouble.

quote:

No, I can. It's just that many examples are happenstance of proximity and/or rely on rarely random events. Even then, more than two or three parts, and I'm not getting much. The problem comes when ascertaining a system is in place, defining the function, without placing a dependency on whatever is constituting "parts"

Which means that you can’t imagine a non-IC system. Too bad.

quote:

And your plausible route is.....?
Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity was always intended to test a Darwinian explanation where some function is built up gradually over time, a direct evolutionary pathway. You haven't even begun to do that.

The whole point is that it is the indirect paths. Don’t forget that evolution works without foresight. It doesn’t care about constructing systems, all that matters is what works now. One of the problems in Behe’s thinking was that he didn’t see that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 3:09 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 6:31 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 193 of 294 (847953)
01-29-2019 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by PaulK
01-29-2019 2:11 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
Indeed. But since I was only describing the basic algorithm I still wasn’t making any assumptions about the landscape.

So is it irrelevant when just explaining a mechanism (regardless of where it is applied). OK.

So now that we have a mechanism, we can apply it to reality and see how well it works....

Now you are making assumptions.

No, not really.
Let's take malaria developing a resistance to chloroquine. At minimum, it requires at least two specific point mutations, possibly involving a third. Odds of the resistance developing has been calculated to occur on the rate of 10^20 based on empirical studies.
So when the malaria is forced to try hill-climbing, it has a very small opportunity in time and space to move up. That accounts for the fewer in 10 accounts of this event independently occurring, despite the huge number of opportunities presented to malaria. If you extract these numbers out to eukaryote life, and consider the types of mutations needed (lot more than 2 point mutations) to account for the differences we see, Darwinian processes run into some walls as to what it could do.

It’s quite possible that RNA-based life was using proteins before DNA-based life existed

RNA or DNA matters very little. You would still need a translation system. RNA nucleotides do not form proteins directly. Also, where does the initial RNA information come from?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 2:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2019 12:21 AM WookieeB has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 194 of 294 (847961)
01-29-2019 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by JonF
01-29-2019 9:12 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
At this point it's painfully obvious that ' "designer" and everything the meaning of that word entails' and "normal design constraints" mean "acts just as I imagine a human designer would".

So your "prediction" boils down to "assuming the designer wouldn't put in junk DNA, I predict the designer wouldn't put in junk DNA".

Very impressive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 01-29-2019 9:12 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 6:36 PM JonF has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 195 of 294 (847967)
01-29-2019 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by PaulK
01-29-2019 4:18 PM


Re: Hunt versus Axe
Which only means that they are non-IC systems.

Nope. You are equivocating on what a part is and what a system is.

If you think not, give an example.

Remember we are talking about part of the system, just one that is not essential. Which is necessary for the system to be non-IC.

So what would a part be that is not-essential to the system? Can you give an example?

You are still dodging. but fine, let's play your game. Say we have a 11-part "non-IC" system. Take 1 part away, and we have IC. Explain how the 10 remaining parts came to be an IC core.

And that is the way - by losing the “fluff”. No I do not have to start with an IC system. If I did you would immediately declare my argument a failure - or you would if you had the sense to realise it.

So you're only explanation of how to get IC is to have somebody plop down a pre-existing mechanism that also happens to have some extra fluff, then remove the fluff, and you've explained IC. Kinda like having somebody give you a wrapped present, then you remove the wrapping, find a shiny Apple device sitting there and declare: "See, I just invented an iPad."
Yup, that makes sense.

Not if the original function was still performed. Adding an extra function is fine, modifying the function in a way that keeps the essential elements of the original function is fine.

Which is fine and I already made provision for. Got an example?

Or can you tell me how it is possible to have a working non-IC system without a minimal subset of parts that would adequately perform the necessary functions of the system.

Yes, more along these lines. Just give an example of a working non-IC system.

I didn’t ask about mentions of irreducible complexity.....

It's getting really tiring that you always ask leading questions but never answer them yourself.
So, to answer your question succinctly: "Do you know when a scientist first suggest[ed] that evolution should be expected to produce IC systems ?"
Answer: No.

What of it?

Which means that you can’t imagine a non-IC system. Too bad.

Not what I said.
Can you?

The whole point is that it is the indirect paths. Don’t forget that evolution works without foresight. It doesn’t care about constructing systems, all that matters is what works now. One of the problems in Behe’s thinking was that he didn’t see that.

Flesh out what you mean by "indirect paths". I think I know where you are going, but would like you to explain it first.
Behe understood just fine that Darwinian processes dont work with foresight or plan.
And I suspect he also knew full well about what you mean by "indirect paths".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2019 4:18 PM PaulK 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