Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 12:05 AM
94 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 92 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,536 Year: 3,573/19,786 Month: 568/1,087 Week: 158/212 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
31Next
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 376 of 458 (526040)
09-25-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by traderdrew
09-25-2009 1:09 PM


Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
No I don't always agree with them.

I didn't mean that you necessarily agreed with any and all claims a creationist/IDist might make on this site. Rather that you seem to have already decided that ID is correct and seem to lend much more weight to arguments that agree with this conclusion than those against it. I understand that you may well think the same about me from the other side, but in my defence, I know a lot more about the actual science than you do, and certainly more about evo-devo and molecular biology than Stephen Meyer.

As for Mike Behe, the gaps for him to fit ID into in his conception of life's history are getting almost infinitesimally small. He is uncharacteristic of the ID crowd in his acceptance of an awful lot of mainstream evolutionary biology. If it wasn't for his belief that he can detect ID no one would think he was anything other than an invisible hand sort of theistic evolutionist, the sort of person who thinks that god interferes at an unobservable quantum level to influence mutation in such a way as to direct evolution at a level not detectable scientifically. One of our participants here, Randman, used to put this sort of thing forward as a mechanism, but he also insisted that the resulting pattern of intervention should be detectable.

What regulates the pH and how do these systems work together?

Cellular pH is regulated by a number of things including proteins in the cell membrane which can move sodium and hydrogen ions into and out of the cell. I wasn't drawing any specific connection between pH and phosphorylation state, there are lots of other post-translational modifications which can change the functional state of a protein. I was just pointing out that analysing protein function isn't as simple as just looking at the primary/secondary sequence.

Seems like more irreducible complexity to me.

Its certainly complex, I have no idea why you assume it is irreducibly so. If I showed that you could entirely remove one proton transport protein and an organism still survived would that mean you were wrong? What evidence would you consider sufficient to discount IC, short of a step by step evolutionary history of every ancestral genome for the past 2 billion years?

That is even before we get into the which of Behe's various definitions of IC you are actually using and whether IC systems cannot come about by natural evolutionary pathways.

I wish you well.

Thanks. I really think that if you took some time to actually understand evolutionary theory and look at the wealth of published research you would appreciate that we aren't just making stuff up for ideological reason there simply isn't any compelling argument against evolution and there is a wealth of data from multiple disciplines which are consilient with it.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by traderdrew, posted 09-25-2009 1:09 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 11:49 AM Wounded King has responded
 Message 380 by traderdrew, posted 09-29-2009 1:02 PM Wounded King has responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 377 of 458 (526841)
09-29-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Wounded King
09-25-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
Interesting debate. But even if one is to grant that evolution is true, what is the origin of genetic information? That has never been answered.


Click to enlarge

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2009 4:58 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 12:29 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 384 by Wounded King, posted 09-29-2009 2:58 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 378 of 458 (526855)
09-29-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 11:49 AM


Re: Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
Calypsis4 writes:

Interesting debate. But even if one is to grant that evolution is true, what is the origin of genetic information? That has never been answered.

Are you asking about the origin of *new* genetic information? If so, then that's what this thread is about. Why don't you read through the last couple pages and see if any of those posts provide a good enough answer for you.

Or are you asking about the origin of the *first* genetic information? If so, then this thread is not about that, but briefly, we only have speculation at this point.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 11:49 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 12:53 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 379 of 458 (526862)
09-29-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Percy
09-29-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
I was asking about the origin of any/all genetic information.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 12:29 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3230 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 380 of 458 (526867)
09-29-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Wounded King
09-25-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
Rather that you seem to have already decided that ID is correct and seem to lend much more weight to arguments that agree with this conclusion than those against it.

Yeah, there are a lot of evolution websites where I believe I can debate the information and I believe I can even tear them apart. Of course they can't debate me unless we are on a forum. I think a lot of these perspectives are seen from particular paradigms. Also ther are Darwinists who tend to make rehtorical statements that lack substance. For example, when they say something like, "Remember you must keep in mind that these biological systems weren't really designed but rather were made through Darwinian processes." I believe this thinking is based on the "assumption" that Darwin can and will eventually explain everything.

As for Mike Behe, the gaps for him to fit ID into in his conception of life's history are getting almost infinitesimally small. He is uncharacteristic of the ID crowd in his acceptance of an awful lot of mainstream evolutionary biology.

I wouldn't describe the cilium with its 200 parts and the 10,000 protein binding sites in cells as "infinitesimally small gaps" unless you know something that I don't know. Obviously you do know more than me.

If it wasn't for his belief that he can detect ID no one would think he was anything other than an invisible hand sort of theistic evolutionist, the sort of person who thinks that god interferes at an unobservable quantum level to influence mutation in such a way as to direct evolution at a level not detectable scientifically.

Kenneth Miller apparently believes this.

Its certainly complex, I have no idea why you assume it is irreducibly so. If I showed that you could entirely remove one proton transport protein and an organism still survived would that mean you were wrong?

I would have to say that there was some assumption from my part in that statement. Considering the sheer number of protein binding sites in a cell and those factors contributing to whether it all fits together correctly, I think this would probably strengthen my case.

What evidence would you consider sufficient to discount IC, short of a step by step evolutionary history of every ancestral genome for the past 2 billion years?

Good question. I would agree with Behe that parts from other biological systems could be used in a IC system. I have seen a site that argues that the flagellum isn't really IC because some 38 of its 40 protein parts are found in other places in bacteria. I don't agree with that. I would think if this was true then that evidence should be able to be used as clues to retrace the evolutionary steps of the flagellum. I found no place in that site where it demonstated this. Two billion years is a long time but there have been a lot of organisms that have remained pretty much unchanged for millions of years that are more complex than bacteria.

I think that for Darwin's mechanisms to work, (and for it to remain Darwinism) every step must be preserved with natural selection other than the belief in neutral mutations. However, I would think the mechanisms inside the cell would tend to sweep some of these neutral mutations away over time based on a Michael Behe's quote on E. coli.

E. coli has been grown continuously in flasks for thirty thousand generations. What has evolution wrought? Mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have chnaged, during that thirty thousand generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thrown away chunks of it genetic patrimony, including the ability to make some of the building blocks of RNA. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things that make things. - The Edge of Evolution

On the other hand I don't think organisms like E. coli are going to devolve out of existence because the mechanisms described by Darwin will help preserve this species. I'm not totally anti-Darwin.

I really think that if you took some time to actually understand evolutionary theory and look at the wealth of published research you would appreciate that we aren't just making stuff up for ideological reason there simply isn't any compelling argument against evolution and there is a wealth of data from multiple disciplines which are consilient with it.

For the most part, that statement sounds like good science although scientists seem to follow an invisible rule that says everything "must" be explained through natural causes and any possible explanation involving intelligent causes "must not" be considered.

I believe design does have utility. I suspect cures for various diseases are based on an "irreducibly complex" mixture of nutrients and complimentary emotional stress related treatments. In other words, one specific substance or treatment may not work without the others.

I rather not reveal my identity but I did brain storm a new hypothesis thinking from design and it has been posted on the net. It had to do with phenotypic plasticity.

I don't think I will ever totally buy into totally natural causes for organisms. Maybe I will be convinced if some scientist can prove organisms evolved by the interaction of engergies from a higher order beyond the electromagnetic spectrum at it came from the fourth of fifth dimensions and it had nothing to do with design.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2009 4:58 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 2:48 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 382 by Wounded King, posted 09-29-2009 2:49 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 381 of 458 (526893)
09-29-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by traderdrew
09-29-2009 1:02 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
"I don't think I will ever totally buy into totally natural causes for organisms. Maybe I will be convinced if some scientist can prove organisms evolved by the interaction of engergies from a higher order beyond the electromagnetic spectrum at it came from the fourth of fifth dimensions and it had nothing to do with design."

You have a point but I don't buy it period. We are not talking here about a few tiny machines that do remarkable things. It is more accurate to describe it as entire factores or even entire manufacturing regions of factories of a level of complexity that almost defies imagination. With helicase proteins that do their work with great precision at the speed of a jet; ATP turbo engines that also operate at high velocity, and bacterial flagellum with rotors that can start and stop on a dime with an ability to reverse the direction of the motors at speeds of 100,000 rpm, we are talking about a wonder of wonders.

The truth is that nature does not make such factories or anything close to it. All living organisms are produced from other living organisms and even experts like Jack Szostak and company cannot even prod nature into cooperating with them to naturally generate life. Since natural processes simply cannot account for what we observe then the supernatual is the only obvious answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by traderdrew, posted 09-29-2009 1:02 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2009 2:52 PM Calypsis4 has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 382 of 458 (526894)
09-29-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by traderdrew
09-29-2009 1:02 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
Traderdrew writes:

"Remember you must keep in mind that these biological systems weren't really designed but rather were made through Darwinian processes." I believe this thinking is based on the "assumption" that Darwin can and will eventually explain everything.

It may surprise you Drew, but I agree to an extent. I think this is something of a caricature since most evolutionary biologists are happy to accept a broader range of mechanism than simply "Darwinian processes". But I would agree that science tends to assume the things are the result of material processes, but then that has turned out to be the case in almost everything that science has investigated.

To some extent this turns on a semantic issue of design, after all intelligent design theory obviously draws a distinction between different types of design, so perhaps rather than discounting something as the mere appearance of design we should think of it as being simply naturally designed, over a very long term of development by natural processes. We know of many natural processes that can produce the necessary sorts of genetic variation after all, and of a mechanism for maintaining/promoting traits favoured by a particular environment.

I wouldn't describe the cilium with its 200 parts and the 10,000 protein binding sites in cells as "infinitesimally small gaps" unless you know something that I don't know. Obviously you do know more than me.

Your words not mine . The problem here is that you are assuming that all 200 parts of a cilium and "10,000 protein binding sites in cells" whatever that is supposed to mean, are evidence for irreducible complexity, but you haven't provided any evidence to support this, I doubt you have even been presented much in the way of evidence in the sites you got this information from.

You assume it is true because they tell you so, why should anyone else assume it is true in turn in the absence of evidence? Especially anyone who is actually at all familiar with real cellular biology?

Kenneth Miller apparently believes this.

Indeed, I'm sure there is quite enough space in the realms of quantum weirdness to accommodate many forms of god. I have no scientific issue with this because Ken miller doesn't claim to have scientific evidence that this is the case. He believes it as a matter of faith and that is between him and his own conception of god.

I would have to say that there was some assumption from my part in that statement. Considering the sheer number of protein binding sites in a cell and those factors contributing to whether it all fits together correctly, I think this would probably strengthen my case.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is your argument 'no but its really, really, reeeeeally complex. Because if so it is no more convincing than when you were just saying how complex it was.

Otherwise I can't make this out

Two billion years is a long time but there have been a lot of organisms that have remained pretty much unchanged for millions of years that are more complex than bacteria.

Again you make an assumption. The fact that an organisms gross morphology has remained essentially consistent, the sort of thing we see in the fossil record, is not evidence that it is remaining unchanged genetically. It is also a somewhat disingenuous argument since the IC flagellum is a bacterial structure. How much data relevant to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum do you really think we can get out of fossilised fish? Maybe I missing the point of your bacteria comment.

I would think if this was true then that evidence should be able to be used as clues to retrace the evolutionary steps of the flagellum.

Arguably this has been done its just that the clues are still tentative and a lot of the details are still unclear. We touched on this in another thread at Message 361. But surely you accept that the fact that this hasn't been done yet doesn't constitute evidence that it can't be done?

On the other hand I don't think organisms like E. coli are going to devolve out of existence because the mechanisms described by Darwin will help preserve this species. I'm not totally anti-Darwin.

The problem here is that Behe is using a term devolution, which is barely a scientific term at all, there are probably about 20 papers on pubmed which use the term in the context of evolutionary biology. To describe an organism becoming better adapted, which is what these bacteria are doing when they lose the genetic material for synthesising amino acids which are being freely supplied to them in their amenable culture broth environment, is simply evolution. It takes energy to synthesise DNA, why synthesise DNA for a function you no longer need?

Having said that, the fact that it is easier for evolution to break things is of course facilely obvious. It is a consequence of the way it is so much easier for mutations to break things. It doesn't stand as any sort of evidence that evolution can't also make things though.

For the most part, that statement sounds like good science although scientists seem to follow an invisible rule that says everything "must" be explained through natural causes and any possible explanation involving intelligent causes "must not" be considered.

Not 'intelligent', there is plenty of science that allows the involvement of intelligence. What science cannot deal with is immaterial, untestable or supernatural entities which can interact with a system undetectably and leave no trace. If you have a testable mechanism by which you think ID has acted then by all means tell me about it and I will consider it.

After that your post degenerated into woo, so I'll leave well enough alone.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by traderdrew, posted 09-29-2009 1:02 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 383 of 458 (526895)
09-29-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Gaps
Since natural processes simply cannot account for what we observe then the supernatual is the only obvious answer.

So since we don't know how something is done (yet) then your deity is the only possible answer?

Remember, at one time lightning was thought to be created by deities.

Those gaps are getting smaller, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 2:48 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:09 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 384 of 458 (526897)
09-29-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 11:49 AM


Re: Irreducible complexity - huh! What is it good for?
My answer would be that the information or complex specified information, if we wish to use an ID term, in the genome is the result of the interaction between the environment and the genome over long periods of time. Genomes are unstable things and will naturally vary in a population. Environments are a many splendoured thing and can be variable, stable and catastrophically unstable in different areas at different times. The degree to which any genome proliferates is in large part a function of how well adapted it is to its environment.

Raw non-specific novel informational variation is consistently generated by mutation. Most of this is functionally neutral, much is deleterious but a small proportion has beneficial functional effects that allow an organism to survive or proliferate in an environment better than its fellows. The environmental pressures favour the preservation of such changes and over time this gives rise to large complex assemblies of favoured traits in the genome, which form the CSI.

Mutation acts as a monte-carlo process for generating random informational change and the environment acts as a filter to preserve those changes in patterns determined by that environment.

If you want to know the originator of a meaningful message in the Gitt sense of information, I don't think there is one.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 11:49 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 385 of 458 (526902)
09-29-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Coyote
09-29-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Gaps
"So since we don't know how something is done (yet) then your deity is the only possible answer?"

Thanks for the reply. Answer: If you had been a savage from the Amazon jungle who had never seen a Lamborghini (or any car for that matter) before and someone drove one right up in front of you...

then what would be your first question?

(a) How did that thing evolve?
(b) What is this thing and what/who made it?

Be honest in your answer.

Keep in mind that though a Lamborghini is not alive nor made of chemicals it must be understood that (if evolution is true) that there was no life before pre-biotic times and all things were non-living inanimate chemical/minerals. So which 'lugbolt' does an evolution believer start with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2009 2:52 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Perdition, posted 09-29-2009 3:21 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 387 by NosyNed, posted 09-29-2009 3:26 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 388 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 3:33 PM Calypsis4 has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1314 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 386 of 458 (526905)
09-29-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Gaps
So which 'lugbolt' does an evolution believer start with?

Chemistry, which predates biotic chemistry, which is all life is, when boiled down to it's base.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:09 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:38 PM Perdition has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 387 of 458 (526908)
09-29-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 3:09 PM


Evolve or Made
(a) How did that thing evolve?
(b) What is this thing and what/who made it?

Since we know what designed things and evolved things look like and the differences are very great so it is easy to tell (but not for someone without benefit of the right education) that this is not an evolved thing.

If I see an new animal or plant(but dead like the car is if I don't have the key). I can quickly see it is an evolved thing and not a designed thing.

We know this because (unlike the uneducated individual) we understand the nature of the evolutionary process and the kind of results we get from it. Those results are nothing like things we know are designed and in fact are human designed which is the only example of deliberate design we have.

One clue for those interested in design is just how very bad the design of an evolved thing is in the sense of it's inefficiency and complexity. Another clue maybe the extremely precise fit of the evolved thing to the immediate requirements (stay alive).

They are very, very clearly separated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:09 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:59 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 388 of 458 (526910)
09-29-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Gaps
Calypsis4 writes:

Keep in mind that though a Lamborghini is not alive nor made of chemicals it must be understood that (if evolution is true) that there was no life before pre-biotic times and all things were non-living inanimate chemical/minerals.

As I said earlier when I asked you if you were asking about the origin of the *first* genetic information, this thread is not about that.

The topic of this thread concerns how mutation produces new information, see the introductory post, Message 1.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:09 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:41 PM Percy has responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 389 of 458 (526911)
09-29-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Perdition
09-29-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Gaps
"Chemistry, which predates biotic chemistry, which is all life is, when boiled down to it's base."

That response is like a teacher who repsonds to the question, "Where do we pin-point the origin of human communication through written language? The ancient Sumerians or Akkadians?" So the teaher answers:

"History".

The truth is that no one can come up with the formula as to the origin of even genetic information, still less solving the mystery of the assemblage of living organisms. And the problem becomes many magnitudes of difficult more so when one considers that, after the one celled amoeba there are no two-celled, three-celled, four-celled, or five-celled organisms in the world and that all 6 to 20 celled organisms are parasites.

So it is not just the titanic problem of explaining HOW life assembled itself but HOW it could have proceeded in spite of this huge gap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Perdition, posted 09-29-2009 3:21 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Perdition, posted 09-29-2009 4:59 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 390 of 458 (526912)
09-29-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Percy
09-29-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Gaps
"As I said earlier when I asked you if you were asking about the origin of the *first* genetic information, this thread is not about that.

The topic of this thread concerns how mutation produces new information, see the introductory post."

All right, I will keep that in mind. I thought it was directly related or I would not have asked the question to begin with. Maybe we can take up the question of origins elsewhere.

Have a nice day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 3:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 3:56 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019