Jump to content


Photo

Irreducible Complexity.


  • Please log in to reply
149 replies to this topic

#41 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 05:49 PM

I really don't get what you are saying.  It sounds like if the mouse trap loses function but still has a lesser purpose it proves IC wrong.  I really hope that is not what you mean.

View Post

That's my understanding of irreducible complexity. :lol:

The larger point of IC is that life has very complicated integrated machines at all levels. How could life create an integrated machine by chance? The only mechanism that makes anything this complicated requires information and intelligence.

View Post


No, of course it can't be created by chance. That's the whole point of natural selection. And no, you don't need intelligence. All that is required is "change + heredity + selection". You will inevitably get some form of evolution.

Regards,

Arch.

#42 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 07:27 PM

That's my understanding of irreducible complexity. :huh:
No, of course it can't be created by chance. That's the whole point of natural selection. And no, you don't need intelligence. All that is required is "change + heredity + selection". You will inevitably get some form of evolution.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Hi Arch,

change + heredity + selection

What is the difference between that equation and this one?

mutation + natural selection = change

Are you saying Mendelian variation can account for morphological changes? Refining the gene pool can bring out variations within the gene pool ( i.e. dogs) but it does not account anything new.

You will inevitably get some form of evolution.


That is the rub isn't it. We can see that change occurred via common decent but we really have any provable mechanism that could cause that change.

That's my understanding of irreducible complexity. :huh:

View Post


Then you missed the whole point of the IC arguement. Think it over- what do you think Behe was trying to demonstrate with IC?

#43 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 11:07 PM

Hi Arch,

change + heredity + selection 

What is the difference between that equation and this one?

mutation + natural selection = change

View Post


To be pedantic I'd say the second one doesn't include heredity/breeding, but I think we're on the same level here. There isn't any essential difference.

Are you saying Mendelian variation can account for morphological changes? Refining the gene pool can bring out variations within the gene pool ( i.e. dogs) but it does not account anything new.

View Post


If it were only refining I would agree, but the 'change' that occurs creates new information.

Then you missed the whole point of the IC arguement.  Think it over- what do you think Behe was trying to demonstrate with IC?

View Post


Lol, well Behe's main purpose is usually to disprove evolution, regardless of how many people trump his ideas. But honestly I don't think that's the answer you're looking for. What do you think it is that I'm missing?

Regards,

Arch.

#44 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 04:04 AM

That's my understanding of irreducible complexity. :huh:

View Post


Still?

#45 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:06 AM

Still?

View Post

Well since all anyone has done so far is say "think it over", yes. So I ask again, what is it that I'm missing?

#46 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 10:11 AM

Well since all anyone has done so far is say "think it over", yes. So I ask again, what is it that I'm missing?

View Post


Hi Arch,

Life is full of very complicated sophisticated machines at all biological levels. Behe was trying to demonstrate that many of the parts of the individual machines have no value until they are assembled into a functioning molecular machine. Moreover, the machine would not work unless it had all the critical parts. This kind of design could not happen one small incremental step at time.

The big point is that life is sophisticated, intricate and has the appearance of design. (IMO it was designed) . We have no evolutionary mechanisms that can explain how we can obtain new biological systems of even minimal sophistication.

In other

#47 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 04:18 PM

Life is full of very complicated sophisticated machines at all biological levels.  Behe was trying to demonstrate that many of the parts of the individual machines have no value until they are assembled into a functioning molecular machine.  Moreover, the machine would not work unless it had all the critical parts.  This kind of design could not happen one small incremental step at time.

View Post


Bruce, just then you used both the above definitions Ryyker gave to define IC. Let me show you:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the parts can have no other function.


"many of the parts of the individual machines have no value until they are assembled into a functioning molecular machine."

This part I believe could be true. Sometimes an individual part is required to make a machine function in a specific way, and that part has no other use. Notice though, that removing this part doesn't stop the machine as a whole from working. Only the part.

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


Moreover, the machine would not work unless it had all the critical parts.

This part is partially true, but not in the way I think you want it to be. It is true that the machine (take the mousetrap again) would stop working as a mousetrap if parts were removed. However it can still function as a different device reasonably well. It can no long trap mice, but it can have alternative uses. This means natural selection could come into play.

The big point is that life is sophisticated, intricate and has the appearance of design.  (IMO it was designed).

View Post


Absolutely! That's the beauty of natural selection. Think about the change + heredity + selection. If this basic formula works, it must look designed.

Try taking out the biological implications for a moment. Cars are often used as an example. The original cars were clunky, inefficient machines. In future generations, engineers tried new methods to produce better results. If the new method was more effective it was kept, if not, discarded.
Each new car inherits a long line of manufacturing (heredity), engineers make adjustments to designs (change) and discard failed designs (selection). And over time we've ended up with the 'evolution' of the car. It's inevitable.

In other

View Post


Unfinished sentence? :huh:

Regards,

Arch.

#48 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 05:57 PM

Bruce, just then you used both the above definitions Ryyker gave to define IC. Let me show you:
"many of the parts of the individual machines have no value until they are assembled into a functioning molecular machine."

This part I believe could be true. Sometimes an individual part is required to make a machine function in a specific way, and that part has no other use. Notice though, that removing this part doesn't stop the machine as a whole from working. Only the part.
Moreover, the machine would not work unless it had all the critical parts.

This part is partially true, but not in the way I think you want it to be. It is true that the machine (take the mousetrap again) would stop working as a mousetrap if parts were removed. However it can still function as a different device reasonably well. It can no long trap mice, but it can have alternative uses. This means natural selection could come into play.
Absolutely! That's the beauty of natural selection. Think about the change + heredity + selection. If this basic formula works, it must look designed.

Try taking out the biological implications for a moment. Cars are often used as an example. The original cars were clunky, inefficient machines. In future generations, engineers tried new methods to produce better results. If the new method was more effective it was kept, if not, discarded.
Each new car inherits a long line of manufacturing (heredity), engineers make adjustments to designs (change) and discard failed designs (selection). And over time we've ended up with the 'evolution' of the car. It's inevitable.
Unfinished sentence? :huh:

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Ryykers definition is more exact than mine was. The reason I rewrote the definition is because I didn't want someone nit picking a definition, like a lawyer, and miss the bigger picture.

Natural selection does not work on multiple parts, fine tuning parts or fit them in harmony with other parts. But you stated correctly that car engineers do, because they have the intelligence, foresight, planning, engineering and coordination abilities to accomplish such a task. An unguided random process can not because it is random and unguided.

Let me illustrate: Take out five coins of the same type from your pocket. Stack them neatly in a simple column. This is a very easy task for someone with intelligence, foresight, planning and coordination to accomplish.

Now take the same five coins and toss them randomly on the table. Do this as many times as you wish. My guess is that you will be lucky to get 2 coins to land in a well matched column in prefect harmony with any of the another coins. Adding additional coins to this column of well matched coins becomes exponentially more difficult with each successive coin. You may want to add a little more realism by using different coin denominations at random and see how long it takes to get 5 coins of the same delimitation to stack up in a perfect column.

If you are honest you can see that an unguided force makes a simple task nearly impossible.

Now look at an eye. Man may be able to reverse engineer an eye and generate a blueprint (information), but mankind can not create something as sophisticated as the human eye- it is beyond our ability to create. This obviously isn't as easy as stacking coins. So if something as intelligent as man can not create an eye, how could be expect random unguided forces to the same thing? Remember that having intelligence, foresight, planning, engineering and coordination abilities make creating something useful infinitely easier.

Also, natural selection can only select from what is available at the time. It has no creative power - it can not create something new nor can it create well match parts.

The other aspect of IC is the payback is at the end. The well matched parts, with few exceptions, have no value until it is assembled with other well matched parts. Natural selection would not choose or store unusable parts unless in had foresight- which is doesn't.

Finally, classical evolution (natural selection) requires small incremental steps. Creating multiple well matched parts can not be broken down into small incremental steps.

I hope you can see how truly limited natural selection really is.

#49 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 September 2009 - 09:49 PM

Ryykers definition is more exact than mine was.  The reason I rewrote the definition is because I didn't want someone nit picking a definition, like a lawyer, and miss the bigger picture.

Natural selection does not work on multiple parts, fine tuning parts or fit them in harmony with other parts.    But you stated correctly that car engineers do, because they have the intelligence, foresight, planning, engineering and coordination abilities to accomplish such a task.  An unguided random process can not because it is random and unguided.

Let me illustrate:  Take out five coins of the same type from your pocket.  Stack them neatly in a simple column.  This is a very easy task for someone with intelligence, foresight, planning and coordination to accomplish.

Now take the same five coins and toss them randomly on the table.  Do this as many times as you wish.  My guess is that you will be lucky to get 2 coins to land in a well matched column in prefect harmony with any of the another coins.  Adding additional coins to this column of well matched coins becomes exponentially more difficult with each successive coin.  You may want to add a little more realism by using different coin denominations at random and see how long it takes to get 5 coins of the same delimitation to stack up in a perfect column.

If you are honest you can see that an unguided force makes a simple task nearly impossible. 

Now look at an eye.  Man may be able to reverse engineer an eye and generate a blueprint (information),  but mankind can not create something as sophisticated as the human eye- it is beyond our ability to create.  This obviously isn't as easy as stacking coins.  So if something as intelligent as man can not create an eye, how could be expect random unguided forces to the same thing? Remember that having intelligence, foresight, planning, engineering and coordination abilities make creating something useful infinitely easier.

Also, natural selection can only select from what is available at the time.  It has no creative power - it can not create something new nor can it create well match parts. 

The other aspect of IC is the payback is at the end.  The well matched parts, with few exceptions, have no value until it is assembled with other well matched parts.  Natural selection would not choose or store unusable parts unless in had foresight- which is doesn't.

Finally, classical evolution (natural selection) requires small incremental steps.  Creating multiple well matched parts can not be broken down into small incremental steps. 

I hope you can see how truly limited natural selection really is.

View Post


Try it with magnets. You'll get an almost perfect column nearly every time.

#50 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 13 September 2009 - 03:13 PM

Try it with magnets.  You'll get an almost perfect column nearly every time.

View Post


LOL - I laughed.

The problem with magnets is that you limit the choices available: It is predestination. What is special about life that DNA is the opposite of magnets. The chemicals that make up the genetic alphabet show no preference for any specific letter. This makes DNA an ideal information carrier.

Further, just as magnetic letters can be combined and recombined in any way to form various sequences on a metal surface, so, too, can each of the four bases—A, T, G, and C—attach to any site on the DNA backbone with equal facility, making all sequences equally probable (or improbable). Indeed, there are no significant differential affinities between any of the four bases and the binding sites along the sugar-phosphate backbone. The same type of N-glycosidic bond occurs between the base and the backbone regardless of which base attaches. All four bases are acceptable; none is chemically favored. As Kuppers has noted, “The properties of nucleic acids indicate that all the combinatorially possible nucleotide patterns of a DNA are, from a chemical point of view, equivalent.”92 Thus, “self-organizing” bonding affinities cannot explain the sequentially specific arrangement of nucleotide bases in DNA because (1) there are no bonds between bases along the information-bearing axis of the molecule, and (2) there are no differential affinities between he backbone and the specific bases that could account for variations in sequence. Because the same holds for RNA molecules, researchers who peculate that life began in an RNA world have also failed to solve the sequence specificity problem—that is, the problem of explaining how nformation in functioning RNA molecules could have arisen in the first place.


link

#51 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2009 - 04:55 PM

Ryykers definition is more exact than mine was.  The reason I rewrote the definition is because I didn't want someone nit picking a definition, like a lawyer, and miss the bigger picture.

View Post


Sorry Bruce, I don't mean to nitpick. The only reason I even bring it up is because you seemed to think I didn't quite understand what IC is. Ryyker gave two definitions and implied only one of them was correct. You then turned around and used both. I'm just worried none of us are in agreement as to what IC actually means.

Natural selection does not work on multiple parts, fine tuning parts or fit them in harmony with other parts.    But you stated correctly that car engineers do, because they have the intelligence, foresight, planning, engineering and coordination abilities to accomplish such a task.  An unguided random process can not because it is random and unguided.

View Post


Two points. First, as has been said before, the process is not random. Secondly, why do you think natural selection would be unable to assist pre-existing parts to work together better? I don't see any reason why this would be a problem.

Let me illustrate:  Take out five coins of the same type from your pocket.  Stack them neatly in a simple column.  This is a very easy task for someone with intelligence, foresight, planning and coordination to accomplish.

Now take the same five coins and toss them randomly on the table.  Do this as many times as you wish.  My guess is that you will be lucky to get 2 coins to land in a well matched column in prefect harmony with any of the another coins.  Adding additional coins to this column of well matched coins becomes exponentially more difficult with each successive coin.  You may want to add a little more realism by using different coin denominations at random and see how long it takes to get 5 coins of the same delimitation to stack up in a perfect column.

View Post


The problem with this example is that you're only using mutations and have completely neglected natural selection. Try it this way:

Grab your five coins and flip them. Do this until one of the five lands on top of the other. Now grab the three remaining and do it again until another lands atop. Keep repeating until they're all stacked. You have 100,000 years, or until all the coins are stacked, whichever comes first. Now you have an example that has both mutations and natural selection.

But even this is a very poor example of how evolution works. The problem being you have given the test a predetermined destination, which is not what evolution predicts. It may be that the selective advantage is to only have two coins stacked, and the other three randomised. With such an abstract example, who can tell?

Now look at an eye.  Man may be able to reverse engineer an eye and generate a blueprint (information),  but mankind can not create something as sophisticated as the human eye- it is beyond our ability to create.  This obviously isn't as easy as stacking coins.  So if something as intelligent as man can not create an eye, how could be expect random unguided forces to the same thing? Remember that having intelligence, foresight, planning, engineering and coordination abilities make creating something useful infinitely easier.

View Post


The problem with this point is that it is extremely short sighted. At present we can rebuild parts of the ear (hearing aid), fix problems within the eye (lazer surgery) and we are starting to create individual limbs in labs.
Keep in mind nature has had several billion years to work out the eye. Humans have only been working on it for a hundred or so.

Also, natural selection can only select from what is available at the time.  It has no creative power - it can not create something new nor can it create well match parts.

View Post


No it doesn't. By itself natural selection would be useless, at least in regards to evolution. But you need to take the whole package of evolution, which includes mutations and drift and a dozen other parts I don't fully understand yet.

The other aspect of IC is the payback is at the end.  The well matched parts, with few exceptions, have no value until it is assembled with other well matched parts.  Natural selection would not choose or store unusable parts unless in had foresight- which is doesn't.

View Post


Of course not, that is the crux of the argument. That is why to prove evolution you need to show each step and how that is useful to the animal. And that is what Miller was doing.

Finally, classical evolution (natural selection) requires small incremental steps.  Creating multiple well matched parts can not be broken down into small incremental steps.

View Post


Same as above Bruce. That was the point of the video earlier. These smaller parts can be broken down and have been shown to do so.

I hope you can see how truly limited natural selection really is.

View Post


Have you ever done any programming Bruce? There are essentially two ways to do it. There is procedural, which letting the code run in a long list from beginning to end. This would be impossible for evolution to simulate. However the deeper we go into nature the more we discover this is not how it works.

The other form of programming is object orientated. In this form each action of the program is broken down into manageable pieces. You make these pieces work by themselves, then join them to the rest of the program. Each component works stand alone (but does very little) and can lock into the rest of the program to do more powerful things. The more we look at nature the more we discover this is the way it works. And it is incredible powerful in its simplicity. Looking at the individual components, yes it is terribly limited. But when each part is able to 'talk' to the rest of the parts, the possibilities are endless.

We are discovering that using small incremental steps is so much faster and more diverse than using large chunks. It also makes fixing problems infinitely easier :)

Regards,

Arch.

#52 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 13 September 2009 - 08:14 PM

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



Hi Arch,

Sorry Bruce, I don't mean to nitpick. The only reason I even bring it up is because you seemed to think I didn't quite understand what IC is. Ryyker gave two definitions and implied only one of them was correct. You then turned around and used both. I'm just worried none of us are in agreement as to what IC actually means.

View Post




I will reply in more detail latter to the rest of you post when I have more time. I did not mean you were nit picking. I have seen videos attempting to dismantle Behe's mousetrap that took a very lawyer like approach. They nit pick the definition of IC and missed the bigger picture. You however, have been very forthright in your answers.

The problem with this point is that it is extremely short sighted.


Were you attempting to make a pun here? :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Bruce

#53 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 14 September 2009 - 08:06 AM

Two points. First, as has been said before, the process is not random. Secondly, why do you think natural selection would be unable to assist pre-existing parts to work together better? I don't see any reason why this would be a problem.

View Post


Hi Arch,

The process is random.

Natural selection can only choose from what is available via the existing gene pool. Anything new in the gene pool is from mutation which is random.

You give too much credit to natural selection. Believe it or not, luck is a larger biological factor than natural selection. The best seed may land on rocky soil while the inferior seed lands on good soil, near a waters source with plenty of sun shine. This has been documented if you care.

Secondly, why do you think natural selection would be unable to assist pre-existing parts to work together better? I don't see any reason why this would be a problem.

Because the preexisting parts have no value to the biological system until they are assembled. Why would evolution choose something that has no value.

My guess is you are talking about Ken Millers example of TTSS.

Do you realize the TTSS is itself irreducibly complex?

Do you realize that we have found no other component parts, other that TTSS, which are necessary to make flagellum?

Do you realize the building something with component parts is still an example of IC? The mouse trap is an example of IC and it is made from component parts.

If evolution was the mechanism, it is more likely that TTSS was created by a backwards step, or devolution. That TTSS was not available when flagellum was created. In other words:

Flagelium ----> TTSS

not

TTSS + parts -----> flagellium

Here's is brief exerpt for the companion CD from the book called "Design of life" page 42


Intermediates Between the TTSS and the Flagellum To explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,

Darwinists typically posit the type three secretory system (TTSS) as an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. Some even go so far as to posit a few intermediate structures by which the TTSS is supposed to have evolved into the bacterial flagellum.4 But as evolutionary precursors to the bacterial flagellum, such intermediate structures are on even shakier ground than the TTSS. Unlike the TTSS, they exist only in the imaginations of evolutionary biologists. They do not exist in nature or in the laboratory, and evolutionary biologists never define them with enough specificity
to be able to recognize them should they actually encounter them. In positing such intermediates, Darwinists purport to provide transitional steps that could lead from the TTSS to the bacterial flagellum. Some even claim that in providing such imaginary intermediates they have provided a “detailed, testable, step-by-step” Darwinian account for the formation of the bacterial flagellum. But this is wishful thinking. One such reconstruction proposes the following transitional steps leading to the bacterial flagellum: (1) Posit a bacterium that possesses “an ancestral TTSS” to start the evolutionary ball rolling. (2) Next, suppose this bacterium evolves a pilus or hair-like filament that extrudes through the TTSS; this pilus will later become the “propeller” that drives the fully evolved flagellum. (3) Next, suppose this pilus experiences “rapid improvements . . .  under selection for increased strength, minimizing wreakage, increased speed of assembly, etc.” (4) Next, suppose the pilus, though originally involved in adhesion, evolves motility that initially is quite crude, being nondirectional and simply for “random dispersal.” (5) Next, suppose this “crudely functioning protoflagellum” gets a chemotaxis and switching system tacked on so that motility becomes directional and interactive with the environment. (6) And finally, suppose this entire system gets refined through natural selection, which evolves a hook and additional axial components and thereby forms a modern flagellum. To justify such a model, Darwinists need to show that each step in it is reasonably likely to follow from the previous one. This requires being able to assess the probability of transitioning from one step to the next. And this in turn presupposes that the biological structures at each step are described in sufficient detail so that it is possible to assess the probabilities of transitioning between steps. Darwinism is a theory about connecting points in biological configuration space. It says that you can connect point A to point B in biological configuration space provided that you can take small enough steps where each step is fitness enhancing (or at least fitness neutral). The steps need to be small because Darwinism is a theory of gradual incremental change where each step along the way is reasonably probable. As Darwin put it in his Origin, for his theory to succeed it must explain biological complexity in terms of numerous, successive, slight modifications.”  Anything else would cause his theory to founder on the rocks of improbability. Are the transitions from one step to the next in the preceding model reasonably probable? Does each step constitute, as Darwin required, only a “slight modification”? And is each such modification advantageous or at least selectively neutral? There’s no way even to begin to answer such questions because this model is not sufficiently detailed. Evolutionary biologists have empirical evidence for only one possible precursor to the modern bacterial flagellum, namely, the modern TTSS. They have no empirical evidence for the intermediates that this model posits or for the ancestral TTSS that supposedly starts this model off. They don’t know what these intermediates look like. They don’t know what mutations are needed to go from one intermediate to the next. They don’t have precise biochemical specifications for the intermediates. They don’t know if the intermediates that the model hypothesizes would work. They don’t know the environments within which those intermediates would excel or even whether the succession of environments is conducive to the survival and reproduction of the intermediates. They have no way of determining how easy or hard it is for the Darwinian mechanism to bridge the steps in this model. Evolutionary biologists typically invoke gene duplications and mutations at key points where the Darwinian mechanism is supposed to effect transitions that are reasonably probable. But what gene exactly is being duplicated? And what locus on which gene is being mutated? Evolutionary biologists never say. Indeed, the steps in these models are so unspecific and bereft of detail that these questions are unanswerable. But unless we know detailed answers to such questions, there’s no way to know whether the transitions these models describe are reasonably probable and therefore of the type required by Darwin’s theory. It follows that such models are untestable. To actually test such models requires being able to evaluate the likelihood of transitioning from one step in the model to the next. Yet because the intermediate systems described at the various transitional steps are so lacking in detail (they are hypothetical; they do not, as far as we know, currently exist in nature; they are not available in any laboratory; and researchers for now have no experimental procedures for generating them in the laboratory), the models offer no way to carry out this evaluation. These models of the evolution of the flagellum are therefore
sheer speculation.



#54 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 14 September 2009 - 09:08 AM

Grab your five coins and flip them. Do this until one of the five lands on top of the other. Now grab the three remaining and do it again until another lands atop. Keep repeating until they're all stacked. You have 100,000 years, or until all the coins are stacked, whichever comes first. Now you have an example that has both mutations and natural selection.

View Post


My point was that stacking 5 coins in a neat column is easy to do for someone with intelligence and foresight. Whereas, it is nearly impossible for a random process to do the same thing.

Since we are talking about IC, all 5 coins have to stacked in a nice column for it to have any value for this simple biological system. There is no reason for the coins will stay stacked. For them to stay partially stacked requires foresight and evolution is blind.

But even this is a very poor example of how evolution works. The problem being you have given the test a predetermined destination, which is not what evolution predicts. It may be that the selective advantage is to only have two coins stacked, and the other three randomised. With such an abstract example, who can tell?

View Post


Whether you know it or not you are talking about a random incremental process.

I told you that you missed the entire point of IC. IC point is that integrated machines can not be created by a random incremental process. These machines require highly specialize, integrated parts to come together in the final step. There is no way a random incremental mechanism process could make an integrated machine. If you read recent biological text books they do talk about evolution being: Random mutation + natural selection. Why, because it is incapable of creating biological systems.


The problem with this point is that it is extremely short sighted. At present we can rebuild parts of the ear (hearing aid), fix problems within the eye (lazer surgery) and we are starting to create individual limbs in labs.
Keep in mind nature has had several billion years to work out the eye. Humans have only been working on it for a hundred or so.
No it doesn't. By itself natural selection would be useless, at least in regards to evolution. But you need to take the whole package of evolution, which includes mutations and drift and a dozen other parts I don't fully understand yet.

View Post


What? Arch, sure mankind with years of learning and billions of dollars spent can rebuild parts of an ear and do very incredible things. This is an example of what intelligence can do. However, even with all our intelligence we can not do is make an ear or an eye that integrates into an animal anywhere near as well as what God did.

Keep in mind nature has had several billion years to work out the eye. Humans have only been working on it for a hundred or so.


link

Time is not enough.

Time is actually not the chief factor in evolution- population numbers are. In calculating how quickly a beneficial mutation might appear, evolutionary biologist multiplies the mutation rate by the population size. Since for many kinds of organisms the mutation rate is pretty similar, the waiting time for the appearance of the helpful mutations depends mostly on numbers of organisms: The bigger the population or the faster the reproduction cycle, the more quickly a particular mutation will show.


We have numbers from various sources and we can quantify what mutation and natural selection can and can not do.

Malaria: There are about 1 trillion parasites in one infected person and it is estimated that there have been about 1 billion people infected in the last 50 years.  That is 10^12* 10^9 = ~10 ^21 malaria parasites that have existed in the last 50 years.





Of course not, that is the crux of the argument. That is why to prove evolution you need to show each step and how that is useful to the animal. And that is what Miller was doing.

View Post



You really need to fact check this. Ken Millers article.

With this: Response

Same as above Bruce. That was the point of the video earlier. These smaller parts can be broken down and have been shown to do so.
Have you ever done any programming Bruce? There are essentially two ways to do it. There is procedural, which letting the code run in a long list from beginning to end. This would be impossible for evolution to simulate. However the deeper we go into nature the more we discover this is not how it works.

The other form of programming is object orientated. In this form each action of the program is broken down into manageable pieces. You make these pieces work by themselves, then join them to the rest of the program. Each component works stand alone (but does very little) and can lock into the rest of the program to do more powerful things. The more we look at nature the more we discover this is the way it works. And it is incredible powerful in its simplicity. Looking at the individual components, yes it is terribly limited. But when each part is able to 'talk' to the rest of the parts, the possibilities are endless.

We are discovering that using small incremental steps is so much faster and more diverse than using large chunks. It also makes fixing problems infinitely easier :lol:

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



The process of making computer code is an example of intelligence not evolution.

Evolution hasn't proven much in fact it has taken serious steps backwards.

1. We have viable OOL scenarios;
2. Mutation + natural selection is dead as viable mechanism;
3. The tree of life is in shambles because of genetic comparison studies.

#55 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 September 2009 - 10:05 PM

Natural selection can only choose from what is available via the existing gene pool.  Anything new in the gene pool is from mutation which is random.

View Post


Roll a 12 sided die. 1-4 are genetic enhancements, 5-12 are disadvantageous. There's your mutation. Completely random.

Now introduce natural selection. From this die rolling, you are only allowed to pick numbers 1-4, and 6. All of a sudden this "completely random" formula has become reasonably predictable.

As a whole, evolution (although it does contain some randomness) is predominantly determinable.

Believe it or not, luck is a larger biological factor than natural selection.  The best seed may land on rocky soil while the inferior seed lands on good soil, near a waters source with plenty of sun shine.

View Post


And the completely reverse may happen. So in a system that is 50/50 in luck, a selective advantage will ultimately win over, even if it only makes it a 51/49 difference.

Because the preexisting parts have no value to the biological system until they are assembled.  Why would evolution choose something that has no value.

View Post


You keep repeating this despite me showing that these 'parts' do have a purpose before assembly. Are you not understanding how this works?

My guess is you are talking about Ken Millers example of TTSS.
Do you realize the TTSS is itself irreducibly complex?

View Post


I'm not sure how relevant TTSS is. My depth of understanding is limited to the video I linked earlier. I see no reason why it can't be brought in though :P

The problem with saying TTSS is irreducibly complex is that you've now put us on the path of infinite regress. If I can find a pathway for TTSS then you'll ask me to break down those individual parts. And you'll keep asking until I get stuck on a part that science hasn't delved deep enough into yet. At which point you'll claim IC has merit, when the truth is it all comes back to "I don't know how this formed, therefore God must have done it".

Here's is brief exerpt for the companion CD from the book called "Design of life" page 42

View Post


Again, all that exert says is that currently scientists don't have all the answers. He puts all the scientific efforts down to "speculation", which is quite possibly true. But what the writer fails to understand is that this 'speculating' is an hypothesis. They're still in the process of proving it. Maybe it'll be proven right, maybe not. But the writer is trying to imply the latter before the evidence has been presented.

My point was that stacking 5 coins in a neat column is easy to do for someone with intelligence and foresight. Whereas, it is nearly impossible for a random process to do the same thing.

View Post


There's no doubt it's easier. And with the coin example it's a great deal easier. That's why humans have been able to simulate several billions of years of nature in only a few hundred.

It's harder for a 'random' (for lack of a better word) process to achieve the same thing because it needs to try out thousands of options before it can progress. It might get lucky and find the right combination first time around, or it might take thousands of tries. There may be so many combination it just never gets there.

But this is another reason why the coin example is flawed. It assumes there is only one 'right way' of combining, which is simply not true. If there's multiple ways the coins can be arranged (say in a line) then the chances of either stacking or aligning is much higher. If both are advantageous than maybe 2 coins will be stacked and the others lined up. You really can't place these kinds of restrictions on life. It always finds a way :lol:

There is no way a random incremental mechanism process could make an integrated machine. If you read recent biological text books they do talk about evolution being: Random mutation + natural selection. Why, because it is incapable of creating biological systems.

View Post


They talk about random mutations and natural selection because that's how the process is meant to work. I'm sure they also cover genetic drift and other variants too. Because that's the way it's believed to work.

What? Arch, sure mankind with years of learning and billions of dollars spent can rebuild parts of an ear and do very incredible things. This is an example of what intelligence can do. However, even with all our intelligence we can not do is make an ear or an eye that integrates into an animal anywhere near as well as what God did.

View Post


Again, shortsighted. God had eternity. Nature had billions of years. Humans have had hundreds. We can already make improvements.

Time is not enough.
We have numbers from various sources and we can quantify what mutation and natural selection can and can not do.

View Post


I'm not following either of these points very well. No of course time is not enough. You need mutations, selection, drift and probably plenty of other things I don't know of yet.

As for the malaria, why hasn't it evolved? As you pointed out, it's infected a great number of people. It's very effective at what it does. What selective pressure is on it to change?

The process of making computer code is an example of intelligence not evolution.

View Post


It wasn't meant to be. It was meant to show how incremental steps make a more solid, easily changeable system. It was meant to show that many subsections can have a purpose of their own, but can combine to make something even more special. It is an imperfect example of natural selection, not evolution.

I'm currently reading though the two articles you posted, so I'll get back to you on those :P

Regards,

Arch.

#56 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 15 September 2009 - 11:21 AM

Roll a 12 sided die. 1-4 are genetic enhancements, 5-12 are disadvantageous. There's your mutation. Completely random.

Now introduce natural selection. From this die rolling, you are only allowed to pick numbers 1-4, and 6. All of a sudden this "completely random" formula has become reasonably predictable.


As a whole, evolution (although it does contain some randomness) is predominantly determinable.

View Post


First you are working with a 12 sided die. You need a bigger die. 1- 10^20 is are genetic enhancements and 10^20 - 10^1000 is disadvantages. It is no longer predictable.

Second, almost all mutations are negative: 300,000/1 to 1,000,000/1 are the estimates. The genetic drift due to mutations is negative not positive. Even the positive mutations are loosely defined.

Third: Mutations are not selected one at time. The whole unit (cell, gene...) is selection by natural selection. There is no filter that selects only the good and rejects only the bad mutations, it is a batch process.

Fourth: Most beneficial mutations are not synergistic. The few beneficial mutations are normally deleterious to each other. Like adding hot water to ice cream.

Fifth: A new biological system needs a minimum of 5 new genes interactions. One mutation does not change much. You need large numbers of beneficial mutations to create a new biological system. Because we have huge number with malaria, we can quantify what mutations can and can not do. Empirically beneficial mutations is about 10^20 ( HbC or sickle cell) which is substantially higher than in laboratory tests. To get 2 beneficial mutations is ~10^ 40 (C-Harlem for example). To get 3 beneficial mutations is at the outer edge of evolution capability.


And the completely reverse may happen. So in a system that is 50/50 in luck, a selective advantage will ultimately win over, even if it only makes it a 51/49 difference.

View Post


Beneficial mutations are not frequent. A lucky mutation may never get a second chance.

Second: Mutations are almost always negative. How does a low population S@xual creature (most mammals) get that new mutation fixed into a population. It takes many generations.

The problem with saying TTSS is irreducibly complex is that you've now put us on the path of infinite regress. If I can find a pathway for TTSS then you'll ask me to break down those individual parts. And you'll keep asking until I get stuck on a part that science hasn't delved deep enough into yet. At which point you'll claim IC has merit, when the truth is it all comes back to "I don't know how this formed, therefore God must have done it".

View Post


Is that how you justify evolution? I am right because the other answer is "God did it" and I don't like that answer.

We can measure information. The only source for an increase in information is intelligence. Our case is not un-scientific.

Again, all that exert says is that currently scientists don't have all the answers. He puts all the scientific efforts down to "speculation", which is quite possibly true. But what the writer fails to understand is that this 'speculating' is an hypothesis. They're still in the process of proving it. Maybe it'll be proven right, maybe not. But the writer is trying to imply the latter before the evidence has been presented.
There's no doubt it's easier. And with the coin example it's a great deal easier. That's why humans have been able to simulate several billions of years of nature in only a few hundred.

View Post



After 150 years of Darwinism we come to this. At some point evolution has to prove something more concrete than speculation.


But this is another reason why the coin example is flawed. It assumes there is only one 'right way' of combining, which is simply not true. If there's multiple ways the coins can be arranged (say in a line) then the chances of either stacking or aligning is much higher. If both are advantageous than maybe 2 coins will be stacked and the others lined up. You really can't place these kinds of restrictions on life. It always finds a way :huh:

View Post


Arch,

You are smarter than this- Seriously. You are grasping at straws and missing the entire point of IC.

We are talking about making highly integrated machines. Stacking 5 coins in a column is nothing when compared to the complexity in one molecular machine.


As for the malaria, why hasn't it evolved? As you pointed out, it's infected a great number of people. It's very effective at what it does. What selective pressure is on it to change?

View Post


The malaria - human war is the classic arms race that is supposedly an idea environment for evolution. So I ask you - why don't we see large morphological changes to malaria when we have the numbers. Why is it still contained in the 10/40 window?

It wasn't meant to be. It was meant to show how incremental steps make a more solid, easily changeable system. It was meant to show that many subsections can have a purpose of their own, but can combine to make something even more special. It is an imperfect example of natural selection, not evolution.

View Post


Ken Miller found one part TTSS that could go into flagellum. He as not found any other parts. Moreover, we should find a large number of interchangeable parts in nature for this theory to be viable-we have not. Evolution does not teach that life has interchangeable parts that create biological systems several components at a time. There is no example of this ever occurring. Yes, even flagellum.

#57 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 16 September 2009 - 01:27 AM

My point was that stacking 5 coins in a neat column is easy to do for someone with intelligence and foresight.  Whereas, it is nearly impossible for a random process to do the same thing.

Since we are talking about IC, all 5 coins have to stacked in a nice column for it to have any value for this simple biological system.  There is no reason for the coins will stay stacked.  For them to stay partially stacked requires foresight and evolution is blind.

View Post


It's not a very good analogy then is it? DNA nucleotides will always form chains with each other due to their chemical properties. It's nothing to do with intelligence, it's just chemistry.

#58 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 September 2009 - 02:26 AM

Do you realize the TTSS is itself irreducibly complex?

Do you realize that we have found no other component parts, other that TTSS, which are necessary to make flagellum?

Do you realize the building something with component parts is still an example of IC?  The mouse trap is an example of IC and it is made from component parts.

If evolution was the mechanism, it is more likely that TTSS was created by a backwards step, or devolution.  That TTSS was not available when flagellum was created.  In other words:

Flagelium ----> TTSS

not

TTSS + parts -----> flagellium

Here's is brief exerpt for the companion CD from the book called "Design of life" page 42

View Post


The process between the two points is not relevant even if what you're saying is just your own speculation. Behe suggested that all the parts of a flagellum are useless unless they're all there which is something Miller showed was not true.

There's no such thing as de-evolution. The evolutionary process doesn't progress along a path based on criteria your or I select.

The problem with magnets is that you limit the choices available: It is predestination. What is special about life that DNA is the opposite of magnets. The chemicals that make up the genetic alphabet show no preference for any specific letter. This makes DNA an ideal information carrier.


The letters given to nucleotides were assigned by humans. The interactions between nucleotide is simply through hydrogen and peptide bonds. It's just chemistry much like the magnets interaction occur through electromagnetism.

#59 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 16 September 2009 - 02:56 AM

For those confused about what Michael Behe meant by IC can easily get clarification here http://www.discovery.org/a/1831.

Finding function(s) for subparts is not sufficient to falsify IC for the system in question.

Michael Behe has put the idea forward and his definition should be used not anyone else's.

Can we please get back to testing the correct definition against a mouse trap.

#60 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 16 September 2009 - 05:09 AM

For those confused about what Michael Behe meant by IC can easily get clarification here http://www.discovery.org/a/1831.

Finding function(s) for subparts is not sufficient to falsify IC for the system in question.

Michael Behe has put the idea forward and his definition should be used not anyone else's.

Can we please get back to testing the correct definition against a mouse trap.

View Post


Going with Behe's definition any complex system is irreducibly complex.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users