1. Why can't I compare a designed system with an undesigned one? Doesn't that depend on what processes I am trying to study? For instance, if I want to see how much damage a hailstone will do on my newly designed roofing material, is it valid for me to make my own hailstones, calculate the velocity at which hail would strike the ground and then shoot them at my new material or must I wait for a hailstorm because the designed test is automatically invalidated by the fact that it was designed?
2. Why, exactly, is that genetic algorithm invalid in studying the mechanisms put forth in the theory of evolution, namely mutation and selection? If you say it is simply because the algorithm is designed then you must invalidate every car crash test ever performed.
3. My statement regarding limited parameters meant that the parameters are limited in this case by the designer of the program.
4. Then you believe your designer cannot manipulate the environment to get a desired outcome? Even if the environmental pressures are not designed, they still cause selection.
5. This doesn't seem to address my comment about the appearance of randomness in mutation events.
6. So, cells are complex with self correcting mechanisms. What is it about this complexity that makes you believe it could not have evolved? We already know that the self correcting mechanisms don't work perfectly and mutations happen. I will look for Darwins Black Box...guess I'll have to buy it...not in local library.
7. This whole discussion started with your claim that biochemistry refutes evolution. You then gave an example of an interdependent system of mechanisms that provided energy to the cell and claimed that their interdependence meant that the system could not have evolved.
8. I pointed out that some bacteria only use glycolysis so the aerobic cellular respiration system is not irreducibly complex and could have evolved from anaerobic cellular respiration.
9. Just because anaerobic cellular respiration requires a mechanism to remove waste products doesn't mean it could not evolve to utilize the waste and get more energy in an environment with oxygen
10. So far you have not provided an example of an irreducibly complex system. So your main proclaimation that biochemistry refutes evolution has not been shown to be correct. Your statement...you provide the evidence.
11. The other functions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
12. So, glycolysis is the actual function that you are stating is irreducibly complex. I didn't get that from the original presentation since it focused on the aerobic cellular respiration and the interdependence of the 3 processes. I can hardly be faulted for thinking that aerobic cellular respiration was the function that you were presenting as irreducibly complex. What is it about glycolysis that makes it irreducibly complex? If you presented the evidence before, could you point out which message it was in?
13. There is energy all around. Heat energy from the Sun and from inside the Earth. Many chemical reactions utilize that energy. The chemicals can get mixed together by something as simple as wave action in bodies of water.
14. The proteins don't create energy, they just move it.
1. I have already told you why... You need to read and comprehend my posts.
For your analogy you would need to make hailstones that have the same characteristics as natural ones, therefore they can be an accurate representation, in this case the fact one is designed and the other is not doesn't matter since it is not the issue. With evolution, where the issue IS if an unguided process can form such complex structures then your analogy doesn't fit, again you are trying to compare apples to oranges.
2. Because you have no way of knowing for sure if the said genetic algorithm is the same to the process claimed to have occured. There is no way of justifying it since you cannot be sure if this is correct or not. As I have said in the previous posts it is about justification of the claim, this is a basic tenet in science, which you would soon learn once you do research. For example, the entire reason experiments are done in the scientific method is to test and justify a claim, hence justification of the experiment and the parameters used are equally important since an unjustified experiment has absolutely no value.
3. Which therefore leads to point two, since you are assuming that the programer inherently knows what the correct parameters are... Therefore you have inadvertently admitted that using genetic algorithims is unjustified since the programmers program what occurs, rather than leaving it fully up to natural processes.
An analogy, if I made a caucasian robot and made it jump three times before walking through a doorway can I use that as evidence that all caucasians (or caucaisan robots) also display this behaviour?.... No because my robot was programed to do that, there is no telling whether this is what occurs or not, since what I have programmed it to do is merely what I have programmed it to do.
4. Ah, the magic word "selection", care to explain a bit more about this, and your using of it here..
A designer could perhaps do such, however for the moment I am discussing evolution as per the evolutionists definition, which involves no designer at all. If you wish to discuss designed evolution I suggest you create a new thread, since that is not what we are discussing in this thread.
5. Did you go and research "jumping genes", or did you just respond without doing the research?.... Transposons are mobile elements that can move DNA around the genome / plasmid of a bacteria, this allows for adaption via the creation of different sequences... Now consider that the method for this is caused via multiple protein reactions and can be yet another example of irreducible complexity. Also consider that this method cannot have evolved itself from itself, hence its not a mechanism of evolution due to this, it is a designed form of adaption.
6. Yes mutations happen but remember when I said that IF the self correcting mechanism doesn't work properly (which is how these mutations get through), then there is the risk of disease, which is far greater than the chance of getting advantageous mutations... Therefore an analogy would be, you take one step forward but go three steps back, since when the cell gets diseased, (which it will since as you admitted its not functioning properly) then that is a loss in fitness which means . It will not be selected for.
You need to understand that just getting the changes is the easy part, the hard part is for such things to be selected for.
Addtionally just the mere fact that the system isn't working properly (which you admitted to), also can lead to a decrease in fitness without even worrying about changes to functions. If certain waste materials or other materials cannot be disposed of or recycled then that will lead to a decrease in fitness, (therefore no selection gradient to justify the fixation of the loss in the recycling system's integrity).
8. Talk about skipping my posts!! I have said time and again that the anaerobic system is yet another irreducibly complex system with multiple systems working in tandem just like the aerobic system. I can easiy just ask you where did the anaerobicc system "evolve" from since it is also irreducibly complex since it also requires multiple systems, (one being waste disposal).
"Anaerobic bacteria require a different interconnected system of systems... Hence it has the same problem described of aerobic respiration, therefore all you have done here is merely given me a different example to use."
- Me, post# 38
9. Really? And what evidence do you have for this assertion? OR is this one of the many popular evo-just-so-stories. For someone who claims they don't know biochemistry you surely claim things with alot of (percieved) authority. I have demonstrated that lactic acid IS detrimental, if you wish to find a process by which lactic acid can be used for energy, (and that the waste products of this are safe) then feel free to do so, just know that none of my lecturers have described such a thing.... hence you're probably using your imagination a tad too much.
10. Why, because you (with your percieved authority) says so. I have demonstrated such and the only actual refutation you gave was point 9 in that you are pleading that maybe there is some other way..... Pleading for something that has not been demonstrated is not a logical or valid argument, its merely demonstrating your inability to accept. Additionally you keep mentioning anaerobic respiration ignoring the fact that I have already shown you that this is also an irreducibly complex system in its own right... So you are using an irreducibly complex system to justify an irreducibly complex system... I do hope you realise the leap of faith you are making here.
11. I don't think so since we are talking about irreducible complexity... aren't we?
Perhaps consider how all the minimum requirement of systems for a cell arose, energy systems, waste disposal, nutrient collection, self-defense, regulatory mechanisms, transport within the cell, transport in and outside of the cell, DNA repair, DNA replication, cellular replication.. etc etc
Now consider how they occured
- at the same time
- in the same locality
- within a membrane (and how did the membrane form?)
ALL from random processes....
12. I have stated this before, in post #28 it is a secondary point. .
"This isn't even going into the fact that these systems themselves require multiple parts to function as well, hence its interconnected systems where each of those systems are based on a myriad of other interconnected systems, (check out the enzymes required for the citric acid cycle, its a pretty big list)."
"Now lets look at this deeper, each of these systems require a multitude of enzymes and regulatory proteins which are also interconnected, so the same problem occurs here to, (hence it escalates). Perhaps consider this as a factory line, where each enzyme is a different machine doing a different task. If you don't get the proper product you die, hence if you are missing any part of the process then there are dire consequences. The reason why the cell would die is because a protein's function is based on its structural formation, even the slightest change in the amino acid chains used (the primary structure) can potentially cause huge changes to the secondary and tertiary structure of the protein, (this would depend if the change was with a structurally important amino acid).
Now expand this out and consider all the different functions a cell would need to do in order to live. DNA reading, DNA correction as Uppsala has mentioned, DNA replication, cellular respiration, organelle replication, organelle repair, cellular replication, vesicle transport for a myriad of molecules, cell structure (cytoskeleton), cell membrane repair, protein formation, protein recycling, metabolite production, metabolite breakdown, regulatory processes, signal cascade systems, transporter proteins in the membrane (active and passive), lipid / carbohydrate breakdown, amino acid recycling, etc etc etc. All these things are required for a cell to survive its first day of life."
- Me post# 38
13. Care to give evidence that such things can create life? You do realise that this is a faith statement?
14. Really? So what does aerobic / anaerobic respiration do?