Irreducible Complexity At The China Shop

[bhsmte]

If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it. Adaptation has limits. That leaves the hopeful monster, or wishful thinking. Pokemon evolution is a more believable fiction than Darwinism.

Science has proven???????

 

[Oncedeceived]

If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it. Adaptation has limits. That leaves the hopeful monster, or wishful thinking. Pokemon evolution is a more believable fiction than Darwinism.

I agree that for those who claim that they live by the evidence, the evidence is sorely lacking for the claims made.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science has proven???????

Apparently, [science has proven] = [pat34lee has made up]

 

[The Cadet]

1. This is evidence of evolution not evidence for the design we see in organisms.

...The design you see in organisms. You see it. I don't. I welcome you to provide an objective model with which to prove it is actually there. And okay, thank you, that is in fact evidence for common ancestry. Well done. So how about when we see this exact same hierarchy in individual "designed" genes?

2.There is discordance between the tree of life/nested hierarchy that is not showing the "exact" same Cladogram.

Cite?

 

[bhsmte]

...The design you see in organisms. You see it. I don't. I welcome you to provide an objective model with which to prove it is actually there. And okay, thank you, that is in fact evidence for common ancestry. Well done. So how about when we see this exact same hierarchy in individual "designed" genes?



Cite?

If you haven't gotten any definition of design and or any objective test to determine it is present by now, you won't be getting one.

Meanwhile, the fact that these important pieces are missing to support design, don't seem to be of any importance to this poster, because they can always use that same security blanket; ask the other guy to prove a negative.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...The design you see in organisms. You see it. I don't. I welcome you to provide an objective model with which to prove it is actually there. And okay, thank you, that is in fact evidence for common ancestry. Well done. So how about when we see this exact same hierarchy in individual "designed" genes?

Like I said, all biologists see it and admit to it.

Cite?

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020173

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23730773

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how do you explain the fact that chimps and humans are different? What explains that?

Ontological reduction.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Like I said, all biologists see it and admit to it.


http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020173

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23730773

The first link does not work and the second says nothing to back up what you want to believe.
I am beginning to think you are flogging a dead horse, let's hope you realise it sooner rather than later.

 

[pat34lee]

Why not? Citation please? Also, citation on your claim that adaptation has limits?

First, the limit on mutations is tied to the fact that 'junk' DNA is disappearing fast. What is left is even more complex than previously thought. DNA not only reads forward and backward; it has multiple overlapping sections, and has codes that require input from other sections of the DNA.

One reason they call much of DNA 'junk', is that large sections have the same code over and over. Not surprising, though. Look at computer code. You will find the same thing. If not exactly the same, think loops, where it runs the same code over and over. Unlike computer codes, DNA codes are self-correcting, and can even self-terminate cells if they cannot be repaired.

Limits on adaptation. Start with dogs. Fruit fly experiments. The lowly sugar beet. For all the breeding, cross-breeding, inbreeding, and in the case of fruit flies, throwing every possible mutation at them, none came up with anything new. Dogs reach a point where they become weak, then sterile or dead. Fruit flies got all sorts of mutations, but either became sterile, died, or reverted to normal within a few generations. Beets could be grown larger and sweeter, but only to a certain limit. All these are online, and should be easy enough to find.

 

[pat34lee]

Apparently, [science has proven] = [pat34lee has made up]

Wrong side of the argument for making stuff up.

 

[The Cadet]

Like I said, all biologists see it and admit to it.

And like I said, this does not make it objective. I keep asking you for an objective measure of design - some objective function we can use to get "was/was not designed" from the object itself, and you keep on not delivering. The appearance of design is not evidence for design, no matter how many times you make that bogus claim. And the biologists you're appealing to? They know that. They agree with me, and disagree with you! Because there is no objective model to determine whether an object is designed given only the object.

You do realize why we keep linking you to boxcar2d.com, right? If you leave that running for a few hours, you'll end up with cars that look designed! They'll look optimized, streamlined, and functional. They'll appear to have complexity, have a purpose, and do their job well. And yet their production was through a semi-random evolutionary algorithm. There's no design in that system. Those cars evolved. And we can see this in all kinds of genetic algorithms. It's not a novel thing; we do this all the time. In fact, it's a fairly common thing in industry to use such evolutionary algorithms to design a better product... Even though, in reality, it's not really "design" in the way you think it is. It's an optimization protocol, but it's not designed from the top down. You've claimed in the past that Dawkins has no evidence for the "appearance of design" being due to evolution... I'd say this is pretty good evidence that evolution can produce that appearance of design. Well, this, and the human eye, and bacterial chemotaxis, and all the other complex systems people have pointed to as evidence of design that the evidence shows clearly evolved.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020173

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23730773

Interesting. So basically, genetics is causing some minor discrepancies in the tree of life, where morphology was not perfectly distinct. This is sort of to be expected - morphology is necessarily more imprecise than DNA, as you must first quantize the physical characteristics somehow, while you can just plug a genome straight into an algorithm to compare them. I'll admit I don't understand the second paper or what it's trying to say, and I don't have access to the fulltext. Would you care to summarize it?

First, the limit on mutations is tied to the fact that 'junk' DNA is disappearing fast. What is left is even more complex than previously thought. DNA not only reads forward and backward; it has multiple overlapping sections, and has codes that require input from other sections of the DNA.

First of all, please demonstrate that junk DNA is declining. Secondly, what does that have to do with mutations in coding regions? "Junk" DNA is a catch-all term that applies to non-coding gene regions. It's not garbage, it's not all useless, it simply doesn't code for proteins.

Limits on adaptation. Start with dogs. Fruit fly experiments. The lowly sugar beet. For all the breeding, cross-breeding, inbreeding, and in the case of fruit flies, throwing every possible mutation at them, none came up with anything new.

If we remove human influence, would chihuahuas and great danes interbreed? I don't think so. In fact, were we to isolate the two groups, it's entirely reasonable to claim that they would at some point become different species. But of course, it's perhaps worth noting that very few of these experiments were trying to produce different species. And the claim that none of them came up with anything new is nonsense. Lenski's long-term E. Coli experiment produced a novel mutation in a group of E. Coli that produced a transporter protein for citrate that works in an aerobic environment. That's something new, no matter how you want to slice it.

The fruit fly experiments which were trying to produce different species achieved a degree of reproductive selection - the first steps in speciation. How long would we expect it to take for a full-blown speciation event? I have no idea, but somehow I get the feeling we'd need a fairly decent amount of time.

 

[whois]

You do realize why we keep linking you to boxcar2d.com, right? If you leave that running for a few hours, you'll end up with cars that look designed! They'll look optimized, streamlined, and functional. They'll appear to have complexity, have a purpose, and do their job well. And yet their production was through a semi-random evolutionary algorithm.

an interesting concept.
here is the algorithm:
boxcar2d.com/about.html
take note of the following:
To prevent the algorithm from converging too fast theres a chance it won't use the roulette wheel and just randomly select a mate. For version 1 this was as high as 40%, otherwise the small population didn't lost diversity quickly and it would fall into local optimum.

isn't this a little like saying a gorilla mates with a banana?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ontological reduction.

What causes ontological reduction?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong side of the argument for making stuff up.

Name one thing I have made up.

 

[Loudmouth]

First, the limit on mutations is tied to the fact that 'junk' DNA is disappearing fast.

How is junk DNA disappearing, and what is this limit on mutations?

What is left is even more complex than previously thought. DNA not only reads forward and backward; it has multiple overlapping sections, and has codes that require input from other sections of the DNA.

Why is this a problem?

One reason they call much of DNA 'junk', is that large sections have the same code over and over. Not surprising, though. Look at computer code. You will find the same thing. If not exactly the same, think loops, where it runs the same code over and over. Unlike computer codes, DNA codes are self-correcting, and can even self-terminate cells if they cannot be repaired.

It is called junk DNA because the sequence of junk DNA has no impact on the fitness of the organism. About 90% of our genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift which means that it has no selectable impact on fitness.

Limits on adaptation. Start with dogs. Fruit fly experiments. The lowly sugar beet. For all the breeding, cross-breeding, inbreeding, and in the case of fruit flies, throwing every possible mutation at them, none came up with anything new.

We haven't thrown every possible mutation at them. Not even close. To do so would require an infinite amount of time because we would be adding mutations to mutations. The only limit is time.

Dogs reach a point where they become weak, then sterile or dead.

That is only with current genetic variation. If you add more genetic variation then you can get new phenotypes that are healthy. That takes time, and large populations of interbreeding dogs. As it stands, dogs are broken down into much smaller populations that do not breed often with other populations. This limits the number of new mutations that can interact.

Fruit flies got all sorts of mutations, but either became sterile, died, or reverted to normal within a few generations.

You do realize that there are thousands of fruit fly species, right? How do you think you can produce so many fruit fly species?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila#Systematics

 

[AV1611VET]

What causes ontological reduction?

Creator's choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

isn't this a little like saying a gorilla mates with a banana?

No, since gorillas and bananas can't mate. It would be more like randomly selecting two gorillas.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The first link does not work and the second says nothing to back up what you want to believe.
I am beginning to think you are flogging a dead horse, let's hope you realise it sooner rather than later.

You would like to believe that, I am sure you would.

 

[pat34lee]

It is called junk DNA because the sequence of junk DNA has no impact on the fitness of the organism. About 90% of our genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift which means that it has no selectable impact on fitness.

Nope. The areas thought to be junk are shrinking fast. In a few years, they will be forced to admit that junk DNA is no more scientific than vestigial organs. That leaves no place for mutations to accumulate.

We haven't thrown every possible mutation at them. Not even close. To do so would require an infinite amount of time because we would be adding mutations to mutations. The only limit is time.

They have mutated enough generations to know that they have reached the limits on what mutations can change in the DNA.

You do realize that there are thousands of fruit fly species, right? How do you think you can produce so many fruit fly species?

The same way we got hundreds of breeds of dogs.

 

[Jan Volkes]

You would like to believe that, I am sure you would.

No I wouldn't, I would not want to see anyone dedicate their lives to something that is not true,
do you think Muslims are all barking up the wrong tree? are they all wasting their time?
or are all religions only about feelings?