Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
At the same time in areas where malaria is more prominent those the sickle cell anemia mutation increase therefore increasing the risk of couples both having the mutation and mating which then increases the those in the population having the disease. If this continues to increase then we have a situation with a benefit on one hand but an increasing disease on the other. Overall the change is not really an improvement on the existing genetics but a dysfunction. The red blood cells should have smooth disc shapes but the red blood cells of those carrying the sickle-cell anemia are abnormally shaped. The more malaria resistance the more those abnormal blood cells get into the population. So it comes at a cost.
My point was one way or another whether through natural selection not being able to rid a disease because it also has a benefit, the harmful mutation is too small or there is not enough time to eradicate the mutations there are many diseases entering the populations of humans and other animals that natural selection is not able to purge and this is slowly causing an accumulation of harmful mutations which is having a negative effect.
All specified complexity is about is specifying something to the level that goes beyond chance. Surely even if we use human design as an example we can come up with a method that is measurable. Otherwise how do we measure design in human invention.Your whole post appears to rely on the assumption that there is such a thing as specified complexity. Dembski and the few others who claim it is measurable have failed to demonstrate that it is a viable concept. All attempts so far have been shown to be inadequate.
But the point is the benefit is not for everyone and ultimately if natural selection is preserving this benefit it will spread. The more it spreads the more chance it will become detrimental to more people. It just seems like a funny way for evolution to work. If this is how it works then eventually all the population will get sick and die out. Plus you still haven't addressed the fact that humans and other species are accumulating diseases that natural selection is not purging out which is declining fitness.Still, even if both parents have a single copy of the gene, there's only a 25% chance that their child will have two copies and will have SCA. But there's a 50% chance they have protection against Malaria. The benefit outweighs the risk.
We don't. That's the point you're missing.Otherwise how do we measure design in human invention.
But the point is the benefit is not for everyone and ultimately if natural selection is preserving this benefit it will spread. The more it spreads the more chance it will become detrimental to more people. It just seems like a funny way for evolution to work. If this is how it works then eventually all the population will get sick and die out. Plus you still haven't addressed the fact that humans and other species are accumulating diseases that natural selection is not purging out which is declining fitness.
yes but we can extract a lot of information out of human made artifacts that can help us in measuring design as opposed to chance events. Even with the simple stone tool a closer examination is needed to find those design signs to determine it from a naturally occurring stone. It is determining that the work is made by an intelligent mind that can use a tool to make those specific marks and shapes rather than happening by random chance which build the case for specified info complex or not. By determining that a natural event could not do this makes a case for specified complexity and ID.The reason I used this example is because it's a case where design is not immediately obvious. It's possible to find natural stones that have the appearance of stone tools, but on closer examination are not.
In contrast, obvious examples of design (e.g. a stone bust) only require pre-existing knowledge that humans make sculptures coupled with our intrinsic pattern recognition. The latter is especially adept at recognizing faces.
No fancy calculations or close scrutiny needed.
But to determine that a random chance event could cause this to happen we need to d the calculations. This will show the odds of it not being able to happen and therefore build support for specified info. The more complex the more a case can be made. It is a bit like the fine-tuning argument in that there are a number of physical parameters set within a tiny value in among many possible values.Pattern recognition. We don't need to do any complex calculations to recognize a human face or other objects where we have preexisting knowledge of their creation.
Yeah and this paper seems a better one for understanding the application of specified complexity when measuring meaning in images as opposed to those that contain random info. It gives a more practical way to understand specified complexity compared to random chance.Did you read it?
I would have thought there were some fundamental principles of design that can apply across the board. Going back to the stone tool and the bust. We can investigate the way certain shapes and meaning is incorporated in these items. The shapes and lines have been chosen to represent a meaning and this is built upon. A bit like reverse engineering, I guess. Scientists use reverse engineering to understand how an insect may fly for example to improve human flying or invent new forms of aerodynamics.It's depends on what we're specifically talking about.
In the case of biology like GM organisms, current methods require existing knowledge of the genetic sequences and/or biological products in question. And methods to detect GM organisms are being developed based on the knowledge of how GM organisms are created and specific biological characteristics common to GM organisms based on their creation.
In the case of completely unknown designers and design we have neither of these to rely on. So how can we possibly detect design in those circumstances?
Well isn’t random mutations a chance thing. If using sequences don’t people say that this can be likened to language. So, a functional sequence has language that makes sense. A random mutation can alter this change it into incoherent language. In that sense it shows that existing sequences that build proteins are made up of rare and specific language and any random mutation will have a negative effect.Meanwhile we also have a known process (evolution) by which populations of biological organisms modify themselves over time. We even utilize this process in the design of biological organisms and by-products (directed evolution).
How would one distinguish a genetic sequence deliberately programmed as such versus a sequence arising from directed evolution versus a sequence arising from unguided evolution?
The paper above do not specifically talk about biological info. But it and the other paper give a method of being able to show how random chance events cannot produce the level of info we see in what is usually regarded as designed or in things like a living cell. Therefore, this points to the content being specified complexity. The odds of that info being produced by chance is beyond chance and this infers something more specified. This model can be applied to anything including biology.If you believe you have posted papers that should how to detect design in relation to biology, then please quote the relevant papers and sections thereof that support this. The paper you cited presents a hypothetical model. But where is the empirical testing and verification of its validity?
Maybe so but the findings can be applied to a large range on proteins and considering that these are needed as the building blocks of life it seems to be comprehensive. Once again it is a bit like the fine-tuning argument but applied to the rarity of functional proteins. Like the parameters of each physical constant having to be within a very small range and if change even slightly they will break down.You're talking about the infamous Douglas Axe paper (2004) which was cited by the OP. The paper does not support the conclusion it is being used to support (e.g. the rarity of viable protein folds among all of biology).
I believe we already discussed this earlier in this thread.
There are a number of papers out that use similar methods. It is not about verifying specified complexity itself. It is about showing that random chance cannot account for certain things. That the odds for chance producing them go beyond chance. This then infers specified complexity. That is what those papers I posted were about. People get things wrong when they think that we need to verify specified complexity. It is more about showing how random chance cannot account for what we see.The problem is that "specified complexity" is entirely too nebulous a term. Per Dembski's original writings, he was formulating a mathematical probability test. As stated, I'm not aware of his method ever being empirically verified with respect to biology.
That does not seem right. I can think of one architecture off the top of my head. If we did not measure design in human inventions and industry everything would fall apart. Everything has to be measured in design to ensure it is safe and works properly. We continue to invent new designs in cars, and just about everything. Design engineering is another industry. Reverse engineering looks at nature such as how wings work on birds and insects and tries to lean how to apply this to human applications. IT has many design applications and that's why we call things patterns, programs and codes because they follow design.We don't. That's the point you're missing.
We do. The point was that "specified complexity" isn't one of them.It is everywhere so therefore we must have methods for detecting that design.
Be careful here; you appear to be confusing "design" as intention with "design" as functional complexity.I would say engineering would be one of the biggest areas of design. When they plan for buildings of motor cars they will be looking at aerodynamics, load bearings, ergonomics, practical applications, etc. These are all hallmarks of design.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial MutationMultiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation
It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
The growing evidence for a high degree of optimization in biological systems, and the growing evidence for multiple levels of poly-functionality within DNA, both suggest that mutations that are unambiguously beneficial must be especially rare.
The theoretical scarcity of beneficial mutations is compounded by the fact that most of the beneficial mutations that do arise should confer extremely small increments of improvement in terms of total biological function. This makes such mutations invisible to natural selection.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gmontane/pdfs/montanez-binps-2013.pdf
There are plenty more if you need them.
Do you understand the difference between recognising and measuring? We do not measure design. Do you consider a building to be more designed than an arrow? What would you measure to determine that, and what units would you use to express it?That does not seem right. I can think of one architecture off the top of my head. If we did not measure design in human inventions and industry everything would fall apart. Everything has to be measured in design to ensure it is safe and works properly. We continue to invent new designs in cars, and just about everything. Design engineering is another industry. Reverse engineering looks at nature such as how wings work on birds and insects and tries to lean how to apply this to human applications. IT has many design applications and that's why we call things patterns, programs and codes because they follow design.
Then there is robotics, biotechnology, graphic design and fashion designer and I could name many areas in the arts that incorporate design. It is everywhere so therefore we must have methods for detecting that design. I would say engineering would be one of the biggest areas of design. When they plan for buildings of motor cars they will be looking at aerodynamics, load bearings, ergonomics, practical applications, etc. These are all hallmarks of design.
Then if not specified how do we measure human design. From what I understand any design from a human perspective which happens to be intelligent needs to be specified. Otherwise it can be mistaken as being random chance. Human design will only occur within a narrow criteria thus is specified.We do. The point was that "specified complexity" isn't one of them.Be careful here; you appear to be confusing "design" as intention with "design" as functional complexity.
Isn't a building measured in its design as in the building plans. We would measure an arrow by its specific shape that makes an arrow as opposed to any shape. Though it is a simple shape it is specified in being an arrow that conforms to an arrow shape. The arrow shape is a symbol used by humans (intelligent beings) and has a certain meaning attached to it. It usually means direction towards something that can give us more info. A lookalike arrow shape made by chance can be distinguished by a number of signs. What it is point to, (context) and the shape can be analysed to see if it is made by intelligence. This can all be found in a building except in more detail and complexity.Do you understand the difference between recognising and measuring? We do not measure design. Do you consider a building to be more designed than an arrow? What would you measure to determine that, and what units would you use to express it?
Isn't a building measured in its design as in the building plans. We would measure an arrow by its specific shape that makes an arrow as opposed to any shape. Though it is a simple shape it is specified in being an arrow that conforms to an arrow shape.
You forgot to include that the University where the research was done is based in Waco the home of a David Koresh and the Branch Davidians lol.Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation
George Montañez1 , Robert J. Marks II2 , Jorge Fernandez3 and John C. Sanford4§
A computer scientist, an engineer, a clown with a Christian diploma mill 'doctorate', and the guy who thinks that evolutionary genetics postulates that new genes must form one beneficial mutation after another, in order....
Most interesting - Fernandez lists his affiliation as "FMS Foundation, 7160 Stone Hill Rd. Livonia, NY 14487".
FMS Foundation is "Feed My Sheep Foundation" - which is listed as a 'biological research' tax free foundation (seems fishy), c/o John Sanford. No tax filings since 2017. One of its listed sources of income was 'workman's comp claims.' Sounds like a scam for creationists to make some money and sound official.
Anyway, 10 citations in 6 years - 6 of which were other articles by Sanford or Marks. 1 by Moonie creationist Jon wells, and 1 by some dude with the 'Creation Research Society'. Oh, and 5 of those were articles in a creationist book on 'information.'
Bottom line, I won't waste my time reading it.
Yes, I agreeEvolution doesn't care about the individual. If the gene for it conveys a reproductive advantage (which it does because there's a greater chance you'll get a benefit rather than a disadvantage), then it will spread throughout the population.
How is it wrong
Believe it or not both can happen. I never said natural selection was not capable of allowing living things to survive and reproduce. I was saying that it is not as all powerful as some say. It is also unable to weed out diseases because of various reasons explained which can also spread throughout the population.Then why did you try to show that natural selection couldn't account for it if you agree with my explanation for why it can?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?