the self replicating watch argument

[Kylie]

fine. so how this kind of light detection evolved? we still need at least 2 -3 parts: a part that can detect light and a part that can translate it for the creature.

I have no idea.

And if you think that this statement means it can't possibly have happened, then I'm not using a computer either, because I have no idea how a computer could work.

 

[Kylie]

But you can't manufacture most living creature body parts

Why not? According to your position, a body part is just as designed as a headlight.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Scientists always get slaughtered cause they bring only facts to back their claims

Poor scientists. All they have is facts.

Tell me, if your creationism is true, why do we find rocks that are millions of years old?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientists always get slaughtered cause they bring only facts to back their claims

Meant creation scientists only bring facts

Really?

 

[stevevw]

Which is called the "nervous system," already present in the creature.

But I still don't understand why you see requiring two or more mutations to a problem. The parallel evolution of related biological systems is a well-understood phenomenon and does not pose a problem for evolution.

(As has been explained to you on numerous occasions.)

But wouldn't the parallel evolution of two separate parts require that two lines of blind evolution to evolve so that those two parts will happen and fit together at the same time? That to me is a mighty big coincident. It would be like two people from opposite sides of the world buying the same jig saw puzzle without each other knowing it and then each completing only half the puzzle. They then bump into each other by accident and find that both had completed the exact opposite half that the other one had not so that when they were put together they perfectly matched up to make the complete puzzle with every piece in its place.

Things like nervous systems or nerves just for one organ can have thousands of parts that need connecting at the same time. That is not counting all the other parts such as the blood vessels, tissue, skin layers, fats, liposomes, hormones, estrogen, connections to the brain and neurons to make everything work etc. To say natural selection is capable of creating this is beyond its explanatory power. There are other mechanisms that make much more sense for helping living things change with their environments.

That's why I think it is much more feasible that creatures can draw upon pre-existing genetic info by switching on and off genes development and genomics or they can co-op with other creatures and organisms and the environment to gain new genetic info to produce the required changes. The hard work has already been done and there is no need for this long slow hit and miss blind process when what they need is already there for them to draw upon. This is what the evidence is pointing too and what modern discoveries are finding.

 

[xianghua]

I have no idea.

And if you think that this statement means it can't possibly have happened, then I'm not using a computer either, because I have no idea how a computer could work.

but we do know that we need at least 2 parts: a light detector and a translator system. so its base on things we know and not about things we dont know.

 

[Speedwell]

But wouldn't the parallel evolution of two separate parts require that two lines of blind evolution to evolve so that those two parts will happen and fit together at the same time? That to me is a mighty big coincident. It would be like two people from opposite sides of the world buying the same jig saw puzzle without each other knowing it and then each completing only half the puzzle. They then bump into each other by accident and find that both had completed the exact opposite half that the other one had not so that when they were put together they perfectly matched up to make the complete puzzle with every piece in its place.

You know how evoution works, right? Randomly distributed variation followed by natural selection. Each "part" varies from individual to individual and natural selection favors the variation which works best. But the "natural" in natural selection is not just the environment external to the creature. It also includes related biological systems within the creature, such that a particular variation of part A which works well with a particular variation of part B will be selected, while a variation of part A which does not work so well with part B will not. So, no, it's not like two people working a puzzle on opposite sides of the world. It's like two people working a puzzle together.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so we have a photoreceptor in every cell in our skin?

You're saying you can't tell the difference between light hitting your skin versus some other source of heat? Seems odd to me that you can't, but also, that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that a photoreceptor isn't the bare minimum necessary to detect light, even though you keep behaving as if it is.

 

[xianghua]

I was saying that a photoreceptor isn't the bare minimum necessary to detect light, even though you keep behaving as if it is.

so we dont need mutations at all from non light detector into a light detector?

 

[Kylie]

but we do know that we need at least 2 parts: a light detector and a translator system. so its base on things we know and not about things we dont know.

And so you conclude that it means those things are impossible?

 

[stevevw]

You know how evoution works, right? Randomly distributed variation followed by natural selection. Each "part" varies from individual to individual and natural selection favors the variation which works best. But the "natural" in natural selection is not just the environment external to the creature. It also includes related biological systems within the creature, such that a particular variation of part A which works well with a particular variation of part B will be selected, while a variation of part A which does not work so well with part B will not. So, no, it's not like two people working a puzzle on opposite sides of the world. It's like two people working a puzzle together.

If they were working on the puzzle together then that would mean they know each others moves and blind natural selection does not work this way according to neo-Darwinism. If a new feature needs more than one mutation to happen next to make a feature complete then the random mutations are not going to know that this is needed to mutate the right components step by step.

Natural Selection can only work with what it is given so if the vital component needed to make a feature work properly is not mutated out then the whole thing becomes threatened and is aborted. The chances of the two or more mutations producing the required separate components together is very unlikely because there is more chance of a non-viable or non-beneficial mutation happening. It is not a case of selection just rejecting the bad mutation becuase it has already been introduced and will threatening the viability of what is already working good.

Also selection can be undermined by drift. In fact the more complex the feature is the more chance selection becomes a hinderance to the evolving of more complexity. This then encourages negative mutations and threatens the delicate and fine tuned complex systems that are already working well. That is why when it comes to living things needing to change to fit into enviroments it is the non-adaptive processes rather than the adaptive evolution (natural selection) that can help bring change.

That is because life does not need to risk and rely on a blind or random process but is the process is more directed because living things know what is needed because they are in tune with their enviroments and other living things that are around them. Living things already have the genetic material to change and this is just activated by the need to change through the enviroment. It makes more sense and does not require the massive orchestrataion of unlikely events and extraordinary explanations.

 

[xianghua]

And so you conclude that it means those things are impossible?

impossible stepwise. yep.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually all the genes to digest citrate are already present in the genome of the bacteria

Then why did only 1 of the 12 populations end up with digesting citrate?
And why did it took thousands of generations before it started doing so?

. as you can see in the image below, all we need is to move the citT gene near to the rnk promoter, so now the bacteria can digest citrate when oxygen is present:

so no- there is no evidence for evolution of a complex system here. as we can expect under the design model.

DNA was changed by a mutation and after the change a new feature became possible.

Exactly how evolution is supposed to work.

Also, exactly what creationists claim can't happen.

 

[DogmaHunter]

sure. why not? we just need one mutation to move it to the new location (near the rnk promoter)and one more mutation to reactivate or improve it. no new complex structue or function. just existing part that turn on in a new place in the genome.

The "part" wasn't there in the genome before.
And then it was.

And merely "being there" was not enough. It required multiple extra modifications.

It's hard to see what you are objecting to.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

impossible stepwise. yep.

You know starfish don't have brains, right? Have you seen their eyes?

 

[Speedwell]

Natural Selection can only work with what it is given...

I believe that is the only correct statement in your entire post. Natural selection does not act on genetic mutations. It acts on variations in the phenotype. If a trait is going to evolve it must exhibit random phenotypic variation. That is, each new generation of the species presents a range of variants to the environment for selection. If a particular variant is needed, it must be already found in the population or evolution will not proceed.

 

[xianghua]

DNA was changed by a mutation and after the change a new feature became possible.


.

its not a new feature. is just a new variation of the same function.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its not a new feature. is just a new variation of the same function.

Before the change, they could not digest citrate.
After the change, they could.
Seems perfectly ok to me to call that a new feature.

 

[xianghua]

Before the change, they could not digest citrate.

not realy:

http://jb.asm.org/content/180/16/4160.full

"Under anoxic conditions, E. coli can utilize citrate if an oxidizable cosubstrate is present"

 

[PsychoSarah]

so we dont need mutations at all from non light detector into a light detector?

We need 1, at minimum, from a cell that can respond to heat.