Video: Randomness vs Evolution

[xianghua]

Cellphones were designed, not evolved. And cell phones don't reproduce. ANd cell phones don't have variation when they reproduce. Your analogy is flawed and doesn't work.

irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.

 

[Speedwell]

irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.

Right. If you smash a bug with the heel of your shoe it stops working. Therefore it can't have evolved and must have been designed. We know this because if you smash your cellphone with the heel of your shoe it stops working, too, and we know that cellphones were designed. QED.

 

[pitabread]

irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.

False Equivalence fallacy.

You keep making the same error in your arguments over and over and over.

 

[Speedwell]

False Equivalence fallacy.

Why? Aren't they both robot penguins?

 

[pitabread]

here is one example i already gave:

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

so any protein will be non-functional if we will remove some parts of it.

The above statement is not supported by the paper you linked. Furthermore, performing deletions to determine a minimal function of a current biological structure does not imply that it is unevolvable, nor imply that proteins will inherently be non-functional in such circumstances.

One of the key aspects you are missing is that proteins can have relative degrees of functionality, including multiple functions or functional changes. The same applies to relative biological structures.

You seem to have a strictly black and white view of how biology works, when it doesn't necessarily work that way.

 

[Kylie]

irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.

No, not irrelevant.

Things that have evolved had earlier versions where not all of the components were in place, and so they can work without all components. For example, eyes can work and serve to benefit an organism even if they can't form an image as clear as the ones we see.

And even your cellphone analogy fails you here. My current phone has wifi, gps, bluetooth, a colour touchscreen and a tremendous amount of processing power. The phone I had back in 2002 (a Nokia 3310) had a tiny monochrome screen, no wifi, no gps, no bluetooth, no touch screen, no internet connectivity... And yet it was still a cellphone. So my old 3310 lacks many of the things my current phone has, and it still worked. How can you argue that a phone won't work if you take things out of it?

 

[xianghua]

One of the key aspects you are missing is that proteins can have relative degrees of functionality, including multiple functions or functional changes. The same applies to relative biological structures.

i can say the same about cell-phone. we can change a cell phone into many other functional system. so?

 

[xianghua]

No, not irrelevant.

Things that have evolved had earlier versions where not all of the components were in place, and so they can work without all components. For example, eyes can work and serve to benefit an organism even if they can't form an image as clear as the ones we see.

the same is true for a cell-phone. some cell-phones have no screen. but they can still be used as cell-phones.

And even your cellphone analogy fails you here. My current phone has wifi, gps, bluetooth, a colour touchscreen and a tremendous amount of processing power. The phone I had back in 2002 (a Nokia 3310) had a tiny monochrome screen, no wifi, no gps, no bluetooth, no touch screen, no internet connectivity... And yet it was still a cellphone.

right. see above. but in any case the cell-phone still need at least several parts for its minimal function.

So my old 3310 lacks many of the things my current phone has, and it still worked. How can you argue that a phone won't work if you take things out of it?

very simple: im talking about the crucial parts of the cell-phone function. so we are talking now only about the minimal set of parts that make the cell-phone a cell-phone.

 

[pitabread]

i can say the same about cell-phone. we can change a cell phone into many other functional system. so?

Cell phones are irrelevant here. We're talking about proteins and biological evolution.

You again are trying to make a point based on the False Equivalence Fallacy. I know it's your favorite fallacy, but it makes all of your arguments inherently fallacious.

 

[xianghua]

Cell phones are irrelevant here. We're talking about proteins and biological evolution.

you know what? lets take a system that does exist in nature: a sonar system. we know that any sonar need at leats several parts. so what make you think that it will be different in nature? what is the first step to sonar and how many parts we need for that first step?

 

[pitabread]

you know what? lets take a system that does exist in nature: a sonar system. we know that any sonar need at leats several parts. so what make you think that it will be different in nature? what is the first step to sonar and how many parts we need for that first step?

Why can't you just stay on subject? We were talking about protein function and evolution. Do you not wish to discuss that anymore? Have you run out of arguments?

 

[xianghua]

Why can't you just stay on subject? We were talking about protein function and evolution. Do you not wish to discuss that anymore? Have you run out of arguments?

but these biological systems does use proteins. so its still the same argument. so how many protein/s we need to evolve the first step in sonar system?

 

[Speedwell]

but these biological systems does use proteins. so its still the same argument. so how many protein/s we need to evolve the first step in sonar system?

The first step is the ability to detect and respond to sound waves. Even the simplest single-cell creatures have that ability to some degree. Is that what you mean?

 

[pitabread]

but these biological systems does use proteins. so its still the same argument. so how many protein/s we need to evolve the first step in sonar system?

The discussion was about functional changes in protein. It was centered on your claim that you we would need a whole host of changes (e.g. 100 to 200) to happen in a single step. You still have not supported that claim.

This has nothing to do with the evolution of sonar which is a different topic entirely. Why can't you stay on topic?

 

[xianghua]

The first step is the ability to detect and respond to sound waves. Even the simplest single-cell creatures have that ability to some degree. Is that what you mean?

actually i think that the first step is to produce sound. so how many parts we need to that step?

 

[xianghua]

The discussion was about functional changes in protein. It was centered on your claim that you we would need a whole host of changes (e.g. 100 to 200) to happen in a single step. You still have not supported that claim.

This has nothing to do with the evolution of sonar which is a different topic entirely. Why can't you stay on topic?

how is that any different? if we cant make a sonar (that base on proteins) stepwise how is that different in a single protein?

 

[Speedwell]

actually i think that the first step is to produce sound. so how many parts we need to that step?

What good would it do to produce sound if the echo can't be detected?

 

[pitabread]

how is that any different? if we cant make a sonar (that base on proteins) stepwise how is that different in a single protein?

This is going back to your claim about functional changes to proteins and your claim there would need to be 100+ changes happen all at once.

Since you haven't supported that claim, are you abandoning it now? You certainly seem to be abandoning it given you keep trying to change the subject.

 

[xianghua]

This is going back to your claim about functional changes to proteins and your claim there would need to be 100+ changes happen all at once.

Since you haven't supported that claim, are you abandoning it now? You certainly seem to be abandoning it given you keep trying to change the subject.

lets talk about a single protein. this protein for instance bind amino acid to a trna:

(image from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-of-aminoacyl-synthetase-in-a-transcription)

now, if we had only the site that bind amino acid it will be useless, since we dont have the site that bind a trna and vice versa. so we need at least 2 new binding sites to evolve such a protein from other protein that make other function.

 

[Kylie]

the same is true for a cell-phone. some cell-phones have no screen. but they can still be used as cell-phones.

Then you agree that you can remove parts from a cell phone and still have something usable as a cellphone.

This supports the idea of evolution.

right. see above. but in any case the cell-phone still need at least several parts for its minimal function.

And so do things that evolve. It needs to be able to make copies of itself. That copying process needs to be very slightly imperfect, so small variations pop up in the offspring. Natural selection needs to be able to work on the offspring, based on the variations they have developed.

very simple: im talking about the crucial parts of the cell-phone function. so we are talking now only about the minimal set of parts that make the cell-phone a cell-phone.

But a cellphone can work even if it lacks a part that is essential for it to be a cellphone. Take out the radio and it can no longer make phone calls. But it can still work just fine as a calculator. Or a voice recorder.