All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
So the pot can call the kettle black, but apparently can't apply this particular line of reasoning to his own arguments.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 09:19 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(17-09-2015 06:54 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

your question evidences a deep misunderstanding about how molecular machines work. They work similar to human made machines, requiring lots and lots of information, signalling pathways in order to interact with each other, and proteins interact in a interdependent manner with each other, many interlocked .
If one protein changes its shape and function, many other parts must do so as well in order to keep interface compatibility. That is simply not possible through mutation and natural selection.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...of-design/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(17-09-2015 09:19 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 06:54 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

your question evidences a deep misunderstanding about how molecular machines work. They work similar to human made machines, requiring lots and lots of information, signalling pathways in order to interact with each other, and proteins interact in a interdependent manner with each other, many interlocked .
If one protein changes its shape and function, many other parts must do so as well in order to keep interface compatibility. That is simply not possible through mutation and natural selection.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...of-design/


Still not answering my question ...

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(17-09-2015 09:12 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Dunning Kruger much ?

Information was added via mutation that told the existing genes to add another finger.

is the standard nonsense that atheists assert without even know what they are talking about.

Mutation increases the variety in gene pool. This requires more information to describe the gene pool.

Convergence decreases variability of a gene pool. Less information is required to describe a gene pool.

Popeyes Pappy was therefore correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(17-09-2015 09:19 AM)Godexists Wrote:  If one protein changes its shape and function, many other parts must do so as well in order to keep interface compatibility. That is simply not possible through mutation and natural selection.

Yes, you keep saying this.

You have yet to demonstrate that it is true.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 07:25 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(17-09-2015 09:19 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 06:54 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

your question evidences a deep misunderstanding about how molecular machines work. They work similar to human made machines, requiring lots and lots of information, signalling pathways in order to interact with each other, and proteins interact in a interdependent manner with each other, many interlocked .
If one protein changes its shape and function, many other parts must do so as well in order to keep interface compatibility. That is simply not possible through mutation and natural selection.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...of-design/

No, they do not work like human-made machines and require precisely no information that didn't come about by mutation and selection.

When there is imperfect replication (mutation) and differential survival, evolution is the guaranteed result.

You have a bizarre view of what evolution is.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-09-2015, 10:57 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(17-09-2015 10:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Your assumption is that small changes can lead to big changes, and to biodiversity. This is false in many levels. One imho is the fact that cell and subsequently body morphology is not achieved through evolution and genetic information, but trhough epigenetic information.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...etics#3674

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."

pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.

—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 11:30 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(18-09-2015 10:57 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 10:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Your assumption is that small changes can lead to big changes, and to biodiversity. This is false in many levels. One imho is the fact that cell and subsequently body morphology is not achieved through evolution and genetic information, but trhough epigenetic information.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...etics#3674

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."

pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.

—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans

I don't think anyone here was claiming that DNA alone did this.
You didn't watch the video I posted a couple pages back did you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:56 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(18-09-2015 10:57 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 10:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Your assumption is that small changes can lead to big changes, and to biodiversity. This is false in many levels.

It is up to you to demonstrate how many small changes can't result in large ones. Provide a mechanism, point out the limiting factor; otherwise you are simply making an incoherent argument.

Quote:One imho is the fact that cell and subsequently body morphology is not achieved through evolution and genetic information, but trhough epigenetic information.

It all comes down to biochemistry. The DNA is the recipe for making an organism, the epigenetic factors are the seasoning.



Quote:http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...etics#3674

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion.

The critics are making an argument from ignorance, just as you are.

Quote:For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level.

What is a minor change? A one molecule change in DNA can be fatal; is that a minor change?
A one gene change can alter the number and placement of limbs that develop, the number and placement of eyes.

Quote:Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure.

His failure to understand how the algorithm works is not a compelling argument.

Quote:Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian.

Of course it doesn't explain that because that isn't what happened. Reptiles and mammals have a common ancestor that gave rise to both in all their diversity.

Quote:Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."

"Microevolution" doesn't look at anything. What do you even mean?

Imperfect replication and differential reproduction is both inevitable and sufficiently powerful.

Quote:pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal.

Well, yes, they do. That is what is passed on in replication. The environment in which the organism develops has an effect on how well or poorly the recipe is followed.

Quote:so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role.

That is not what epigenetics is. Facepalm

Quote:The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Where is that "information"? The only thing passed on is the DNA and whatever chemicals exist in the germ cells.

Quote:Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

It is not only not formidable, it's not even a challenge. It is simply a mechanism that needs to be understood.

Quote:Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.

That is gobbledygook.

Quote:—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans

Selection operates on the phenotype, not directly on the genotype.

You have a cartoon understanding of evolution and genetics. You need to take some actual science courses. It will probably take you twice as long to achieve anything because you'll first have to unlearn the ridiculous shit you currently believe.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 03:12 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(18-09-2015 10:57 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 10:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Your assumption is that small changes can lead to big changes, and to biodiversity. This is false in many levels. One imho is the fact that cell and subsequently body morphology is not achieved through evolution and genetic information, but trhough epigenetic information.

Epigenetics still requires a complex and ordered genotype though. It can't work with a random mess of DNA material. Nor does what you say answer my question.

Yes small changes can accumulate into big changes over time. This is easy to observe and demonstrate in practice. You're the one saying that it is an assumption and you're the one that is dismissing it without any evidence. So I ask again:

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: