All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(19-09-2015 07:48 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  But with genetic algorithms we can observe the process sped up by many orders of magnitude.

you dont even know the mechanism of macro change. You make clearly things up of which you have no understanding. Basically, you express only your blind beliefs based on wishful thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(19-09-2015 04:27 PM)Godexists Wrote:  You have not shown that macro evolution above species happens.

What does that even mean?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
19-09-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(19-09-2015 04:29 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 07:48 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  But with genetic algorithms we can observe the process sped up by many orders of magnitude.

you dont even know the mechanism of macro change. You make clearly things up of which you have no understanding. Basically, you express only your blind beliefs based on wishful thinking.

Laugh out load

[Image: Zuk8PVD.jpg]

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-09-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(19-09-2015 04:29 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 07:48 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  But with genetic algorithms we can observe the process sped up by many orders of magnitude.

you dont even know the mechanism of macro change.

Bullshit and you know it. I have repeatedly said throughout the entire thread that your so called 'macro change' comes from an accumulation of small changes. This is why I have repeatedly asked you the same question again and again which you cannot answer:

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?


(19-09-2015 04:29 PM)Godexists Wrote:  You make clearly things up of which you have no understanding. Basically, you express only your blind beliefs based on wishful thinking.

What I am telling you comes from what I have been taught at university, from what I have read (and unlike you actually understood) from the scientific literature and more importantly what I have found to happen in practice. I would not have got the results that I have so far achieved if the theory was wrong. It has all been validated through practical experience.

You make appeals to authority when it suits you and dismiss authority when it does not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
19-09-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(19-09-2015 04:27 PM)Godexists Wrote:  You have not shown that macro evolution above species happens.

Exhibit A.

[Image: platypus.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 05:52 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(19-09-2015 04:36 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

I would think that GE would have said gawd is what prevents it, but of course we see evidence everywhere that it does happen.

We should see some barrier to modifying things genetically if ID was a god-controlled process. But GE can hide his god behind some ill-defined genetic barrier and then declare anyone that calls him out on his BS as ignorant.

His god is an ill-defined Mystical Molecule Mover that hides behind vague definitions of micro and macro.

His god can be manipulated by our whims, I give you the pomato:

[Image: tomatopotato.jpg]

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?



The pluot:
[Image: flavor_king_pluot.jpg]

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?



The chihuahua:

[Image: chihuahua-short-coat.jpg]

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

When will the Mystical Molecule Mover stop us dead in our tracks from modifying things genetically?

When does this micro-macro barrier manifest itself and geneticists will throw up their hands and say "Mystical Molecule Mover declared our modifications too macro-evolutionary! We can go no further! Let's pray!"

There is a real reason ID lost in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

The burden of proof is on the ID proponent to demonstrate and clearly define this barrier, to demonstrate that no other explanation is plausible, and of course, they'll never be able to do that.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
20-09-2015, 06:32 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus...cience.htm

Now, this analysis highlights a significant distinction we need to make: micro-evolutionary changes are late-developing, and do not affect the core body plan and its associated functions. Such mutations are indeed possible and are observed. But, when the mutations get to the fundamental level of changing body plans -- i.e. macro-evolution -- they face the implication that we are now disturbing the core of a tightly integrated system, and so the potential for destructive change is much higher. Consequently, the genes that control such core features are stabilised by a highly effective negative feedback effect: random changes strongly tend to eliminate themselves through loss of integrity of vital body functions.

― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!”

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its 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 only 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."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 06:37 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
and this answers your question of what prevents macro evolution to the core:

Limited Evolutionary Potential

http://www.detectingdesign.com/galactosi...ution.html

And yet, despite these many problems, professors Hall and Miller and many other scientists like them would have us believe that the evolution of even more complex functions than single protein enzymes is still a relatively simple or at least a doable process given a few million or even billion years. Such conclusions might be a bit premature to say the least since many of Hall's mutant E. coli seemed to have more than a little difficulty evolving just one relatively simple single-protein enzymatic function. Hall himself described these strains as having "limited evolutionary potential." 3 Hall noted that with both the lacZ and the ebg genes missing, E. coli bacteria cannot evolve lactase ability at all despite his own efforts and those of several others, such as J. H. Campbell, to test for and observe such evolution over the course of many years (since 1973) totaling hundreds of thousands of bacterial generations.6

Hall did seem to realize somewhat of the implications of discovering that only one mutation was needed to "evolve" efficient lactase activity in lacZ negative E. coli strains. In his paper he said, "The realization that a single mutation in ebgA [ebg = evolved b-galactosidase gene] was sufficient to convert ebg0 enzyme into an efficient lactase was therefore disappointing." 3 The problem, as Hall himself pointed out, is that there are mutations that do not yield changes in protein function toward anything useful to the cell. The proteins that result from these mutations might in fact be useful to another organism somewhere in the universe, but for the particular organism that they have evolved in, they are either neutral in function or nonfunctional . . . or, even worse, detrimental in function.

No cell or organism or even an entire gene pool has an infinite vocabulary. All living things have limited individual vocabularies. Out of the huge number of possibilities for different kinds of proteins of a given length, any one individual cell or gene pool of cells "recognizes" or can use only a small fraction of them in a beneficial way (and this fraction gets exponentially smaller as the level of complexity increases). Therefore, some functions are in fact out of statistical reach for that particular cell, or gene pool of cells, as well as their offspring because they do not recognize, as beneficial, any change in the functions of intermediary proteins along the way toward those sequences that would in fact be beneficial. Such neutral evolution looses the guidance of natural selection as a driving force. Hall describes such evolutionarily-challenged bacterial strains as having "limited evolutionary potential." I propose that every living creature has very limited evolutionary potential.

http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus...m#macvsmic

In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur.6 [Emphases added. Cf a more easily readable (and also peer-reviewed) but longer discussion, with illustrations, here.]

Now, this analysis highlights a significant distinction we need to make: micro-evolutionary changes are late-developing, and do not affect the core body plan and its associated functions. Such mutations are indeed possible and are observed. But, when the mutations get to the fundamental level of changing body plans -- i.e. macro-evolution -- they face the implication that we are now disturbing the core of a tightly integrated system, and so the potential for destructive change is much higher. Consequently, the genes that control such core features are stabilised by a highly effective negative feedback effect: random changes strongly tend to eliminate themselves through loss of integrity of vital body functions.

In response, it is often claimed that sufficient microevolution accumulates across time to constitute macroevolution. But, what we "see" in the fossil record of the Cambrian rocks is just that innovation at the core levels coming first, and coming massively -- just the opposite of what the NDT model would lead us to expect. For, as Dan Peterson summarises in his recent article:

To take just one example, a well-known (and unsolved) problem for Darwinism is the Cambrian Explosion. As noted by Stephen Meyer in the book Debating Design, this event might be better called the Cambrian Information Explosion. For the first three billion years of life on Earth, only single-celled organisms such as bacteria and bluegreen algae existed. Then, approximately 570 million years ago, the first multi-cellular organisms, such as sponges, began to appear in the fossil record. About 40 million years later, an astonishing explosion of life took place. Within a narrow window of about 5 million years, "at least nineteen and perhaps as many as 35 phyla (of 40 total phyla) made their first appearance on Earth...." Meyer reminds us that "phyla constitute the highest categories in the animal kingdom, with each phylum exhibiting unique architecture, blueprint, or structural body plan." These high order, basic body plans include "mollusks (squids and shellfish), arthropods (crustaceans, insects, and trilobites), and chordates, the phylum to which all vertebrates belong."

These new, fundamental body plans appeared all at once, and without the expected Darwinian intermediate forms.

In addition, we should observe in passing that there is also an underlying problem with the commonly encountered natural selection model, in which small variations confer significant cumulative advantages in populations,and cumulate to give the large changes that would constitute body-plan level macroevolution. To see this, let us excerpt a typical definition of natural selection:

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis . . . will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism. [Emphases added.]

From this, we may immediately observe that natural selection is envisioned as a probabilistic culler of competing sub-populations with varying adaptations coming from another source [usually some form of chance-based variation]. That is, it does not cause the actual variation, it is only a term that summarises differences in likelihood of survival and reproduction and possibly resulting cumulative effects on populations across time. So, when innovations in life-forms require the origin of functionally specific, information-rich organised complexity, we are back to some form of chance variation to explain it, and soon run right back into the FSCI-origination barrier.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 06:45 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
How does any of that answer my question GE?

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
20-09-2015, 06:50 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
I've asked this question 12 times now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: