Are you guys insane?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2012, 06:13 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(25-04-2012 05:57 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  There's a bit of confusion in this thread about irreducible complexity. Here's a crash course for both sides, as both sides are getting it wrong:

Dood. Everybody gets it wrong. It's Irreducible Complication - that's the IC they meant to invent but it is thus as clearly stupid as it sounds. Complex don't mean complicated. That sentence is the end of the math, any talk of complexity after that point is either equations or a mouthful of dick.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-04-2012, 06:16 AM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2012 08:40 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Are you guys insane?
(25-04-2012 05:10 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I dunno if anybody has mentioned it, because I haven't read all 14 pages of the thread, but to expand on Rahn's post just above mine, you can see evolution in diseases all the time. Often diseases will 'mutate' and change to become more suited to situations and become immune to otherwise working cures.
This is evolution right in front of our eyes. We see this because the things doing it are incredibly tiny. Made up of very few cells. Even so it can take years.

So now imagine something like a human. We are HUGE compared to a single bacteria, HUGE. For us to evolve and adapt takes a long time, hundreds and thousands of years.

BUT the fact we can and often do see evolution on a smaller scale is living proof. Then add the obvious proof of human skulls dated over time (a human skull 1,000 years ago is different to a human skull today).


That's why someone, (oh, I don't know who Wink ),suggested that every time anyone goes to the doctor, and they prescribe an antibiotic, after having a "culture and SENSITIVITIES", done, it's "evolution in action". If you take antibiotics, you use evolution. They TEST, to see which antibiotics the bacteria are "sensitive", (ie vulnerable) to, and/or, have DEVELOPED resistance to. It happens, like what, only a gazillion times a day ?


Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 03:47 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2012 03:50 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Are you guys insane?
Alright, I'll bite again.

Let's talk random vs. non-random (which seems to be your entire argument)

The argument here is that biological structures could not have originated via random processes, which no one in the scientific community is arguing against. The reasoning behind this is very easy to demonstrate, pretty simple math. If I have a population of numbers that are completely randomly distributed, then there is no trend at all. That is, I have an equal chance of picking any one of these numbers (like the lottery). So, what would be the odds in a case of completely random chance based evolution, that any structure would evolve? It wouldn't be 0 but it would be near enough to 0 so as to render it effectively improbable. And yet we do see structures that exist in modern and fossilized species, which means ONLY that it is non-random. No other conclusion can be leapt to based upon this. It means that there is some external process that is controlling the distribution. Back to the number example, it means that there is a meaningful average, median and mode to the distribution. I can plot up damn near anything and get a normal distribution, height of American citizens, length of giraffe necks, distance between the pupils of the three-toed sloth, etc, etc. That means that there is some average of any one of these that appears to be more abundant and two end-members that appear to far-less abundant (lots of people around 5 foot 9 inches but very few 7 footers and 4 footers).

Now, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to look at any given one of these examples, or any other example (like the eye), and see that they are NOT RANDOM. Let me repeat that, no scientist is saying that these distributions are random...none. There is selection. Not design, nor irreducible complexity. There is selection pressure that is a result of environmental, sexual or mechanical selection. That is, environmental selection could be climate, temperature, moisture, etc, etc. Sexual selection would be something like a female peacock choosing the male peacock with the brightest plumage. And mechanical selection would be something like gravity limiting the size that arthropods can attain before they are crushed by the weight of their own exoskeleton. If things had been designed perfectly, why would any change occur? Why would any group within a population have an advantage over any other? Why wouldn't predator selection or female selection not be purely random? That is, in an intelligently designed world, we should expect more random behavior from animals and we do not see that.

Onto selection pressure. Let's take any example of irreducible complexity, like the eye, and run the clock backwards. So, let's start modern-day human eye. The eye is a phenotypic expression of a genotype. Selection pressures act on the phenotype and the genotype takes a ride with it (like plumage brightness or antler size or eye color). Climate does not affect the genotype, sexual selection does not affect the genotype, mechanical selection does not affect the genotype. They affect the phenotype (that is the visual expression of the genotype) and the genotype is selected by default, but not as the primary selection. So, back to the eye. It is an advantage for humans to have good eyesight. It enables us to see predators, to see storms and other natural hazards, to find food, etc. Rewind back let's say 5 million years. Now our ancestor is more ape-like. Eyesight affords the same benefits, but selection pressures may be different. Perhaps females are selecting for brown eyes and not blue. Perhaps dark-colored corneas are an advantage in areas with high solar insolation. Perhaps hunting is more important so those that can detect movement better are better hunters. Maybe distinguishing between colors is more important in order to distinguish good fruits from bad ones. Or all of the above. Rewind now 290 million years more. Now we are in the Permian and our ancestors are amphibians. They hunt things like arthropods. The eyes are now set on either side of the skull rather than towards the front, but forward facing eyes are an advantage for hunting. That means that selection would select for that trait (phenotypic) and as we move forward in time (towards the present) a branch of this lineage will select upon that further and lead us towards out ape ancestor. These amphibians also needed to detect movement better, so that is selected for. Color distinction is probably also still important as these arthropods were probably still camouflaging themselves. Selection pressure acts on these organisms that have the phenotypic traits that are advantageous and inadvertantly selects the genotype too! Now, rewind to the Cambrian, >500 million years BP. The chordate ancestor no longer has any true "eyes" but instead has light-sensitive cells on the underside of its body that face upwards (towards the surface because this organism was living in a marine setting and swimming). This organism couldn't use these eyes for hunting, they couldn't detect shapes, or colors, or damn near anything other than light or no light. Which was still an advantage. If a predator swims over the top of you, it goes from light to dark to light. If that happens, the organism knows danger may be close and swims away. So, having 1% of an "eye" is better than 0.5%. This means those with 1% "eyes" preferentially survive (ie their survival is not random) and mate and the next generation consists of a higher percentage of 1% eyes and the tail ends of the distribution change. That is, there are fewer <1% "eyes" and those with even better developed "eyes" occupy the other end of the bell-curve. As populations continue to reproduce, they will continue to select for the better developed "eyes" and drive the average further and further towards better developed "eyes". This is called directional selection.

So, let's recap. The eye started off as nothing more than photosensitive cells that conveyed a phenotypic advantage to the organism. This advantage meant that their survival was not random and they survived to breed. This continued breeding of organisms with better eyes shifts the baseline, or the average for the "fitness" of the "eye." Selection pressures (predation in this case) acts upon a phenotype that is the result of a genotype and therefore it inadvertantly selects for the genotype. As this continues to happen over MILLIONS of YEARS, the eye becomes better and better developed, and capable of doing more than just detecting light.

Now, I have a feeling you will say something to the effect of "but mutations can't account for that." Correct, and they don't, selection pressure does. Mutations occur constantly, they happen in your own cells every, single, day. That is not the main mechanism for how the eye continues to develop, it is because of that whole reproduction thing. You know, sex. Asexually reproducing organisms essentially clone themselves, but even most of them have a way of exchanging genetic material between one another in order to mix up the amount genetic "information." Sexually reproducing species mate, the offspring will have some combination of both parents genes. Let's say they have 100 kids. What do you want to bet that for any given trait, the ones who survive will fit in the bell curve? Those with shitty eyes, die. Those with average eyes, survive at the same rate as the average individual in the population and those with great eyes have a higher survivorship. All of the survivors go on to mate and the others...well...they provide energy for the organism that consumed them. NOT RANDOM. The mating mixes up the genetic information, every single time a pair breeds. How often do organisms breed? Pretty goddamn often over the course of their lifetime and for most species, it is with multiple partners.

And here is the kicker, it is not about the amount of genetic information available, but the combinatorial effects of it. If I have 100 genes, and I combine them randomly (even the success of sperm and egg isn't random because some sperm are more fit than others in some species, but let's assume it is pretty much random), and I allow for repetition, there are 5050 possible combinations by selecting 2 at a time. Over 5000! If one more gene is added it goes up to 5151. If I add 10, it goes up to 6105. It is an exponential increase in the number of possible combinations. So, the absolute amount of genes available is insignificant to the total number of combinations. Mutations make it possible to add more genes to the sequence and thereby exponentially increase the possible number of combinations. More possible combinations means more variability and more variability in genotype means more variability in phenotype and the advantageous phenotypes can be selected for and the disadvantageous phenotypes selected against. Thereby selecting the genotype and shifting the baseline for the gene pool.

So, not random and not dependent on mutation for the variability.

I didn't want to touch irreducible complexity because so many others have dismantled it, but I suspect you lack a rudimentary understanding of evolution and genetics. So, if none of that made sense, read up on some genetics and evolution from someone that does not have their head up their own ass trying to argue against it when the only argument they have is "random mutation can't cause it" because, one more time, NO SCIENTIST IS SAYING THAT!!!
And yes, I am a scientist, and yes I do study and do research on evolution.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
25-04-2012, 03:55 PM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(25-04-2012 04:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...harnesses nonrandom change... Hell, that's what I've been saying. I suppose now you'll say something different.

Unfortunately, that's only half your problem.
http://books.google.com/books?id=AsJDTq2...ke&f=false
Scroll to p. 74.
There's the other half.


Buck, you keep that up, and Chas might let you into Terse But Deadly. Tongue

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
25-04-2012, 03:58 PM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(25-04-2012 03:55 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 04:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...harnesses nonrandom change... Hell, that's what I've been saying. I suppose now you'll say something different.

Unfortunately, that's only half your problem.
http://books.google.com/books?id=AsJDTq2...ke&f=false
Scroll to p. 74.
There's the other half.

Buck, you keep that up, and Chas might let you into Terse But Deadly. Tongue

Nah. I'm such a windbag. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-04-2012, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2012 04:27 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Are you guys insane?
(25-04-2012 03:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Alright, I'll bite again.


That's the sign of insanity. Angel
(25-04-2012 03:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And here is the kicker, it is not about the amount of genetic information available, but the combinatorial effects of it.

That's where the theists nod off...

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
25-04-2012, 06:12 PM
RE: Are you guys insane?
Okay, so I am insane. Insane in the membrane! Insane in the brain!

The theist nods off much sooner that too

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
25-04-2012, 06:22 PM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(25-04-2012 06:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Okay, so I am insane. Insane in the membrane! Insane in the brain!

The theist nods off much sooner that too


An if he ever gets fired, can be a poet. That, two ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 07:37 PM
RE: Are you guys insane?
If Paramecia have "consciousness", then they have to have language..to organize their thoughts. They speak French, I know. And ALL the researchers who have spent a lifetime in Neuroscience to try and determine the seat of consciousness are ALL barking up the wrong tree. Can you say *delusional* ?

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 11:03 PM
 
RE: Are you guys insane?
(25-04-2012 03:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Alright, I'll bite again.

Let's talk random vs. non-random (which seems to be your entire argument)

I'm going to print this out and give it a good going over and provide a response either tonight or in the AM. I really hope you aren't blasphemous or insulting, because I'd hate to think you went to all that work just for me to ignore it. We'll see. Blink
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: