Multiple changes versus one big change?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2015, 12:31 AM
Multiple changes versus one big change?
I'm arguing on YouTube *waits for laughter and comments about how that's the problem right there to die down* with someone who is not a complete moron *waits for exclamations of shock and denial that this can be the case to die down*. The topic is evolution. I seem to be out of my depth. Specifically it's about this video (on irreducible complexity) and my comments below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0gK6V0TI4

To try to truncate it:

I Wrote:A system that is changing need not provide any advantage, it needs merely to not be detrimental. The idea behind evolving from one system to another which has a different function seems most probable when you have additional, redundant copies of a protein available for mutation. The original protien continues its function and so long as the additional copy of the protien and its subsequent mutations are not harmful to the organism they can proceed and change just fine. Such changes would be very slow as they are not directly arising from survival value until they have converted into a protein that is expressed in some fashion and can thus be acted upon.

He Wrote:An unguided process whereby a set of neutral mutations which end up producing some kind of new complex functionality when the last piece is put in place, 'just happen' to accrue, rather than a set of mutations that are totally useless, seems no more logical to me than that a 'hopeful monster' scenario whereby some new system arises through mutation all at once.
To me, the idea that the former is somehow more likely than the latter seems roughly equivalent to suggesting that although you couldn't arrange 100 letters at random and get a sentence all in one go, it's somehow more conceivable that you'd get a sentence by adding one randomly chosen letter at a time- when I'd have that both scenarios were pretty much statistically equivalent.

We have some more back and forth after that, buuut... I'm beginning to wonder if I'm off in la-la land at this point. Any thoughts on this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 03:21 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
He is looking at Mount Improbable from the wrong side... making the assumption that it's only when the last piece is placed in the jigsaw that picture becomes clear.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
18-01-2015, 03:22 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
I'm not a geneticist but the key is in the word "unguided": I've always thought of evolution as the result of random mutation guided by natural selection.

I know there's more complexity to it than that, but isn't that basically the answer to his point?

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 04:33 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(18-01-2015 03:21 AM)DLJ Wrote:  He is looking at Mount Improbable from the wrong side... making the assumption that it's only when the last piece is placed in the jigsaw that picture becomes clear.
That's the point of the irreducibly complex. The idea that all the genes need to be there in sequence in order for the feature to exist and further that there is not any known system which uses a subset of the expressed genes. If some new feature requires multiple changes to reach and each change in itself offers no benefit until the end, then the odds of it showing up through gradual accumulation would seem to be identical to the odds of them all showing up at once since there would be no selective pressure to keep the mutations for the in-between stages. I'm not sure if that's actually true, however, on the mathematics end. The wiki doesn't spell it out or say what the argument Dawkins makes actually is, making it harder to use to refute him.

(18-01-2015 03:22 AM)gofish! Wrote:  I'm not a geneticist but the key is in the word "unguided": I've always thought of evolution as the result of random mutation guided by natural selection.

I know there's more complexity to it than that, but isn't that basically the answer to his point?
By 'unguided' they generally mean 'not guided by intelligence', the idea being that without intelligence or, as in this case, some deterministic reason to select one genetic make-up over another, the selection becomes effectively random. Which is where I'm falling down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 05:54 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
He Wrote:An unguided process whereby a set of neutral mutations which end up producing some kind of new complex functionality when the last piece is put in place,

This sentence contains the fundamental flaw in the concept of irreducible complexity. The idea that you take one thing away and the system collapses ignores the fact that the system changed state over time.

An analogy.

An invasive species X enters a new eco-system. It causes a lot of damage but it does not completely destroy the eco-system. Eventually the other species adapt and become completely reliant upon the existence of species X.

Or an economy. A new technology is created that changes the entire economy, say the computer. Automatisation has killed a lot of jobs but now the economy is dependent upon it. If you banned the use of computers in a country (or let's imagine a solar flare) then the economy would collapse.

Someone who believes in irriducible complexity will look at the current state of that eco-system and say that it is designed because if you take X away then that eco-system will collapse. They are forgetting that the you can't look at systems as static snapshots in time. They are systems that change over time.


He Wrote:'just happen' to accrue, rather than a set of mutations that are totally useless, seems no more logical to me than that a 'hopeful monster' scenario whereby some new system arises through mutation all at

The neutral gene theory is established in the scientific literature and I use it myself in practice when running genetic algorithms. That's the best way to see it happen in practice! The idea is that you can duplicate genes as long as they do not have a detrimental effect. This opens up a search space to allow extra mutations to work on the duplicated part. This is probably why we have two hemispheres in the brain for example that work in slightly different ways.

Incidentally duplication can help get a species off a local minima. This happens when there are no improvements possible without first allowing for the proliferation of less fit organisms. This is because duplications opens up new possibilities.

Also remember that your theist will be making the assumption that a load of beneficial changes will occur at the same time. This is not how it's supposed to work. Most mutations will be detrimental to the new organise but over time the beneficial ones that do happen will not only be kept but will spread throughout the population if it leads to the chances of the organisms that have those genes breeding more.


He Wrote:To me, the idea that the former is somehow more likely than the latter seems roughly equivalent to suggesting that although you couldn't arrange 100 letters at random and get a sentence all in one go, it's somehow more conceivable that you'd get a sentence by adding one randomly chosen letter at a time- when I'd have that both scenarios were pretty much statistically equivalent.

No one is suggesting that it's a big change all in one go. Evolution works better if small changes are available. When writing your own evolutionary algorithm on a computer (again, working in practice and proving the theory), then you always try to make sure that the system can change using the smallest steps possible. Large changes are more likely to be detrimental, especially as the evolutionary run progresses and you end up needing to optimise your evolutionary strategy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Mathilda's post
18-01-2015, 05:58 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(18-01-2015 04:33 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  
(18-01-2015 03:21 AM)DLJ Wrote:  He is looking at Mount Improbable from the wrong side... making the assumption that it's only when the last piece is placed in the jigsaw that picture becomes clear.
That's the point of the irreducibly complex. The idea that all the genes need to be there in sequence in order for the feature to exist and further that there is not any known system which uses a subset of the expressed genes. If some new feature requires multiple changes to reach and each change in itself offers no benefit until the end, then the odds of it showing up through gradual accumulation would seem to be identical to the odds of them all showing up at once since there would be no selective pressure to keep the mutations for the in-between stages. I'm not sure if that's actually true, however, on the mathematics end. The wiki doesn't spell it out or say what the argument Dawkins makes actually is, making it harder to use to refute him.

(18-01-2015 03:22 AM)gofish! Wrote:  I'm not a geneticist but the key is in the word "unguided": I've always thought of evolution as the result of random mutation guided by natural selection.

I know there's more complexity to it than that, but isn't that basically the answer to his point?
By 'unguided' they generally mean 'not guided by intelligence', the idea being that without intelligence or, as in this case, some deterministic reason to select one genetic make-up over another, the selection becomes effectively random. Which is where I'm falling down.

Selection is unguided only in that there is no intelligence behind. But that doesn't mean there are no rules or laws in action (e.g. survival of the fittest).

Intelligence is therefore unnecessary. Given certain conditions, it is pure probability that some mutations are more likely to survive than others. Those that survive become the new baseline for new mutations/variations and subsequent selection.

Or am I missing your point here?

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 06:13 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(18-01-2015 12:31 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  I'm arguing on YouTube...

Well, that's yer whole problem. Laughat

living word
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
18-01-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(18-01-2015 12:31 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  I'm arguing on YouTube *waits for laughter and comments about how that's the problem right there to die down* with someone who is not a complete moron *waits for exclamations of shock and denial that this can be the case to die down*. The topic is evolution. I seem to be out of my depth. Specifically it's about this video (on irreducible complexity) and my comments below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0gK6V0TI4

To try to truncate it:

I Wrote:A system that is changing need not provide any advantage, it needs merely to not be detrimental. The idea behind evolving from one system to another which has a different function seems most probable when you have additional, redundant copies of a protein available for mutation. The original protien continues its function and so long as the additional copy of the protien and its subsequent mutations are not harmful to the organism they can proceed and change just fine. Such changes would be very slow as they are not directly arising from survival value until they have converted into a protein that is expressed in some fashion and can thus be acted upon.

He Wrote:An unguided process whereby a set of neutral mutations which end up producing some kind of new complex functionality when the last piece is put in place, 'just happen' to accrue, rather than a set of mutations that are totally useless, seems no more logical to me than that a 'hopeful monster' scenario whereby some new system arises through mutation all at once.
To me, the idea that the former is somehow more likely than the latter seems roughly equivalent to suggesting that although you couldn't arrange 100 letters at random and get a sentence all in one go, it's somehow more conceivable that you'd get a sentence by adding one randomly chosen letter at a time- when I'd have that both scenarios were pretty much statistically equivalent.

We have some more back and forth after that, buuut... I'm beginning to wonder if I'm off in la-la land at this point. Any thoughts on this?

In all of reality, you follow the shadows to see something above with more dimension that is hidden. DNA is the shadow of the process to build life. From information held in a storage bit, you get an oak tree. The shadow of the information is founded on a pattern. All things abide in that pattern. A tree expresses in the same fractal (ration of 1:1.618) as a galaxy. At the heart of all things is information moved by governed mathematics and force, around which, there is a center. Volution is movement around a center. E in Latin means out of. Out of the volution is an accurate description.

Our language tree even follows this predictable pattern. All things abide in the symmetry of something we cannot observe called consciousness. Collapsing wave function cannot be determined (as it is indeterminate) apart from the thing formatting it. Consciousness is the center of the volution. Changes are by design, which renders the argument null. Complexity cannot arise apart from a mind. Light must be collapsed by mind, or it is not a particle, but a wave of indeterminate potential. Law is a restriction to the potential of what is possible, although you can't get to this evident truth unless your are determined to see it. No collapse (blindness) apart from knowing it is possible.

Science, of course, shows our universe as digital and not analog. Again, information is the root you are arguing.

Since this is Atheism and Theism, I can show you the truth with evidence.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The word Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet. See a connection? Light shines, then illuminates the image. We are the image. Irreducible as we can be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 07:49 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(18-01-2015 06:22 PM)AlephBet Wrote:  
(18-01-2015 12:31 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  I'm arguing on YouTube *waits for laughter and comments about how that's the problem right there to die down* with someone who is not a complete moron *waits for exclamations of shock and denial that this can be the case to die down*. The topic is evolution. I seem to be out of my depth. Specifically it's about this video (on irreducible complexity) and my comments below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0gK6V0TI4

To try to truncate it:



We have some more back and forth after that, buuut... I'm beginning to wonder if I'm off in la-la land at this point. Any thoughts on this?

In all of reality, you follow the shadows to see something above with more dimension that is hidden. DNA is the shadow of the process to build life. From information held in a storage bit, you get an oak tree. The shadow of the information is founded on a pattern. All things abide in that pattern. A tree expresses in the same fractal (ration of 1:1.618) as a galaxy. At the heart of all things is information moved by governed mathematics and force, around which, there is a center. Volution is movement around a center. E in Latin means out of. Out of the volution is an accurate description.

Our language tree even follows this predictable pattern. All things abide in the symmetry of something we cannot observe called consciousness. Collapsing wave function cannot be determined (as it is indeterminate) apart from the thing formatting it. Consciousness is the center of the volution. Changes are by design, which renders the argument null. Complexity cannot arise apart from a mind. Light must be collapsed by mind, or it is not a particle, but a wave of indeterminate potential. Law is a restriction to the potential of what is possible, although you can't get to this evident truth unless your are determined to see it. No collapse (blindness) apart from knowing it is possible.

Science, of course, shows our universe as digital and not analog. Again, information is the root you are arguing.

Since this is Atheism and Theism, I can show you the truth with evidence.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The word Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet. See a connection? Light shines, then illuminates the image. We are the image. Irreducible as we can be.

JUST FUCK OFF!

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
Just recently TBD posted this video of the evolution of the eye, a good example on how complexity evolves





and also this NOVA documentary destroying the irreducible complexity ID argument:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/i...trial.html

What is shown is how each mutation serves a purpose, what at first appears an intended “goal” of a system (in these two cases the eye or the flagellum) it isn’t so.

His argument “An unguided process whereby a set of neutral mutations which end up producing some kind of new complex functionality when the last piece is put in place” fails to understand this. Feathers are another example, evolved so as to provide warmth and then co-opted to allow flight. The flagellum without certain proteins was useful as a needle before it was co-opted for movement etc.

He would have to show that any system was useless before the last piece was put in place. He won’t be able to.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: