Genomic Junk and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 5, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolution was claimed to be an undeniable fact in the nineteenth century so today new proofs hardly seem necessary. But science continues to offer them up, say evolutionists, as we probe the depths of biology. These days a common source of such proofs is the genomic data which exploded onto the scene in recent decades. But are the new data really undeniable confirmations of Enlightenment speculation or are the new data merely interpreted according to the same old metaphysics? Read more

Comments

What about positive selection? It is a much more elusive principle. Why? Probably because we never observe new complex functions emerging as a result of random variation.
How would you characterize the sequence of changes leading to the mammalian middle ear?Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Maybe off topic, but the laws of thermodynamics are extrapolations from observations and measurements. Although observation provides no counterexamples, they are not first principles. Using them as axioms to prove something beyond their scope is equivalent to using the axioms of plane geometry to prove or disprove relativity.Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

zeroseven (#92): In principle I could agree with you. In general I don't like strong moderation, even less bannings. But we have to take into consideration some special conditions. First of all, this is an ID blog after all, and it is rather natural that moderators be slightly partial to the ID side. I don't see anything really wrong in that. I am sure there are vast compensations elsewhere (have you been at PT and annexes?). :) The second important fact is that, whatever darwinists may say, we IDists are not only a minority, but a "scarcely appreciated" minority. Now, I don't want to state that all IDists are flawless (starting from myself, obviously), or that we don't make mistakes, or that we are not sometimes a little bit aggressive. But I believe that, very honestly, the behaviour of the other part wins by far in the race for unpleasantness. And I do believe that most of the arguments used against ID, and in justification of the above unpleasantness, are false and irrational. That is not, IMO, a conspiracy theory, but a simple statement about very observable facts. With that, I am in no way understating the very good behaviour of some of our antagonists, who instead are willing to counter our arguments with reasonable issues, in a spirit of serious intellectual confrontation. They deserve all our respect, and maybe that for some reason they not always receive it. But again, this is a blog, and these things happen. In a situation like that, moderation of a "hot" blog like this one is not an easy task. Maybe there are some random errors, or even some unbalanced attitude, but in general I feel very grateful to the moderators for assuming that uncomfortable role, and for doing their best. I don't believe this blog could go on without them. Our friends at PT, obviously, are free to dissent.gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden, I thought your 100 was good but this statement needs clarifying: "Everything that has ever lived has the exact same ancestry according to common descent." The term "ancestry" implies the same lineage all the way through to the present day (especially when emphasised by "the exact same"). Actually, all that "common descent" means, when applied to life as a whole, is that all of life shared a single common ancestor (which would have existed between 4.5 and 3.5 billion years ago, in all probability). Clearly, life diverged into myriad different branches since then, with different nodes all over the place representing ancestors which were common only to certain groupings of organisms. So birds and mammals will have had a common ancestor (common to them, that is), but that is a very, very long time ago and was probably a reptilian type of creature. Since then, mammals and birds have had different ancestries. Birds have an ancestry that includes dinosaurs, whereas mammals had a different ancestry that didn't include dinosaurs but included proto-mammals such as cynodonts (very mammal like but also with reptilian characteristics such as egg-laying - a transitional creature, really) that weren't ancestral to birds at all. Also, I agree with you that there is no law that says that hoofs and antlers must be together. But we need to be careful because that statement is certainly true for features that may be physiologically similar, but those features may be genetically different - convergent evolution, for example. Basically, an animal without hooves may evolve what we would call antlers, and they may look identical to antlers, but they will be genetically different because they arise from a different creature and hence from a genome that is different to the genome of the hooved animal. This, by the way, is something that can be predicted from Darwinism but not from ID.Gaz_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Rob, if you would ever present any evidence for evolution whatsoever maybe it would be easier to get into specifics, but as it is it seems clear to me that you are not so much concerned with providing concrete evidence for evolution as you are in obfuscation of terms which have clear meanings in given contexts. But more to the point,,, Does it not bother you that there is nothing you can point to, in empirical evidence for evolution, that can withstand scrutiny? Why should you "play the lawyer" trying your best to avoid the damning evidence against? Exactly what is the payoff for you to defend, purely by rhetorical ploys, a theory that is not even true in the first place?bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler @ 94 "ROb @ 84 “Do you or do you not claim that material processes can never create functional information?” I claim that they can NEVER create functional information. It’s easy to do but I’ll wait until I’m asked. :-) " Since I'm certainly interested in your method of thought, I'm asking.bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Zero #92 I understand your concerns - believe me I do. Let's you and I do an experiment. In order to more fully grasp the situation at hand, you and I can play a pivital role in an improved understanding. Here is what we (you and I) should do: I will put myself in the utter, most fundamental and bottom-line position of a post-modern materialist. I will walk around in their shoes and experience my existence. I will live and breathe it. At the same time, you put yourself in the position of an ID proponent. Let's meet back here at a time of your choosing, and we can compare notes.Upright BiPed_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Ahem... Peeler for Presisdent.Upright BiPed_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Open System is discussed on this blog here: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/granville-sewell-on-the-2nd-law/inunison_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap,
True, the tree of life can move branches and species around, but it’s quite easy to imagine animals that could never fit. You’ll never get a griffon on there, because the ancestor of birds and lions is also the ancestor of birds and mammals, and no other mammals have wings.
Everything that has ever lived has the exact same ancestry according to common descent.
I fail to see what’s tautological about the nested hierarchy, when it makes such demands about what an animal can be like.
It doesn't make demands, scientists take what is given in the animal and plant kingdoms and then argue backwards.
If you have antlers, you have to have hooves, an even number of toes, four legs, and a backbone.
That's after-the-fact reasoning based on after-the-fact observation, which could have been different, and would indeed have been different according to evolution, if evolution were started over again. Ask Ken Miller, he claims that if evolution had been played out again we could've been mollusks. You seem to labor under the false notion that there is teleology in evolution, when evolution claims nothing of the sort. And secondly, there is no law that says that hoofs and antlers must be together, as if it was some mental necessity that we percieve with our faculties of reason, like 2+2=4. You're mistaken. We can easily imagine hoofed animals having no antlers. It is peculiar that either one exist, and we can certainly imagine them apart without a mental impossibility like 2+2=7, for we see no law that they must always be together. Repetition is not a law, for a law implies that we understand its implementation and enactment, not that we have seen some of its effects. We do not have knowledge of the sort required to claim that antlers and hoofs must be together. "Must be together" as if having one on an animal alone would be like breaking the law of non-contradiction. There is no such law, no such demand.Clive Hayden_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

---Rob to BornAgain77: "I could litter this comment with links to articles, and probably even videos, that say as much. But that would be a lazy and cheap tactic, don’t you think?" Cheaper and lazier that claiming not to know the meaning of the word, "nothing?"StephenB_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Where has it been demonstrated that the second law does not rule out evolution even in an open system?Phaedros_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 88, yes, under certain assumptions, general relativity points to our universe starting out as a singularity. But that certainly doesn't demonstrate the existence of a Prime Mover, much less prove it mathematically or logically. I could litter this comment with links to articles, and probably even videos, that say as much. But that would be a lazy and cheap tactic, don't you think? @ 89: Now you're switching to Abel? You still haven't answered me on whether you're using Hazen et al's definition of "functional information". Why not just say yes or no? Or do you even know? Do you actually read all of the articles that you appeal to for support? That's not a rhetorical question.R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Occam @ 75 "Quite a damning statement! Until Penzias and Wilson, physicists didn’t understand the second law?" They certainly didn't take the time to understand the implications, else they would have known the universe began. And thus requires a "Beginner." I've read One Two Three... Infinity. Interesting fellow, Gamow. In fact, on page 226 he says: "Any spontaneous changes in a physical system occur in the direction of increasing entropy, and the final state of equilibrium corresponds to the maximum possible value of entropy. This is the famous Law of Entropy, also know as the Second Law of Thermodynamics..." Occam "The second law is mighty useful, but loaded. You might be aware that its misapplication was “proof” for creation scientists that evolution was impossible." I'm aware that it is incorrectly applied to this issue by some. However, there remains the question of the MECHANISM by which energy from the sun (mostly) is converted into the evolution of life. I'm going to jump into the "natural selection" part of this but probably tomorrow. Let's not leave the first law out. The law of conservation of energy. If I understand it, it basically says that energy(matter) can neither be created or destroyed. This is also a statement that the universe is finite. If God is a being who can violate natural laws, then it seems as though the First Law is also a pretty good argument for His existence. After all, if energy can neither be created or destroyed how is it that we are here?tgpeeler_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 70 Thanks. Great link, too.tgpeeler_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

ROb @ 84 "Do you or do you not claim that material processes can never create functional information?" I claim that they can NEVER create functional information. It's easy to do but I'll wait until I'm asked. :-)tgpeeler_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Occam: I'm pleased that the conversation is now focusing in on the critical issue you face: the "power" of NS. In your first or second post, you talk of having read the "Origins", and, to your way of thinking, Darwin presents a "theory". You enunciate the elements. You view NS very favorably. And, I think your view is both typical of the casual viewer, and, ultimately naive. I think gpuccio, in the above post, gives you a very splendid overview of the 'powers' and 'limitations' of NS. I would think you will find it most helpful. But let me add just two types of limitations that he doesn't directly (though he does so indirectly) address: First, the limitation of NS that Dembski points out in his writings on Intelligent Design, is focused more, admittedly, on the RV, the random variations that gpuccio mentioned above, rather than on NS directly. For example, when one tries to work out the probabilities involved in building just one protein, the number of replications needed---without a replicative phase, NS cannot function---to arrive at a suitable candidate for NS to act upon, one encounters improbabilities that are beyond anything imaginable. This is also a theme that Behe develops in his book, "Edge of Evolution". This is what we mean when we speak of evolutionary searches. We mean that to "find" the correct protein structure out of the immensely vast possible alternatives is way beyond anything NS can do. As gpuccio rightly points out, this is a problem not only for OOL, but for species evolution as well. Second, Darwinism must contend with the fact that the vast majority of mutations are negative---that is, deadly. When Fred Hoyle includes this very real aspect of biology in his mathematical analysis of neo-Darwinism (cf his book, "The Mathematics of Evolution"), he concludes that most proteins can't shift more than two amino acids away from their present configuration. Incidentally, Behe, who also models this 'negative' nature of mutations in the paper he coauthors with Snoke, finds that, again, one cannot expect more than a 2-3 amino acid shift in proteins for most animal species. It is because of these rather limited powers of NS to act effectively in nature, that we do better to view NS as that which produces "stasis" rather than "saltations". NS maintains the statis quo; it is not an innovator. Now this is to view Darwinism (= RM + NS) negatively. Yet, I believe this is both a reasonable and a factual way of proceeding. But, this a theory does not make. Instead, as a result of the incredible innovations that modern molecular biology has brought (Micheal Behe is, after all, a molecular biologist), coupled to the probabilities associated with any long-chain polymer of the order of DNA, we see "machine-like" properties present in cellular structures (not the simple cytoplasmic blob of Darwin's time) and we see hugely impossible improbabilities associated with "random" construction of proteins. Both of these observations lead one in the direction of seeing design at work; for, after all, designers 'design' machines, and, also, designers 'search' for proper building blocks. To fashion these observations into a theory is no easy task. And, further, when some kind of 'personal' force is posited as the determining factor, some might say that this is no longer a strictly 'scientific' theory. It is, however, a strictly, and a very, logical approach. And, it would seem, if it is logical, then its logical conclusions should be taken seriously. Meyers speaks of this as "explanatory power". Bottom line, whether ID is considered to be a true 'scientific' theory or not, its explanatory power is tremendously greater than that of Darwinism, and, it seems to me, for this reason alone ID should be accepted---and further tested---as such. A kind of test that has already taken place involves the controversy over so-called "junk-DNA", a controversy that has seen Darwinists labeling non-coding DNA as "junk", and IDists saying that genes (read proteins) are of secondary importance and, thus, the truly important part of DNA is to be found in the non-coding regions. Everyday brings new reports of function being found in n-c DNA. Scientists have been studying genes in the hope of finding a cure for cancer for over 40 years now. And they are now finding that there is no answer. Instead, they are finding that the n-c RNAs (miRNAs and siRNAs) hold the most promise for finding a cure. If IDists had been in charge of all those labs for all these years, a lot less time would have been spent chasing the elusive goal of finding a critical protein that by itself causes cancer. This isn't just some philosophical debate. The consequences for wrong thinking can be immense.PaV_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, I don't know what those things are - tagomet and calgon. I know Occam can look after himself. My point was more about the moderation policy here. I don't understand it, it seems random and unfair. The problem is that certain people seem to be able to get away with quite strong language and other people can't. I believe artificial selection is going on to provide an advantage to one side of the debate. I'm probably just a conspiracy theorist though.zeroseven_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Rob, as to the generation of functional information. and you wanting to "discuss it" with me, all I really want from you, or any other neo-Darwinist, is to just show me the empirical evidence for material processes falsifying Abel's null hypothesis for information generation,,, show me with hard empirical evidence, or as they say on the radio I want "more rock and less talk!!!" The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag Here is a cool experiment that needs to be passed for neo-Darwinism to be true which has not been passed yet: For a broad outline of the "Fitness test", required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp This "fitness test" fairly conclusively demonstrates "optimal information" was originally encoded within a "parent" bacteria/bacterium by God, and has not been added to by any "teleological" methods in the beneficial adaptations of the sub-species of bacteria. Thus the inference to Genetic Entropy, i.e. that God has not specifically moved within nature in a teleological manner, to gradually increase the functional information of a genome, still holds as true for the principle of Genetic Entropy.bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Well Rob seeing as the general relativity field equations all require,,, “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html and this mathematical proof was further validated to matter-energy here: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 all I can say is that if you deny the necessity of a first cause, from these two proofs, a first cause which is transcendent of space-time, matter-energy, both of which are shown to have a beginning, and both of which thus disprove the infinite regress, You are stuck with only a few choices, you can either deny the validity of the proofs, or you can say that nothing caused the universe, or you can agree with what theists have been saying for centuries, and that is that a transcendent uncaused cause (God) is necessary to explain reality. I could go into further detail in proof (evidential proof primarily) of the nature of the transcendent first cause (Logos), but seeing as you have been so unreasonable in the past as to everything else, I really think it would be a waste of time, thus I will leave you with this, and await the sure hyper-skeptic response from you.bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Thank you, gpuccio. Your posts are extremely provocative and informing. I'll take away a greater understanding of what ID can be at its core and see how it digests into my personal worldview. And thank you as well, zeroseven, for verifying that at least one observer finds the exchange enlightening. I encourage you to take gpuccio up on his offer... And that is impossible. If you want we can discuss why more in depth in future posts. BestOccam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 81, not a problem. @ 83, I'm quite familiar with Craig's argument, and I have have no problem with Big Bang cosmology, and I'm quite sure that neither transfinite math theorems nor Gödel's incompleteness theorems include a mathematical proof of a primum movens. I seriously doubt that any of your cites accomplishes what you claim they do. So how about if you pick one of your cites, one that you are sure contains the math that you're purporting to show me, and I'll read it (or watch it). If it doesn't have the math you promised, I'll be disappointed in you for making a false claim, but at least I won't have wasted too much time.R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Zeroseven, Take a Tagamet. Have a Calgon bath. I'm sure Occam is a big boy and can take care of himself. I think you'll find he is quite capable of opining plenty where it's safe. In any case, he came here and specifically threw out more than a couple of insults, then looked the other way. So I called him on it. You don't need to be anxious or upset; neither of us is. Oh and please do take note, he asked for an ID argument to sink his "teeth into" and then just as quickly states he has no intention of engaging the central ID arguments on their face. Presumably it's a lot easier to ponder the value of an undefended ID than to hear the core arguments, particularly since we have natural selection to gaze upon on the Discovery channel.Upright BiPed_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Occam (#71): I notice you use the masculine pronoun referring to the designer-implementer. I assume that was merely a term of convenience It definitely is. One point you didn’t mention explicitly. From my admittedly lesser exposure, genetic drift and NS are sufficient for a plausible explanation of speciation. This would make the D-I superfluous. You buy NS, but apparently discard genetic drift as non-existent, insufficient or directed. This is a good starting point for deeper explanations. I notice you mention NS and genetic drift. To be really complete, we could build the following spectrum of events in the neo-darwinist model: 1) RV (random variation): that would include all possible forms of variation (single point mutations, indels, chromosomic rearrangements, sexual shuffling, exon shuffling, duplications, and so on). All these variations are random in the sense that none of them is directly related by any law of necessity to the specific functional results we observe. 2) NS, which should be distinguished into two very different phenomena: 2a) Negative selection: those variations which seriously hamper reproductive function are simply cancelled. Negative selection is probably responsible, at least in a darwinian perspective, for conserved functional sequences. 2b) Positive selection: those variations which seriously help reproductive function are "expanded" in the population and "fixed" (they will be in future "protected" by negative selection of further harmful mutations. Please note that NS, both in its negative and positive form, can only act on some existing function which has relevance for reproductive fitness. That is its huge limit. But, in the boundaries of that limit, it can be a very powerful "oracle" and optimize specific search processes. I think that negative selection is a very simple concept, and that we have many good examples of it. After all, for negative NS to act, we only need existing functions whole loss would be detrimental to reproduction: and there are lots of them. And random events which can destroy those functions: and there are lots of them. Indeed, many single point mutations can destroy or seriously hamper the function of a specific protein. So, negative selection cam explain many onserved facts of population genetics. What about positive selection? It is a much more elusive principle. Why? Probably because we never observe new complex functions emerging as a result of random variation. The best examples we have of positive selection are the classic microevolutionary scenarios: antibody resistance above all, or if you want the expansion of drepanocitosis in malaria regions. the special characteristics of those scenarios have been discussed many times: partial advantages are acquired by simple mutations, which act strictly by tampering with the information in some existing structure: under unusual conditions (antibody treatment, malaria epidemics) those alterations of structure may become an advantage, and the new trait can expand. Anyway, if some truly new positive complex function were to emerge, there is no doubt that positive NS could contribute to expand and fix it. 3) Genetic drift. Here, really, I have always wondered what darwinists find in that concept. Let's see: I agree that most mutations are probably neutral. I agree that neutral mutations, while not visible to NS, could be sometimes expanded (or cancelled) by genetic drift (in the right conditions, which are well known, sexual reproduction, right ratio of alleles, and so on). And so? Neutral mutations can expand. Conceded. Some will expand. Some will be cancelled. Some will stay as they are. Randomly. And so? Because genetic drift is random. In its essence, it's only another form of random variation. If a single mutation is neutral, it could be expanded, but in the perspective of building some future function, I have exactly the same probabilities that it could help, in the long term, or be harmful, in the long term. But ny far the greatest probability is that it will remain neutral. IOW, genetic drift in no way can help to optimize the search for function, while NS certainly can, but only by acting on existing functions. So we come to the fundamentsl point: how is function created? That's where the neo-darwinian model in logically inconsistent. It assumes that function is created by RV. Any kind of RV (including genetic drift). And that is impossible. If you want we can discuss why more in depth in future posts. Please note that the neo-darwinian model does not postulate that function is created by RV + NS. It works this way: RV creates function, and NS expands and fixes it. But darwinists say: that is not true; complex functions are created by the accumulation of simpler functions, in successive rounds of RV (new function) + NS (expansion and fixing). But that is simply not possible. Complex functions cannot, as a rule, be deconstructed as a sum of elementary functions, each of them adding to the previous global functionality. That is obviously true for two reasons: no logic model supports that statement, and no empircal model exists of such a deconstruction. So, unless and until darwinists can exhibit a minimal logical reason why biological functions should be deconstructable, or show some real model of that decinstruction, the statement that all functions can be built as a gradual summation of elementary fucntions must be rejected as wholly implausible. But I would like to stop here for the moment. I would just add the "Occam razor" argument in favour of ID which I had in some way "announced". It's simple. My basic argument in favour of ID is the emrgence of protein domains in the course of evolution. I have quoted many times this paper (not an ID paper): The Evolutionary History of Protein Domains Viewed by Species Phylogeny Song Yang, Philip E. Bourne http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008378 If you read it, you will see that the most likely scenario about the thousands of independent protein domains existing in the proteome is that about half of them originated "in the beginnig", let's say form OOL to LUCA, and the other half in the course of the following evolution, with a gradual slowing down of the number of new domains (more in bacteria and archea, less in metazoa, very few in vertebrates, and especially in mammals). So my point is: each mew protein domain is an example of independent new dFSCI, and cannot be explained by neo darwinian models. But protein domains continue to emerge during all the history of life on our planet: they emerge massively in the beginning, and then evre more slowly, up to recent times. So, what is the problem with neo-darwinism. The fundamental problem, obviously, would be that it cannot explain even one single new protein domain. But this is not my point here. My point here is that neo darwinism has to postulate at least two different mechanisms for the emergence of new protein domains: one at OOL, to exlpain the very quick emergence of about half of them, at a time where there were probably no replicators as we know them (and, IMO, no replicators at all). That would be the various imaginative scenarios for OOL, with which I believe you too have some problems. And the second one would be the traditional neo-dariwnian scenario of gradual RV + NS. And I do say: that's not parsimony. If 4000 independent new protein domains emerged during the history of life, and about 2000 of them almost at the same time in the beginning, and then other 2000 gradually in 4 billion years, with an ever slower rate, the only parsimonious hypothesis is that the same process originated all of them. And that's my point. Design can be that process. Whatever its modality of implementation, it could well have acted both at OOL and after, although with different time rates. The design hypothesis is parsimonious. And logical. And empirically satisfying.gpuccio_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

bornagain @ 80, which part of my statement do you disagree with? Do you disagree that those three terms have a large variety of definitions, or do you disagree that most of those definitions are not scientifically useful? Do you or do you not claim that material processes can never create functional information? And do you mean that material processes can never create functional information as defined by Hazen et al? Contrary to what you seem to think, I have no problem with that paper, and I'm happy to discuss your claim in terms of their definition.R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Rob but if you show me the math, and if the math is valid, then I’ll believe will you really? I really have my doubts that you will but here goes: David Hilbert is one of the great mathematicians in the history of mathematics. Hilbert's Hotel - William Lane Craig - The Absurdity Of An Infinite Regress Of "Things" http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994011 Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 1-10) - The Mathematics of Infinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90 Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
Rob do you believe a first cause to be a logical necessity?
No, but if you show me the math, and if the math is valid, then I'll believe. Are you going to show me?R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

sorry for the misspelling of your name Robbornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Rod you state: The terms “material”, “functional”, and “information” have a large variety of definitions, most of which aren’t scientifically useful. when I stated "material" processes I specifically bracketed neo-Darwinism after it, are you now saying neo-Darwinism isn't scientifically useful? If so, I couldn't agree with you more; You also stated functional information is loosely defined and is also not useful scientyifically, whereas Szostak, a Nobel recipient, wrote a paper precisely defining functional information: Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define ‘functional information,’ I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf so rob since you consider yourself an expert so as to declare what is "scientifically useful" or not, do you mind writing up a peer-review so as to set Szotak straight? Until I see the peer review I will consider your objections to be without any substantial merit at all!bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Rob do you believe a first cause to be a logical necessity?bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply