Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

RNA Designed to Evolve?

Jonathan Bartlett
March 10, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m currently working through Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems, and came across the following information which seems to be right in line with Denton’s evolution by natural law ideas:

A final, especially counterintuitive feature of RNA sequence space is that all frequent structures are near each other in sequence space. Consider a randomly chosen sequence that folds into a frequent structure and ask how far one has to step away from the original sequence to find a sequence that folds into this second structure…For instance, for RNAs of length n = 100 nucleotides, a sphere of r = 15 mutational steps contains with probability one a sequence for any common structure. This implies that one has to search a vanishingly small fraction of sequence space…to find all common structures.

Comments
Well done, Joseph.tribune7
March 11, 2007
March
03
Mar
11
11
2007
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
M-W on Random:
RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than design.
IDist: “Evolution by random chance is impossible, it is outside the unverisal probability bound.” I believe that is incorrect. A proper way of putting it would be: IDist: “Evolution by random chance is highly unlikely and puts the onus on the claimant because it is outside the unverisal probability bound.” Darwinist: “No it isn’t, see the probability of finding these RNA structures is quite good.” IDist: "Demonstration please." Darwinist: "Can't do that because eveyone knows it would take eons of time." IDists: "You just admitted your inference is outside of science. Thank you."Joseph
March 11, 2007
March
03
Mar
11
11
2007
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Jehu, Yes! In a sense it does end up being heads design wins, tails materialists lose. But so what! :) I've identified in the past that this problem for materialists does exist. Materialism is on the horns of a dilemma. My argument was that evolutionists (ie. the materialist ones) are in a dilemma because design is evident by the fact that it is impossible, and yet even if it were deterministicaly certain to occur, it would still exemplify the occurance of an CSI impossibilty, ie. that such chance natural laws would exist. To eliminate design, I think, you'd have to find a very indifferent probability between impossible and deterministically certain. If deterministic, Dembski's design filter might not apply at some level of life, BUT it would at the least apply to the natual laws themselves. And it would apply to origin of life b/c it would require genetic front loading. EVEN still !! If a complex & specified cell could be shown to form spontaenously.. this would ALSO require intelligence... Don't you agree ? From my personal opinion, as a Christian, I think this agree's with scripture where it reads that the evidence for the creator is CLEARLY seen. In other words.. either way you look at it life & the universe require the intelligence of a creator. JGJGuy
March 11, 2007
March
03
Mar
11
11
2007
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Joseph "Designed to evolve" is a real possibility for a design goal and we see it attempted with computer simulations. However, nothing you have said gets away from the fact that it reduces ID to a tautology. IDist: "Evolution by random chance is impossible, it is outside the unverisal probability bound." Darwinist: "No it isn't, see the probability of finding these RNA structures is quite good." IDist: "If the outcomes are probable then it must have been designed to evolve." It heads you win, tails they lose. BTW, will somebody please explain by what is meant by, “RNAs of length n = 100 nucleotides, a sphere of r = 15 mutational steps contains with probability one a sequence for any common structure.”Jehu
March 11, 2007
March
03
Mar
11
11
2007
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
This is a fascinating concept, one that we shouldn't pass up when putting together a comprehensive ID Theory. It's one of the reasons why I criticize not considering the intentions of the designer - because through hypothesizing about those intentions, and their ability to fulfill those intentions, we can actually test our ideas. In order to consider RNA and other aspects of organisms as "designed to evolve," then we must postulate that the designer(s) intended for their designs to be capable of some evolution. Another reason why the negative argumentation strategy can run us into a dead end. Let's say that the designers made living organisms that could have evolved IC structures, but some of them didn't. Finding out whether or not it is possible to evolve them in that case would not de facto establish that it wasn't designed. Only by including the intentions and properties of the designers can we understand why certain organisms or structures within previously existing organisms were designed. My 2 cents.EJ Klone
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
“Designed to evolve” = the front-loading hypothesis. There's a lot to be said for the front-loading hypothesis, but I personally am more convinced of frequent acts of agency. Though I think that life is designed to withstand, even periodically benefit from, random accidents, I don't beleive that random accidents + the great cull engine in any way accounts for life's divercity. “evolved by culled genetic accidents” Now that defines the RM+NS hypothesis beautifully!bFast
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
"First you argue, it couldn’t have evolved by random chance. Then when random chance is not a problem, you argue it was designed to evolve." Well, no, because 'random chance' doesn't cease to be an issue here. The argument is that what looks like random chance actually is not. Someone here has used the casino argument before: If you have 1000 slot machines, 'random chance' is determining pretty much every pull of the lever. But the ultimate result - a profitable casino - was intentional. In other words, "random v design" is a false argument, because design doesn't argue the lack of randomness. I may be wrong, but even in the case of IC structures I don't believe that the ID camp argues that the results are impossible without a miracle. They just argue that the presence of such structures indicates that certain results of evolution weren't happy accidents, but may have been - through whatever process - intentional. (For the record, even full-on darwinists would have to argue that not all known 'evolution' is random chance. They just think intelligent design occurred vastly later than when ID proponents think it showed up. Random chance as commonly defined didn't result in scottish terriers.)nullasalus
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Jehu: Designed to evolve? This just seems silly. Is it more silly than "evolved by culled genetic accidents"? We have to weigh the data against the options. Jehu: You reduce ID to a tautology. I call it a starting point from which to launch our investigation. Design is an impetus. Jehu: First you argue, it couldn’t have evolved by random chance. First we argue there isn't any evidence to support random chance. Then we say we know intelligent agencies can produce things like that. It's the ole "data v options" thingy. Jehu: Then when random chance is not a problem, you argue it was designed to evolve. This is what is said:
Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.
Joseph
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
Designed to evolve? This just seems silly. You reduce ID to a tautology. First you argue, it couldn't have evolved by random chance. Then when random chance is not a problem, you argue it was designed to evolve. As for the phrase "RNAs of length n = 100 nucleotides, a sphere of r = 15 mutational steps contains with probability one a sequence for any common structure." Can you elaborate on what that means?Jehu
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
idnet.com.au -- Exactly.johnnyb
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
"This implies that one has to search a vanishingly small fraction of sequence space…to find all common structures." Who is the "one" who searches the space? Does this not rather imply that in naturalistic models of origins a vanishingly small fraction of sequence space must be found by chance in the first place to make any one of the known useful structures. In real living systems the structures are only of any use at all when they are organised in a coordinated group. Does this not imply that RNA is designed around a tight set sequence space because of constructional and functional constraints?idnet.com.au
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
I got introduced to Wagner's work via one of my nicer critics at Newton's Binomium weblog. It is a good survey of the cutting edge theoretical investigations going on out there. My major reservation is when Wagner resorts to the usual circular arguments to justify his view that mindless evolution created such and such a system. You've manage to find some gems in his book which I overlooked. Salscordova
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
"Designed to evolve"- That is a phrase that every IDist should use regularly. That one simple phrase makes it clear that ID is NOT anti-evolution, along with demonstrating the debate is all about mechanisms- culled genetic accidents vs. design. From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human (perhaps related to Mike Gene ;) ).
The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro by KH (bold added)
And by design it is meant that there is, at a minimum, a goal/ target, ie purpose to the evolutionary process.Joseph
March 10, 2007
March
03
Mar
10
10
2007
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply