User Tag List

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 916171819
Results 271 to 273 of 273

Thread: Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

  1. #271
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,850
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked 12,588 Times in 8,919 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147849
    And another symptom of the declining doctrine of Catholicism:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the “Young Earth” creationist view.
    Darwinists are tied to the notion that the popularity of an idea is evidence for it. It's why they are so easily duped by nonsense and so enraged by the evidence.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Yesterday),Right Divider (Yesterday),Yorzhik (Yesterday)

  3. #272
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,010
    Thanks
    280
    Thanked 367 Times in 267 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    400377
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Rather, Yorzhik still doesn't understand what Shannon found. Every one of us has dozens of mutations that neither parent had. And yet, we see fitness in natural populations increase. When you understand why this is so, then you will be on the way to understanding what Shannon information is.
    Shannon did not find that adding noise to a message improved it. He said, "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

    I realize he uses the word "approximately" which is what is tripping you up. But this is only because noise is inevitable, and Shannon's theory helped us get the original message back despite the noise.

    And yet, we see fitness in natural populations increase.
    Yeah, you just keep saying that to yourself and maybe you can convince yourself it's true.

    It now becomes clear what's confusing Yorzhik. The "message" is from the individual organism's DNA. The message is by (appropriately named) Messenger RNA (m-RNA) to a ribosome in the cytoplasm. The message is then translated by a ribosome (receiver) which reads the m-RNA strand like a VCR head, and strings out amino acids as it reads the message. The ribosome is very accurate. For example, yeast ribosomes have error rates of about 10 to the -7 power. That's very, very accurate.

    The "message" in a population is the population genome, the sum of the frequencies of each allele for every given gene locus.
    Shannon applies to all messages, be they in the cell, between the cells, between the organs that the cells make up, or between parent's and their children's DNA. There are even more biological messages than that. In every case, every message can only work as intended if it is received exactly as it was sent or close enough to be reconstructed as the original message. Sometimes degraded messages can be acted upon well enough to avoid catastrophe, but eventually a degraded message harm the system.

    Odd to consider a mutated allele that works better than the one from which it evolved as "degraded."
    And burning a bridge to hold off in invading army works better than letting them cross. It's still degradation.

    Doesn't matter. The fact is, by Behe's definition, the evolved system is irreducibly complex. To make it work, you have to have three factors, the nutrient, the allele, and the regulator. Remove one of those and it won't work.
    It does matter. Without adding a false factor, you only have 2.

    "Work inefficiently" is not part of Behe's definition. Nice try. You're between a rock and a hard place here.
    Thus, your example is outside the definition of irreducibly complex.

    Nope. You still can't get your head around the way it works. First, a number of mutations made a different enzyme increasingly efficient at metabolizing the nutrient. Then, only after that, did the regulator evolve. Initially, there were only two factors; the nutrient and the enzyme. Then, the factor prevented the enzyme from being produced unless the nutrient was present. At that point it became irreducibly complex. Not until then.
    You don't understand the challenge of irreducible complexity. Your example has two factors and an inefficient precursor, all derived though 1-3 mutations acting on existing structures at each step. Are you suggesting this is how all irreducibly complex things were created in biology?

    It was on the mousetrap I bought.
    Did the mousetrap you bought have writing on it too?

    But as the link shows you, they can be a lot simpler than mine and still work.
    Each has all 5 factors listed by Behe, and the series does not derive one to another.

    The parts Behe insisted to be necessary for the mousetrap to work aren't irreducibly complex at all. And yes, Behe's response was "well, that's not what those parts are for", which shows the same flaw in his thinking that tripped him up on Hall's bacteria. (and befuddled you as well). You don't start with an enzyme and a substrate that won't work without a regulator. You start with an enzyme and a substrate that don't need a regulator. And then a mutation happens to produce a regulator. That's by analogy, how you build an arch of stones. The arch is irreducibly complex; remove one stone and the whole thing fails. So how did they build it? You scaffold it so that all the stones aren't needed to keep it up, until you have the stones in place. And then you remove the scaffolding.

    It's not all that difficult to get.
    That's the point. The scaffolding gets beyond the edge of evolution when more than two, possibly three, mutations are required to build it. Thus, as intuitive as irreducible complexity is, the idea is strengthened because the anomalies can be explained by the edge of evolution.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Yorzhik For Your Post:

    Right Divider (Yesterday)

  5. #273
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,863
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 2,186 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415234
    Barbarian observes:
    And yet, we see fitness in natural populations increase.

    Yeah, you just keep saying that to yourself and maybe you can convince yourself it's true.
    Even your creationist masters admit that's a fact...
    Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the observable process by which organisms with specific characteristics survive and reproduce better in a given environment.
    https://answersingenesis.org/search/...ural+selection

    You're not just ignorant of biology, you're in the dark about creationism as well. AiG doesn't deny it, because there's no point; it's demonstrably true. Maybe you should go update a bit?

    Shannon applies to all messages, be they in the cell, between the cells, between the organs that the cells make up, or between parent's and their children's DNA. There are even more biological messages than that. In every case, every message can only work as intended if it is received exactly as it was sent or close enough to be reconstructed as the original message.
    Where in genetic transcription, translation, or protein synthesis, is there "intent?"

    Sometimes degraded messages can be acted upon well enough to avoid catastrophe
    Or, as in the cases you learned about, improve the system. How do you figure such information is "degraded" when it actually works better than the original?

    but eventually a degraded message harm the system.
    Sounds like a testable assumption. How does the HPAS allele in Tibetans "degrade" them? (it's the gene that allows them to live at very high altitudes without the drawbacks of increasing hematocrit levels). Tell us about that.

    And burning a bridge to hold off in invading army works better than letting them cross. It's still degradation.
    Suppose that instead of burning bridge, the defenders built a pulley system to swing it up so it coudn't be used until they lowered it again? Yes, burning the bridge was a feasible solution, (like a lizard sacrificing a tail to escape) but then they had to rebuild it. Building a bridge or regrowing a tail takes resources. The drawbridge was a mutation that improved the process of keeping the enemy on the other side of the river. Deceptive coloration would be an improvement for the lizard. That's how evolution works.

    Doesn't matter. The fact is, by Behe's definition, the evolved system is irreducibly complex. To make it work, you have to have three factors, the nutrient, the allele, and the regulator. Remove one of those and it won't work.

    It does matter. Without adding a false factor, you only have 2.
    Behe merely says "part." So any part that works in the system applies. I understand that you don't like his definition, but that's the one you have. This is why Behe has admitted that it's possible for irreducible complexity to evolve, even though he thinks it doesn't.

    (attempt by Yorzhik to modify Behe's definition by excluding "inefficient" systems that work)

    "Work inefficiently" is not part of Behe's definition. Nice try. You're between a rock and a hard place here.

    You don't understand the challenge of irreducible complexity. My example has three factors. An inefficient precursor has nothing to do with Behe's definition. I understand why you want to change it, now that you've been shown an example of an evolved irreducibly complex system, but you'll have to do with Behe's definition.

    all derived though 1-3 mutations acting on existing structures at each step.
    There were more than that.

    Are you suggesting this is how all irreducibly complex things were created in biology?
    Scaffolding is one way. Sometimes an optional feature can later become required. Sexual reproduction is like that. Would you like to learn more about those?

    Did the mousetrap you bought have writing on it too?
    I never considered writing to be a "part." But in some cases, I suppose it could be. As you now see, a mousetrap can work without many of the parts found on a normal mousetrap.

    Each has all 5 factors listed by Behe,
    Nope. It has fewer parts, read it again, carefully.

    and the series does not derive one to another.
    But it does. Each succeeding trap has another part added.

    That's the point. The scaffolding gets beyond the edge of evolution when more than two, possibly three, mutations are required to build it.
    No, that's wrong. The irreducibly complex enzyme system I showed you, had more than that.

    As I said, even Behe now admits in principle that irreducible complexity can evolve. This one just never worked for ID, and few IDers say much about it, any more.



    coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes
    Yong Jiang and Russell F. Doolittle
    PNAS June 24, 2003 100 (13) 7527-7532
    Abstract
    The blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes, has been reconstructed on the basis of orthologs of genes for mammalian blood clotting factors being present in its genome. As expected, clotting follows the same fundamental pattern as has been observed in other vertebrates, even though genes for some clotting factors found in mammals are absent and some others are present in more than one gene copy. All told, 26 different proteins involved in clotting or fibrinolysis were searched against the puffer fish genome. Of these, orthologs were found for 21. Genes for the ``contact system'' factors (factor XI, factor XII, and prekallikrein) could not be identified. On the other hand, two genes were found for factor IX and four for factor VII. It was evident that not all four factor VII genes are functional, essential active-site residues having been replaced in two of them. A search of the genome of a urochordate, the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis, did not turn up any genuine orthologs for these 26 factors, although paralogs and/or constituent domains were evident for virtually all of them.
    This message is hidden because ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us