Yorzhik said:
For instance, the ancestors of mammals didn't have mammary glands. And this is just one of the obvious examples. But the real problem lies in the plethora of interconnected systems that make it and integrate it into the body.
Johnny said:
Sticking with the example of mammary glands, there are signals from a fertilized egg that prompt changes to begin so the glands can function differently from when lactation is not required. This signal is not the change itself, but the signal must be generated and interpreted and transmitted outside of the gland. And that is just one example, but it should be enough.
Yorzhik said:
A simple way to recognize this is that the first common ancestor could not possibly have had all the systems of all the organisms that exist today. Something had to be new somewhere along the line.
Johnny said:
But the new systems could not have been created from mutations. There are to many interconnected systems. Or another way to put it; the feedback control mechanisms inside the organisms would too quickly get confused (break) if mutations were allowed to change the signals beyond a certain range.
Johnny said:
What are you talking about? Mechanism: "An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being" (dictionary.com) You said, "Because not only will a good mutation have to be changed in whatever point it did change, but it will have to also come with changes (or wait for changes) to other systems that are dependent on that other single change." I provided an instrument or process...by which a mutation could occur without having to wait on changes in other systems. That is, by definition, a mechanism. This is not a difficult concept.
Even though I think you understood what I meant, I'm sure you won't admit it. So let me be clearer; Mutations can change things, but sometimes a system requires more than one change to disparate parts to function. In fact, if you are creating new organs, then that would be the norm. So, the instrument or process you provided was a mutation that created a cascade of changes, but that is not a mechanism to create changes necessary in other systems that need to take place for the system with that single change to function.
Yorzhik said:
This would be like someone watching the craps table and seeing the house win in Las Vegas. After a while they ask how to win at craps... i.e. they are looking for that mechanism that would allow them to beat the house - and you respond with someone who won a bet at the table!
Johnny said:
That is in no way analogous.
No, this is very analogous. I can see why OEJ was getting frustrated with you.
How would you beat the house at craps? Always roll a winning number (or more accurately, predict what number will be rolled with a sufficiently high enough degree of accuracy), but if you can always roll what you want, prediction is intrinsic.
Money is analogous to functions in the organism. The house winning is analogous to death. You breaking even is analogous to staying a particular species (not gaining functions that increase fitness, but not losing any either). And winning is analogous to gaining function that help increase fitness. And the linchpin to this analogy: Rolling dice is analogous to random mutation. And even
more apropos to the analogy, you cannot just guess what you are going to roll, but make sure you get a roll that will work - i.e. not all functions that become available from a mutation/roll will give you better fitness. In fact, most
won't.
So now, if you can tell us how we can roll what we want in the game of craps, then we could insure that we would win. And the operative word is "how" i.e. the mechanism. This is what I've been asking all along. And I have been clear that I'm not asking for an example of a winning roll, but that I'm asking how you beat the house. I'm contending that you are claiming that an example of a winning roll is what you say the mechanism is, a single mutation.
All analogies break down at some point, but this one keeps going at least a little further. I ask you: what are your chances of beating the house (assuming you cannot roll what you want when you want) if you stay at the table and play for 5 billion years,
greater or
worse?
Yorzhik said:
Second, my point was that the extra copies aren't always redundant.
Johnny said:
Not always, so what? What if a bacteria which once relied on higher expression levels of a protein no longer needs elevated expression. The extra copies are now redundant--and their mutation and subsequent selection will have no effect on systems dependent upon the protein.
"What if it worked out just so if it were redundant or not, that way just happened to be better for the organism!" Well, gee, I guess then it always would be better.
It doesn't matter (in the real world). In the real world even if you did sometimes get it right, those times that you don't will contribute, at best, to mutational load.
Yorzhik said:
Thus, if we can get mutations to change one body type into another body type without direction in the lab that would be strong evidence that evo is true.
Johnny said:
No, it would be strong evidence in the lab as well.
Sorry, a more clear way to have said that would have been "even in the lab". I realize that if you can duplicate conditions in the lab it would be a valid test. The point was that (even if it were a lab test), turning one body type into another via mutation would have to be done with undirected mutations. If you can do that, then you've got about a slam dunk that evolution is true.
But let's go another step back, even if you could get a good mutation (a long way from changing one body type into another body type) that would be evidence that evolution was true, too. However, despite a step in the right direction, you have to take your organism with the good mutation and continue to subject it to mutations until you get another good one. Every good mutation is another step toward "proving" evolution. And BTW, no rewinding.
Yorzhik said:
And do they actually look at how mutations affect the DNA? That isn't checked into too much because it obviously couldn't possibly be the case.
Johnny said:
No they don't. And I'll make a prediction that if they ever did tell us, it would be obvious to the most casual observer that evolution has no way to turn one body type into another body type, that mutational load would kill any organism that mutated enough to do it.
Or perhaps they do it and they won't tell anyone. Have you ever tried to get a straight answer on a measure of a particular specie's mutational load?
Yorzhik said:
Yes, thank you. What needs to be pointed out is that there is more than one theory of gravity, and we really don't know which one is right.
Johnny said:
No, there is only one theory of gravity supported by mounds of empirical evidence. The other "theory" of gravity is a paper theory which exists soley to reconcile an apparent conflict. It is not a "theory" in the classical sense.
So we can ignore the theory that's on paper, right? Since it isn't a "theory in the classical sense" (if you can easily define "theory in the classical sense" that would help greatly) it cannot possibly be correct. Please note; these two theories happen to be exclusive to each other - they cannot both be completely correct at the same time.
