Intelligent Design

[rossum]

The genome.

The genome of what? A bacterium has a smaller genome than a starfish. What organism has this genome and where is the reference which provides the figure of 10,000?

Are you aware it’s called RNA? (gasp) I mean really this is basic knowledge.

Basic knowledge which you appear to lack. I mentioned chromosomes, genes and exons. Chromosomes are always DNA. Genes and exons can be either DNA before transcription or RNA after transcription. RNA may be messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA or ribosomal-RNA, with some of the mRNA being non-coding. You have failed to explain what you meant by your apparently nonsensical word-salad, “Duplications occur at the eukaryotic level therefore all genes must be accounted for.” Are you sure you are not using a Markov text generator to put your posts together?

Which in my opinion negates certain aspects of causality that are critical in science.

Given your almost complete lack of knowledge in this area your opinion is of no worth. You have opinion, science has the evidence. Science wins.

And as far as I can tell you pulled that number out of your hoo-ha.

Your ignorance obviously extends to cover the ability to search the internet. Type “average mutations in humans” into Google. I got over four million hits, among them Nachmann and Crowell (2000) “Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans” where you can read:Our estimate of the neutral mutation rate is 175 mutations per genome per generation (range 91–238). This is science where we have detailed data to back up our numbers. We have the data, get used to it.

What exactly is the point of this anyway?

To show that your argument that natural selection has no mutations to work on is worthless. Natural selection has billions of mutations to work on. It also serves to point out your lack of knowledge in this area - the figure I used, 150, is a common estimate. Why do you chose to argue in an area where your knowledge is sorely lacking? You would do better discussing a topic that you know something about.

I don’t see how it helps your argument.

It shows that your toy model of evolution that omits natural selection is faulty and that the probabilities you are getting from it are worthless.

Second law of thermodynamics: entropy.

Evidently something else you do not understand.

rossum

 

[M0nkey]

Understandably when you fail to follow an argument you turn to vitriolic empty arguments.

The genome of what? A bacterium has a smaller genome than a starfish. What organism has this genome and where is the reference which provides the figure of 10,000?

The calculation showed an “average of 10,000 genes” therefore it does not matter which one as long as it is a vertebrate it can be included. That number of course is very generous as most mammals have somewhere in the +20,000.

You have failed to explain what you meant by your apparently nonsensical word-salad, “Duplications occur at the eukaryotic level therefore all genes must be accounted for.” Are you sure you are not using a Markov text generator to put your posts together?

I am not. This is a general concept. Eukaryotic cells duplicate and that’s a fact.

You have opinion, science has the evidence. Science wins.

That goes without saying, but the evidence shows the utter lack of probability for Darwinian evolution, go back to the previous calculation posted.

Your ignorance obviously extends to cover the ability to search the internet. Type “average mutations in humans” into Google. I got over four million hits, among them Nachmann and Crowell (2000) “Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans” where you can read:Our estimate of the neutral mutation rate is 175 mutations per genome per generation (range 91–238). This is science where we have detailed data to back up our numbers. We have the data, get used to it.

Again, you are *assuming *natural selection because we can find blood clotting cascades in the here and now. However, and explanation for incipient stages must be accounted for, in other words how. Making an assumption for natural selection is not very scientific, that would be rightfully called beliefs or myths.

To show that your argument that natural selection has no mutations to work on is worthless. Natural selection has billions of mutations to work on. It also serves to point out your lack of knowledge in this area - the figure I used, 150, is a common estimate. Why do you chose to argue in an area where your knowledge is sorely lacking? You would do better discussing a topic that you know something about.

Actually, I seem to be the one reserved from personal attacks which is by the way no way to carry out a reasonable argument. Go back and read my previous paragraph to find out why natural selection is irrelevant. It might be eye-opening! [the second or third time]

It shows that your toy model of evolution that omits natural selection is faulty and that the probabilities you are getting from it are worthless.

Your argumentation seems to fail *how *or *why *that is. A level of logical debate you seem to lack.

 

[M0nkey]

Evidently something else you do not understand.

And how’s that? Again, if you are going to argue, please have something at hand.

 

[M0nkey]

…

I generally agree with your taxation assertion but I would add this: all energy was perfect at the Big Bang and according to the first law: matter and energy are interchangeable (“E=mc^2”) which is how a big massive explosion could transform into matter. Entropy basically thwarts a self-perpetuated system from entering the known universe, and guarantees that known natural processes are subject to corruption. One good example is natural death when you die entropy wins.

 

[rossum]

Understandably when you fail to follow an argument you turn to vitriolic empty arguments.

In post #98 I was accused of pulling a number out of my “hoo-ha”; a number which was correct and which was supported by a relevant scientific reference. It is not me who has the empty arguments - I have data and references to back me up. I have pointed out your lack of knowledge and suggested that you remedy it by learning more about the subject. Have you learned yet what the difference between an exon and an intron is? Have you incorporated the effects of this difference into your 10,000 gene probability calculation?

The calculation showed an “average of 10,000 genes” therefore it does not matter which one as long as it is a vertebrate it can be included. That number of course is very generous as most mammals have somewhere in the +20,000.

OK, so you are not talking about a particular species, but about some sort of generalised vertebrate with 10,000 genes. Now you need to incorporate into your model the fact that your vertebrate had parents, who themselves also had about 10,000 genes, and that the 10,000 genes in the parents were very similar to, though not the same as, the 10,000 genes in the offspring. For example, the parents would probably have had eyes, so the offspring would not have needed to build eyes from scratch but would have started from the basis of their parents’ eyes.

We also know that the parents had genomes that functioned well enough to reproduce because if they did not then there would have been no offspring. Now please modify your model to incorporate the presence of parents with a reasonably functional genome.

That goes without saying, but the evidence shows the utter lack of probability for Darwinian evolution, go back to the previous calculation posted.

Your calculation was based on a faulty model so the numbers you got out of it were useless and not admissible as evidence. As I have repeatedly said, you need to make a model of what evolution actually says - that means incorporating natural selection and all the other details that your simplistic “tornado in a junkyard” single step model leaves out. Your model is not a model of evolution so the figures you get from it have no relevance to evolution either.

Again, you are *assuming *natural selection because we can find blood clotting cascades in the here and now.

No, I am assuming that all vertebrates had parents and that those parents functioned well enough to have at least one offspring. I do not say that you personally evolved eyes from scratch, I work on the basis that your parents had eyes and that you inherited your genes for eyes from your parents. Evolution does not build things in a single step - it builds then in small steps over many generations.

However, and explanation for incipient stages must be accounted for

Which is why I pointed you to hagfish, lampreys and sea squirts. All of those have functional blood clotting systems that are a subset of the more complex blood clotting system that we have. They show that a subset of the human system can be functional on its own, which means that our system is not IC by Behe’s definition since a part of the system is functional on its own.

Go back and read my previous paragraph to find out why natural selection is irrelevant. It might be eye-opening! [the second or third time]

Natural selection is only irrelevant if you can find a vertebrate that did not have any parents.

rossum

 

[M0nkey]

In post #98 I was accused of pulling a number out of my “hoo-ha”; a number which was correct and which was supported by a relevant scientific reference.

I mentioned “hoo-ha” but I didn’t accuse you, the point of that was to ask why you were bringing it to the table. I still don’t quite follow. If positive “mutations” have occurred, that still doesn’t prove natural selection. The only reason they are referred as such is because there is no discernible pattern (yet).

OK, so you are not talking about a particular species, but about some sort of generalised vertebrate with 10,000 genes.

Yay! That’s what I’ve been saying for the last few posts! I knew if I repeated myself enough times, you would eventually get it.

No, I am assuming that all vertebrates had parents and that those parents functioned well enough to have at least one offspring.

Good point. But at which point do you “insert” the blood-clotting system? The system does not work by adding incremental parts, nor is it designed that way. If there is a functional piece missing, the parents or the offspring will either coagulate or bleed to death. The evolutionary pathway you’ve shown so far just seems to assume that it just “appears” or is “concocted” which is fancy language for: I have no idea therefore it just is.

I do not say that you personally evolved eyes from scratch, I work on the basis that your parents had eyes and that you inherited your genes for eyes from your parents. Evolution does not build things in a single step - it builds then in small steps over many generations.

Sure, but that doesn’t tell me where the eyes come from. See, at some point some some BIG variation must be introduced as eyes either work or they don’t. And as I’ve shown through the calculation that’s merely improbable, but of course the calculation has to do with blood-clotting not eyes. (Why are you bringing up eyes!? Let’s stay focused here.)

Which is why I pointed you to hagfish, lampreys and sea squirts. All of those have functional blood clotting systems that are a subset of the more complex blood clotting system that we have. They show that a subset of the human system can be functional on its own, which means that our system is not IC by Behe’s definition since a part of the system is functional on its own.

Not exactly, vertebrate clotting systems are highly sophisticated and fine tuned. Any “subset” that doesn’t have at least the critical components for proper function fails.

Natural selection is only irrelevant if you can find a vertebrate that did not have any parents.

Now I like that! That’s actually a good point. That still doesn’t tell me *how *the incipient stages were assembled in the first place thou.

 

[rossum]

the point of that was to ask why you were bringing it to the table.

To rebut your nonsense that natural selection does not matter when calculating probabilities for evolution. The main thrust of my argument is that your probability calculation supposedly showing that the vertebrate blood clotting system could not have evolved is incorrect. I am showing that your model, on which your probability calculation is based, is faulty and does not correctly reflect evolution. Because your model is faulty the numbers you get from that model are faulty. Because the numbers you get are faulty your argument based on those numbers is faulty.

If positive “mutations” have occurred, that still doesn’t prove natural selection.

We do not need to ‘prove’ natural selection because we can observe natural selection. We know it happens because we can see it happening.

Good point.

Yes, but one which you simplistic model of evolution does not include. Another fault in your model. Another fault in your numbers. Another fault in your argument.

But at which point do you “insert” the blood-clotting system?

Every organism with blood has a blood clotting system. Every organism with a blood-like circulatory system has a clotting system. If you cut into a plant it will leak sap for a time and then the cut will seal over and stop leaking. Just as we inherited eyes from our parents so we inherited a primitive blood clotting system from our distant ancestors. Sea squirts are not vertebrates, but they are related to the ancestors of vertebrates. Sea squirts have a simple and primitive blood clotting system. Hagfish are almost-but-not-quite vertebrates; they have a skull but not a vertebral column. They have a primitive blood clotting system but one that is more complex than sea quirts. Lampreys are actually vertebrates, but very primitive vertebrates; they have vertebrae but no jaws. Their blood clotting system is more complex than hagfish but less complex than ours. Sharks have a yet more complex blood clotting system but again less complex than ours. We do not “insert” a blood clotting system, we take the ancestral blood clotting system and modify it to make a different blood clotting system. This is the major fault in your argument, you seem to think that the modern human blood clotting system had no ancestors. The modern human blood clotting system did have ancestors which were more primitive but which worked for the organisms using them. A plant does not clot its sap as quickly as you can clot your blood, but the plant’s system works well enough for the plant to survive and reproduce.

The system does not work by adding incremental parts, nor is it designed that way.

Yes it did. The hagfish system is a subset of the lamprey system. The lamprey system is a subset of the dolphin system. The dolphin system is a subset of your system. The later, more complex, systems are built on the basis of the earlier simpler systems and contain all the elements of the simpler systems within them. Your use of the word ‘designed’ is begging the question.

If there is a functional piece missing, the parents or the offspring will either coagulate or bleed to death.

False. Dolphins are missing one or two pieces and their blood clots perfectly well. In terms of Behe’s original definition the human blood clotting system is not Irreducibly Complex because reduced versions of the system work perfectly well in dolphins, lampreys and hagfish.

Not exactly, vertebrate clotting systems are highly sophisticated and fine tuned. Any “subset” that doesn’t have at least the critical components for proper function fails.

Sea squirts have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Hagfish have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Lampreys have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Dolphins have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Your argument here misses the point completely. Any ancestor that did not have a working blood clotting system would have been likely to have bled to death and not to have passed on its faulty blood clotting system. Every single one of your ancestors reproduced successfully. Every single ancestor for billions of generations for the last 3.5 billion years. Not a single failure, a 100% record. That is a 100% record of blood clotting systems that worked.

Now I like that! That’s actually a good point. That still doesn’t tell me *how *the incipient stages were assembled in the first place thou.

For more detail than I can fit in here have a look at The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting. That webpage ws written by Ken Miller, a Catholic.

It is also worth pointing out that even if the blood clotting system had turned out to be IC that would not have had much impact on the argument. Professor Behe himself now acknowledges that IC systems can evolve. He was right that they cannot evolve directly, but they have been seen to evolve indirectly.

rossum

 

[M0nkey]

To rebut your nonsense that natural selection does not matter when calculating probabilities for evolution. The main thrust of my argument is that your probability calculation supposedly showing that the vertebrate blood clotting system could not have evolved is incorrect. I am showing that your model, on which your probability calculation is based, is faulty and does not correctly reflect evolution. Because your model is faulty the numbers you get from that model are faulty. Because the numbers you get are faulty your argument based on those numbers is faulty.

It is not faulty when you fail to show *how *natural selection is relevant here. So one could assume its irrelevance until proven otherwise.

We do not need to ‘prove’ natural selection because we can observe natural selection. We know it happens because we can see it happening.

I was referring in terms of making that assumption; beak finches is no grounds for natural selection when blood-clotting and beak finches are not the same thing. Darwin may have gotten only part of the truth but it is still irrelevant to IC systems.

Yes, but one which you simplistic model of evolution does not include. Another fault in your model. Another fault in your numbers. Another fault in your argument.

That is the power of simplicity. It gets a seemingly complex argument down to the core.

Every organism with blood has a blood clotting system. Every organism with a blood-like circulatory system has a clotting system.

That still doesn’t tell me where it came from. Like I said, making an assumption for natural selection is not enough as a scientific proof.

False. Dolphins are missing one or two pieces and their blood clots perfectly well. In terms of Behe’s original definition the human blood clotting system is not Irreducibly Complex because reduced versions of the system work perfectly well in dolphins, lampreys and hagfish.

“Missing” is not the right word. Not necessary is probably more correct. The point is there are *fundamental * functional pieces that must be included in the cascade. Which portends a challenge to step-by-step evolution. To break it down for you, it’s an all or nothing system.

Sea squirts have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Hagfish have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Lampreys have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Dolphins have all the critical components that they need - their blood clots. Your argument here misses the point completely. Any ancestor that did not have a working blood clotting system would have been likely to have bled to death and not to have passed on its faulty blood clotting system. Every single one of your ancestors reproduced successfully. Every single ancestor for billions of generations for the last 3.5 billion years. Not a single failure, a 100% record. That is a 100% record of blood clotting systems that worked.

Exactly but my argument revolves around these “critical” components.

For more detail than I can fit in here have a look at The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting. That webpage ws written by Ken Miller, a Catholic.

You’ve already shown that and I’ve already shown you how it simply assumes a blood-clotting system could come together by natural selection. It does not say how.

 

[rossum]

It is not faulty when you fail to show *how *natural selection is relevant here. So one could assume its irrelevance until proven otherwise.

You want to show that the blood clotting system cannot evolve. To do this you are trying to build a model the evolution of the blood clotting system as proposed by the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution says that the blood clotting system evolved over many generations. The numbers of different alleles passing from one generation to the next generation is affected by natural selection. Since you are looking at the evolution of the genes for blood clotting you need to incorporate the impact of natural selection into your model of evolution. Because you are building a model of evolution you have to base that model on what evolution actually says. Since evolution incorporates natural selection your model also has to incorporate natural selection. If your model does not incorporate natural selection then your model is not a model of evolution and cannot be used to say anything useful about evolution.

I was referring in terms of making that assumption; beak finches is no grounds for natural selection when blood-clotting and beak finches are not the same thing. Darwin may have gotten only part of the truth but it is still irrelevant to IC systems.

IC systems are irrelevant to our discussion. IC systems can evolve and have been observed to evolve. Professor Behe agrees that IC systems can evolve and has attested to that under oath. The argument now is about how easy or difficult it is for an IC system to evolve.

That is the power of simplicity. It gets a seemingly complex argument down to the core.

That complexity was built by adding extra parts to an initially simple system, such as that possessed by a sea squirt. We still have living examples of those simpler systems. We know that those simpler systems work perfectly well because we can see them working in living animals here and now.

That still doesn’t tell me where it came from. Like I said, making an assumption for natural selection is not enough as a scientific proof.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.htm
gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003889.html
keinanlab.cb.bscb.cornell.edu/combining_evidence_of_natural_selection.pdf

Natural selection has been shown many many times over in the scientific literature. I get over five million hits on Google and more than three million on Google Scholar. If you want your model to correctly reflect evolution then it has to include what evolution says. That means you need to include natural selection. I cannot build a good model of Christianity if I leave out Jesus; you cannot build a good model of evolution if you leave out natural selection.

“Missing” is not the right word. Not necessary is probably more correct.

What evidence do you have for that “probably”. The land mammal system has evolved with those additional proteins present, and has adjusted to their presence. If we remove those proteins from the land mammal system then it ceases working. The dolphin system has evolved without those proteins. It has adapted to their absence. Evolution adapts systems to their immediate environment. Inside a dolphin those extra proteins are inessential; inside a land mammal those proteins are essential.

The point is there are *fundamental * functional pieces that must be included in the cascade. Which portends a challenge to step-by-step evolution. To break it down for you, it’s an all or nothing system.

What you need to understand is that the “*fundamental * functional pieces” change over time. The hagfish has a far smaller set than a dolphin. When a new piece is added it is not essential, it may be neutral or it may be slightly useful. It starts out by being inessential, but over time as the other pieces adapt to its presence then it becomes essential. The set of “*fundamental * functional pieces” changes over time. The whole system is changing over time so it is actually a series of very similar systems following one after another over time. There are many different ways to build a working blood clotting system.

Exactly but my argument revolves around these “critical” components.

You problem is that components that are critical now were not critical in the past. Any component that is not present in a hagfish was obviously not critical in the early evolution of vertebrates. Some of those not-present-in-hagfish components are essential to us now.

You’ve already shown that and I’ve already shown you how it simply assumes a blood-clotting system could come together by natural selection. It does not say how.

Did you read it? I thought it explained how very well. It started with a very simple system, as used by lobsters, and then explained how by co-opting some digestive proteins a simple blood clotting system could be built. It then further explained how by a series of gene duplications that initial simple system could be made more complex. Unless you want to look more deeply into the scientific literature then that is about the level of detail you are going to get. For an example have a look at Jiang and Doolittle (2003) The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes. That goes into a lot more detail than Ken Miller’s piece, but it is not as good an overview as it assumes a substantial amount of background knowledge.

rossum

 

[tjm190]

I generally agree with your taxation assertion but I would add this: all energy was perfect at the Big Bang and according to the first law: matter and energy are interchangeable (“E=mc^2”) which is how a big massive explosion could transform into matter. Entropy basically thwarts a self-perpetuated system from entering the known universe, and guarantees that known natural processes are subject to corruption. One good example is natural death when you die entropy wins.

I think I spelled this out very clearly- certain systems can make gains in energy, however, those systems must be ‘taking it’ from elsewhere, and the transfer looses some energy. That is all the law says- when you die, entropy does not ‘win’- the chemical bonds in your body are no less existent. However, when bacteria begin to break down some of those bonds, entropy will take a slice of that too.

Life is not self-prepetuating- living things require vast amounts of (name removed by moderator)ut (e.g. nutrients)

 

[M0nkey]

Life is not self-prepetuating- living things require vast amounts of (name removed by moderator)ut (e.g. nutrients)

I wasn’t referring to life alone but natural processes. Entropy affects those as well.

You want to show that the blood clotting system cannot evolve. To do this you are trying to build a model the evolution of the blood clotting system as proposed by the theory of evolution.

Actually, I am showing how natural selection is *irrelevant *to our discussion.

Professor Behe agrees that IC systems can evolve and has attested to that under oath.

Under oath? What, did evolutionists threatened to send him to the stakes?

That complexity was built by adding extra parts to an initially simple system, such as that possessed by a sea squirt. We still have living examples of those simpler systems. We know that those simpler systems work perfectly well because we can see them working in living animals here and now.

That’s only relative. It is still an IC. Complexity is another problem for evolution, but I won’t go into that right now.

Natural selection has been shown many many times over in the scientific literature. I get over five million hits on Google and more than three million on Google Scholar.

Literature can say whatever, science is not based on literature but experience and experimentation.

What evidence do you have for that “probably”. The land mammal system has evolved with those additional proteins present, and has adjusted to their presence. If we remove those proteins from the land mammal system then it ceases working. The dolphin system has evolved without those proteins. It has adapted to their absence. Evolution adapts systems to their immediate environment. Inside a dolphin those extra proteins are inessential; inside a land mammal those proteins are essential.

Again, it cannot “adapt” if variations kill. A conundrum for Darwinian evolution.

What you need to understand is that the “*fundamental * functional pieces” change over time. The hagfish has a far smaller set than a dolphin. When a new piece is added it is not essential, it may be neutral or it may be slightly useful. It starts out by being inessential, but over time as the other pieces adapt to its presence then it becomes essential. The set of “*fundamental * functional pieces” changes over time. The whole system is changing over time so it is actually a series of very similar systems following one after another over time. There are many different ways to build a working blood clotting system.

Show me where that’s happening in the here and now in relevance to blood-clotting. You only seem to assume that. I have a blood-clotting system you have one too. Any time there are changes to it all I seem to observe is a line of very deadly diseases.

Did you read it? I thought it explained how very well.

No it does not. I already showed you the literature takes the entire system for granted and just assumes that evolution put it together by saying things like “concocted” and “springs forth”. That’s no different than myths.

 

[rossum]

Actually, I am showing how natural selection is *irrelevant *to our discussion.

We are discussing the evolution of the mammalian blood clotting system. Evolution includes natural selection. Natural selection is relevant to the discussion. The absence of natural selection is a major flaw in your crude probability model.

Under oath? What, did evolutionists threatened to send him to the stakes?

Why do you not even bother to check facts before making things up and posting them? You are just making yourself look ignorant be being unaware of Behe’s testimony in the Kitzmiller/Dover trial. If anyone “threatened to send him to the stakes” it was the creationists; he testified for the defence in favour of ID.

That’s only relative. It is still an IC. Complexity is another problem for evolution, but I won’t go into that right now.

Neither IC nor complexity are a problem for evolution. IC can evolve and has been observed to evolve. Complexity can evolve and has been observed to evolve.

Literature can say whatever, science is not based on literature but experience and experimentation.

I did not just say “literature”, I said “scientific literature”. The phrase “scientific literature” is a way of saying “every scientific paper and book ever published from Galileo until now”. It comprises the sum total of all scientific experience and experimentation up to the present. Wikipedia has an article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literature.

Again, it cannot “adapt” if variations kill. A conundrum for Darwinian evolution.

It can adapt because the vast majority of variations do not kill. For example. if a gene in the system duplicates then we still have a functional system but one with an extra redundant copy of one of the genes. The Dolphin system may never have had those proteins in the first place, or it may have had them in the early stages when they were useful, but not essential, and then lost them again.

Show me where that’s happening in the here and now in relevance to blood-clotting.

Hagfish blood clots. Lamprey blood clots. Dolphin blood clots. All three have reduced versions of the system we have, and our blood also clots. There are many different ways to build blood clotting systems.

You only seem to assume that. I have a blood-clotting system you have one too.

I assume that if your parents lived long enough to reach maturity and to reproduce then they both had reasonably functional blood clotting systems. This is where natural selection comes in - if your father had died of haemophilia before you were conceived then you would not be here and would not be carrying his genes. Since he did not die you are carrying his genes and do not (I assume) have haemophilia.

Any time there are changes to it all I seem to observe is a line of very deadly diseases.

The majority of changes are neutral and have no effect on the system, so we tend not to notice them. Of the remainder the great majority are indeed deleterious and cause diseases. Very few are beneficial. Those very few beneficial mutations are preferentially amplified down the generations by natural selection so they spread through the population. With a population of six billion and about 150 mutations per person there are a great many mutations to look through for the rare beneficial one.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I think I spelled this out very clearly- certain systems can make gains in energy, however, those systems must be ‘taking it’ from elsewhere, and the transfer looses some energy. That is all the law says- when you die, entropy does not ‘win’- the chemical bonds in your body are no less existent. However, when bacteria begin to break down some of those bonds, entropy will take a slice of that too.

Life is not self-prepetuating- living things require vast amounts of (name removed by moderator)ut (e.g. nutrients)

Information too requires large amounts of (name removed by moderator)ut. That is God sustaining His creation, through His “Word” and “Light”.

 

[M0nkey]

We are discussing the evolution of the mammalian blood clotting system. Evolution includes natural selection. Natural selection is relevant to the discussion. The absence of natural selection is a major flaw in your crude probability model.

No, the discussion revolves around how natural selection did not “spring forth” the blood-clotting system. Darwin had no knowledge of the cell, therefore it is irrelevant.

Why do you not even bother to check facts before making things up and posting them? You are just making yourself look ignorant be being unaware of Behe’s testimony in the Kitzmiller/Dover trial. If anyone “threatened to send him to the stakes” it was the creationists; he testified for the defence in favour of ID.

What’s even more scary is that dogmatic science is even allowed to go on trial. What does his testimony in trial have to do with believing in evolution? If anything, evolutionists have an inquisition against this poor man. Where is western pseudo-science leading us into these days?

Neither IC nor complexity are a problem for evolution. IC can evolve and has been observed to evolve. Complexity can evolve and has been observed to evolve.

Yes they are and I have already showed you through a logical assertion how this is so. Your assumption that it does is no better than believing in myths.

I did not just say “literature”, I said “scientific literature”. The phrase “scientific literature” is a way of saying “every scientific paper and book ever published from Galileo until now”. It comprises the sum total of all scientific experience and experimentation up to the present. Wikipedia has an article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literature.

So now you believe in wikipedia too? No wonder you are where you are! The point that I’m trying to make is that evolutionary ‘scientists’ have a great imagination for molding their natural selection to “spring forth” whatever they want. Hey, maybe the next time natural selection concocts anything it might be fairies and leprechauns! How smashing is that?

It can adapt because the vast majority of variations do not kill. For example. if a gene in the system duplicates then we still have a functional system but one with an extra redundant copy of one of the genes. The Dolphin system may never have had those proteins in the first place, or it may have had them in the early stages when they were useful, but not essential, and then lost them again.

Actually, we are finding out that “junk DNA” is actual functional information which has value at the molecular level. If a variation is “harmless” than can only mean it more closely resembles a *duplication *because that is exactly what it is in the first place. You follow?

Hagfish blood clots. Lamprey blood clots. Dolphin blood clots. All three have reduced versions of the system we have, and our blood also clots. There are many different ways to build blood clotting systems.

You miss the point entirely. All these systems have *critical *components. You cannot reduce beyond that point. If you take one out, it could mean extinction.

I assume that if your parents lived long enough to reach maturity and to reproduce then they both had reasonably functional blood clotting systems. This is where natural selection comes in - if your father had died of haemophilia before you were conceived then you would not be here and would not be carrying his genes. Since he did not die you are carrying his genes and do not (I assume) have haemophilia.

This only further illustrates my point that “random variations” cannot “spring forth” blood-clotting through natural selection. Thank you for that.

The majority of changes are neutral and have no effect on the system, so we tend not to notice them. Of the remainder the great majority are indeed deleterious and cause diseases. Very few are beneficial. Those very few beneficial mutations are preferentially amplified down the generations by natural selection so they spread through the population. With a population of six billion and about 150 mutations per person there are a great many mutations to look through for the rare beneficial one.

Again, it’s called duplication. You might want to look that up. Oh and natural selection is blind, therefore there is no such thing as “beneficial,” it either works or it does not. Blood-clotting systems have similar properties except it is irreducibly complex in the sense that all parts must be there from the beginning or the creature dies.

 

[tjm190]

Natural processes can form despite entropy, the only caveat is that some energy will be lost in the process. The second law places no restrictions on what form energy can take.

And information requires no (name removed by moderator)ut or upkeep when it’s a part of a self/environment sustained system.

 

[tjm190]

Again, it’s called duplication. You might want to look that up. Oh and natural selection is blind, therefore there is no such thing as “beneficial,” it either works or it does not. Blood-clotting systems have similar properties except it is irreducibly complex in the sense that all parts must be there from the beginning or the creature dies.

How so? Can a bacterium survive without blood clotting? How about a small multicellular organism?

 

[rossum]

No, the discussion revolves around how natural selection did not “spring forth” the blood-clotting system.

The blood clotting system is a product of evolution. Natural selection is a part of evolution hence natural selection is invoved in the development of the blood clotting system.

What’s even more scary is that dogmatic science is even allowed to go on trial.

What is most scary is that you do not seem to be sorry that you posted an obvious error about who called Professor Behe to testify, and you posted it without even bothering to check your facts first. To me that seems to show a contempt for the truth. If you are unsure of something then check your facts first before posting. By now you should have worked out that I do check facts and I will pull you up when I spot one of your errors.

What does his testimony in trial have to do with believing in evolution?

Nothing at all. If you had read Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” you would have seen that Behe supported common descent and much of evolution from well before the Dover trial. Behe’s testimony shows that he accepts that Irreducibly Complex system can evolve, and that his own work confirms this.

Yes they are and I have already showed you through a logical assertion how this is so.

Your logical assertion is faulty. I said that we have observed the evolution of irreducible complexity. We have seen it actually happening. In science reality wins every time. Your logic fails because reality beats faulty logic. There is a mutation by mutation path from a non-IC system to an IC system given here: Line of Descent. There is a description of the evolution of an IC system to digest citrate: (2008)et al.. Professor Behe agres that IC systems can evolve. What more do you need?

So now you believe in wikipedia too?

No, given your apparent level of knowledge in not knowing what the phrase “scientific literature” meant, I thought that Wikipedia would be an appropriate site to point you at initially.

You miss the point entirely. All these systems have *critical *components. You cannot reduce beyond that point. If you take one out, it could mean extinction.

It is you who are missing the point. What is a critical component for us is entirely absent in hagfish so it is not critical for them. The complex system is built in stages by adding a new non-critical part, usually through a duplication, and then tinkering with the system so that the new part becomes critical. IC systems can be built in steps, read Behe and Snoke (2004) for some calculations on how to build a simple IC system is steps - yes it is the same Behe.

This only further illustrates my point that “random variations” cannot “spring forth” blood-clotting through natural selection.

Deleterious mutations will disappear. Neutral mutations will drift (look up the meaning of “neutral drift” in this context). Beneficial mutations will spread. You are working on a very old version of IC that Professor Behe has now abandoned.

Blood-clotting systems have similar properties except it is irreducibly complex in the sense that all parts must be there from the beginning or the creature dies.

Your ignorance of both evolution and of IC is showing. Think of a car. Early cars did not have starter motors, they were started with a hand crank. Later, starter motors were added as a convenience. You could still use the hand crank if you wanted, or if the battery was flat, but most of the time people used the starter motor. The starter motor was useful but not essential. Then the manufacturers stopped including the hand crank. Suddenly the starter motor was not a useful accessory but was essential - a two part IC system. The original hand cranked version worked. The intermediate version with both worked. The latest version with only the starter motor works. There is a smooth transition from a non-IC system to an IC system with all intermediates working.

The hand cranked system is the hagfish. The starter motor is a duplicated gene, initially useful later essential. IC systems can and do evolve.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Here is a different perspective, philosophical in nature, for consideration:

How much do we really know about matter and energy? We talk about matter in terms of atoms and sub-atomic particles. Deeper layers of matter are being uncovered still by physics. But what ultimately is matter? We don’t know. We do know that matter is very specific. Any chemistry textbook attests to that specificity.

What if, on a fundamental level, matter was created with the “will to live” (in a figurative sense only)? That is, matter, very specific in its phenomenal nature, is at its deepest level, “will to live”.

Hence, the Creator created matter with everything it needs to achieve His purposes. The implication here is that the seemingly impossible feats on a purely natural level, such as the appearance of systems claimed by some to be IC, are simply the result of the natural processes of nature made possible by the very nature of matter as “will to live”.

Again, the ultimate nature of matter is still largely a mystery and may hold the clue to understanding design and biological systems alleged to be IC.

The notion of matter as “will to live” is supported by the overall, general trend of evolution toward higher, more complex beings possessing more life – plants, animals, and then humans – plants posses the powers of reproduction and growth. Animals posses these powers as well as the power of locomotion and sense knowledge. Man possess everything the lower forms of life exhibit, and in addition he possesses a spiritual intellect and reflective consciousness, and free will, which are supported by the complexity of his brain and nervous system.

 

[tjm190]

So please read “Signature in the Cell” and tell me where it’s wrong, on scientific grounds.

And I said previously:

They (IDers) are also open to the possibility that some of the complex things we see in nature are designed. Why aren’t you open to this possibility? Your computer was designed. Why can’t you be designed?

You didn’t answer those questions.

I could be designed. I also could be a cyborg transported back in time to kill the leader of a future resistance movement, and just not know it yet. Seeing as there is little evidence of either of those however, I don’t entertain the notion.

 

[edwest2]

Here is a different perspective, philosophical in nature, for consideration:

How much do we really know about matter and energy? We talk about matter in terms of atoms and sub-atomic particles. Deeper layers of matter are being uncovered still by physics. But what ultimately is matter? We don’t know. We do know that matter is very specific. Any chemistry textbook attests to that specificity.

What if, on a fundamental level, matter was created with the “will to live” (in a figurative sense only)? That is, matter, very specific in its phenomenal nature, is at its deepest level, “will to live”.

Hence, the Creator created matter with everything it needs to achieve His purposes. The implication here is that the seemingly impossible feats on a purely natural level, such as the appearance of systems claimed by some to be IC, are simply the result of the natural processes of nature made possible by the very nature of matter as “will to live”.

Again, the ultimate nature of matter is still largely a mystery and may hold the clue to understanding design and biological systems alleged to be IC.

The notion of matter as “will to live” is supported by the overall, general trend of evolution toward higher, more complex beings possessing more life – plants, animals, and then humans – plants posses the powers of reproduction and growth. Animals posses these powers as well as the power of locomotion and sense knowledge. Man possess everything the lower forms of life exhibit, and in addition he possesses a spiritual intellect and reflective consciousness, and free will, which are supported by the complexity of his brain and nervous system.

Dead chemicals have no will to live. Your grandfather was not a rock that wanted to be a person.

There is no rational explanation for ever increasing amounts of genetic information.

Life is not reducible to purely material causes. Science cannot study God or the supernatural, remember?

Peace,
Ed