TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Design vs. Arbitrary
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection their claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea that living things spread by evolving is a myth.

Would you care to elaborate on this conclusion you came to? How does the fossil record reveal that spreading through evolving is a myth? If anything, it reveals the very opposite. Why are there marsupials living in Australia? Their nurturing system is far inferior to that of normal mammals. Why are there flightless birds living on Galapagos islands who share a striking resemblance to regular flying birds from nearby continents?

I must also say that you are totally incorrect when you keep insisting that evolution is random. It is not random. The mutations are random (don't tell me you also believe that mutations don't happen either), but the principle which chooses which mutations will be carried on and which ones will die out is not random. Otherwise we'd all deteriorate to clumps of organic goo.

Remember to join


Project Steve

That way they will be forced to design a new t-shirt!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I must also say that you are totally incorrect when you keep insisting that evolution is random. It is not random.

If you say so.

I do not believe I have rejected the notion of mutation. I adhere to the notion that evolution is random since it is based on atleast one random mechanism. The point which has risen from this thread is of amalgamation between probability and certainty. Is such a contradicting combination possible in the subsistence of life ?

One cannot answer a question like that with 'evolution'. One has to understand the principles behind design and chance prior to tackling/answering (what I feel to be) an important question.

The fact is that scientists with basic understanding of probability may perceive and process observational data quite differently to those who specialise in probability (That's just an example, it works both ways). Then, would one not agree, that a chance exists for scientists to have misunderstood observational evidence ?

My argument is that the 'system' can only exist on absolute conditioning. It�s either/or, not both.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Tell me, if it is not deliberate, then what is it ?

What do you mean, �what is it?� It is what it is, I guess � random mutation and natural selection, nothing more. That�s like asking what is Hydrogen? A random molecule occurring in the majority of our universe with one electron and proton. We�re merely talking about the properties of something here, in this case it�s the mechanism of evolution � I�m not sure what else you�re going to get out of that question really.

quote:

The weakness of evolution is that it is based on a 'random' process - chance.

You know, I have to admit, you creationists really give me a chuckle every time I have this discussion with you folks. No matter what is said or verified right in front of you � you�ll continue to restate and repeat your point over and over, regardless of the strength or weakness of your opinion, regardless of whether or not you can even support your opinion.

You state that evolution is weak because it has a random process � mutation. You have demonstrated in absolutely no way how this is weak. Evidence supporting a theory determines the strength or weakness of that theory or argument. As I�ve aptly demonstrated previously, there�s a wealth of evidence supporting random mutation being part of the process of evolution.

Therefore, as a result of consistent, verifiable, tested, retested, and falsifiable evidence supporting random mutation, there is a great amount of strength supporting it.

OTOH, the evidence supporting a deliberate design by a deliberate designer with no known, observed, tested, verified, or falsified mechanism is absent. You have presented absolutely none so far, nor has any IDer or creationist for that matter.

And yet you continue to call evolution �weak�.

Funny how logic and reason works.

quote:

This is where I disagree with you. If design (which is always deliberate) relies on chance, then it cannot be a design. The evidence we observe may well be an aspect of 'deliberate' design (not chance) which we have yet to comprehend.

You can disagree with me all you want. As of yet you�ve presented nothing to support your case. But what�s worse, you fall back on �have yet to comprehend� to support the case for deliberate design.

OTOH, I�ve presented verifiable, observed, and testable evidence supporting my case. I�ve presented the nylon-eating bacteria as an example from a simple frame shift mutation. Here�s some more:

quote:

Evolution: single-gene speciation by left-right reversal. Ueshima R, Asami T. Nature. 2003 Oct 16;425(6959):679. Summary: A single gene gives rise to the mirror-image form of a snail's body plan, which could become established as a different species if mating is prevented between snails of different chirality by genital mismatch. Here we use molecular phylogeny to demonstrate the parallel evolution of reversal between left and right lineages of the Japanese land snail Euhadra. We find that the different mirror-image forms have evolved in favour of the genetically dominant handedness as a result of single-gene speciation. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...425679a_fs.html

IOW, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of the snail.

Here�s a big review paper that outlines dozens of experiments:

quote:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...ml&filetype=pdf Abstract: Microorganisms have been mutating and evolving on Earth for billions of years. Now, a field of research has developed around the idea of using microorganisms to study evolution in action. Controlled and replicated experiments are using viruses, bacteria and yeast to investigate how their genomes and phenotypic properties evolve over hundreds and even thousands of generations. Here, we examine the dynamics of evolutionary adaptation, the genetic bases of adaptation, tradeoffs and the environmental specificity of adaptation, the origin and evolutionary consequences of mutators, and the process of drift decay in very small populations.

Now if you�re asking whether or not the mutation itself is a random event vs. a directed event, some classic experiments directly answered that question:

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/Mic...luctuation.html

And here�s a good summary of the history of the current research:

quote:

This simple approach, subsequently perfected by many investigators and extended over the years to many different systems, led eventually to the general conclusion that indeed mutations are not directed by the selective needs of the organism, or in evolutionary lingo, that they are �random with regard to fitness�. These results were critical in the development of the neo-darwinian New Synthesis. And there sat this �orthodoxy�, this �dogma�, for 45 years, so routinely and extensively confirmed in bacteriology and toxicology labs that everyone took it for granted, until 1988. In that year, a paper was published in Nature, one of the very top science journals, by John Cairns, a very well known geneticist, and his collaborators [2]. Titled �The origin of mutants�, the paper described an experiment not much unlike Luria�s: in this case, mutants were selected for their ability to re-activate a crippled gene that allowed them to metabolize the sugar lactose, the only source of energy avaliable on the selection plates. However, unlike phage selection, starvation does not kill the bacteria immediately, but allows them a certain time to try to escape their dire situation. To everyone�s surprise, Cairns reported that in these conditions, besides a number of early-growing mutant colonies that followed the expected Luria-Delbruck distribution, he could observe many late-growing resistant clones with a much more homogeneous distribution, which indicated that the mutations followed, and not preceded, the exposure to selection. Even more strikingly, when mutations at a different gene were analyzed in the lactose revertants, no mutations were observed. In other words, the mutations appeared to be �directed� by the selection process specifically to the gene under selection. Cairns and co-workers concluded therefore that at least in some cases, mutations could be specifically directed by selective pressures. Bam. The door was opne for teleology. Adieu, "darwinist orthodoxy". Cairns even "brazenly" raised the specter of possible Lamarckian hereditary mechanisms � one cannot get more heretic than that! It�s not that the paper flew below the radar � everybody understood its implications. In the same issue of Nature, Franklin Stahl, another one of the founding fathers of bacterial genetics, endorsed its conclusions and ventured his own model of how directed mutations may happen [3]. In the following weeks, several letters about Cairns� findings were published in the same journal, most of them raising questions with the experimental design. For instance, it turns out that, for experimental reasons, the gene under selection was located not on the main bacterial chromosome, but on a separate genetic element called a plasmid; some possible implications of this positioning for the mutation process had escaped Cairns. Others argued that his selection of �control� non-selected gene was not ideal, also based on some genetic considerations regarding that gene�s functional properties. No one called for Cairns� metaphorical head, no one argued how Nature could have dared publishing anti-darwinian material. In fact, bacterial geneticists all over the world set out to investigate the new claims in their own labs. Cairns' basic observations were throroughly replicated, ruling out basic artifacts, and several investigators set up different experimental models to test the principle, and also obtained results suggesting "directed" mutations. From the skeptic side, alternative mechanistic explanations for the �directed� mutation claim were tested, which ultimately confirmed that the new phenomena fell within the darwinian framework. Although its conclusions were often criticized on an evidence basis, Cairns� paper not only was not suppressed, but was directly referenced in hundreds of articles (497 to date, accorsding to the ISI Citation Index). The back-and-forth papers and scientific correspondence in major journals make for excellent (and often entertaining, if that's your kind of thing) reading on the matter [4]. Within a few years, evidence accumulated for non-teleological models of mutation. By 1998, essentially everyone in the field, including Cairns and his closest collaborators, agreed that the original observation did not reflect �directed� mutations, which by that time had been re-baptized with the less loaded term "adaptive mutations" [5, 6]. Nevertheless, several interesting features of bacterial biology had been discovered in the process. One alternative model for the observations proposes that starved bacteria enter a �hypermutable� state , either by virtue of a specific genetic �rescue� program, or as a result of breakdown of normal cellular control mechanisms [7]. In this state, high levels of mutations are introduced throughout the bacterial genome, but selection for specific mutants makes it appear as if the environmental conditions preferentially targeted mutations to the selected gene. Importantly, this mechanism has relevance for the onset of bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs, and possibly to certain cellular states involved in cancer development [5]. In another novel mechanism which has been observed, a multiplication of the copies of the crippled gene (�amplification�) is first favorably selected because it leads to a small but detectable increase in its product�s minimal activity [8]. This massive gene amplification makes for better chances of mutation, and when these occur the extra gene copies become a burden, and are eliminated by selection. The final result is the appearance of highly targeted mutations. Research on all these mechanisms is actively ongoing [9]. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000104.html

quote:

Remember, around 70 yrs ago scientists were adamant that the atom was the smallest particle known to man. This supposed fact was taught in schools. Point being, that science has been wrong in the past, and as you say, given time, fresher evidence emerges in anticipation that we, as the human race, may understand the truth (fact) one day.

You go right along and hold your breath for that day to come.

I like my oxygen just fine with the current evidence that continues to support the current theory. As I�ve said before, evolution may certainly be knocked off its perch, but there�s going to have to be something that will disprove the current paleontological, anthropological, geological, biological, and genetic mountain of evidence that supports evolution. That�s quite a mountain to climb for something like ID which has really been around since the days of Paley and his Blind Watchmaker analogy in the late 18th Century. Of course the present form of ID has really been around probably since the early 90�s with Philips book as well as Behe�s book in �94, but it�s funny how they�ve given absolutely NO verifiable research to support their case, ain�t it? I mean, hey, it�s only been 10-15 years now � surely they would have produced something of substance by now, wouldn�t they?

Or perhaps, just perhaps they would have a mechanism that explains their theory by now? Not even one that could be tested, mind you � just name a mechanism. None yet?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, they spend a wee bit too much time trying to Wedge their unsupported, unverified theory in the State BOEs across the country, as well as throw out propaganda to churches? Perhaps they could use some of that money to actually do some research to support their theory for a change?

Wanna take some bets as to whether or not they�ll actually do this?

quote:

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. The probabilities of sustaining simple life exceed the realms of plausibility and enter absurdity.

Incorrect. I�ve demonstrated the fallacy of this argument with my example posted earlier. The probability argument almost always rests with random mutation rates only, and does not take natural selection in as a factor. You have presented nothing to support your assertion, yet I�ve provided a clear cut example based on research.

quote:

I used the machine example to illustrate the sheer size of the numbers we are dealing with.

And I�ve discussed how such an example can be false and misleading. In fact, one may argue that computers themselves utilize evolutionary principles:

quote:

With the availability of fast, powerful computers and computer simulation techniques, even engineers (the prototypical intelligent designers!) are using the creative powers of natural selection to aid them in their design efforts. The technique of "genetic algorithms", pioneered by computer scientist John H. Holland at the University of Michigan, simulates the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, involving mating, genetic recombination, reproduction, selection and mutation to design jet engines, integrated circuit chips, scheduling work in a busy machine shop, operating gas-pipeline pumping stations and recognizing patterns. 1989. "Natural Selection for Computers" Science News 136(22); 346-348 (November 25)

Genetic algorithms have gone a long ways since then, of course.

quote:

Then why call it 'random' selection ?

Who calls it �random� selection? I know of no evolutionist or biologist that names natural selection as �random selection�. You�ve created this arbitrary name on your own.

quote:

Why do the text books (certainly the ones I have read) refer to evolution as a process of random selection ? Unless of course this is an example of how the theory of evolution is evolving.

Name one text book that calls the �natural selection� process of evolution random. Give me the author�s name, page, year published, and publisher. I have several biology textbooks in both the high school and collegiate level (Biol.101 textbooks). I�m very interested in seeing exactly which textbook taught in public schools has this description.

quote:

I can accept a model which permits intelligent design to adapt to dynamic surroundings, merely because the system in question is designed to do so. One may argue that evolution (random selection/chance) plays an active role in the process of adaptation based on observable evidence. We are misunderstood, perhaps. There is that chance.

Considering you have presented no evidence to support your assertions, while at the same time I have presented evidence to support mine, I don�t think there�s any misunderstanding on my part.

As it seems, there�s plenty misunderstanding on your side.

quote:

Either way, there is a fundamental and crucial difference between the two methodologies. Chance is probability, where as design is certainty.

How did these two mechanisms, one which is verified and supported while the other is not, become methodologies?

Design, or deliberate design would be a certainty if there was any evidence to support it. What is �certain� by any empirical standard in the reality-based world is that which is observed, tested, retested, verified, and falsified. Nothing about ID has passed this in any manner, so there�s very little �certainty� about it.

quote:

PS : No need to apologise about your view. You are entitled to it and users should respect that.

Thanks. I do try to support my view with verifiable evidence, however. Something that would greatly enhance your own argument at this time.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well yes, there is an explanation - a mutation can indeed create new, novel features, as well as add, subtract, or duplicate already existing ones. It's entirely up to natural selection, however, to divy up the ones that are more or less advantageous to that organism and passes that down to generations with the ones that are more or less harmful to that organism where consequently they do not get passed down. The nylon bacterial bug, for example, produced a brand new novel feature that did not exist within the bacterial organism before. Or, take a mutation that increases both the bone length and density: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513 That would certainly qualify, would it not? Here's some more papers worth looking up on PubMed: There's literally thousands of examples of mutations giving rise to brand new novel features.

Thats not an explaination for a whole new complex organ though. That is single gene mutations which do not, as far as I can see create whole new organs. Yes they can dublicate given organs or change organs, or production of certain chemicals or structures. Which is very different to incremental changes. But how for example would the eye developed? Thats more what I mean.

Could be said that perhaps old redundant organs mutate into new useful ones? But it is just the way that hugely random mutations would need to build upon one another to create anything complex.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Could be said that perhaps old redundant organs mutate into new useful ones? But it is just the way that hugely random mutations would need to build upon one another to create anything complex.

If the new functionality derived from said mutation is indeed a new, useful function, how can one say that the mutation was, in fact, random? It would seem that since the resulting new functionality serves a purpose, that the mutation was not a matter of chance so much as it was about hitting a critical point during mitosis that finally moved the needle enough to cause a specific, non-random mutation to finally occur.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Thats not an explaination for a whole new complex organ though.

Well actually it is. Keep in mind that we�re talking about tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of years here. A successive change that gives rise to either a modification of a previous feature and/or a brand new novel complex one by a mere mutation or two is pretty incredible. This accumulation of changes filtered out by natural selection gives exactly what you�re referring to. Now in the absence of that natural selection filter, we have no mutations (i.e. deleterious ones) being selected against, resulting in much lower fitness:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15295601

quote:

Mutations have pivotal functions in the onset of genetic diseases and are the fundamental substrate for evolution. However, present estimates of the spontaneous mutation rate and spectrum are derived from indirect and biased measurements. For instance, mutation rate estimates for Caenorhabditis elegans are extrapolated from observations on a few genetic loci with visible phenotypes and vary over an order of magnitude. Alternative approaches in mammals, relying on phylogenetic comparisons of pseudogene loci and fourfold degenerate codon positions, suffer from uncertainties in the actual number of generations separating the compared species and the inability to exclude biases associated with natural selection. Here we provide a direct and unbiased estimate of the nuclear mutation rate and its molecular spectrum with a set of C. elegans mutation-accumulation lines that reveal a mutation rate about tenfold higher than previous indirect estimates and an excess of insertions over deletions. Because deletions dominate patterns of C. elegans pseudogene variation, our observations indicate that natural selection might be significant in promoting small genome size, and challenge the prevalent assumption that pseudogene divergence accurately reflects the spontaneous mutation spectrum.

quote:

That is single gene mutations which do not, as far as I can see create whole new organs. Yes they can dublicate given organs or change organs, or production of certain chemicals or structures. Which is very different to incremental changes.

How so? The production of a new structure � say a longer bone or increased bone density, is exactly what an incremental change is by definition. Would such a mutation be more advantageous to, say, a larger more highly developed organism that holds more body weight versus one of its smaller ancesters? Of course. Just an example.

quote:

But how for example would the eye developed? Thats more what I mean. Could be said that perhaps old redundant organs mutate into new useful ones? But it is just the way that hugely random mutations would need to build upon one another to create anything complex.

If I�m to understand you here, you seem to be asking whether or not a mutation or two creates a brand new, incredibly highly complex structure like the human eye for example. The short answer is it�s probable, but highly unlikely that a mere mutation could perform such a thing. This process to such a highly complex structure like the eye takes successive, incremental changes via mutation and natural selection over a pretty good period of time. Keep in mind that when discussing evolution, we�re discussing a population, not an individual. Therefore, changes via genetic drift are going to take place, but isolationism of some kind has to occur in order for accumulated changes to really make a difference, more or less, over a great deal of time. I certainly don�t put you in the following category, but a common mistake by creationists is to ask � �well what good is � an eye?�, which indicates a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process on developing complex features:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

All the tiny little features of a complex eye have to develop over time. Here�s an article that addresses that point by discussing the evolution of color vision:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

So we can extrapolate from the genetic information that we know about mutation and natural selection on the evolution of complex features, combine that with present day examples of lesser organisms that have some, part, or most of the same features (depending on the cladistic hierarchy of that animal, of course) via comparative and developmental biology, as well as compare the genetic similarity of such organisms with our own, and reliably infer an evolutionary pathway of a particular organism such as the eye for example. Without fossilization of squishy critters and organs, this is usually the methodology, more or less.


Added in Edit Just found a pretty cool little video on this subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Dawkins also chimes in:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011031150450/http:/www.world-of-dawkins.com/peepers.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka If the new functionality derived from said mutation is indeed a new, useful function, how can one say that the mutation was, in fact, random?

Well logically speaking, just because something beneficial occurs randomly doesn�t entail that such an event would not be random.

But genetically speaking, the random process only occurs at first � mutation. The selective process proceeding the random mutation process is nature�s effective filter in weeding out the deleterious or harmful mutations from the beneficial ones that ultimately give rise to increased fitness levels for a given population.

quote:

It would seem that since the resulting new functionality serves a purpose, that the mutation was not a matter of chance so much as it was about hitting a critical point during mitosis that finally moved the needle enough to cause a specific, non-random mutation to finally occur.

Well mitosis doesn�t have much to do with it really, but I do understand what you�re saying. There is no �critical� moment involved here really � IOW there is no known directed mechanism involved. No evidence has shown any directed mutation events occurring, and as I�ve outlined earlier the opposite actually occurs (random mutation).

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well logically speaking, just because something beneficial occurs randomly doesn�t entail that such an event would not be random. But genetically speaking, the random process only occurs at first � mutation. The selective process proceeding the random mutation process is nature�s effective filter in weeding out the deleterious or harmful mutations from the beneficial ones that ultimately give rise to increased fitness levels for a given population. Well mitosis doesn�t have much to do with it really, but I do understand what you�re saying. There is no �critical� moment involved here really � IOW there is no known directed mechanism involved. No evidence has shown any directed mutation events occurring, and as I�ve outlined earlier the opposite actually occurs (random mutation).

Hence humanity's only other primary, logical conclusion--that God did it. Right?

Dude, I am so not involved in this discussion for reasons mentioned on page 1. I only threw a comment in there on a whim.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hence humanity's only other primary, logical conclusion--that God did it. Right? Dude, I am so not involved in this discussion for reasons mentioned on page 1. I only threw a comment in there on a whim.

Oh you know you wanna be involved in this geeky biology shit. You sooooo want to...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh you know you wanna be involved in this geeky biology shit. You sooooo want to...

I gave up on this field after I wasted good elective credit hours taking classes like advanced biology and organic chemistry. I buried everything I knew about it deep in the underbelly of my cerebral cortex, hoping to never have it surface again. I believe in nurtured nature!

I don't see what creationism has to do with this, MisterOpus1 ? I made it perfectly clear that I did not want to bring divinity into this thread.

The fact is that one cannot deny that evolution is based on a 'random' process. The aim of my first question was just that, either deliberate or chance, a case for absolute conditioning. For you to suggest that design stems from chance is quite simply the most laughable piece of text I have ever read on the internet. Mind you, I could suggest that you have little or no understanding of probability as a subject, so it balances out.

If I wish, I could explain my belief and present irrefutable evidence, not circumstantial. But you see it's a vicious circle. I'm not here to prove my beliefs, neither are you. I�m not here to influence your beliefs, neither are you. I�m not here to alter your beliefs, neither are you. Hence, why I am not here to present my case.

Our brief chat was interesting while it lasted.

Oh - If the theory of evolution has been evolving for over 150yrs, it brings complete new meaning to clutching straws.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider I don't see what creationism has to do with this, MisterOpus1 ? I made it perfectly clear that I did not want to bring divinity into this thread.

I understand this, however when I refer to ID I still categorize it under creationism, and rightfully so. Considering that within their own Wedge Doctrine they refer to Christianity a number of times, and considering that NO IDer I've ever known is willing to allow the Designer be an alien from another planet (a completely plausible idea by their logic), I think the label is well-founded.

quote:

The fact is that one cannot deny that evolution is based on a 'random' process.

What did I just say earlier on page 2?

quote:

In any case, again I don't deny that chance, or mutation is part of the equation.

So who�s denying anything here?

quote:

The aim of my first question was just that, either deliberate or chance, a case for absolute conditioning. For you to suggest that design stems from chance is quite simply the most laughable piece of text I have ever read on the internet.

What did I just say earlier on page 2?:

quote:

What you�re implying is that something created via the evolutionary mechanisms, i.e. mutation and natural selection, is not �design�. I stated that evolutionary mechanisms explain things designed, or to be more precise, irreducibly complex, quite well. Take for instance the nylon bug: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm Here we have a bacteria developing a complex novel feature � digesting nylon. This is explained quite well via the evolutionary mechanism. So I believe you�re getting tripped up on the definition of �design�. It is merely a descriptive, more or less. The heart of the matter is whether or not that design was created deliberately via a Designer or Designer mechanism (which hasn�t been depicted in any way), or not-so-deliberately via mutation and natural selection. You continue to imply evolution as CHANCE only � what you are leaving out is its very own SELECTIVE engine � natural selection. Therefore, evolution is not just CHANCE alone.

Design does not stem from chance alone, sir, but with natural selection working as a selective filter as well � something you continue to skip right over.

Why are you failing to address this?

quote:

Mind you, I could suggest that you have little or no understanding of probability as a subject, so it balances out.

It�s one thing to suggest it � it�s another thing to support your suggestion. Speaking of which, are you ever going to support your notions on biological mutation rates and natural selection and probability?

quote:

If I wish, I could explain my belief and present irrefutable evidence, not circumstantial.

Well we�re on page 4 and you have yet to do so. Why am I not surprised?

quote:

But you see it's a vicious circle. I'm not here to prove my beliefs, neither are you. I�m not here to influence your beliefs, neither are you. I�m not here to alter your beliefs, neither are you. Hence, why I am not here to present my case.

Hmm, I must have misunderstood the point of your original post:

quote:

I do not accept evolution as a plausible answer to our existence. The idea of 'chance' playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life is quite frankly, repugnant. �So why the thread ? Well, I�m interested in what other users may have to say on the subject of 'design' in nature. I've read a few Evolution / Creation threads, but none of them seem to address 'design' as a plausible concept of life. Personally, neither of the two can be integrated. It�s one or the other. 'Design' advocates a predetermined state, where as 'chance' is based on probability, guess work, hit 'n' miss, not knowing the outcome; the complete opposite of design. (Therefore creating an imbalance) In simple terms, are we the result of design, or do we stem from randomness ? Are the days of evolution numbered ?

Emphasis mine. You directly stated an assertion that you do not accept evolution as a plausible answer. I directly refuted that assertion with evidence.

You state you were interested in what others have to say on the subject of design. I answered that as succinct as possible � that there�s absolutely no evidence to support deliberate design. A point you have yet to refute.

You obfuscate the idea of evolution and chance, directly leaving out the 2nd part of the evolutionary mechanism � natural selection, and you continue to do so.

And you ask a question on design or randomness which I�ve directly answered.

If you�re not here to debate and support your assertions, why are you in the Political Discussion/Debate Forum?

If you�re not here to present your case, but merely ask opinions only � well you received them. So what more do you want?

So instead of actually engaging in a debate in a debate forum, you simply shy away. Your decision, of course, but I�m still not sure why you came here in the first place if you�re not going to debate and support your assertions with evidence.

quote:

Our brief chat was interesting while it lasted.

It could very well continue if you at least try to engage and support your assertions.

quote:

Oh - If the theory of evolution has been evolving for over 150yrs, it brings complete new meaning to clutching straws.

I know, it�s really desperate isn�t it?

I mean, it�s so desperate that not 1 US public college has considered presenting any alternative theories like ID or creationism in their classroom.

I guess all that darn research that continually tests evolution on a daily basis is just all for naught. Darn.

You do realize that scientific theories are modified as evidence and technology advances, don�t you? You do realize that this isn�t something specific to evolutionary theory, don�t you? I mean, talk about clutching straws � that stupid gravity theory COMPLETELY changed itself from Newtonian physics to Einstein Relativity. God how ridiculous I say! Those damn infidels the whole lot � thinkin� they could pull a fast one on us on gravity!

I think we�ve found our next Crusade calling. Lead the charge, brave Knight Rider! That gravity "theory" needs to go!!!

I love gravity. It really helps me stay grounded. But seriously folks.



In all honesty, since the prior discussion was about to go nowhere or get ugly...I think the formula for gravitational pull is pretty cool. It's one of those "universal-ish" equations, right? where X=n(yz)/r^2 and n represents some off-the-wall constant that makes you wonder. I mean 6.67x10^-11? What the hell is that the equivalent of, a flea fart in a vaccum?...Very Newtonian, though I guess Einstein didn't get his grubby little hands caught up so much in gravity since he was so busy with sticking his dick in an electrical socket and all...

Some other favorite "constants":

The mass on an electron: 9.11 x 10^-31 Kg. Let me just pull up my handy-dandy Health-O-Meter and weigh this baby...


e: 2.71828182846. Good ole Euler's number. WTF were you smoking at the time, Euler? A transcendental number?

Seriously. If I'm gonna have "constants" in my life, I'd rather it be a whole number interger like 1 or a perfect square like 81 or something. Sheesh!

quote:

You directly stated an assertion that you do not accept evolution as a plausible answer. I directly refuted that assertion with evidence.

I didn't ask for convincing evidence and you certainly weren't compelled to provide it. You need to learn to take it easy, MisterOpus1.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider If you say so. I do not believe I have rejected the notion of mutation. I adhere to the notion that evolution is random since it is based on atleast one random mechanism. The point which has risen from this thread is of amalgamation between probability and certainty. Is such a contradicting combination possible in the subsistence of life ? One cannot answer a question like that with 'evolution'. One has to understand the principles behind design and chance prior to tackling/answering (what I feel to be) an important question. The fact is that scientists with basic understanding of probability may perceive and process observational data quite differently to those who specialise in probability (That's just an example, it works both ways). Then, would one not agree, that a chance exists for scientists to have misunderstood observational evidence ?

Well, here is where you are incorrect. In systems with very large amounts of numbers, chance converges towards certainty. When you have an infinite amount of numbers, then chance is exactly equal to certainty. In nature, there is no infinity, but there are numbers that are so large that the statistic measurements used to calculate them are practically certain, and sometimes they're the only ways to get results. Take coin throwing for example and throw it, say, a million times. Is it possible that you will not get a single head? Sure. But what are the odds of that? 1 in 2^10^6. That number is larger than all the atoms in the known universe, and therefore the chance so rediculously small that it shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. So, while genetic mutations are inherently a random process, their number is so large that they should be viewed as a statistical certainty instead of a probability. And while it is technically possible that during procreation no mutations happen whatsoever, the chance is so small that it's practically impossible.

Now, as for natural selection, it is also a fuzzy system inherently dictated by randomness, but that randomness is not true randomness because it is guided in a certain direction, towards complex and more capable creatures. Take for example two frogs. One has weak legs and one has strong legs. The stronger one has a greater chance of escaping predators than the weaker one, and therefore has a greater chance of survival. Now, if we would be talking about 2 frogs only, then definitely nothing could be said for certain. But if we are talking about millions of frogs, than there is a statistical certainty that more strong frogs will manage to reproduce and that more weak frogs will be eaten by predators before their procreation age.

Now, as you yourself realized, such a system is not perfect, and while it is practically certain that creatures with grave genetic errors will not survive, it is possible for creatures with minor genetic defects to get lucky and struggle through, for long enough to spread their genes further. Such miniscule errors and unnecessarry complications are shown in that link Opus posted on the first or second page of the debate. It is also the reason why there are so much diseases in people caused by bad genes and also why most of them are pretty rare. If an intelligent design was responsible for creating living beings, then those unnecessarry complications and diseases wouldn't exist.

quote:

My argument is that the 'system' can only exist on absolute conditioning. It�s either/or, not both.

Eh, there are many other systems in nature that rely exclusively on chance and fuzzy logic. Take radioactive decay, Esaki tunnel diodes, electrical current, flow of water...

All of these systems are by default random. And all of these systems have a force acting upon them that shifts randomness towards probability. With a strong enough force, probability becomes a certainty and randomness becomes noise. Take electrical current for example. In a regular wire, electrons move in all directions. But when you put the wire in an electric field, they start moving in one direction more than towards any other directions, and that's how you get a current. They still do move in other directions, but to a lesser extent, and that movement generates noise. But if the force acting upon the wire is strong enough, noise will be neglegeble in comparison with the overall direction of movement, although it will never diminish completely. Now, replace the words force with natural selection, electron movement with random mutations, noise with harmful mutations, and current with evolution, and you'll get the picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I love gravity. It really helps me stay grounded. But seriously folks. In all honesty, since the prior discussion was about to go nowhere or get ugly...I think the formula for gravitational pull is pretty cool. It's one of those "universal-ish" equations, right? where X=n(yz)/r^2 and n represents some off-the-wall constant that makes you wonder. I mean 6.67x10^-11? What the hell is that the equivalent of, a flea fart in a vaccum?...Very Newtonian, though I guess Einstein didn't get his grubby little hands caught up so much in gravity since he was so busy with sticking his dick in an electrical socket and all...

Well, yeah, gravity is still unsolved, so it's hard to tell why the number looks the way it does. As for the other constants...

quote:

Some other favorite "constants": The mass on an electron: 9.11 x 10^-31 Kg. Let me just pull up my handy-dandy Health-O-Meter and weigh this baby...

Eh, the mass of the electron is such an awkward number not because the mass itself is awkward, but because the unit we chose as a kilogram is an arbitrarily given unit. Somebody just made a piece of metal and declared that to be a weight of one kilogram, and everything else was modelled after that. If we had chosen the mass of the electron as a basic unit instead, some small constants would probably make more sense. Same goes for other measuring units like a meter, celsius...

quote:

e: 2.71828182846. Good ole Euler's number. WTF were you smoking at the time, Euler? A transcendental number? Seriously. If I'm gonna have "constants" in my life, I'd rather it be a whole number interger like 1 or a perfect square like 81 or something. Sheesh!

Well, it might help you to know that e^(i*pi)+1=0

Heh. I was joking for the most part, but those are some good points. On the e equation--what does the "i" stand for again?

quote:

In systems with very large amounts of numbers, chance converges towards certainty. When you have an infinite amount of numbers, then chance is exactly equal to certainty.

OK, so lets assume that chance converges towards certainty and we substitute certainty with a 'target'. This target must be hit by means of a random mechanism (chance).

The probability of attaining 100 amino acids in the correct sequence is in excess of 10^100. Design will achieve this task in one attempt, where as chance, as you have suggested, will hit the target 'eventually'.

Remember, the correct sequence is required before the biological component is functional. i.e the mechnism of chance must hit the target on more than one occasions before a functioning biological cell (which sustains life) is attained.

Hence the difference between probable and improbable.

Woops--forgot one.

Planck's constant, denoted h, is a physical constant that is used to describe the sizes of quanta. It plays a central role in the theory of quantum mechanics, and is named after Max Planck, one of the founders of quantum theory. It has a value of approximately

h=6.6260693(11)*10^{-34}J(s)

Just found a nice list of 'em Wikipedia is great

This stuff used to fascinate me!

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider I didn't ask for convincing evidence and you certainly weren't compelled to provide it.

Well, yeah I kinda was - you gave an assertion that I know is false. I provide information demonstrated the fallacy of your assertion, because:

1. That's just the kinda guy I am - I like correct vs. incorrect information

2. This is a debate forum, last I checked.

So when someone states something I know to be false, and when they state it in a debate forum, call me crazy but I have this itching to correct them on it.

quote:

You need to learn to take it easy, MisterOpus1.

I don't know how us tree-huggin', pothead hippy liberals could take it any easier.

Seriously, the folks here know there's 2 issues that I'll continue to fight tooth and nail on:

1. Evolution

2. War in Iraq

I'm very opinionated on both.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider OK, so lets assume that chance converges towards certainty and we substitute certainty with a 'target'. This target must be hit by means of a random mechanism (chance). The probability of attaining 100 amino acids in the correct sequence is in excess of 10^100. Design will achieve this task in one attempt, where as chance, as you have suggested, will hit the target 'eventually'.

A Designer would achieve this if we only saw evidence of Him doing so. Why is there no observed, verifiable evidence of a Designer doing this?

quote:

Remember, the correct sequence is required before the biological component is functional. i.e the mechnism of chance must hit the target on more than one occasions before a functioning biological cell (which sustains life) is attained. Hence the difference between probable and improbable.

The probability numbers I've seen are a great deal magnitudes smaller. For example, one probability cited by both IDers and evolutionists is Axe et. al (2004), which utilizes the cassette mutagenesis technique and derives a probability between 10^53 and 10^77. Of course using cassette mutagenesis as a technique that Axe uses does not in any way resemble protein evolution in any way, (CM hits multiple binding sites at once, a process that even Axe readily admits does not in any way follow protein evolution). Axe was not trying to find evolutionary probability of binding sites, but unfortunately IDers love to twist it that way.

Regardless of the supposed high probability, keep in mind that these numbers of protein sequencing tend to examine protein evolution, once again, in a more linear fashion �i.e. one mutation on top of another. As I�ve mentioned previously, evolution certainly is not limited to a linear progression (though that�s not excluded). But what�s more, these type of probability numbers thrown around once again demonstrate little knowledge about protein sequencing and protein evolution as a whole. Proteins, or more specifically, amino acids show a great deal of plasticity in their sequencing. Research has demonstrated that proteins can lose somewhere between 70-80% of their sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function. Here�s one example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/b...astp&expect=300

Now granted, that is not necessarily a RANDOM amino acid change. For that, we�ll have to go to Guo et. al (2004) for that number, which they cite with empirical evidence that 34+-6% change in random amino acid sequencing can effectively eliminate a protein�s function (Guo HH et al., 2004. Protein tolerance to random amino acid change. PNAS 101(25):9205-10.). Still, that�s over 1/3 of the protein undergoing a RANDOM shuffling of its sequencing, and still retaining its functionality!

Li (1997) also outlines amino acid binding mutation and redundancy:

quote:

The emergence of a new function in a DNA or protein sequence is supposedly advantageous and is commonly believed to have occurred by advantageous mutations. However, acquiring a new function may require many mutational steps, and a point that needs emphasis is that the early steps might have been selectively neutral because the new function might not be manifested until a certain number of steps had already occurred. Li WH (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p.427

IOW, proteins can undergo a great deal of mutations and changes to their sequences, and not only retain their same function, but can withstand any possible new functionality as well. This is a critical feature of proteins.

Theobald also outlines this with supporting research:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

His examples on Cytochrome C are good as well.

You might also want to check out Musgrave:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000210.html
http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm

So taken these well-supported considerations about protein binding and protein evolution, those probability numbers turn out to be misleading and erroneous based on their incorrect assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Heh. I was joking for the most part, but those are some good points. On the e equation--what does the "i" stand for again?

The imaginary number, square root of -1. It's kinda interesting because the exponential function of an imaginary variable is a circle with a finite radius. If z=x+iy, then e^z has a radius e^x and the angle y. So if x is a fixed variable equal to 0, then e^(i*pi)=e^(0+i*pi)=(e^0)*(e^i*pi)=1*(cos(pi)+i*sin(pi))=1*(-1)+i*0=-1.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider OK, so lets assume that chance converges towards certainty and we substitute certainty with a 'target'. This target must be hit by means of a random mechanism (chance). The probability of attaining 100 amino acids in the correct sequence is in excess of 10^100. Design will achieve this task in one attempt, where as chance, as you have suggested, will hit the target 'eventually'. Remember, the correct sequence is required before the biological component is functional. i.e the mechnism of chance must hit the target on more than one occasions before a functioning biological cell (which sustains life) is attained. Hence the difference between probable and improbable.

That is essentially correct, but you have missed one rather important detail. You see, there is not a single way in which a dna molecule required for a functional organism can be made. In other words, there is not a single target, there is a great amount of multiple targets, and we've hit on one of them. If we would recreate the authentic conditions that were present on the early earth, it is very likely that life would evolve in a totally different way (or maybe it wouldn't evolve at all for that matter), we'd all be totally different creatures who would eat totally different foods and synthesize totally different amino acids. The speed of evolution would also probably be different. Maybe we would still be puddles of organic self-replicating goo, and maybe we would have evolved to the state equivalent to our present state 2 billion years ago. That is the random part of the process. Ultimately, however, natural selection would kick in and direct it, so even though creatures that would appear in the recreated version of evolution would fundamentally most likely be very different from us, their exterior characteristics would converge towards the ones that we can find in existing creatures. In other words, there would still be fish-like, bird-like, etc. creatures, but with a fundamentally different chemistry. One relatively good exampe of that is if you compare the fish, the ichtyosaurus, and the dolphins. They look almost exactly the same, yet their genetic makeup is pretty different. Basically what you got is three different evolutionary pathways to a same form.

I think it was Opus once who posted a nice article that calculated all the numbers and showed how there was infact a likely chance of life evolving on Earth in one way or another, as well as that the one species of bacteria, when presented with a simulated natural selection in a lab evolved into a same new form, but in 30 or so different ways.

quote:

A Designer would achieve this if we only saw evidence of Him doing so. Why is there no observed, verifiable evidence of a Designer doing this?

Well at the moment there isn�t much evidence at all. The design argument heavily relies on complex mathematics and very very limited observable data. Of course, given time I�m sure our young bright scientists will find the evidence they�re looking for.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.