Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does complexity require intelligent design?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 226 of 229 (199273)
04-14-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by xevolutionist
04-13-2005 11:08 PM


Re: information from non-intelligent sources
There certainly are examples of beneficial gene duplications, I assume you are looking for experimental examples and discounting all the hundreds of papers which present the genetic evidence for gene duplications during evolution.
Here is an old experimental paper to start you off.
Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genetics. 1975 Apr;79(4):661-74.
Hansche PE.
It has been shown that specific mutations of the gene that codes for the general acid monophophatase (Aphtase) of S. cerevisiae can increase the affinity of this enzyme for beta-glycerophosphate (BGP) and thereby provide this organism with the capacity to exploit extremely low concentrations of this organic phosphate (Francis and Hansche 1973). In this report two additional avenues are demonstrated to be available to this organism for increasing its capacity to exploit low concentrations of organic phosphates. One avenue is through mutations that increase the amount of Aphtase that associates with the cell wall, where it catalizes the hydrolysis of exogenous organic phosphates. The other avenue is through duplication of the gene that codes for Aphtase, doubling the amount of Aphtase synthesized.--The spontaneous duplication of the structural gene of Aphtase and the incorporation of the duplicate into this experimental population as a means of exploiting low concentrations of exogenous organic phosphates provides direct support for the first step of the mechanism through which new metabolic functions are postulated to evolve.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by xevolutionist, posted 04-13-2005 11:08 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 227 of 229 (199337)
04-14-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by xevolutionist
04-14-2005 10:26 AM


Re: science
Sure. Easy. Frst tell us which particular definition of "information" you are using, so we can select an appropriate example of it increasing.
Coded material fed to a computer or communications system. Specifically the information that controls the formation, development, and the 5000 or so chemical processes necessary for each cell to perform it's specialized function, and repair and reproduce itself.
Sorry, not usefual good enough.
It was good enough for the Webster's dictionary I used, but I doubt any definition I give will satisfy you.
It's possible that any definition you give will not satisfy me, but you certainly haven't tried yet. You made a claim which relies on you having a definition of information which can be used to make measurements. You failed to respond to the part in which I pointed out why your definition wasn't useful or good enough. Here it is again:
You said "The barrier is that no new genetic information can be produced by mutation". In order to evaluate that claim we need a way to measure the amount of information, so we can compare it before and after a mutation to see it it has increased or not; or a way to characterize information as "new" or "old" and then characterize the information present before and after a mutation to see if any of the information after the mutation is "new".
So, to be meaningful your definition of information must include either a way to measure the quantity of information at any time and/or separate arbitrary information into "new" and "old" categories.
You cannot have any basis for your original claim unless you already have a definition of information which meets one of those two criteria. So, which is it; did you have no basis for your claim, or do you have such a definition of information all ready to type ou?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by xevolutionist, posted 04-14-2005 10:26 AM xevolutionist has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 228 of 229 (199512)
04-15-2005 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by xevolutionist
04-14-2005 10:26 AM


Re: science
Is that really the definition in your copy of Webster's? Which edition is it from?
The online version of Webster's gives the following definition.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary writes:
Main Entry: information
Pronunciation: "in-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed...
I can see that definition 2b is related to your definition, but it is substantially different.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by xevolutionist, posted 04-14-2005 10:26 AM xevolutionist has not replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 229 (199606)
04-15-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by xevolutionist
04-13-2005 10:30 PM


Re: Ok, never say never...
"... I maintain that the fossil record does not support such (evolutionist) claims...If there exist actual fossilized remains, the location of them is a secret..."
Let me take this away from the purely technical/research driven discussion that it has become, and ask an opinion question. If the fossil evidence is so slim, why are so many archeologists convinced? I realize scientists make mistakes, but science as a whole usually corrects for this. Is this truly a case where the findings point you to believe in ID, or does your belief in ID cause you to question contrary findings?
"...Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to be one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century...Apparently, Sir Hoyle did not believe in ID, but he pretty convincingly, in my estimate, disproved abiogenesis on this planet with the laws of nature as we understand them..."
Maybe I am lumping apples and oranges here, but I think I see a lot of this sort of logic from creationists on this site. They use science and the findings of scientists only as far as they are useful, then they abandon them when they become troublesome. In the above example, because Sir Fred seems to agree with your opinions about evolution, you promote him as an expert witness. However, according to you he doesn’t support the core assertion, which is that complexity requires ID. (You deserve credit for being intellectually honest enough to point this out, though...) There are PhD's that claim HIV does not cause AIDS. I don’t see how one or two opinions, learned as they may be, should count more heavily than the weight of the combined experts in the field.
"...If accidental, or spontaneous, formation of life is impossible, what other options are left..."
Well, if accidental or spontaneous formations of life are impossible why wouldn’t eternal, omniscient, invisible ones be?
"...Where have we ever seen spontaneous formation of any life form? The evidence all around us is that life is resistant to change, not prone to it..."
I don’t agree with your assertion re: life being resistant to change, but if you are looking for proof, where have we ever seen a galactic intelligent designer?
I keep coming back to my original thought. When you are researching a physics or biology or math problem, when do the facts lead you towards ID? When you first get stumped? After three tries? How many current advances in medicine and science would be beyond the comprehension of scientists only 200 years ago? To them, a lot of what we now take for granted would only be explainable by posting assistance from the divine.
Citizzzen

The message is ended, go in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by xevolutionist, posted 04-13-2005 10:30 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024