|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
No I don’t think so at all. All X are Y. Y. Therefore X. That is a logical fallacy no matter how it is dressed up with rhetoric. You are committing this fallacy. There is no two ways about it. You argument can also be shown to beg the question. This is where the conclusion is found in the premise. All known complexity is due to intelligent design. Life is complex. Therefore, life is designed. The conclusion and first premise are the same.
We observe all life today, down to the simplest single celled organism to be very complex systems with specific DNA coding arranged relaying information needed to replicate. We can see back in time, through the fossil record, over 3 quarters of the way into the box and see that those systems were just as complex. There are about 6 billion different DNA combinations living right now that produce a human. 6 billion. That's not specific at all. Add to that the billions of species that have lived through time. There is no specificity. There is what works and what doesn't. Secondly, show me a 2 billion year old genome. If you can't do it then withdraw your claim. What we do observe is that genomes change in every generation. Therefore, there is no expectation whatsoever that genomes were the same 3.5 billion years ago. None.
Even in your implied context (not mine), with that logic, why don't you expect SETI scientists to have ever encountered extra terrestrials who can produce simple strings of prime numbers before they conclude that (if they detect prime numbers being transmitted from deep space) that it had an intelligent source? That's not what SETI is looking for. SETI is looking for a narrowband radiowave signal. That's it. They are looking for a radio transmitter within the clutter of broadband radio signals produced by stars and celestial objects. They are not looking for strings of prime numbers.
The fact is ID proponents do not need to have ever observed a designer producing a life form with csi to recognize that a designer is required in order to produce csi. They don't need any observations since it is a dogmatic religious belief. IDer's have not even been able to evidence CSI in real life genomes, so you seem to be jumping the gun a bit.
Except for the fact that the [stromatolites] today leave the same "finger prints" so to speak as those did. Or did you forget all about the big "Mars rock" controversy and why some thought it was evidence for life on Mars? Meaning-- "If it quacks like a duck..." Those fingerprints do not indicate the DNA sequence of their genome nor their intracellular organization. As for Mars, do you really think that if they do find stromatolite-like deposits on Mars that they will conclude that organisms with DNA identical to modern Earth algae produced those deposits?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
The explanation is just as I explained. There was no ID explanation, just a long diatribe against evolution.
That being, if the series is NOT evidence of human progression as touted, then ID has no need to "explain" anything concerning alleged additions of genetic material. Where was this progression indicated? Here is the picture again:
Do you see anywhere in there that says "THIS IS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESSION"? I don't see it. These skulls are laid out in CHRONOLOGICAL order (except for the chimp skull in A). So you need to explain, using ID, why older fossils look more like chimps and more recent skulls look more like humans. How does ID explain this? Remember, "not evolution" is not an ID explanation. We want to know how it DID happen according to ID and the experiments we can do to test this explanation.
Some may have been different variations of chimps along with their disfigured. And others are variations of humans along with their disfigured. How do you determine, using ID, which are disfigured and which are not? If I found a dog skull is it doubly disfigured because it isn't identical to either a chimp skull or a human skull? How do you distinguish which are separate species and which are not using the fossil data? How do you use ID to determine this?
Or did you just completely ignor the words of Dr. Lyall Watson and Henry Gee? Did you? Let's take Henry Gee's words. These fossils do not come with birth certificates so how did you determine who was related to whom? And just so you know:
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
"Thirdly" I think micro biologists would mostly all agree with me that bacteria are very dissimilar to eukaryotes. Since I am a microbiologist I will comment. Yes, eukaryotes and prokaryotes are very dissimilar, but not completely so. They also share basic, fundamental genetic systems such as ribosomes, tRNA's, and codon usage. Codon usage is the big one. There is no physical law that requires the DNA codon ATG to result in a methionine residue in a protein. NONE AT ALL. The relationship between codon and amino acid is arbitrary. To the microbiologist this is a huge clue, a clue that indicates shared ancestry. Just to back this up, there are "Indiana Jones" type microbiologists out there (as close as us real science nerds can get) who are searching for life forms on Earth that do not share the same codon usage. Such a find would probably win someone a Nobel and funding for life. This would indicate a second origin of life, a group of life that does not share common ancestry with the life we are all familiar with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Just to clarify, Brad was engaging in a bit of revisionism. What he had said was that bacteria "bear little to nothing in common with the rest of the living world around us." I told him that was wrong and he responded with a message making it seem like I had claimed that bacteria and eukaryotes are very similar. The only point I was making to him is that bacteria have much in common with the rest of life. It is still a very subjective evaluation. A dog breeder would say that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are very dissimilar, and no one would criticize them for saying so. In microbiology, we even consider closely related bacteria to be "very dissimilar" at times when trying to contrast the differences between them. It's a bit like asking someone a dollar value at which someone goes from being poor to being rich. It really depends on the person and the situation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
First of all, common ancestry isn't even shown to be possible. Do you have any siblings. If you do, what mechanism is responsible for your shared characteristics? Shared ancestry, is it not? Do you really think that common ancestry is not possible? Really?
Common features are also consistent with spontaneous formation of all life and the whole 3 minutes ago. But so what? This is why ID is not scientific. Nothing can falsify it. 2 billion different species with no shared characteristics would also be consistent with magical poofing. A non-nested hierarchy would be consistent with magical poofing. Anything and everything is consistent with magical poofing. This is not so with evolution. The theory of evolution (a scientific theory) makes a risky prediction. It predicts that a nested hierarchy should exist among species that only participate in vertical genetic transfer (which is the case for metazoans). What do we see at the genetic level? An overwhelming signal for a nested hierarchy.
Taq: An examination of the watch will tell you how it was made. Close examination of the gears can tell you if they were forged or cast. . . Smooth Operator: You can't do that. That's impossible. The question still remains, how do you know that that watch is not the product of random natural forces? Maybe it just looks like it was designed.Let's say your examintation turnes out positive the idea that the gears were soddered. Tell me, what method do you have to show that the gears aren't simply a product of random chance and are only amde to look likt they were soddered? How in the world do you think people determine that Rolex's are fakes? Or how old a pocket watch is? From these very things. It's not only possible it is done all of the time. Secondly, if I put two pocket watches in a box and come back 9 months later are there three pocket watches? No, there isn't. Watches don't reproduce. Life does.
Folders on a compter can be folded into one. They do not have to be, but they can be made into one. That's my point. An intelligent agent can do that if he chooses so. A designer could put feathers on a bat. There is nothing stopping it from happening. And yet, there is no feathered bats. Instead we see adaptations of a mammalian body type for flight without anything informing these adaptations from the bird lineage. Again and again we see this pattern. There is no reason that we should see a nested hierarchy in metazoans if ID is true. It is the only pattern that evolution can produce with a lack of horizontal gene transfer.
And acutally, life does not fall into a perfect nested hierarchy. Not for organisms that participate in HGT, no it doesn't. However, there is very little to no HGT observed among metazoans, and sure enough we see an overwhelming signal that is consistent with a nested hierarchy. Using ID, can you explain why we don't see birds with three middle ear bones? Why we don't see mammals with feathers? Why we don't see whales with gills? Why we don't see penguins with hair? How does ID explain why we see one pattern out of the billions that are possible?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
It CLEARLY, and in PLAIN ENGLISH says that bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" is the pattern, and that it's complexity is 10^20. How was this calculation made? More importantly, why limit this to a "bidirectional motor-driven propeller"? The function is motility. His calculations need to include all protein-protein interactions that could have led to a motility function.
I KNOW! The point is that while reporducing, the parents DO NOT pick and choose which nucleotides they will pass on to their offspring! They send everything. The whole genome. And after that, the offspring is the mix of those two genomes. Therefore, natural selection selects on the level of the genome. Not on the level of the single nucleotide. Which means that even if a certain individual has beneficial mutations, the deleterious that he might also have, go right to the offspring thogether with the beneficial ones. Natural seelction can not select out individual deleterious nucleotides. They pass on their entire genome? Really? You might want to think about that for a second. In sexually reproducing species only half the genome is passed on which means that a mixture of alleles is passed on. Therefore, different children from the same parents will have a different mixture of alleles. Secondly, there are very good examples of a single nucleotide difference being selected for. The hemoglobin S allele is a perfect example. In the heterozygous state it confers malarial resistance. In the homozygous state it causins sickling of the RBC's. Therefore, it has both beneficial and detrimental attributes depending on the environment. In environments with endemic malaria the beneficial attributes in the heterozygous state outweigh it's detrimental attributes in the homozygous state. The exact opposite occurs in environments without endemic malaria. So what do we see when we look at the geographic distribution of the hemoglobin S allele and endemic malaria? They match. Populations in areas with endemic malaria have many more individuals with the allele than populations in areas without endemic malaria. This completely falsifies your claim.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Taq, you've got a very long section that is just a very long *UNQUOTED* excerpt from SO's post, or maybe multiple posts. It begins with "[qs]That's not what...". Please fix. --Admin
I'm talking about universal common ancestry. You know, the common ancestry of all life on Earth. You do know that bears and aligators do not and can not reproduce? You do know that chihuahuas and great danes can not reproduce. And you never demonstrated why common ancestry is impossible, other than to just assert it. We do observe that common ancestry produces shared characteristics. We observe that all life shares arbitrary characteristics, such as tRNA's.
This is where youa re wrong on 2 parts. 1.) ID can be falsified. If an event is shown to be a producd of eiterh a natural law or chance, than ID is falsified. 2.) ID has nothing to do with "poofing", whatever that is. 1) Since new information is produced by mutations, and mutations occur by chance, then ID is falsified. 2) ID has always been about magical poofing.
Except where we do not see a nested hierarchy. Did you read the article I quoted in my previosu post? A lot, and I do mean, a lot of speies do not fit the tree of life model you think they do. On the other had, I already told you, being consistent with something doesn't imply that this something is the cause. And in those species we see horizontal genetic transfer. In species where we do not observe HGT we observe a nested hierarchy, exactly as we would expect. This applies to the vast majority of metazoans.
Taq: Again and again we see this pattern. There is no reason that we should see a nested hierarchy in metazoans if ID is true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SO: Except if it was designed that way. You have just rejected your own potential falsification. We observe natural processes producing a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy in life.
But those animals you speak of were supposed to have evolved from those earlier that did participate in a lot of HGT. So if evolution was true, the later ones should obviously not be forming a nested hierarchy. Once HGT stops there will be a nested hierarchy.
[qs]That's not what ID is about. But nevertheless. The explanation is simple. They were not designed that way. But can you tell me what exactly would falsify evolution? What animal, and which characteristics would falsify common descent?
quote:I'm talking about universal common ancestry. You know, the common ancestry of all life on Earth. You do know that bears and aligators do not and can not reproduce? quote:This is where youa re wrong on 2 parts. 1.) ID can be falsified. If an event is shown to be a producd of eiterh a natural law or chance, than ID is falsified. 2.) ID has nothing to do with "poofing", whatever that is.
quote:Except where we do not see a nested hierarchy. Did you read the article I quoted in my previosu post? A lot, and I do mean, a lot of speies do not fit the tree of life model you think they do. On the other had, I already told you, being consistent with something doesn't imply that this something is the cause. quote:But it does not detect design. It presupposes design in the first palce. You already know a ROlex is designed. Now you just want to find out the mechanism. quote:If you put random atoms in that very same box, will they reproduce? No they won't. So why would you think a long time ago some atoms did just that and formed first life? But that's besides the point. How does reproduction have anyhting to do with design detection in the first place? quote:I know, why should there be? quote:No you do not. You simply see, mammalian bodies that are able to fly. You have no idea of how that came about. quote:Except if it was designed that way. quote:You didn't even show that evolution is capeable of producing that in the first place! You can't ascribe an event to a cause that you do not know can even produce that cause. quote:But those animals you speak of were supposed to have evolved from those earlier that did participate in a lot of HGT. So if evolution was true, the later ones should obviously not be forming a nested hierarchy. Furhtermore, the idea that HGT is responsible for the noncorrelated branches is not enough. Simply because even the higher taxa is shown to not conform to a tree of life as envisioned if it was a slow gradual descent.
quote:A Primer on the Tree of Life | Discovery Institute quote: Why weren't birds designed with three middle ear bones? Why weren't bats designed with feathers? What was preventing this designer from swapping design units between different vertebrate species? Why is the pattern of homology exactly what we would expect to see from evolutionary events? An animal, living or fossilized, that would falsify evolution would be an animal with a single lower jaw bone, three middle ear bones, and feathers. Another would be an animal with gills and hair. What was stopping this supposed designer from producing these animals? Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Request fix.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
The calculation can be found in the NFL. It doesn't matter what the function is. What matters is the pattern. Including all the possible patterns that would lead to motility is useless. We are trying to detect if a certain pattern was designed. So how many possible patterns are there and how was that determined? Frankly, I don't see how such a calculation can be done since it is nearly impossible to know which combinations of which protein sequences will result in any type of motility system.
Does the sperm, or does it not, contain the full genome fo the father? No, it contains half the father's genome. It's a haploid cell. Get thee to a biology book and learn about meiosis.
And thus, you painfully missed my whole point. Natural selection did not pick the organism on the level of that nucleotide. It picked teh organims on the level of the whole genome. Then please explain why the map of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) matches so perfectly with the map of malaria distribution. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
I am not sure I follow you here Taq. Do you mean to say: If all X are also Y, Therefore all X ARE Y? If that is what you mean to say then that would not be a logical fallacy. No, that is not what I meant. You are arguing that intelligences produce CSI. You then find CSI and claim intelligence. This leaves out the rather obvious possiblity that CSI can be produced by something other than intelligence.
So even in humans where two parents differ by only one allele in each of their 23 chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father. That makes the combined potential of variety of offspring more than 70 trillion. More than plenty for natural selection to work with in the existing gene pool to insure survival. But that does not mean that our genetic make up is not incredibly specific to our particular species. And the same argument applies for all the species. You forgot to add in the 150 or so point mutations that occurs in every generation, in addition to a handful of small and large indels. Adding these in and we come to the conclusion that each generation of human will necessarily be different than any generation that has lived before it. The gene pool from one generation to the next is not the same. So how can you claim that DNA is specific to humans when every generation is different from the last?
We observe changes occur only within the existing gene pool. As opposed to non-existent gene pools? What are you trying to say here?
I think you are mistaken Taq. Here's a link to a letter written to and a response from SETI. As you can see, prime numbers are obviously the key in the search for ETI. Prime numbers in what? We can find prime numbers in many things that are of natural origin. For example, tritium has three neutrons and three is a prime number. Therefore, tritium has an intelligent source, right? The prime numbers you are referring to would be embedded in a narrowband radio transmission. The first goal of the SETI program is to find that narrowband radio transmission. Only after they find the signal can they look for prime numbers.
truth of the matter is that intelligence is detected through the same means in the search for ID as it is in the search for ETI, and that's the glaring fact you want to dodge at all cost. So IDers are looking for DNA that produces narrowband radio transmissions?
taq: Those fingerprints do not indicate the DNA sequence of their genome nor their intracellular organization. As for Mars, do you really think that if they do find stromatolite-like deposits on Mars that they will conclude that organisms with DNA identical to modern Earth algae produced those deposits? Brad: I think that is exactly what those who believed the fossils were from Mars thought. They looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, and so they thought they were formed by a duck (figuratively speaking of course). If they found fossils of birds on Mars, why wouldn't they think that the birds were every bit as complex as the ones we have on Earth? Birds and stromatolites are nothing alike. Stromatolites are the excreted waste build up from metabolizing cells. That's it. They have no anatomy and they can not distinguish between the structure of the cells.
Yes, as I said, I've seen the picture. And here again is the accompanying link where the picture originates from with clear implied progression. But that is not even the point. Apart from just randomly attacking evolution as you suggest, I clearly and concisely demonstrated that there is no evidence that these skulls are related and especially not all human. Thus there is no "changes" in DNA for ID proponents to explain. What other people had to say about the picture has nothing to do with it. You still have not offered an ID explanation for the changes in morphology through time. You have not explained why skulls of more recent origin are more like modern humans while older skulls are more like other apes. You have not explained why we don't find modern human features earlier in the chronology. Now you have gone so far as to suggest that differences in morphology are NOT due to differences in DNA.More than plenty for natural selection to work with in the existing gene pool to insure survival. But that does not mean that our genetic make up is not incredibly specific to our particular species. And the same argument applies for all the species. And to other microbiologists, shared similarity between (how did you put it) "very dissimilar" life forms could also be a clue to a common designer rather than a common ancestor. I mean there is a reason why all wheels are round. This fact does not in any way imply that all modes of transportation which employ the wheel are related, only that round wheels happen to be the best design for "rolling." Not the same. There is no physical law that requires ATG to result in a methionine in the protein. For a wheel to roll it must be round, physics requires it. Also, there is nothing preventing a common designer from using different codon usage for different, and supposedly separate, creations. You might as well use GGG for methionine in birds and ATG in mammals. Why couldn't a designer do this? On top of that, common design does not explain the PATTERN of homology, the nested hierarchy that we keep talking about. Let's approach this from a different prospective. What potential observation would be inconsistent with common design? What combination of characteristics in a fossil would be inconsistent with design? What differences in DNA would be inconsistent with common design? Or are you going to claim that any and all observations, known and unknown, are due to common design? If so, then I can only conclude that common design is a dogmatic belief. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
You specifically asked me about the patterns of how life is distributed geologically on Earth. ID has nothing to say about that. Then ID fails to explain biodiversity. "We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout space and time, over the same areas of land and water, and independent of their physical conditions. The naturalist must feel little curiosity, who is not led to inquire what this bond is."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species", Chapter 11 Aren't IDer's curious as to biogeography? Is biogeography not something that ID must explain in order to explain modern biodiversity?
When we are talking about common descent and evolution we are talking about darwinian evolution. Which is supposed to remove the designer from the whole process. As we have already demonstrated, due to the dogmatic nature of ID there is nothing we could ever show which would falsify ID. Rather, the theory of evolution demonstrates that these observable and natural processes are sufficient to explain modern biodiversity in the same way that the Germ Theory of Disease is sufficient to explain infectious diseases but incapable of completely ruling out disease causing demons.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
By ALL i mean ALL KNOWN functions. Since it had ONE KNOWN function. You don't get to invent new functions that we do not know of. If you don't know about them, don't make them up. We are talking only about what we do know about. In order to claim that mutation only results in a loss of function then you must know all functions that the protein has. Given the wide range of possible function it is extremely difficult to do this for every protein. This is why the "mutation only results in loss of information" is such bunk. For example:
quote: Unless you designed your experiments correctly you would just notice the lack of methylation at the GATC sites. You would call this a loss of function. However, these mutations lead to a new function, methylation at GATT sites. Mutations can and do lead to specifity for new substrates, and given the vast number of possible substrates it is nearly impossible to claim that a protein of no known function lacks function in all situations.
Let us make orselves insane and actually accept the idea that such a chain would actually survive and spread around. Okay, what than? What would have happened? What would darwinian evolution do? Make it more complex? Create new functions? No, it wouldn't. Genetic entropy would not allow that. Do you have any evidence for this, other than your bald assertions?
I know they are not. But we have FACTS. The facts that small populations die out because of genetic entropy. And we have models that show the same applies to large populations. I think you are making the same mistake you made earlier. The paper you referred to earlier suggested that the SMALL POPULATION size of LARGE ANIMALS could lead to genetic entropy. They used the size of the animals as a proxy for their population size since larger animals need more territory, hence smaller populations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
My point is that you don't simply assume genetically very distinct animals could reproduce int he past. You need some evidence for it. You mean evidence like orthologous ERV's, shared pseudogenes, etc.? We have that evidence in spades. The genetic evidence is conclusive.
Ummm... no agian. Teh second article I quoted in my previous post related specifically to this objection. We do not observe nested hierarchies even in higher taxa. Please read my posts more carefully. Besides, even if we did, so what? That's not evidnece for universal common descent. That's evidence that you put a bunch of animals in a group, based on their similarity. That's all. Ignoring the evidence is not helping you. We do observe a nested hierarchy. Yes, there is a little noise as would be expected from homoplasies and reverse mutations, but the overwhelming signal is a nested hierarchy.
And no, we do not see a nested hierarchy in living organisms. It's a myth. There is a certain amount of nestedness. That's true. Especially on a phenotypic level. But on a molecular level, it's a bush, not a tree of life. A bush is a nested hierarchy.
The gorilla/chimp/human tree (5—8 million years ago). Whereas genomic analyses have shown that at the species level, chimpanzees are humans' closest relatives [24], many of the genes and genomic segments examined have followed different evolutionary paths [24—26]. Specifically, analyses of almost 100 genes (under two different optimality criteria) show that ~55% of genes support a human-chimpanzee clade, 40% are evenly split among the two alternative topologies, with the remaining genes being uninformative [25,26] (Figure 2A). Similarly, whereas 76% of PICs from a genome-scale survey support a human—chimpanzee clade, 24% of PICs disagree From that same article: "A phylogenetic analysis unambiguously confirms the conclusion that chimpanzees were our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates and the relative divergence of the Homo—Pan and that of (Homo—Pan)— Gorilla are 4.93 million years and 7.26 million years, respectively." They agree with me. The nested hierarchy is unambiguous.
Why weren't all cars designed with airbags? This is not something that ID investigates. A designer can choose whatever he want's for it's design. Just because there isn't something in design that you want there to be, that doesn't mean there is no design whatsoever. Why aren't airbags found in a single lineage of cars? Why don't cars fall into a nested hierarhcy? Feathers are found in a single lineage of vertebrates. Three middle ear bones is found in a single lineage of vertebrates. So why aren't airbags found in a single lineage of cars, both morphologically and chronologically?
Why don't all planes have jet engines? See above. Why are there cars with jet engines? If cars can have jet engines why can't bats have feathers? Why do human constructs consistently fail to produce a single nested hierarchy?
What prevented the designers of all different computers to simply swap the architecture? You tell me. Why can't a designer change the architecture at will? Why a nested hierarchy?
You nevr observed universal common descent. So you do not know how one would look like. Do you have any siblings? If so, the features you share are due to common descent. It really isn't that hard to figure out. At the same time, can you show how mutations that occur in one species can spread to another species? It doesn't happen in metazoans. This produces a nested hierarchy.
There is no such a thing as a homology that ONLY conforms to evolution. There is homology, paralogy, orthology, ohnology, xenology and gametology. All these explanations cover all possible patterns. Similar structure coded with same genes, different structures coded for by different genes, different structures coded for by similar genes, similar genes coded for by different genees etc... So since all bases are covered, meaning, evolution has answers for all possible patterns, it makes common descent unfalsifiable. You can't falsify common descent because any pattern of genes can be explained by the same mechanism. Therefore it's unfalsifiable, ie. not a good scientific explanation. You seem to be really mixed up here. A nested hierarchy can not be built for a bat with feathers. Can't be done. A nested hierarchy is clearly falsifiable.
There are 10^20 possible patterns that describe the flagellum. This is even talked about in this very topic. A flagellum is just one possible solution for motility, and those odds are only for a flagellum like the one that appeared. I'm sorry, but your probabilities are built on baseless assertions.
Who know. Could be lot's of reasons. Some of the reasons include natural selection and genetic drift. But that does nto mean that natural selection selects on the level of a nucleotide. That's just plain stupid. Explain to me how can the natural seelction see if a single nucleotide is deleterious or not. What is teh mechanism for this insight? I already spelled it out for you with the hemoglobin S example. It is plain as day. You say it is stupid, and yet that is exactly what the data indicates. The single nucleotide change in hemoglobin S has been selected through positive malarial resistance selection (positive) and sickle cell anemia selection (negative selection).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Taq: Then ID fails to explain biodiversity. SO: Maybe because it's not trying to do such a thing?
So ID is not trying to determine why bacteria have flagella? Really? So I guess we can say that ID explains nothing about biology?
Aren't evolutionists curious as to origin of life? Is origin of life not something that evolution must explain in order to explain modern biodiversity? Evolution deals with CHANGE in life, not the origin thereof. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life.
Did I ever claim that mutatoins can't leed to new function? I don't remember saying that. Maybe I did, but I really don't remember that. But what I do remember saying is that chance alone can not generate new CSI. Did your experiment claim that that happened? No, it didn't. What did it claim happened? That new functions evolved. Fine? But what kind of evolution was it? A full darwinian evolution, or a directed one? Let me remind you with a quote from your own article. My example demonstrated that the specificity of an enzyme changed due to random mutations. The authors simply created an environment where such mutants would be detectable using their methodologies. That's it. This is no different than penicillin intelligently selecting for resistance mutations in bacteria. Is penicillin an intelligent agent?
And after that I showed a paper that is a mathematical model of large sexual populations, which claims that such populations are in the same danger as small populations. If you could be so kind, could you give the link for that paper again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Recombination within genes happens, recombination between closely linked loci happens. The fact that you think a new mechanism is needed to explain this just shows how unfamiliar you are with the already well characterised mechanisms. Just to help clarify this point, the reason that genes close to each other tend to be linked is that the chances of a recombination event occuring over a short span of DNA is low. The less DNA there is between two genes the less likely a recombination event will occur between the two genes. As the distance between two genes increases so too does the chance of recombination occuring in the gap between the two genes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Maybe I'm just in a post lunch funk, but those last two sentences read like the opposite of what I thought you were trying to say. If I've gotten this backwards then please ignore and apologies, etc... I reread it several times and it appears to be correct, but my mind could be playing tricks with me. I find that often happens when you read your own stuff, you project your intended meaning and can sometimes miss obvious mistakes. So here is a different explanation. Just to make the math easy, let's say the probability of a recombination event (i.e. a cross over in meiosis) occuring at any single base is 1 in a million (1 in 1E6 shorthand). If two genes (or more accurately, two alleles) are separated by 100 bases then the chances of a recombination event occuring between the genes is 1E2 in 1E6, or 1 in 1E4. If there are 1E6 bases between two genes then the chances of a recombination event between the two genes is 1 in 1. The more bases there are between the two genes the more likely they are to be separated during meiosis.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024