|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,509 Year: 6,766/9,624 Month: 106/238 Week: 23/83 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It needs more than 3.5 billion years? Since we know genetic entropy is inevitable and that it hasn't happened yet, then the obvious conclusion is that the 3.5 billion years is incorrect and that the earth is probably young.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I see it can be used to advance materialistic agendas. Got some examples? What are you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But not so poor as someone who descrbes "Darwinism" as a "form of materialism". From a scientific perspective, I agree with you but from a larger philisophical persepective, I see it can be used to advance materialistic agendas. Got some examples? What are you talking about? Richard Dawkins He wrote some books... Are you against books because they can be used to advance materialistic agendas? Why the special plea for Darwinism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Likewise in all of our human experience, no one has ever observed anything with complex, specific, information, form by random processes, but it always requires an intelligent source. Its 'specified', not 'specific'... But csi is a crock. There's nothing scientific about it. There's no method to determine one thing as csi as opposed to another thing that is not.
So the most logical conclusion, when csi is observed, is not that it was formed by some random process but rather that it likewise required an intelligent source. When csi is observed... exactly. It can't be observed because there's no method to determine if it is, in fact, csi or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I Googled largynal. All that came up was your EvC message. shoulda did the phrase: Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For the trillionth time - ALL KNOWN FUNCTIONS -. All the way back in Message 108 you wrote:
quote: But this mess with PaulK all started in Message 118: Here's all your guys's one liners from, like, 50 messages:
What's certain is that you can't on average change the protein beyond 20%. Anything else is a complete loss of function.
Actually that isn't certain in this case. Especially when one of the proteins can be entirely absent.
Yes, and on average, the change is 20%, all changes included.
For enzymatic activity.
Which is what is going on when proteins interact with other chemicals.
Which isn't relevant to structural uses of proteins.
The only problem is that it is the most important thing. The enzymatic activity obviously depends on the structure of enzymes.
It isn't the most important thing to a flagellum !
Than what is?
I would think that the structural elements are rather important.
Structural elements are the proteins which function by the laws of biochemistry. When the structure of proteins gets changed enough their biochemical properties change too. Which leads to loss of biological functions. Which is what Axe's work shows.
So what you are saying is that the actual structure of the flagellum has no relevance beyond it's ability to catalyse chemical reactions.
Relevance to what?
To the functioning of the flagellum in allowing the bacterium to move. Isn't that obvious ?
Are you really going to tell me that the whip is catalysing chemical reactions rather than acting as a propellor ? The propellers motion is a subset of catalysing chemicals. How the hell do you think the flagellum get's it's power?
Even if they work by catalysis (and I would want to research that !) the proteins which provide the power are not in the whip.
It doesn't matter where they are. They are doing their job soemhow and are providing power to the flagellum.
That doesn't even make sense. The proteins that make up the whip don't have the job of providing power to the flagellum, any more than the blades of a propellor have the job of providing power to the propellor.
I never said they do. But the flagellum is powered by something.
Unfortunately you did say that. Remember that you are arguing that ALL of the proteins in the flagellum act as enzymes, and must act as enzymes for the flagellum to work. We're still waiting to see some sensible argument for that - let alone any evidence.
Enzymatic activity is a subset of protein activity. Enzymatic activity depends on teh structure of the proteins. Therefore, if we know what amount of change will affect the catalysis, the same amount will affect whatever the flagellum is doing.
Of course we can't know anything of the sort. Different properties may be tolerant of differing amounts of change.
We know that if we change enough of the structure, the proteins become worthless in any way.
No, we don't because Axe didn't test for all possible functions. Worse still your claim is that you know HOW MUCH you can change the structure by without even considering what the function is.
He mutated the Beta lactamase protein to se when will it lose it's function. What other functions does it have except this one?
I don't know. And neither do you. Nor do you know if the mutated versions developed other functions. And the reason that you don't know is that Axe didn't do the tests to find out.
It ws totally useless. It didn't do anyting. If it did, that we would have seen some changes.
How exactly can you "see" functions without testing for them ?
Some kind of function would be noticed. A catalisys or something similar.
How exactly would it be noticed without even attempting to measure it ?
You don't measure it, you notice a process that is going on.
And how exactly can you do that without testing for it ?
The same way Nobel discovered dynamite. You don't test for it because you don't know what you are looking for. It blows up in your face when you get it right.
In other words only functions that produce a violent and obvious reaction under Axe's working conditions would be noticed.
Unless you got evidence for it, don't claim that it exists. That's how science works.
I didn't claim that anything existed. I pointed out that YOU didn't have the evidence to back up YOUR claim.
My claim is that the enzyme lost it's functiona fter it was been mutated for long enough. What's wrong about that?
What's wrong about it is that it isn't the claim we were talking about. What we are talking about is your assertion that the mutated enzymes did not have any function.
It's not my problem you simply asset that it could have gained a new function in that experiment. Nobody said it did gain it. So we have no reason to think it did. All we know it lost one.
In other words you claim that you don't need evidence to support your assertions.
If somebody claims there is an invisible pink unicorn hiding in his closet than he better show some evidence first. I simply said that enzymes in Axe's experiment lost their function. You on the other side are claiming that they gained one. Well, fine, show me, what they gained.
False. You claimed that they had lost ALL function. I pointed out that you did not know that - and you have conceded that point.
That is becasue that was the only function they had.
In fact you don't even know that. Many enzymes will work with a number of different chemicals. Degrading the function for one could improve the function for another.
Yes, we do know that. It was a Beta-Lactamase enzyme. It was the only function it had.
No, you don't know that. Was it tested for other functions ?
It has only one fuction from the start LOL! WTF are you talking about???
As I already pointed out enzymes are not restricted to reacting with a single chemical. It's hardly unusual for an enzyme to react with a number of similar organic compounds.
Well good for you. In this case, this was the only known function the enzyme had. And it lost it. Now, if you wish to claim, that it also gained one. Than feel free to show me where it says that.
I'll stick with the claim that we don't know if the mutated version had any function or not.
But what we clearly do know, is that the one that it had is now lost.
Which, of course, I did not argue against.
Than what's your point? That the enzyme got a new function, but that we do not know about it?
My point is that we do not know whether the mutated enzyme had no function or if it did. That is what I said. Perhaps you should try harder to remember just what you are arguing against ?
We know it lost one. It's an observable, empirical, fact! And we are going to stick with that. Unless you think we should invent imaginary functions just for the sake of the argument?
That is not in contention. The question is whether the mutated version had NO function. And we do not know that.
No, that's not the question. That was not the point of the experiment. The point was to show how much mutational load can a enzyme take before it loses it's function. The one function that was known to exist was measured. And it went away after some time. So now we know how much changes can there be on average before a certain function is lost.
I am afraid that you are incorrect again. You claimed that it had lost all function. I claimed that you did not know that. And as we have seen I was right, although it took an amazingly long series of posts for you to realise it. quote:Well we're not doing that. quote:That's illogical. Why can't you just admit that we don't know ? quote:And nobody has challenged that. So all it means is that you have put a lot of effort into arguing against a fact that you say doesn't matter. Well, why bother ? Why not just accept it and move on ? quote:Than what are we doing? I know I'm not. But it seems you are by trying to say that the enzyme didn't lose all it's functions. We onlyknow of the one it had and it lost it. quote:I'm talking about the know functions. We know for that one it had. And as I said, it lost it. So we know how much you have to mutate that enzyme for it to lose the function we knew about. quote:No, I was arguing from the start that this experiment shows how many mutations does it take for an average enzyme to lose it's known function. quote:I am saying that we DON'T KNOW if it lost all function. How hard is that to understand ? quote:Hello! Nobody disagreed with that ! This argument is over whether we KNOW that it lost ALL function. And it seems that you concede that we don't, but you go on arguing and arguing about nothing. quote:We know it lost all KNOWN functions. That is the only thing I'm interested in anyway. Like I said before, it may very well be that it's useful for something else. I'm not disputing that. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But what we do know, is that now we know how many mutations it takes for an enzyme to lose it's known function. quote:Umm... no. I don't care if it lost all function, even those we do not know if it might had. Because they were not tested for anyway. quote:I will only comment that you were interested enough in the claim that it had lost ALL function to try to dispute the point. You did change your position... Now back to your original quote:
quote: If it doesn't loose all function but just the known ones, the can we know which sequences would corespond to the original working specification.?? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Hide very deep nested quote (thanks for testing the software). Click on peek to see it. Edited by Admin, : Replace hide with de-nested quotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
50 shaded quotes embedded into one....
Looks fine from my end, although a little squished together at the start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:That's like saying that when you find a watch in the forest, that if that watch was designed, the person who left it there MUST HAVE HAD left notes on how he made the watch. Ummm... why? Why should he have left that? No, we could deconstruct the watch and figure out that this gear must have been place after that one, before the spring was wound, and then they put this piece over here to hold it and on and on. But you don't even have the beginnings of anything for any kind of mechanism that the designer would have used on a flagellum, you have nothing at all. But the biggest problem with your design detection method is that you're assuming the flagellum was built randomly as if the evolutionary explanation is the parts just happening to come toghether with no direction from selection at all (and then arguing that it couldn't have came about that way so it must have been designed). But we know that selective pressure can weed out the addition of parts that don't work and keep the ones that do so the probability of it forming randomly without selective pressure doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Also, RAZD had an excellent point in Message 809 showing where an increase in information must have happened:
quote: There must have been a gain of information in there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I am sorry Percy if you think I am too simplified in my replies. I like to keep it on a level that anyone can comprehend because I know that when I reply it is to more than just to you. And you don't have to have a Ph D. to get this stuff. So it seems that the question has boiled down to "What are the odds of a positive mutation even being possible?" Before we can answer this question, we must agree on what point is it safe to actually call something "impossible?" Most people normal mean that the chances of that "something" happening are so small that they are very improbable. And I do admit that just what constitutes impossible depends on who is doing the judging. Someone mentioned winning the lottery earlier, I’ll bet that if a person won the state lottery two weeks straight in a row, which is about a chance of one in a hundred trillion, the judges would think that that was pretty impossible. I’m sure they wouldn’t pay on the second win and they would probably investigate the first one with a fine tooth comb. Or if a person were to toss 150 quarters in the air, they should expect that only once in 10 to the 45th power tosses, that the coins would all come up heads. To put this into perspective of just how big that number is, lets imagine how long it would take to toss 150 coins that many times. Since flipping coins, counting all the heads, and then picking them all back up, can be very slow and time consuming, lets imagine we employed 1,000 super fast people to all help us toss coins. If each person could do the entire process once per second, and we allowed them to do this for one hundred years they still could only flip the coins about three trillion times, which is a long way away from 10 to the 45th power. So suppose you searched for a much faster way to flip coins and so what you did was you programmed a computer to simulate the tossing of 150 coins and it could do it in a "trillionth" of a second, and then you enlisted a billion of these simulators and all together you call them one "pod." Then from there you proceeded to use ten billion of these "pods" and you let them all run at that speed for 3000 years. Even in all of that time you would still only have flipped the quarters 10 to the 42 power times. My point in all of this should be obvious, that since no sane person would ever expect to get all 150 coins to land on heads. I believe anyone in there right mind would consider doing so to be basically "impossible." Therefore, I hope that we are safe to agree that the odds of 10 to the 45 th to one are basically impossible. So lets for now completely ignore the impossible odds of life forming from non-life. Lets forgo the concept where a single cell must develop all at once and fully capable of reproducing. And we will also ignore the fact that this had to occur from completely random processes from out of nonliving matter (meaning that natural selective processes don’t apply). We for now will just look at the possibility for the development of information to take place in the "already existing" DNA of a genome. What are the odds? Evolution has to explain how all the information in the DNA of plants and animals got into the genome to begin with. Evolution theory says that all life of today was built up through a gradual build up of steps of this information. Each step adding a small amount of information to the genome and in each step, selection has to test if the mutation is positive or not, and destroy the negative ones. You might look at mutations in the nucleotides of DNA like a writer making random changes in the letters of a book. Imagine if the writer of a novel were trying to improve his novel by changing letters at random. The writer would change a few random letters and then (keeping with reproduction processes) he reprints his book at least twice, once with the changes and once with the original. He would then check to see if he liked the changes and throw it away if he didn’t. He could not just keep the changes he liked; he would have to keep the entire text with all the random changes or throw it all away and stay with the original. It would be all or nothing. The random changes in the letters of the book corresponds with the random mutations said to occur in the DNA message of an organism, and the reprinting of the two copies corresponds with organisms ability to reproduce. The choice to keep one over the other corresponds with natural selection. Right about here, evolution proponents usually try to argue that the writer should be able to just hold on to those changes he likes and carry them on while disposing of the ones he doesn't like. However catch what they just did. They just unwittingly smuggled "intelligence" into the mix. For nature to "hold on to the changes it likes" and dispose of the ones it does not, implies that nature has a plan. But now evolutionists are adamant that the whole mutation process is completely random with no plan behind it. If nature has a plan then nature must have intelligence, and now we are talking about "intelligent design." No, the writer must keep all changes made to his novel at random (good and bad) or he must toss the whole thing out and stick with the original. This would dictate that he keep his changes to a bare minimum. Any random changes much more than one letter would have a much higher chance of rendering a negative change which would require destroying it and restarting. But then, even with the improvements there would be likely a problem that would cause him to reject it anyway. For example randomly changing a letter in one word might actually change that word into a new and improved word but perhaps now that word doesn’t make sense in the sentence or in the paragraph. Or it may not make sense in the reading of the book. If the book was about three mice, and the first letter of mice was changed to d to make dice, most of the other sentences with the word mice would need changing. And even if you could somehow change all the mice words to dice, you still would probably render the entire book to be unintelligible. This objection of course has been raised in the past and its a very valid one. To get an improvement you have to have several correlated changes all taking place at the same time and in just the right places. In other words you have to have much more than 150 coins all land on their heads at once in each and every step of the process of evolution. I haven’t calculated it, but obviously if you do, the odds of these correlated changes occurring all at once far surpasses our "impossible" number.
AAaarg! It burns my eyes! Chop that shit up with some paragraphs, man! Seriously, those big huge chuncks of text are harder to read. I bet a lot of people (like myself) are just going to pass over it for that reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Where you came up witht he idea that ID is trying to repalce evolution is beyond me. The wedge strategy document pretty much proves it.
quote:I think it can quite well. Has the method been used on anything except for the flagellum? Ever? At all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? Common Ancestry says nothing about bears and aligators reproducing with each other.
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. Which species, specifically, don't fit in a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think its funny that you began by claiming that you came to ID by following the science and are not an apologetic creationist. But whenever science says something against your position, you bring undue doubt in the form of they couldn't 'really know that', or 'actually see it', or whatever. But then when you find some fake science-looking paper from ICR, you jump and leach on it with out any doubt whatsoever.
You're not following the science, and you behave just like a creationist. But we all knew this the day you showed up. Its just taken a while for your true colors to show.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Did you not see this thread: Relativity is wrong...
Particularly, Message 45 and Message 65 and on and on. And take a good look at his avatar. Rememer too, this is the guy from Stormfront...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Rememer too, this is the guy from Stormfront...
Really? Is there anything he's not wrong about?
Well if you look at this thread you will find this from Smooth Operator:
quote: In other threads on there he doesn't act as, well.... retarded as he has in this thread.* I think he's playing a game here. But still, on stormfront he still argues against evolution and heliocentrism, iirc. * actually, there is this from Smooth Operator:
quote: That's fairly retarded
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024