Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Or, in a human, the silly design of the vertebral vein which passes through the vertebrae, and the cervical artery which passes close by, which means that sharp movements of the neck can cause the either a tear possibly resulting in stroke, or sometimes, a rupture causing a relatively instant death.oscarBravo wrote: »Like the efficient and elegant design of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve?
Intelligent design? My ass!
http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20140807/could-chiropractic-manipulation-of-your-neck-trigger-a-stroke#1
0 -
Advertisement
-
It's vastly beyond the Universal Proability Bound (UPB) ... whereas 21000 most definitely is not.Yes, I know it's not 21000. But I thought even you would be able to recognise a typo when you saw one. If we're having a conversation about a coin toss which is a 1 in 2 chance, and we're talking about 1000 such tosses then the logical inference is that the chance for the sequence is 2^1000. I originally tried to put the exponents in superscript but it wouldn't appear correctly so I had to go back and use a caret instead. Guess I missed one. However, since 2^1000 = 1.07x10^301, I'm not sure what this minor display of pedantry adds to your argument.
I see now that it was a typo ... and I apologise for not seeing this.
I think that he is wrong on this ... because functionality is observed to be related to a specific sequence that is neither produced deterministically nor randomly.OK, either you didn't read the point that I (and Dembski) made or you failed to understand it.
To clarify, physical complexity (i.e. basic probability of an event) doesn't actually inform us very much. The odds of tossing 1000 heads is 1 in 2^1000. But then the probability of any 1000 toss sequence is the same. Therefore physical complexity is a poor metric for assessing design. Dembski's complex specified information idea depends on matching the probability of an event to a given search space. Therefore, calculating the algorithmic specified complexity (i.e. the efficiency of description/transmission of the physical complexity) is a necessary step.
In the context of the coin toss sequence, the probabilities (or physical complexities) of the following two sequences are both the same:
HHHHHHHHHH
HTHHTTHTHT
So, the probability of the sequence doesn't tell us anything about how deliberate the sequence is. However looking at the sequence most people would recognise the first sequence as deliberate and the second as random. So what we need is a way to quantify this degree of intent. This measure is algorithmic specified complexity which measures the efficiency of description/transmission of the sequence. It is a necessary step in Dembski's explanatory filter.
To illustrate, a word in the English Language is neither a repeat of letters (HHHHHHHHHH) nor a pattern of letters (THTHTHTHTH) it is specific sequence of letters (HAT AND CAT)
... and there are similar specific sequences of base pair 'letters' within the language of DNA.
OK ... so are you agreeing with me on this, then?Yes, we heard you the first time.
... but we are talking about Human Beings ... and were effectively stuck back somewhere around short-chain biochemicals, using random processes, before we reach the UPB.Well, yes in the coin tossing sequence we're talking about relatively small numbers just 10^6 actors and 10^7 attempts. However, in the amino acid sequence the numbers get much bigger. So in the case of amino acids, even if we took chance into account, we're talking about the number of actors being 10^50 and the number of attempts being 10^30. So even if we were talking about modern protein sequences, we are talking about a situation which is only slightly improbable. If we are talking about shorter sequences of the kind found in abiogenesis experiments then the probability falls dramatically (i.e. 10^40 or less).
... and the 'set of instructions' were your words, that I borrowed to make my point that deterministic or random natural/spontaneous processes are incapable of producing these instructions ... and the only known sytem for doing so is intelligent action - so the best available explantion for how these tightly specified instructions came about originally, was through the appliance of intelligence.OK, the set of instructions as you call it is the mRNA.
Yes RNA could be produced artificially, using very significant inputs of intelligent design ... but it would be very difficult if nit impossible to produce spontaneously ... and the instructions carried on it can only be produced by intelligence.Also I don't know why you're being so vague by using the term cytoplasm.
The cytoplasm, for those who didn't study biology is everything inside a cell membrane, excluding the nucleus (1,2 on the diagram above). Protein synthesis occurs in the ribosome (3 on the diagram, the tiny dots you can see in the image). The ribosome acts like an assembly line, stitching together amino acids to create a protein. The instructions come from the messenger RNA. As I've shown in my previous post, the development of RNA from abiotic chemical compounds can be demonstrated theoretically and experimentally. There's no need or place for intelligence in the mechanism.
... all still very specualtive ... but they aren't them main issue ... even granting, for the sake of argument that they could be produce ... there is no theory, no matter how speculative, on how the vast quantities of high quality tightly specified information was infused onto the DNA and, in turn, RNA molecules ... and the information in the Human Genome, if printed out on standard sheets of paper would result in a stack of paper with a height greater than the Statue of LibertySpeculative? Hardly. Like I said there are only a few basic assumptions in my process and each of them are supported by the data. The hydrothermal activity and implications for chemosynthesis are well discussed in the literature. You can read a very nice summary article here.
As for the other assumptions regarding the chemical composition of the early Earth, you are more than welcome to refute any or all of the papers where these assumptions come from:
http://bio4.us/biotrends/human_genome_height.html
Comparisons with the Windows 10 programme on a CD, pale into comparison with the Human Genome.
It isn't at all ridiculous ... all specified functional information degrades as random changes are made to and random changes are never observed to improve it ... because the useless combinatorial space is almost infinitely greater than the useful combinatorial space.OK, I think this is as good a point as any to clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about redundancy and specificity.
Firstly, redundancy. The first thing to clarify is that when we're talking about redundancy here we're not talking about functional redundancy (i.e. backup mechanisms like having two eyes as you mention in your response to spacecoyote). We're talking about structural redundancy (i.e. that a given protein can do the same job even if you make massive changes to its amino acid sequence). I'm not sure you've quite grasped the nature of protein structural redundancy and the implications for the idea that genetic information is composed of "tightly specified functional information" to borrow a phrase of yours. You see, the structure of a protein is related to its amino acid sequence, but only loosely so and the function of a protein is related to its structure, but again, only loosely so. Let's take one of our previous examples, cytochrome c.
Cytochrome C is a protein found in many species which is about 100 amino acids long and is the kind of sequence that many creationists talk about. There are several points of interest about cytochrome C:- It's length varies between 103 and 112 amino acids (Most higher order organisms have 104aa versions).
- In over 30 species with 104aa versions only 34 amino acids are conserved (i.e. do not change from species to species).
- The general structure of the protein follows a CXXCH (cysteine-any-any-cysteine-histidine) pattern. However, the variation in the overall sequence is so great that biologists have had to develop 4 different classes of fold structure to group the different variants.
When we compare JC's claim with hard biological evidence we see the flaw in JC's argument. Contrary to his claim of "completely ordered lists" we find that there is, in fact, a massive degree of flexibility in the ordering of these lists. Secondly, even though there may be critical sequences (and that's not at a given) these sequences constitute a small fraction of the overall sequence of the molecule/organism. Therefore, the idea of tightly specified information which is destroyed by mutation is, on the whole, ridiculous.
... and that is why mutagenesis will rapidly kill you by degrading even a tiny number of critical DNA sequences.You see, JC, while you're so busy accusing me of being confused you have conflated two entirely different creationist arguments about specificity, one dealing with abiogenesis and one dealing with evolution.
The abiogenesis specificity argument, first outlined by Henry Morris in "Scientific Creationism" (pgs. 59-69 if you're interested) and also used by people like Dembski and Stephen Meyer (whose version of the argument is quoted below) goes like this:
"First you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you've got to get only left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must line up in a specified sequence like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of those things falling into place on their own and you find that the probabilities of forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That's a 10 with 125 zeroes after it!"
There are several mistakes of fact in the argument.- You don't only have to get left-handed amino acids. There are bacterial species which use right-handed amino acids.
- The necessity of left-handed amino acids is presented as a problem. It isn't. The overwhelming majority of amino acids, even those formed abiotically, are left-handed. This is due to a circular polarisation of UV light in the early solar system.
- The amino acids, don't have to line up in a specified sequence. As we've seen above, the amino acids don't even have to be the same, for the most part, nor do there have to be the same number of them. This is due to the function of a protein being related to its structure and the flexibility of said structure compared to its aa sequence.
Yes, there is a degree of 'plasticity' built into the sequences that produce proteins ... to cope with environmental assaults ... but these are limited ... and when mutagenesis occurs the results can be devastating.
... 9 out of 10 deleterious and 1 out of 10 beneficial ... some estimates are thousands to one beneficial ... but if, for the sake of argument, I accept this 10 to 1 figure ... it implies that you would have 'run away' deleterious effects the further along the mutagenic curve you go ... which would certainly kill you ... and the one in 10 'beneficial' mutations wouldn't save you.The second argument deals with mutation of a pre-existing organism or sequence.This argument is outlined by Henry Morris, again in "Scientific Creationism" (pgs.55-57). JC has also outlined this claim before in several places:
The invocation of specificity when it comes to evolution has been the argument that the genetic information in organisms is so "tightly specified" that it is very fragile. Even one or two mutations will destroy this specified information and since most mutations (according to JC) are deleterious, this is what we find to be the case.
Except that it's not what we find. At all.
The real answer is that most mutations do, well, nothing. Most mutations are neutral. At the moment, each human is born with about 175 mutations compared to their parent's genomes. Of these only 3 result in any change in functionality. Of mutations which do result in functional change (1.7%), nine out of 10 will be deleterious and 1 will be beneficial. This isn't a human specific result, of course,
Equally, we are only talking about a tiny number of mutations ... before you die ... as little a 3 driver gene mutations is all that is required to cause lung and liver cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4291633/
... and that is why mutagenesis is an agent of degradation and death ... and is not any kind of plausible candidate for improvement and life.
What we see with mutagenesis, is rapid degeneration and death ... and this would be even more rapid, were it not for the furious work of auto-repair mechanisms within living cells ... that are themselves tightly specified ...and therefore placed there originally by intelligence.the same result has been found in bacteria.
The key implication of complex functional specified information is that you can't go around messing with it. If you change even one or two nucleotides then you'll break everything. Something will either stop working or not work as well as it should. Except that we find time and again situations where a mutation produces something even better. Like a resistance to AIDS or a resistance to heart disease or increased bone strength or resistance to malaria or the acquisition of a new ability to digest a new food source. To quote Steve Rogers, I could do this all day but I think you get my point.
If creationists were right about specificity then we wouldn't see just 3 functional mutations out of 175 and we wouldn't see beneficial mutations. If the Christian creationist narrative were correct, then we would only see degradation from an original state of perfection. But we don't. What we see is a case of regression to the mean.
... yes the Red Queen is a children's fable ... just like evolution allright.:)Thanks to the Red Queen effect, there are times when a powerful beneficial mutation will arise but then will get reset as it spreads through the population. There have been numerous examples of this throughout history. For example, the sickle-cell trait (mentioned above) is a mutation which alters the hemoglobin beta gene. The heterozygous (i.e. one copy of the mutation) form of the trait results in a high degree of resistance against malaria. However, people with a homozygous form (i.e. two copies of the mutation) suffer from sickle-cell disease. This is the Red Queen effect, a series of advantages and resets or setbacks and recoveries. It is named for the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland who never gets anywhere because no matter how fast she moves the scenery moves right along with her. For those interested there is a terrific pop-sci book on the subject by Matt Ridley.
... in the case of Sicle Cell Anaemia ... something that would kill you in it's homzygous manifestation makes you sick in its hetrozygous manifestation and protects you from Malaria ... which sounds like the 'cure' is only marginally better than the disease.:eek:
It certainly doesn't go anywhere in explaining how almost perfect Human Beings came to be Human Beings.
You actually posted standard (evolutionist) textbook stuff that was tangental to the points that I had made.You're right I didn't. Instead I directed my efforts at the core of your arguments rather than chasing you down more rabbit holes. I short-circuited the need to deal with your spurious points and instead refuted the central premise of your argument.
I'd like to thank you for quoting and addressing some of my points in this post.0 -
-
You remind me of a guy who has a Ferrari ... who is complaining about the fact that it has mirrors that could cut and kill him ... if they were to break in some kind of freak accident.Or, in a human, the silly design of the vertebral vein which passes through the vertebrae, and the cervical artery which passes close by, which means that sharp movements of the neck can cause the either a tear possibly resulting in stroke, or sometimes, a rupture causing a relatively instant death.
Intelligent design? My ass!
http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20140807/could-chiropractic-manipulation-of-your-neck-trigger-a-stroke#1
... go enjoy your Ferrari-like body Robin, ... and stop worrying about things that will never happen.:)
... it was intelligently designed too ... and is quite a multi-tasker !!:DIntelligent design? My ass!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement