"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mickrock wrote: »

The "wide range" of observed facts that Darwin's theory explains doesn't include the emergence of complexity (novelty and innovation). It explains how an organism can change to a limited degree but not how it got here in the first place. People have been selectively breeding animals for certain characteristics for centuries and have found there are limits.

States there are limits, doesn't give any indication of what those limits are.
Thinks centuries are a long time.
Still gives no clarification on what is meant by novelty, innovation and complexity.

The fact that Darwinian mechanisms have never been seen to increase an organism's complexity puts the theory on a weak footing. I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.

Still doesn't have any idea what people have been saying...

Anybody up for a game?



Rows are a, b, c....

Columns are 1, 2, 3, ....

Winner is the first rational poster to find and quote a post for each square in the grid.

Actually, this should probably be posted on a Monday afternoon instead of a Friday night. I have no life...

mickrock wrote: »

The "wide range" of observed facts that Darwin's theory explains doesn't include the emergence of complexity (novelty and innovation).

The fact that Darwinian mechanisms have never been seen to increase an organism's complexity puts the theory on a weak footing. I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.

You don't think it does? Alright, let's look at an example and I mean really look, step-by-step. This won't be anywhere near as detailed or scientific as anything oldrnwisr could post but here it does.

Imagine a species of single celled bacteria, floating in waters/ooze of the Earth, hundreds of millions of years ago. We will say that they reproduce by single-cell division, is similar to the kinds of common bacteria we have today, are being preyed upon by an early species of ameoba and is identical to all other forms of bacteria around it(for the moment).

For those that don't know, bacteria (and other cells e.g. embryonic cells) reproduce by binary fission, in which the cell constructs a genetic clone or daughter cell of itself. The daughter cell shares identical DNA with the parent cell.

So we are now following 1 specific bacterium. It's going through its reproduction process and has unzipped the DNA double strand to create the daughter cells DNA as such:

These strands are made up of 4 bases: A, G, T and C. The form bonds together with A only ever linking to T and C only ever linking to G. Then the double is unwrapped, the free bases will attach and form new strands that were identical to the old ones.

So this bacterium is part way through duplicating the daughter cell's DNA when something happens. Either a base dislodges, inserts itself in the old strand or current bases swap positions. This is called a mutation .

So, for argument sake, lets say that this mutation causes the new bacteria to produce a chemical that the amoeba dislike. So the new bacteria are able to reproduce quicker as the amoeba is not attracted to them as a food source, while the other non-mutated forms perish from being eaten by the amoebas. This is Natural Selection at work.

Now, more generations of this bacteria are produced and the amoeba still feed off of them, despite having the chemical. So now, a new mutation arises, where the daughter cell loosely remains attached to its parent cell. This means the 2 cells will be in constant proximity and therefore will release twice as much chemical, meaning they're twice as unattractive to the amoeba as the rest of the non-mutated population. Natural Selection begins its work.

We are now observing a group of cells replicate and continue to grow. Then another mutation occurs. This one allows this cell to absorb water easier. The next mutation in the connected group of cells may be that the membrane is light-sensitive. We now see specified groups beginning to form. Certain cells mutate certain characteristics that benefit the group as a whole and those that don't are discarded. Repeat ad infinitatum. The grouped bacteria will continue to grow and mutate until they die out. No final purpose, no goal, just surviving their conditions.

(Note: the example above has had some liberties associated to it. One is that no examples of negative mutations were shown. However, this can be shown by replacing the repelling chemical with one that attracts the amoeba. This gives the non-mutated bacteria the advantage. The other liberty is that the mutations seem to happen every immediate generation. This is not the case in RL. It could take several hundred generations for a mutation to appear and another few for it to become the dominant allele of the species, if at all. )

Barr125 wrote: »

So, for argument sake, lets say that this mutation causes the new bacteria to produce a chemical that the amoeba dislike. So the new bacteria are able to reproduce quicker as the amoeba is not attracted to them as a food source, while the other non-mutated forms perish from being eaten by the amoebas. This is Natural Selection at work.

Now, more generations of this bacteria are produced and the amoeba still feed off of them, despite having the chemical. So now, a new mutation arises, where the daughter cell loosely remains attached to its parent cell. This means the 2 cells will be in constant proximity and therefore will release twice as much chemical, meaning they're twice as unattractive to the amoeba as the rest of the non-mutated population. Natural Selection begins its work.

Fine so far.

Barr125 wrote: »

We are now observing a group of cells replicate and continue to grow. Then another mutation occurs. This one allows this cell to absorb water easier. The next mutation in the connected group of cells may be that the membrane is light-sensitive. We now see specified groups beginning to form. Certain cells mutate certain characteristics that benefit the group as a whole and those that don't are discarded. Repeat ad infinitatum.

This is where you get very vague. You just say lots of mutations will happen that will confer an advantage. But you haven't explained how a series of such adaptations can give rise to novelty and innovation. Why should random mutations+natural selection+lots of time produce incredible complexity?

mickrock wrote: »

Why should random mutations+natural selection+lots of time produce incredible complexity?

A little example to determine how you view 'complexity':
1. Two single cell organisms, living side by side, each performing the processes necessary to sustain them.
2. Two single cell organisms that come together (perhaps a mutation in a cell adhesion molecule that means instead of sticking to their substrate, they stick to each other). Each cell now finds that when a random mutation in a previously necessary gene knocks out function, it can still survive with the support of the second cell. Each cell gradually loses certain functions, but work perfectly as a unit.

In your opinion, in which of these two scenarios is the highest amount of 'complexity' displayed?

mickrock wrote: »

The point I was making with selective breeding is that when an animal is bred for a certain trait a limit will be reached in a relatively short time. An animal bred for its size will not continually get bigger and bigger. There is a limit to how much it will grow.

Is there? What breed of animal do you think we've reached the size limits of? Give an example. You've been given plenty.

Sycopat wrote: »

Is there? What breed of animal do you think we've reached the size limits of? Give an example. You've been given plenty.

Cattle bred for beef.

mickrock wrote: »

Cattle bred for beef.

Eh wrong.

Cattle are still being bred for size.

Want to try again?

Sycopat wrote: »

Eh wrong.

Cattle are still being bred for size.

Want to try again?

So you believe that cattle can be bred to increase in size indefinitely and there's no limit to how big they can get?

I think cattle breeders would disagree with you.

mickrock wrote: »

I would say they have equal complexity.

But there are complexity differences, depending on what you measure. Loss of genetic complexity (which creationists fixate on as the be all and end all) does not necessarily lead to loss of phenotypic or system complexity.

So how do they have equal complexity? Just a vague gut feeling? Or are you calculating how much gain in phenotypic complexity is required to balance a decrease in genetic complexity?

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the two-celled organism is FAR MORE complex than the single celled precursors. The total genetic complexity of the organism hasn't changed (each cell has merely become specialised) while the phenotypic complexity has increased enormously, with the potential for further change also increased enormously.

mickrock wrote: »

But are we now going to start quibbling over what complexity means? We all know that a fly is more complex than a bacterium and a horse is more complex than a fly.

Hang on, the premise of "complexity" is very important, even central, to your objections to Darwinian evolution. My definitions of "complexity" are going to be different to yours.

So yes, I think it's VERY important to quibble about definitions of "complexity" (and I'm not the only one, as you've been asked this before).

Are you clear about why a horse is more complex than a fly? Do you think that applies to, say, the eyes of each creature?

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you serious? There's a limit due to the shape etc. of their bodies, and there's the "limit" imposed by mass or volume increasing to the power of 3 so doubling height and width means quadrupling the weight.
To beat the "limits" imposed by the kind of bodyplan cattle have would involve selecting for something other than pure mass, selecting those with a different skeleton shape or "retarded" joints etc. until a bodyplan that can scale upwards without collapsing under its own weight emerges, then breed those for size.

I have to ask again, how old do you think the earth is?

Indeed this is completely consistent with Darwinian selection. Simply increasing the animal's size without altering other traits (eg vascular system, reinforcing limbs as supports, more efficient feeding mechanism) will not improve the animals fitness. In fact it will make the organism less fit and the trait will be selected against.

What mickrock needs to show is an example of a trait that if it changed in a certain way would lead to an unequivocal increase in fitness for the organism yet, for whatever reason, is not being selected.

mickrock wrote: »

I would say they have equal complexity.

But are we now going to start quibbling over what complexity means? We all know that a fly is more complex than a bacterium and a horse is more complex than a fly.

If your entire argument is based on your definition of complexity the least you can do is share it.