Re: Genetics as a Language System
- From: kim@xxxxxxxxxxx (Kim G. S. Øyhus)
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:27:13 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1131385025.061622.276170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Kim G. S. Øyhus wrote:
>
>> That is true. Not all functions have
>> the same complexity. However, in
>> practice, in nature, there is seldom
>> that irreducibleness that Behe
>> dreams about. Even that bacterial
>> motor he loves to speak of as
>> irreducible, has less complex relatives.
>
>This is a common misconception among both creationists and
>evolutionists alike. All functions are irreducibly complex. It
>doesn't matter if subsystem functions remain intact once an overlying
>system of higher-level function is lost. For example, the meaning of a
>sentence is irreducible even though the meaning of the individual words
>in the sentence may be maintained post reduction. Maintenance of
>sub-system function does not make a system of function "reducible".
You are wrong.
Here is a reducibly complex function: y=sin(x+Pi/4)
It reduces to the less complex function: y=cos(x)
>Since you mentioned it, the flagellar system of *motility* is a fine
>example of IC. If you reduce this system below a certain point, the
>motility function is completely lost. Not a shred of it remains. It
>just disappears - poof. Of course, the argument is that several
>subsystems, like the TTSS system, remain functionally intact.
>Certainly this is true, but it is completely beside the point. The
>*motility* function of the flagellar system is lost. It was therefore,
>IC regardless of what subsystem functions remain.
People have pointet out the falseness of those beliefs better than me.
>> In designed machines, like a car,
>> there are typically parts that are
>> necessary. Remove the coil, and the
>> car does not work at all.
>
>Not true. Various subsystem part of the car may still work just fine.
>The radio may work. The lights may work. The horn may work. The tires
>may work. Etc.
So, you claim that cars can easily evolve by evolution, since cars can
change gradually?
>> In
>> nature, it is seldom like that. Remove
>> the lens of a human eye, and
>> the eye still works somewhat. Remove
>> the eye lid, and you get animals
>> like the snake, where they eyes work, but
>> not as well.
>
>Remove rhodopsin and the eyes will not work at all, not even a little
>bit.
There are 4 types of rhodopsin. Removing all of them would be
unlikely, since they are stored on different locations, and have
different DNA sequences.
Something doing such a severe damage like removing all 4 types of
rhodopsin would most likely remove a lot of other stuff as well, thus
killing the creature.
Evolution is not about doing large changes like removing all 4 types
of rhodopsin. Nature is about doing small changes, like removing one
of the rhodopsin types, which often results in red-green colour
blindness. Or like adding a rhodopsin type, which has happened in a
few women, giving them 4 primary colour vision instead of 3.
>All vision systems are indeed IC.
False. I gave you a counterexample in a previous post, and I gave you
a counterexample here. Do you even remember the counter example?
And people has corrected that false belief again and again.
>The function of vision is IC.
No, it is not. There are lot of explanations of how vision is
reducible, on the net, in books, etc. I have given you examples, and
other people can give you more examples, links, books, etc. But to be
rational, you have already been given enough verifiable information to
understand that you are wrong.
>The function of different types of vision systems is also IC. All
>types of functions are indeed IC. Now, this does not mean that IC
>systems are necessarily un-evolvable. Many types of IC systems are
>indeed evolvable and do in fact evolve all the time in real time. The
>problem is, all such systems are at very low-levels of functional
>complexity.
You are wrong, as explained.
>> So, natures designes are almost
>> always gradual in complexity and
>> function, which is nice for the landscape
>> of adaptability, since you
>> get nice soft walleys and hills,
>> which are easy to traverse with
>> random walks.
>
>Not at higher and higher levels of functional complexity. "Natural"
>systems of function become more and more separated at higher and higher
>levels so that there are no nice gradual gradations in function any
>more. Rather, gargantuan steps and Grand Canyon chasms form between
>beneficial functions that simply cannot be traversed with short random
>walks like they could be with lower-level functions.
You are wrong. You should study vision, since that contains lots of
examples of gradual changes in design and reducible complexity.
>> In human designed machines however,
>> things are typically hard,
>> angular, and dependent on parts
>> working. Remove the crystal of a
>> clock, and the clock stops working entirely.
>
>Actually no. The time keeping properties of a clock may stop working
>entirely, but other parts of the clock may still "work" for something.
>This or that wheal may still rotate. While the overall function of the
>clock is lost, subsystem functions may remain intact.
So, you again claim that machines can easily evolve through darwinian
evolution?
>> That has been done. Complex programs
>> doing complex things has been
>> developed.
>
>They have been "developed", but they have not been evolved using
>Darwinian-style evolution. If you disagree, then please do show me a
>specific example.
I have already mentioned "Tierra" by Thomas Ray. Then there is the
artificial life forms developed on a Connection Machine. There are
complex electric circuits developed on FPGAs. If you actually did some
searching on the net, you would have found lots of these examples of
evolving non biological systems.
>> >I've read a bit about the ideas of
>> >Wolfram. But, please do explain how
>> >Wolfram's ideas allows Darwinian-
>> >mechanisms to evolve higher-level
>> >functions. Please do provide a s
>> >pecific example of this sort of
>> >evolution in real time.
>>
>> It means that universal computation is
>> so simple that it can easily
>> appear by chance. There is no
>> chasm of improbability to cross. It
>> happens easily.
>
>If it happens so easily, then where is your specific example? Hmmm?
>Why avoid presenting your examples, which I specifically asked for, to
>support your bald assertions?
So, you do not remember that I have already mentioned 2 times the
example of the 3 neighbor 2 state cellular automaton No 110.
>> I have seen functional darwinian-style
>> evolution of programs many
>> times. It often works well.
>
>Where is your specific example of such a program working beyond very
>low levels of functional complexity?
It would be nice if you remembered what people wrote to you.
>> Not true. There are several mechanisms
>> in nature that work on the
>> underlying coded sequence.
>> There is recombination, that varies
>> the mechanism and markers of
>> recombination. Recombination is not
>> totally random, but use genetic
>> markers that indicate how well
>> similar recombinations worked before.
>
>Nature does not recognize just any sort of recombination as useful or
>potentially useful. Again, nature is not capable of recognizing just
>any sort of spelling changes. Nature only recognizes those spelling
>changes that result in a change in overall function. If the
>recombination does not result in a change in overall function, nature
>would be blind to such a genomic change.
>
>Humans, on the other hand, can pick and choose spelling changes that
>are not functionally different in a goal directed manner with a future
>function in mind. Nature cannot do such goal-directed evolution.
You are wrong, and I am right. You should check the examples people
give you, instead of just believing that they are wrong.
>> Another example is human immunity,
>> where the DNA underlying the
>> variability of immune receptors
>> vary a lot more than other DNA.
>
>Again, I'm not saying that the underlying genome is static. Quite the
>contrary. The underlying spelling of the genetic sequences changes all
>the time. However, such sequence changes are not detectable by nature
>unless they result in functional changes - which are detectable by
>nature. Nature does not detect the spelling changes themselves outside
>of the resulting functional change. Humans are different. Humans can
>detect changes in the underlying spelling independent of the resulting
>function.
You asked for mechanisms in nature that work on the underlying DNA
sequence, and I gave you some examples of that.
Other examples are viruses and viroids, some of which work on the
underlying DNA, such as HIV.
>> Not true. Complex systems can be
>> built by addition of modules. Sexual
>> reproduction is good at this, because
>> if the 2 parents have different
>> genes, then the child can inheret
>> genes from both barents, and thus
>> become more complex, and thus
>> have what you call higher functional
>> complexity. And this without natural selection.
>
>You are talking about Mendelian variation here, which is not
>Darwinian-evolution at all.
Again, you are wrong. The recombination which happens through
Mendelian variation and similar, gives natural variation, which is an
integral part of Darwinian evolution.
Are you claiming that recombination do not give natural variation,
or are you claiming that Darwinian evolution do not use natural
variation? Either way, you are wrong.
>Nothing new, as far as the gene pool of
>options is concerned, is created in this way.
Again, you are wrong. In fact, any genetic sequence can be made
through several stages of recombination. This is easy to prove.
It is so easy that you should be able to prove it yourself, or
be ashamed of yourself.
>All that happens is a
>change in ratio of allelic functions in the gene pool.
No. More than that happens. Do you know what recombination do in
practice? It seems not.
>Different
>aspects of the pool are expressed, but the pool itself remains
>unchanged.
Nope. Not true.
>Using such Mendelian variation alone, there is simply no
>way that any new type of organism is going to evolve. A cat will
>always be a cat and a dog will always be a dog using Mendelian
>variation alone. You can get many different kinds of dogs and cats and
>humans and horses and cows etc, but they will always be dogs, cats,
>humans, horses, cows, etc.
Nope.
>It is a common mistake for evolutionists to confuse Mendelian variation
>with Darwinian-style evolution, but they are completely different
>mechanisms.
You obviousle do not know much about this.
>> As for asexual reproduction, this is
>> more difficualt, and typically do
>> not happen. And asuexual organisms,
>> like bacteria, are less complex,
>> or as you would say: Bacteria have
>> lower functional complexity.
>
>The functions required by a bacterium to "work" are just as complex as
>those used by any human cell. The overall system of human function is
>more complex, but the cellular functions are not.
Nope. Again you are wrong.
>> Your critique of evolution is
>> right for bacteria and other asexual
>> life, but wrong for sexually reproducing
>> life forms.
>
>Not true. A sexually reproducing organism must be viewed in light of
>its gene pool. Sexual reproduction does not significantly aid the
>evolution of a gene pool over than of asexual reproduction - as far as
>higher-level functions are concerned.
Again, you are wrong. I have already supplied proof, as that of
Chapter 19 in MacKays book.
>> >EMs (evolutionary mechanisms) do
>> >not have any instantly available
>> >memory of functional systems that
>> >are not working right now.
>>
>> Wrong. It does have memory like
>> that. A lot of it in what is called
>> 'junk dna'.
>
>Junk DNA, if it has no current beneficial function in an organism, is
>not recognized as having potential function by nature. Only current
>beneficial functions are recognized by nature as worthy of maintaining
>in their current state. Humans, on the other hand, are capable of
>maintaining memories and experiences that may not have any current
>beneficial function at all.
The fact that junc DNA are kept instead of thrown away, is a good
indicator that it is recognized as having some use.
>> >Oh, and by the way, human babies
>> >are not born with tails or real "fur".
>> > I've seen a whole lot of deformities
>> > in my line of work (pathologist),
>> >but this sort of thing does not happen
>> > outside of myth.
>>
>> I have seen a good photograph of a
>> baby with a tail.
>
>Human babies are not born with actual tails. Sometimes they are born
>with fused legs that may look like tails, but these are not tails in
>any true sense of the word. True tails found in non-humans animals are
>quite complex involving additional vertebral bones formed in an orderly
>fashion. This doesn't happen with humans, to my knowledge, - even
>though born with grotesque pathology.
To my knowledge, it has happen. And it is now quite apparent that my
knowledge is better than yours.
>The term "true tail" is used for humans with remnants of the embryonic
>tail, but this really isn't a true tail in any sense of the word. In
>humans, such a tail arises from the most distal remnant of the
>embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central
>bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by
>skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The
>"true tail" arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal
>development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and
>occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily
>removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial.
>Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral
>protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails.
>The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases
>obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the
>coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one
>each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated
>parasitic fetus.
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract
So, now you admit that tails do happen.
>> There is also an
>> asian musician which have fur over the
>> whole body, including the face.
>
>You mean he had a lot of hair covering his body and his face? That
>really isn't some evolutionary novelty. There are even human families
>where the women are very hairy - with thick hair covering their whole
>bodies, to include their faces.
So, you thought I was talking about evolutionary novelty.
I was not.
I was talking about previously deactivated DNA getting reactivated.
I was talking about that because that is a form of DNA memory, which
you believe does not exist.
>> >> And survival is definitely a goal.
>> >
>> >Yes, it is, but this goal, by
>> >itself, does not lend itself to
>> >high-level creativity.
>>
>> But it does. It is simply a method to
>> aquire information about the world.
>
>The strive for survival alone may preserve what is already there, but
>it is not able to gain new information about the world that goes
>significantly beyond what it started with.
Again, you are wrong.
Every difference in death and survival in which DNA is some factor,
IS information aquiring, per definition of "information".
>At this point, you really need to start backing up your statements with
>some real evidence. Your bald assertions just aren't going to cut it.
>Where are your examples of evolution in action? Please provide examples
>of either computer evolution or biological evolution at high levels of
>functional complexity. I'm waiting . . .
I really thing you should remember the evidence given to you instead
of forgetting it and then believing that you never got it.
Kim0
.
- Prev by Date: Re: If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision
- Next by Date: Re: What will Behe do?
- Previous by thread: Re: Genetics as a Language System
- Next by thread: Re: Amazing!! 1990 5 Christians in the Senate By 2000 over 100
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
