Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft


Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Ben Standeven wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Ben Standeven wrote:


Wall Of Sleep wrote:


Ben Standeven wrote:



Wall Of Sleep wrote:



Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
(2nd draft)

[...]


============

Mechanism


[...]


Since all organisms can grow from a single cell, it
would seem logical that a method of molecular manipulation, concentrated
on producing a single cell and the genome for the organism would be the
ideal mechanism. These designers would essentially be genetic
programmers, who possesed a means of "writing" genetic code through the
organization of molecules. The process was probably similar to the
methods used by humans to encode music, video, etc. onto tape or digital
formats utilizing magnetism - but much more sophisticated.



That would only work if the designers acted by modifying a pre-existing
cell. So where did the first cell come from?


They are arranging *molecules*. The first (and all subsequent cells) are
arranged.



OK, but I wouldn't describe that as "programming"; more as
"manufacturing".


It's both. The molecules are arranged into DNA strands as well - which
contain the "program" for the lifeform.



OK.


In the unicellular lifeforms, this was all that was needed, they could
then be introduced into the wild. For multicellular life, the cell would
have to be incubated (most likely in water) and fed and nurtured while
it performed it's programmed differentiations, until such a time as it
was capable of surviving on it's own.


As I noted above; it would be much simpler to just create the organism
in an adult
form from the start.


How is that simpler?



It means that they don't need to incubate it (or rather they, since a
species requires more than one founder), or feed and nurture it, since
it can survive on its own already.


Yes, but the initial creation would be much more involved.



I don't see that as a problem, necessarily. But I suppose it isn't
"simpler", just
as simple.


[...]



===========

Predictions:

1. Genetic mapping of DNA will confirm this. The tracing of modern
lifeforms' genetic codes back in time will lead to dead ends. These dead
ends represent the introduction of that particular genetic code into the
environment.


Not testable without a definite timetable for the creation events.


I gave one.


Sorry, I missed that. This prediction would seem to be falsified, since
most human genes can be traced back to a time before the first
appearance of humans in the fossil record.



Well there's been no falsifiable, testable "pathway" put forth for the
evolution of the human genome. It's just conjecture based on similarities.



So how _would_ you test this claim? How would you tell if a gene is
related to
another gene, or just similar?


Well you'd have to reverse engineer the genes back to a common ancestral
gene, and show that both genes have believable, possible, *selectable*
pathways from the common ancestral gene. Of course one gene won't do,
we're talking about entire genomes to show common descent. But a gene
is a good start.
In the lab, It should be possible to do this. Take two organisms
thought to share a common ancestor and start altering their genes - one
believable mutational step at a time - and see if,
1. Both can survive the alteration.
and,
2. Both genomes converge at some point.

Of course, since the ToE is already *assumed* to be unchallengeable, I
don't expect there will be much call for a test to see if it's really
possible.



===========

2. The fossil record will confirm this. All fossilized lifeforms will
show abrupt appearance.


Not testable; there is no way to tell if a fossil is the product of
"abrupt appearance"
or "non-abrupt appearance".


There is though. If there was ever discovered a pre-flight bat fossil -
with all the features of a bat, sans wing or half-wing. Then you could
show that the bat did not appear abruptly (in the modern form), but
developed over time.


I don't see how that follows. How would you show that it was related
to modern bats?


Apparently the same way they determined that a bat came from another
non-flying mammal?



I was asking you; to orthodox biologists, the fact that bats evolved
from
non-flying animals is already proven, so this fossil would add nothing.
(I might
add that if I understand your description correctly, they would almost
certainly
consider the fossil to be a secondarily flightless bat, descended from
winged
ancestors, just as ostriches and the like are considered are considered
secondarily flightless birds.)


If I understand you correctly, *evidence* is unimportant for the
conclusion (or "fact" as you call it) that evolution produced the bat
from some wingless creature?



===========

3. If life was designed, certain predictions could be made about the
limited scope of evolution as well.
Essentially *all* evolution can be categorized into two categories:

A. Random corruption of existing data (or undesigned evolution).

and

B. Built in adaptive (or designed) evolution.


No; there is also the possibility of non-random "corruption"
deliberately introduced by the designers.


That's what I meant by "built in".



OK, but it isn't "built in" if it has to be added manually.


Umm... I think that would kinda be the definition of "built in" wouldn't it?



So my car has "built in" power windows, because I can take out the
windows
it has and replace them with powered ones? Or are you saying that it
would
have built-in power windows after I perform this task?


I guess, I'm not following you here. Are you proposing that biological
designers *added* features over time?



-----------

A. Random corruption of existing data (or undesigned evolution)

This is a very weak mechanism and can only produce the kind of
accidental results we see in some bacterial resistance - where the
corruption of the target area for the antibiotic renders the antibiotic
useless.



"Target area for the antibiotic"? You mean the designers made bacteria
susceptible to antibiotics _deliberately_? Maybe they should call it "Insane
Design"...


No, the designers of antibiotics designed the antibiotic to bind to a
specific "target" within the bacteria. The target was designed for
another function.



Sounds like standard Darwinism, then. The old target area was
vulnerable to
antibiotics, so it was replaced by one that isn't. I don't see any
"limitation" here.


You say that as if there's some cognitive thought behind Darwinism.



No, I'm only implying active power, not any kind of thought.


That's funny, because it sounded a lot like thought to me - as in "See a
need, fill a need".



Also, how do you know that the antibiotic resistance _wasn't_ the work
of a designer? Or do you?



This type of evolution is limited by Scope. By "Scope" I mean that -
since this process works by the *corruption* of existing data, it is
limited to producing only such functions as can be built on a *loss* of
data.


No. Corrpuption of data and loss of data are not the same thing.
Indeed,
corruption is as likely to result in the gain of data as its loss.


I'm not talking about "data". I'm talking about complex specified
information (CSI). "Data" can be periodic and unspecified. DNA is not.
The corruption of CSI generally results in a loss of CSI.


Actually, it usually doesn't. You'll notice that you didn't have any
trouble reading "Corrpuption of data and loss of data are not the same
thing", even
though the "CSI" has been corrupted by a stray 'p'. So the CSI content
is still
the same.


True, but that was corruption of an existing message with no change in
meaning. The type of corruption Darwinism needs is where the corruption
of an existing message creates a new message and adds information to the
genome.




Well, a typo can create a new message; consider changing the "not" to a
"now".
This would reverse the meaning of the sentence. As for adding
information, I've
seen a few examples, but they're mostly unprintable ones...


Yes, a typo *can* create new meaning, but can it produce new sentences,
paragraphs, and stories? Can mutation produce new genomes with new
features added?


Wall, FFS!

Features don't get "added"! The genome just alters, and so do the
various formations it produces, hence why everyone is unique. Also,
every person's genome is unique because every act of reproduction is a
miscopy.

I have a contour on my forehead. That's mutation.

If there was some fascist government that decreed that only the people
in the top 1 million contour-prominence league were to reproduce, it
would grow more promient within the population as a whole and
eventually be called a "horn".

Is that a feature? Does it matter?

~Iain

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... That would only work if the designers acted by modifying a pre-existing ... evolution of the human genome. ... How would you tell if a gene is ... Random corruption of existing data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Integrity
    ... Every gene in the genome has the same IBD relatedness ... one allele in one genome may not be ... Hamiltonian heuristic rb fitness ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Non-DNA inheritance - RNA implicated???
    ... Next they looked at the possibilities for gene conversion. ... The authors don't seem to report on whether reversions ... information about the correct sequence. ... genome, was present in the genome of an earlier ancestor.'' ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why dont mitochondria have junk DNA?
    ... Either the gene in question ... >>>many duplications were necessary to produce one gene transfer. ... >>>which the mt evolution rate is slower than the nuclear rate. ... >> duplicated from the mt genome into the nuclear genome. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... but I don't understand what "specificity" means in genetics. ... I'm fairly clear on the meaning of the word "specificity." ... If you change the genome, you may change nothing at all about the organism. ... Generally, after a mutation (which is a corruption of the genome), the ...
    (talk.origins)