tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4229274676303151664..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: NAS Authority: It Makes No (Theo)logical Sense and it Defies Notions of a Supreme IntelligenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29136459495319666112012-06-19T12:33:52.288-07:002012-06-19T12:33:52.288-07:00Sorry, I erred. Should be "floppy, useless pr...Sorry, I erred. Should be "floppy, useless proteins." My bad.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64263382912412607872012-06-19T04:29:42.645-07:002012-06-19T04:29:42.645-07:00If we get one mutation out of a million births, an...If we get one mutation out of a million births, and we need two mutations to get an adaptation, and we don't get the fitness filter, then we need a trillion births to get the two mutations. Or you need two million generations. Either way the, numbers start to add up.<br /><br />And how does an organism with floppy useless DNA floating around survive when its competitors are perfectly healthy? That sounds like a lot of luck to me.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1153137798169240012012-06-18T19:18:30.761-07:002012-06-18T19:18:30.761-07:00natschuster
But don't the numbers become prob...<i>natschuster<br /><br />But don't the numbers become problematic if we rely only on drift? You need millions and millions of birth to get all those mutations. </i><br /><br />No, you don't. Keep flailing nat, I hear it's good exercise.<br /><br /><i>So you need all the mutations to happen at once, or you need an organism that somehow makes it with the detrimental mutations. Either way, yuo need lots of luck.</i><br /><br />No, just a little luck and known evolutionary processes. Stay ignorant nat.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46283241924152907442012-06-18T18:41:50.813-07:002012-06-18T18:41:50.813-07:00But don't the numbers become problematic if we...But don't the numbers become problematic if we rely only on drift? You need millions and millions of birth to get all those mutations. <br /><br />And in some cases the mutations are harmful until they are all there. For example, if a protein aquires a new ability, but loses stability until there is a compensatory mutation. So you need all the mutations to happen at once, or you need an organism that somehow makes it with the detrimental mutations. Either way, yuo need lots of luck.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69225187655323933962012-06-18T12:59:48.687-07:002012-06-18T12:59:48.687-07:00natschuster
But if there is no increase in fitnes...<i>natschuster<br /><br />But if there is no increase in fitness until a number of mutations have happened, we don't get the feedback. </i><br /><br />Every mutation doesn't have to immediately increase fitness. There's this thing called neutral drift. I suppose you've forgotten the dozen or so times that's been explained to you.<br /><br /><i>And the numbers start to work against you, Or if it is actually detrimental, for example, it loses stability, then we get negative feedback. </i><br /><br />But the detrimental mutations don't accumulate, they get filtered out.<br /><br /><i>So we still need a lot of luck.</i><br /><br />Nope, just a little combined with empirically observed evolutionary processes.<br /><br />Too bad nat, you're still clueless.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23771015317006131452012-06-18T12:30:44.907-07:002012-06-18T12:30:44.907-07:00But if there is no increase in fitness until a num...But if there is no increase in fitness until a number of mutations have happened, we don't get the feedback. And the numbers start to work against you, Or if it is actually detrimental, for example, it loses stability, then we get negative feedback. So we still need a lot of luck.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28927752662459734842012-06-18T09:41:26.318-07:002012-06-18T09:41:26.318-07:00natschuster
How many amino acids do you have to c...<i>natschuster<br /><br />How many amino acids do you have to change in one protein to change a homologous protein with a different function? If it is a lot of amino acids, then we have to get really lucky</i><br /><br />Nope. Still need just a little luck and a feedback process, which we have.<br /><br />Still flailing here nat. Don't hurt yourself.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29235754057560509982012-06-18T08:50:31.758-07:002012-06-18T08:50:31.758-07:00How many amino acids do you have to change in one ...How many amino acids do you have to change in one protein to change a homologous protein with a different function? If it is a lot of amino acids, then we have to get really lucky.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28944248439735325082012-06-18T07:35:45.800-07:002012-06-18T07:35:45.800-07:00natschuster
But to change functions of parts you ...<i>natschuster<br /><br />But to change functions of parts you need to change them in very specific ways. That means you need to get very, very lucky.</i><br /><br />Or you need just a little luck and a feedback process driving the results. Evolution is a feedback process.<br /><br /><i>Complexity means that there is a lot of stuff. </i><br /><br />Evolution has been empirically demonstrated to create complexity.<br /><br /><i>And specified means only a few combinations work. Organisms need parts that work in specific ways.</i><br /><br />Evolution has been empirically demonstrated to create parts that work in specific ways.<br /><br />Sorry nat, you're still floundering badly here.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67463910086019412962012-06-18T05:06:20.097-07:002012-06-18T05:06:20.097-07:00natschuster: Just like every time we try to make a...natschuster: <i>Just like every time we try to make a perpetual motion machine it doesn't work. The most we can say is that every attempt at perpetual motion that we attempted doesn't work. So we infer from there a law of second thermodynamics. That's how science works.</i> <br /><br />That's a nice little story, Nat, but I am afraid it is apocryphal.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80169928120617210992012-06-18T04:32:43.835-07:002012-06-18T04:32:43.835-07:00But to change functions of parts you need to chang...But to change functions of parts you need to change them in very specific ways. That means you need to get very, very lucky.<br /><br />Complexity means that there is a lot of stuff. And specified means only a few combinations work. Organisms need parts that work in specific ways.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50788184438034104282012-06-17T20:24:06.430-07:002012-06-17T20:24:06.430-07:00natschuster
To the best of my knowledge, the mech...<i>natschuster<br /><br />To the best of my knowledge, the mechanisms for making IC involve the creation of fucntional intermediate. But this is all very congectural and theoretical. It is basically an apologetic, an attempt to explain the appearance of design without coming on to design.</i><br /><br />Once again your woeful ignorance trips you up. IC systems in biology with plausible evolutionary pathways are plentiful in the scientific literature. The IDiot mistake is to assume<br /><br />1. parts can only be added, never deleted<br />2. the function of each part can never change<br />3. the function of the whole assembly can never change. <br /><br />All three of those are demonstrably wrong.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html" rel="nofollow">Irreducible Complexity Demystified</a><br /><br />Even Behe, the "inventor" of the IC argument, doesn't use it anymore since it's been so thoroughly debunked. You need to get with the program.<br /><br /><i>And specified complexity means that there are very few complex combinations that actually work. Why is it any more meaningless than things like fixation rates and fitness coefficients?</i><br /><br />It's worthless because the 'specified' part is completely subjective, and the 'complexity' part is completely subjective. It's a meaningless metric for any scientific study.<br /><br /><i>And I guess very hard could mean very unlikely. For example, if the chances of getting a certain protein are 1 to 10^77, that would be very hard.</i><br /><br />The chance of one specific outcome being unlikely doesn't mean that having any outcome is unlikely. We've gone over this a dozen times. Why are you still too dense to get it?<br /><br /><i>And when I said "looks designed" I meant that it has things like IC, SC, ect</i><br /><br />Now that you know that neither IC and SC require design, you're going to need another IDiot undefined buzzterm for your personal incredulity.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3232726100013837342012-06-17T19:23:15.154-07:002012-06-17T19:23:15.154-07:00To the best of my knowledge, the mechanisms for ma...To the best of my knowledge, the mechanisms for making IC involve the creation of fucntional intermediate. But this is all very congectural and theoretical. It is basically an apologetic, an attempt to explain the appearance of design without coming on to design. <br /><br />And specified complexity means that there are very few complex combinations that actually work. Why is it any more meaningless than things like fixation rates and fitness coefficients?<br /><br />And I guess very hard could mean very unlikely. For example, if the chances of getting a certain protein are 1 to 10^77, that would be very hard.<br /><br />And when I said "looks designed" I meant that it has things like IC, SC, ect.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38271728355815687922012-06-17T15:21:54.145-07:002012-06-17T15:21:54.145-07:00natschuster
Didn't I list things above that a...<i>natschuster<br /><br />Didn't I list things above that are characteristics of designed things that are really hard to make without design? There's irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, functional integration of parts, etc.</i><br /><br />Didn't I point out that science knows of natural mechanisms which can create IC and integrated parts? "Specified complexity" is a meaningless undefined IDiot buzz phrase.<br /><br />How hard is "really hard" nat? Give me an objective way to determine "really hard". Does "really hard" equal "impossible" in nat-land?<br /><br />You also forgot to give me your objective way to determine if something "looks designed".Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34542547095110783892012-06-17T14:14:57.078-07:002012-06-17T14:14:57.078-07:00Thorton:
Didn't I list things above that are ...Thorton:<br /><br />Didn't I list things above that are characteristics of designed things that are really hard to make without design? There's irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, functional integration of parts, etc.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51870734998376743252012-06-17T10:31:10.204-07:002012-06-17T10:31:10.204-07:00> How would that falsify ID? How would you know...> How would that falsify ID? How would you know that the Intelligent Designer didn't just manipulate known evolutionary mechanisms through his powers?<br /><br />Occam's razor. There's no need to invoke an intelligent designer for what natural processes can explain.<br /><br />> That study has absolutely nothing to do with ID.<br /><br />It didn't set out to validate ID, but the results (among the others I listed) help refute one common argument against ID. By "purpose"; I simply mean that what at first looks like a bad design is actually done that way for a good reason.<br /><br />> You'd expect that similar proteins may have shared a common ancestral form at some time in the past, not that one extant protein evolved into another extant protein.<br /><br />Well yes, that's what I'm trying to say; although it's reasonable to expect the unmodified form to still exist. This study (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1637.full) shows bacterial proteins that were unchanged for 250 million years.<br /><br />> Where did you get enough data on all the unknowns to even begin to calculate an accurate probability?<br /><br />It's a crude calculation, I'm only trying to find a lower bound for a best-case scenario. Even if you assume the deck is stacked and all of the sites start with CpG nucleotides (which mutate 10-50x faster), it's still not enough to be within reason. Yes, we can't calculate it exactly, but when the result is off by multiple orders of magnitude, it's enough to make the point. And changing 14 derived amino acid sites is still orders of magnitude easier than de novo protein creation.<br /><br /><br />> No one in science says or thinks functional proteins arose by random association of amino acids.<br /><br />This study (http://www.britishcouncil.org/january_2011-biology-scientific_article.pdf) published New Scientist describes de novo creation of proteins from junk DNA, including at least 6 since the alleged chimp/human (and now bonobo!) divergence (bottom of page 9).<br /><br />> but both had a very similar selection pressure<br /><br />I have to disagree with the authors of the paper here. Bats fly in the air and dolphins spend their lives under water. There's no more selective pressure than for any other mammal to develop high-frequency hearing. But that doesn't matter--my calculation ignores selection and assumes as soon as the mutation appears, all members of the species receive it instantly. This simplification also puts the odds a couple more orders of magnitude in your favor.<br /><br />> Most of those critical details are explained in the paper<br /><br />I've read it a couple times, and also a similar report from a different group. The paper blames convergence but doesn't go into details.<br /><br />Thanks for the interesting debate; it's always a privilege to go head-to-head with someone who is well studied in these topics.JoeCoderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02927199501834248574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92065134837106626942012-06-17T10:20:13.322-07:002012-06-17T10:20:13.322-07:00Scott:
We know a lot about the brain. We can scan...Scott:<br /><br />We know a lot about the brain. We can scan a brain while it's working. We can trace the path of neurotransmitters. But we don't know how that makes a mind.<br /><br />And, like I said above, in our experience working with machines, find that it is very hard to make things look designed without designining them.<br /><br />And why is what I think about the Designer important? The point is ID doesn't require a non-material designer. That's the science part. I personally believe that the God of Abraham created everything, but that is not based on the biology. <br /><br />And I admit that I'm using an explanatory framework to get the really big picture. What's wrong with that?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56259245744427195292012-06-17T10:05:57.479-07:002012-06-17T10:05:57.479-07:00natschuster
Did I say that? I thought I said that...<i>natschuster<br /><br />Did I say that? I thought I said that basedon ur obsevarions of how we make machines, we learn that it is really hard to make things that look like they were designed without designing them.</i><br /><br />"It's hard for humans to design thing that look designed without designing them"<br /><br />Well duh. You make less sense every time you post.<br /><br />What is your objective criteria for "looks designed"?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42975567768938233662012-06-17T09:47:57.245-07:002012-06-17T09:47:57.245-07:00Thorton:
Did I say that? I thought I said that ba...Thorton:<br /><br />Did I say that? I thought I said that basedon ur obsevarions of how we make machines, we learn that it is really hard to make things that look like they were designed without designing them. Just like every time we try to make a perpetual motion machine it doesn't work. The most we can say is that every attempt at perpetual motion that we attempted doesn't work. So we infer from there a law of second thermodynamics. That's how science works.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85187337551080119832012-06-16T06:48:31.509-07:002012-06-16T06:48:31.509-07:00Nat: In our experience working with making things...Nat: In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without design.<br /><br />Scott: In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without complex material brains. <br /><br />Nat: We don't know for sure that the mind is purely material. <br /><br />But we know for sure that the knowledge necessary to perform adaptations in biological organisms only occurs in the presence of intelligent designers? Again, what's the difference here?<br /><br />Nat: Purely materialistic explanations for things like mind, intelligence, etc fall short.<br /><br />Fall short of what, Nat? Being completely exhaustive? Gravitational theory falls short, but that doesn't' mean that you think God is directly pulling on objects according to their mass. <br /><br />Just because we do not have exhaustive explanation for anything doesn't mean it has a non-material cause by default. We simply have no explanation, so it's neutral one way or the other. What's funny is that theists deny this assumption, yet keep making argument that assume it's true. <br /><br />Nat: And ID doesn't require the designer to be a disembodied mind, anyway.<br /><br />I asked what you think, not what ID requires. Again, I'd suggest that you're not really using induction. Rather, you're extrapolating observations using an explanatory theory - and a rather bad one at that, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere. <br /><br />And, of course, you completely ignored my other comment.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40498494325608967562012-06-15T22:28:35.941-07:002012-06-15T22:28:35.941-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52997770276057435202012-06-15T22:13:23.725-07:002012-06-15T22:13:23.725-07:00Wow, that was one of the better spittle flying his...Wow, that was one of the better spittle flying hissy-fit meltdowns by batspit77 in some time.<br /><br />Never a dull moment with the clueless C&P king.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17393909146880127872012-06-15T21:26:57.084-07:002012-06-15T21:26:57.084-07:00JoeCoder
In my view, ID is very falsifiable. All ...<i>JoeCoder<br /><br />In my view, ID is very falsifiable. All you have to do is calculate the odds of a given feature evolving, given population sizes, mutation rates, nucleotides needing to change, the number of intermediate steps, and available time. If it can be explained by natural means, it's silly to invoke ID.</i><br /><br />How would that falsify ID? How would you know that the Intelligent Designer didn't just manipulate known evolutionary mechanisms through his powers?<br /><br /><i>As for finding purpose, one study that comes to mind is "Evolution gave flawed eye better vision"</i><br /><br />How in the world us that suppose to support the claim that ID is looking for "purpose"? That study has absolutely nothing to do with ID.<br /><br /><i>The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero. </i><br /><br />No one in science says or thinks functional proteins arose by random association of amino acids.<br /><br /><i>So, ignoring the difficulties of abiogenesis, you would expect all proteins to be modified versions of existing ones.</i><br /><br />No, you wouldn't. You'd expect that similar proteins may have shared a common ancestral form at some time in the past, <b>not</b> that one extant protein evolved into another extant protein. That's the same beginner's error that Axe and Gauger embarrassed themselves with so badly.<br /><br /><i>Although many are similar in structure, this seems hard enough in such a sparse landscape, and even simple cases such as Dolphins and Bats defy probability.</i><br /><br />Where did you get enough data on all the unknowns to even begin to calculate an accurate probability? It's impossible to calculate the probabilities of a long term feedback process simply by taking a snapshot of the results. You need detailed information about the state of the system (inputs and outputs) during every iteration. Do you have such information for any protein? Because no one else in science does.<br /><br />BTW, your calculations that you reference above are dead wrong for exactly that reason. You are modeling an event that no one in science says or thinks happened as you describe it. That all of the changes to prestin had to occur totally randomly instead of being formed by two very similar feedback systems driven by very similar selection pressures.<br /><br />In actuality, bats and dolphins shared a common mammalian ancestor from which they both inherited an ancestral form of prestin. Each type of animal developed echolocation in its own unique way, but both had a very similar selection pressure to develop high frequency sensitivity that prestin confers. Most of those critical details are explained in the paper, yet you chose to ignore them in your calculations. Why is that?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56655180115352127322012-06-15T20:38:11.191-07:002012-06-15T20:38:11.191-07:00natschuster
In our experience working with making...<i>natschuster<br /><br />In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without design.</i><br /><br />Well isn't that just peachy.<br /><br />So you now agree that when the claim is:<br /><br />"Everything we know of that has four legs was intelligently designed."<br /><br />what you <b>really</b> meant was<br /><br />"Every <b>already known to be designed thing</b> that has four legs was intelligently designed."<br /><br />Do you need me to explain the logical worthlessness of that statement too?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1891074452336906442012-06-15T18:04:33.695-07:002012-06-15T18:04:33.695-07:00Yeah, alright, I have no credibility. (LOL)
But i...Yeah, alright, I have no credibility. (LOL)<br /><br />But it's not about me, Phil. <i>I</i> am not saying anything about non-locality. It's about you. Do <i>you</i> understand what local realism is in quantum mechanics?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.com