(Renamed) 'Irreducible Complexity'


(Jim Lock) #1

@dcscccc I wanted to continue our discussion but didn’t wanted to hijack the original thread. I want to start by saying that I really do understand the basis for your argument. I’ve used versions of that argument. However, as I’ve read and studied this topic I’m increasingly convinced that it doesn’t hold up. Now, to your point. I’m going to respectfully disagree that you don’t see evolution in car engine design and construction. I’m fairly positive that the ‘4-5’ changes you described have in fact taken place. There are significant differences between the original combustion engine and a modern hydrogen fuel cell or electric engine. Are they still of the same ‘kind?’ I’m not sure. However, I am sure that given the rate of change in car engine design over the last 100 years we will see a similar rate of change in the next 100 years. If that engine then is used for a fundamentally different purpose than today’s car engines (flying? :slight_smile: ) then I would say that your conditions are met and the car will have evolved into a new ‘kind.’ Make sense?


The Changing Face of Evolutionary Theory? | The BioLogos Forum
Adam, Eve, and human population genetics, part 10: addressing critics—Poythress, chimpanzees, and DNA identity (continued) | The BioLogos Forum
(Dcscccc) #2

here is a simple way to check the main claim of the evolution theory- can we as intelligent people have the ability to change a car into f15 in step wise(analogy to change of family in animals)? if not- then one kind of animal cant change into another by natural process. we can even think of a self replicate (even with dna) car in nature. can it evolve into airplan after bilions of years?


(Preston Garrison) #3

dscccc, you can’t test a hypothesis by making an analogy. You have to test the hypothesis itself. An analogy, if it is a good one, might be useful for explaining something complicated to a layman, although I prefer to try to explain the science itself. No analogy is perfect, and no analogy is useful for testing a hypothesis.


(Dcscccc) #4

hi pgarrison. its a a great analogy. if you can show why its not, show. we actually find the same traits in both cars and natural systems. they both need a lots of parts for ther minimal functions.


(Jim Lock) #5

@dcscccc I’ll be upfront and say that while I used to hold that view, I no longer do. However, for whatever reason your question did provoke me to think about that potential hypothetical a little more. Frankly, I keep coming back to ‘yes, we do have the ability to change a car into an F-15 in a series of steps.’ Through a series of small incremental changes we can trace car design from the clunky and slow early vehicles to today’s AeroMobil. If you project forward in time a million other small changes then the car does evolve into something entirely different, unrecognizable, and with a different purpose than Henry Ford’s Model T. I’d say the same for your hypothetical self-replicating dna car. One ‘virus’ in the car’s computer results into an unnoticeable difference in the 2nd generation. A million of those small changes results in something completely different.


(Dcscccc) #6

hi jlock. lets try in small steps. between f15 and car we will need a new engine.a new engine need at least 4-5 parts at once to evolve from a car engine. because its different engine. so there is not possible way to get it via evolution. part by part. even the car itself cant evolve in small steps.


(Preston Garrison) #7

dcsccc, It doesn’t matter whether it’s a good analogy or not. You can’t test hypotheses in science by making analogies. You have a tendency to simply ignore what is written in response to you. The amateur critics of evolution love to make analogies from computing, manufacturing or whatever, because they don’t have the training and experience to deal with the biological evidence itself. It’s all irrelevent - biology is the subject - you have to deal with the subject directly by way of its own evidence.


(Jim Lock) #8

@dcscccc I wanted to continue our discussion but didn’t wanted to hijack the original thread. I want to start by saying that I really do understand the basis for your argument. I’ve used versions of that argument. However, as I’ve read and studied this topic I’m increasingly convinced that it doesn’t hold up. Now, to your point. I’m going to respectfully disagree that you don’t see evolution in car engine design and construction. I’m fairly positive that the ‘4-5’ changes you described have in fact taken place. There are significant differences between the original combustion engine and a modern hydrogen fuel cell or electric engine. Are they still of the same ‘kind?’ I’m not sure. However, I am sure that given the rate of change in car engine design over the last 100 years we will see a similar rate of change in the next 100 years. If that engine then is used for a fundamentally different purpose than today’s car engines (flying? :slight_smile: ) then I would say that your conditions are met and the car will have evolved into a new ‘kind.’ Make sense?


(Dcscccc) #10

hi jlock. i just now seen this “general discussion option”. lets start from the begining. lets say that we want to chack if a car can evolve step wise. what is the first step to your opinion?


(Jim Lock) #11

@dcscccc The first step? Check to see if there were changes, however small, between 2 generations of cars. If change has occurred regularly in the history of a brand or model. Then, we can safely assume that change will continue to occur moving forward.


(Dcscccc) #12

i now talk about the car itself. how we can get from a self replicat object to a car in small steps?


(Jim Lock) #13

@dcscccc Okay, can we use the ‘Replicators’ from Stargate infamy? If for no other reason than its fun? :slight_smile: The very first small step would be ANY change in the programming. For example, for every billion Replicators, one is produced with wheels or is slightly bigger than the rest. That one change could be caused by an error in copying the code, or perhaps a virus, or even a change in the programming introduced by the collective Replicator consciousness. SIDE NOTE: I can’t remember if there is a controlling entity or a hive mind. It has been awhile since I’ve watched the show. The point, is that these ‘glitches’ in the programming exist and initially will not cause any change in the overall look, function, or purpose of the Replicator population. Can we agree that changes, both accidental and designed, exist in computer programming?


(Dcscccc) #14

yep. ok jim’ lets check this claim- so you say that the first step will be wheels? how the car will move without an engine? and how many wheels? all the 4 at once?

and yes, you can use any self replicat material you want:)


(Jim Lock) #15

In your original analogy the existence of the engine is assumed. Otherwise, I don’t think you can define it as a ‘car.’ Furthermore, anything that can self-replicate has some kind of power source and means of locomotion. (In my example, the Replicators used tiny metal legs to move around.) Now, if you want to discuss the origins of the ‘engine,’ I’d argue that would take this discussion much farther back in the evolutionary process than the original post intended. I’m only willing to discuss the original hypothetical-can a material ‘kind’ change ‘kinds.’ Now, about that…

The number and size of the wheels in irrelevant. The point is that some kind of change in locomotion takes places that provides a competitive advantage. Said Replicators arrive at a planet that puts their little tiny claw legs at a disadvantage. (Solid and perfectly smooth marble?) Billions die screaming tiny metallic cries as the native life forms destroy their desperately crawling bodies. Then, the aforementioned mutation is replicated and it manages to survive and replicate its ‘kind.’ The new form of Replicator is not a perfect car. It can only roll along on its 1, or 4 wheels, slowly and imperfectly. The point is that it exists and it survives where other of its species cannot. Then, another coding errors takes place. Perhaps this one modifies the existing engine to help the rolling Replicators a little more efficiently and so on.

How is this not a plausible course?


(Dcscccc) #16

ok. so we have a ca r that need to evolve into f15 for exmaple. somewere we need to add a new engine to the f15. this will need a lots of new parts at once. again- there is no step wise from a car into airplan. part by part.


My ID Challenge
(Jim Lock) #17

You don’t need a brand new jet engine with directional afterburners all at once. All you need is the tiniest of possible changes, a LOT of time, and some kind of push like God taking his time and enjoying his creativity. In fact, in our purely hypothetical example the next step would have nothing to do with flying. A group of our wheeled replicators move into a higher elevation. Over time, they develop a larger intake fan so that the pistons fire more efficiently. Predators pursue the adapted replicators into the higher elevation and they struggle to survive until a design engineer gives them stubby wings allowing them to glide short distances and hop from ledge to ledge. Now, all you need is propulsion. A single and small propeller. Perhaps already in the replicating design code to allow for evolution into watery environments…


(Dcscccc) #18

ok/ lets take the propeller. can we get it be adding one part at time? and when we will get the jet engine from car engine? it cant be change by only one part


(Jim Lock) #19

@dcscccc

Let’s not forget, we’re talking about God here. If God wants to add a propeller, or the genetic toolbox to grow one, then God can do so. I also want to emphasize that I fully acknowledge the power of God to create like a magician. Now, without conceding defeat, I can’t get into this anymore.

Frankly, I lack the necessary knowledge of both a car and a F-15’s engine to get into the level of detail that you are demanding. I stand by my original point, in the 100 or so years that humans have driven cars, they have fundamentally changed ‘kind.’

Also, I have learned some thing recently about the possible extent of evolution beyond mutation or natural selection. I have focused so much on the step-by-step process that a directed evolution might take, that I have done much of the current research a disservice. The picture is much MUCH bigger than what I have been trying to describe. Thank you for your time and the thought provoking back and forth.

Finally, I know its a couple days early, but please have a great Resurrection Sunday. He is Risen!

Jim


(Dcscccc) #20

“If God wants to add a propeller, or the genetic toolbox to grow one, then God can do so.”-

ok. but in this case it isnt darwinian evolution but direct evolution with not step wise functional way. kipp this in mind.


(Dcscccc) #21

ace, ok, i actually talk about complex systems in general. it can be the whale sonar or blood cascade. we know that those systems need at least couples of genes. so my main point is that those system cant evolve step wise. a good analogy is a car. a minimal car will need some parts: wheels, engine and so on. so a car cant evolve step wise from a self replicating material. so why do you think its different in biology world? why there is no any experiment to show for example a one system change into another in small steps? (lets say a ttss change into flagellum or even cytochrome c change into histone h4 that are almost in the same size)

you said:

"Genetic evidence gives us better resolution and is more relaible. "-

why actually? according to this- even if fish and chimp have been closest from genetic prespective, we will need to say in this case that chimp is more closer to fish then human?and what about all the fossils that dont have any dna and still claim to be evidence for evolution from phylogenetic prespective? if morphology mean nothing why to use it at all?

you said:

“UOX isn’t a denovo gene. It’s a pseudogene.”-

i know. i just gave this example to show a convergent changes in pseudogenes. so the 60 de novo may be the result of convergent pseudogenes.