(Renamed) 'Irreducible Complexity'

@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.

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

@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?

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:)

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?

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.

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…

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

@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

1 Like

“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.

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.

I’m going to have to ask you to stop jumping around, changing the topic and moving goal posts. If you want to talk about cars, whales or histone modification then why don’t you start a new topic to do that?

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?

No, why would you think that? This has to be the silliest thing I’ve heard all day. When I say genetic evidence, I mean patterns of relatedness not overall similarity in one or two short sequences.

Think about this for a moment - it’s going to require some very basic logic.

Imagine a short four letter sequence that you inherit from your parents

Great Great Great grandparents: ATAG
Great Great grandparents: ATAG
Great grandparents: ATAG
Grandparents: ATAG
Parents: ATAG
You: ATAC

Does this imply that your parents are more closely related to your Great Great Great grandparents than they are to you just because they have an identical 3 letter sequence but you have one letter different?

Take a moment now to think about how drawing that conclusion would be ridiculous

This is how we know that you are more closely related to your parents: You share common mutations that others don’t

Great Great Great grandparents: ATAGAGAC
Great Great grandparents: ATAGAGAC
Great grandparents: ATAGAGAC
Grandparents: ATAGGGAC
Parents: ATAGGGAT
You: ATAGGGAT

Because you, your parents and your grandparents share a mutation, it’s likely that you form a clade.

Because you and your parents share another mutation that others don’t, it’s likely that you also form a subclade.

Do you understand the difference now between overall similarity and patterns of relatedness? Now apply this reasoning to the HAR1 region and you will see the fault in your logic.

so the 60 de novo may be the result of convergent pseudogenes

Read my responses to @johnZ where I explain how we know that these sequences were likely never genes to start with.

1 Like

ace. i ansnwer about the overall similarity in the other post about har1. now lets talk about complexity and testing evolution.

before we start a new topic- why there i no experiment that take for example a protein and change it into a non homologous protein? for example- cytochrome into h4? i think it will be a good evidence for evolution. so why there is no such experiment? how much mutations we will need to this change to your opinion?

I’m not aware of any prediction in genetics that a gene copy should be able to mutate to the point where it is no longer recognisable as a gene copy. Are you?

i doesnt talk about prediction but about experiment to test evolution. why we cant evolve a minimal eye from an animal without an eye? yes, it can take milions of years- but lets say that if a minimal eye need a 3 parts- then we can evolve the first part for example( lets say photoreceptor). so why there is no such experiment?

Experiments test predictions. That’s how science works.

Now you’re asking why no experiment has been run to demonstrate that an eye can evolve over millions of years. I’ll let you think about that one :wink:

and because its take milions of years, i actually said that we will need to see only one part of the changes. for example: if an eye need a series of 10 parts. then we will need to see at least 1-2 parts evolving in experiment.

And how would you know that those are parts that could go on to form an eye? There could be hundreds of thousands of different ways to form an eye. You wouldn’t know if step 1 had gotten you any closer to that goal.

you right. it can be any complex system. so we can actually need to see 1 part evolving into somthing more complex. but we dont.

How do you define “more complex”? That seems like a trick question. I could easily point you to a newly evolved trait that I call more complex and you could just counter that that’s not what you mean by more complex.

Either way, see the LTEE for newly evolved traits:

http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-2
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-3-tinkering-over-the-edge
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-4-ic-and-exaptation
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-5