joao. a minimal ic system need at least 2-3 parts to its function. so if the chance to get a one part is about 10^10 then a 3 parts system need about 10^30 mutations. so to evolve a whale sonar for example we will need 10^30 mutations. its a lot.
You haven’t shown that whale sonar includes even a single new part, so your numbers, while large, are meaningless until you specify those parts.
Golly, didn’t I just point out an ID hypothesis about how The Designer designs and some empirical predictions that ID proponents should be testing for themselves?
IOW, dcscccc has clearly specified a style of design, with all or mostly new parts. While we don’t have a whale sonar parts catalog from The Designer, we have whole genomes (a whale parts catalog)!
If you’re so sure that there are completely new parts (you wouldn’t use such big numbers if you weren’t absolutely sure, right?) based on the way you are assuming how whales work, how many genes should be in the whale genome that aren’t in the human genome and vice versa?
ok joao. lets go on.
even if whale sonar evolve by a combination of parts from other systems, its not solve the problem but make it worse. because now we will need to explain how many systems evolve step wise. so its just push the problem to another system.
why i think that whale sonar have a unique parts? because we cant made a sonar by a combination of parts in a submarine. why do you think that the whale example is a different case?
[quote=“dcscccc, post:25, topic:2406, full:true”]
ok joao. lets go on.
even if whale sonar evolve by a combination of parts from other systems,…[/quote]
No, d, let’s start by not assuming evolution NOR design. Let’s start with something more simple: how whales work. Only then can we think clearly about evolution vs. design.
No, it doesn’t, because as you just showed, you understand neither evolutionary mechanisms nor developmental biology. Again, let’s test YOUR design hypothesis, not the one you are falsely attributing to evolution.
Thanks for being honest! But before we go further, why did you present something you merely think as something you know? And why are you not interested in understanding how the whale works before claiming that you know how it arose? What’s there to fear?
Exactly! You were never even considering evolution, much less hypothesizing it! You are really hypothesizing that the whale is designed, like a submarine. Your design hypothesis predicts that sonar will have newly-designed parts. Let’s test that prediction and see if your hypothesis holds up. Isn’t this fun?
[quote]why do you think that the whale example is a different case?
[/quote]Because I’ve studied molecular genetics and developmental biology.
Let’s question what you only think–but pretended to know–first. In science we question all of our assumptions. That teaches us a lot.
How many genes do you think are present in whales but not humans? I’ll give you one important piece of information: both whale and human have about 20,000 genes. How many should differ under YOUR hypothesis in which new parts are needed for new functions?
my hypothesis cant tell us how many genes should be different between whale and human (neither evolution). but it can tell us that a lots of genes will be different and unique between a lots of animals. the melon organ for example is a new structual system. even if it have parts that share between other systems(like wax).
you said:
" Your design hypothesis predicts that sonar will have newly-designed parts"-
no actually. but it can predict that a lots of systems will have unique parts. not all of them.
[quote=“dcscccc, post:27, topic:2406, full:true”]
my hypothesis cant tell us how many genes should be different between whale and human (neither evolution).[/quote]
Don’t downplay the value of testing hypotheses as a way to clarify your thinking!
It can’t give us an exact number, but it puts us in the ballpark. As you pointed out (while mangling most of the numbers), evolution is extremely limited in its ability to produce new proteins and new genes. A Designer, particularly an omnipotent one, has no such limitations. Therefore, intelligent design predicts lots of new components, because there are no limitations, while evolution predicts few to none. Evolution’s new stuff has to be produced by slogging through an incredibly iterative process to duplicate and repurpose existing genes and proteins with only rare exceptions.
Are you with me so far?
hi joao. i disagree. a lot of parts in design systems are not unique and can be found in another systems. wheels for example can be found in airplanes, cars, trucks and so on. so again- id cant predict how many perecnt of unique parts we can found. by the way- a lots of genes are unique to many animals. orphan genes for example are genes that unique to specific animal. and we found a lot of them. now lets check if a whale sonar can evolve in a geologic time. for start- how do you think that a minimal sonar evolved? how many mutations it need to make a sonar from non-sonar?
the evidence for design is real. for example: the flagellum is an organic, self replicating motor. we know that a motor need a d esigner. even if its organic.
1 Like
That’s Behe’s trope, which has been debunked many times in the literature and web. Do a web search on “irreducible complexity + flagellum”.
Examples:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
It is true we don’t know exactly what path evolution took to end up with a flagellum. The fossil record is not very informative about single-cell biochemistry hundreds of millions of years ago. However, multiple paths have been shown which could have led to a flagellum by ordinary evolution. This falsifies claims that it could not have evolved by variation + natural selection + drift.
hi loujost. the flagellum cant evolve step wise. miller say that the ttss share parts with the flagellum and because of this its mean that they can evolve step wise from each other. we can disprove this claim by simple example: car and airplane also share parts like wheels and feul. but they car cant evolve into airplane step by step. so again- motor need a designer.
Analogies are neither arguments nor examples. Analogies are explanatory devices that in biology, despite their utility, always break down.
Have you studied other molecular motors? Where does the analogy break down?
Why should I think that your representation of Miller’s claim is accurate?
And why do you use “the” in front of “flagellum”?
this is miller claim that because ttss and flagelum share parts–> then they eolve ste wise. so i showed its not true.
Miller wrote a single sentence?
How does an analogy show that anything is not true?
And why do you use the definite article “the” in front of “flagellum”?
Eddie, as you know, I’ve read Behe and much of the web discussion about him. That wasn’t my definition, it was Wikipedia’s, and I agree that it is not accurate. You are right that I was not careful enough there. But my reason for citing the Wikipedia article was not its definition of irreducible complexity but rather as a convenient starting point, with pointers to the skeptical literature on the subject. I was not interested in going into depth about Behe again.
As I said, I do not expect to know exactly how the flagellum evolved, because there is no fossil record and our knowledge of gene sequences that far back is very vague. But I strongly disagree with you about the onus of proof. Behe claims to have shown that evolution COULD NOT produce the flagellum. So we have an evolutionary theory that relies on known principles, which we have no reason to believe would NOT work to evolve the flagellum, and we have a competing claim which insists that unknown principles were needed to produce it. The burden of proof is on him to really show the impossibility. He has not done that.
You are right that there might possibly be something going on beyond normal evolutionary theory here and elsewhere. Logically, the evolutionary biologist has not proven that evolution produced the flagellum, and such proof would be nearly impossible given our incomplete knowledge of past ecological conditions. I think your demand for such proof is misplaced. If someone wants to shake up the evolutionary paradigm, they need to find hard limits on what evolution could theoretically do, and then they need to show those limits are violated. This is in fact Behe’s research program, his “edge of evolution”. That’s the right approach. But he fails on the technical details.
Then you disagree with yourself, because you started this with “a minimal ic system need at least 2-3 parts to its function. so if the chance to get a one part is about 10^10 then a 3 parts system need about 10^30 mutations. so to evolve a whale sonar for example we will need 10^30 mutations.”
Why did you specify 3 new parts made entirely from scratch?
joao- 3 reasons:
- in a lot of system we will need new parts
2)because if you will claim that this system evolve by a combination of parts from other system then you will just remove the problem to another systems. so we will still need a new parts in the end. - even if you will base your claim in a combination theory the chance is still near 10^30 because some reasons that i can explain if you want. but first in need to know what theory you believe to do the calculations.
-
So we’re back to your testable prediction/assumption again. How many new parts do you predict of 20,000 that would be needed to distinguish an intelligently designed whale from an intelligently designed human?
-
What I claim doesn’t matter. This is about testing the assumption you presented as fact: “a minimal ic system need at least 2-3 parts to its function. so if the chance to get a one part is about 10^10 then a 3 parts system need about 10^30 mutations. so to evolve a whale sonar for example we will need 10^30 mutations.”
-
Again, what I claim doesn’t matter and I have no idea what you mean by “a combination theory.” Let’s do the “calculations” (a funny word for estimates) based on your hypothesis of intelligent design. Number of new genes, please. You wrote “lets go on,” but you keep running away from your claims.
Which flagellum, Eddie?