The Blood Clotting Cascade Mechanism

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile stating what you're setting out to prove (or disprove?), because it just isn't obvious to me where you are going and this makes discussion difficult. Yet a few comments anyway...

You appear to already be starting with the pre-existing blood clotting system within which the proteins already seem finely-tuned to interact with each other (i.e., are the right shape, get activated and switched off at the right time, etc.).

Additionally, it is quite easy to conceive of duplication happening due to say a regulatory protein malfunctioning. Yet, is true complexity really being added within your example? Perhaps so. If I drop a stack of scrabble tiles on the ground, I think in some way the random end result would be complex. And if I threw another stack down for good measure, then it could perhaps be said further complexity was added. On the other hand if I walked into a room and saw some scrabble tiles forming the sentence, "up for scrabble" the significance to such an arrangement might make me conclude that someone wants to play Scrabble. Here we not only have complexity, but specified information within complexity, each letter being "finely-tuned" to another if you will. If I left and came back a few minutes later to see "pretty please" added, then we not only have new complexity like throwing a second stack of tiles down, but new information complexity. Your example perhaps satisfies criteria for complexity, but not information complexity. For that, I see you need something further. But I'm really not sure whether what I've written is worthwhile to this discussion, since you are holding your cards very close to you.

Kurieuo

I see your analogy, but in the biological world its not a random stack of dropped peices. The peices are carefully arranged. And not only that, the arrangement is passed on and duplicated. A better analogy is a game of telephone. Where one individual says something and tells it to another. Eventually the information changes. But unlike telephone there is also constant reinforcement and communication which resists change. Also in telephone the phrase is unrestricted in scope and content. This is obviously not the case in a biological system.

As to the point on duplication, its not quite what you stated.

Lets say we have a DNA strand with the following genes

p13 - p14 - junk - l34 - p33

duplication would be

p13 - p14 - p14 - junk - l34 - p33

The gene is duplicated.
When the transcriptase comes to read the DNA it can follow the duplicated gene twice. IE both genes can still express.

I am sorry if I am raising suspicions. That is not my intent, I only wish to inform. My motivation is quite simple.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Very true, but you left out the part where irreducible complexity cannot be proven either. In this thread you brought up, we discussed that irreducible was a subjective conclusion not necessary supported by the evidence. And that is what I am duplicating here using a real world example.

You are trying to prove a negative?

I am trying to lay out the evidence and have someone objectively show how the system is irreducibly complex.

And on my side I am trying to examine the system and see if I can show how it can have been developed in steps.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Very true, but you left out the part where irreducible complexity cannot be proven either. In this thread you brought up, we discussed that irreducible was a subjective conclusion not necessary supported by the evidence.

So there exists nowhere "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts would cause the system to effectively cease functioning"?

This is quite a claim. It would be paramount to stating that all there is to know about a specific system is known, and having this knowledge it is shown without any doubt that there is no way the system could have formed alternatively.

I will in continuing my argument show that once an innovation is in place it allows the organism to become dependant on it.

Remove electricity from our society and our communication system would no longer function? Does this mean that our communication came to place all at once? No we have grown dependant on the innovation of electricity and have continued to evolve our communication systems.

What you need to understand is that evolution is like rapid prototyping. Rapid prototyping in engineering involves a system to be built and rebuilt in slightly different ways. Each prototype is tested and the results tabulated. This proccess is an itterative process and the final result comes after many designs have been tested. It is afterwards where the engineer and chemist try to explain why the final result works the best.

The natural world affords a larger workbench than any engineering firm. Biochemistry is in its infancy, and only beginning, to understand the complexities and simplicities of the workings of natural organisms.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I will in continuing my argument show that once an innovation is in place it allows the organism to become dependant on it.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that in many cases, the irreducibly complex machinery is necessary for basic functions of the cell-like the cell transport system-if it's not in place, nothing will work.

Remove electricity from our society and our communication system would no longer function? Does this mean that our communication came to place all at once? No we have grown dependant on the innovation of electricity and have continued to evolve our communication systems.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Electricity, unlike many IR machines, is not necessary-it is great and wonderful and coooool, but it is not necessary-ALSO, you're trying to impose a scenario involving intelligent, thinking, and sentient beings onto a braindead cell.

What you need to understand is that evolution is like rapid prototyping. Rapid prototyping in engineering involves a system to be built and rebuilt in slightly different ways. Each prototype is tested and the results tabulated. This proccess is an itterative process and the final result comes after many designs have been tested. It is afterwards where the engineer and chemist try to explain why the final result works the best.

Non sequitor-you're involving intelligence for one thing, and you're assuming that here are a plethora of beneficial mutations that occur...among other things-and you're assuming the cell is kept alive artificially, while it can figure out on accident a way to transport building blocks throughout itself.

The natural world affords a larger workbench than any engineering firm. Biochemistry is in its infancy, and only beginning, to understand the complexities and simplicities of the workings of natural organisms.

It's not discovering any simplicities, and biochemistry has been around since the 50's. Sure, it's been around a few thousand years than the concept of evolution, but it's not in its infancy.

[August]

What you need to understand is that evolution is like rapid prototyping. Rapid prototyping in engineering involves a system to be built and rebuilt in slightly different ways. Each prototype is tested and the results tabulated. This proccess is an itterative process and the final result comes after many designs have been tested. It is afterwards where the engineer and chemist try to explain why the final result works the best.

No, it is not the same. Prototyping starts with a complex system based on a design and presupposing a desired outcome, and improves it until it meets a specification. A prototype is always built according to a design, to meet a required operational capability. Evolutionary mechanisms are blind, with no outcome assumed, and therefore the analogy does not work.

I would also question your assumption that engineers try to explain why the result works best after the fact. They design systems to meet a specification, the specification preceeds the design process and subsequent development process. There is no need to explain anything once the ROC (and specification) is met, engineers are involved from the first step.

[August]

Very true, but you left out the part where irreducible complexity cannot be proven either. In this thread you brought up, we discussed that irreducible was a subjective conclusion not necessary supported by the evidence. And that is what I am duplicating here using a real world example.

Still, you have claimed from the start that ID and its subsets were not science, because the scientific method did not apply to it, yet here you are trying to scientifically disprove it. So is ID science now?

And we have seen countless examples of systems that show that the ToE is also not neccessarily supported by the evidence. Following you argument, all it leaves you with is uncertainty, and you get to take your pick according to your personal beliefs.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

What you need to understand is that evolution is like rapid prototyping. Rapid prototyping in engineering involves a system to be built and rebuilt in slightly different ways. Each prototype is tested and the results tabulated. This proccess is an itterative process and the final result comes after many designs have been tested. It is afterwards where the engineer and chemist try to explain why the final result works the best.

No, it is not the same. Prototyping starts with a complex system based on a design and presupposing a desired outcome, and improves it until it meets a specification. A prototype is always built according to a design, to meet a required operational capability. Evolutionary mechanisms are blind, with no outcome assumed, and therefore the analogy does not work.

I would also question your assumption that engineers try to explain why the result works best after the fact. They design systems to meet a specification, the specification preceeds the design process and subsequent development process. There is no need to explain anything once the ROC (and specification) is met, engineers are involved from the first step.

How exactly are evolutionary mechinisms blind? Propagation is the key. If the organism fails to reproduce it fails to meet the specifications. This will include disease resistance, fertility, survivability, defensive attributes, ability to obtain sustinence, and scores of other criteria.

Ah, and you're right in many cases the design work for rapid prototyping is done in advance, because the properties of materials and how they interact with each other have been determined in earlier studies in a process I described to you earlier. You are speaking of industry engineering, while I am talking about academic engineering. Lets say for example we have a need for an antennae whose specifications are unlike any that have been made before. For example one which must fit into some mini-mini-cellphone. Well engineers need to do some experimentation, with an aray of possible designs and materials. Only after this experimentation can the properties and possible applications of materials be acertained.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Very true, but you left out the part where irreducible complexity cannot be proven either. In this thread you brought up, we discussed that irreducible was a subjective conclusion not necessary supported by the evidence. And that is what I am duplicating here using a real world example.

Still, you have claimed from the start that ID and its subsets were not science, because the scientific method did not apply to it, yet here you are trying to scientifically disprove it. So is ID science now?

And we have seen countless examples of systems that show that the ToE is also not neccessarily supported by the evidence. Following you argument, all it leaves you with is uncertainty, and you get to take your pick according to your personal beliefs.

I am not trying to refute Intelligent Design, I am trying to show that irreducible complexity is a subjective observation.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I will in continuing my argument show that once an innovation is in place it allows the organism to become dependant on it.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that in many cases, the irreducibly complex machinery is necessary for basic functions of the cell-like the cell transport system-if it's not in place, nothing will work.

Well that can be discussed in anothe thread, this one is dedicated to the blod clotting example.

Remove electricity from our society and our communication system would no longer function? Does this mean that our communication came to place all at once? No we have grown dependant on the innovation of electricity and have continued to evolve our communication systems.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Electricity, unlike many IR machines, is not necessary-it is great and wonderful and coooool, but it is not necessary-ALSO, you're trying to impose a scenario involving intelligent, thinking, and sentient beings onto a braindead cell.

Its an analogy, an attempt to explain by showing there is a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. Electricity is necessary for our current methods of communication. Take it away and we no can no longer maintain the society we have.

In similar respect the blood clotting mechanism is necessary for organisms with pressurized vascular systems. Take it away and the organism can bleed to death.

The analogy here is that once we had a society whose communication channels did not require eletricity.

What you need to understand is that evolution is like rapid prototyping. Rapid prototyping in engineering involves a system to be built and rebuilt in slightly different ways. Each prototype is tested and the results tabulated. This proccess is an itterative process and the final result comes after many designs have been tested. It is afterwards where the engineer and chemist try to explain why the final result works the best.

Non sequitor-you're involving intelligence for one thing, and you're assuming that here are a plethora of beneficial mutations that occur...among other things-and you're assuming the cell is kept alive artificially, while it can figure out on accident a way to transport building blocks throughout itself.

Really? Can you show me where this assumption was made?

The natural world affords a larger workbench than any engineering firm. Biochemistry is in its infancy, and only beginning, to understand the complexities and simplicities of the workings of natural organisms.

It's not discovering any simplicities, and biochemistry has been around since the 50's. Sure, it's been around a few thousand years than the concept of evolution, but it's not in its infancy.

I doubt many biochemist will agree with you here. There is still much to discover. And many exciting developments occur on a regular basis in this field.

[August]

How exactly are evolutionary mechinisms blind?

The mechanisms assume no predetermined outcome.

Propagation is the key. If the organism fails to reproduce it fails to meet the specifications.

What specifications, and where did it come from?

This will include disease resistance, fertility, survivability, defensive attributes, ability to obtain sustinence, and scores of other criteria.

So all of these were somehow "specified", and through evolutionary mechanisms met the specifications?

Ah, and you're right in many cases the design work for rapid prototyping is done in advance, because the properties of materials and how they interact with each other have been determined in earlier studies in a process I described to you earlier. You are speaking of industry engineering, while I am talking about academic engineering. Lets say for example we have a need for an antennae whose specifications are unlike any that have been made before. For example one which must fit into some mini-mini-cellphone. Well engineers need to do some experimentation, with an aray of possible designs and materials. Only after this experimentation can the properties and possible applications of materials be acertained.

Sorry, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of what an engineering process is. It always starts with a required outcome, defined by a designer, fully described in a specification, and then built from different parts to approximate a solution, which is then refined by iteration. It does not matter how far you regress into a system, like in your example above, it always starts with a predetermined outcome in mind. After compiling a detailed specification, they start with a set of designs, like you said above, and build different parts using materials with known characteristics to see which one will best meet a specification. The basic knowledge of materials come through experimentation to determine characteristics, but still requires an engineering effort to make it the best fit to meet the specification of a system.

Let's talk about the mini antenna example. You first need to know what characteristics that antenna would need for the phone to work, like size, RF propagation, interference, sensitivity, gain, heat dispersion, mechanical connections etc. Once those are known, in context of the functionality of the complete phone, you can write a specification for the antenna. You also don't start with a wide array of materials, non-conductors would immediately be excluded, and you also don't design from scratch, reference designs are used since cellphones exist today. But even if you were to design from scratch, the objective was clearly and specifically set in the beginning, and for the phone to work, all of it, including the antenna, has to work at the same time. If you remove the antenna, the phone will not work. Your new design still has to consider the overall working of the system, the antenna on its own is useless, unless you want an expensive ear-cleaner.

You seem to say that in nature it works the same, but in your assumptions the predetermined outcome, the design and specification, and the fit to function determinants are missing, unless you assume an intelligent designer.

Edit: This probably requires a seperate thread if we want to take the discussion further, didn't mean to hijack this topic, just wanted to point out the analogy does not work for me.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

How exactly are evolutionary mechinisms blind?

The mechanisms assume no predetermined outcome.

Propagation is the key. If the organism fails to reproduce it fails to meet the specifications.

What specifications, and where did it come from?

This will include disease resistance, fertility, survivability, defensive attributes, ability to obtain sustinence, and scores of other criteria.

So all of these were somehow "specified", and through evolutionary mechanisms met the specifications?

Sorry, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of what an engineering process is. It always starts with a required outcome, defined by a designer, fully described in a specification, and then built from different parts to approximate a solution, which is then refined by iteration. It does not matter how far you regress into a system, like in your example above, it always starts with a predetermined outcome in mind. After compiling a detailed specification, they start with a set of designs, like you said above, and build different parts using materials with known characteristics to see which one will best meet a specification. The basic knowledge of materials come through experimentation to determine characteristics, but still requires an engineering effort to make it the best fit to meet the specification of a system.

Let's talk about the mini antenna example. You first need to know what characteristics that antenna would need for the phone to work, like size, RF propagation, interference, sensitivity, gain, heat dispersion, mechanical connections etc. Once those are known, in context of the functionality of the complete phone, you can write a specification for the antenna. You also don't start with a wide array of materials, non-conductors would immediately be excluded, and you also don't design from scratch, reference designs are used since cellphones exist today. But even if you were to design from scratch, the objective was clearly and specifically set in the beginning, and for the phone to work, all of it, including the antenna, has to work at the same time. If you remove the antenna, the phone will not work. Your new design still has to consider the overall working of the system, the antenna on its own is useless, unless you want an expensive ear-cleaner.

You seem to say that in nature it works the same, but in your assumptions the predetermined outcome, the design and specification, and the fit to function determinants are missing, unless you assume an intelligent designer.

Well in many ways you are correct. There is an objective clearly set going into an engineering task. And there are well defined specifications. And in many cases the materials properties are well known. But again you are speaking on the industrial side of engineering where there is a specific product or purpose for the experimentation. Engineering requires a working knowledge of the materials being used. Properties of these materials is discovered through experimentation. Such as determing optimum diamond size and configurations for a drill bit. Or determining conductivity and maleability of a certain allow.

In any case the analogy I was originally trying to make is that engineering is an iterative process. This was the comparison I was trying to make.

In biology the objective would of course be propagation. And not because that it is of any benefit. Only that things which do not propogate no longer exist. And biological systems don't work from scratch. There is an existing chemistry which is being modified here.

[August]

I am not trying to refute Intelligent Design, I am trying to show that irreducible complexity is a subjective observation.

Didn't we discuss this somewhere before? IC is one of the premises of ID, so in effect you are trying to refute ID by showing one of the premises are flawed. If not, then why do all of this?

Any observation can be construed as subjective, in fact, I would argue that all of the ToE is like that.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I am not trying to refute Intelligent Design, I am trying to show that irreducible complexity is a subjective observation.

Didn't we discuss this somewhere before? IC is one of the premises of ID, so in effect you are trying to refute ID by showing one of the premises are flawed. If not, then why do all of this?

Any observation can be construed as subjective, in fact, I would argue that all of the ToE is like that.

Please do so, if I have made a subjective observation in the example being followed in this thread please point it out.

[August]

But again you are speaking on the industrial side of engineering where there is a specific product or purpose for the experimentation. Engineering requires a working knowledge of the materials being used. Properties of these materials is discovered through experimentation.

Yes, but those experiments are rarely, if ever, done just to see what the outcome would be. Most materials now are custom developed to meet certain specifications too. Alloys, composite materials etc are all engineered materials, and are developed for specific puproses. Maybe a long time ago, when new elements were still being discovered your statement would ring true, but I'm not so sure it still applies today. Even in the biochemical field results are engineered to meet a predetermined outcome, and precious little is found by blind discovery.

In any case the analogy I was originally trying to make is that engineering is an iterative process. This was the comparison I was trying to make.

I understand that, but the analogy fails for me because engineering iteration is towards a preset goal, while your position regarding evolution does not allow for that.

In biology the objective would of course be propagation. And not because that it is of any benefit. Only that things which do not propogate no longer exist. And biological systems don't work from scratch. There is an existing chemistry which is being modified here.

Why would propagation be the objective of any biological organism, where did that need to propogate come from? If the sole expected outcome is only propagation, why do we have speciation as part of the theory? Or is that just a side effect of propagation? Where did the existing chemistry being modified come from, down to the single cell ancestor?

[August]

Please do so, if I have made a subjective observation in the example being followed in this thread please point it out.

Well you have not yet reached any conclusions, which is where I assume you are headed. Once we have the complete picture, then let's look at this question again.

And are you trying to refute IC, and by implication ID? You still have not given a simple yes or no answer, and I have asked that 3 times now.