The Blood Clotting Cascade Mechanism

[BGoodForGoodSake]

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.

Yes of course much of the above is true, But there is still materials testing ongoing to this day. But all this is besides the point.
=)

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.

The point is that iteration allows for better results than standard design. Every engineering principle we have today comes from mistakes and experience of the past. This is also why quantum computing is such a promising field, having as many of the possibilities in testing at once allows one to reach a solution faster.

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?

As I stated above there is no need for propogation. But organisms which did not propogate cannot be present today.

Take the nuclear reactions ongoing in our sun. The reactions take hydrogen atoms and fuse them into helium and lithium. If the process stops then the sun no longer shines.

Organisms which are in existence today owe their existence to the successful propogation of their predecessors.

Take a safari and you'll notice that animals are under very real pressures to survive.

As to the origins of life, that is a mystery to me.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

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.

No I am laying out the evidence, and trying to show how the system could have formed in steps. It is up to others to show where it is irreducible.
Also it is good to note as I am sure you personally know that I have no objections to ID. But if I were a creator I would love to set up innitial conditions and would find the buildup of complexity exciting.

From simple hydrogen atoms all the other chemicals have been built. Its amazing to me that as energy flows from low entropy to high that matter is rearanged in complex ways. Its like the hand of God is working right in front of our eyes! We as human beings can only work within these restrictions, we are slaves to the laws of this universe. What's wrong with describing the process? But lets leave my biases out of this...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

So, lets continue the analogy.

Josh and Josh's twin are both have the same skill set.
Now to make this analagous to the biological world, the company is copied countless times each time Josh and Josh's twin change. Now being encoded in separate genes eventually "errors" are introduced.

Josh and Josh's twin are no longer twins. Josh's twin, lets call him Joe is the same as the first day he came into work, so many companie copies ago. While Josh has changed.

Back to the biological world. Lets duplicate factor i (i for imaginary). At first factor i and i2 are identical. Since i2 continues its duties i is free to change. Now if you remember the factors have the ability of activating each other.
[tissue factor activates i --> ia
ia can also activate i --> ia
This is because protiens work by the way they are shaped and most of the receptor sites for all of these reactions are more or less the same.]

So back to the example, i now free to change develops the ability to cleave i2 better.
ia + i2 --> i2a
It is more likely now that i activate i2 then tissue factor will.
i2 is now free to change as long as i can continue to activate it.
Eventually ia may be more likely to activate i2 then tissue factor.

FROM:

tissue factor
|
i -> ia
|
X --> Xa
clot

TO:

tissue factor
|
i2 -> i2a
|
i --> ia
|
X --> Xa
clot

Above diagram details our imaginary example.

So we have effectively added a step of complexity.
But this does not reflect the actual blood clot cascade mechinism. It's much more complex than this. So what is the next step?
I would continue but I am sure that there will be rejections to what was stated above. So its best to allow any objections here.

Are there any objections to this post?

If not I can continue.

[Kurieuo]

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.

And thus we are left with the uncertainty of agnosticism. The most it seems you believe one could say is we simply don't know whether a system is infact irreducibily complex.

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

This seems like a rather obvious point to be arguing for. Aren't all observations subjective? If this is all you're arguing, then I'm not sure I see a need for you to go a step further. I can't speak for others, but I'll quite freely acknowledge that IC is a subjective observation, just like all my other observations.

In addition, I am saddened by the fact my two definitions (weak and strong) have been entirely looked past as though irrelevant. As I mentioned, the weak form (which is what you defined), can apply to something that has evolved. A system that has evolved can be weakly irreducibily complex if you take one part of the system away and it collapses. Of course if we reverse the evolutionary changes that may have happened, then such a system is reducible, but then this is why it is only "weakly" irreducibly complex. Something weakly irreducibly complex in no way takes away from the significance that against all odds, the just right proteins were duplicated, and just right mutations happened (within their finite range of options) to produce something so significant. I believe even Davies would marvel at such a thing, and Swinburne also places a high value on such a thing within his inductive probability arguments for God's existence (see http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html).

Kurieuo

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

So, lets continue the analogy.

Josh and Josh's twin are both have the same skill set.
Now to make this analagous to the biological world, the company is copied countless times each time Josh and Josh's twin change. Now being encoded in separate genes eventually "errors" are introduced.

Josh and Josh's twin are no longer twins. Josh's twin, lets call him Joe is the same as the first day he came into work, so many companie copies ago. While Josh has changed.

Back to the biological world. Lets duplicate factor i (i for imaginary). At first factor i and i2 are identical. Since i2 continues its duties i is free to change. Now if you remember the factors have the ability of activating each other.
[tissue factor activates i --> ia
ia can also activate i --> ia
This is because protiens work by the way they are shaped and most of the receptor sites for all of these reactions are more or less the same.]

So back to the example, i now free to change develops the ability to cleave i2 better.
ia + i2 --> i2a
It is more likely now that i activate i2 then tissue factor will.
i2 is now free to change as long as i can continue to activate it.
Eventually ia may be more likely to activate i2 then tissue factor.

FROM:

tissue factor
|
i -> ia
|
X --> Xa
clot

TO:

tissue factor
|
i2 -> i2a
|
i --> ia
|
X --> Xa
clot

Above diagram details our imaginary example.

So we have effectively added a step of complexity.
But this does not reflect the actual blood clot cascade mechinism. It's much more complex than this. So what is the next step?
I would continue but I am sure that there will be rejections to what was stated above. So its best to allow any objections here.

Are there any objections to this post?

If not I can continue.

At least you were honest and said "imaginary" example.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Something weakly irreducibly complex in no way takes away from the significance that against all odds, the just right proteins were duplicated, and just right mutations happened (within their finite range of options) to produce something so significant. I believe even Davies would marvel at such a thing, and Swinburne also places a high value on such a thing within his inductive probability arguments for God's existence (see http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html).

Kurieuo

Against all odds is viewed from hindsight. Anything leading to today will seem against all odds, if we don't consider or cannot perceive of the alternative.

Against all odds discovery after discovery was made which lead to the development of farming allowing more humans to be living now then ever were in all of history added together.

We could just as easily been thrust into another dark age. The resetting of mans accomplishments has happened many times. Today we are living in the latest itteration of human society.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

At least you were honest and said "imaginary" example.

If you were able to follow the discussion you would be quite aware that the process was simplified so that we could focus on the addition of a step.

I'll conclude this discussion oweing those who have been following it. Forgive me if I rush, I don't think many are interested in continuing this discussion.

So I have shown how an addional level of complexity can be added to the system.

We can do this in reverse and end up with a system where tissue factor interacts with prothrombine directly.
But this would lead to a moderately wounded animal to bleed to death. Because clotting would not occur at a high enough rate. So the development of this cascading system was a prerequisite to the development of vertabrate life.

But that has been done, lets do something novel here!
Lets suppose that in the imaginery system I add one more mutation.

tissue factor
|
i2 -> i2a
|
i --> ia
|
X --> Xa
clot

Lets say that a mutation in the gene encoding for i now causes i to fold in a manor making it resistant to the cleaving of tissue factor.
Now for i to cleave prothrombin i2a is absolutly necessary.
We have just created an irreducible system.

Heres the same example with the analogy.

Josh and Joe are twins, both with the same skill set.
Now to make this analagous to the biological world, the company is copied countless times each time Josh and Joe change.
the copying continues until Josh and Joe are no longer twins. Josh now takes orders from his brother Joe. But he also can take orders from the president, or show innitiative and find work for himself. But a few copies of the company later, Josh loses his connection with the president. No worries though because the order still come down through Joe.

But now take Joe away and the entire system breaks down.

President --> Joe --> Josh --> Mary --> Bob (and other accountants)

The president needs to inform all his accountants of a clerical error, however there is no Joe so, he cannot contact Josh. He has to call Bob and all the other accountants directly. Suppose there are a million accountants. There is no way he could call them all in time.
The company goes bankrupt.

We have created an irreducible system.
Remove any of the components and the entire system breaks down.

[Believer]

BGood, now that you have explained what YOU think on accepting Darwin's theory of evolution on this discussion with the science, how about doing the same for Intelligent Design? You yourself have said you do not oppose Intelligent Design.

[Byblos]

At least you were honest and said "imaginary" example.

If you were able to follow the discussion you would be quite aware that the process was simplified so that we could focus on the addition of a step.

I'll conclude this discussion oweing those who have been following it. Forgive me if I rush, I don't think many are interested in continuing this discussion.

So I have shown how an addional level of complexity can be added to the system.

We can do this in reverse and end up with a system where tissue factor interacts with prothrombine directly.
But this would lead to a moderately wounded animal to bleed to death. Because clotting would not occur at a high enough rate. So the development of this cascading system was a prerequisite to the development of vertabrate life.

But that has been done, lets do something novel here!
Lets suppose that in the imaginery system I add one more mutation.

tissue factor
|
i2 -> i2a
|
i --> ia
|
X --> Xa
clot

Lets say that a mutation in the gene encoding for i now causes i to fold in a manor making it resistant to the cleaving of tissue factor.
Now for i to cleave prothrombin i2a is absolutly necessary.
We have just created an irreducible system.

Heres the same example with the analogy.

Josh and Joe are twins, both with the same skill set.
Now to make this analagous to the biological world, the company is copied countless times each time Josh and Joe change.
the copying continues until Josh and Joe are no longer twins. Josh now takes orders from his brother Joe. But he also can take orders from the president, or show innitiative and find work for himself. But a few copies of the company later, Josh loses his connection with the president. No worries though because the order still come down through Joe.

But now take Joe away and the entire system breaks down.

President --> Joe --> Josh --> Mary --> Bob (and other accountants)

The president needs to inform all his accountants of a clerical error, however there is no Joe so, he cannot contact Josh. He has to call Bob and all the other accountants directly. Suppose there are a million accountants. There is no way he could call them all in time.
The company goes bankrupt.

We have created an irreducible system.
Remove any of the components and the entire system breaks down.

No offense BGood but if this is your way of showing IC by adding a step (or thru evolution) you have failed (you actually get an F). Now I'm not saying IC cannot happen naturally, it might; I just don't know. What I am saying is that your analogy doesn't stand a scrutinizing chance and what you have show is certainly not irreducibly complex.

Too, too, many possibilities to mention them all but I will outline a few.

Nothing to prevent:

1. the president from communicating directly with Josh, who in turn will communicate with Mary, Bob, etc. (biologically, to use another neurological pathway)

2. Or the president from communicating with Josh, Mary & Bob directly (use many neurological pathways).

3. Or the president herself being duplicated (the same way Joe was duplicated, why not the president?)

and so and so on and so on ...

I'm sure you will try to refute the examples I gave above but I'm equally sure I (or others) can come up with a million more.

Good try though, you get an A for effort.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

No offense BGood but if this is your way of showing IC by adding a step (or thru evolution) you have failed (you actually get an F). Now I'm not saying IC cannot happen naturally, it might; I just don't know. What I am saying is that your analogy doesn't stand a scrutinizing chance and what you have show is certainly not irreducibly complex.

Too, too, many possibilities to mention them all but I will outline a few.

Nothing to prevent:

1. the president from communicating directly with Josh, who in turn will communicate with Mary, Bob, etc. (biologically, to use another neurological pathway)

You forget the president is an analogy for tissue factor. And in the example tissue factor does not interact with fibrinogen. So no the president cannot interact directly with Josh. And if he could what makes the blood clot cascade irreducibly complex then?

2. Or the president from communicating with Josh, Mary & Bob directly (use many neurological pathways).

see above

3. Or the president herself being duplicated (the same way Joe was duplicated, why not the president?)

Your right there is nothing preventing the president from being duplicated.

and so and so on and so on ...

I'm sure you will try to refute the examples I gave above but I'm equally sure I (or others) can come up with a million more.

I'm not quite sure which side of this argument you are on.

[Byblos]

I'm not quite sure which side of this argument you are on.

I am on the side that you did not prove what you set out to prove. What you showed cannot be construed as irreducibly complex.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I'm not quite sure which side of this argument you are on.

I am on the side that you did not prove what you set out to prove. What you showed cannot be construed as irreducibly complex.

Please explain how it is not.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You may be building this support beam brick by brick, but you haven't shown how the massive structure it is supposed to uphold hovers in mid-air, awaiting the support beam to be built.

[Byblos]

I'm not quite sure which side of this argument you are on.

I am on the side that you did not prove what you set out to prove. What you showed cannot be construed as irreducibly complex.

Please explain how it is not.

I've already given at least one example above which you yourself said was possible. That being the president being duplicated and mutating in such a manner that it can cross-communicate with different Joes & Joshes.

Here's another assumption you made which is totally inappropriate since you have no proof whatsoever that it could have occurred differently, and I quote:

We can do this in reverse and end up with a system where tissue factor interacts with prothrombine directly.
But this would lead to a moderately wounded animal to bleed to death. Because clotting would not occur at a high enough rate.

You refuted my 1st and 2nd examples on the premise that a tissue factor cannot interact with prothrombin directly yet you acknowledge above it is possible if done in reverse. You follow that by the assertion that it would not work as it "would lead to a wounded animal bleeding to death". Now how exactly do you know that? Have you done any experiments and shown that that's what would happen? How do you know the evolutionary process would not have mutated in such a way as to allow the direct interaction between tissue factor and prothrombin, thereby speeding up the clotting process?

There simply are too many unanswered questions about your method. Again, that is not to say it's not possible. But you haven't shown that.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I'm not quite sure which side of this argument you are on.

I am on the side that you did not prove what you set out to prove. What you showed cannot be construed as irreducibly complex.

Please explain how it is not.

I've already given at least one example above which you yourself said was possible. That being the president being duplicated and mutating in such a manner that it can cross-communicate with different Joes & Joshes.

Yes but this requires another mutation doesn't it? The system as it stands is irreducibly complex isn't it? If you use that argument any irreducibly complex system is one mutation away from no longer being irreducibly complex?

Here's another assumption you made which is totally inappropriate since you have no proof whatsoever that it could have occurred differently, and I quote:

We can do this in reverse and end up with a system where tissue factor interacts with prothrombine directly.
But this would lead to a moderately wounded animal to bleed to death. Because clotting would not occur at a high enough rate.

You refuted my 1st and 2nd examples on the premise that a tissue factor cannot interact with prothrombin directly yet you acknowledge above it is possible if done in reverse. You follow that by the assertion that it would not work as it "would lead to a wounded animal bleeding to death". Now how exactly do you know that? Have you done any experiments and shown that that's what would happen?

I knew if I wrote it in a brash manor it would cause confusion. No I didn't mean reverse the evolutionary process. I meant peel away the genes remove the peices of the machinery and the animal would not be able to survive a moderate injury. IE a form of hemophilia.

How do you know the evolutionary process would not have mutated in such a way as to allow the direct interaction between tissue factor and prothrombin, thereby speeding up the clotting process?

Please, reread the example and you tell me. The mutations were spelled out and the result is what we are speaking of. You're not even talking about the same thing.

The first page of this thread shows why a cascading system speeds up the process. Then I go into gene duplication. And then finally a mutation. Resulting in increase in complexity and finally a system which may be seen as irreducibly complex.

And in the last example I showed that the president would take forever to call all of the accountants resulting in bankruptcy. This shows that irreducibly complex systems can result from a step by step process. Thereby reducing irreducible to a highly subjective observation.

You are arguing against irreducible complexity? This is why I asked which side you were on.

There simply are too many unanswered questions about your method. Again, that is not to say it's not possible. But you haven't shown that.

What is it exactly I have not shown? I'm not convinced you read the entire thread. You can PM me if you wish to go over it together.