The Blood Clotting Cascade Mechanism

[BGoodForGoodSake]

"Conceals TNT behind back" sabotage? And I am reading your posts, how else would I be able to respond to them and quote them-I have to read them first-it's a rather well known phenomenon. And, as I found out when I started debating-you can't make claims-you have to back them up with something, or they're hollow and meaningless.

I am not making hollow claims, If anything I say is a mis-statement point it out. I don't want to have my posts filled with links and references.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

And point out why is a cascade with so many steps the best design?

Why not fewer or more or more straightforward?


What is the point of these questions? Are you asking if happenstance could have created a more streamlined design? I don't understand what you are looking for here. How about lets design a working alternative that is more simple. From a strictly scientific approach the most simple system to answer the need should be in place. IF there is in fact a cascade mechanism with "fewer or more straightforward steps" that would answer the need than it would only point to design. REdudant failsafes, complex interactions, these aren't the realm of science they are the realm of design.

Because we are still learning the intracacies of many organic systems. To beleive that we have all the answers is foolish and makes scientific endeavors obsolete. I hope this makes sence. We can only speculate on possible precursors.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I've been following to some extent these many design discussions. Quite frankly, I don't feel the issue raised is being dealt with. Both sides seem focused on two entirely different topics. Kmart appears more focused on "irreducible complexity," which is the topic I believe this all begun with. And BGood appears focused on the whodunnit factor (i.e., God) judging by the original questions of this thread. When I saw that KMart was introducing the blood clotting system, I saw it being presented as a case of an "irreducibly complex" system devoid of whodunnit.

Sorry Kurieuo, this is not what I am doing.
I have not strayed from the original topic.
I am attempting to lay down a general understanding of the subject, so that we can have an intelligent discussion.

Once that is done I will show a plausible way for a clotting factor to be duplicated. When this is done we can then eliminate many factors of the system because they could all have come about using the same method. Then we can tackle the remaining chemical system and redetermine if it still is a irreducibly complex system.

I hope this makes sence to you. I am not sure why there is such confusion around here. I stated this was going to be my methodology in the first post.

So, what do you think Kurieuo, should I abandon my attempts because no-one seems to be cooperating.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Because that has already been done, I am going to take a different approach. Also if we don't yet have all the answer it would be preposterous to do anything more than speculate on the posible evolutionary steps the clotting mechanism has taken to get to where it is today.

I'm confused. First you say that it has already been done, and then you say we may not have all the answers yet. Which is it?

Also, you are asking us to assume that the position that you are attempting to defend has "already been done". The contra position to IC is reducible, then you have to show the reducability via the evolutionary pathway to prove the contra. Anything else ends up somewhere in the middle.

Why do you find it necessary to take a different approach if all you have to do is show us where it has already been done?

Anyhow, please continue with your different approach, you have me quite curious.

Thank you august perhaps we can continue this excersize together!
=)
To answer your question, it appears someone has already tackled this problem and has a very complex explanation which I am certain is not meant for the general population. As is Behe's? explanation. However I have in my musings come up with a much more understandable and simpler approach to the problem and I am attempting to share that with you all here on this board.

I do not need anyone to assume that the problem has already been tackled it doesn't make a difference.,

And finally I dont want to muck up this thread with references to the other document, because
A. I wish to continue my train of thought without interruption.
B. I have no desire to defend or explain another person's work.

But for those who are curious I will leave the link here with the hopes that it will no longer be mentioned in this particular thread.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... tting.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html

The problem with this approach is twofold.
It assumes the reader knows his biochemistry and the Blood clotting cascade system particularly
And it uses other research results to suppose an evolutionary precursor.

This will always lead to skepticism by those who do not wish to grasp or accept evolutionary concepts.

In other words we can't use complex evolution to proove complex evolution.

So I will continue my discussion. All I am asking are simple questions and everyone questions me?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

All I am asking are simple questions and everyone questions me?

Is that something like the simple question I asked Blob re: whether or not he believed the universe was created or was always here and he went on a tirade of accusations? No it is not the same as I'm also interested in knowing where this is leading. Please do go on.

=)
Thanks Byblos,

I will leave a little more time for perhaps someone else to answer the questions. Tomorrow I will continue the discussion.

P.S.
I am aware that this discussion may not lead to a definitive answer, however if people become more interested in the topics deiscussed or learn more about basic organic chemistry than I will be happy.

[Believer]

BGoodForGoodSake, why dont you lay out everything you know in a post or multiple posts? Stop with going step by step and saying "I will continue tomorrow", seems like you have people helping you (get nowhere). I am also asking you to completely refute Michael Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box - since you claim it is refutable while no one else has been able to refute it. I also have an inclination that what you told me in a PM and comparing to what you post is a total contradiction. If you are God, lay it out here, ALL of it, and then we will refute you, since you claim you will refute all that we lay out.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The NEJM review has schematics of the factors, showing the many homologies of domains. The 5 proteases are each composed of a single peptide chain which is almost exactly the same length in all, and the point at which the chain is cut in the activation process is in exactly the same relative position in all 5. Eight defined domains or motifs, e.g. the serine protease domain, are located in exactly the same positions in 4 of the 5 protease factors. In other words, at this low level of detail all four are 100% homologous.

Same length-doesn't mean same sequence. If you have four sentences are the same lenghth...they are not by that definition the same.

The current scheme of the clotting system raises questions about Behe's concept of an "irreducibly complex system", which obviously rests on a reliably objective way to define the "system". Yet Behe flatly declares that the clotting system is irreducibly complex. One wonders *which* "clotting system" he's talking about

He's talking about both, he mentions it in the book, didn't you read it? LOL...puts into doubt the desire of the author to be honest.

Behe's approach of using the earlier nomenclature for the clotting factors is gratuitously forbidding to people unfamiliar with the subject. It has the effect of telling them that a moderately complex system is totally impenetrable, rather than that it is approachable and comprehsnsible. It's as annoying as watching someone try to present arithmetic to schoolchildren using Roman numeral notation.

The author assumes that the cascade is reducible to begin with. And false analogy-bringing up the Roman numeral analogy.

This immediately suggests to someone with an exposure to introductory molecular biology an explanatory mechanism (gene duplication) and this in turn predicts a huge number of other homologies. Some known or predicted homologies include:

You cannot call on gene duplication-because two copies of one gene is just that-two copies of the same gene! That doesn't give rise to a different gene...and he seems to ignore the regulatory system and control systems....

"Knowledge of homology is certainly very useful, can give us a good idea of the path of descent, and can constrain our hypotheses. Nonetheless, knowledge of the sequence, structure, and function of relevant proteins is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection. Gene duplication is not a Darwinian explanation because duplication points only to common descent, not to the mechanism of evolution."

Behe incorrectly implies that the homologies are few in number and confined to primary structure. He dismisses the vast amount of homology data by saying that it has to be meaningless, since the system is obviously "irreducibly complex" and that homology data is useless for telling us how the system arose. This is really no different from a Creationist rejecting all sequence homology data for evolution on the a priori grounds that it's illegitimate to compare different "kinds".

Behe is not a creationist, he's a theistic evolutionist. And Behe is not bringing in a priori decision like creationists (the earth is 10000 years old group)-he began his career believing there were answers to complex systems...but found out later that there was no answer to how things evolve. Thus, this book.

"For example, if the digestive enzyme precursor trypsinogen were mistargeted to the bloodstream, the potential for disaster would be very large. In the pancreas, misactivation of trypsinogen is prevented by the presence of trypsin inhibitor. In Miller's scenario one cannot plausibly suppose there to be a trypsin inhibitor fortuitously circulating in the plasma. If the mistargeted enzyme were accidentally activated, it would most likely cause generalized damage in the absence of a regulatory mechanism. It would not be a viable evolutionary intermediate." This answers the thing below as well...pretty sure

It's puzzling why Behe leaves out the obvious homology with the serine protease digestive enzymes. Standard texts such as that of Lubert Stryer have stressed this point. Surely someone with Behe's academic credentials knows about this material. The effect of Behe's presentation after using Stryer is like reading a discussion of the Shroud of Turin that totaly omits any mention of the radiocarbon dating studies.

His conclusion that "nobody knows how it arose" is highly reminiscent of the standard ending of a tabloid piece on sensational "discoveries". The ending is never that a new theory of space-time dislocation is being developed to explain the B-52 on the moon. It's that "scientists are baffled". It's reasonable to suppose that Behe is writing for a National Enquirer audience, since he's left behind anyone who knows something about the details of the clotting system or what Doolittle is talking about. It's highly disingenuous of him to violate norms of presentation to a scientific audience and protest when serious scientists reject his work. In one admittedly personal view, it is doing a deep disservice to a National Enquirer audience to write an account of science for them that encourages National Enquirer attitudes, and that is what Behe has done.[/quote]

There is no science behind anything anyone has said-it's storytelling. So, Behe is not wrong in saying nobody knows...science involves experimentation, remember? This was a crappy response, could have been better, but kinda pre-occuppied...will respond to other one, but read the in defense of the blood clotting mechanism link...

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefen ... ascade.htm

[BGoodForGoodSake]

BGoodForGoodSake, why dont you lay out everything you know in a post or multiple posts? Stop with going step by step and saying "I will continue tomorrow", seems like you have people helping you (get nowhere). I am also asking you to completely refute Michael Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box - since you claim it is refutable while no one else has been able to refute it. I also have an inclination that what you told me in a PM and comparing to what you post is a total contradiction. If you are God, lay it out here, ALL of it, and then we will refute you, since you claim you will refute all that we lay out.

I am going step by step because I want everyone to participate. And I want to make sure I am not losing anyone. And no, noone is helping me.
I have never read Behe's work and I don't wish to refute his work. I just want to work out how someone can come to the conclusion of irreducible complexity.

P.S.
K-mart obviously you are not reading my posts but focusing on points here and there. I even specifically requested that That you not try and refute the information in the links, in this thread. =(
I am going to have to ignore your posts from now on unless they are within the context of this thread. I apologize in advance.

[Believer]

BGoodForGoodSake, why dont you lay out everything you know in a post or multiple posts? Stop with going step by step and saying "I will continue tomorrow", seems like you have people helping you (get nowhere). I am also asking you to completely refute Michael Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box - since you claim it is refutable while no one else has been able to refute it. I also have an inclination that what you told me in a PM and comparing to what you post is a total contradiction. If you are God, lay it out here, ALL of it, and then we will refute you, since you claim you will refute all that we lay out.

I am going step by step because I want everyone to participate.

Why? You sound like you own this forum as if it were yours. I don't believe people want to participate because the things you say become contradictive and actually help us and not help you.

And I want to make sure I am not losing anyone. And no, noone is helping me.

Why is that???

I have never read Behe's work and I don't wish to refute his work.

You should read his work, and you are trying to refute it.

I just want to work out how someone can come to the conclusion of irreducible complexity.

Why ask us? Look at the information on the internet, don't make us repeat it for you.

P.S.
K-mart obviously you are not reading my posts but focusing on points here and there. I even specifically requested that That you not try and refute the information in the links, in this thread. =(
I am going to have to ignore your posts from now on unless they are within the context of this thread. I apologize in advance.

Again, you act as if you own everyone and this forum, and you just want to argue points. Why are you even on this forum asking us since there is PLENTY of information available for both sides of the debate on the internet anyways? What is the purpose of your discussions if you constantly set up straw man arguments and try to "refute" us?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

So the new rules of the game are "don't try and prove me wrong"

[Kurieuo]

I just want to work out how someone can come to the conclusion of irreducible complexity.

I may have missed it somewhere, but perhaps you should define what "you" think "irreducible complexity" means, maybe provide some examples, and what implications you see it has on evolutionary beliefs? I think this would be a fine starting point.

PS. If KMart has read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box (which it appears he has, and I'd recommend), Behe already explains the blood clotting mechanism in quite some detail. A lay person reading his book can come away with a basic grasp of all the inner workings that go within the functioning of a blood clotting system.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I just want to work out how someone can come to the conclusion of irreducible complexity.

I may have missed it somewhere, but perhaps you should define what "you" think "irreducible complexity" means, maybe provide some examples, and what implications you see it has on evolutionary beliefs? I think this would be a fine starting point.

PS. If KMart has read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box (which it appears he has, and I'd recommend), Behe already explains the blood clotting mechanism in quite some detail. A lay person reading his book can come away with a basic grasp of all the inner workings that go within the functioning of a blood clotting system.

The accepted definition is in this thread.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1219

[Believer]

Is that something like the simple question I asked Blob re: whether or not he believed the universe was created or was always here and he went on a tirade of accusations? No it is not the same as I'm also interested in knowing where this is leading. Please do go on.

I have not even contributed to this thread. Why not just say to BGood "I'm interested in knowing where this is leading. Please do go on."?

It seems you want to put me down. Perhaps such cross-thread smearing of my name evidences unreasonableness on your part, not mine Byblos.

There is a real, living human person behind these posts - and a sensitive one who finds harsh things said to be hurtful. Showing some consideration of others' feelings is not hard.

Well "Blob", I still question why you are here, you haven't answered my questions in other threads. You intend to be here for discussion on a fixed atheistic belief with no compromises UNLESS:

1.) You go to heaven

2.) You go to hell

3.) You see Jesus in this life

So WHY are you here? What POINT are you trying to make? I'm not trying to be mean, I just want to understand WHAT motivates you to stay here if you disagree with a lot of things that are stated, almost like BGoodForGoodSake in that it is "my way, or no way at all". You aren't going to convert, unless one or two of the above 3 points are fulfilled. Believers get the privilege to see Jesus while alive in some form or another. I just don't understand you.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

But, BGood, by the multitude of things you've said...you don't even follow that definition.

[Kurieuo]

The accepted definition is in this thread.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1219

The definition provided was: "Irreducible complexity means single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

There is nothing wrong with this definition, although I believe it a weak form of irreducibily complex. For lets assume something did evolved gradually via natural selection acting on random mutations. It follows a step-by-step process from beginning to end (one block upon the other), and so if this step-by-step process was reversed (with each block that was accumulated being taken away), then everything would assumably keep functioning normally although in a more primitive and less complex state as it goes back. Now lets say some biological system did come about by gradual changes. Because it did come about in such a way, this does not necessarily mean it isn't "irredicibly complex." No, such a system would still be irreducibly complex if it we possible to remove "any" one part and it stopped functioning. Yet, note what we have here is a weak form of irreducible complexity.

What would be a stronger form of irredible complexity would be the following definition: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal one individual part (no matter which part it is) would cause the system to effectively cease functioning."

I believe this stronger latter definition is what most people have come to understand "irreducible complexity" as. And if some system did exhibit this strong form, then one can assume that system could not have possibly come about by gradual step-by-step changes.

Kurieuo