Pierson5 wrote:Their goal is to understand the system and create new drugs. I am trying to determine the origin of the system, not how the system works. You have said and shown, many times, you understand how the system functions. But, you are going one step further and claiming to have the answer and evidence of the origin (biological design). That's what we are discussing.
Their goal is to create new drugs. This is a given but like any other scientific inquiry they cannot create what they want because the system has a form of complexity that they are finding is necessary to comprehend before they can possibly form something that can affect in a predictable way. This is the point that has meaning. In order to explain something you must of necessity have an understanding of its functionality. You cannot explain the whole by simple observation of a component.
Pierson5 wrote:if you find a citation that examines this system and concludes "Therefore we cannot examine the components of this system to determine evolutionary history or its origin," then you may actually have something.
For the experimenters who are coming to realise that a systematic functionality is operating beyond the simple understanding of the components they simply call it a mystery because they were not expecting this type of complexity to be in operation. You would also need to define how the imagined evolutionary history could be tested. How can one test a historic occurance.
Pierson5 wrote:According to you, you already understand how this system functions in its entirety.
Indeed I understand what is minimally required in functionality to perform such an operation since this is entirely within the realm of physics to provide an explanation. Being able to explain how something can possibly perform a function is necessary to comprehension of such a function when it is encountered.
Pierson5 wrote:Understanding how the system works, apparently isn't the problem here. We are not using the individual parts to explain how the whole thing functions. In the first citation you gave me (which mentions the proteins we are discussing) the authors break down components of the system in the conclusion to explain some parts of the system. If all the components have come about through evolutionary processes, then I don't see a problem for evolution, or evidence for design.
The problem of course is that they cannot explain how anything could evolve to begin with. So a hypothetical conclusion that the components could evolve is nothing more than a guess without substance. In order to provide an explanation with substance they must be able to define how the coding in the DNA is able to be translated into 3 dimensional form.
If you think about your question carefully "If all the components have come about through evolutionary processes, then I don't see a problem for evolution" I would logically ask how might one determine if a component could come into existence by the hypothetical evolutionary process if the hypothetical process requires the components in order to function? In order for you to contemplate that a hypothetical process could form a component then you must of necessity be able to explain how it functions in order to be able to show how it could have formed something.
Pierson5 wrote:Woh, calm down there cowboy. What's with the passive agressive ad hominem assumptions? If you are genuinely curious, I came to this site with questions regarding relationships and raising children. You can view my post history if you want. I didn't come here to discuss evolution. This topic was brought up by a creationist and my main topic was getting derailed, which is why I created this one. I wish I was getting paid, I'm as broke as they come. I continue discussing this topic because it *gasps* interests me to see the rationale behind evolution denial and the human psyche in general. I would also point out that not everyone on the site is a creationist. Many are theistic evolutionists and raise the same concerns about ID as I do.
It is not an ad hominim assumption since everything was a question. This type of response is why I asked the questions to begin with. If both of us are speaking the same language then how did you miss the clearly defined questions? Really look at it again and see that there were a series of questions and every single question ended with a question mark to clearly define them as questions;
Do you not understand this?
what is your native language?
Are you being paid to sit on a creationist site and repetitiously promote evolution?
Really though if you are absolutely convinced that everything is explainable by evolution then why waste time sitting on a creationist site?
what could you possibly gain?
Assumptions are never posed as questions, rather an assumption presumes to know how to explain something. As for the ad hominim part;
Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
If you wish to understand my rationale for denying evolution then it is necessary for you to comprehend the argument that is being brought to the table.
KBCid wrote:For some reason you think that if you can show a researcher whose opinion is that something evolved then its as good as any fact. A very sad way to try and discuss a topic which in truth is not being discussed from your side. It more properly looks like a simple propaganda campaign.
Pierson5 wrote:Sure, and these scientist's "opinions" are based on experimentation, which they happen to actually publish.
Ok then show me their published experiments that show how they tested for systems to have evolved in the past. Show me their published results from any experiment that shows how an irreducibly complex system arises by chance. Show me the empirical test where a system arose by evolution even. Show me where evolution is not simply an assumption in any of the current tests.
We all know that they have a priori commitments this is why their opinions mean nothing to anyone who actually challenges their assumptions.
You should also realise that your argument is based on a fallacy of Argument from authority.
Pierson5 wrote:The researchers examining the components of this system come to the conclusion that these evolved, or have no problem with evolution in general.
How exactly do they know that the components evolved. Define how the assumption was empirically tested. If I design a robot that replicates itself and it does so for a million years how could you determine whether it was natural vs. designed after a million years? Would it not still use the same system to perform the actions. Would we not see that the same components are observable in the fossilised remains? The assumption of evolution is just that an assumption. However, there is a new concept coming forward. This one recognises that there must be a system in place to spatiotemporally control matter before replication can occur and before evolution can operate. How would you explain it from a naturalism perspective? Poof it just appeared by chance.
Pierson5 wrote:I guess presenting peer-reviewed, published data which shows the system provides no problem to evolution is a sad way to argue my case indeed. I welcome you to provide evidence for the system (or any of its components) which concludes it was impossible to have come about through evolution/or was designed. Show me one citation that comes to that conclusion.
The problem is that you have not actually presented that kind of evidence. First and foremost neither you nor they provide a testable solution to show how something evolved.
The evidence for the system is outlayed in every experiment and noted by the researchers as an undefined control in operation. The evidence for how such a system arises is provided by all the systems already designed and the fact that no empirical test has shown that a system can evolve. Let's have a contest. You post every occurance of a system evolving and I will post every occurance of a system that was designed and then we will go with the observable evidence for how they can possibly come into existence ok? I know, I know... You will avoid all of this since you can't post what doesn't exist. Most of us are used to that.
Pierson5 wrote:The researchers actually doing experiments and publishing data come to the conclusion that these proteins have an evolutionary heritage. You have not provided one citation (only your personal rationale) which concludes this system (either parts, or as a whole) could not have come about through evolution, or is Irreducibly Complex, or is the product of biological "Intelligent Design." The most information you have given regarding an actual experiment is:
KBCid wrote:My proposition is that intelligence can be tested and that it can leave telltale signatures of its having acted that are discernable.
Fascinating, why don't you give us an example on how you would test this in the field of biology?
A knockout experiment of all the individual components necessary for replication to occur will define the extent of the system. Since replication is the necessary functionality for the conceptual hypothesis of evolution to occur then it is a simple rationale to infer that all of the components observable were necessary prior to replication in order for replication to begin. Since a telltale signature of intelligent agency is the formation of irreducibly complex systems then you have evidence for ID required. simple. Try it on for size yourself. What do you think is minimally required in order for something to replicate in 3 dimensions. Current science has asserted that the simplest system possible is between 100 to 200 genes. what is your logical guess for minimal complexity required? and then try and describe how such an irreducibly complex system could begin by chance.
KBCid wrote:A specifiable function has specifiable physical requirements. We won't need to wait a million years to perform a test. Not one aspect of the spatiotemporal system is beyond the scientific method and every evidence we currently posess shows that such a system is beyond chance occurance since you can't evolve such a system when evolving depends on such a system to begin functioning.
Pierson5 wrote:Really? Because all the evidence involving the components have been determined to have evolutionary heritage. I have yet to see you provide one piece of evidence which concludes this system could not have arisen through evolutionary processes. Not one citation that concludes the system is irreducibly complex. Not one citation which concludes this is evidence for design.
The empirical evidence that has already been determined in the building of similar systems which have occured by design has defined that such a system is irreducibly complex. It has minimal requirements in order to function. Common sense should tell you that there are minimal requirements for any system to function. Minimal requirements = irreducible complexity
We should also consider how such systems have they been experimentally shown to come into existence by the evolutionary mechanism? define the experiment. Really, can you show one experiment that has shown how a system or its components came into existence? Scientists are guessing that such an arrangement can occur where they infer evolutionary possibility.
The evidence that the components did not occur by the conceptual evolutionary system is a logic based understanding that evolution cannot begin without replication and replication requires the components that allow the system to function to exist prior to functionality. This is a systems engineering foundational understanding. Systematic functionality requires a minimal set of components in order to allow for a function to occur. The system of life cannot function without a specifiable set of components to allow the operation to occur and replication of 3 dimensional form has specifiable minimal functionality and components required. For every effect there is a cause. So no one can make the illogical assumption that the evolutionary mechanism is the cause for the system and components that it requires in order to function in the first place.
Do you disagree that evolution can't occur until replication occurs? Do you disagree that replication of 3 dimensional form requires specifiable minimal complexity in order to occur? if so then define how you logically make such conclusions. If your position is that function can logically occur without a minimal specifiable complexity then you are asserting that an effect doesn't need to have a definable cause.
Pierson5 wrote:Also, where is your experiment? Why don't you walk us through an experiment (using naturalistic methodology or not) which concludes the system could not have come about through evolution/was designed. Or you can cite another researcher's experiment, doesn't matter to me.
You can look at any positional control system of matter currently existing that comes from design (because there are none shown to have evolved) and see what the minimal requirements of them are. You can also reference to the scientific assertion of the necessity for there to minimally be between 100 and 200 genes in order for replication to occur and life to exist. Every single occurance of systematic control of matter is an experiment to define minimal requirements for a function to occur. Every factory in existence is evidence for there being minimal requirements to perform a function. Would you like to explore this? Do you want to delve into applied physics to see why effect x has minimal requirements of causation?
We can begin here;
Motion
...An object's motion cannot change unless it is acted upon by a force, as described by Newton's first law.
Laws of Motion
Motions of all large scale and familiar objects in the universe (such as projectiles, planets, cells, and humans) are described by classical mechanics.
Classical mechanics
Classical mechanics is used for describing the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies. It produces very accurate results within these domains, and is one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering, and technology.
Planar motion
While all motion in a mechanical system occurs in three dimensional space, planar motion can be analyzed using plane geometry, if all point trajectories are parallel to a plane. In this case the system is called a planar mechanism (or robot). The kinematic analysis of planar mechanisms uses the subset of SE(3) consisting of planar rotations and translations, denoted SE(2).
The group SE(2) is three dimensional, which means that every position of a body in the plane is defined by three parameters. The parameters are often the x and y coordinates of the origin of a coordinate frame in M measured from the origin of a coordinate frame in F, and the angle measured from the x-axis in F to the x-axis in M. This is described saying a body in the plane has three degrees-of-freedom.
Spatial motion
A mechanical system in which a body moves through a general spatial movement is called a spatial mechanism. An example is the RSSR linkage, which can be viewed as a four-bar linkage in which the hinged joints of the coupler link are replaced by rod ends, also called spherical joints or ball joints. The rod ends allow the input and output cranks of the RSSR linkage to be misaligned to the point that they lie in different planes, which causes the coupler link to move in a general spatial movement. Robot arms, Stewart platforms, and humanoid robotic systems are also examples of spatial mechanisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)
Newton's laws of motion
Newton's first law of motion, also called the law on inertia, states that an object continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion unless compelled to change that state by an external force.
Newton's second law of motion states that if a net force acts on an object, it will cause an acceleration of that object.
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/pract ... aws-motion
Do you require that an evolutionary biologist perform empirical tests to accept the laws of physics?
Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome
Abstract
We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.
Our interest in synthesis of large DNA molecules and chromosomes grew out of our efforts over the past 15 years to build a minimal cell that contains only essential genes. This work was inaugurated in 1995 when we sequenced the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium, a bacterium with the smallest complement of genes of any known organism capable of independent growth in the laboratory. More than 100 of the 485 protein-coding genes of M. genitalium are dispensable when disrupted one at a time (knockout experiments).
obtaining an error-free genome that could be transplanted into a recipient cell to create a new cell controlled only by the synthetic genome was complicated and required many quality-control steps. Our success was thwarted for many weeks by a single–base pair deletion in the essential gene dnaA. One wrong base out of more than 1 million in an essential gene rendered the genome inactive, whereas major genome insertions and deletions in nonessential parts of the genome had no observable effect on viability
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.abstract
Here is an empirical study that is defining what is minimally required for life and replication. How simple is this living system? do you believe it can just happen by chance? based on what evidence?
The Science of Chemical Evolution
by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.
In an attempt to explain the origin of life, scientists propose a two-stage process of natural chemical evolution:
1) formation of organic molecules, which combine to make larger biomolecules;
2) self-organization of these molecules into a living organism.
For each stage, scientists are learning that what is required for life seems to be much greater than what is possible by natural process. This huge difference has motivated scientists to creatively construct new theories for reducing requirements and enhancing possibilities, but none of these ideas has progressed from speculation to plausibility.
The simplest "living system" we can imagine, involving hundreds of components interacting in an organized way to achieve energy production and self-replication, would be extremely difficult to assemble by undirected natural process. And all of this self-organization would have to occur before natural selection (which depends on self-replication) was available.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origi ... cal-cr.htm
My view is not alone out there. Others who can rationalise system mechanics have a similar position. The system required to allow for replication and life to proceed are irreducibly complex and required prior to any conceptual mechanism of evolution begining to function.
KBCid wrote:Oh I have gotten responses... mostly that they are too busy with their own research to get involved in something that they don't really comprehend. But of course even this is just another of your methods to try and distract from discussing the system and its clear implications. As I noted very early in the other thread this is a topic that is just becoming clear to researchers as we can now observe 3 dimensional interactions live, so research will come sooner than you think and the evidence will just become clearer as the system is more fully understood.
Pierson5 wrote:You have gotten responses? Why did you say:
"I have sent my paper to numerous places on the evo side and so far no reply"
Because there is a difference between speaking with people directly and paper submission. Either way there is no direct reply that made any difference. However, this doesn't mean that I have not gotten favorable replies from biologists involved in the field.
Pierson5 wrote:They are too busy? Have you sent your paper in to be published? You haven't held meetings or conferences? I mean, this is evidence for design you are talking about. Nobel Prize winning evidence. If you are saying the evidence will become clear eventually and you don't actually have anything now, then we have nothing else to talk about. So far, from what I understand, this "evidence" has not yet been examined by the scientific community and is just one guy's (KBCid) rationale/opinion.
I can't publish in an area of research that I don't have the equiptment to perform the testing with. This is why my paper has been submittted to those who can test and publish. Even Einstein couldn't test his theory about relativety, he needed others to do the test. Does that mean that his theory had no value and that there is nothing to discuss? Note that there were no other scientists dealing with his solution and there were no current empirical tests or papers dealing with the subject when he was working on his paper. I can see you arguing with him and making the same illogical inferences about how no other scientific authority has provided any empirical tests or made any statements that matched his. lol