|
Author
|
Topic: ID Predictions made by an Engineer
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 12. December 2002 22:23
I would have to concur with MIT that many within biology fail to see the grandeur of the systems they study. Maybe this is like a jeweler who becomes so accustomed to the best diamonds that he loses the awe of them. As an engineer, our systems are like toys compared to life, and even these systems are difficult. Just try modifying an experimental rig setup. Usually Murphy’s law comes into play and there is a real difficult engineering feat that one has to be perform in order for the system to operate. In my organization they are trying to take the next technical leap, so analysts – like myself – find themselves in the precarious position of telling the researcher that their engineering objectives are not attainable. The physics doesn’t allow it.
Life is significantly more complex than the systems that engineers develop. Life can reproduce. It is highly robust and can withstand a multitude of environments. Life operates on the nano and macro scale. Muscle operates like a hot engine, yet at a significantly less temperature. Life incorporates a number of systems that are highly complex such as eyes, ears, noses, circulatory systems, brains, digestive systems, reproductive system, etc. The systems are highly coupled which means that adapting the systems is very difficult. In fact, it is reasonable to question the viability of the Darwinian mechanism given the coupled nature of the systems. Do scientists know the number of base pairs responsible for the making a thumb? How many mutations would be required for a thumb? Or better yet, how many base pairs are responsible for the construction of a simple eye? Certainly, by simple deduction it would be large based purely one structural considerations – modified nerves, light sensitive tissue, brain modifications, skin structure modifications, arteries, etc. Given the phase space over the genome (near 150 million base pairs for early life-forms) the number of random mutations would have to be astronomical to obtain the 30 or so changes in the genome, so added function would be achieved. Given the size required for the populations, even if the mutations would occur, the likelihood that they would be incorporated into a single genome would be near zero.
Frances asks
quote:
It seems that it may be too early to jump to any conclusions of the relevance of this to Intelligent Design. But perhaps Janitor could explain us through what approach we may be able to determine if ID has any relevance here? I would think such would certainly classify as a positive contribution to Intelligent Design. Is it merely the use of the design paradigm which is important? Or is there more?
Although, I argue against the viability of the Darwin Mechanism purely on natural processes, it could be used by an Intelligent Designer. If I were given the task of designing life-forms that have to live in a multitude of environments over many ages, I would want to make them robust. In other words, I would want them to adapt for the environment – just like brakes adapt to the road conditions on a car. I would design each species with a genetic diversity as well as incorporate "genetic sensors" allowing for simple mutations that have very specified changes within a species. For example, the genes that allow for the growth of longer hair would be a single mutation that would more readily switch on or off. The length of a beak would easily adapt as food supplies changed. Viruses would have a greater genetic fluidity compared to other life-forms, given that the host species immune system develops resistance. ID should be able to show a genetic range where small changes can occur, while at the same time show a range where changes do not occur. Some mutations should be observed to occur rather frequently, while others are "switched on" due to the environment. Natural selection then causes the best designs to flourish for a specified environment.
I was about to post this on another thread but it deserves a new topic.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 13. December 2002 00:43
Kyle:
I disagree strongly with your views that "many within biology fail to see the grandeur of the systems they study", in fact even a cursory reading of the many papers out there provides one with a completely opposite view. Even Darwin was quite impressed by the 'design' of nature. Thewy question is, and I do not believe that you have answered it in any manner, can the physics explain the fact of evolution? So far the overwhelming evidence suggests that this is a strong possibility. I understand that when looking at the marvelous world of biology around us we can only marvel at the complexity of it. But realize that the tinkerer had 3-3.5 billion years to reach this stage. It is of course always reasonable to question the ability of Darwinism or any other theory to explain the observations. You suggest that for instance the highly coupled systems would make evolution ala Darwin hard if not impossible. But that conclusion is based on the following logical fallacies:
1. You have merely marveled at the complexity, and believe that Darwinism cannot explain it.
2. You suggest that coupled systems are a problem for Darwinism but to what extent? Where these coupled systems present from the beginning or more likely were they the result of the process of evolution?
3. Data suggest that coupled systems may in fact help evolution
You then continue to marvel at the developmental mechanisms that lead to the thumb for instance. Yes I believe that science understand reasonably well how the thumb and other extremities arise and the presence of the well conserved hox genes make for a powerful argument in favor of evolutionary pathways. The eye has been described in its various potential intermediate forms as well.
Also to suggest that the early life forms had 150 million base pairs may be begging the question. You may also want to take into consideration that the mutation rates found from observations seem to be quite able to explain the genetic differences. I agree that the numbers sound staggering but once one looks at the mechanisms and details and realizes the extent of space/time one realizes that these numbers may hardly be that incredible.
Your statement: quote:
Given the size required for the populations, even if the mutations would occur, the likelihood that they would be incorporated into a single genome would be near zero.
while expressing your marvel at these observations, uses merely handwaving as an argument to reject evolution. Given the countless models and observations in biology which seem to support evolution, one should be careful to use appeal to marvel as a logical argument to reject these facts.
I stated before and was quoted by Kyle
quote:
It seems that it may be too early to jump to any conclusions of the relevance of this to Intelligent Design. But perhaps Janitor could explain us through what approach we may be able to determine if ID has any relevance here? I would think such would certainly classify as a positive contribution to Intelligent Design. Is it merely the use of the design paradigm which is important? Or is there more?
Kyle then continues to state that while he considers, without much analysis beyond appeal to marvel, that Darwinian mechanisms are unable to explain life and then jumps to 'intelligent designers' as if they have been shown to be able to explain life...
May I point out to you that so far your posting has been merely 'begging the question'? You make some assertions about intelligent designers how they might design. Why should we take your 'ad hoc' explanations as reliable? In fact if it can be shown that natural processes would explain the features, what relevance does appeal to designers have without much evidence to support their existence?
I can appreciate that the design paradigm can be helpful in us understanding how things work and interact but I believe they are far less helpful in explaining how they arose.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 14. December 2002 03:47
Frances,
If Biologists did understand the grandeur of the systems, they would realize the extreme difficulty in generating life and the burden put on the Darwinian mechanism. You claim that the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that physics can explain the Darwinian mechanism. You failed to comprehend my previous post.
Engineers typically do "hands calcs" to have a general feel of an engineering problem. Sometimes, these hand calcs show the impossibility of a new concept or sytem (e.g. too much pressure, stress too high, etc.) without requiring additional work or you know the results prior to the analysis. Well, we can do a simple hand calc in regards to the Darwinian mechanism. If there are about 100 million base pairs and a typical advancement requires 30 different mutations, we can can calculate an approximate number to the phase space. Being very conservative, let us say there are only 100 million positions possible for mutation (actually this number would be significantly higher). Next, assuming 30 simple changes required so that added function and fitness are achieved, we can calculate the phase space ( PS = (10^8)^30 = 10^240). This number is above the universal complexity bound for CSI. So, even if you had a 100 billion mutations per population, you would see a very small probability of this happening ( P(x)/population = 10^11/10^240 = 1/10^229). You would still need 10^229 generations to expect this change. I also did not include the problem of all the mutations being consolidated into one genome.
You also fail to understand the problem of coupled systems. Engineers typically try to decouple systems, where possible, to eliminate difficulties in developing the system. The significant effect of coupled systems is that a simple change of a subsytem, oftentimes requires a large number of other changes to the other subsystems. For Darwinism, this means you will need a large number of mutations to bring about added function that increases fitness. Without the increase of fitness, the mutation will not spread throughout the population.
Now considering that three billion years is approximately 9.5E16 seconds, you would need some very frisky rabbits (or other creatures) to account for neo-Darwinian evolution.
[ 14. December 2002, 04:02: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 14. December 2002 09:21
I could reply that we biologists also marvel at the design of suspended bridges, and through back-of-the-hand calculations we conclude they are utterly impossible to build by engineers, but I guess that would be too easy.
My question for kyle is where his figure of 30 for the typical number of "simple changes required so that added function and fitness are achieved" comes from. This requires actually answering a few more questions, before any sensible calculation is made:
What trait does he have in mind, that requires 30 independent mutations? What kind of selective forces on each mutation is he envisioning, i.e. are all mutations in question, taken independently and in combinations lower than 30, strictly neutral? What kind of mutations are we talking about (substitutions, duplications, genomic rearrangements, etc), and with what frequency do they occur? In what kind of organism?
In other words, how far back on the hand are these calculations made?
[ 14. December 2002, 09:25: Message edited by: charlie d. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
jhappel
Member
Member # 320
|
posted 14. December 2002 11:46
Frances wrote:
quote:
I understand that when looking at the marvelous world of biology around us we can only marvel at the complexity of it. But realize that the tinkerer had 3-3.5 billion years to reach this stage. It is of course always reasonable to question the ability of Darwinism or any other theory to explain the observations.
A familiar theme. All of the problems of evolutionary biology can be brushed under the rug of long ages. Like George Wald once said given enough time anything is possible. Just a 'simple' bacteria is vastly more complex than anything human engineers have ever developed. Evolution had what only 5 million years to evolve a bacteria from simple self-replicating precursors? Also evolution went from relatively simpler organisms to vast diverse and highly complex organism in a mere 5 million years in the Cambrian. Included is the trilobite with a eye more complex than any other known organism. Also despite all these millions of years of evolution evolution never saw fit to modify such creatures like the coelacanth, ants, horseshoe crabs or trips who appear to have gone essentialy unchanged for tens of millions of years.
quote:
You suggest that for instance the highly coupled systems would make evolution ala Darwin hard if not impossible. But that conclusion is based on the following logical fallacies:
1. You have merely marveled at the complexity, and believe that Darwinism cannot explain it.
What is wrong with marveling at complexity? An argument from analogy can be a valid argument. Darwinism might be able to explain it but it would go against what are inital impressions are of what nature can and can't do.
quote:
2. You suggest that coupled systems are a problem for Darwinism but to what extent? Where these coupled systems present from the beginning or more likely were they the result of the process of evolution?
Depends if there is evidence for this scenario you speak of or not.
quote:
3. Data suggest that coupled systems may in fact help evolution
You then continue to marvel at the developmental mechanisms that lead to the thumb for instance. Yes I believe that science understand reasonably well how the thumb and other extremities arise and the presence of the well conserved hox genes make for a powerful argument in favor of evolutionary pathways.The eye has been described in its various potential intermediate forms as well.
Just the simplest conceivable eye requires a lot of complexity at once for it to produce its function. And its hard to invision why it would be selected. The first organism with an eye would not have been needed for example to evade predators since they would not have eyes themselves. Plus evolution had to reproduce the eye about 50 times in the past history of life. Of course blinded to the tautology of their reasoning evolutionary biologists conclude evolution has no problem creating eyes because it happened independantly so many times in past.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 14. December 2002 15:38
Kyle:
I am confused why the 'grandeur of these systems' places any impossible burden(s) on the Darwinian mechanisms. I understand that 'hand calcs' may be useful for engineers but they are only as good as the underlying assumptions. Your calculations wrt the Darwiniam mechanisms seems to be 'begging the question'. It is always easy to fine-tune one's assumptions to make something impossible but the hard part, and that is what science is all about, is finding hypotheses and supporting data that explain the phenomenon. Thus I would argue that strawman arguments are not very useful to disprove hypotheses.
As far as coupled systems, while it indeed may help increase the robustness of certain systems, it can also help evolution in that it provides for fitness variations within the system.
quote:
Now considering that three billion years is approximately 9.5E16 seconds, you would need some very frisky rabbits (or other creatures) to account for neo-Darwinian evolution.
Why? You seem to be making some very 'begging the question' statements that seem to lack in any specificity. If you are making claims like the 30 mutations or the 'frisky rabbits' then I suggest you provide us with some quantifiable reasonings beyond 'hand calcs'. At least that would give as an opportunity to verify your assumptions. Charlie has provided us with some relevant questions that you may want to address in order to verify your '30 mutations' statement.
Btw in addition to time there is also space that needs to be taken into consideration.
Jhappel:
when you state that quote:
A familiar theme. All of the problems of evolutionary biology can be brushed under the rug of long ages
you are misinterpreting my statements. I am not brushing any problems of evolutionary biology under the rug but one thing seems to be required for evolution and that is sufficient time.
Evolution surely had more that 5 million years to the first life?
quote:
The oldest fossils are the approximately 3.465 Billion-year-old
Source
Age of the earth
quote:
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence
Source
You then quote the Cambrian where you claim that quote:
Also evolution went from relatively simpler organisms to vast diverse and highly complex organism in a mere 5 million years in the Cambrian.
Perhaps you could show us how the Cambrian explosion is evidence that relatively simple organisms evolved to higly complex organisms. Glenn Morton has provided us with some relevant insights in this fascinating period of evolution.
Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion by James W. Valentine1 David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin
I would suggest that the evidence suggests a different picture than painted by your statement. Perhaps you can explain?
Your appeal to quote:
Also despite all these millions of years of evolution evolution never saw fit to modify such creatures like the coelacanth, ants, horseshoe crabs or trips who appear to have gone essentialy unchanged for tens of millions of years.
seems to be based on a common misunderstanding that evolution requires visible changes. But as researchers of celacanths know, the present forms are different from their fossilized relatives.
quote:
Coelacanth" W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 1991 ISBN 0-393-02956-5
On page 78, last paragraph of that book, he / she would have read:
"One point has to be emphasized; The living coelacanth is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we could possibly include them in the same family. Beyond that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order Coelacanthini."
Source
I realize that the many anti-evolution webpages which use the coelacanths as evidence against evolution may have led to this common confusion.
ants:
Evolutionary Biologist Discovers Missing Pieces of the Evolutionary Puzzle in Ant Evolution
Evolutionary Predictions Post of the Month: January 1997
Not only a great prediction but another piece in the fascinating puzzle of evolution.
Tree of life
And then you end with a thinly veiled insult (understandable though still unnecessary)
quote:
Just the simplest conceivable eye requires a lot of complexity at once for it to produce its function. And its hard to invision why it would be selected. The first organism with an eye would not have been needed for example to evade predators since they would not have eyes themselves. Plus evolution had to reproduce the eye about 50 times in the past history of life. Of course blinded to the tautology of their reasoning evolutionary biologists conclude evolution has no problem creating eyes because it happened independantly so many times in past.
Let's explore the evolution of the eye controversy and see if there are any reasons to accept the above strawmen?
Darwin's quote
This page also describes a possible scenario for the evolution of the eye.
Evolution of the Eye (PBS)
Evolution of the Eye's
This ancestral "eye" may have been just a single or a few photoreceptive cells, the development of which was controlled by genetic cascade from Pax-6.
quote:
The overall morphology of extant eyes suggests the are non-homologous structures. The example of the mysid shrimp does not provide evidence of monophyletic origins but does question the dichotomy between simple and compound eyes, which may not be as clearly divergent as once thought.
From the evidence gained of the homology of molecules involved in eye morphogenesis and photoreception it would seem that eyes may have a monophyletic origin. This is not to say that the diverse morphologies evolved from a developed image forming eye but more probably from a light sensitive spot of photoreceptors, whose development would have been regulated by a Pax-6 molecule probably acting on an ancient opsin light sensitive receptor. Further evidence to support this theory is provided also at the cellular level, ciliary photoreceptors are though to possibly be ancestral to the rhabdmeric photoreceptors.
However the less parsimonous model of the multiple recruitment of Pax-6 may be conceivable. Nilsson and Pelger's "pessimistic" estimate of the number of generations to evolve a good fish eye is only 364,000 generations (Dawkins 1994). However this assumed that the photoreceptors had already developed.
Discovering the ancestry of a complex organ such as the eye is not simple. The conclusion I draw from the evidence at these multiple levels is that the image forming structures of eyes are convergent, but they sare a monophyletic ancestral origin, from a simple eyespot or a cluster of photoreceptive cells. The evidence of ancestry from image forming structures such as the lens is inconclusive, and probably describes similar developmental mechanisms utilised rather than homology of simple and compound eyes. The evidence studied at higher levels than the photoreceptive cells suggests a polyphyletic origin of eye. In order to discover the ancestry of complex organs such as eyes, it is important to consider the multiple levels of the structure, since taken in isolation contradictory conclusions can be drawn.
Eyes: Convergence or Homology?
quote:
Despite new findings yielded by powerful molecular techniques, all evidence still suggests that eyes have a polyphyletic origin, with the caveat that they contain homologous molecules responsible for many structural, functional and even developmental features
Hedgehogs make both fish and fly eyesHedgehog proteins drive waves of neuronal differentiation to create both fish and fly eyes, suggesting a common evolutionary origin of the animal eye.
Growth and differentiation in the Drosophila eye coordinated by hedgehog. Heberlein U, Singh CM, Luk AY, Donohoe TJ.
Pax 6: mastering eye morphogenesis and eye evolution.
quote:
Gehring WJ, Ikeo K.
Department of Cell Biology, Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 70, 4056 Basel, Switzerland. gehring@ubaclu.unibas.ch
Pax 6 genes from various animal phyla are capable of inducing ectopic eye development, indicating that Pax 6 is a master control gene for eye morphogenesis. It is proposed that the various eye-types found in metazoa are derived from a common prototype, monophyletically, by a mechanism called intercalary evolution.
also Here
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 15. December 2002 20:06
Frances,
In going over the link you provided for Glen Morton he references Grotzinger et al (1995, p. 603-604)with:
quote:
Skeletalized organisms, including Cambrian-aspect shelly fossils, first appear below the boundary and then show strong diversification during the Early Cambrian.
Yet, throughout the lengthy discussion I found no definition what is meant by strong diversification. I believe the point being advanced here is diversification over a specified time established in the record. I didn't see any time/record mapping in the paper. There is some extensive mapping of phyla to geologic time periods, but little demonstration of "strong" diversification within a phyla matched to geologic timescales--only assertions that phyla existed before and after the Cambrian boundry.
While a substantial case is made that phyla existed and diversified through the Cambrian boundry, the use of the terms "strong diversification" seem a euphamistic representation of "extremely-rapid diversification;" which I believe is the point being suggested here.
As such, it looks as if Mr. Morton (and Grotzinger et al)agrees that the Cambrian was a period of strong diversification. The question is was it too strong? What mathematical models can be applied to investigate the empirical strength of that diversificaion?
[ 30. December 2002, 18:34: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 17. December 2002 17:59
jhappel said:
quote:
Just the simplest conceivable eye requires a lot of complexity at once for it to produce its function. And its hard to invision (sic) why it would be selected. The first organism with an eye would not have been needed for example to evade predators since they would not have eyes themselves.
Taking the last sentence first, there are organisms which hunt by smell or other non-visual senses. I do not find it difficult to envision that the ability to use eyes to avoid such predators would be a selectable advantage.
The "simplest conceivable" eye would be a light sensitive spot within a single celled organism. Given the number of chemicals present in a cell and the proportion of light-sensitive chemicals generally it is not difficult to see that sensitivity to light would be present as a side effect of some proteins in a cell. For example, chlorophyll is certainly light-sensitive and both it and its precursors would have been present in some cells. The speed of the light-sensitive reaction would not necessarily have been a factor initially, at this point the best resolution would probably just allow the cell to differentiate day from night.
The complexities of the eye would not have to be present "at once". They would have developed gradually over time. Initially just the development of a photosensitive pigment which would allow the organism to react to day or night would have had an advantage. The complexities of lenses, focusing and so on would not be present during the early stages in a single cell. The metazoan eye could then develop as described by Darwin and the others quoted above by Frances.
jhappel said:
quote:
Included is the trilobite with a eye more complex than any other known organism.
Do you mean "more complex than any other known organism at the time" or do you mean "more complex than any other known organism before or since"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 18. December 2002 17:39
The topic here is ID predictions made by an Engineer. As a "brainstorm" discussion, as opposed to just shooting down ideas, what ID predictions could be made based upon engineering concepts?
I'd propose that an element of engineering not sucseptible to selection pressures would be future expansion and possibly scalability.
Due to homeostasis, it is likely that random modifications that do not directly benefit the current or near current succeeding generations would be weeded out of the population. Therefore could it be possible that an unused feature in a population that is eventually used in a succeeding generation of sufficient distance would be an indicator of design? If so, then how significant the feature, and how distant the generations?
A second avenue is scalability. Though life may exhibit scalability through random chance, it is unlikely that more than a few distinct features, randomly developed, would exhibit scalability. Is scalability an attribute that can be selected?
[ 30. December 2002, 18:36: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 18. December 2002 18:34
Irving:
could you please explain what you mean by scalability?
As far as homeostasis and the removal of non benificial variations, there is something called genetic drift which may or may not be relevant here.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 18. December 2002 22:03
Frances,
Scalability is when something is designed with a particlaur eye towards replication/use within a single system. Sort of like an M. C. Escher painting. The chunnel used replicating pieces designed to fit together without an over-all restriction on length. The pieces could have been used to build a chunnel twice as long, or half as long. In computers, a system could use one or a hundred micro-processors. The point being is that when the need (say environmental change) arises, additions of existing structures are added to the system as the adaptation.
Scalability Design is very sophisticated and is something not something I suspect would result from random mutation and selection. The thought being that random mutation wouldn't continually develop the same structure over and over--coupled with the concept that without pre-design, replicating components detract from function rather than enhance it.
As far as genetic drift...Yes, it may apply here, but I'm skeptical of genetic drift in general. However, I don't want this to drop into a debate over whether genetic drift is real or not, or it's application to Evolution or ID.
As a "brainstorm" I'd like to toss these ideas around as engineering predictions of design. Nuture the idea and see how it develops. If we immediately attempt to apply it to genetics or biology I fear people's pre-conceived biases will color the discussion.
I personally don't know how either of these concepts may apply to living organisms...though I suspect they might. I'm resisting the attempt to identify real-life examples right now as I'd like to interest people into actually brainstorming something first (then argue if life proves it out later).
Another way of looking at it is, can people on both sides of the debate come to agreement over what "might" constitute an engineering prediction of ID.
Then (afterwards) debate they research required to determine if the prediction realizes itself.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 22. December 2002 07:59
Charlie D.,
Yes, it would be foolish for a biologist to claim that suspension bridges could not be built when we have the actual engineers as evidence, including all their drawings and detailed analysis of the bridges. On the other hand, biologists do not know all the detailed processes that relate the DNA to the final finished life form. Could you tell me all the sequences of nucleotides relevant in the construction of a human eye? How about the sequences of nucleotides relevant in the construction of the first eye -- if transmutations occur as Neo-Darwinists claim. The truth is that no biologist can presently answer these questions, which are critical in the evaluation of evolution. Engineers do have an understanding of the development of new systems, which is relevant to evolution.
You ask about the mutations. In performing engineering "hand calcs" one attempts to realize the "worst case" scenario. The term "worst case" is relative to the problem. Our goal is to determine a realistic measure of the burden required of the Darwinian mechanism. We determine this level by relating the phase space of possible mutations to the number of specified mutations required for the advancement of the species. Remember, the mutations come BEFORE the selection. Also, we should include the populations and generations. We are not out to disprove Neo-Darwinian evolution, so we error on the side that favors evolution, since the majority of scientists support evolution. If we look at the most favorable scenario for evolution and it turns out to be impossible, then we can conclude that a naturalistic explanation is unreasonable. From an ID perspective, I am not necessarily saying that Darwinian evolution did not happen. I am only saying that we can rule out the "naturalism" from Darwinism.
You question my assumption that 30 mutations are required for added fitness to be achieved. There are a number of ways to show that this figure is very conservative. The following are instructive:
- 1) We can examine the structure or features required for the added function. We can examine the sub-components of the structure and number them. For example, a feather has the quill, and branches of "threads" extending from it. Also, the shape is important. We could use a microscope and quantify all the shapes and features. Included in this analysis would be the different types of feathers. Another consideration would be the colors. Finally, we would examine the extent of the information and try to observe ways to compress this information. After this compression of information, we could develop a reasonable number of mutations. The compression of information may be unnecessary given that it suggests ID rather than naturalism.
- 2) Another way to quantify the number of mutations would be to examine the physics of the system. For example, a heart acts as a pump in the circulation of blood and oxygen to the body. If we were to model the heart, what would be the relevant factors for the model? The viscosity of the blood, the shape of the heart, the shape of the arteries and vanes, the rigidity of the vanes and arteries, the muscle configuration, the valve locations, etc. We could next take each of the relevant factors and examine them individually. The viscosity of the blood is influenced by the volumetric ratio of the different "solids" (e.g. white blood cells) and fluids. The wall tension of the vanes is affected by the tissue structure and type. We would continue in this manner until we identified the relationships of the heart. Next, we would try to quantify the number of locations on the genome based on our analysis of the number of interrelated parts.
- 3) The processes required in the construction of the parts required for the added function would also be a way to quantify the mutations. Extremely complex processes would suggest a large number of mutations. This analysis would be more focused on the embryology and the development of the fetus.
- 4) The analysis of the interrelationship between different systems would be a method to determine the number of the required mutations. For example, the development of feathers would require the skin to change. Genetically, all the locations on the skin where the feathers would form would have to be specified. Also, the types of feathers would have to be specified. This would require a large number of mutations. This analysis could be used to develop the number of required mutations.
- 5) The genes may also suggest the number of required mutations. Genes contain the genetic instructions describing a conglomeration of micro-traits that form a macro-trait (this is one way of looking at it). If Darwinian evolution is true, the genes would have to evolve as new function was added to the life form. A typical gene has about 1000 nucleotides. There are four types of nucleotides, which results in a large number of possible combinations: N = 4^1000 = 1.147859E602. Given that there are constraints placed on the order of some of the nucleotides, a more conservative number would be generated by using only three nucleotides: N = 3^1000 = 1.3221E477. Clearly, the number is above the inverse of the universal probability bound (1E-150). The question that needs answering is, "How many mutations are required to bring about a new gene?" Clearly the number of mutations would have to be large.
I have outlined five ways to determine the number of mutations required for added function. All of them would suggest a large number of mutations – significantly more than 30.
You also want to know the types of mutations I am considering. In using a hand calculation, the type of mutation is not important. What is important is the phase space. I have been very conservative on the number of possible mutations, thus favoring evolution. If we included all possible mutations, I would suspect the phase space for each mutation would be more on the order of 10^30 or higher. The phase space of 30 mutations would then be on the order of 10^900. If we are harder on evolution and require that we must partially account for new genes in the analysis so that a significant added function is realized, then the phase space is significantly higher: PS = (10^30)^(10^4) = 10^300000. Even with this large number I am only saying that 10^4 mutations are required to partially account for the genes where the possible combinations of nucleotides is approximately 10^477 per gene. Evolution must account for specified genes that result in specified function. An unspecified gene would result in a blob of cells serving no purpose. The reason we want to "account" for genes is that a blob of cells serving no function would be a waste of energy for the life form. It would reduce the efficiency of the life form resulting in reduced function and fitness. The selective force would then weed it out of the population.
You were also concerned about the frequency of mutations. Over a sequence of the genome, we would look at the average frequency. Some mutations would be very frequent and some would be very infrequent. The net frequency associated with a large number of mutations would tend toward the average frequency.
Another question you have is the selective force for the mutations. The selective force is a function of the added function provided by the mutation. A serious problem for evolution is that if you break the mutations down into the simplest form resulting in reasonable probabilities, you will find little functional benefit from the mutations. There would be no selective force for the mutation. This is why I am requiring 30 mutations to -- in some small way -- increase the selective force. Even with the 30 mutations, I don't think the selective force would increase substantially. Effectively, the mutations would be neutral.
The arguments that I am advancing apply to all life forms since the beginning of life.
I just went online to ISCID and I noticed Irving's great post and I don't want to sidetrack his discussion on scalability. The phase space would have a direct bearing on the scalability. Many mutations would be required in scaling up the life form from one size to another. My discussion of a gene is relevant to the expansion of a life form. I think you mean the growth in function of a life form over time. For example, a new eye would require many new genes that must evolve.
Again, I want to point us back to the purpose of this thread. We are trying to identify possible built in mutations that suggest design rather than a naturalistic evolution. Are there "genetic switches" or single mutations that turn on a multitude of changes benefiting a life form that are built into the organism? Are there specified ranges where we can identify genetic fluidity and lack of genetic fluidity? Can predictions be made based on engineering that support ID?
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 22. December 2002 09:32
But kyle, there are literally hundreds of examples of single mutations which confer positive fitness advantages. Furthermore, we know of several complex evolutionary advances (such as new biochemical pathways), made up of multiple mutations, in which each individual mutation had a small fitness advantage. We also have incomplete but strong evidence of many complex evolutionary pathways for which intermediates were clearly functional and selectable.
So, going back to the suspended bridge analogy (which was in jest, of course), imagine that biologists would, without learning about building techniques, or looking at existing building plans, conclude that there is no way engineers can build those bridges (you know, they're IC, a bridge can sustain itself only once it's complete, there is no such thing as half a bridge, engineers don't seem that smart, the search space is too large etc). That would be silly, indeed, and certainly biologists would not dream to do that.
I suggest engineers should extend the same courtesy to evolutionary biology, and try to familiarize themselves with the theory, the data in the literature, and the methods, before starting any "back of the hand" calculations.
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 22. December 2002 11:14
A few random thoughts on some of the ideas that are being discussed in this thread.
For Kyle:
When I read your engineering approach, the first thing that strikes me is that your ideas lead inexorably to the proposal that living things must possess tens or hundreds of fold more genes than they actually do (for example, this is what your suggestion that "Genetically, all the locations on the skin where the feathers would form would have to be specified" conveys to me). I think that you may need to alter your view of genes and how they work, taking into account, as a hypothetical example, that a very small number of genes can more than suffice for, as an example, specifying the thousands or millions of locations of feathers on an organism.
Also, it pays to keep in mind facts such as that, in the present-day human population, each and every gene - indeed, each and every base pair in the genome - is sampled by mutational change in a generation. This, and the preceding consideration, have vast effects on the sorts of calculations you are attempting.
For Irving:
The idea of scalability is interesting. At first blush (I'll admit that I haven't thought on this for an extended period), your description brings to my mind one of the best ways by which morphological evolution is accomplished - namely, by extending (or curtailing) processes that happen early in development. For example, by extending the developmental processes involved in scale formation, one can open vistas that lead eventually to feathers. Perhaps scalability is something that can be developed in temporal terms (as well as in terms of functioning of components).
(edited to correct name screw-up. Many apologies, Irving. )
[ 24. December 2002, 12:24: Message edited by: Art ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 24. December 2002 10:16
Thanks for your response Art. I'm interested in what you mean by "temporal terms."
I suppose that morphological evolution may have application here, but I wouldn't want to get into that "yet." I like the idea that people haven't thought about scalability in extended terms. It seems so difficult to "brainstorm" ideas for which people haven't already drawn battle lines. At this point in the discussion, it shouldn't be about ID versus Evolution, but just the initial brainstorm on the concept of scalability as an attribute of intelligent design. Or perhaps more specifically...This shouldn't (yet) be a discussion about whether TOE incorporates some aspects of scalability, but what sub-attributes of scalability are the most likely candidates to be unique to intelligent design.
One such "sub-attribute" I would consider would be uniformity. To take a simple example of scalability, think of a square paving stone. Now some would consider a perfectly square paving stone as something Intelligently Designed from the start, but it could be argued that given enough time, the seemingly improbabable may have occured to produce such a paving stone. But anyway, given the paving stone itself, if one were to wander onto a beach and see an 8 x 8 grid of paving stones, all oriented the same way, and all equa-distant from each other, one would immediately conclude intelligent design. (Obviously another way of looking at the old watchmaker analogy).
What leads to this conclusion, is not the over-all complexity, but the uniformity of the design. I suggest that it would be striking to come upon a beach in which all the grains of sand were perfectly aligned with each other in a perfect grid. The design of the "patio" was scaled-up from the scalable design of the paving stone. It may be, that what makes the paving stone scalable, is the uniformity of the paving stone's design--its edges and corners.
When Schiaparelli believed to have discovered canals on Mars, the idea that intelligent beings built them wasn't the due to the fact that there were waterways on Mars, nor their number or complex orientations. The idea was that canals are uniform in construction. There is a link between scalability and uniformity.
While the paving stone example is simplified for illustration, I'm sure we've all seen patios or sidewalks contrusted of more complex pavers that geometrically fit togther in a scalable way to construct a patio or walkway of any dimension. In all these cases, the scalability and uniformity are readily observable. However, this doesn't have to be true for scalability and uniformity to be present.
The simple transistors and diodes that make up a simple logic gate are scaled up millions of times to make a micro-processor. The end result is an incredibly complex construction, yet the uniformity of its scalable design can be derived if reverse engineered.
While this concept is a different view of Specified Complexity than Dembski's METHINKS... analogy, in scalable design, it is uniformity that makes up the specified portion of specified complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic