Evolution and complexity

[QED]

I often see people rejecting the theory of evolution saying that they cannot accept that it could account for all the complexity seen in the world around us. I wonder if these people have ever experienced the delights of graphical computer software known as texture explorers?

Available as plug-ins for Photoshop, or as stand-alone applications, these programs generate images according to 'genetic' rules that are randomly mutated. A selection of 'newborn' images are 'bred' on successive iterations and you simply select the image that most closely resembles the final scene that you are after.

So if you want a picture of woodgrain, you run the program and choose, from a handful of random images which one most resembles woodgrain. The image you choose may not actually look like woodgrain (yet) but by breeding new images from the one that most closely resembles woodgrain at each iteration, you are able to home-in on it eventually. (See for an online demo)

Now obviously the selection process is based on us being the judge of aesthetics in this case, but it serves as a model for analogous evolutionary systems having other selection mechanisms. So if evolutionary processes can be shown to produce complexity from random mutations at this scale then why not at other larger scales?

[Goat]

The problem here, as I see it, is that this assumes that there is such a thing as irreducible complexity. There is not. The entire concept is built upon the false premise that evolution works by having entire genes and their proteins appear full-blown.

I was distinguishing in my mind (I guess without saying so) between the possible existence of irreducibly complex phenomena and the explanation of how they got to be that way.

I agree with your characterization of the false premise, but this premise, to me, is an additional assumption built into the ID argument and is really separate, in my mind, from my understanding of the idea of irreducible complexity. Maybe I am splitting hairs (or not understanding exactly what Behe et. al. are claiming) but it seems to me that irreducibly complexity is saying that a given structure as it currently exists could not function without all of its parts functioning and in place.

The ID folks then claim that evolution could not have produced IC structures because evolution could not have produced a sequence of intermediate structures that are less complex or parts of the structure without the whole to which they are currently attached. I don't see that they have shown this impossibility. To me it is an unjustified assertion, and despite their protestations to the contrary, is really an argument based on what we don't currently know.

We could try to offer 'plausible scenarios' about how flagellum might have developed, and this would address the issue of impossibility (Has someone on this or another thread already done this? ).

It may not satisfy proponents of ID because they will probably ask for actual evidence that our plausible scenario is what actually occurred. This, to me, is changing the subject.

I stand, as always, willing to be corrected.

There are, of course, a couple other examples of structures that are 'irreducible complex' that can be shown to either be able to develop naturally (in a repeatable experiment), or
on a macro scale, shown to have happened via fossil evidence.

There is an experiment where the gene to digest lactose was removed from a bacteria. (one leg of a three part system rendering it inoperative, the definition of IC). That
individual was put in a petrie dish, and was grown to be a colony of billions. Then, the food supply of the colony was changed so that the only food available to it was lactose. The vast majority of individuals died, but the ones that were left had another structure that had evolved (different that the previous one), that allowed it to digest lactose.

This is a repeatable experiment. It shows that Irreducible Complex structures can develop naturally.

Another example of an IC structure that can be shown to have evolved is the ear. You take away any of the three inner ear bones, and you have a non-functioning ear. However, we have fossil evidence that shows that this structure originally developed from the jaw bone.. by looking at the jawbones of the pelycosaurs , tracing the structure to the therapsids, and then into the early mammals. While this can not be 'tested' in the lab, we do have the fossil/forensic evidence that this happened.

[QED]

I often see people rejecting the theory of evolution saying that they cannot accept that it could account for all the complexity seen in the world around us. I wonder if these people have ever experienced the delights of graphical computer software known as texture explorers?

Available as plug-ins for Photoshop, or as stand-alone applications, these programs generate images according to 'genetic' rules that are randomly mutated. A selection of 'newborn' images are 'bred' on successive iterations and you simply select the image that most closely resembles the final scene that you are after.

I wonder if you realize that your programs were created by an intelligence. I wonder if you realize that every choice you make for you selections are made by an intelligence.

Let me set your mind at ease. Yes, of course I realize these things; I wrote my own texture explorer around ten years ago so I know the sheer amount of brain work that must go into such creations. However, the whole purpose in mentioning this sort of thing is to show that there are principles "at large in the world" whereby systems can "ratchet" along towards goals. In this particular example, being far better at programming than artistry, I managed to end up with images much more evocative and realistic than anything I could ever construct directly. In this case the key factor in achieving the artistic result is my critical ability to select each new parent for the subsequent generation of images.

Now, given that this is a device modelled along the lines of the principles of natural selection, it serves to show that a force for apparent design exists in logic. Replace the intelligence doing the selecting (my critical appraisal of each new generation) with the filter of natural selection (the ability to persist and reproduce) and replace the intelligence that devised the computer program (that supplies the environment for all this to take place in) with whatever (?) supplies us with a universe filled with potential chemistry's - and we are left with only one real question. All other questions, in my opinion, have a readily understandable answer.

Natural selection is a process whereby mutations are weeded out and the strong gene pools survive. Can you give one example of a good mutation?

Yes. And here's a question for you: what reason could you give me why there shouldn't be any "good" mutations? While I can appreciate that they may be in short supply relative to the "bad" kind, I cannot imagine anything that would rule them out altogether. For the principle of natural selection to operate it matters not what ratio exists so long as it is finite.

Can you give any example of a mutation that will show that a cat will produce a rabbit or anything else but its own kind?

No, because this is a non-realisticstraw man scenario.

[boris010666]

The problem here, as I see it, is that this assumes that there is such a thing as irreducible complexity. There is not. The entire concept is built upon the false premise that evolution works by having entire genes and their proteins appear full-blown.

I was distinguishing in my mind (I guess without saying so) between the possible existence of irreducibly complex phenomena and the explanation of how they got to be that way.

I agree with your characterization of the false premise, but this premise, to me, is an additional assumption built into the ID argument and is really separate, in my mind, from my understanding of the idea of irreducible complexity. Maybe I am splitting hairs (or not understanding exactly what Behe et. al. are claiming) but it seems to me that irreducibly complexity is saying that a given structure as it currently exists could not function without all of its parts functioning and in place.

The ID folks then claim that evolution could not have produced IC structures because evolution could not have produced a sequence of intermediate structures that are less complex or parts of the structure without the whole to which they are currently attached. I don't see that they have shown this impossibility. To me it is an unjustified assertion, and despite their protestations to the contrary, is really an argument based on what we don't currently know.

We could try to offer 'plausible scenarios' about how flagellum might have developed, and this would address the issue of impossibility (Has someone on this or another thread already done this? ).

It may not satisfy proponents of ID because they will probably ask for actual evidence that our plausible scenario is what actually occurred. This, to me, is changing the subject.

I stand, as always, willing to be corrected.

Goat wrote:

There are, of course, a couple other examples of structures that are 'irreducible complex' that can be shown to either be able to develop naturally (in a repeatable experiment), or
on a macro scale, shown to have happened via fossil evidence.

Your fossil "evidence" is mere conjecture/speculation and has NO scientific evidence to prove it. What you have is a religious hypothesis and is how you decide to interpret what you see. It is not science since there is no viable way to prove what you believe by experimentation.

Goat wrote:

There is an experiment where the gene to digest lactose was removed from a bacteria. (one leg of a three part system rendering it inoperative, the definition of IC). That
individual was put in a petrie dish, and was grown to be a colony of billions. Then, the food supply of the colony was changed so that the only food available to it was lactose. The vast majority of individuals died, but the ones that were left had another structure that had evolved (different that the previous one), that allowed it to digest lactose.

This is a repeatable experiment. It shows that Irreducible Complex structures can develop naturally.

This experiment only shows that a species can adapt. There is no new information in its genetic code to produce anything new.

Goat wrote:

Another example of an IC structure that can be shown to have evolved is the ear. You take away any of the three inner ear bones, and you have a non-functioning ear. However, we have fossil evidence that shows that this structure originally developed from the jaw bone.. by looking at the jawbones of the pelycosaurs , tracing the structure to the therapsids, and then into the early mammals. While this can not be 'tested' in the lab, we do have the fossil/forensic evidence that this happened.

Admittedly, you have no evidence. Why do you think the way you do then? How does taking away any of the inner ear bones tell you they originated from the mandible? Why not just point out that dogs and chimps have five toes, and therfore we are related to them? Then make the jump to bannanas and grapes to show how because they have a skin, we are related to them too

[Wyvern]

There are, of course, a couple other examples of structures that are 'irreducible complex' that can be shown to either be able to develop naturally (in a repeatable experiment), or
on a macro scale, shown to have happened via fossil evidence.

Your fossil "evidence" is mere conjecture/speculation and has NO scientific evidence to prove it. What you have is a religious hypothesis and is how you decide to interpret what you see. It is not science since there is no viable way to prove what you believe by experimentation.

Well gee if you only think something can be a science if you can perform experiments about it then the only sciences you acknowledge are the physical sciences and even some of them are suspect. And of course any information about the past cannot be gained because you don't know what things were like back then so you can make no assumptions about anything, given the limitations you place on yourself your only possible explanation for anything is that god did it.

Goat wrote:

There is an experiment where the gene to digest lactose was removed from a bacteria. (one leg of a three part system rendering it inoperative, the definition of IC). That
individual was put in a petrie dish, and was grown to be a colony of billions. Then, the food supply of the colony was changed so that the only food available to it was lactose. The vast majority of individuals died, but the ones that were left had another structure that had evolved (different that the previous one), that allowed it to digest lactose.

This is a repeatable experiment. It shows that Irreducible Complex structures can develop naturally.

This experiment only shows that a species can adapt. There is no new information in its genetic code to produce anything new.

I don't think you read what Goat wrote, the GENE responsible for creating the structure that allowed it to digest lactose was removed. Thus what was in the genetic code that otherwise allowed it to use lactose was gone, in order to make use of it something new HAD to be made. On another note what do you think adaptation is when it happens through use of a new structure?

Admittedly, you have no evidence. Why do you think the way you do then? How does taking away any of the inner ear bones tell you they originated from the mandible? Why not just point out that dogs and chimps have five toes, and therfore we are related to them? Then make the jump to bannanas and grapes to show how because they have a skin, we are related to them too.

Go back far enough and yes all mammals are related. So I guess pointing out that whales have all the same structures in their flippers that land animals do in their feet doesn't mean anything either then?

[Sleepy]

There is an experiment where the gene to digest lactose was removed from a bacteria. (one leg of a three part system rendering it inoperative, the definition of IC). That
individual was put in a petrie dish, and was grown to be a colony of billions. Then, the food supply of the colony was changed so that the only food available to it was lactose. The vast majority of individuals died, but the ones that were left had another structure that had evolved (different that the previous one), that allowed it to digest lactose.

This is a repeatable experiment. It shows that Irreducible Complex structures can develop naturally.

Could you site the paper please?

At first glance it proves absolutely nothing of what you infer.

This could be an example of ignorance of the genetic systems. Could you explain if all RNA was eliminated from the bacteria as well? Not only can RNA be used to produce proteins long after the DNA has been removed. It would explain that while dividing the RNA only made it into a few cells. Hence only a few survived.

There may also have been a backup circuit for that specific gene which has not been included or even looked for, failing to analyse for this coding would render this experiment flawed and out-dated. I would love to see the paper so I could provide an opinion on evidence that at first glance appears limited and certainly fails to illustrate your assertion.

The other obvious option is if this is E.Coli or one of a number of bacteria, there is the possibility that it had a reverse transcriptase mechanism.

There are experiments where the entire DNA can be removed from a bacteria and it maintains its function in different environments because the cell runs on the RNA and other systems within the cell. Removing a section of code does not necessarily remove the function of that cell or its descendants. Genetics is far more robust than this.

[boris010666]

Goat wrote:

Go back far enough and yes all mammals are related. So I guess pointing out that whales have all the same structures in their flippers that land animals do in their feet doesn't mean anything either then?

Maybe, just maybe, (and this is some far-reaching conjecture) they all had the same designer? The bottom line is: I can't prove to you that God created and you can't prove to me that evolution exists, so aren't they, in a nutshell, both religion? My problem with evolution is you proponents want to pass it off as scientific fact such as evolution are falsifiable, and can't truly be tested, hence proven as fact. http://www.elook.org/dictionary/scientific-theory.html

[boris010666]

There are, of course, a couple other examples of structures that are 'irreducible complex' that can be shown to either be able to develop naturally (in a repeatable experiment), or
on a macro scale, shown to have happened via fossil evidence.

Your fossil "evidence" is mere conjecture/speculation and has NO scientific evidence to prove it. What you have is a religious hypothesis and is how you decide to interpret what you see. It is not science since there is no viable way to prove what you believe by experimentation.

Well gee if you only think something can be a science if you can perform experiments about it then the only sciences you acknowledge are the physical sciences and even some of them are suspect. And of course any information about the past cannot be gained because you don't know what things were like back then so you can make no assumptions about anything, given the limitations you place on yourself your only possible explanation for anything is that god did it.

Goat wrote:

There is an experiment where the gene to digest lactose was removed from a bacteria. (one leg of a three part system rendering it inoperative, the definition of IC). That
individual was put in a petrie dish, and was grown to be a colony of billions. Then, the food supply of the colony was changed so that the only food available to it was lactose. The vast majority of individuals died, but the ones that were left had another structure that had evolved (different that the previous one), that allowed it to digest lactose.

This is a repeatable experiment. It shows that Irreducible Complex structures can develop naturally.

This experiment only shows that a species can adapt. There is no new information in its genetic code to produce anything new.

Sleepy wrote:

I don't think you read what Goat wrote, the GENE responsible for creating the structure that allowed it to digest lactose was removed. Thus what was in the genetic code that otherwise allowed it to use lactose was gone, in order to make use of it something new HAD to be made. On another note what do you think adaptation is when it happens through use of a new structure?

A gene was removed, not the entire DNA sequence. The code still exists in the DNA strand itself and re-emerged in a few specimens. If i cut off your arms, your body still remembers it had them, and your offspring will almost certainly have them!

Admittedly, you have no evidence. Why do you think the way you do then? How does taking away any of the inner ear bones tell you they originated from the mandible? Why not just point out that dogs and chimps have five toes, and therfore we are related to them? Then make the jump to bannanas and grapes to show how because they have a skin, we are related to them too.

Go back far enough and yes all mammals are related. So I guess pointing out that whales have all the same structures in their flippers that land animals do in their feet doesn't mean anything either then?

[Sleepy]

boris010666 wrote:

Sleepy wrote:
Quote:
I don't think you read what Goat wrote, the GENE responsible for creating the structure that allowed it to digest lactose was removed. Thus what was in the genetic code that otherwise allowed it to use lactose was gone, in order to make use of it something new HAD to be made. On another note what do you think adaptation is when it happens through use of a new structure?

A gene was removed, not the entire DNA sequence. The code still exists in the DNA strand itself and re-emerged in a few specimens. If i cut off your arms, your body still remembers it had them, and your offspring will almost certainly have them!

Quote:
Admittedly, you have no evidence. Why do you think the way you do then? How does taking away any of the inner ear bones tell you they originated from the mandible? Why not just point out that dogs and chimps have five toes, and therfore we are related to them? Then make the jump to bannanas and grapes to show how because they have a skin, we are related to them too.

Go back far enough and yes all mammals are related. So I guess pointing out that whales have all the same structures in their flippers that land animals do in their feet doesn't mean anything either then?

What?

Since when did I say that? Read the post please and edit yours so that you do not quote me as saying something I have not said

[Sleepy]

Boris I realise you were under a false impression. I understand the experiment suggests a gene was removed. If you actually read my post you would not have to revert back to weak selectoin arguments to dispute the experiment because there are possible genetic flaws to its construction. Hence the request for the source.

I must say however that your illustration shows a gap in your genetic knowledge.

[Sleepy]

To sort of answer my own question. The lactose gene studies that have been done over the last 20 years or so are to do with the E.Coli Lac Operon gene. It is a sequence of code with a repressor gene 'upstream' of the three genes coding for the enzymes involved in lactose metabolism within the cell. These studies used various techniques to inactivate but not remove the code for the enzyme B-galactosidase. The gene was NOT deleted but fused with another gene in the cells DNA.

Conclusions based on various different attempts to replicate this study have met with conflicting results. Even the most favourable of studies concluded that mutations which restored any lactose metabolising function occured before the lactose environment was re-introduced. This reduced the power of the directed mutation arguments to a small squeek.

Discoveries of reverse transcriptase in E.Coli complicates matters rendering this experiment a dead end regarding the complexity argument, at best it is merely evidence of mutation, which is not new news.