Specified complexity

[Roy]

More than likely he couldn't make any sense out of your usual science-free blithering and decided to ignore you.

I suspect Nick answered Dory's objections, but Dory promptly forgot the answers and repeated his objections.

[Roy]

The function that this performs, presumably there is function here, but I can't translate nucleotides to function myself.

That's a shame. Maybe you can do it the other way around? You've said that "the function of the gene sequence is side information that can be used to construct the sequence", so perhaps you can construct the gene sequences of FlgK (HAP1) and FlgL (HAP3), given that their apparent function is to link the filament tail of a bacterial flagellum to the rotating hook that provides circular motion? Without looking the sequences up, naturally.

[lee_merrill]

So, are you saying that anything biological that has a function is specified?

Yes, I would say so.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Yes, I would say so.

But we know biological functions can evolve, so that means evolution can produce specified complexity.

Wrap this one up, we can all go home.

[Seeker]

But we know biological functions can evolve, so that means evolution can produce specified complexity.

Wrap this one up, we can all go home.

No, I still have some replies to write. Damn.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I would say so.

Blessings,
Lee

This would justify the definition of 'specified complexity' provided by Leslie Orgel that is the separation of organic life from inorganic life that can be defined as falsifiable hypothesis that includes the beginnings of life through natural causes. I am happy you now agree with Leslie Orgel.

[lee_merrill]

But we know biological functions can evolve, so that means evolution can produce specified complexity.

Yes, and I concur that evolution can produce simple irreducibly complex structures, but as the complexity goes up, the probability falls precipitously, and the probability of design becomes reasonable.

Wrap this one up, we can all go home.

22 pages, I would say we're about done...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

This would justify the definition of 'specified complexity' provided by Leslie Orgel that is the separation of organic life from inorganic life that can be defined as falsifiable hypothesis that includes the beginnings of life through natural causes. I am happy you now agree with Leslie Orgel.

Well, because I agree with his definition of specified complexity, does not mean I endorse all his views.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, because I agree with his definition of specified complexity, does not mean I endorse all his views.

Blessings,
Lee

His definition is different from yours. His definition is falsifiable by scientific methods, yours is not.

[TheLurch]

Yes, and I concur that evolution can produce simple irreducibly complex structures, but as the complexity goes up, the probability falls precipitously, and the probability of design becomes reasonable.

You've already admitted in the other thread that you don't know enough about fitness landscapes or effective population sizes to conclude anything about probabilities.

Why are you so happy to reach conclusions from a position of ignorance? Do you think it's motivated reasoning?

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and I concur that evolution can produce simple irreducibly complex structures, but as the complexity goes up, the probability falls precipitously, and the probability of design becomes reasonable.


22 pages, I would say we're about done...

Blessings,
Lee

You were done along time ago. I addressed the atrocious misuse of probability with references in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-same-again.

First probability only may apply to individual simply cause and effect events that the sum of simple cause and effect events leads to the complexity of life.

The Lurch is right, you a layman will never even try to learn because of your Intelligent Design religious agenda.

[Roy]

22 pages, I would say we're about done...

So you're not going to show us how to determine a gene sequence from knowing its function? Such a disappointment.

[TheLurch]

For the curious, the DNA i shared was the far end of a gene called neurogenin2 (i think the mouse version). I chose that for some very specific reasons, which i'll now detail.

This is part of ngn2 that's transcribed into a messenger RNA, but an area past where the protein translation from that RNA is terminated. But, by chance, it has an open reading from that's big enough to be translated into a small protein or peptide hormone. These areas (called 3' UTRs) are often the site of gene regulatory information, and ngn2 is no exception. But it's only 1 of a complex set of enhancers that control the location and timing of ngn2's expression, which is complex and dynamic. (you can see some of it here: http://dev.biologists.org/content/de...600&carousel=1). Critical areas of expression include the precursor to the spinal cord in tetrapods. But to get that expression, you need the full set of enhancers. Taking just one like this in isolation will often give just a subset of the total pattern, or the normal pattern but much weaker, or sometimes no expression at all.

I chose this because it demonstrates the inanity of the idea of independent specification. By analyzing it, you could find the ORF, find possible RNA splice sites, find possible transcription factor binding sites, etc. - but have no way of telling whether any of them are relevant to its function. If you tried testing it by putting it in different organisms, you'd end up pulling your hair out (assuming you have more hair left than i do) because of the chaotic mess of results.
In most organisms, this sequence would do nothing.
In some, it might be transcribed and translated into a protein.
In a small fraction of life on earth (the tetrapods), it might drive some small subset of the activity of ngn2 - maybe in the developing spinal cord, maybe not.

The only thing that provides any specificity to the function of this sequence is the site in the genome it's located in - DNA provides the specification, as Roy's been arguing.

The last point i'd want to make about this is every tool you can possibly analyze this sequence with was developed by actual biologists; all thegene expression analysis too. The ID folks, despite yammering on about specified complexity for over a decade haven't even attempted to show how it could be identified in DNA. They are intellectually bankrupt, and their only accomplishment has been fooling people like Lee, who are predisposed to believe them, into thinking there's anything there.

[Seeker]

Well, the idea of a specification requires some explanation:

Source: Intelligent Design, by William Dembski

For a pattern to count as a specification, the important thing is not when it was identified but whether in a certain well-defined sense it is independentdetachabilityconditional independence condition and a tractability condition

© Copyright Original Source

So this is not merely a circular definition.

Blessings,
Lee

Hasn't that been throughly refuted and debunked by others here?

[shunyadragon]

Hasn't that been throughly refuted and debunked by others here?

Yes.