p-value testing will never be the same again

[The Barbarian]

This doesn't sound IC to me though, losing a protein means the process works less efficiently, right?

Let's suppose that over time, a new enzyme evolves. And later, let's assume a regulator for the enzyme evolves, so that the enzyme is not produced unless the regulator is present. And the regulator is not produced unless the matter to be broken down is present.

For anything to happen, all three of these must be present. The loss of even one of these things means the system won't work. Is that irreducible complexity?

[TheLurch]

This doesn't sound IC to me though, losing a protein means the process works less efficiently, right?

Where does IC make any efficiency arguments? It very clearly says something is not possible, not that "it can happen, but it won't be as good."

Separately, why should losing this protein make the process less efficient if the enzymes all remain associated without it? Also, evolution can involve trade offs - lower efficiency for greater flexibility in substrates, etc.

[TheLurch]

Yes, but even granted their scenario, they have not explained the generation of these two proto-proteins.

You're shifting the goal posts. This is about forming irreducibly complex systems - not about the origin of proteins. You're doing the equivalent of complaining that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.

[shunyadragon]

The same argument could be made for poker hands. I don't think God is designing poker hands.

If you read the reference that described the probability concerning snow flakes you would find lee_merrill classically either did not understand or misrepresented the reference.

[lee_merrill]

The same argument could be made for poker hands. I don't think God is designing poker hands.

Welcome to Tweb!

But if I get the same hand over and over again, then I start to suspect design. That's too improbable.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Let's suppose that over time, a new enzyme evolves. And later, let's assume a regulator for the enzyme evolves, so that the enzyme is not produced unless the regulator is present. And the regulator is not produced unless the matter to be broken down is present.

For anything to happen, all three of these must be present. The loss of even one of these things means the system won't work. Is that irreducible complexity?

Well, the IC system here would be the enzyme and its regulator.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

You're shifting the goal posts. This is about forming irreducibly complex systems - not about the origin of proteins. You're doing the equivalent of complaining that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.

Not really, once you have these two proto-proteins, then the IC system (it seems to me) is in place, and then evolution can work in selectable steps to improve the system.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Where does IC make any efficiency arguments? It very clearly says something is not possible, not that "it can happen, but it won't be as good."

Right, so loss of efficiency would not characterize an IC system.

Separately, why should losing this protein make the process less efficient if the enzymes all remain associated without it? Also, evolution can involve trade offs - lower efficiency for greater flexibility in substrates, etc.

Well, apparently I'm not understanding your proposal. But an IC system with a few associated proteins would seem to be of the Behe and Snoke variety, which might be expected to evolve in 20000 or so years.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Welcome to Tweb!

But if I get the same hand over and over again, then I start to suspect design. That's too improbable.

Blessings,
Lee

Or a stacked deck and shifty dealer. Actually not to difficult given an expert slight of hand.

[The Barbarian]

Let's suppose that over time, a new enzyme evolves. And later, let's assume a regulator for the enzyme evolves, so that the enzyme is not produced unless the regulator is present. And the regulator is not produced unless the matter to be broken down is present.

For anything to happen, all three of these must be present. The loss of even one of these things means the system won't work. Is that irreducible complexity?

Well, the IC system here would be the enzyme and its regulator.

This was what was observed to happen in a culture of bacteria.

In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

[TheLurch]

Not really, once you have these two proto-proteins, then the IC system (it seems to me) is in place, and then evolution can work in selectable steps to improve the system.

Did you think about what you're saying here? You're saying that it seems to you that any time proteins evolve to interact (which can take as little as a single amino acid change), you've created an IC system. In which case we know and have seen the evolution of IC systems, and Behe's argument becomes even more laughably wrong.

Put differently: in your desperation to defend a flawed argument, it seems you'll say anything - even that the argument is even more flawed than i'm giving it credit for.

[TheLurch]

Right, so loss of efficiency would not characterize an IC system.

Then why did you raise it as an objection?

Well, apparently I'm not understanding your proposal. But an IC system with a few associated proteins would seem to be of the Behe and Snoke variety, which might be expected to evolve in 20000 or so years.

Let me try again:

Bunch of individual proteins that would work more efficiently when clustered together.
Scaffold protein evolves that holds two of them together.
Additional interactions evolve so that eventually all of the proteins are held together by the scaffold.
While being held in place, they evolve the ability to mutually interact, increasing the stability of the complex.
The scaffold protein is lost, leading to a complex of proteins that mutually interact. An irreducibly complex system has evolved without any intervention needed.


Separately, the Bene/Snoke number (unless i'm mistaken as to its source) depends on two premises we know are false: there's no neutral mutations, and mildly deleterious mutations are never tolerated. So the number is a fiction.

[Roy]

Well, apparently I'm not understanding your proposal. But an IC system with a few associated proteins would seem to be of the Behe and Snoke variety, which might be expected to evolve in 20000 or so years.

Or, as Behe himself has admitted, in a much shorter time.

From the Dover transcripts:

Q. And bringing it back to the prokaryotes. We're in agreement here, the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population, you said it would take 10 to the 8th generations to produce the disulfide bond?

A. Yeah, certainly. Yeah, the bacteria are -- can grow to very large population sizes.

Q. So the time would be?

A. Much shorter.

Q. Much shorter?

A. Absolutely.

A population 7 orders of magnitude higher would require a time 7 orders of magnitude shorter. About 18 hours. And a ton of soil doesn't take up much space - only a few cubic metres.

So the event Behe claims takes 20,000 years happens every day in his own back yard.

[lee_merrill]

Did you think about what you're saying here? You're saying that it seems to you that any time proteins evolve to interact (which can take as little as a single amino acid change), you've created an IC system.

Yes, simple interdependence can evolve, but it becomes unlikely when the system is complex.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yes, simple interdependence can evolve, but it becomes unlikely when the system is complex.

Blessings,
Lee

Assertion without objective verifiable evidence, and arguing from ignorance. The evidence of evolution demonstrates that complexity evolves.

There never has been proposed a falsifiable hypothesis for irreducible complexity.

You claimed that Intelligent design was falsifiable. Claims without substance are air balls.

Still waiting . . .