Irreducible complication

Tenshinai wrote:

DDHv wrote:Science should filter based on empirical testing, not consensus. How many polities can you name using Keynesian economics that are in good shape after five generations? Much of my current preference for the Austrian school comes from poorly performing Keynesian policies.
Given a better economic theory, I'll switch.

It needs to be noted that just about noone actually USED Keynesian economic policies.
Taxes lowered when economy went down, then instead of raising taxes when economy went up, the morons borrowed money.

Well duh, of course finances are going to be crippled when you only do the spendy side of an economic theory.

They did raise taxes, they just spent even more and borrowed the difference.
------------------
It is not within the power of government to increase value, only to raise cost.

Imaginos1892 wrote:They did raise taxes, they just spent even more and borrowed the difference.
------------------
It is not within the power of government to increase value, only to raise cost.

The point was that noone actually followed Keynes theories beyond when it suited them(lowering taxes) or when they absolutely had to(raising taxes) instead of following the economics as it was meant to work.

Simulations done also suggests that it would have worked, more or less, if actually adhered to. But with raising taxes always being so dreadfully unpopular, nope.

From: http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/22/2/121.full

snip
It has long been debated whether the processes and mechanisms responsible for phenotypic variation within a population or between closely related populations can be extrapolated to explain evolutionary trends over longer phylogenetic distances and especially the generation of novel structures. Although there has been great progress in recent years in addressing the genetic basis for microevolutionary changes, for the most part these efforts have done little to address this debate.
snip
Several morphological changes were required to derive the bat wing from its ancestral form, (five listed)
snip
This theme was developed as a central critique by perhaps the most formidable of Darwin’s contemporary critics, St. George Mivart, in his major treatise, On the Genesis of Species (Mivart 1871). Indeed, the title of the chapter in which he laid out this counterargument has become the standard phrase for describing this paradox: “The Incompetency of ‘Natural Selection’ to Account for Incipient Stages of Useful Structures.” In essence, as the argument is commonly posed: What good is 2% of a wing?
snip
However, the ancestors of modern bats that first appear in the fossil record ∼50 million years ago during the Eocene already have (3 morphological listed)

From: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/17/6581.full

Forelimb Digits of Fossil and Modern Bats Are Highly Similar.

First, we compared the wing elements of the earliest known fossil (Fig. 1 a) and modern bats (Fig. 1 b) by using a morphometric analysis of length and width data from the forelimb bones of several fossil bats and representative species from many modern bat families.
snip
These findings indicate that the bat wing digit proportions have not changed substantially during the past 50 million years of evolution.

From: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php ... O-C.2010.2

New functions requiring multiple mutations are thought to be evolutionarily feasible if they can be achieved by means of adaptive paths-successions of simple adaptations each involving a single mutation.
snip
Consequently, the relative abundance of these kinds of adaptive paths--constructive paths leading to new function versus reductive paths that increase metabolic efficiency--is an important evolutionary constraint.
snip
while the other is fully inactivating, thus permitting a two-step adaptive path to full tryptophan biosynthesis. Despite the theoretical existence of this short adaptive path to high fitness, multiple independent lines grown in tryptophan-limiting liquid culture failed to take it. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the double-mutant trpA gene. Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken. This finding has particular significance for models of gene recruitment, since weak new functions are likely to require costly over-expression in order to improve fitness. If reductive, cost-cutting mutations are more abundant than mutations that convert or improve function, recruitment may be unlikely even in cases where a short adaptive path to a new function exists.

The Gauger, et al experiment shows that when a metabolic load exists, devolution can occur, which is not evolution.
Another example is the blind animals in caves.

The ability of mutations to increase Shannon information is not disputed. What is disputed is the ability to produce functional advantageous information conferring advantages that can be selected. As the number of needed changes increases before an advantage is reached, the difficulty increases greatly, and the probability of devolution enlarges.

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163

snip
Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property. Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations.
snip
At smaller population sizes, the time to fixation varies linearly with 1/N and exceeds the inverse of the point mutation rate. (from abstract)

We all have biases and make assumptions from them. Asserting an assumption and demonstrating it are two different things.

Spacekiwi wrote:snip
we only know that there was one becasue genetics nd morphology and cladistics show us that something happened that favoured the natural selectionary pressures that led to modern day bats.
snip
SO we know the conditions required to form abiotic life, and we can prove the intermediate steps from simple chemcial pathways to basic cell forms, and we can prove that given other conditions, the balance of the chemistry in our cells would be different hd it not evolved this way.
snip

Asserting evolution to prove evolution is a circular argument. Good science uses high confidence evidence to cut this Gordian knot. Pseudo science uses low confidence evidence.
St. George Mivart made a good point, which still exists. High confidence experiments and observations demonstrate micro evolution and devolution. Retrospective observations are low confidence evidence. They can suggest macro evolution. Many assert they show it. Low confidence evidence allows free rein to our biases and resulting assumptions. Further experimentation in genome sequencing is likely to cut a few Gordian knots

Imaginos1892 wrote:

DDHv wrote:Read: Rankin, L. C. et al. Complementarity and redundancy of IL-22-producing innate lymphoid cells. Nature Immunology. Published online before print November 30, 2015.

Current evolutionary theory states the appendix was independently evolved about thirty times. If it is useless, how can it be selected?

So, you're claiming that it was 'designed' to perform that function in addition to randomly getting infected and killing you?

You are positing that your 'designer' is sane, right?

SO WHY WOULD ANYTHING BE DESIGNED IN SUCH A FUCKED-UP WAY???
------------------
Don't open that!! It's the original can of worms!

Do you mean that devolution of a well designed structure is not possible


I would substitute "instead of" for "in addition to." The existence of the appendix in many different families of organisms which evolutionary theory states are widely apart is known. Many organisms without them have functioning immune systems. It would be interesting to compare the different types of immune systems to see if there is only one alternate method or if many methods exist, as with eyes

Imaginos1892 wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:""DDHv"]Science should filter based on empirical testing, not consensus. How many polities can you name using Keynesian economics that are in good shape after five generations? Much of my current preference for the Austrian school comes from poorly performing Keynesian policies.
Given a better economic theory, I'll switch./"

It needs to be noted that just about noone actually USED Keynesian economic policies.
Taxes lowered when economy went down, then instead of raising taxes when economy went up, the morons borrowed money.

Well duh, of course finances are going to be crippled when you only do the spendy side of an economic theory.

They did raise taxes, they just spent even more and borrowed the difference.
------------------
It is not within the power of government to increase value, only to raise cost.

Note that Keynesian methods have been used for centuries before he posited his theory.
I only found the Austrian school about a year back and am still studying it. They assume an economy results from many individual choices. Keynesian methods might work, given sinless people, which I certainly am not. In fact, I am slow in spiritual things: from the time I started to trust God for forgiveness to trusting him for and getting victories took about four years. Also I didn't start to question the accepted geological uniformity assumptions before finding out that strata exist which standard dating methods have millions of years apart, and which are conformed to each other without evidence of erosion or depositing between them. Yes, accepting two contradictory things isn't reasonable

I'm glad God forgives us when we believe in Him, and doesn't require mature belief

DDHv wrote:The Gauger, et al experiment shows that when a metabolic load exists, devolution can occur, which is not evolution.
Another example is the blind animals in caves.

I was wondering whether your ignorance and misunderstanding of evolutionary biology was just partial or indeed complete. Thank you for confirming that you have, indeed not a single clue about it.

"Devolution" is a "not even wrong" concept. It implies that a state of perfection exists that organisms are either evolving to or evolving away from, which is, to put it simply, complete bullshit. Cavebound animals losing their eyesight is not "devolution", it's adaptation.

DDHv, with all due respect: Stop this. Every single one of your posts shows that you are unwilling or incapable of understanding the theory of evolution and its implications.
Let this go.

Asserting evolution to prove evolution is a circular argument. Good science uses high confidence evidence to cut this Gordian knot. Pseudo science uses low confidence evidence.

Like, just to pick a random example out of a hat, belief in a higher being directing things?

DDHv, if you believe that anything creationists base their beliefs on is "high confidence evidence", you are sadly mistaken.

St. George Mivart made a good point, which still exists. High confidence experiments and observations demonstrate micro evolution and devolution. Retrospective observations are low confidence evidence. They can suggest macro evolution. Many assert they show it. Low confidence evidence allows free rein to our biases and resulting assumptions. Further experimentation in genome sequencing is likely to cut a few Gordian knots

What high confidence evidence for creationism is there? All you've presented so far are interpretations and thought experiments.

DDHv wrote:Do you mean that devolution of a well designed structure is not possible

Do you mean to tell us that it is? After all, why would this supposed designer allow this to happen? Why leave vestigial organs around? What purpose do they serve?

You don't realize this, but you're behaving like a textbook creationist here. Creationism implicitly requires that every strange little anomaly and inefficiency one can find in real organisms has a purpose, has meaning in some grand scheme.

You're also facing a dilemma: If evolutionary mechanisms can produce such vestigial organs based on a supposedly "intelligent" design, why can't those same mechanisms produce benefitial or neutral alterations? And why is it impossible for such mutations to create an offshoot of a species that is no longer able to mate with members of the base species, thus creating a new species?

I would substitute "instead of" for "in addition to." The existence of the appendix in many different families of organisms which evolutionary theory states are widely apart is known. Many organisms without them and have functioning immune systems.

Nice non-sequitur you have there. Would be a shame if someone were to point them out.

DDHv wrote:I only found the Austrian school about a year back and am still studying it. They assume an economy results from many individual choices. Keynesian methods might work, given sinless people, which I certainly am not.

And austrian methods might work if everyone was a rational actor, which noone is.

The austrian school is full of bullshit that's designed to be appealing to libertarians and other people who think that teenage temper tantrums are sources of philosophical enlightenment.

Evolution has no purpose. Crap happens. Copy errors happen. Exposure to UV light causes DNA mutation. There is NO grand evolution. No imperative. Only random chance and survival. if it survives the change gets passed on. If it does not survive, it does not. After a million or so random mutation survivals, you have a differentiated species. No guidance, no rational expectation or demand, nature sees life as ubiquitous, therefore cheap. Actually that is anthropomorphising Nature which also doesn't really care.

DNA mutations happen randomly the result is called evolution. Lots of mutations can happen within one individual.

WeirdlyWired wrote:Evolution has no purpose. Crap happens. Copy errors happen. Exposure to UV light causes DNA mutation. There is NO grand evolution. No imperative. Only random chance and survival. if it survives the change gets passed on. If it does not survive, it does not. After a million or so random mutation survivals, you have a differentiated species. No guidance, no rational expectation or demand, nature sees life as ubiquitous, therefore cheap. Actually that is anthropomorphising Nature which also doesn't really care.

DNA mutations happen randomly the result is called evolution. Lots of mutations can happen within one individual.

Indeed, the most long term useful mutation ever possible might have happened hundreds of times, but because it causes some sort of short term problem, it has never survived...

Tenshinai wrote:Indeed, the most long term useful mutation ever possible might have happened hundreds of times, but because it causes some sort of short term problem, it has never survived...

Whereas something like sickle-cell anemia can persist despite its overall deleterious effects because in a heterogonous carrier, it confers partial immunity to malaria.

About three weeks ago I had a sort of epiphany, well I was in the premed room of a cardiac surgery operating room so there was motivation. As it turned out, a complete success in installing the most complex pacemaker imaginable.
Anyway - No great changes in attitude overall, but some clarification in viewpoint.
Firstly I agree with the past couple of posts, in that the universe gets on with it, and we just happen to be fortuitous passengers.
I do wonder about spirituality, and frankly don't have a clue, but one slight inkling might be that everything is tenuously linked, and possibly the standing waves of all consciousness aren't totally dissipated and might just maybe imbue a little good/bad ethos across the universe. I'm not sure that I understand what I just wrote either.

The sort of epiphany that did come, is that there is something really impious about anyone trying to take ownership of a postulated godhead. Then telling everyone that they alone know, and that this only god wants XYZ, and we have to do ABC to get its favour. Particularly ridiculous when based on millennia old oral traditions of itinerate goat herders, who probably never met more than a hundred people in their short brutal lives.
It then becomes tragic, when different groups decide to prove this revelation, by killing all who disagree.