Re: [asa] Artificial molecule evolves in the lab

 Perhaps 20 parts are not necessary, and/or perhaps the mousetrap is a
> precursor configuration to yet another device that is more nearly reflective
> of the creative objective.
>

Well, in the case of blood clotting that Behe gives, try removing one of
the chemicals and see how long you live. The parts are all necessary. There
is no "perhaps" about it.
A theoretical "well, what if it were all slightly different" really isn't
relevant.

> The man-troubling reality is that evolutionary opportunities and factors
> are still alive and operative
>
I don't think that is troubling at all.
Who does it trouble?

> even though Creation's presumed crowning achievement is present and
> accounted for (though for some elusive reason, not situated at the center of
> Creation). This and other considerations has drawn me toward some sense of
> process theology.
>

And I find theology to be less than worthless. Theology has absolutely
nothing to do with whether to get a certain chemical reaction one needs all
the reactants to be present.

You may be correct that Behe has certain ideas about sequences of precursor
configurations. But those, to me, are strictly a matter of scientific
analysis, and have nothing to do with theology.
Labeling Behe a creationist seems dirty pool to me. He may be an
unconventional thinker. That doesn't make him a creationist.

Before labeling someone, how about if some criteria are laid down first? For
example, if person A believes in idea B then they are adherents of "ism"
C? Given a standard of those types of definitions then it may make sense
to try to put someone in a box. Without such a standard what these labels
really mean is a political bashing is being engaged in. Guilt by
association is one of the techniques used in political bashing.

>
>
> Time to pull the prattle-generator plug and get some shut-eye.
>
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
> David Clounch wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps overclaiming, but still not without implication I think, even
>> though it is basically a subset of an RNA or RNA-like structure, as I
>> understand it. I first heard of this yesterday on NPR (All Things Considered
>> - listen at
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99132608&m=99135715 ). You can hear a little more of the sense of what happened in the
>> interview.
>>
> I wish I had a computer that has audio. Sadly, I havent installed linux
> drivers for audio.
>
>
>>
>> In the mention of complexity, I was simply alluding to the entropy
>> argument often advanced broadly by the creationist community.
>>
> I sort of suspected that. And you may be correct that the creationists
> think complexity is an anti-evolutionist argument. But that misunderstanding
> of theirs has nothing to do with Dembski or Behe or any of the IDT thinkers
> who never said any such thing.
>
> >When folks talk so simply about the vector space, those discussions often
> seem so incomplete to me, apparently ignoring the various mechanisms of
> selection that are operative in the real case.
>
> I know. I dont know how to describe it any better. Here's how I think.
> I had in mind a state space that includes the possible states of all
> particles. The space is partially populated with real particles with real
> states, but they are always changing of course.
>
> If we were describing this in a computer (if it were possible to do so)
> then we could take a snapshot of all the particles at time t. The snapshot
> would contain all the actual particles at that time. At time t-1 the
> previous snaphot would contain almost the same population. But if it did
> not contain certain molecules it would contain the precursor molecules.
> (Which are most likely reactants?) So if we had enough snapshots we could
> play a movie of how chemicals form other chemicals. Thats the way I think
> of a liquid soup of molecules or a gas of molecules. But thats the actual
> population. There's also the states that aren't occupied, but that could
> become populated. We could make movies of that too!
>
> This has nothing per se to do with selection. To select something the
> thing being selected must first exist.
>
> >The mutations are only one necessary half of the evolutionary process. The
> other is the complementary part that "challenges" the mutational products
> with respect to robustness or functionality or???
>
> I wouldnt disagree.
>
> What Behe was trying to point out, as I think of his book (and I could be
> wrong), is that if to meet a selection rule you need 20 parts, then indeed
> all 20 parts must be present. And if just one is missing the rule isn't
> invoked. Now why would analyisis of complexity come into it? Well, one
> could postulate that only 19 parts are actually needed. But that would be a
> different rule. I think whats being proposed there by Behe's objectors is
> that Rule #1 with 19 parts easily leads to Rule #2 with 20 parts. Behe's
> argument isnt that the combination of Rule #1 followed by Rule #2 is too
> complex. Although one could look at that, and it needs to be calculated.
> His argument is the entire population containing Rule #1 died before Rule
> #2 could be concatenated/combined with Rule #1.
> To disprove Behe's hypothesis what one is supposed to do is show that Rule
> #2, which requires all 20 parts, is not fatal to the organism. That
> supposedly ought to be easy to do. But instead what we usually hear is
> that Behe is merely saying the 20 parts are too complex, and he is thus
> making a complexity argument. And, that Behe is thus presenting an
> inherently false hypothesis. But that wasn't his argument! His argument
> was that the 20 parts were necessary. I don't see why that makes him evil,
> even if creationists do misunderstand him. The man believes in common
> descent. That makes him anaethema to anti-evolutionists. So I see the mud
> slinging that his hypothesis is some form of creationism as extraordinarily
> unfair and suspect.
>
> >And just repeat an earlier question that I have posed from time to time,
> without much in the way of response, ...what might be the most simple
> explanation we can think of to explain the enormity of Creation other than
> to render more probable, or give greater opportunity to the unlikely??
>
> On the enormity of creation:
>
> Remember Carl Sagan's movie with Jodie Foster? I remember the repeated
> remarks about "there is all that stuff out there". Meaning we humans are
> totally insignificant and irrelevant. I cringed because it is sooooo stupid.
> In reality there isnt all that much stuff out there. But there is a lot, and
> some physicists (whose names I wont mention) have tried to show that one
> needs at least that much material in order to have even a tiny finite
> probability of having even one earth-like planet. If thats true, then, for
> me, it all fits. if I were building a universe I'd do pretty much the same
> thing as what has happened. Wouldn't you? Even God would! So cosmological
> evolution doesn't argue against Christianity. And never did so. The fact
> that Sagans followers and the YECers happen to agree on some fantasy view of
> a fake Christianity....? Well, what are we to do with them? Like
> contractors, they are too big to lob into a dumpster. (To quote Dilbert). :)
>
> May I ask, do I sound like some kind of creationist?
>
> -Dave C
>
>
>
> JimA
>
> David Clounch wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> You seem to be saying this report has implications. If so, I think you are
> over-claiming.
>
> Can you point to someone who made the argument about complexity that you
> claim to refute? It wasn't Behe's argument, for example. Might have been
> someone else's. But who? You are probably correct that someone out there
> does make such a claim but why does that matter? I'd be willing to bet that
> it isn't anti-evolutionists who make this claim about complexity, but the
> anti-anti-evolutionists (who arent the same thing as pro-evolutionists,
> whatever that might be) who are putting words into the mouths of
> anti-evolutionists.
>
> This is why it is important to put the report, and it's implications, if
> there are any, in the context of an actual claim about the phenomena of
> complexity when one uses it.
>
> I don't think the report has any implications that can be applied to the
> claims of groups. It's a real stretch.
>
> Am I making any sense?
>
> Now, down to what I think of the report. I think the approach of Mike Gene
> is correct. A bunch of engineers came up with a mechanism that might or
> might not occur in nature all on its own. So engineering principles were
> applied.
>
> I also think of it mathematically. The reported mechanism is a vector in a
> space consisting of all possible mechanisms. The engineers populated part of
> that space that previously was empty. To me, thats all normal. It doesn't
> address the question asked by Behe. The question asked by Behe has to do
> with whether a set of curved lines in that space are all likely to
> intersect at a certain point. Is there a solution? Might be. But Behe never
> claimed the math proves there is no solution. He merely said it is not
> likely for there to be a natural process that produces the solution. So it
> is reasonable to believe that it takes engineering to create the
> intersection. To refute this, and show that it is not reasonable to believe
> there must be engineering, one has to show either that the solution is
> necessary, or that it is likely in the absence of engineering.
> The report has nothing to do with either. If anything, the report supports
> Mike Gene's assertions about engineering. (but I already said that above,
> didn't I?).
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> This has the apparent effect of conclusively negating a pivotal
>> anti-evolutionist argument to the effect that more complex entities cannot
>> evolve from less complex - JimA [Friend of ASA]
>>
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 11 17:20:20 2009