FMM: Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation.
FMM notes in the same comment:
If there in nothing about an idea that distinguishes it from it’s alternative it seems to be superfluous.
So the idea is “non designed mutations” and the alternative is “purposeful intervention”.
Give that, and given FMM has not discarded the idea of purposeful intervention there must be something that distinguishes it from non designed mutations.
What is that distinguishing factor? What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations?
And, more broadly, what is the evidence for “purposeful intervention” in any area of biology? Apart from, of course, wishful thinking.
John Harshman,
There is no hill. Only a very high cliff only a few steps away. The sequential space is enormous. Yes, there is a remote chance of a beneficial mutation initially and certainly neutral mutations but as change continues the sequence will break down rapidly. This is what the data is telling us and part of Bill and Johns discussion.
The diversity of protein sequences is poorly explained by duplication and small change. Before we had multicellular life how did a bacterial enzymes mutate into a muscle proteins which have very different structures and functions? This problem is just the tip of the iceberg in trying to explain multicellular evolution with the blind watchmaker.
No, that isn’t any part of their discussion. The size of the sequence space is irrelevant to the nature of the space in the near vicinity of an existing protein. What evidence do you have for the existence of this “high cliff”?
You understand that multicellular life is eukaryotic, not bacterial, right? You have ignored a couple billion years of evolution right there. Not sure which muscle proteins are in your bacterial enzyme scenario, but I bet there are clear homologs of most of them in some organisms without muscles, say sponges and choanoflagellates. Totally new proteins are a rare thing, though not completely unknown.
Prove it. Actually don’t bother, the actual evidence contradicts that claim. Even an arbitrary sequence has been shown to be able to climb a hill through natural selection. Seen for example:
Hayashi Y, Sakata H, et al. 2003: Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological function?
J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):162-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00239-002-2389-y
“Here, we showed that a random polypeptide had generated its functional role in rejuvenating the infectivity of a defective bacteriophage when fused to some preexisting protein domains. We confirmed that from a single random sequence, there will be selectable variation in a property of interest even within a small mutant library, and that the selective property is evolvable through iterative mutation and selection within the time frame of our evolutionary study. Therefore, the results evidently show that a single arbitrary sequence can evolve toward a functional domain. This study hence provides a new prospect for revealing information that could open a new gateway for understanding evolution, especially when its primordial stages are concerned.”
Sorry I am late with a reply. I almost missed your comment
What sort of patterns do we learn to associate with intent?
Have you never encountered a novel phenomena and inferred that it happened on purpose?
The cool thing is I think that this particular question seems to be a scientific one.
All we have to do is present a group of patterns to test subjects and have them choose which one is more likely to be intentional. I would hypothesize that people would tend to place things in the following order
random—-Least likely to be intentional
clearly algorithmic—-more likely to show intent
non random but with no obvious algorithmic origin— most likely to show intent
It would be an interesting experiment to conduct.
peace
Glen Davidson
Algorithmic design:
Glen Davidson
Non-random, not algorithmic:
So, the volcano would be more likely to be considered designed than the algorithmically designed chair?
I suppose one could claim that they’re atypical examples–but that makes no sense, because one simply can’t say anything is “typical” of either algorithmic designs or of non-random non-algorithmic forms. Either the “principle” works–which it clearly doesn’t–or it’s useless.
Glen Davidson
Neither the chair or the volcano are “algorithmically designed”.
I’m not sure you understand what I’m talking about here.
Algorithmic (as I’m describing it) does not mean geometric it simply means following a rigid step by step process.
When looking at the chair I see evidence of deviation from the algorithmic process that produced the square grid on the horizontal surface however I’m not sure I would infer intent with out further context because I can easily think of algorithmic reasons for such a deviation to occur.
When looking at the volcano I can quickly think of an algorithmic process to explain it namely plate tectonics.
So I don’t think either picture in isolation would make my intention senses tingle.
peace
I have no idea what you mean by typical or atypical.
But I think you are still falling into the infallible inference trap.
With all our senses and mental faculties there are times when we are fooled or deceived.
That does not mean we cease to trust our senses and mental faculties it only means we realize we can be mistaken.
peace
Quit making shit up. You have no business stating complete falsehoods.
And the whole point of the volcano is that it’s not algorithmically designed. Get some reading comprehension.
Stupid crap? Yeah, I know that.
What’s with the dull pedantry? Who doesn’t know that?
So there’s a deviation. That didn’t have anything to do with your idiotic claims previously.
From that I have good reason to believe that you understand neither algorithms nor plate tectonics.
Nor, of course, must volcanoes be produced by plate tectonics. Hot spots, for the edification of the ignorant.
Not that plate tectonics is the proximate cause of, say, Mt. St. Helen’s shape, and proximate causes are what are being discussed. Can’t you keep up with anything at all?
Or provoke an intelligent response from you.
No, I’m well aware of the problems of fallibility, which is the whole problem with your simple-minded conceptions of how to infer “design”–I mean, aside from the fact that it’s not taken from actual design, rather that it’s an imposition intended to claim design where it doesn’t exist. But that’s the usual for ID.
I would suggest that you learn how things really are, rather than try to impose your “design detection” BS then whine about fallibility every time it fails as badly as it must.
The problem is that your claims are utterly bogus. Your pathetic “fallibility” excuse only allows you to ignore that fact.
Glen Davidson
If you want to have a civil discussion I suggest you tone it down a little.
If you only want to practice stringing together salty coarse phrases by yourself then by all means carry on.
peace
Is the pattern you wanted to evaluate a generic volcano or the specific shape of a particular volcano as compared to a generic volcano.
This is an important distinction. Plate tectonics does explain the generic occurrence and basic shape of volcanoes.
If you want to explain the exact shape and timing of Mt. St. Helens you would require additions to your base algorithm.
I would be interested to know if those local “quirks” are random or could be explained by an algorithm
peace
Might I suggest that you are addressing a straw-man.
I’m not talking about “design detection” I’m talking about an innate human tendency to infer intention when we observe certain phenomena
peace
Oh shut up.
I’m willing to have a civil discussion, but only if you have the decency to actually discuss things intelligently. I have no patience for fools who simply make up shit as they go along.
You’re completely abusive here, as usual. You’ll deny that algorithmically designed things are based on a new made-up and bogus criterion, that there’s some deviation. And you’ll make an appallingly dumb claim like volcanoes being made algorithmically based on tectonic processes–which themselves are hardly algorithmic.
There’s no civil discussion possible with someone who bypasses the truth constantly in order to try to score points, as you do. If you don’t understand, then quit making BS claims, don’t just reactively make things up as you go along to try to cover up the fact that you’ve failed. And cut out the noxious whining when you’re called on your despicable tactics, whatever language is used.
Glen Davidson
The volcano was in response to this: “non random but with no obvious algorithmic origin— most likely to show intent”
Keep track of your own claims.
Learn some physics. And learn about hotspots and proximal causes, instead of just repeating the same noxious falsities.
Learn something for once, then. No algorithm explains volcanoes at all.
If you weren’t such an arrogant bozo you might begin to learn the basics.
Glen Davidson
Well, it makes no sense to pretend to be discussing that, since that’s all over the map. One can fall for all sorts of false positives, and it depends a great deal on what you’ve learned and what you’ve become accustomed to.
So yeah, I’m not really interested in your incomprehension of that issue. What is more, one shouldn’t really speak of “infer intention” when it’s more like being scared of what might possibly be due to (dangerous) intent. You’re muddling along with your conflation of what actually exists primarily as a fight-or-flight response and, yes, your presumption that it has something to do with “design detection.”
Of course you’re discussing design detection. You’re not discussing anything that actually has to do with how we respond to signs that could imply dangerous intent. Learn the difference.
Glen Davidson
John Harshman,
Bill and John’s hypothesis is built around a “steep cliff” where delirious mutations accelerate after initial mutations. Sequences usually have very large non functional spaces so I would expect the result that Bill and John are describing.
So you’re speculating that some similar proteins to muscle proteins exist in sponges. Where do you think they came from?
If you don’t think civil discussion is possible with me why do you bother responding?
Wouldn’t it be better to just ignore me?
peace
It might just be a guilty pleasure.
Yes, and as I pointed out there is an obvious algorithmic explanation for volcanoes namely plate tectonics.
Exactly, I’m interested in the part that is innate as apposed to the part that is dependent on our personal experiences.
Fine, I have no problem with you deciding that this discussion is a waste of time.
Just don’t act like it’s some other discussion. if you do you are just swiping at a straw-man
peace
I don’t think you’re reading that right. Someone is delirious here, but it isn’t the mutations. And you don’t have the understanding necessary to expect anything, except by reflex.
Proteins come from genes. Genes usually come from other genes, though as I’ve said there are exceptions. I don’t know all that much about the subject, though certainly much more than you do. Actin and myosin are prominent parts of the cytoskeleton in unicellular eukaryotes, as well as sponges. What other muscle proteins did you have in mind? Have you in fact ever bothered to look up what proteins there might be, what their taxonomic distributions are, or what their homologs might be?
Hey, here is a nice review for you to misread and discount.
I suspect that is the case.
But excuse me if I find folks who get their giggles by verbally abusing people who think differently to be a little contemptible
peace
When a cro-magnon man was out looking for folks to rob and he heard a certain sort of rustle in the bushes he was just as likely to be thrilled at his possible good fortune as to be scared.
All the rustle meant was that there probably was a person behind the noise it did not by itself imply friend or foe.
peace
This is just mad!
How so?
I just came from a walk in the woods and I can verify that a certain sort of rustle in the bushes still makes a man infer intent and as a matter of fact I was not sacred in the slightest. 😉
peace
fifth:
I believe that you weren’t sacred. You might not have been scared, either.
Further reading
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-011-9885-9
fifth:
Glen:
Damn, fifth. You are one confused dude.
colewd:
And:
Damn, Bill. You’re as confused as fifth is.
Bill and fifth are textbook cases of Dunning-Kruger.
Utterly incompetent, and utterly unaware of it.
Infer the leaves intended to rustle?
Nope, inferred that there was an unseen critter that intended to get away from me moving through the foliage.
peace
I don’t think so. Were you thinking of a specific example?
It’s easy enough, I suppose. All you need is a few dozen questions and a handful of volunteers. And it will certainly help focus this discussion.
You think the animal intended to rustle the leaves?
Leaving aside the mis-reading you seem to be making (and I suspect you meant “deleterious”), I make multiple alignments almost on a daily basis. When I check them, I find that only a few positions are conserved in all the sequences. That indicates there’s no “steep cliff” for any of the protein families I have examined so far. Therefore, I could not care less what “Bill and John” might have to say against what I’m looking right in front of me. Data wins over speculation.
It’ll never happen. FMM does not do actual work to support his ideas, he simply waits for others to do it.
FMM, you could easily have learnt sufficient javascript by now to draw a few lines on a page (your game). I guess it’s not that important to you that you demonstrate your claims have validity.
nope, I think that the intentional act of trying to get away resulted in a nonrandom pattern of rustling in the leaves that I did not have an algorithmic explanation for.
This caused me to quickly infer that the sound I heard came from an animal or person rather than something like the wind.
peace
I can think of lots of examples.
Just this week I had the novel experience of trying to flip channels to watch a spring training baseball game and unexpectedly finding a blank spot between channels 67 and 69.
I immediately inferred that someone had intentionally removed the channel from my cable package sometime during the winter.
A quick question to my bride verified my inference 😉
I would agree I think at least some of the volunteers would need to be unaware of discussion we were having.
It would be interesting to compare the answers of those with no skin in the game to partisans with a vested interested one way or the other.
peace
1) How would learning javascript demonstrate anything? Making my game shareable would only allow you to see that nonrandom sequences can be differentiated from randomized copies.
That was already demonstrated in the paper from Jasmina Hasanhodzic,Andrew W. Lo,and Emanuele Viola
2) I am right now in my spare time working to verify that not only can the output of weather forecasting algorithms be differentiated from actual reported temperatures but that that information can at times be used to improve the forecasting algorithm making it more closely match the pattern in the reported data.
peace
This was a novel experience? You mean you had no experience whatsoever with configuring electrical equipment prior to this experience?
Wow!
No, I had no experience of single channels disappearing unexpectedly with no other known associated effects.
peace
All joking aside; the reason you suspected somebody had been messing with the settings of your television is because you have had similar experiences with electronic devices.
This is what we do in a novel situation; we look for similar experiences to guess what happened and how to handle that. That stands to reason: the suspicion that somebody removes channels from your telly cannot be hardwired, right?
And your ignorance continues, no matter how much people who know things tell you. It’s pathetic.
How are there volcanoes on the moon where there is no evidence of plate tectonics there ever?
And can you ever understand the difference between distant and proximal causes? It’s like arguing with a child with you, since you don’t even understand what types of causes are being discussed.
It’d be nice if you actually knew something about it.
Why don’t you read and learn, rather than write useless, ignorant tripe in response to knowledgeable replies? That’s the point, not your whining.
Learn what the subject actually is, rather than blithering on about matters that you fail to understand. I don’t have to pretend that you’re discussing what you think you are when you don’t know what you’re discussing.
Glen Davidson
Try thinking for once.
Verbal abuse? An ignorant person who simply repeats the same useless garbage no matter how many times corrected is clearly the abusive one. I’m merely reacting to your appalling rudeness.
Glen Davidson
See, this is just it, you’re clueless about what’s actually the issue. Of course if you’re hunting, robbing, whatever, you’re listening hopefully for indications of “prey,” but that isn’t what the supposed “inferring of intent” is about.
The latter isn’t really an inference, it’s simply reacting to loud noises, rustlings, or whatever, as if it were a potential danger when it’s probably really not. Why? Because you’ll do better to be ready for flight, fight, or hiding when you hear some sounds even if they’re mostly false positives.
Apparently you can’t even distinguish between the fear one has at certain sounds and someone out to track down prey. They’re different, and as usual you don’t learn, you just repeat your own ignorant beliefs when corrected.
Which again shows how rude and uncaring a conversant you are. Rather than learning from those who know the difference between your dull analogy and the actual point of inferring danger even when it’s more likely not danger, you just plow on with your uncomprehending presumptions.
Glen Davidson
Really?
You weren’t afraid of grizzly bears, saber-tooth cats, or lions? Why ever not?
Odds are, too, that the rustling simply wouldn’t be indicative of large predators in any case.
Glen Davidson
John Harshman,
Actin and myosin are part of the muscle cell structure and function. So are titin, tropomyosin, troponin, ATP and calcium. I have not yet found the origin of the irreducibly complex muscle structure. The other issue is that without a central nervous system and a circulatory system this structure would be useless.
Entropy,
I would be it interested in what they have to say. Why don’t you post?
Ever hear of jellyfish?
But don’t let facts disturb you. They haven’t yet.
Glen Davidson