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.
Are you not making an assumption — that muscles are irreducibly complex — that is falsified by the presence of these supposed “muscle proteins” in organisms that lack muscles? It seems that once again you are supposing that you have to be correct in the absence of data and in the face of data.
Well, cnidarians will be surprised to know that. Again, your ignorance of biology is showing. I suppose that’s what faith is: certainty despite ignorance. But faith isn’t science.
they (actin and myosin) are integral to the contraction of cells that are not muscle cells, e.g., those found in sponges. Actin and myosin filaments also play critical roles in cytokinesis and the movement of amoebas as well with function nearly identical to that found in muscle cells.
Do you actually believe that only muscle cells are capable of contraction?
I think that it works pretty much the opposite way as you are suggesting.
I think that human infants infer intention for almost any non random pattern that they observe and as time goes by they learn that certain patterns can be explained by things other than direct intention.
peace
If we were to actually go about asking volunteers to choose sequences that were more likely to be intentional this would be a good place to explore prospective sequences with descriptions backgrounds and graphical representations
https://oeis.org/
Here is what they say about Jenny’s constant
quote:
Decimal expansion of (7^(e – 1/e) – 9)*Pi^2, also known as Jenny’s constant.
end quote;
from here
https://oeis.org/search?q=jenny%27s+number+&language=english&go=Search
Anyway it’s lots of fun.
peace
PeterP,
What do you mean by nearly identical?
Where do you think I made this claim?
I mean in the just the way it is stated and as it is outlined in the primary literature on the subject matter. What do you think I meant?
This is in response to my question:
“Do you actually believe that only muscle cells are capable of contraction?”
bill, it is a question for you to answer not an attribution of any claims you have made. your answer is…?
I’m assuming that you will answer yes (at least I hope your not that much in denial of the evidence for actin and myosin filaments and their role in cell movement and contractility, and if you do answer yes what do you think constitutes the mechanism of contractility in non-muscle cells?
John Harshman,
This does not falsify irreducibly complexity. The components may pre exist as long as they are all critical to the system function.
Wiki:
John:
Can you demonstrate that the muscle structure I described exists in cnidarians?
PeterP,
Your vague language may be misleading. I was describing primary skeletal muscles with the structural components I described to John. Smooth muscles are different and have different transcription factors. Actin and Myosin are just two of the components.
Ok this is your claim and my answer is that I have no reason at this point to doubt your claim as cellular mechanical movement is as old as bacteria.
Ah, but it’s essential to a connection between IC and any problem for evolution that the system can’t have been assembled in a step-by-step fashion. Intermediate conditions don’t falsify IC in a system as it currently exists, but they do falsify the claim that the only way to get to that system is all at once. You can save muscles as IC only by abandoning the notion that IC systems don’t arise through evolution.
Rather than have me demonstrate everything you’re ignorant of, why not google it yourself, at least occasionally? Are you claiming that cnidarians don’t have muscles? Just how ignorant are you?
test
test 2
test 3
John Harshman,
The muscle structural components I described are skeletal muscles not smooth muscles. Are you aware of the differences?
That’s strange. Humans assemble IC systems in a step-by-step fashion all the time.
Since we have already let the cat out of the bag it’s too late to take a meaningful poll here.
But ask yourself if you had to quickly guess which of the scatterplots is more likely to have come from an intentional process?
peace
How does God “intervene” in His own works?
John Harshman,
No it is not essential to the argument that the system can’t be assembled in a step-by-step fashion. You need to study these arguments with more care.
All of them, because you produced them.
Now if the question was which plots come from an intelligent source, the answer would be none of them, for the same reason
There you go again, flaunting your ignorance. Is it your claim that smooth muscles don’t have those components? Smooth muscle lacks troponin, and there goes your claim of IC for skeletal muscle. You do seem to specialize in own goals.
Explain. With more care.
1. I think that what you got from their model is not precisely what they meant.
2. I’m really not interested in discussing a model that was built for failure (by “Bill and John”), and that’s about a “problem” that was solved eons ago (I think the calculations date from maybe late 60s / early 70s, and what they’ve got was the minimum fidelity that DNA replication had to have in order for the “information” not to be lost, I don’t remember the authors, maybe John Harshman remembers. Do you John?). If I were interested in discussing those models I’d be commenting in those threads.
3. As I said, I have the data in front of my eyes. They can build models as much as they want, the data will still be right there.
How did he turn water into wine? Would that not be a sort of intervention? I’m asking because I suppose we are not being asked to believe Jesus build a nuclear fusion reactor, or a particle accelerator, and used these devices to convert the atoms in the water molecules, into the carbon, nitrogen and so on, then through a long series of convoluted and challenging synthetic organic chemistry with incredibly high yields and efficiency, managed to make the molecular constituents of wine.
John Harshman,
You continue to show you don’t understand irreducible complexity.
Smooth muscles are not skeletal muscles. They have a different function all together. They have different components and are driven by only involuntary stimulus. Smooth muscles will not allow an animal to walk.
Entropy,
You have the data of differences in sequences but how does this specifically support the blind watchmaker hypothesis?
Well, at least one of us doesn’t. We may disagree on which. But perhaps you could explain it. Is there any way to show that IC can’t evolve?
You will say the first thing you think of, no matter how irrelevant. Are you claiming that smooth muscle is unrelated to skeletal muscle?
It supports the common descent hypothesis, which shows that small changes can accumulate over time to make new genes. Now, whether those changes occur by mutation and selection is harder to show, but before we could even discuss that you would have to accept the evidence of common descent, gene duplication, and divergence.
What the hell are you babbling about? You think they only have smooth muscle? Well, you’re hardly right, they happen to have striated muscles, much like our own. Of course they’re not called “skeletal muscles,” since cnidarians don’t have skeletons. Same sort of muscle, and of course they very much do swim using their muscles (no, they don’t walk).
Anyway, here’s some photos of cnidarians and their muscles. Below is one of the photos, showing both striated and smooth muscles of the hydrozoan jellyfish.
So, um, do you have anything worthwhile to say, or is it just throw everything at evolution while continuing to provide zero legitimate evidence for design?
Glen Davidson
As John said. Also, this looks like an attempt to miss the point. We’re talking about “functional cliffs,” and the data clearly says that there’s no such thing. Is that clear now?
Entropy,
Functional cliffs are not independent of mechanism. The after the fact data not showing functional cliffs is indicating a different mechanism then the blind watchmaker. If you’re ok with this, it is clear.
I’ve cautioned you about word salad before. Please take a little more time to compose your posts, and then read them over at least once for sense before hitting “send”.
Small children get things right and we delude ourselves, eh? 🙂
Both test1 and test2 look haphazard to me. Test 3 follows an obvious pattern. I would pick #3.
BTW: Why are only #2 and #3 restricted to 1 digit integer values? That makes the plots hard to compare.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but the enormous variety of sequences in a single protein family indicate that there’s no cliff. Again, since sequences can diverge that much, then there’s no cliff. Do you understand this? I think it cannot be simpler.
The same way god gives free will to the things it created and knows what they will do before they do it.
colewd,
And what mechanism is being indicated there then?
This is not about what is right and what is wrong.
It’s about what is hardwired and what is learned
peace
right!
Interesting.
I think 3 is too obvious it looks rigid like a geometric grid and one looks random and messy. 2 looks like morse code. I think that over-obvious patterns seem robotic.
For example I don’t usually infer intent when I encounter rhythmic waves on the beach or pulsatile tinnitus.
Snoring follows an “obvious pattern” but it suggests anything but intent to me.
Here is a test that looks for the fluctuations in the “obvious pattern” of heartbeats to determine consciousnesses
http://www.bioethicsobservatory.org/2018/01/vegetative-patient-consciousness/24298
Like I said it might be interesting to see what folks who had no skin in this particular game think.
Good point.
I just quickly grabbed 3 sequences with different characteristics to illustrate how comparison might work. If this was really a test of hardwired inclinations you would need to work hard to remove any extraneous variables.
peace
😉
peace
2 is also random and messy, but can only take 10 values. This is why you need to control the range.
Rhythmic waves? hey,what about music?
Definitely, neither you or I are very representative, I fear.
For all FMM knows, tinnitus is how the universe creator has picked to talk to his chosen people. If only they would stop assuming it’s a random biological artefact and see the intent behind the whistles all would become clear.
fifth:
You’re not thinking very clearly. This is an “over-obvious pattern,” but it was also designed:
John Harshman,
Observation of an irreducibly complex feature or function makes evolution of the system less likely.
I am saying smooth muscles have a different function then skeletal muscles. Removal of one of the parts and the skeletal muscle will cease to function as a skeletal muscle.
Not an answer or an explanation. Please read what I said and try again: “But perhaps you could explain it. Is there any way to show that IC can’t evolve?”
Ah, but add one part to a smooth muscle and it will function as skeletal muscle, right? (At least, according to the simplistic model you’re using here.) Therefore, Even though skeletal muscle is IC, there’s a simple pathway by which it might have evolved. That destroys your claim that IC makes evolution less likely.
John Harshman,
I think that Entropy finding a gene family with a highly diverse set of sequences is not evidence for or against common descent if common descent is simply an explanation of the nested hierarchy.
No, but feel free to be wrong about everything, as usual.
[Bolding added]
Nature abstract
Jellyfish striated muscles are rather similar in function to our non-cardiac striated muscles (often called skeletal muscles) but are missing several components of bilaterian striated muscles, strongly suggesting independent evolution. Of course it’s nothing like your bizarre caricature of muscle evolution, but then when have you ever troubled to learn before simply making false claims against the theory you despise? And when have you ever demonstated design legitimately?
Glen Davidson
Entropy,
It only shows that the process that created these protein families was able to avoid the cliff.
John Harshman,
I don’t think you can make this generic claim of proving a negative.
You make a valid point that some IC systems may be easier to evolve then others but as you know creating the last protein that needs to bind with other proteins is problematic.
In the case of smooth and skeletal muscles most all the parts are different and with skeletal muscles you add the protein titin which is the largest single protein in vertebrates.
It’s evidence for common descent if the members of the gene family fit into a nested hierarchy, isn’t it?
Why are you talking about IC unless you think it argues against evolution? What is your argument that IC argues against evolution?
What “last protein”? Hmmm…apparently calponin, found in smooth muscle, is a troponin homolog.
What do you mean by “most of the parts are different”? I would like you to make some explicit claims. Do you think titin didn’t evolve? Do you think its only function is in skeletal muscle? Do you think it has no homologs? What is the relevance of its size?
Fair enough. But then It shows that avoiding a “cliff” is not that hard. The process doesn’t need to be more than purifying selection.
Wouldn’t you agree that the mere existence of so many protein families, each containing lots and lots of variants, at the very least suggests that “cliffs” are not that much of a problem?