Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A year ago, Nature published an educational booklet with the title 15 Evolutionary gems (as a resource for the Darwin Bicentennial). Number 2 gem is Tiktaalik a well-preserved fish that has been widely acclaimed as documenting the transition from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik was an elpistostegalian fish: a large, shallow-water dwelling carnivore with tetrapod affinities yet possessing fins. Unfortunately, until Tiktaalik, most elpistostegids remains were poorly preserved fragments.

“In 2006, Edward Daeschler and his colleagues described spectacularly well preserved fossils of an elpistostegid known as Tiktaalik that allow us to build up a good picture of an aquatic predator with distinct similarities to tetrapods – from its flexible neck, to its very limb-like fin structure. The discovery and painstaking analysis of Tiktaalik illuminates the stage before tetrapods evolved, and shows how the fossil record throws up surprises, albeit ones that are entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking.”

Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported – throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: “can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years”. At a stroke, this rules out not only Tiktaalik as a tetrapod ancestor, but also all known representatives of the elpistostegids. The arrival of tetrapods is now considered to be 20 million years earlier than previously thought and these tetrapods must now be regarded as coexisting with the elpistostegids. Once again, the fossil record has thrown up a big surprise, but this one is not “entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking”. It is a find that was not predicted and it does not fit at all into the emerging consensus.

“Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.” (Janvier & Clement, 2010)

The Nature Editor’s summary explained: “The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates.” Henry Gee, one of the Nature editors, wrote in a blog:

“What does it all mean?
It means that the neatly gift-wrapped correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny, in which elpistostegids represent a transitional form in the swift evolution of tetrapods in the mid-Frasnian, is a cruel illusion. If – as the Polish footprints show – tetrapods already existed in the Eifelian, then an enormous evolutionary void has opened beneath our feet.”

For more, go here:
Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/01/09/lobbing_a_grenade_into_the_tetrapod_evol

Additional note: The Henry Gee quote is interesting for the words “elpistostegids represent a transitional form”. In some circles, transitional forms are ‘out’ because Darwinism presupposes gradualism and every form is no more and no less transitional than any other form. Gee reminds us that in the editorial office of Nature, it is still legitimate to refer to old-fashioned transitional forms!

Comments
"But does it make any difference if the bird is living or deceased?" The following is relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hEjerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Jerry #225:
But I will say that a humming bird is more complex than anyone of Lenski’s bacteria.
Obviously, the humming bird is more complex. A child could see that. But does it make any difference if the bird is living or deceased?Ludwig
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
"1) How is FSCI related to CSI, if at all?" It is a type of CSI "2) CSI is claimed to be a unique characteristic of designed systems. Is FCSI also supposed to only be present in designed systems?" Yes In the spirit of not explaining anything and never responding to question here is a brief assessment of CSI. CSI is a general concept that is supposed to work with any designed entity. Life forms are just a small part of the world and non life designed entities are also a small part of the world. But CSI is meant to apply to all designed processes not just life forms so by its nature it must be very broad and thus lies the problem. Because of this generality it can be very vague in how it is applied. It can be quite daunting to look at certain poker and bridge hands, coin tosses, voting outcomes, sculptures, arson evidence etc. and try to find some common way to describe them in terms of their intelligent input but it actually turns out to be much less of a problem to take some aspects of life and to describe them in terms of intelligent input. What does the words complex, specified and information mean in a layman's language? And how can it be generalized so everyone can understand it. I am not the one to provide a complete answer for this and I am on record to abandon the very generalized form of this concept for life because it is too broad. We had a few very long exchanges on CSI about three years ago (several hundred comments) and I agued there was no clear definition for it and no one could step up here to find the commonality between bridge hands, voting outcomes, coin tosses, DNA, computer programming and language. Many people tried but no one could solve the problem. Which is why the confusion over the appropriateness of CSI manifests it self. When its proponents can't define it so it fits everything, how can you expect their adversaries to do so. No one really cared about bridge hands, coin tosses or Mt. Rushmore but did care about DNA and biology. Then two people pointed something out. That DNA specified something just as did computer programs and language. This was bfast. Then kairosfocus appeared for the first time and provided his thoughts and soon the term FSCI or functional specified complex information was being used. It was complex information that specified a function in something else. It was so obvious a child could understand it and the vagueness problem disappeared. So we have been using it ever since. But we continually get those who want to ram the term CSI down our throats because they know the problem it has because it is too general. So this subset of CSI, which we can call life CSI for the time being has some unique properties. It is complex, information and it specifies a function in some other entity in a very direct relationship. Function is usually assumed in CSI because a pattern is often specified because it has a purpose but sometimes it is hard to define the purpose and distinguish it from random events. But for the information in DNA that is not a problem since the function or external pattern is so obvious. So some called it FSCI and some called it FCSI. It is information that is complex and specifies function in another entity. Now the original intent of the term "specified" in CSI is that the information itself was specified by some intelligence. In other words the specify in CSI refers to some intelligence specifying the DNA not that DNA specifies something else. But any information besides DNA in this world that specifies something else is also specified. So is DNA specified. That is the issue. Why isn't DNA specified. Good question and ID says it most likely is. Now what other things in this world fit this pattern. If we exclude life, none in the natural fit this pattern but in the intelligent world there are two very prominent examples, language and computer programming. Two processes very heavily identified with intelligence. There are probably others such as control processes in industry but these two examples are easy to understand and obvious. In nature, other than life, no such process exists. So could the DNA in a cell be specified and thus life be designed by an intelligence. For atheists, the problem is obvious. If FSCI is in reality CSI, then their whole world falls apart. Thus, the intense fight to discredit the obvious and to insist that it had to arise naturally. Now ID says FSCI could arise naturally but is highly unlikely for obvious reasons and there has never been an instance of it arising naturally. If such was common in nature then ID's claim would be suspect but there are none let alone frequent examples. So we get the usual nonsense here trying to discredit what is very obvious. The whole thing comes down to the anti ID people saying there was no intelligence who could have done it so it must have happened naturally and ID says there must have been an intelligence because nature is unlikely to have done it. So we throw out ATP synthase and there is really no answer for it or even the average size protein or especially the transcription/translation process itself with its thousand parts. ATP synthase had to appear early and it is so incredibly complicated and efficient. ATP synthase is beyond the resources of all the universes predicted by string theory let alone our universe. So is the transcription/translation process. But a very, very intelligent person might have been able to figure it out. Sorry not to put myself on record again and to continue avoiding questions that are embarrassing.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Mr Jerry, We have just cut out a few of the multi verses and that is all and you know it. I don't think so. If the average alpha helix or beta sheet uses 10 amino acids (sorry for saying alpha sheet and beta helix earlier), and a protein uses several of these motifs, then the probability calculation is losing 20^10 each time, while at the same time making it more likely to find similar levels of function in other molecules also formed of these motifs, but with slightly different sequences of AAs. As an example, myoglobin is 153 AA in length and contains 8 alpha helices (according to the fount of all wisdom). 20^153 is 90 orders of magnitude bigger than 22^80, so this is not about a 'few multiverses'. These motifs are another step in the chain of building complexity upwards from AAs binding directly to RNA oligomers.Nakashima
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
jerry,
Meanwhile if you read all my comments you will notice I never say anything of substance or try to explain anything and continually try to evade answers.
Isn't that just the way it should be?Cabal
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
jerry at 228, Meanwhile if you read all my comments you will notice I never say anything of substance or try to explain anything and continually try to evade answers. And here I thought you just missed my questions at 220 due to the high volume on this topic.Mustela Nivalis
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
"So, I guess your version of the Golden Rule is “Do unto others before they do unto you.” Nicely played, sir, nicely played." Meanwhile if you read all my comments you will notice I never say anything of substance or try to explain anything and continually try to evade answers. You will do well here with one half of the crowd as it seems you are learning quickly. Good luck on your education experience.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Jerry: "I never put myself on record. Otherwise I might have to defend something." I noticed that. :-)Aleta
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Jerry:
I never put myself on record. Otherwise I might have to defend something.
So, I guess your version of the Golden Rule is "Do unto others before they do unto you." Nicely played, sir, nicely played.efren ts
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
"So, are you willing to put yourself on the record as to how the list should be rank ordered by complexity? I also think it would be an interesting discussion." I never put myself on record. Otherwise I might have to defend something. But I will say that a humming bird is more complex than anyone of Lenski's bacteria. You should get the Edge of Evolution. It might help with your confusion. But it will not solve the complexity issue completely. We had a discussion some time ago about whether it should be stripes or spots. Take your pick.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
aleta, I made several comments at First Things on the Stephen Barr site. So I am well aware of what went on there. There and here I suggested people read my comments about ID that I posted in #110. It removes a lot of the misconceptions about ID. Barr perpetuated many of the misconceptions about ID and for that he should be held accountable. We can debate whether the changes in Lenski's bacteria population is of any consequence or not. No one here supporting ID would think it was much of a change and I would bet that most evolutionary biologists would not think so either. You can hold that it is but the issue is what has built systems like the eye, neural system, digestive systems, flight not whether a mutation has occurred and changes the properties of a protein. These complex systems require massive amounts of information to accomplish. The English paragraph example was meant to show you how difficult it is to get to something functional and once something functional is present, to get to something else. I don't know what your basic understanding of biology is but you must understand the transcription/translation process at a minimal to understand what is going on. As I suggest to all comers here, read Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution. A lot of my reasoning is based on the simple logic presented there. If you want you can purchase it using Barnes and Noble Nook reader for $10 and then use your computer to read it. You can get the reader for nothing from Barnes and Noble. The Barnes and Noble reader is far superior to the Kindle. My wife has a Kindle that she got for Christmas and it is vdery useful also and most books can be downloaded for $10 but the computer version is crap. You can also avoid any of the physical readers and use an ITouch if you have one to download the readers and the books. The books will usually cost $10 but the Signature in the Cell cost $15 and is only available with Kindle now so I do not recommend their reader. If you get the Barnes and Noble reader, you can also get Sean Carroll's book on evolution and he is anti ID. You will see how limited his examples are and this is what makes our point.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Timaeus @192
But from an engineering perspective, intelligent design is the instinctive “default” explanation. It makes the most sense of what we can see plainly with our eyes.
That is your opinion. But you presume to speak for the general population of engineers. The argument by analogy works for you, so you insist that it should work for everyone else. As you well know, it doesn't. It is the height of arrogance for you to set yourself up as the judge of true engineering instincts. It's a fraud to be telling scientists and other non-engineers that belief in ID is instinctive for engineers. Engineering is materialistic and mechanistic. ID is neither. Engineers want to know "what happened" and "how does it work." ID doesn't provide that. The theory of evolution is an extrapolation backwards in time of processes we see in action today. You don't agree with it, but that's not the point; it is perfectly natural for engineers to accept that theory, and they largely do. You and I both look forward to getting more engineers in on the discussion. The problem is that it's been too easy for engineers to ignore the ID movement. IDists need to be much more public about the way they are describing engineering to non-engineers. You need to get the DI to put out some press releases disseminating such IDist notions as "ID is an engineering science," "ID is reverse engineering," and "Engineers instinctively believe in ID." You will get plenty of negative attention from engineers, including those of faith, when they see you misrepresenting their profession to advance your cause.Freelurker
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Jerry at 222:
Would an ID scientist use CSI and/or FCSI calculations as the basis for rank ordering the list of biological things in comment 121 above?” Probably not but it could help in some places. There are lots of issues here and I proposed the list to bait a clown who came here to disrupt the site. He never took the bait because he knew if he did he would have to present something first.
Well, okay. But, it does leave unanswered the question as to how an ID Scientist would rank order the list by complexity if CSI and FCSI only can partially help.
That is the modus operandi here. All the critics ask questions but never answer questions. That way they can always criticize. By answering questions they put themselves on record and they commit to something and they cannot have that.
So, are you willing to put yourself on the record as to how the list should be rank ordered by complexity? I also think it would be an interesting discussion.
Feigning ignorance is also another tactic.
Hey now, my ignorance is genuine! I would like an insight into the day of an ID scientist, such as yourself, with regard to how to determine the relative complexity of various biological entities.efren ts
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
"Would an ID scientist use CSI and/or FCSI calculations as the basis for rank ordering the list of biological things in comment 121 above?" Probably not but it could help in some places. There are lots of issues here and I proposed the list to bait a clown who came here to disrupt the site. He never took the bait because he knew if he did he would have to present something first. That is the modus operandi here. All the critics ask questions but never answer questions. That way they can always criticize. By answering questions they put themselves on record and they commit to something and they cannot have that. Because they know they cannot defend anything they hold that is contrary to ID. We will cream them if they do. So criticism is the way of life for an anti ID person. Feigning ignorance is also another tactic. It is so ironic that is the reality of life when the perception engendered elsewhere is just the opposite. That should be a lesson to learn here. You could not calculate the total FSCI for those genomes except for the prokaryotes since I believe every bit of DNA is coding. I could be wrong on that but I believe most are coding and as such a rough estimate of the FSCI could be calculated. However, some of the sequences are redundant in some respects so it would have to reduced by this somehow. That would be part of the debate. To calculate it for the whole genome of a eukaryote would be incredibly difficult but that does not mean a low estimate could not be made and this low estimate is beyond any natural processes to create by chance even as I used the hyperbole that it would take all the multi verses to generate the necessary options. Some issues for classifying complexity would be size of genome (recognizing C value paradox), coding region size, number of proteins coded, number of cell types, number of behaviors/systems within and external behaviors of the organism. There are probably plenty of others and these might come up in a discussion. But I did not seriously mean to start a discussion but was only humoring the idiot who came here. It would make an interesting discussion though.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
to Jerry: You write, "All your questions are trivial and obvious." This is not true, but I will honor your implicit request and quit discussing them with you. You write, "This is getting tiring and you are revealing your stripes," and you write, "Your incessant attempt to make a non point into something is indicative of an attitude that I just mentioned is typical of anti ID behavior. A constant attempt to criticize rather than to understand. You have just placed your self into a box. If you were really trying to understand anything you would have proceeded very differently." First of all, if this is getting tiring, then you can quit responding. I'm certainly not forcing you to keep responding to my posts. As for "my stripes", in general if one has a novel idea in science, one can expect, and in fact welcome, critical analysis of one's ideas. Only if one can successfully respond to the criticism can one expect one's ideas to grow in acceptance. Also I note, although you seem to not have registered this, that my criticism and resulting questions have been about the narrow issue of using a pure chance hypothesis to calculate the probability that something in the real world could have happened. I have not talked about, or expressed an opinion about, many of the things you have brought up, such as the "origin of complex novel characteristics" or whether design is true about any part of the world, or about the positions of atheism or theistic evolution, or any of those things. This is another characteristic of genuine scientific dialog - it looks closely at the details. I have questioned specific issues concerning calculating probabilities of events. If you find this tiring and my questions trivial and obvious, then perhaps it's because you haven't/won't look deeply enough at the details of the theory you are proposing and trying to support I first came to this site after reading about it at First Thoughts in a thread by Stephen Barr, a theistic critic of ID. I was interested (still am, but discouraged) that people here would be open to critical discussion of various ideas associated with ID. Having my attempts to do so derided, trivialized, and dismissed is not encouraging. But I will quit discussing with you.Aleta
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
jerry, To avoid further confusion over definitions, I have a couple of questions about FCSI. Please take them in the tone they are asked; I simply want to understand FSCI better. 1) How is FSCI related to CSI, if at all? 2) CSI is claimed to be a unique characteristic of designed systems. Is FCSI also supposed to only be present in designed systems? Thanks.Mustela Nivalis
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
jerry at 215, “But you were disputing it at 179 when you wrote that there was no evidence for “evolution by accumulation of small changes.”” This is getting tiring and you are revealing your stripes. When we use the word evolution here, it often takes on several meanings. The same is true for a number of words, including "information." That suggests that one should be very careful to specify the definition of the terms one is using. Your original claim that there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes is incorrect on its face. Evolution is the accumulation of small changes in populations over time. But when we discuss it here we often mean it in a different sense, namely the origin of complex novel characteristics. And in no way does what happened in Lenski’s population of bacteria reach that level. Why not? What is your definition of "complex novel characteristics" that excludes the ability to utilize a new food source?Mustela Nivalis
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Aleta:
Do you or do you not agree that the ability to process citrate is a change in function and, therefore involves a change in CSI/FCSI?
It very well could. IOW the total number of bits could have stayed the same while the way those bits are arranged could have changed.Joseph
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 216:
“Seriously, Jerry, you aren’t helping me learn anything here. This is incredibly frustrating.” That is so obviously nonsense. Someone else has just revealed his stripes.
I am not sure what stripes I am supposed to have revealed. But, I will be glad to add zebra to the list in 121. We could probably get off high center if you would just give a yes or no answer to the following question: Would an ID scientist use CSI and/or FCSI calculations as the basis for rank ordering the list of biological things in comment 121 above?efren ts
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
"Seriously, Jerry, you aren’t helping me learn anything here. This is incredibly frustrating." That is so obviously nonsense. Someone else has just revealed his stripes. I suggest you read the Edge of Evolution as a starter and then come back.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
"But you were disputing it at 179 when you wrote that there was no evidence for “evolution by accumulation of small changes.”" This is getting tiring and you are revealing your stripes. When we use the word evolution here, it often takes on several meanings. The official meaning of evolution in genetics and evolutionary biology is a change is the percentage of alleles in a population gene pool. That is the hard and fast definition and it is a trivial distinction when an allele frequency changes. But when we discuss it here we often mean it in a different sense, namely the origin of complex novel characteristics. And in no way does what happened in Lenski's population of bacteria reach that level. After all Darwin wrote his book and called it the Origin of Species but we know that is not what is at stake. It is where did the obviously large changes come from and they do not come from changes in allele frequencies. So often the use of evolution here is in that context. Your incessant attempt to make a non point into something is indicative of an attitude that I just mentioned is typical of anti ID behavior. A constant attempt to criticize rather than to understand. You have just placed your self into a box. If you were really trying to understand anything you would have proceeded very differently.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Jerry at 209:
It is a trivial change.
How do you know that, since you have yet to perform the complexity calculations?
Whatever caused the change in Lenski’s organisms is most likely relatively simple.
How do you know that, since you have yet to perform the complexity calculations?
As far as the change in the FSCI of the Lenski organism that now processed citrate, it may not involve any change in FSCI.
How do you know that, since you have yet to perform the complexity calculations?
Take a simple English paragraph of 180 characters.
I get your point, so let's put aside analogies and deal with the list of biological entities in your comment 121. How would you, the ID scientist rank order that list by complexity? Then take just two items from the list and do the calculations to put them in order relative to each other. If the changes in the Lenski bacteria are so trivial, then do two different things like, say, giraffes and horses. Seriously, Jerry, you aren't helping me learn anything here. This is incredibly frustrating.efren ts
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Aleta, All your questions are trivial and obvious. "2. YOu didn’t answer my question directly about some confusion in your position: you said there is no evidence of evolution by small changes, but you’ve also said that there can be. Which is it?" No one is denying small changes to genomes and no one is denying that these small changes may have huge effects in medicine, genetics, food production etc but they are trivial changes in the evolution debate. That debate is over the origin of complex novel characteristics. I asked that you read the links I pointed to because it short circuits having to answer obvious questions. "Your example of the codon calculation is still just a calculation based on configuration – on pure chance combination: you have not addressed my questions about thngs changing from one state to another such as with the Lenski research. Dismissing it as not a big deal glosses over the fact that it is a counter-example the proves that mere pure chance calculations are inadequate." They have to originate some way and chance, natural laws or intelligence are the options. I just eliminated chance as a source so where are the natural laws and any evidence that they can do. We know intelligence can do it. If there was any evidence that natural laws could do it then the whole discussion would be much different. I have said the Lenski is trivial and is no counter example to anything. It is not the stuff that builds eyes or the avian oxygen system and has been seen millions of times before with microbes and they never led anywhere either. Your questions were answered but you did not recognize it. Maybe now you will see the reasoning behind it.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Jerry, at 179, you wrote, "Just in case anyone is interested there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes." Now when asked,"Do you or do you not agree that the ability to process citrate is a change in function and, therefore involves a change in CSI/FCSI?”, you write, "It is a trivial change", and you go on to write, "There are certainly many small changes in genomes that can cause large morphological changes in an organism or can cause the processing of a nutrient or some other simple function. No one is disputing that." But you were disputing it at 179 when you wrote that there was no evidence for "evolution by accumulation of small changes." So will you agree that what you wrote at 179 was wrong, and that there is evidence of evolution by the accumulation of small changes? It would be helpful if we got clear about this. Note that whether this is a "trivial" or "relatively simple" change is not important to the point I am addressing, which is about the exclusive use of the pure chance hypothesis in calculating CSI. The fact that you acknowledge that some change can happen through the accumulation of small changes is the important result of this exchange. Also, thanks for directly answering the question about FCSI. Your answer is that if two genomes have the same length they have the same FCSI, irrespective of function. Therefore if genome A changed into genome B through an accumulation of small changes, which you now agree can happen, and in the process acquired some different functioning, as in the Lenski research, but had no net change in the length of the genome irrespective of whatever genetic changes happened, a calculation of FCSI would not tell us anything about that because the FCSI would be the same number for both cases. True?Aleta
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
"If you expand the alphabet from 20 amino acids to 20+alpha+beta, then suddenly the sequences shorten dramatically, with important reduction in probabilistic resources." We have just cut out a few of the multi verses and that is all and you know it.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
"So, is it some sort of hazing ritual around here that someone who has been an ID scientist for 10 years makes the newcomer do the work?" Most who come here to comment, come here to criticize. I have little patience for them. No one and I mean no one in the 4 1/2 years that I have been commenting here and who has been anti ID has been honest in their discussions except for one person. People keep asking the same inane questions over and over again and they never present anything of relevance. They always criticize. The Lenski stuff is good ID work and he doesn't know it. The changes are so trivial that it beggars belief that they would tout it as a change in something meaningful. By doing so they are admitting they have absolutely nothing. It is like in a football game when a player from the losing team makes a tackle and then starts beating himself on the chest saying look at what I just did. If you are American, you will know what I am talking about and that is a good analogy for the anti ID people here and in the science world. They beat their chests over trivia.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
"Do you or do you not agree that the ability to process citrate is a change in function and, therefore involves a change in CSI/FCSI?" It is a trivial change. From what I know and this might have changed, they do not know yet the change that caused the ability to process citrate. It is not something I have followed. Why don't you investigate it and before you comment further on this, you should also read the Edge of Evolution. There are certainly many small changes in genomes that can cause large morphological changes in an organism or can cause the processing of a nutrient or some other simple function. No one is disputing that. That is not the debate. Whatever caused the change in Lenski's organisms is most likely relatively simple. That compared to the eye which takes the coordination of about 2000 proteins or the transcription/translation process which requires the presence of about a 1000 protein/RNA polymer combinations one of which is the ribosome which rivals ATP synthase in complexity. As far as the change in the FSCI of the Lenski organism that now processed citrate, it may not involve any change in FSCI. Take a simple English paragraph of 180 characters. Mutate it by a couple letters at a time. Most will do nothing more than indicate some proof reading is necessary and some typos had to be corrected. It is however possible to change parts of its meaning so that it is a valid paragraph. Maybe change "not" to "net" and "or" to "on" and the meaning might change a little or significantly. But no random changes will ever get a paragraph on economics into a love sonnet. You can calculate the FSCI of the paragraph the same way I did the DNA sequence and two 180 letter paragraphs will have the same FSCI. So it is possible there will be no change. All you have done is substitute one of the other possible paragraphs for another and that is no big deal. But if you took all the possible 180 word combinations, the meaningful paragraphs would represent an incredibly tiny percentage of all possible combinations. I would bet you that if you designed a computer program to generate 180 character combinations (using the 26 letters and the space and period) you would be lucky to find one after a thousand years of trying. Probably take a hundred years of so to get a meaningful 10 word sentence. But intelligence creates the works of Shakespeare, the novels of Jane Austin, the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in relatively short time.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Let's take the first question first. Forget the calculation part for a bit: Do you or do you not agree that the ability to process citrate is a change in function and, therefore involves a change in CSI/FCSI?Aleta
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 196:
I already told you how to do it.
So, is it some sort of hazing ritual around here that someone who has been an ID scientist for 10 years makes the newcomer do the work?
Suppose there is a sequence (I am making this up)
Sigh. Do you or do you not agree that the ability to process citrate is a change in function and, therefore involves a change in CSI/FCSI? Can you or can you not calculate it? Because it seems to me you are trying to avoid doing so.efren ts
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, Now these calculations are very rough and should be reduced by a few magnitudes for the fact that some amino acids can replace each other in certain situations. I think they have to be reduced by many orders of magnitude, not a few. The part of the CSI calculation that you are glossing over here is how many molecules have the same function in a given environment. As you point out, the entire sequence is not important. Further, you assume the whole sequence had to come together at once. But we know that there are motifs to protein structure, such as alpha sheet and beta helix, that are used over and over again. If you expand the alphabet from 20 amino acids to 20+alpha+beta, then suddenly the sequences shorten dramatically, with important reduction in probabilistic resources.Nakashima
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 14

Leave a Reply