Design and Nested Hierarchies

[T_aquaticus]

If you can show matter creating the functional information we observe you falsify it as an immediate conclusion for the origin and evolution in life.

You can’t measure functional information, so that is not a falsification.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

You can’t measure functional information, so that is not a falsification.

I think the correct statement is that we cannot measure it accurately at this point. @Art has been writing since 2004 about scientists trying to empirically measure it in specific proteins. As we get more knowledge of how the cell functions the accuracy of that measurement will improve. The challenge is finding a mechanism that can produce it in large quantities.

High levels of preservation beyond what is expected by neutral mutations indicates functional constraint.

[T_aquaticus]

I think the correct statement is that we cannot measure it accurately at this point.

That’s a distinction without a difference. You can’t measure functional information, so you need a new falsification.

High levels of preservation beyond what is expected by neutral mutations indicates functional constraint.

As already explained, that is easily achieved through negative selection.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

That’s a distinction without a difference. You can’t measure functional information, so you need a new falsification.

This is a false statement. You are leading with you chin making statements based on ignorance.

As already explained, that is easily achieved through negative selection.

Why is negative selection occurring?

[T_aquaticus]

This is a false statement. You are leading with you chin making statements based on ignorance.

My irony meter just exploded.

Why is negative selection occurring?

I started a thread on that very subject. Perhaps you could make some comments over there.

The Rock Pocket Mouse: A Model for Natural Selection

I thought it would be helpful to use a specific example of natural selection for those having issues understanding how it works. Coat color in pocket mice is one of those examples. The paper I will be working from is found here: First, let’s look at the environment where these mice are found. They are found in the southwest deserts of the US, and the vast majority of their range is made up of light brown dirt and rocks. However, there are isolated areas where recent volcanic eruptions have created areas with dark black basalt rock. Interestingly, when we look at the distribution of coat color in pocket mice it matches the environment they are found in: [image] The black mice are found in islands of black basalt rock, and brown mice are found in the sea of brown desert between those islands of volcanic rock. I don’t think it is a stretch to state that camouflage is playing a strong role in the distribution of coat color alleles. The scientists in the paper also looked at int…

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

My irony meter just exploded.

The problem T is you are trying to prove a negative with your statement. This is a classic creationist mistake. Saying it is difficult to measure accurately is sufficient.

[T_aquaticus]

The problem T is you are trying to prove a negative with your statement.

That’s your whole argument, that natural mechanisms can not produce functional information, therefore design.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

That’s your whole argument, that natural mechanisms can not produce functional information, therefore design.

No it is not my argument. My argument is the mechanisms of matter are not powerful enough to explain what we are observing where mind can explain it. I watched people try to model matter as an adequate mechanism over the last 30 years and so far there is no sufficient mechanism to support this hypothesis. I am not saying it is impossible I am simply saying it has not been demonstrated to date.

[T_aquaticus]

My argument is the mechanisms of matter are not powerful enough to explain what we are observing . . .

That is a negative argument you have yet to support.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

That is a negative argument you have yet to support.

I have supported it. You don’t have a model that can build a complex sequence without the sequence as the target. Dawkins needed a target to build a sequence containing about 90 bits of functional information.

[T_aquaticus]

I have supported it.

Yet another bare assertion with no evidence to support it.

You don’t have a model that can build a complex sequence without the sequence as the target.

Argument from ignorance and a shift in the burden of proof.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Argument from ignorance and a shift in the burden of proof.

A statement of the known limits of evolutionary mechanisms. This is reality. The sequential nature of DNA and amino acid based protein sequences is a real observation and they require a very powerful mechanism to account for their origin.

[T_aquaticus]

A statement of the known limits of evolutionary mechanisms. This is reality.

Yet another bare assertion with no evidence to support it.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Yet another bare assertion with no evidence to support it.

There is plenty of evidence the problem is that you are allergic to it The sequence itself is the evidence.

[T_aquaticus]

There is plenty of evidence the problem is that you are allergic to it :-).

I’m not allergic. Start a new thread and present it.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

I’m not allergic. Start a new thread and present it.

You have a black and white style of argument and continue of making accusations that I am arguing without evidence. We are both looking at the same evidence and coming up with different interpretations. I don’t think the discussion is productive any longer.

[John_Harshman]

Let me point out that nothing that’s happened here for at least a couple of days has anything to do with “design and nested hierarchies”.

[T_aquaticus]

Agreed. Closing it down.