With all due respect I think your mechanisms cannot account for the pattern you are observing.
This discussion is going on between gpuccio and few evolutionary supporters and gpuccio’s argument is much more persuasive to me.
We dealing with a linear sequence of abstract symbols that functions in living organisms. There are more than one solution to most sequences but the number is constrained by observation of preservation.
Many of the functions need specificity for some of the basics like reliable cell division. The cell is an interdependent system which means the configuration of proteins depend on each other. At the end of the day currently proposed evolutionary mechanisms do not account for what we are observing.
Then that is what you should say instead of pretending that no one has presented any.
They aren’t abstract. Their chemical and physical properties is what gives them function.
The observation of preservation can only tell you which bases or amino acids you can change out when starting with a specific sequence. It can’t tell you how many different sequences there are for a given function, nor can it tell you how many sequences produce function.
What you need to show is that this specificity was present from the beginning.
I respectfully disagree with this assertion except the last sentence. We don’t know how many sequences can produce function but generic function is not all you are observing. You are observing exceedingly complex function. Cell division that can change rates is one example. The ability to rapidly remove introns is another example.
The evidence supports this claim. Minimum observable life is 400 plus genes and there is no logical observable path to the eukaryotic cell.
Not to the sequence level and that is what we are discussing.
We are seeing that complex function in lineages where that function has evolved for long periods of time. That’s what adds complexity.
Where is your independent evidence that it evolved.
That’s just your opinion, and it isn’t backed by evidence.
Its evidence based on Craig Venter’s work. You need to demonstrate simpler life to support your claim. All you are relying on the simple to complex model which is struggling right now based on real evidence.
Please explain why the Muller two step wouldn’t work at the molecular level.
You have to find a matching sequence that functions. What mechanism will finding matching functional sequences? If you give an evolutionary solution then explain how it works through the sequence to find function. The problem is you don’t have natural selection until all the sequences match.
It is the phylogenetic signal, which I have discussed many, many times.
That would be . . . ?
You are the one who is claiming that it is complex throughout. You need to support this claim. If life could be simpler in the past, then your argument falls apart. For your argument to work, it has to have had this level of complexity from the start, so you need to present that evidence.
Why? For any functional protein there are tons of other proteins that don’t match that sequence but still function.
The same way it does now, through mutation and selection. Here is an example:
He dodged the very first one Dr. Swamidass asked. Where is the empirical evidence natural processes can’t produce 500 bits of FI in biological life? All Gpuccio did was deflect with the same non-answer (I’m paraphrasing) “Not counting biology everywhere we see 500 bits of FI it was designed by human intelligence”.
More silly denial from Bill. Here are the exact words
Gpuccio: Leaving aside biological objects (for the moment), there is not one single example in the whole known universe where FI higher than 500 bits arises without any intervention of design.
Gpuccio: I am arguing that there is evidence of design any time that we observe new complex functional information, higher than 500 bits for example, arise.
To which we have not recieved emperical evidence, but statements like these:
We have provided counter examples. True, we have not explained them in detail. However, there are several examples that have FI but do not arise from design.
You asked for negative controls. Do you consider this asking him to prove a negative? Do you remember his conversation about proving a negative?
His argument is a positive argument inferring design given the observation of 500 bits of FI.
I did not see you ask this. Why do you think this is an appropriate scientific question?
Yes, you have. The existence of 500 bits of functional information as measured by Gpuccio’s method.
He already agreed that FI can come from other processes then design so you have common ground here.
The threshold is 500 bits which is quite a bit given total evolutionary resources and the evidence of proteins and protein systems that need to be complete prior to a reproduction advantage.
I know getting synced up in conversation is difficult especially when different views are involved. So far there have been some rough spots but I look forward to some constructive dialog going forward
