Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[ringo747]

The environmental conditions.

Which would occur first the need for the organ or the organ itself?

The question - does DNA contain the information to build a complete life-form, is absolutely yes, no exceptions, this is mainstream knowledge.

DNA by itself obviously does not work - that is, if you put DNA out for culture it won't do anything, it'll just sit there, but DNA inside cells in a functioning body does a lot.

I know that DNA contains the information to build up proteins for a start but does it also hold information on how to build up these proteins into larger structures or does that depend on external chemical processes?

Some mutations are beneficial and are selected because they work - they offer an advantage for the 'machine' in which they reside, that allows the 'machine' to continue.

Many mutations are not beneficial - cancer, colour blindness, cardio defects, these put the machine at a disadvantage which makes it less likely those mutations will be passed on (because said machine will die before it can procreate)

Do we need to assume here that the only mutations that will be selected are those whose effect is great enough to show benefit within a single generation? Unless the positive benefit is realised within a generation then it won't be preserved by natural selection. I don't think that's what your saying but it sounds like it.

Which is exactly what happens, and is exactly why we have things like cancer, terrible genetically inherited birth defects - like grotesque harlequin syndrome (google it - it looks exactly like an explosion in a science lab, and it's entirely genetic)

We must assume that for the species to survive there must have been no mistakes in the process that could have blown everything up. In the liver for example, if some chemical reaction wasn't refined as it should have been, then the consequences could be disastrous.

The function of the liver is not 'regulatory control' it does a massive heap of functions, many of which we can't reproduce - unlike kidneys where you can survive on kidney dialysis, you cannot survive on liver dialysis - no machine can do it.

The liver's main responsibility is metabolism, which toxic substances, fat and other stuff are broken down and moved into waste.

The because all animals are putting things inside their mouths from the environment, food - the chemicals in the food, water and the chemicals inside that, we need an organ to deal with all of these - the evolution of the liver would be driven by what these animals are eating/drinking/being exposed to.

During this time, there would be a progressive 'battle' between good mutations and successful reproduction, which would caress the liver to being more and more suited to it's environment, change the environment - the things you eat/drink or are exposed too - and the liver changes with it over time.

This is adequate as an explanation for the refinement of the liver over time but not constructing it in the first place.

Let's assume that a mutation causes a "sack of cells" as you put it earlier. Unless there is a benefit observed, how or why will natural selection preserve that? I'd assume that the benefit must be observed very rapidly.

Of course your analogy assumes that the mouth existed before the liver. If animals are putting food into their mouths containing certain chemicals then the need for the liver would need to be fulfilled pretty darn quickly.

Well, information is obviously necessary, but it's unintelligent - it doesn't need any intelligence to work.

For me to build something that looks like a ********* out of bits of wood, i'd need intelligence, i'd need to design then i'd need to actually consciously build it and check it to make sure it's right.

Nature doesn't design the *********, it's simply the final phenomena that comes as the result of many natural laws, the exact same natural laws that make things like DNA, the atomic structures between molecules - everything is related in this way.

I fail to see where this information comes from in the first place. I'm a software dev, if I want to add functions to a program there has to be something completely new added like a new method for example. If I want to modify a trait, then I can change an existing method. A computer program with no information in the first place won't do anything. Will we ever know what that information source was?

 

[King4aDay]

Which would occur first the need for the organ or the organ itself?



I know that DNA contains the information to build up proteins for a start but does it also hold information on how to build up these proteins into larger structures or does that depend on external chemical processes?



Do we need to assume here that the only mutations that will be selected are those whose effect is great enough to show benefit within a single generation? Unless the positive benefit is realised within a generation then it won't be preserved by natural selection. I don't think that's what your saying but it sounds like it.



We must assume that for the species to survive there must have been no mistakes in the process that could have blown everything up. In the liver for example, if some chemical reaction wasn't refined as it should have been, then the consequences could be disastrous.



This is adequate as an explanation for the refinement of the liver over time but not constructing it in the first place.

Let's assume that a mutation causes a "sack of cells" as you put it earlier. Unless there is a benefit observed, how or why will natural selection preserve that? I'd assume that the benefit must be observed very rapidly.

Of course your analogy assumes that the mouth existed before the liver. If animals are putting food into their mouths containing certain chemicals then the need for the liver would need to be fulfilled pretty darn quickly.



I fail to see where this information comes from in the first place. I'm a software dev, if I want to add functions to a program there has to be something completely new added like a new method for example. If I want to modify a trait, then I can change an existing method. A computer program with no information in the first place won't do anything. Will we ever know what that information source was?

READ DAWKINS! These are exactly the sorts of questions he provides answers to.

In the time this thread has spent going round in circles you could have finished one of his books.

OK, I'm done now

 

[V-Spec]

Snip

I'm not going over it all again, most of the questions are repeats that have been explained.
As I did several pages ago, I refer you to real literature, written by intelligent people who've tried as hard as they can to understand it, and all agree on it.

You can't really be asking questions about DNA and complexities without first having read the very basics on the stuff.
It seems to me that you're interested, but I detect that you find a lot of it too hard to deal with in terms of acceptance, and as such you're searching for a mystical answer to put in place of the true answer - this approach never works.

 

[ringo747]

I'm not going over it all again, most of the questions are repeats that have been explained.
As I did several pages ago, I refer you to real literature, written by intelligent people who've tried as hard as they can to understand it, and all agree on it.

You can't really be asking questions about DNA and complexities without first having read the very basics on the stuff.
It seems to me that you're interested, but I detect that you find a lot of it too hard to deal with in terms of acceptance, and as such you're searching for a mystical answer to put in place of the true answer - this approach never works.

Why cop out of a sudden? I was genuinely appreciating your input.

 

[Urgannagru]

Why cop out of a sudden? I was genuinely appreciating your input.

Because the liver argument is pretty much as the same as the eye argument.

 

[V-Spec]

Why cop out of a sudden? I was genuinely appreciating your input.

Well, there comes a point where a; I've got work to do and b: most of what's been said has been repeated over and over.

Seriously, go and read the selfish gene or the greatest show on earth, everything you want to know is explained in full there.

Stay away from the god delusion, Dawkins best work is hands down biology.

 

[jmc007]

Damascus has been laid to ruins at least twice on the 20th century, plus this the one happening right now.

I am not mocking you, I am trying to show you that with generic statements everything fits ... e.g. the seas will turn red ... of course sooner or later there will be a natural phenomenon which will fit. Have a read to Nostradamus, the human brain is hardwired to find patterns. If I were to leave something for posterity, surely I would be more precise, more detailed, offer equations or explanations of these ...

The prophecy is unfulfilled as Damascus has not ceased to be a city. i.e. no one dwelling in her.
Just been reading about Israel's "Samson Option", you know the guy who toppled the columns to kill his enemies and himself, sobering stuff.
I am not saying that is the way it is going to go down though it is very likely.
*Edit. My last sentence needs to be made into that Ancient Aliens guy gif.

 

[ringo747]

Because the liver argument is pretty much as the same as the eye argument.

It wasn't me that initiated the use of the liver analogy.

Edit: I know the feeling about having work to do - got nowhere today!

The main problem with your analogy in summary is the assumption that the mouth exists first. If food is continually being pumped in the need for the liver needs to be resolved so quickly. This is in contrast to the vast timescales we have been discussing.

 

[hola_adios]

Why cop out of a sudden? I was genuinely appreciating your input.

Just a genuine question, didn't you ever studied biology on high school? Most of what has been discussed, at least the basic principles surely are taught there.

Aside from this question, I would recommend reading a bit more.

 

[V-Spec]

snip

I've appreciated the conversation tbh, but i'll leave you with the words as one of the cleverest people ever to live;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciP0ysbD-M4

 

[King4aDay]

The main problem with your analogy in summary is the assumption that the mouth exists first. If food is continually being pumped in the need for the liver needs to be resolved so quickly. This is in contrast to the vast timescales we have been discussing.

You need to stop thinking about discrete steps and more about continua. And read Dawkins.

 

[Urgannagru]

It wasn't me that initiated the use of the liver analogy.

Edit: I know the feeling about having work to do - got nowhere today!

The main problem with your analogy in summary is the assumption that the mouth exists first. If food is continually being pumped in the need for the liver needs to be resolved so quickly. This is in contrast to the vast timescales we have been discussing.

The liver does not need to be as complex as that in mamals, insects for instance have a very different system.

Again I don't have the knowledge to give a definate explaination of how life could evolve a mouth with out an organ or stomach for that matter. When multi-cellular life came into existance there would be an upper limit on its size due to how many layers of cells nutrients could diffuse through before layers at the bottom would starve. By having a tube or tubes running through from the surface more cells could feed allowing organisms with this mutation to be able to grow to a larger size which may of given a survival advantage.

 

[estebanrey]

ringo, think of it like this. All of the 'problems' you see with evolution would have and have been looked at by biologists, you must see that it is very unlikely that you as a layman will suddenly discover some smoking gun that disproves what is an established theory.

You also seem to be rehashing issues already covered but with a different subject matter. like your latest issue with the mouth and the liver. You are essentially making the irreducible complexity claim, this has been debunked and even tried in a court of law (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial). The claim is that certain things couldn't have evolved because if you have one system or body part without the existence of the other there is no use and hence it wouldn't have survived long enough for the complimentary body part to have evolved.

Fundamentally, the flaw in this argument is made where someone looks at said body parts and assumes they always had the purpose (or design) they do today and miss the fact that actually on its own it is not useless. It may serve a different purpose and that purpose survived long enough for further evolution that accompanies or even changed it's primary purpose.

 

[wannabedamned]

Surely the requirement for a liver would have come first. =\ Seems kind of obvious? And its not like 1 day a guy decided he needed a liver, the following day he had one!! Magic!

Seems pretty obvious to think that, over time(a hell of a lot of it) the requirement just became more and more. And with that the body gradually changed to accommodate.

You could say its like the appendix in reverse could you not? The requirement is gone, and so the organ is pretty much extra. Yet its still there, Its not like one day we started being born without it. In the future though, who knows! It may develop a new function, or becoming smaller\completely disappear. But you know, it wont be next week.

 

[d_brennen]

The human form has several left over parts. Everyone posting here had a tail for at least a short time too

 

[estebanrey]

The human form has several left over parts. Everyone posting here had a tail for at least a short time too

I remember that, it was 1986 and I had one for two weeks. I miss that damn thing

 

[kedge]

The same changes carried forwards may be useless in a few hundred thousand years.

Mutations are useless from the get go because they are deleterious.

 

[d_brennen]

Mutations are useless from the get go because they are deleterious.

Why did Jesus have a tail?

 

[King4aDay]

Mutations are useless from the get go because they are deleterious.

><

Except for the ones that are neutral or advantageous, of course.

 

[V-Spec]

Mutations are useless from the get go because they are deleterious.

(I don't know why I'm doing this)

Explain why the mutations in e-coli result in it being able to do more than it could before (eat citrate in the culture solution) where it couldn't before.

Then explain why this is deleterious