Mindless Creativity?
Sean Pitman
"mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Some have pointed out that there are many mindless processes that
create some fantastically complex things (like a chicken egg making a
chick or a human body making a human child). I mean, isn't the turning
of a fertilized chicken egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
it is, but it is based on a highly complex pre-established information
system (not chaotic, but complex - the difference between these two
concepts is very important here). Certainly such systems are mindless
and yet they can do some wonderful things. However, they can do
nothing beyond their pre-established programming without the input of
outside information. No such mindless process can give rise to a
greater level of complexity or even a new type of function at its
current level of complexity that goes very far beyond what its
original programming allowed it to do. This is true with computer
software evolution simulations as well as with real life
demonstrations of evolution in action. No mindlessly driven process
goes very far beyond its original programming.
Evolutionary processes are most certainly limited to the lowest levels
of functional complexity. In real life this limit seems to stall
evolution out completely when certain types of functions required a
minimum number of amino acids (above a few thousand). Certainly there
is nothing in literature detailing the evolution of a new cellular
function that requires, at minimum, more than few hundred amino acids
working at the same time. And, that's the problem in a nutshell. No
mindless process can change what it does beyond the lowest levels of
functional complexity, even given trillions of years of time. The
junk sequences simply outnumber the beneficial sequences in an
exponential manner with each additional minimum amino acid requirement
as one moves up the ladder of complexity. Rather quickly the ratio of
beneficial vs. non-beneficial is so miniscule that no mindless process
can sort through all the junk sequences fast enough to evolve anything
within a certain level or higher in anything less than trillions of
years.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
No we're not. Your "mindless process" is anything you don't understand.
Frank
Mark VandeWettering
> Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> Some have pointed out that there are many mindless processes that
> create some fantastically complex things (like a chicken egg making a
> chick or a human body making a human child). I mean, isn't the turning
> of a fertilized chicken egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
> it is, but it is based on a highly complex pre-established information
> system (not chaotic, but complex - the difference between these two
> concepts is very important here). Certainly such systems are mindless
> and yet they can do some wonderful things. However, they can do
> nothing beyond their pre-established programming without the input of
> outside information. No such mindless process can give rise to a
> greater level of complexity or even a new type of function at its
> current level of complexity that goes very far beyond what its
> original programming allowed it to do. This is true with computer
> software evolution simulations as well as with real life
> demonstrations of evolution in action. No mindlessly driven process
> goes very far beyond its original programming.
It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet". You are
merely presuming your conclusion when you say that "no such mindless
process can give rise to a greater level of complexity... that goes
very far beyond what its original programming allowed it to do". The
statement itself attempts to confuse the issues by using a term which
we normally associate with human effort (namefly 'programming') with
something that seldom does (namely biological development).
> Evolutionary processes are most certainly limited to the lowest levels
> of functional complexity. In real life this limit seems to stall
> evolution out completely when certain types of functions required a
> minimum number of amino acids (above a few thousand). Certainly there
> is nothing in literature detailing the evolution of a new cellular
> function that requires, at minimum, more than few hundred amino acids
> working at the same time. And, that's the problem in a nutshell. No
> mindless process can change what it does beyond the lowest levels of
> functional complexity, even given trillions of years of time. The
> junk sequences simply outnumber the beneficial sequences in an
> exponential manner with each additional minimum amino acid requirement
> as one moves up the ladder of complexity. Rather quickly the ratio of
> beneficial vs. non-beneficial is so miniscule that no mindless process
> can sort through all the junk sequences fast enough to evolve anything
> within a certain level or higher in anything less than trillions of
> years.
This may be what you think the problem is in a nutshell, but it
unfortunately has no evidence to back it up at all. Your conclusion of
an intelligent designer is based upon the improbability of long chains
of amino acids forming randomly, but that's rather silly and bears no
resemblance to any modern theory of evolution/abiogenesis/genetics.
The truth is that long chains of amino acids in very specific sequences
DO form, form with great frequency. If you are to claim that they are
somehow designed, it is up to you to present evidence that they are
designed. Merely asserting that some particular model of random formation
makes them exceptionally unlikely is not sufficient.
> Sean www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
Traklman
>From: seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman)
>Date: 12/1/2003 1:56 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com>
>
>Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
>"mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> Some have pointed out that there are many mindless processes that
>create some fantastically complex things (like a chicken egg making a
>chick or a human body making a human child). I mean, isn't the turning
>of a fertilized chicken egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
>it is, but it is based on a highly complex pre-established information
>system (not chaotic, but complex - the difference between these two
>concepts is very important here). Certainly such systems are mindless
>and yet they can do some wonderful things. However, they can do
>nothing beyond their pre-established programming without the input of
>outside information. No such mindless process can give rise to a
>greater level of complexity or even a new type of function at its
>current level of complexity that goes very far beyond what its
>original programming allowed it to do. This is true with computer
>software evolution simulations as well as with real life
>demonstrations of evolution in action. No mindlessly driven process
>goes very far beyond its original programming.
Since Dr. Pitman began this post by noting that many in his audience were
confused by his use of the term "mindless process", it might have been a good
idea to start out by clarifying how he is using the term: how he defines it
(which probably involves some negative predication about something called
"mind", a term he hasn't really defined, either), how he identifies and
distinguishes its instances in the world, etc.
Although he does not actually say so, I would surmise -from the fact that Dr.
Pitman appeals to the notion of "preprogramming" (another term you trade freely
in but do not define), and to the claim that mindless processes do not and
cannot produce effects that are not somehow entailed by such preprogramming-
that he takes such a limitation to be a *defining* characteristic of
mindlessness. For the next several paragraphs, I must ask the gentle reader
to bear with me while I assume that Dr. Pitman is, in fact, proposing just such
an operational definition of mindlessness, an assumption I will later relax.
Paraphrasing the above into terminology I would normally prefer to use, Dr.
Pitman basically seems to be implictly defining a "mindless process" as any
process the possible results of which are substantially constrained by its
nature. Thus interpreted, his assumption above that running an evolutionary
algorithm is an example of a mindless process is based upon the idea that this
process is mindless because it is programmed, and hence constrained, to run a
certain way.
Since the ultimate prize that Dr. Pitman has his eyes on here is presumably a
priviledged position for the claim that the process of achieving observed
biological diversity, is by contrast a "mindful process", he would then seem to
be committed to the special plea that such "mindful" processes are *not*
constrained by any sort of "preprogramming", at least not constrained from the
sort of creative power Dr. Pitman denies "mindless processes" such as
evolution, and which he takes to be necessary for the various biological
phenomena we observe.
Notice that Dr. Pitman's proposed Designer (yes, I know that he does not
actually mention any designer here, but he and I and everyone else know that
that is what he has in mind) and the "intelligence" or "mind" imputed to it,
are basically a black box. The mind's workings cannot be modelled, since its
characteristics are only defined negatively (i.e., not "mindless" or
constrained by preprogramming, etc.). Mindful processes end up being, to quote
Leibniz second-hand (by way of Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", p. 35):
"like little demons or imps which can without ado perform whatever is wanted,
as though pocket watches told the time by a certain horological faculty without
needing wheels, or as though mills crushed grain by a fractive faculty without
needing anything in the way of millstones."
"Mindful processes", and the intelligent designers who love them, appear simply
to have a certain creative faculty, apparently without needing a physical brain
or nervous system, or learning, or relevant experience, or training, or
acquisition of technical proficiency, or tools and logistics, or whatever.
The problem with this, of course, is that Dr. Pitman wishes then to infer an
Intelligent designer by an alleged analogy to human intelligence and
creativity. But since human intelligence and creativity *is* constrained by
its "preprogramming" (genetic, developmental, physiological, cultural,
experiential, etc.) in the same way that any other biological process is, one
must do more a bit more refining and redefining before one could confidently
exclude human intelligence from the category of "mindless process" by the
operational definition proposed above.
Notice, also, that claiming "mindlessness" and hence limited creativity, for a
process is relative to its preprogramming. The development of a chicken from
an embryo is an incredible, complex thing we would not expect a lump of dirt to
be capable of, but once we peek into the embryo's "preprogramming" we find no
need to posit any sort of guiding intelligence.
But this means that, in order to determine whether or not a process is
mindless, we must first know what its preprogramming is, otherwise we cannot
determine whether or not its creative faculties exceed such preprogramming. A
process might simply have very very complex and obscure preprogramming that we
haven't unravelled yet. Until we did unravel it, we would be tempted to impute
"mindfulness" to it, as humans have done throughout history when faced with
imperfectly understood phenomena. If it turned out that evolution, can, in
fact, exceed the preprogramming claimed for it, would Dr. Pitman then conclude
that it is, in fact, a mindful rather than mindless process? Or could it be
simply that its "preprogramming" is in fact more versatile and complex than he
has assumed, in spite of being "mindless".
But perhaps Dr. Pitman does not, in fact, intend to furnish any operational
definition of a mindless process at all, but wishes instead to appeal to
metaphysical *presuppositions* about which processes are mindful and which ones
are not. But then his argument ends up assuming its conclusion: evolution is
*asserted* to be mindless (is it, really?) and hence limited in its "creative"
faculties (is it, really?), whereas some other "mindful" process (perhaps one
with a name that starts with the letter "G") is *asserted* to have the creative
faculty needed to do whatever is wanted.
So right off the bat, before we even start to address the evidence, we already
have a dilemma: if we base our distinction of "mindlessness" on some operative
definition, we must still be able to demonstrate that evolution is, in fact,
"mindless" whereas something else, such as human design, is "mindful". On the
other hand, if we simply base our distinction on a metaphysical assertion about
which processes are mindful and which are mindless, then we have, well, an
argument by assertion.
>
>Evolutionary processes are most certainly limited to the lowest levels
>of functional complexity. In real life this limit seems to stall
>evolution out completely when certain types of functions required a
>minimum number of amino acids (above a few thousand).
Dr. Pitman does not really explain on what he bases this impression, nor his
certainty that it is correct. How does evolution "seem to stall?" Obviously,
any process that unfolds over geological time scales will "seem to stall" in
human ones, just as the Appalachians seem to be "stalled" and not varying much
at all, in spite of the evidence that they have, in fact, changed quite
dramatically over the time scales in question.
> Certainly there
>is nothing in literature detailing the evolution of a new cellular
>function that requires, at minimum, more than few hundred amino acids
>working at the same time. And, that's the problem in a nutshell. No
>mindless process can change what it does beyond the lowest levels of
>functional complexity, even given trillions of years of time.
Notice the non sequitur here: No one has detailed an evolutionary scenario to
the requisite detail nor demonstrated it in real time in the lab, therefore it
is impossible. What is the reasoning process that gets Dr. Pitman from his
premises to his conclusion here? He never tells us, and never has in spite of
having been asked to on several occasions.
> The
>junk sequences simply outnumber the beneficial sequences in an
>exponential manner with each additional minimum amino acid requirement
>as one moves up the ladder of complexity. Rather quickly the ratio of
>beneficial vs. non-beneficial is so miniscule that no mindless process
>can sort through all the junk sequences fast enough to evolve anything
>within a certain level or higher in anything less than trillions of
>years.
But since evolution does not evolve functions from arbitrary sequences, but
rather builds stepwise upon sequences already found to be both functional and
beneficial, Dr. Pitman's point, even if true, is irrelevant.
One consequence of Dr. Pitman's claim here would be that, the more complex a
function and the more aa go into a primary sequence, the greater the chance of
any mutation to it being harmful or even completely disruptive. This is
obviously not the case. There is no evidence that a single mutation is any
more likely to destroy or impede a complex function than a simple one.
Another consequence is: the longer the primary structure of a protein is, the
fewer close homologues it will have, because longer sequences will be
surrounded by ever-geometrically growing seas of useless sequences. But that
is not what we see at all, nor is it consistent with what we know about how aa
sequences contribute to the function of proteins, and how if at all this
relates to sheer length.
So in summary, Dr. Pitman has solved neither the terminological nor
epistemological difficulties connected with his claims, nor are they borne out
by available evidence of how biological systems actually behave.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Lane Lewis
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
I along with others have asked you several times now to define your
terms and you have ignored all requests. Therefore it would not be
unreasonable to assume at this point that you don't have a valid definition
of the term "mindless processes" and therefore your posts about the limits
of evolution are meaningless. Evolution works through natural processes and
no other process has ever been discovered. There are no known limits to
evolution except those imposed by the natural laws of the universe. If you
disagree with these two statements I suggest you state your reasoning with
fully defined terms rather than trying to obfuscate the issue with terms
that are indefinable and or ambiguous.
Lane
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
incredulity constitutes the basis for a "scientific" theory.
<snip>
Boikat
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Daniel Harper
I'm sure you're aware of this by now, but in this thread it appears that
your messages are being triple-posted.
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
Boikat
"Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.02....@terralink.net...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:30:06 +0000, Boikat wrote:
>
> >
> > "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
message
> > news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> >> Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> >> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> >
> > Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
> > incredulity constitutes the basis for a "scientific" theory.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Boikat
>
> I'm sure you're aware of this by now, but in this thread it appears that
> your messages are being triple-posted.
Bellsloth is having some "issues".
Boikat
Sean Pitman
> It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
> process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
> process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
Oh really? Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
forming of Hamlet? For example, a computer can be programmed to do
fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
"intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
cannot do. Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
create automatically. An egg or a computer program cannot create new
things that they were not already programmed to create. A chicken egg
cannot make anything except for a chicken. Shakespeare, on the other
hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet or Macbeth or the Taming of
the Shrew. Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
>You are
> merely presuming your conclusion when you say that "no such mindless
> process can give rise to a greater level of complexity... that goes
> very far beyond what its original programming allowed it to do".
This conclusion happens to be my hypothesis. That is what the
scientific method is all about. You observe a given phenomenon and
then make a conclusion/hypothesis to explain this phenomenon. This is
a valid scientific process as long as the hypothesis makes a testable
prediction that can in fact be disproved or "falsified". This is what
I have done. I have predicted that no mindless process will ever be
able to create anything new within a given level of complexity or
beyond in real time. I have drawn this line at several thousand amino
acids working at the same time. So far, the highest level of
functional complexity that has been observed to evolve in real time
requires less than a few hundred amino acids at minimum for that type
of function (i.e., the lactase or nylonase functions). Nothing beyond
such levels of complexity have ever been shown to evolve in real time
and even many life forms seem to be incapable of evolving much of
anything requiring only a few hundred amino acids working at the same
time. For example, many types of bacteria, to include Hall's double
mutant E. coli bacteria, cannot evolve the relatively simple lactase
function in over a million generations of positive selection pressure.
Hall himself referred to these bacteria as having, "limited
evolutionary potential." Now I find that most interesting . . .
> The
> statement itself attempts to confuse the issues by using a term which
> we normally associate with human effort (namefly 'programming') with
> something that seldom does (namely biological development).
Biological development certainly involves pre-established information
systems of extraordinary informational complexity. Without this
information being there fully formed, random organic matter doesn't
turn into much of anything besides amorphous ooze, much less a
chicken. The pre-established information system is vital to the
functional organizational ability of the chicken egg . . . and all
other biological activities. For example, the parts of a flagellum,
if added to solution suddenly or randomly, will not self-assemble. A
very specific order and concentration of part additions is required in
order for the flagellum to form in such a way that its motility
function will be realized. This specific order requires a
pre-established information system and physical apparatus to decode
this information before a motile flagellum can be built. Information
systems at such levels of complexity simply do not self-assemble
without outside input from some higher information system or
intelligence.
<snip>
> This may be what you think the problem is in a nutshell, but it
> unfortunately has no evidence to back it up at all.
What would you call the fact that there is a ladder of complexity
where evolution works very well on the lowest rungs, but less and less
well as it tries to move up the ladder to higher levels of functional
complexity (involving more and more amino acids at minimum)?
For example, very simple functions, such as many forms of antibiotic
resistance, which work by blocking or interfering with other
pre-established functions or interactions, evolve commonly and
rapidly. This is because there are many different ways, involving
only one or two point mutations, to interfere with the
antibiotic-target interaction. So, there are a lot of beneficial
sequences surrounding the starting sequence. Like stepping-stones,
the mindless evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural
selection can quickly cross over toward the move beneficial levels of
more and more efficient antibiotic resistance. However, functions
that require independent action, as is the case with enzymatic
functions, are much more difficult to evolve since there are far fewer
ways for a series of amino acids to achieve a particular enzymatic
function. Still, those enzymatic functions that require fewer amino
acids at minimum in the least specified order are the easiest ones to
evolve. In fact, although there are far fewer examples of novel
enzymatic functions evolving, they are still fairly common - and more
common for shorter enzymes. However, for those functions that require
more and more amino acids, at minimum, working together at the same
time in a fairly constrained manner, evolution becomes exponentially
less and less common. In fact, many life forms, such as many types of
bacteria, simply cannot evolve something like a relatively simple
lactase function, which requires, at minimum, only 400 or 500 amino
acids in a fairly flexible order.
Some in this forum, such as Von Smith and a few others, have suggested
that the ratio of lactase to non-lactase sequences at this level of
complexity is as high as 1 in 1,000 sequences. The problem here is
that Von clearly doesn't understand the power of random walk. If the
ratio were truly this high, only 1,000 mutations would be needed, on
average, to find a lactase sequence in sequence space. An average
bacterial colony would realize such a sequence many its members in
just one or two generations. Evolution at such a high ratio for
success would not only be guaranteed, it would be rapid. The fact is
that E. coli, without the lacZ and ebg genes, do not evolve the
lactase function despite tens of thousands of generations under high
selection pressures, high mutation rates, and very large population
numbers. Other bacteria haven't evolved this function either in over
a million generations of time - and Von thinks that the ratio is 1 in
1000? Please! You've got to be kiddin me!
The problem is that at increasing levels of minimum amino acid
requirements, the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes down
dramatically so that not only can no new types of functions be evolved
at higher levels of complexity, they cannot be evolved even within the
same level of complexity. It is like the diagram figured below where
simple beneficial islands are clustered close together, but get
farther and farther apart as one moves up the ladder of complexity
(each dot represents a beneficial sequence in sequence space).
_______________________________________
…………………………………………………..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
.
. . .
.
.
.
> Your conclusion of
> an intelligent designer is based upon the improbability of long chains
> of amino acids forming randomly, but that's rather silly and bears no
> resemblance to any modern theory of evolution/abiogenesis/genetics.
Actually that is exactly what the theory of evolution suggests.
Random mutations are supposed to find new beneficial functions, which
can be selected in a positive way by Mother Nature.
> The truth is that long chains of amino acids in very specific sequences
> DO form, form with great frequency.
Actually they do not form with great frequency outside of the
pre-established information system in the DNA of that creature which
codes for their formation.
> If you are to claim that they are
> somehow designed, it is up to you to present evidence that they are
> designed. Merely asserting that some particular model of random formation
> makes them exceptionally unlikely is not sufficient.
Actually it is sufficient. The detection of intelligent activity at
the level of humans or beyond is based on two things: 1) That such
levels of intelligence are capable of producing a given phenomenon,
and 2) that no lesser intelligence or other mindless process is
capable of producing anything even close. Once these two things are
known, intelligent design can be reasonably inferred with a very high
degree of predictive value.
Also, I've done a lot more than just assert than the success of a
random walk will be unsuccessful at a certain level of functional
complexity (involving a few thousands amino acids at minimum), I have
demonstrated a real-life exponential decline in the ability of
mindless evolutionary processes to produce new types of functions at
higher and higher levels of complexity. I have also proposed a very
reasonable explanation for this decline in ability found in the form
of a neutral gap problem. Each additional minimum amino acid
requirement expands the sequence space 20 fold. However, the number
of beneficial sequences only expands a fraction of this amount. This
creates an exponential decrease in the ratio of beneficial vs.
non-beneficial sequences in sequence space. The stepping-stones
become more and more widely separated on average. Very soon the
average gap between beneficial stepping-stones is truly enormous. The
only way for the mindless processes of evolution to bridge this gap is
via random walk alone since nature cannot select between equally
non-beneficial sequences even though they may be different in amino
acid "spelling".
Sean
Glenn
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
news:<slrnbsnblj.1...@keck.vandewettering.net>...
>
> > It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
> > process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
> > process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
>
> Oh really? Hmmmmm . . .
Isn't it interesting that statements like those are allowed to stand?
Makes one wonder about "intelligence" - and "honesty", for that matter.
Certainly not an evolutionist's Chez Watt...
snip
Mark VandeWettering
>
>> It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
>> process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
>> process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
>
> Oh really?
Yes, really?
> Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
> as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
> forming of Hamlet?
If I had thought that, I probably would have said that. The fact that
I said something different probably means that I meant something different.
> For example, a computer can be programmed to do
> fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
> "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
> maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
> know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
> cannot do.
Nonsense.
Not only has it not been shown that human intelligence can do things that
computers can do, but there are obviously things that computers can do
which human brains cannot do.
> Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
> complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
> create automatically.
How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
> An egg or a computer program cannot create new
> things that they were not already programmed to create.
You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
> A chicken egg
> cannot make anything except for a chicken.
Can you make a chicken? Perhaps you shouldn't criticize the humble egg.
> Shakespeare, on the other hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet
> or Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew.
Really? How can we test this claim?
But I was speaking about the nature of processes. Everything that
we observe indicates that thought and conciousness are just ordinary
chemical processes such as we see around us all the time.
> Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
> complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
> more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
> without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
> been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
> computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
> complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
> than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
> difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
That Shakespeare and a chicken egg are different is not surprising, nor
under debate. What is apparently still under debate is the idea that
the processes that Shakespeare uses to create Hamlet are somehow different
than the processes that a egg uses to become a chicken. They are both just
run of the mill chemistry.
>
>>You are
>> merely presuming your conclusion when you say that "no such mindless
>> process can give rise to a greater level of complexity... that goes
>> very far beyond what its original programming allowed it to do".
>
> This conclusion happens to be my hypothesis. That is what the
> scientific method is all about.
But you are using it as if it were evidence. It is not.
> You observe a given phenomenon and
> then make a conclusion/hypothesis to explain this phenomenon. This is
> a valid scientific process as long as the hypothesis makes a testable
> prediction that can in fact be disproved or "falsified". This is what
> I have done. I have predicted that no mindless process will ever be
> able to create anything new within a given level of complexity or
> beyond in real time. I have drawn this line at several thousand amino
> acids working at the same time. So far, the highest level of
> functional complexity that has been observed to evolve in real time
> requires less than a few hundred amino acids at minimum for that type
> of function (i.e., the lactase or nylonase functions). Nothing beyond
> such levels of complexity have ever been shown to evolve in real time
> and even many life forms seem to be incapable of evolving much of
> anything requiring only a few hundred amino acids working at the same
> time. For example, many types of bacteria, to include Hall's double
> mutant E. coli bacteria, cannot evolve the relatively simple lactase
> function in over a million generations of positive selection pressure.
> Hall himself referred to these bacteria as having, "limited
> evolutionary potential." Now I find that most interesting . . .
It's hardly surprising, and does nothing to support your claim that
no physical processes can result in significant innovation.
>
>> The
>> statement itself attempts to confuse the issues by using a term which
>> we normally associate with human effort (namefly 'programming') with
>> something that seldom does (namely biological development).
>
> Biological development certainly involves pre-established information
> systems of extraordinary informational complexity.
No, it "certainly" does not, at least in any non-trivial sense of the
term information.
> Without this
> information being there fully formed, random organic matter doesn't
> turn into much of anything besides amorphous ooze, much less a
> chicken. The pre-established information system is vital to the
> functional organizational ability of the chicken egg . . . and all
> other biological activities. For example, the parts of a flagellum,
> if added to solution suddenly or randomly, will not self-assemble.
Which is significant, why precisely?
> A
> very specific order and concentration of part additions is required in
> order for the flagellum to form in such a way that its motility
> function will be realized. This specific order requires a
> pre-established information system and physical apparatus to decode
> this information before a motile flagellum can be built. Information
> systems at such levels of complexity simply do not self-assemble
> without outside input from some higher information system or
> intelligence.
Again, you've presumed your conclusion. You have to show that such
levels of complexity do not self-assemble.... blah blah blah. The fact
that you don't even know what you mean by "higher information system or
intelligence" is telling.
Mark
>
><snip>
>> This may be what you think the problem is in a nutshell, but it
>> unfortunately has no evidence to back it up at all.
>
> What would you call the fact that there is a ladder of complexity
> where evolution works very well on the lowest rungs, but less and less
> well as it tries to move up the ladder to higher levels of functional
> complexity (involving more and more amino acids at minimum)?
It's not a fact. It's not even an observation. It's just nonsense.
> For example, very simple functions, such as many forms of antibiotic
> resistance, which work by blocking or interfering with other
> pre-established functions or interactions, evolve commonly and
> rapidly. This is because there are many different ways, involving
> only one or two point mutations, to interfere with the
> antibiotic-target interaction. So, there are a lot of beneficial
> sequences surrounding the starting sequence. Like stepping-stones,
> the mindless evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural
> selection can quickly cross over toward the move beneficial levels of
> more and more efficient antibiotic resistance. However, functions
> that require independent action, as is the case with enzymatic
> functions, are much more difficult to evolve since there are far fewer
> ways for a series of amino acids to achieve a particular enzymatic
> function. Still, those enzymatic functions that require fewer amino
> acids at minimum in the least specified order are the easiest ones to
> evolve. In fact, although there are far fewer examples of novel
> enzymatic functions evolving, they are still fairly common - and more
> common for shorter enzymes. However, for those functions that require
> more and more amino acids, at minimum, working together at the same
> time in a fairly constrained manner, evolution becomes exponentially
> less and less common. In fact, many life forms, such as many types of
> bacteria, simply cannot evolve something like a relatively simple
> lactase function, which requires, at minimum, only 400 or 500 amino
> acids in a fairly flexible order.
It's hardly surprising, and does nothing to support your basic premise.
> Some in this forum, such as Von Smith and a few others, have suggested
> that the ratio of lactase to non-lactase sequences at this level of
> complexity is as high as 1 in 1,000 sequences. The problem here is
> that Von clearly doesn't understand the power of random walk. If the
> ratio were truly this high, only 1,000 mutations would be needed, on
> average, to find a lactase sequence in sequence space. An average
> bacterial colony would realize such a sequence many its members in
> just one or two generations. Evolution at such a high ratio for
> success would not only be guaranteed, it would be rapid. The fact is
> that E. coli, without the lacZ and ebg genes, do not evolve the
> lactase function despite tens of thousands of generations under high
> selection pressures, high mutation rates, and very large population
> numbers. Other bacteria haven't evolved this function either in over
> a million generations of time - and Von thinks that the ratio is 1 in
> 1000? Please! You've got to be kiddin me!
>
> The problem is that at increasing levels of minimum amino acid
> requirements, the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes down
> dramatically so that not only can no new types of functions be evolved
> at higher levels of complexity, they cannot be evolved even within the
> same level of complexity. It is like the diagram figured below where
> simple beneficial islands are clustered close together, but get
> farther and farther apart as one moves up the ladder of complexity
> (each dot represents a beneficial sequence in sequence space).
It is indeed difficult to evolve specific effects, particularly when
intermediate products may result in differing fitness. This is hardly
the same as saying that there is no _potential_ path to such an eventuality,
or that many, many features _are_ reachable by such paths.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
Awww. Poor Glenn.
You're quite popular this month in the Chez Watt voting. You should be
happy!
Sean of course didn't let my comment stand. He went on at some length
to try to indicate why he too thought I was mistaken. Maybe you should
try actually making an argument rather than simply being one.
Mark
dkomo
Not only that, he doesn't seem to be aware that a large part of
genetic programming uses randomness in the form of a pseudorandom
number generator, and this is where the "creativity" of genetic
programming comes from. Genetic programming can *design* computer
algorithms using randomness. Nothing could be less "pre-programmed"
than a process like this that is largely random. In fact, genetic
programming is an excellent counter example to his assertion that a
mindless process cannot design anything.
June
And computers plus genetic programming (computer programs that utilize
evolutionary processes to solve problems) are expected to be able to
compete directly with human inventors within a decade or so when the
*computers* get powerful enough. This from "Evolving Inventions" by J.
Koza, M. Keane & M. Streeter in the February 2003 issue of Scientific
American.
From the article (pp 52-54):
"Evolution is an immensely powerful creative process. From the intricate
biochemistry of individual cells to the elaborate structure of the human
brain, it has produced wonders of unimaginable complexity. Evolution
achieves these feats with a few simple processes - mutation, sexual
recombination and natural selection - which it iterates for many
generations. Now computer programmers are harnessing software versions
of these same processes to achieve machine intelligence...
"In the field of electronics, genetic programming has duplicated 15
previously patented inventions, including several that were hailed as
seminal in their respective fields when they were first announced. Six
of these 15 existing inventions were patented after January 2000 by
major research institutions, which indicates that they represent current
frontiers of research in the domains of scientific and practical
importance. Some of the automatically produced inventions infringe
squarely on the exact claims of the previous patented inventions. Others
represent new inventions by duplicating the functionality of the earlier
device in a novel way. One of these inventions is a clear improvement
over its predecessor...
"...Evolution does not know anything about the underlying math; it
simply tries to produce a sequence of improved results. Thus, we
frequently see creative things come out of the evolutionary process that
would never occur to human designers."
>
> > Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
> > complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
> > create automatically.
So can evolutionary processes.
>
> How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
>
> > An egg or a computer program cannot create new
> > things that they were not already programmed to create.
Evolutionary processes can create new things as shown by the life on our
planet and the output of genetic programming.
>
> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
[snip more of Sean's endless incredulity at the way the universe
actually works.]
--
My 2¢ ß-}
June
David Horn
> "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:<slrnbsnblj.1...@keck.vandewettering.net>...
>
>>>It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
>>>process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
>>>process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
>>
>>Oh really? Hmmmmm . . .
>
> Isn't it interesting that statements like those are allowed to stand?
Mabye Newbie will explain the problem with the statement. Then again,
maybe not.
> Makes one wonder about "intelligence" - and "honesty", for that matter.
Since Newbie has neither of those things, I don't worry about who the
"one" in such a statement might be.
> Certainly not an evolutionist's Chez Watt...
Since Newbie appears to be ahead in this month's tally, it "makes one
wonder" what motivated *this* little criticism.
Cubist
Daniel Harper
>
> "Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.12.02....@terralink.net...
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:30:06 +0000, Boikat wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
> message
>> > news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
>> >> Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
>> >> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes
>> >> have.
>> >
>> > Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
>> > incredulity constitutes the basis for a "scientific" theory.
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Boikat
>>
>> I'm sure you're aware of this by now, but in this thread it appears that
>> your messages are being triple-posted.
>
> Bellsloth is having some "issues".
>
I figured as much.
However, I'm currently using Earthlink, and have found that two of the
messages in my sent.messages folder have not yet appeared. I sent them
several hours ago, so they should have theoretically shown up by now.
Glenn
> In article <80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com>, Sean Pitman
wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<slrnbsnblj.1...@keck.vandewettering.net>...
> >
> >> It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
> >> process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
> >> process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
> >
> > Oh really?
>
> Yes, really?
>
> > Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
> > as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
> > forming of Hamlet?
>
> If I had thought that, I probably would have said that. The fact that
> I said something different probably means that I meant something different.
No, it probably means you can now claim you meant something different.
>
> > For example, a computer can be programmed to do
> > fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
> > "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
> > maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
> > know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
> > cannot do.
>
> Nonsense.
Afraid not. Intelliegence is defined well enough.
>
> Not only has it not been shown that human intelligence can do things that
> computers can do, but there are obviously things that computers can do
> which human brains cannot do.
You mean that humans normally don't, not can't.
But you left out that there are things that humans can do that computers
cannot, without instructions.
>
> > Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
> > complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
> > create automatically.
>
> How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
Because you can react a different way to the same stimulus, Mark,
and that you can create stimulus.
>
> > An egg or a computer program cannot create new
> > things that they were not already programmed to create.
>
> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
What arrogance! An egg can not create anything new, nor can a
computer program create anything new that it was not programmed to create.
>
> > A chicken egg
> > cannot make anything except for a chicken.
>
> Can you make a chicken? Perhaps you shouldn't criticize the humble egg.
Your attempt at humor fails.
>
> > Shakespeare, on the other hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet
> > or Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew.
>
> Really? How can we test this claim?
By eliminating the possibility that Hamlet existed before Shakespeare.
>
> But I was speaking about the nature of processes. Everything that
> we observe indicates that thought and conciousness are just ordinary
> chemical processes such as we see around us all the time.
That indicates no such thing. But if you wish, you can present
your explanation for it. Explain how what you observe indicates
chemical processes control thought and consciousness.
>
> > Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
> > complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
> > more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
> > without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
> > been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
> > computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
> > complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
> > than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
> > difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
>
> That Shakespeare and a chicken egg are different is not surprising, nor
> under debate. What is apparently still under debate is the idea that
> the processes that Shakespeare uses to create Hamlet are somehow different
> than the processes that a egg uses to become a chicken. They are both just
> run of the mill chemistry.
>
Like saying they are both the result of the Big Bang. Not very interesting,
except that it shows your idiocy.
Shakespeare used a process called "consciousness" and creativity (among others),
which I fully expect you to attribute to a chicken egg now.
"Run of the mill chemistry" is somehow not overly convincing.
snip
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Boikat
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Well, some also are coinfused as to why you think an argument from
Boikat
Boikat
June
> Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> Some have pointed out that there are many mindless processes that
> create some fantastically complex things (like a chicken egg making a
> chick or a human body making a human child). I mean, isn't the turning
> of a fertilized chicken egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
> it is, but it is based on a highly complex pre-established information
> system (not chaotic, but complex - the difference between these two
> concepts is very important here). Certainly such systems are mindless
> and yet they can do some wonderful things. However, they can do
> nothing beyond their pre-established programming without the input of
> outside information. No such mindless process can give rise to a
> greater level of complexity or even a new type of function at its
> current level of complexity that goes very far beyond what its
> original programming allowed it to do. This is true with computer
> software evolution simulations as well as with real life
> demonstrations of evolution in action. No mindlessly driven process
> goes very far beyond its original programming.
>
> Evolutionary processes are most certainly limited to the lowest levels
> of functional complexity. In real life this limit seems to stall
> evolution out completely when certain types of functions required a
> minimum number of amino acids (above a few thousand). Certainly there
> is nothing in literature detailing the evolution of a new cellular
> function that requires, at minimum, more than few hundred amino acids
> working at the same time. And, that's the problem in a nutshell. No
> mindless process can change what it does beyond the lowest levels of
> functional complexity, even given trillions of years of time. The
> junk sequences simply outnumber the beneficial sequences in an
> exponential manner with each additional minimum amino acid requirement
> as one moves up the ladder of complexity. Rather quickly the ratio of
> beneficial vs. non-beneficial is so miniscule that no mindless process
> can sort through all the junk sequences fast enough to evolve anything
> within a certain level or higher in anything less than trillions of
> years.
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
Back when I was still a theist I believed in a diety that could create
the whole wide universe and everything in it using laws that were set
into the very fabric of existence. I believed one of the best ways to
'worship' such a being was look at that creation and find out how it all
worked with an attitude of "Wow!! How cool is that!"
Your god, who dictates that "only proteins that are 600 aa (or however
many you're proposing) can change by 'mindless' processes that I don't
control but after that *I* have to step in and do some tweaking", seems
so much - well - smaller.
AC
> Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
Tell me what's so intelligent about using the same tube for breathing and
eating?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Richard Uhrich
And he can't rest on the 7th day.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
Sean Pitman
> "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
>
Actually, it is "anything that you *evolutionists* don't understand".
You haven't the first clue how the mindless processes of random
mutation and natural selection create new functions at higher and
higher levels of functional complexity, but you are sure that whatever
the cause, it was a mindless cause. You don't understand how, but you
still have faith that all original causes in this universe are
mindless. For you, mindless naturalism explains absolutely everything
- ultimately. So, can you really say that whatever explains
everything explains nothing? - like many evolutionists in this forum
are so fond of doing?
> Frank
Glenn
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:<87udnXM8G8r...@speakeasy.net>...
> > "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> > news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > > Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> > > "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> >
> > No we're not. Your "mindless process" is anything you don't understand.
>
> Actually, it is "anything that you *evolutionists* don't understand".
> You haven't the first clue how the mindless processes of random
> mutation and natural selection create new functions at higher and
> higher levels of functional complexity, but you are sure that whatever
> the cause, it was a mindless cause. You don't understand how, but you
> still have faith that all original causes in this universe are
> mindless. For you, mindless naturalism explains absolutely everything
> - ultimately. So, can you really say that whatever explains
> everything explains nothing? - like many evolutionists in this forum
> are so fond of doing?
>
= macroevolution, such as Larry Moran:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/modsynth.htm
He equates "evolution" with "The idea that life on Earth has evolved",
calls evolution a "fact", yet states "However, the MECHANISM of
evolution is still debated."
But later in the article he claims that "The debate is over
the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average
size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is
over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new
mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model."
So the "model" (love that word for Evolutionary Theory, which is supposed to be
a scientific explanation of facts and supported hypotheses, repeatable, etc)
does not require any "new" mechanisms...yet the mechanisms
are controversial?
Sounds like dogma to me. Perhaps I failed to see where he supports
the explanation. Or is it possible that mechanisms need only "theoretically"
support "facts"? Perhaps that is why these mechanisms are controversial...
because they have not been shown to be an explanation?
Mark VandeWettering
>
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbsq9hk.8...@keck.vandewettering.net...
>> In article <80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com>, Sean Pitman
> wrote:
>> > Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<slrnbsnblj.1...@keck.vandewettering.net>...
>> >
>> >> It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
>> >> process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
>> >> process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
>> >
>> > Oh really?
>>
>> Yes, really?
>>
>> > Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
>> > as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
>> > forming of Hamlet?
>>
>> If I had thought that, I probably would have said that. The fact that
>> I said something different probably means that I meant something different.
>
> No, it probably means you can now claim you meant something different.
No, it means I _said_ something different. I have no difficulty saying
precisely what I mean.
>>
>> > For example, a computer can be programmed to do
>> > fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
>> > "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
>> > maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
>> > know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
>> > cannot do.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Afraid not. Intelliegence is defined well enough.
>>
>> Not only has it not been shown that human intelligence can do things that
>> computers can do, but there are obviously things that computers can do
>> which human brains cannot do.
>
> You mean that humans normally don't, not can't.
No, I meant "cannot". I wrote "cannot", I meant "cannot".
> But you left out that there are things that humans can do that computers
> cannot, without instructions.
There are things your brain can apparently not due no matter how instructed.
>> > Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
>> > complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
>> > create automatically.
>>
>> How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
>
> Because you can react a different way to the same stimulus, Mark,
> and that you can create stimulus.
In what sense is this different than what a computer can do?
>> > An egg or a computer program cannot create new
>> > things that they were not already programmed to create.
>>
>> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
>
> What arrogance! An egg can not create anything new,
It creates a new chicken with great efficiency.
> nor can a computer program create anything new that it was not
> programmed to create.
You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
>> > A chicken egg
>> > cannot make anything except for a chicken.
>>
>> Can you make a chicken? Perhaps you shouldn't criticize the humble egg.
>
> Your attempt at humor fails.
It isn't humor. I'm dead serious.
>> > Shakespeare, on the other hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet
>> > or Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew.
>>
>> Really? How can we test this claim?
>
> By eliminating the possibility that Hamlet existed before Shakespeare.
How strange. A chicken didn't exist before it hatched from an egg either.
>> But I was speaking about the nature of processes. Everything that
>> we observe indicates that thought and conciousness are just ordinary
>> chemical processes such as we see around us all the time.
>
> That indicates no such thing.
I notice you didn't bother to produce any actual evidence to the contrary.
> But if you wish, you can present
> your explanation for it. Explain how what you observe indicates
> chemical processes control thought and consciousness.
Because when these chemical processes cease, you are dead. Dead people
aren't known for their intelligence or conciousness.
>> > Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
>> > complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
>> > more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
>> > without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
>> > been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
>> > computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
>> > complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
>> > than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
>> > difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
>>
>> That Shakespeare and a chicken egg are different is not surprising, nor
>> under debate. What is apparently still under debate is the idea that
>> the processes that Shakespeare uses to create Hamlet are somehow different
>> than the processes that a egg uses to become a chicken. They are both just
>> run of the mill chemistry.
>>
> Like saying they are both the result of the Big Bang. Not very interesting,
> except that it shows your idiocy.
I notice you actually have no argument to make here, so I won't bother
to respond.
> Shakespeare used a process called "consciousness" and creativity
> (among others), which I fully expect you to attribute to a chicken egg
> now. "Run of the mill chemistry" is somehow not overly convincing.
I know that run of the mill chemistry exists. If things like conciousness
exist, they appear to be tied to things which exhibit everyday chemistry
as well. When the chemical reactions cease, so does conciousness.
Mark
dave e
> Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> create some fantastically complex things (like a chicken egg making a
> chick or a human body making a human child). I mean, isn't the turning
> of a fertilized chicken egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
> it is, but it is based on a highly complex pre-established information
> system (not chaotic, but complex - the difference between these two
> concepts is very important here). Certainly such systems are mindless
> and yet they can do some wonderful things. However, they can do
> nothing beyond their pre-established programming without the input of
> outside information. No such mindless process can give rise to a
> greater level of complexity or even a new type of function at its
> current level of complexity that goes very far beyond what its
> original programming allowed it to do. This is true with computer
> software evolution simulations as well as with real life
> demonstrations of evolution in action. No mindlessly driven process
> goes very far beyond its original programming.
>
So what, exactly, prevents evolution from occuring in imperfectly
replicating organisms? Which step in the process do you believe does
not occur?
1. Organisms give rise to multiple progeny.
2. Progeny are different from parents, and different from one
another, due to mutations.
3. Genetic differences result in differential rates of survival.
4. Return to step one.
Or perhaps you only agree that "microevolution" is possible. If so,
please define the boundary between "microevolution" and
"macroevolution". Is "macroevolution" marked by genetic differences
greater than 0.01% over the total genome? Differences greater than
1%? Differences greater than 2%? Pick a number, then explain why
genetic differences above this value are impossible.
Dave E
Glenn
> In article <5nazb.42$GJ2....@news.uswest.net>, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrnbsq9hk.8...@keck.vandewettering.net...
> >> In article <80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com>, Sean Pitman
> > wrote:
> >> > Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<slrnbsnblj.1...@keck.vandewettering.net>...
> >> >
> >> >> It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
> >> >> process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
> >> >> process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
> >> >
> >> > Oh really?
> >>
> >> Yes, really?
> >>
> >> > Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
> >> > as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
> >> > forming of Hamlet?
> >>
> >> If I had thought that, I probably would have said that. The fact that
> >> I said something different probably means that I meant something different.
> >
> > No, it probably means you can now claim you meant something different.
>
> No, it means I _said_ something different. I have no difficulty saying
> precisely what I mean.
So you say. Shakespeare *created* Hamlet. Identify and describe the
process by which you think Hamlet was created. Since you think it "far from
clear" that the process which generates a chicken is any different,
your identification of that process which you think is the same should be simple
and straightforeward.
Unless, of course, you will weasel and claim that the process is the same,
as in both share the Big Bang process.
>
> >>
> >> > For example, a computer can be programmed to do
> >> > fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
> >> > "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
> >> > maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
> >> > know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
> >> > cannot do.
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> > Afraid not. Intelliegence is defined well enough.
> >>
> >> Not only has it not been shown that human intelligence can do things that
> >> computers can do, but there are obviously things that computers can do
> >> which human brains cannot do.
> >
> > You mean that humans normally don't, not can't.
>
> No, I meant "cannot". I wrote "cannot", I meant "cannot".
Obviously? Then you will have no difficulty in identifying those things.
Storage capacity? Recall? Reasoning? What is relevant here, Mark,
in the context of intelligence? Can you not define intelligence?
>
> > But you left out that there are things that humans can do that computers
> > cannot, without instructions.
>
> There are things your brain can apparently not due no matter how instructed.
I agree. Cute comeback. Quite irrelevant though, unless you can relate
that to your "nonsense" response to the fact that human intelligence can do
things
that computers and eggs can not do.
>
> >> > Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
> >> > complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
> >> > create automatically.
> >>
> >> How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
> >
> > Because you can react a different way to the same stimulus, Mark,
> > and that you can create stimulus.
>
> In what sense is this different than what a computer can do?
Computers react the way they are programmed to react, Mark.
Computers can be instructed to random output, but they do not
create order out of that output.
>
> >> > An egg or a computer program cannot create new
> >> > things that they were not already programmed to create.
> >>
> >> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
> >
> > What arrogance! An egg can not create anything new,
>
> It creates a new chicken with great efficiency.
The egg does no such thing, anymore than a rock breaks itself when it falls.
And an egg does not create anything new in evo speak, *errors* do.
The egg does not create anything out of those errors either, Mark.
>
> > nor can a computer program create anything new that it was not
> > programmed to create.
>
> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
What is the field of genetic programming, Mark? A mindless process?
>
> >> > A chicken egg
> >> > cannot make anything except for a chicken.
> >>
> >> Can you make a chicken? Perhaps you shouldn't criticize the humble egg.
> >
> > Your attempt at humor fails.
>
> It isn't humor. I'm dead serious.
Not having the ability to make a chicken does not mean that humans are not
intelligent, and capable of creating what nature does not, like Hamlet.
You are dead goofy, Mark.
>
> >> > Shakespeare, on the other hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet
> >> > or Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew.
> >>
> >> Really? How can we test this claim?
> >
> > By eliminating the possibility that Hamlet existed before Shakespeare.
>
> How strange. A chicken didn't exist before it hatched from an egg either.
Really? What came first has been answered? Or is this a trick, your leaving
out "chicken" from "from an egg"? Or do you think that an individual of a
species can produce offspring that is of a different species?
>
> >> But I was speaking about the nature of processes. Everything that
> >> we observe indicates that thought and conciousness are just ordinary
> >> chemical processes such as we see around us all the time.
> >
> > That indicates no such thing.
>
> I notice you didn't bother to produce any actual evidence to the contrary.
I notice that you haven't bothered to produce any evidence at all for any of
the wacky things you have said. And what you said indicates no such thing,
only your opinion. You made the claim, then evidence it. I simply denied it.
>
> > But if you wish, you can present
> > your explanation for it. Explain how what you observe indicates
> > chemical processes control thought and consciousness.
>
> Because when these chemical processes cease, you are dead.
And that is evidence that intelligence and consciousness are *controlled by *
chemical processes? When a TV episode of Gilligans Island ceases,
does that mean it was controlled by the TV?
>Dead people aren't known for their intelligence or conciousness.
Sure they are. In your case I may make an exception.
>
> >> > Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
> >> > complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
> >> > more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
> >> > without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
> >> > been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
> >> > computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
> >> > complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
> >> > than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
> >> > difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
> >>
> >> That Shakespeare and a chicken egg are different is not surprising, nor
> >> under debate. What is apparently still under debate is the idea that
> >> the processes that Shakespeare uses to create Hamlet are somehow different
> >> than the processes that a egg uses to become a chicken. They are both just
> >> run of the mill chemistry.
> >>
> > Like saying they are both the result of the Big Bang. Not very interesting,
> > except that it shows your idiocy.
>
> I notice you actually have no argument to make here, so I won't bother
> to respond.
It is actually a very valid argument. When the universe ends, you are dead.
That is the sum of *your* argument, Mark.
>
> > Shakespeare used a process called "consciousness" and creativity
> > (among others), which I fully expect you to attribute to a chicken egg
> > now. "Run of the mill chemistry" is somehow not overly convincing.
>
> I know that run of the mill chemistry exists. If things like conciousness
> exist, they appear to be tied to things which exhibit everyday chemistry
> as well. When the chemical reactions cease, so does conciousness.
>
If things like consciousness exist? You can't even admit there is such a thing?
What "appears to be tied to things" is not quite the same as
evidence that they were *controlled by* things, nor does it provide
ANY support for your disagreement with "However, they are defined
enough for us to know that human intelligence can do things that
computers and eggs cannot do."
Your whole argument condenses to the Big Bang process "controlling
everything". And it is a silly argument.
June
Dana Tweedy
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:<87udnXM8G8r...@speakeasy.net>...
> > "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
message
> > news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > > Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> > > "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> >
> > No we're not. Your "mindless process" is anything you don't understand.
>
> Actually, it is "anything that you *evolutionists* don't understand".
> You haven't the first clue how the mindless processes of random
> mutation and natural selection create new functions at higher and
> higher levels of functional complexity, but you are sure that whatever
> the cause, it was a mindless cause.
On the contrary, random mutation and selection (natural or directed) has
been directly observed to change the genetic make up of a population, with
measurable physical differences in the population. The "How" is obvious, an
alteration in the genes caused by the mutation, causes a change in the
physical life processes, either morphology, or in biochemistry. Selection
fixes that mutation in the population. The cause need not be "mindless".
As I pointed out some time ago, purposeful selection, as in the case of
stock breeding is well known to scientists. You on the other hand are
insisting on a "mindful process" where one is not required, or indeed
indicated by the evidence.
> You don't understand how, but you
> still have faith that all original causes in this universe are
> mindless.
I doubt there is anyone here that has such "faith". There is no way to
determine if there are, or are not any supernatual intelligent beings
affecting natural laws. Until you present any evidence of such a being,
appealing to "mindful" processes where mindful beings are not known to
exist, is simply unscientific.
> For you, mindless naturalism explains absolutely everything
> - ultimately. So, can you really say that whatever explains
> everything explains nothing? - like many evolutionists in this forum
> are so fond of doing?
Whatever the ultimate cause, science can only study what exists in the
natural world. Natural processes are not necessarily "mindless" but they
are the only processes that science can identify. Since a supernatural
being can, in principle, explain anything, appeal to one is inherently
unscientific, and intellectually sterile.
DJT
Mark VandeWettering
Both are simply the side effects of ordinary chemistry. I've been rather
clear about this, and frankly, I'm not certain why you are seemingly still
confused.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > For example, a computer can be programmed to do
>> >> > fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
>> >> > "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
>> >> > maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
>> >> > know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
>> >> > cannot do.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense.
>> >
>> > Afraid not. Intelliegence is defined well enough.
>> >>
>> >> Not only has it not been shown that human intelligence can do things that
>> >> computers can do, but there are obviously things that computers can do
>> >> which human brains cannot do.
>> >
>> > You mean that humans normally don't, not can't.
>>
>> No, I meant "cannot". I wrote "cannot", I meant "cannot".
>
> Obviously? Then you will have no difficulty in identifying those things.
> Storage capacity? Recall? Reasoning? What is relevant here, Mark,
> in the context of intelligence? Can you not define intelligence?
You should talk to Pitman. He thinks the definition is so obvious that
it doesn't need defining.
>> > But you left out that there are things that humans can do that computers
>> > cannot, without instructions.
>>
>> There are things your brain can apparently not due no matter how instructed.
>
> I agree. Cute comeback. Quite irrelevant though, unless you can relate
> that to your "nonsense" response to the fact that human intelligence can do
> things
> that computers and eggs can not do.
I'm still waiting for an example of something a human brain can do that a
machine cannot do. One should be careful to not mix "cannot" and "has not"
when replying.
>> >> > Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
>> >> > complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
>> >> > create automatically.
>> >>
>> >> How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
>> >
>> > Because you can react a different way to the same stimulus, Mark,
>> > and that you can create stimulus.
>>
>> In what sense is this different than what a computer can do?
>
> Computers react the way they are programmed to react, Mark.
So do you.
> Computers can be instructed to random output, but they do not
> create order out of that output.
Really? That seems a bold assertion.
>> >> > An egg or a computer program cannot create new
>> >> > things that they were not already programmed to create.
>> >>
>> >> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
>> >
>> > What arrogance! An egg can not create anything new,
>>
>> It creates a new chicken with great efficiency.
>
> The egg does no such thing, anymore than a rock breaks itself when it falls.
And no less so, not surprisingly.
> And an egg does not create anything new in evo speak, *errors* do.
> The egg does not create anything out of those errors either, Mark.
If you say so Glenn.
>> > nor can a computer program create anything new that it was not
>> > programmed to create.
>>
>> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
>
> What is the field of genetic programming, Mark? A mindless process?
It demonstrates precisely what you say is impossible: the creation of novel
innovations without directed instruction on how to do so.
Koza's written three books on the subject.
>> >> > A chicken egg
>> >> > cannot make anything except for a chicken.
>> >>
>> >> Can you make a chicken? Perhaps you shouldn't criticize the humble egg.
>> >
>> > Your attempt at humor fails.
>>
>> It isn't humor. I'm dead serious.
>
> Not having the ability to make a chicken does not mean that humans are not
> intelligent, and capable of creating what nature does not, like Hamlet.
> You are dead goofy, Mark.
I didn't say that they did. I merely said that the processes involved
are the same that allow Shakespeare to pen Hamlet. Just ordinary chemistry.
>>
>> >> > Shakespeare, on the other hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet
>> >> > or Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew.
>> >>
>> >> Really? How can we test this claim?
>> >
>> > By eliminating the possibility that Hamlet existed before Shakespeare.
>>
>> How strange. A chicken didn't exist before it hatched from an egg either.
>
> Really? What came first has been answered? Or is this a trick, your leaving
> out "chicken" from "from an egg"? Or do you think that an individual of a
> species can produce offspring that is of a different species?
Of course I do. That's how speciation happens. It is of course a complete
aside to the point that is under consideration and seemingly continues to
elude you.
>> >> But I was speaking about the nature of processes. Everything that
>> >> we observe indicates that thought and conciousness are just ordinary
>> >> chemical processes such as we see around us all the time.
>> >
>> > That indicates no such thing.
>>
>> I notice you didn't bother to produce any actual evidence to the contrary.
>
> I notice that you haven't bothered to produce any evidence at all for any of
> the wacky things you have said. And what you said indicates no such thing,
> only your opinion. You made the claim, then evidence it. I simply denied it.
It's pointless to trundle out evidence which you either choose to ignore or
just are too damned stupid to understand. This is particularly true when
you choose to merely make up what you think the other person says. You know,
like you did when you said that AC had sayd that "we all know what Roadrunner
thinks" when he had in fact said "We all want to know what RR thinks". Twice.
Calling me a liar in between.
>> > But if you wish, you can present
>> > your explanation for it. Explain how what you observe indicates
>> > chemical processes control thought and consciousness.
>>
>> Because when these chemical processes cease, you are dead.
>
> And that is evidence that intelligence and consciousness are *controlled by *
> chemical processes?
Yes. It is. The fact that chemicals are so commonly used to control
intelligence and conciousness might be another clue.
> When a TV episode of Gilligans Island ceases,
> does that mean it was controlled by the TV?
Uh, yes?
>>Dead people aren't known for their intelligence or conciousness.
>
> Sure they are. In your case I may make an exception.
Oooh. Good one Glenn.
You can't define it, so what does it mean to say it exists?
(To be fair, nobody else has a good working definition of conciousness either,
even guys like Penrose work pretty hard on this one).
> What "appears to be tied to things" is not quite the same as
> evidence that they were *controlled by* things,
Again, given the ability for chemicals to provide alterations in what we
would call intelligence or conciousness, doesn't that seem at least a
plausible possibility? Remember, I am disagreeing with Sean's assertion
that there _must_ be something beyond ordinary chemical processes. He
doesn't argue this: he merely states it as obvious. By presenting this
argument, I am merely saying it is _far_ from obvious. In fact, there
is considerable evidence to suggest it isn't true.
> nor does it provide
> ANY support for your disagreement with "However, they are defined
> enough for us to know that human intelligence can do things that
> computers and eggs cannot do."
That human brains can do things which eggs can't do is hardly surprising.
I don't disagree with that, I merely point out that just saying that doesn't
tell us very much about anything.
> Your whole argument condenses to the Big Bang process "controlling
> everything". And it is a silly argument.
No, it doesn't. There literally isn't anything controlling anything,
except in the sense that matter exists and combines in ways which
seem to obey physical laws. Pittman thinks there is some special
gadget called "complexity" or "creativity" or "intelligence" which can
accomplish something in this universe which is unattainable without its
mysterious influence. It is that claim which is simply not in evidence.
All known examples of intelligence seem to rely on ordinary physical
processes. It is not beyond the realm of possibility then that such
processes arise spontaneously from the physical laws themselves.
Mark
John Segerson
Dana Tweedy wrote:
Furthermore, Sean hasn't the first clue (or maybe will tell us) how the unknown
intelligent designers create "new functions at higher and higher levels of
functional complexity," but he is sure, nevertheless, that whatever the cause,
it was intelligent.
>
>
> > You don't understand how, but you
> > still have faith that all original causes in this universe are
> > mindless.
>
> I doubt there is anyone here that has such "faith". There is no way to
> determine if there are, or are not any supernatual intelligent beings
> affecting natural laws. Until you present any evidence of such a being,
> appealing to "mindful" processes where mindful beings are not known to
> exist, is simply unscientific.
>
> > For you, mindless naturalism explains absolutely everything
> > - ultimately. So, can you really say that whatever explains
> > everything explains nothing? - like many evolutionists in this forum
> > are so fond of doing?
>
> Whatever the ultimate cause, science can only study what exists in the
> natural world. Natural processes are not necessarily "mindless" but they
> are the only processes that science can identify. Since a supernatural
> being can, in principle, explain anything, appeal to one is inherently
> unscientific, and intellectually sterile.
>
> DJT
--
邢 唷��
Dana Tweedy
"John Segerson" <jo...@Wsemcon.us> wrote in message
news:3FCE8E59...@Wsemcon.us...
>
>
snipping
>
.
> >
> > On the contrary, random mutation and selection (natural or directed)
has
> > been directly observed to change the genetic make up of a population,
with
> > measurable physical differences in the population. The "How" is
obvious, an
> > alteration in the genes caused by the mutation, causes a change in the
> > physical life processes, either morphology, or in biochemistry.
Selection
> > fixes that mutation in the population. The cause need not be
"mindless".
> > As I pointed out some time ago, purposeful selection, as in the case of
> > stock breeding is well known to scientists. You on the other hand are
> > insisting on a "mindful process" where one is not required, or indeed
> > indicated by the evidence.
>
> Furthermore, Sean hasn't the first clue (or maybe will tell us) how the
unknown
> intelligent designers create "new functions at higher and higher levels of
> functional complexity," but he is sure, nevertheless, that whatever the
cause,
> it was intelligent.
Apparently Sean feels that being intelligent enables a being to perform any
task, without the bother of having to use a physical mechanism.
DJT
Larry Moran
Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
>> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:<87udnXM8G8r...@speakeasy.net>...
>> > "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>> > news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
>> > > Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
>> > > "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
>> >
>> > No we're not. Your "mindless process" is anything you don't understand.
>>
>> Actually, it is "anything that you *evolutionists* don't understand".
>> You haven't the first clue how the mindless processes of random
>> mutation and natural selection create new functions at higher and
>> higher levels of functional complexity, but you are sure that whatever
>> the cause, it was a mindless cause. You don't understand how, but you
>> still have faith that all original causes in this universe are
>> mindless. For you, mindless naturalism explains absolutely everything
>> - ultimately. So, can you really say that whatever explains
>> everything explains nothing? - like many evolutionists in this forum
>> are so fond of doing?
> Even the ones that recognize the controversy over "lots of microevolution
> = macroevolution, such as Larry Moran:
> http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/modsynth.htm
That's not a good example of the debate about mechanisms of evolution
but it's correct to say that there is debate. Some scientists think that
the known mechanisms of microevolution are sufficient to account for
all macroevolutinary change while others argue that there are higher
level processes, such as species selection, that play an important role.
Stephen J. Gould wrote a large book about this aspect of evolutionary
theory. None of these mechanisms require supernatural beings.
Sean Pitman claims that scientists do not have a "first clue" about how
evolution accounts for the history of life on Earth. This is a claim
that is so far from the truth that it goes beyond the bounds of
acceptable rhetoric. It is a lie.
> He equates "evolution" with "The idea that life on Earth has evolved",
> calls evolution a "fact", yet states "However, the MECHANISM of
> evolution is still debated."
In that ten year old article I said that evolution is defined as the
change in the frequency of alleles in a poulation. I also said that
the evidence in favor of the idea that life on Earth has evolved from
common ancestors is so overwhelmingly supported that it is considered
a fact. It's worth noting that the fundamental mechanisms of evolution
(natural selection, genetic drift, speciation etc.) are also
incontrovertible facts. (So much for the idea that scientists don't
have a clue.)
Scientists are interested in determining how the known mechanisms of
evolution gave rise to modern species. The fact that modern species
evolved from ancient ancestors is not controversial. The fundamental
mechanisms of evolution are not controversial. The relative contributions
of known mechanisms to the historical pattern is debated and the exact
pathways are still being worked out. We may never know exactly *how*
some species evolved but this is a characteristic of all history and
not just the history of evolution.
Sean and the other anti-evolutionists want to throw out the very idea
of evolution just because we can't provide a detailed account of every
single unique event in the history of life. This would be like rejecting
all of geology just because plate techtonics and other geological
processes can't tell us the exact minute-by-minute events that led
to the formation of every mountain and every molehill. Sean and the
other anti-evolutionists want to rest their case for God on such
nonsense. This is more than just an argument from ignorance or a
God-of-the-gaps argument. It's an argument that, if carried to its
logical conclusion, would reject all of history.
The idea that the history of life can be better explained by reference
to an intelligent designer is logically flawed and vacuous. It's
logically flawed because it is based on the premise that such an
intelligent designer actually exists. In order to be scientifically
valid you have to first present evidence that supernatural beings
can actually influence the real world and cause miracles. This appears
not to be a problem for those who grew up believing in gods but that's
because they don't ever question their faith. The real test of any
intelligent design position lies in convincing a non-believer that
there is scientific evidence for supernatural beings. If you can't do
this then it ain't scienc.
Intelligent design "explanations" are also vacuous. They explain nothing.
I challenge Sean, or any other anti-evolutionist, to provide us with
an account of the history of life that includes intelligent design
but is consistent with all of the known facts of evolution. It's time
to get down to brass tacks. Did God design flagella but not the
citric acid cycle? Did he design the blood clotting cascade in mammals
but played very little role in our evolution from primitive apes?
How does intelligent design explain the diversity of prokaryotes, the
origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, the relationship between
birds and dinosaurs, the organization of the human genome, the
fossil record of fish, the prevalence of marsupials in Australia,
the evolution of whales, the origin of sex, the Cambrian explosion,
amino acid biosynthesis pathways in humans, the pattern of punctuated
equilibria, mutations, the abundance of beetles, flowering plants,
mass extinctions, homologous genes, drug resistance in bacteria,
flu viruses, the structure of mushrooms, DNA replication, and why
lobsters have so many legs?
> But later in the article he claims that "The debate is over the
> relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average
> size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate
> is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new
> mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model."
> So the "model" (love that word for Evolutionary Theory, which is supposed
> to be a scientific explanation of facts and supported hypotheses,
> repeatable, etc) does not require any "new" mechanisms...yet the
> mechanisms are controversial?
The relative contributions of known "mindless" mechanisms of evolution
to the history of life are debated. This does not mean that scientists
don't have a "first clue" about evolution. It does not mean that
scientists have to resort to supernatural explanations in order to
account for the history of life. Some of the "debate" is semantic -
smart scientists love this sort of thing - but that's no different than
what happens in any field. (I think there's even debate in the field of
religion but I doubt that you and Sean reject religion because of
controversy over the divinity of Christ or transubstantiation.)
> Sounds like dogma to me. Perhaps I failed to see where he supports
> the explanation. Or is it possible that mechanisms need only
> "theoretically" support "facts"? Perhaps that is why these mechanisms
> are controversial... because they have not been shown to be an
> explanation?
The history of life on this planet is a long series of unique events
spread out over 4 billion years. Evolutionary theory is a robust theory
(or model) of how evolution happens. Evolutionary theory provides us
with a good explanation of the basic facts of evolution. This isn't
dogma. It's real science. If anyone has a better explanation of
how modern species came to be then please let us know about it. Vacuous,
illogical, hand-waving about intelligent designers and "mindless
processes" just doesn't cut it.
Larry Moran
TomS
<slrnbsul0s....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>, Larry Moran stated..."
[...snip...]
>Intelligent design "explanations" are also vacuous. They explain nothing.
>I challenge Sean, or any other anti-evolutionist, to provide us with
>an account of the history of life that includes intelligent design
>but is consistent with all of the known facts of evolution. It's time
>to get down to brass tacks. Did God design flagella but not the
>citric acid cycle? Did he design the blood clotting cascade in mammals
>but played very little role in our evolution from primitive apes?
>How does intelligent design explain the diversity of prokaryotes, the
>origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, the relationship between
>birds and dinosaurs, the organization of the human genome, the
>fossil record of fish, the prevalence of marsupials in Australia,
>the evolution of whales, the origin of sex, the Cambrian explosion,
>amino acid biosynthesis pathways in humans, the pattern of punctuated
>equilibria, mutations, the abundance of beetles, flowering plants,
>mass extinctions, homologous genes, drug resistance in bacteria,
>flu viruses, the structure of mushrooms, DNA replication, and why
>lobsters have so many legs?
[...snip...]
If there are several scientists who are supporting ID, then we
can expect that there is something about ID which can answer
questions like these.
At the very minimum, we have a right to expect that someone is
showing some interest in questions like these.
If these questions are too tough for ID to address, then there
are more obvious and more elementary questions which someone in the
ID movement -- if it is not vacuous (or perhaps "political" might be
the right word) -- might show some interest in.
What is it like when an ID-event takes place? Is there a
shuffling around of some DNA molecule in the germ cells of some
living thing, something sort of like a mutation, but different in
some designed way? Does an already existing living thing grow a
new organ or appendage or acquire a new ability, and then pass that
on to its descendants? Or is there a sudden appearance of a whole
new ecological system, with new tribes of animals, plants, bacteria,
and new geological and climatic conditions fitting this system? Or
is there some disruption in the fabric of space-time, and a violation
of the ordinary laws of nature, with something new popping into
existence where there was nothing (not even space-time) before?
*If* ID is supposed to be an "explanation", then, at some stage
in its development, so one might think, then there would be some kind
of indication of results, or work, or (at the very least) interest in:
(a) Things which it explains -- such as Larry's helpful suggestions,
which evolutionary biologists work on
(b) Things which are the explanatory factors -- such as the usual
factors such as "non-directed variations", "natural selection", and
so on, that evolutionary biology uses
(c) Some connection between (a) and (b)
---Tom S.
We now come to a numerous tribe, that seem to make approaches even to humanity;
that bear an awkward resemblance to the human form ... Animals of the MONKEY
class ... the whole offers a picture that may mortify the pride of such as make
their persons the principal objects of their admiration.
John Wesley: A Survey Of The Wisdom Of God In The Creation: Part Two. Chapter I.
Sean Pitman
> > > news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > mutation and natural selection create new functions at higher and
> > > higher levels of functional complexity, but you are sure that whatever
> > > the cause, it was a mindless cause.
>
> intelligent designers create "new functions at higher and higher levels of
> functional complexity," but he is sure, nevertheless, that whatever the cause,
> it was intelligent.
Exactly. That is the point I'm trying to get across to you
evolutionists. You and I are in the same boat. Neither one of use
knows how, exactly, the process that gave rise to the levels of
complexity found in living things worked or works. However, one does
not need to know exactly how a given phenomenon was formed in order to
adequately judge the likelihood that it was formed with or without an
intelligent cause behind it. If a given phenomenon goes so far beyond
the highest levels of functional complexity that any mindless
processes has ever produced, and even beyond what the highest levels
of human intelligence has yet to produce, the only rational option is
to hypothesize an intelligent origin that is beyond the highest levels
of human intelligence. Only human intelligence and creativity gets
even remotely close to producing some of the higher levels of
complexity found within all living things. No mindless process comes
remotely close to anything beyond the lowest levels of functional
complexity. In this light, the hypothesis of a mindless cause to
living things and their diversity is simply insane.
Daniel Harper
...and that post was a day or so late.
Eros
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:56:15 +0000 (UTC),
> Sean Pitman <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
> > Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> > "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
>
> Tell me what's so intelligent about using the same tube for breathing and
> eating?
>
> <snip>
Not to mention using the same tube for procreation and waste disposal!!!
EROS.
------------------------------------------
"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Hebrews 11:1
sweetnes...@yahoo.com
accumulates in one place, change the venue and continue as if nothing
happened, eh, Sean?
>I mean, isn't the turning of a fertilized chicken
>egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
>it is, but it is based on a highly complex
>pre-established information system
Which is based on a simpler system, which is based on a simpler
system, which is based on a simpler system...etc. Yes. In the final
iteration, you have a simple molecular process, RNA autocatalysis.
>However, they can do nothing beyond their
>pre-established programming without the input
>of outside information. No such mindless process
>can give rise to a greater level of complexity
>or even a new type of function at its current
>level of complexity that goes very far beyond
>what its original programming allowed it to do.
Incorrect. I have given plenty of examples here, which you ignored,
but I will provide another analysis further down in the text.
>Evolutionary processes are most certainly limited
>to the lowest levels of functional complexity.
Incorrect. Again, see examples below.
>In real life this limit seems to stall evolution
>out completely when certain types of functions
>required a minimum number of amino acids (above
>a few thousand).
There is no such thing as a minimum of amino acids. See the second
example in the text below.
>Certainly there is nothing in literature detailing
>the evolution of a new cellular function that requires,
>at minimum, more than few hundred amino acids working
>at the same time. And, that's the problem in a nutshell.
No. The problem in the nutshell is this: the changes happen one
amino-acid at a time. So new functions can and do arise, but complex
new functions (requiring entire new organelles, which is what you are
shooting for) require millions of years. We cannot demonstrate it in
the lab within the span of a century.
>No mindless process can change what it does beyond
>the lowest levels of functional complexity, even given
>trillions of years of time.
It only gets more boring with repetition, not more correct. But let me
get to an example.
When I was in Tucson a few years ago, I had an interesting discussion
with a geologist over there. Among other things, to demonstrate how
complex geology can get, he showed me an analysis of core samples from
a vulcanic area (I cannot remember, unfortunately, the exact spot).
The sample was immensely complicated: it involved some old minerals,
covered by sediment, with a layer that was pushed into it laterally,
and then covered with lava, which changed the composition of the
sediment; the upper lava layer was then apparently blown off, since
more sediment appeared on top of this, which was then in turn covered
with volcanic ash...etc, etc. He went on for a good hour or so, just
explaining what happened, and in which order.
How was he able to do it? The science of geology is based on millions
of observations performed by thousands of scientists. They watched how
sediments form (now, in an ongoing process); they observed different
mineral structures, their formation and the conditions under which the
crystals form (same substance will form one type of crystal under
pressure x and temperature y, while forming a completely different
crystal under pressure m and temperature n). Based on that set of
observations, one can take those core samples, look at them, and tell
with a high degree of accuracy what *exactly* happened, and *when* it
happened.
Now, if he told you the story of how that particular part of land was
formed, you would say what..."it's a nice just-so story, but you don't
have any proof! You can't show me such a complex sediment being formed
right now, in the lab!".
And he cannot build you up that kind of complexity in the lab. It
would take way too long, by order of centuries. But, scientifically,
he has proven it: not only in observation of what happens now, and
application of that to the past, but all the other peripheral evidence
supports it. He can point to layers that could form only if certain
other layers formed first; minerals that could form only by putting
other minerals under pressure; etc. And it all fits with his original
theory. Each part of the theory is supported by literally millions of
separate sources.
Exactly the same applies to evolution. You insist on your incorrect
calculations (we have discussed the reasons why they are incorrect
before, and I will point out several of them again in the next
example), completely ignoring the fact that people who devoted their
whole lives to examination of the origins of life have already
performed much more rigorous calculations many times. We can trace
down genes, measure frequencies of mutation, observe the changes that
happen *today*, around us...and apply that knowledge in exactly the
same way as geologists do; the only difference is level of complexity,
for while geology is complex, life is more so.
The first point of evoutionary theory that you are refusing to accept
(simply refusing: you just say no! and turn your back on the evidence)
is that if changes happen as they do today, by the same rate, it is
*certain* that completely novel, complex system can and *will* evolve
over the course of millions of years. There is just no statistical way
for that *not* to happen.
[And while I'm mentioning geology as an illustration, I would like to
turn your attention to something else. Geological record fully
supports the theory of evolution. Refuting that organisms evolved one
from another requires refutation of the science of geology in the same
package. Good luck.]
>The junk sequences simply outnumber the beneficial
>sequences in an exponential manner with each additional
>minimum amino acid requirement as one moves up the
>ladder of complexity.
And here we go again. You assume that the cell has to go through all
possible combinations of amino acids in "sequence space" until it
"hits" one "right combination" that will produce "the function". You
continue at this even though the fact that the basics of this
assumption are wrong has been explained to you in great detail.
I cannot but wonder how you can maintain this despite obviously
possessing above-average intelligence? I mean, wherever you turn you
have refutations of your theory... Closest one to mind: I had chicken
for lunch; turkey was also offered as an alternative. Chickens are
closely related to turkeys, yet they are significant differences:
there are a few large protein systems, multiple thousands of residues
worth, that exist in one and not the other (both ways). In your world,
the designer would have to separately design chickens and turkeys,
since there is "no way" for such systems to arise independently,
through mutations. A cobra would have to be designed separately, de
novo, from nonpoisonous snakes, as its build includes many systems
that a nonpoisonous snake "could not possibly" evolve. Etc, etc, etc.
All this in face of fossil record, biological record, genetics...
But never mind. Let me focus on the second example.
Short polypeptides can and do have functions; even single amino-acids
can have functions, sometimes (as in case of AdoMet, which is a
nucleoside, adenine, plus one amino acid, methionine) many functions.
Therefore, there is no need for the cell to have to start with a
certain "minimum length".
Once this starting polypeptide exists, it can be duplicated, copied,
inserted, parts can be deleted, etc. This allows for domains to be
combined, and for creation of multidomain proteins with complex
functions. In other words, you don't have to simply go through various
combinations of single residues, you can go through combinations of
large stretches (up to hundreds of residues) with already existing
functions. You ignore this.
Evolution was shown to be very fast, *experimentally*, when pressures
exist, and when the system has the basis to adapt. Example within the
example: A tiny, not very valuable improvement will take time to
spread in population. For instance, if a bacterium is capable of
sticking to substrate 1% better, it helps, but not so much that its
progeny will outcompete everyone else. However, if the advantage is
significant (say, 1% faster hydrolysis of lactose in a very
lactose-rich environment) it will spread very, very quickly.
Evolution of specificity is another point. Take capacity to digest
fatty acids. Put the organism in a situation, say, where it will be
useful for organism *not* to digest palmitic acid. Random mutations
present in every organism will produce a wide variety of the enzyme in
question - some varieties will bind palmitic oil more efficiently then
others. The organisms with low affinity enzymes will outcompete those
with high affinity. Give it few hundred thousand generations, and you
have continual improvement: not just random jumping from one point to
another, but selection *towards* a particular optimized state (do note
that this is not the same as teleology). Once a minimum function
exists, the drive to optimize that function will proceed
unidirectionally, and much faster then normally. You choose to ignore
this too.
Even if we assume complete randomness, given large spans of time and
numbers of mutations, complex systems will arise. Let's say that you
have a molecule 200 residues in size, that gets duplicated twice. You
now have a 800 residue protein that might or might not perform its
original function.
Most likely, it will do nothing, and will eventually be selected out
due to sheer cost of producing it (but, in general, very slowly).
Sometimes it will do something bad, and it will *very quickly* be
selected out. Very occasionaly, it will do something good (anything
good), in which case it will fall into the abovementioned optimization
cycle, and be quickly pushed towards its most highly useful form. If
you look at the organism few tens of thousands of years later, all
that you will see is this huge, perfectly optimized protein, that
performs a complex function. And, since you are who you are, you will
infer irreducible complexity.
Note that this is one of the reasons why organisms adapt so quickly in
new surroundings. Many of them have proteins that are remnants in
process of being selected out, or new mutations with no particular use
in their old surroundings... they are, as a whole, highly optimized
for living in a certain way, and they are all practically equal. It
takes a large, significant beneficial mutation to make an individual
so much better then everyone else, it actually makes a difference -
which is rare, and so evolution is slow. But when you throw them into
new surroundings, suddenly every organism has a different level of
fitness; and the those who happen to tolerate their new surroundings
the best quickly take over. And they don't just take over - they
adapt. All those things that allowed them to thrive will be driven
towards their optimum, leading to the development of highly
specialized new systems in relatively short periods of time (we *are*
still talking thousands of years, but on the time scale of evolution,
this is nothing).
Final thing you keep ignoring is equivalency of many sequences. Take
the same enzyme from many species, do an alignment. See how many amino
acids match perfectly? See how many don't match at all? You will also
see that they can greatly vary in length; even the spacing between the
conserved residues doesn't have to be always equal.
So even in the "random search through sequence space" (which, as
explained above, is *not* the way large and complex proteins develop,
at least not usually) the combination has to have those few amino
acids that are important, and to "hit" just generally in the area of
other several hundred (mostly concerning which is hydrophobic and
which is hydrophilic) in order to achieve certain functionality.
Functionality does not have to be perfect - it just has to be
sufficient to produce some selective advantage. It is then driven to
optimize to its most efficient form by mechanisms detailed above.
You are fond of using Lactase as an example, so let's use it here. If
lactase is removed from an organism, it will (this is experimentally
shown, as you know) very quickly copy and adapt a similar enzyme which
it can then use to digest lactose. This happens very quickly, and
illustrates the mechanisms of optimization and adaptation to new
surroundings. However, when organisms that have neither lactase nor an
enzyme close to it in function are placed in high-lactose
environment...well, nothing happens on laboratory scale, even in
thousands of generations. This is to be expected - developing a
function of lactase without disturbing the rest of the existing system
(since modern cells use polysaccharides for a variety of purposes, it
is not possible to simply start with a general glycoside hydrolase)
requires a significant sequence of mutations.
However, given a few tens of thousands of years in those conditions,
it is highly unlikely that a mutation would *not* occur that would
make an enzyme hydrolize lactase. It might be a side effect of a
different protein, it might be a whole, novel protein, it might be a
duplicate of some protein that has a similar structure. If it did so,
even at 1e-20 efficiency of normal lactases, it would be conserved,
and rapidly optimized, until we had a novel form of lactase before us.
>You haven't the first clue how the mindless
>processes of random mutation and natural selection
>create new functions at higher and higher levels
>of functional complexity, but you are sure that
>whatever the cause, it was a mindless cause.
This statement of yours, dear sir, can be favorably compared to a
large pile of waste produced by male specimens of the Bos Bovis
species.
We have more then a fair idea how the processes work. We are observing
them work on a daily basis. We do not see anything except the laws of
universe at work; not a single case of observation of any kind of
intervention by an "Intelligent Designer" has ever been observed. So
it is not an insistence: it is part of evidence. If evidence for an
"Intelligent Designer" ever surfaces, we will have to adapt the
theory.
Until then "I simply cannot believe that this which is happening can
happen at all" remains an exceedingly poor argument.
>You don't understand how, but you still have faith
>that all original causes in this universe are mindless.
Nope. I have no idea about the original causes of the universe. I
don't have any pertinent evidence about that, so how do you expect me
to make up my mind?
I do know that evolution did happen, and I have a decent idea how it
happened. There are uncertainties, as always: sometimes, the idea is
very general. But the basic explanation is pretty much unshakeable at
this point. We may not know how John Smith got from Los Angeles to New
York, but we have it down to flight, driving, or walking; we can with
absolute certainty say that he didn't just teleport from A to B. We
can also eliminate pegasi and unicorns as modes of transportation.
No faith is needed for evolution. But evolution applies from the first
roughly functioning cell onwards; you might be talking about
abiogenesis, so let's analyze that for a moment. How did the first
cell come about?
This is something that is quite unknown, and entirely theoretical. So,
yes, unlike the case of evolution, one cannot make one's mind based
entirely on evidence. What do we do?
You might propose that, since we don't know, it is equally rational to
simply say that there was an Intelligent Designer who designed the
first cell, as it is to assume that the mindless processes did it. You
might say that it takes faith in both cases, so there is no real
difference.
If you did so (and I don't know if you would, but I have a general
idea), you would be wrong. There is a simple reason to assume that the
first cell arose by mindless processes rather then by intelligent
design. The reason is evidence of existence.
We *know*, without doubt, that mindless processes exist. Everything
that happens, happens according to the laws of the universe. We have
ascertained without much doubt that the same laws (without any large,
visible changes) applied for quite a few billions of years. We know
that those laws were around when the life first began. Therefore, we
have good reason to think that the laws of the universe were involved
in the begining of life.
As for Intelligent Designer...we have no idea if a supernatural entity
such as he exists or not. We see no evidence of his existence, in the
present or in the past. He is entirely in the domain of imagination,
and as such we can imagine anything about him, and therefore measure
nothing. Not only have we no reason to assume his existence, but
taking him as an "option" would literally mean end of any further
research - for if can you learn anything about an invisible,
intanglible being that never does anything, how can you learn anything
about its works?
How did a star form? If we assume it formed by mindless processes, we
can use our knowledge of the laws of physics, and see if we can
discover a solution. After many years of work, we may produce a
theory, compare it to the reality, and see if it stands up to
scrutiny. If we assume that a Designer made it, that is it. We give
up, and say "goddidit", the end. We cannot know anything further.
Through most of the Dark Ages, people took the second approach;
whatever it is, God made it to be that way. This is, in fact, the
reason why that period of time is called "The Dark Ages". Modern
science uses the first approach, and it got as quite a bit further.
So, in case of abiogenesis, I will look at both options: accept a
Designer without *any* reason to do so, plop on a chair, and say
"done". Or assume that the processes that did EVERYTHING ELSE around
me also produced life, and try to figure out how they did it.
Mindless processes, Intelligent Designer, whichever it is, gave us
free will to make our own choices. Each to their own, as they say.
M.
Sarah Berel-Harrop
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnbsul0s....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
TomS
<3fd08227$0$187$a726...@news.hal-pc.org>, Sarah Berel-Harrop stated..."
>
>POTM, if not yet nominated.
I second the nomination.
---TomS.
Sean Pitman
> > Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
> > as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
> > forming of Hamlet?
>
> If I had thought that, I probably would have said that. The fact that
> I said something different probably means that I meant something different.
You said that the chicken egg and Shakespeare used exactly the same
process.
> > For example, a computer can be programmed to do
> > fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
> > "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
> > maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
> > know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
> > cannot do.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Not only has it not been shown that human intelligence can do things that
> computers can do, but there are obviously things that computers can do
> which human brains cannot do.
You seem not to understand the difference between a very specific and
limited function that is preprogrammed and creativity. Computers can
indeed to many wonderful things that the human mind cannot do, but
computers are not creative. They cannot invent new things to do and
create like the human mind can. Humans cannot make a chicken like the
chicken egg can do. We cannot do anything that comes even close.
However, humans are far more creative than are chicken eggs. Do you
see the difference here?
> > Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
> > complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
> > create automatically.
>
> How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
Oh, I am most certainly preprogrammed, but to be creative. I can
actually choose to learn and create many new and very different
things. Chicken eggs, computers, and the like are not preprogrammed
with enough information to be creative in this way. They are
basically stuck doing one thing in the same way that they always did
it. They cannot think of imagine new things to do like the human mind
can.
> > An egg or a computer program cannot create new
> > things that they were not already programmed to create.
>
> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
Actually I do. Genetic programming is very limited in scope and the
types of functions that it can produce. It is basically helpful for
refining what is already there, not for the invention of brand new
types of functions at high levels of complexity. Computers simply
cannot evolve their own software or hardware beyond the lowest levels
of functional complexity without the higher creative informational
input of a computer programmer.
> > A chicken egg
> > cannot make anything except for a chicken.
>
> Can you make a chicken? Perhaps you shouldn't criticize the humble egg.
I'm not criticizing the ability of the chicken egg at all. Its
information content goes far beyond the level of complexity that I
could ever create. However, the chicken egg is simply not as creative
as I am. It can only make chickens. It cannot choose to make
anything else to even to make chickens in a different way. It is no
more creative or imaginative than a very complex assembly line.
> > Shakespeare, on the other hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet
> > or Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew.
>
> Really? How can we test this claim?
Come on now! Do you really think to contest this claim? Hamlet was
not already programmed into Shakespeare's head when he was born. The
words for his works did not simply flow out of his pen like an
automated recording of what was already inside his head from birth.
This is not true of the chicken egg. The information for chicken
formation was always there. No thought, sweat, rewriting, or other
forms of editing were necessary.
Please now. I understand you are in a difficult position, but you
only make yourself look more and more silly when you make such claims
- like a chicken egg is as creative as Shakespeare.
> But I was speaking about the nature of processes. Everything that
> we observe indicates that thought and conciousness are just ordinary
> chemical processes such as we see around us all the time.
They are chemical processes, but they are certainly not ordinary.
Very few natural processes have them. An extremely high order of
complexity is required to gain the ability for creative thought and
self-consciousness. A chicken egg certainly hasn't got it and neither
does a computer. Many life forms do not have it either. Humans have
it in far greater amounts than any other natural object or being.
> > Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
> > complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
> > more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
> > without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
> > been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
> > computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
> > complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
> > than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
> > difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
>
> That Shakespeare and a chicken egg are different is not surprising, nor
> under debate. What is apparently still under debate is the idea that
> the processes that Shakespeare uses to create Hamlet are somehow different
> than the processes that a egg uses to become a chicken. They are both just
> run of the mill chemistry.
They are not run of the mill chemistry. Very few chemical processes
work like either one of these processes work. One is also very
different from the other. One chemical interaction allows for a very
high degree of creativity and self-awareness. The other form of
chemistry does not allow for any form of creativity beyond the lowest
levels of functional complexity. It simply cannot think or create any
different function beyond the one that it was preprogrammed to create.
It cannot do anything else. It has no choice.
> >>You are
> >> merely presuming your conclusion when you say that "no such mindless
> >> process can give rise to a greater level of complexity... that goes
> >> very far beyond what its original programming allowed it to do".
> >
> > This conclusion happens to be my hypothesis. That is what the
> > scientific method is all about.
>
> But you are using it as if it were evidence. It is not.
I'm not using it as if it were evidence. I use it as an opening
statement of my position, my hypothesis. I gave the evidence, in
brief of what I have said at length before, later in the response.
You have to state your hypothesis if you wish to be scientific, right?
> > You observe a given phenomenon and
> > then make a conclusion/hypothesis to explain this phenomenon. This is
> > a valid scientific process as long as the hypothesis makes a testable
> > prediction that can in fact be disproved or "falsified". This is what
> > I have done. I have predicted that no mindless process will ever be
> > able to create anything new within a given level of complexity or
> > beyond in real time. I have drawn this line at several thousand amino
> > acids working at the same time. So far, the highest level of
> > functional complexity that has been observed to evolve in real time
> > requires less than a few hundred amino acids at minimum for that type
> > of function (i.e., the lactase or nylonase functions). Nothing beyond
> > such levels of complexity have ever been shown to evolve in real time
> > and even many life forms seem to be incapable of evolving much of
> > anything requiring only a few hundred amino acids working at the same
> > time. For example, many types of bacteria, to include Hall's double
> > mutant E. coli bacteria, cannot evolve the relatively simple lactase
> > function in over a million generations of positive selection pressure.
> > Hall himself referred to these bacteria as having, "limited
> > evolutionary potential." Now I find that most interesting . . .
>
> It's hardly surprising, and does nothing to support your claim that
> no physical processes can result in significant innovation.
Actually it does. It supports my hypothesis that those functions that
require more amino acids at minimum to be realized in a beneficial way
are much less common than those functions that required fewer amino
acids working at the same time. It shows the relative rarity of
beneficial sequences at higher and higher levels in sequence space.
> >> The
> >> statement itself attempts to confuse the issues by using a term which
> >> we normally associate with human effort (namefly 'programming') with
> >> something that seldom does (namely biological development).
> >
> > Biological development certainly involves pre-established information
> > systems of extraordinary informational complexity.
>
> No, it "certainly" does not, at least in any non-trivial sense of the
> term information.
I'm sure you can back this statement up with some evidence that
disproves my assertion?
> > Without this
> > information being there fully formed, random organic matter doesn't
> > turn into much of anything besides amorphous ooze, much less a
> > chicken. The pre-established information system is vital to the
> > functional organizational ability of the chicken egg . . . and all
> > other biological activities. For example, the parts of a flagellum,
> > if added to solution suddenly or randomly, will not self-assemble.
>
> Which is significant, why precisely?
I'm sure that you will refuse to understand even though you are
clearly capable, but this is significant because pre-established
information and chemical order is indeed necessary to form not only
chickens from chicken eggs, but everything else at such levels of
functional complexity. Such levels of functional complexity simply do
not form without such pre-established order. Look into it. You will
find that this statement is true.
> > A
> > very specific order and concentration of part additions is required in
> > order for the flagellum to form in such a way that its motility
> > function will be realized. This specific order requires a
> > pre-established information system and physical apparatus to decode
> > this information before a motile flagellum can be built. Information
> > systems at such levels of complexity simply do not self-assemble
> > without outside input from some higher information system or
> > intelligence.
>
> Again, you've presumed your conclusion. You have to show that such
> levels of complexity do not self-assemble.... blah blah blah. The fact
> that you don't even know what you mean by "higher information system or
> intelligence" is telling.
I have looked far and wide and I have never seen such levels of
complexity self-assembling - have you? Please, if you know of such an
example, please let me know. Until then, I would suggest to you that
you have no room to deride my position.
> >> This may be what you think the problem is in a nutshell, but it
> >> unfortunately has no evidence to back it up at all.
> >
> > What would you call the fact that there is a ladder of complexity
> > where evolution works very well on the lowest rungs, but less and less
> > well as it tries to move up the ladder to higher levels of functional
> > complexity (involving more and more amino acids at minimum)?
>
> It's not a fact. It's not even an observation. It's just nonsense.
It is a real observation, although you may be too limited in your
education or understanding to appreciate it.
> > For example, very simple functions, such as many forms of antibiotic
> > resistance, which work by blocking or interfering with other
> > pre-established functions or interactions, evolve commonly and
> > rapidly. This is because there are many different ways, involving
> > only one or two point mutations, to interfere with the
> > antibiotic-target interaction. So, there are a lot of beneficial
> > sequences surrounding the starting sequence. Like stepping-stones,
> > the mindless evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural
> > selection can quickly cross over toward the move beneficial levels of
> > more and more efficient antibiotic resistance. However, functions
> > that require independent action, as is the case with enzymatic
> > functions, are much more difficult to evolve since there are far fewer
> > ways for a series of amino acids to achieve a particular enzymatic
> > function. Still, those enzymatic functions that require fewer amino
> > acids at minimum in the least specified order are the easiest ones to
> > evolve. In fact, although there are far fewer examples of novel
> > enzymatic functions evolving, they are still fairly common - and more
> > common for shorter enzymes. However, for those functions that require
> > more and more amino acids, at minimum, working together at the same
> > time in a fairly constrained manner, evolution becomes exponentially
> > less and less common. In fact, many life forms, such as many types of
> > bacteria, simply cannot evolve something like a relatively simple
> > lactase function, which requires, at minimum, only 400 or 500 amino
> > acids in a fairly flexible order.
>
> It's hardly surprising, and does nothing to support your basic premise.
How so? Such statements as this are not helpful.
> > Some in this forum, such as Von Smith and a few others, have suggested
> > that the ratio of lactase to non-lactase sequences at this level of
> > complexity is as high as 1 in 1,000 sequences. The problem here is
> > that Von clearly doesn't understand the power of random walk. If the
> > ratio were truly this high, only 1,000 mutations would be needed, on
> > average, to find a lactase sequence in sequence space. An average
> > bacterial colony would realize such a sequence many its members in
> > just one or two generations. Evolution at such a high ratio for
> > success would not only be guaranteed, it would be rapid. The fact is
> > that E. coli, without the lacZ and ebg genes, do not evolve the
> > lactase function despite tens of thousands of generations under high
> > selection pressures, high mutation rates, and very large population
> > numbers. Other bacteria haven't evolved this function either in over
> > a million generations of time - and Von thinks that the ratio is 1 in
> > 1000? Please! You've got to be kiddin me!
> >
> > The problem is that at increasing levels of minimum amino acid
> > requirements, the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes down
> > dramatically so that not only can no new types of functions be evolved
> > at higher levels of complexity, they cannot be evolved even within the
> > same level of complexity. It is like the diagram figured below where
> > simple beneficial islands are clustered close together, but get
> > farther and farther apart as one moves up the ladder of complexity
> > (each dot represents a beneficial sequence in sequence space).
>
> It is indeed difficult to evolve specific effects, particularly when
> intermediate products may result in differing fitness. This is hardly
> the same as saying that there is no _potential_ path to such an eventuality,
> or that many, many features _are_ reachable by such paths.
Name some. Where are these "many many features that are reachable" by
any sort of path within such levels of functional complexity? Such
claims are easy enough to make, but it is a very different matter when
you actually try to back up such bold statements with some actual
demonstrations. I'm not looking for one particular type of function.
I'm looking for evidence that any type of function, at a given level
of complexity involving several thousand amino acids at minimum
working at the same time, can evolve in less than trillions of years.
You can start with absolutely any starting point that you want,
functional or non-functional. You can use gene duplication, point
mutation, gene transfer, and any other mindless process that you want
to solve this problem. Of course, I'm very confident that you will
never solve this problem because it is simply not solvable without
invoking the involvement of an intelligent Creator who had
intelligence and creative abilities that went far beyond what even
humans are currently capable of achieving. Certainly no mindless
process can do a better job that we humans can do, even given
trillions upon trillions of years of time.
> Mark
Sean
www.naturalselection.0catch.com
AC
> POTM, if not yet nominated.
Seconded! Great post
Sean Pitman
>
> Here we go again. Once a critical mass of contrary information
> accumulates in one place, change the venue and continue as if nothing
> happened, eh, Sean?
What "critical mass"? You presented nothing disproving my position in
the slightest and nothing new that others have not already tried to
float in this forum. Also, you change venues just as much as anyone.
For example, you created a new thread for this post when you could
have simply responded to the other.
> >I mean, isn't the turning of a fertilized chicken
> >egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
> >it is, but it is based on a highly complex
> >pre-established information system
>
> Which is based on a simpler system, which is based on a simpler
> system, which is based on a simpler system...etc. Yes. In the final
> iteration, you have a simple molecular process, RNA autocatalysis.
Not at all. Emerging functional complexity is the entire issue. The
simpler systems within higher level systems do not automatically
self-assemble to form the function of the higher level system. There
are in fact for more ways in which they could be assembled that would
not yield a higher level beneficial function.
> >However, they can do nothing beyond their
> >pre-established programming without the input
> >of outside information. No such mindless process
> >can give rise to a greater level of complexity
> >or even a new type of function at its current
> >level of complexity that goes very far beyond
> >what its original programming allowed it to do.
>
> Incorrect. I have given plenty of examples here, which you ignored,
> but I will provide another analysis further down in the text.
This should be good . . . as always.
> >Evolutionary processes are most certainly limited
> >to the lowest levels of functional complexity.
>
> Incorrect. Again, see examples below.
Ok . . .
> >In real life this limit seems to stall evolution
> >out completely when certain types of functions
> >required a minimum number of amino acids (above
> >a few thousand).
>
> There is no such thing as a minimum of amino acids. See the second
> example in the text below.
You're nuts. There certainly is such a thing as a minimum amino acid
requirement for all types of beneficial protein functions.
> >Certainly there is nothing in literature detailing
> >the evolution of a new cellular function that requires,
> >at minimum, more than few hundred amino acids working
> >at the same time. And, that's the problem in a nutshell.
>
> No. The problem in the nutshell is this: the changes happen one
> amino-acid at a time. So new functions can and do arise, but complex
> new functions (requiring entire new organelles, which is what you are
> shooting for) require millions of years. We cannot demonstrate it in
> the lab within the span of a century.
Correction, simply functions happen, but more and more complex
functions are exponentially harder and harder to come by until, at the
level of less than a few thousand amino acids, new functions are
impossible to come by within the span of trillions of centuries.
That fact that you realize that you cannot demonstrate the evolution
of such a level of complexity in the lab in real time is telling,
especially since you cannot or will not say why such a level of
complexity takes so long to achieve (even if it were only a century or
so of time, which is an unsupported statement). What is it Sweetness,
that slows down evolution? I mean really, the lower level functions,
such as antibiotic resistance and short single protein enzymes evolve
relatively rapidly. What slow things down for higher level functions?
Come on now, I'm sure you can come up with something . . .
> >No mindless process can change what it does beyond
> >the lowest levels of functional complexity, even given
> >trillions of years of time.
>
> It only gets more boring with repetition, not more correct.
Tell me about it. Your same old tired arguments are really starting
to become rather boring. Can't you think of anything new?
> But let me
> get to an example.
>
> When I was in Tucson a few years ago, I had an interesting discussion
> with a geologist over there. Among other things, to demonstrate how
> complex geology can get, he showed me an analysis of core samples from
> a vulcanic area (I cannot remember, unfortunately, the exact spot).
>
> The sample was immensely complicated: it involved some old minerals,
> covered by sediment, with a layer that was pushed into it laterally,
> and then covered with lava, which changed the composition of the
> sediment; the upper lava layer was then apparently blown off, since
> more sediment appeared on top of this, which was then in turn covered
> with volcanic ash...etc, etc. He went on for a good hour or so, just
> explaining what happened, and in which order.
You confuse two definitions of complexity. The popular definition
involves any sort of observation or phenomenon that looks complicated,
or difficult to understand. This is not the type of complexity that I
am talking about. I am talking about functional complexity. Such
geologic patterns are not informationally complex in a functional
sense. They are based more on chaos than on complexity. The simple
function of a pocketwatch is far more complex than such geologic
patterns, weather systems, planetary systems, and the like.
> How was he able to do it? The science of geology is based on millions
> of observations performed by thousands of scientists. They watched how
> sediments form (now, in an ongoing process); they observed different
> mineral structures, their formation and the conditions under which the
> crystals form (same substance will form one type of crystal under
> pressure x and temperature y, while forming a completely different
> crystal under pressure m and temperature n). Based on that set of
> observations, one can take those core samples, look at them, and tell
> with a high degree of accuracy what *exactly* happened, and *when* it
> happened.
Sure, but we do not see such real time demonstrations of evolution of
higher complex functions as we see real time demonstrations of the
formation of such geological formations.
> Now, if he told you the story of how that particular part of land was
> formed, you would say what..."it's a nice just-so story, but you don't
> have any proof! You can't show me such a complex sediment being formed
> right now, in the lab!".
Actually they can show such real time formations in geology all the
time. Often though, their ideas about geology and the time, order,
and environmental causes are completely wrong. The study of
geological formations is fairly subjective - a historical science.
For example, many scientists believe that the Coconino Sandstone layer
found third from the top in the Grand Canyon was formed over millions
of years in a desert-like environment. However, resent studies by
those such as geologist Leonard Brand have shown that these formations
are much more consistent with rapid deposition under water. See the
following link for the details of this study:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
> And he cannot build you up that kind of complexity in the lab. It
> would take way too long, by order of centuries. But, scientifically,
> he has proven it: not only in observation of what happens now, and
> application of that to the past, but all the other peripheral evidence
> supports it.
Here is the key, such geological observations happen now, in real
time. Not so with biological evolution beyond the lowest levels of
functional complexity. Also, geologic patterns are more chaotic than
they are complex. Relatively simple algorithms can give rise to them.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
> He can point to layers that could form only if certain
> other layers formed first; minerals that could form only by putting
> other minerals under pressure; etc. And it all fits with his original
> theory. Each part of the theory is supported by literally millions of
> separate sources. Exactly the same applies to evolution.
Evolutionists tell us that increasing levels of *functional*
complexity evolve over time. Geology has nothing to do with
increasing levels of functional complexity. The evidence for geologic
patterns can be and is observed in real time. The evidence for the
evolution of biological functional complexity shows that in real time
increasing levels of complexity become less and less common in an
exponential pattern. Inductive reasoning based on these findings as
well as the statistics of the most likely neutral gaps involved give
strong evidence that increasing levels of complexity beyond a few
thousand amino acids really would require trillions upon trillions of
years of time to achieve - not just a few hundred, thousand, million,
or even billion as you are suggesting.
> You insist on your incorrect
> calculations (we have discussed the reasons why they are incorrect
> before, and I will point out several of them again in the next
> example), completely ignoring the fact that people who devoted their
> whole lives to examination of the origins of life have already
> performed much more rigorous calculations many times.
Where are these rigorous calculations?
> We can trace
> down genes, measure frequencies of mutation, observe the changes that
> happen *today*, around us...and apply that knowledge in exactly the
> same way as geologists do; the only difference is level of complexity,
> for while geology is complex, life is more so.
Exactly the problem. This is a problem of levels of FUNCTIONAL
complexity. Tracing genes and understanding mutation frequencies and
the functional limits of what such mutations can and do achieve only
supports my position all the more, not yours.
> The first point of evoutionary theory that you are refusing to accept
> (simply refusing: you just say no! and turn your back on the evidence)
> is that if changes happen as they do today, by the same rate, it is
> *certain* that completely novel, complex system can and *will* evolve
> over the course of millions of years. There is just no statistical way
> for that *not* to happen.
You say this over and over again like a mantra, but give absolutely no
evidence or logical reasons to support yourself. The actual evidence
of functional evolution supports my position. You have not been able
to controvert my hypothesis in any sort of reasonable way.
> [And while I'm mentioning geology as an illustration, I would like to
> turn your attention to something else. Geological record fully
> supports the theory of evolution. Refuting that organisms evolved one
> from another requires refutation of the science of geology in the same
> package. Good luck.]
See:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilrecord.html
> >The junk sequences simply outnumber the beneficial
> >sequences in an exponential manner with each additional
> >minimum amino acid requirement as one moves up the
> >ladder of complexity.
>
> And here we go again.
Ditto . . .
> You assume that the cell has to go through all
> possible combinations of amino acids in "sequence space" until it
> "hits" one "right combination" that will produce "the function". You
> continue at this even though the fact that the basics of this
> assumption are wrong has been explained to you in great detail.
They are not wrong nor have they been explained away in any sort of
reasonable way.
> I cannot but wonder how you can maintain this despite obviously
> possessing above-average intelligence? I mean, wherever you turn you
> have refutations of your theory... Closest one to mind: I had chicken
> for lunch; turkey was also offered as an alternative. Chickens are
> closely related to turkeys, yet they are significant differences:
> there are a few large protein systems, multiple thousands of residues
> worth, that exist in one and not the other (both ways). In your world,
> the designer would have to separately design chickens and turkeys,
> since there is "no way" for such systems to arise independently,
> through mutations. A cobra would have to be designed separately, de
> novo, from nonpoisonous snakes, as its build includes many systems
> that a nonpoisonous snake "could not possibly" evolve. Etc, etc, etc.
> All this in face of fossil record, biological record, genetics...
If such differences really do exist between such otherwise similar
creatures, then yes, such systems could not evolve in trillions of
years and so they must have been designed. I cannot comment
specifically on the differences between chickens and turkeys, but I
can on the differences between several other life forms.
> But never mind. Let me focus on the second example.
Lets . . .
> Short polypeptides can and do have functions; even single amino-acids
> can have functions, sometimes (as in case of AdoMet, which is a
> nucleoside, adenine, plus one amino acid, methionine) many functions.
> Therefore, there is no need for the cell to have to start with a
> certain "minimum length".
These sequences do not have beneficial functions without the cell
being what it is - in other words, it defines such sequences as
beneficial based on many other systems of function that recognize and
use such short beneficial sequences in a beneficial way. So, what you
"start with" is quite important to determining what is and what is
not beneficial. Then, beyond this, say you start with a short
sequence, like a two or three-letter word that is defined or
recognized as beneficial by a much larger system of function, such as
a living cell or an English language system. Try evolving this short
word, one letter at a time, into a longer and longer word or phrase.
See how far you can go. Very quickly you will find yourself running
into walls of non-beneficial function. Now, all that you have left to
find new beneficial functions is to cross this walls via random
walk-alone. Natural selection will not help you at this point. That
is a real big problem. One that you continually choose to blind
yourself to.
> Once this starting polypeptide exists, it can be duplicated, copied,
> inserted, parts can be deleted, etc. This allows for domains to be
> combined, and for creation of multidomain proteins with complex
> functions.
Again, a multi-domain protein is no more complex in functional ability
than its most complex functional domain. The functional domains work
independently. It is like multiple proteins stuck together. But,
these domains do not necessarily work at the same time to give a
greater unified function. That is what we are talking about here -
functions that require a minimum number of amino acids working at the
same time. Beyond a few hundred amino acids required at minimum, such
functions simply do not evolve. It is like sticking random small
words together and hoping that they will make a collective function
that is actually beneficial. Try it sometime. It is harder than you
think. Take a bunch of short little words and put them together where
each addition is functionally beneficial. See how long of a
beneficial phrase you can make using this method. It is the same
situation as for the building of single proteins using single amino
acids. Now, you are just wanting to use blocks of amino acids, but
the same problem remains.
> In other words, you don't have to simply go through various
> combinations of single residues, you can go through combinations of
> large stretches (up to hundreds of residues) with already existing
> functions. You ignore this.
I do not ignore this at all. Try it and see how far you can get.
Gene duplication, translocation and random insertions still run into
the same problems. The odds that a particular sequence will get
copied and inserted into just the right place so that it makes a
unique and greater collective function with other genetic elements is
truly remote at higher and higher levels of complexity. Beyond this,
it has never been demonstrated to actually happen in real life beyond
a few hundred amino acids required for minimum function.
> Evolution was shown to be very fast, *experimentally*, when pressures
> exist, and when the system has the basis to adapt.
Yes, at the lowest levels of functional complexity. Evolution is very
fast at these levels because the beneficial sequences are relatively
close together in sequence space. The beneficial density is high.
This density gets exponentially lower at higher levels and so
evolution takes exponentially longer to evolve anything new within
such levels.
> Example within the
> example: A tiny, not very valuable improvement will take time to
> spread in population. For instance, if a bacterium is capable of
> sticking to substrate 1% better, it helps, but not so much that its
> progeny will outcompete everyone else. However, if the advantage is
> significant (say, 1% faster hydrolysis of lactose in a very
> lactose-rich environment) it will spread very, very quickly.
I'm not interested allelic ratios within a population. Once you have
demonstrated the evolution of a function that is actually beneficial
in just one individual within a population, you have achieved success
in my book. Spreading that code around is not the problem I have with
evolution. I am talking about the collective functional potential of
an entire population - the entire gene pool of options. I am talking
about evolving a new option in the gene pool as a whole, not a
particular number of individuals.
Also, I am talking about the evolution of new functions, not the
refining of the same type of function - as far as the level of
function of the same type is concerned.
> Evolution of specificity is another point. Take capacity to digest
> fatty acids. Put the organism in a situation, say, where it will be
> useful for organism *not* to digest palmitic acid. Random mutations
> present in every organism will produce a wide variety of the enzyme in
> question - some varieties will bind palmitic oil more efficiently then
> others. The organisms with low affinity enzymes will outcompete those
> with high affinity. Give it few hundred thousand generations, and you
> have continual improvement: not just random jumping from one point to
> another, but selection *towards* a particular optimized state (do note
> that this is not the same as teleology). Once a minimum function
> exists, the drive to optimize that function will proceed
> unidirectionally, and much faster then normally. You choose to ignore
> this too.
I do not ignore this point at all. In fact, I very much agree with
it. In fact, I would say that once you have a particular kind of
function, like the ability to digest palmitic acid, the refinement of
such a function will occur much more rapidly than a few hundred
thousand generations. In an averaged sized bacterial colony, such
refinement to the ideal level of a particular type of function, such
as plamitic acid hydrolysis, will be realized to the optimum in a few
dozen generations at most. That is the speed of random walk when the
stepping-stones are so close together as they would be in such an
evolutionary sequence.
> Even if we assume complete randomness, given large spans of time and
> numbers of mutations, complex systems will arise.
You say this over and over again, but you continually fail to present
any relevant evidence to support this statement.
> Let's say that you
> have a molecule 200 residues in size, that gets duplicated twice. You
> now have a 800 residue protein that might or might not perform its
> original function.
Ok, now you're talking . . .
> Most likely, it will do nothing, and will eventually be selected out
> due to sheer cost of producing it (but, in general, very slowly).
Ok - if it truly does nothing in an organism that is not so finely
ballanced as to notice a loss of energy of producing something
non-functional (i.e., most of the genomic real estate in organisms
like bacteria is not wasted on non-beneficial sequences for very
long).
> Sometimes it will do something bad, and it will *very quickly* be
> selected out.
Yes . . .
>Very occasionaly, it will do something good (anything
> good), in which case it will fall into the abovementioned optimization
> cycle, and be quickly pushed towards its most highly useful form.
The key phrase here is "very occasionally". Your problem is that you
think that such a level as requires 800aa at minimum will happen in
just a few years in most organisms. This is simply not true. The
800aa level of functional complexity is quite complex indeed. A few
rare examples that might possibly be argued to be at this level have
been shown to evolve, but this is about the upper limit of what you
will find in literature. Nothing very far beyond this level is
detailed in literature. The density of beneficial functions at such a
level and beyond becomes truly miniscule.
> If
> you look at the organism few tens of thousands of years later, all
> that you will see is this huge, perfectly optimized protein, that
> performs a complex function. And, since you are who you are, you will
> infer irreducible complexity.
The problem is getting such a beneficial function, at such a level of
complexity, to begin with. How long, on average, would it take for an
average organism to evolve something, anything, at such a level of
complexity? That is the issue here. You give no attempt to try and
even touch this question.
> Note that this is one of the reasons why organisms adapt so quickly in
> new surroundings.
These adaptations only involve functions as the lowest levels of
functional complexity - generally having nothing to do with anything
more than a modification of the level of functional types that they
already have access to. For example, if you want a less efficient
lactase enzyme, it is very easy for a random mutation to an existing
lactase enzyme to reduce its efficiency. It is also easy for a random
mutation to an existing lactase enzyme, of average efficiency, to
increase its lactase function efficiency - but not necessarily to
change its *type* of function.
> Many of them have proteins that are remnants in
> process of being selected out, or new mutations with no particular use
> in their old surroundings... they are, as a whole, highly optimized
> for living in a certain way, and they are all practically equal. It
> takes a large, significant beneficial mutation to make an individual
> so much better then everyone else, it actually makes a difference -
> which is rare, and so evolution is slow. But when you throw them into
> new surroundings, suddenly every organism has a different level of
> fitness; and the those who happen to tolerate their new surroundings
> the best quickly take over. And they don't just take over - they
> adapt. All those things that allowed them to thrive will be driven
> towards their optimum, leading to the development of highly
> specialized new systems in relatively short periods of time (we *are*
> still talking thousands of years, but on the time scale of evolution,
> this is nothing).
Actually we are not talking thousands of years here for organisms like
bacteria. We are talking days to months. Also, we are not talking
about new specialized systems at all, but about the same system
working at a different level of efficiency in most cases. A few novel
functions will evolve via this process, but not above the lowest
levels of functional complexity.
> Final thing you keep ignoring is equivalency of many sequences. Take
> the same enzyme from many species, do an alignment. See how many amino
> acids match perfectly? See how many don't match at all? You will also
> see that they can greatly vary in length; even the spacing between the
> conserved residues doesn't have to be always equal.
That is true, but all such enzymes do require a minimum amino acid
requirement in all creatures. Also, you will find that many such
enzymes maintain a very similar three-dimensional shape and chemical
nature. Certain amino acid positions can vary significantly, others
are far more constrained to certain classes of amino acids
(hydrophilic, hydrophobic, acidic, basic, etc), while others are even
more constrained to within 2 or 3 different amino acids. Just about
all amino acids can be changed, one at a time, but the percentage of
change that can be tolerated at the same time is not so high for many
types of functions. It is like changing a single letter in this
paragraph. Just about any letter change can be tolerated without a
significant loss in meaning, but not very many letters can be changed
at the same time without a rapid loss of meaning. The same is true
for protein-based functions. This constraint creates a ratio in
sequence space of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences of various
types.
For example, Ian Musgrave has suggested that the total number of
lactase sequences in sequence space (at the level of 480aa or so) is
most likely less than 10e100. This is a significantly constrained
number once one realizes that the sequence potential at this level of
complexity is over 10e620. That is how you figure out constraint. You
determine the maximum flexibility of your function at its minimum
level of amino acid requirement and then you divide this number by the
total number of sequences at this level. Certainly you must be able
to recognize that not ever possible sequence in sequence space will
have the lactase function at a beneficial level? Right? How would
you calculate the density of beneficial sequences?
> So even in the "random search through sequence space" (which, as
> explained above, is *not* the way large and complex proteins develop,
> at least not usually) the combination has to have those few amino
> acids that are important, and to "hit" just generally in the area of
> other several hundred (mostly concerning which is hydrophobic and
> which is hydrophilic) in order to achieve certain functionality.
Exactly. I'm glad that you understand this point at least to some
degree. The problem that you don't seem to realize that that various
constraints, although more flexible, are still very limiting to the
total ratio of beneficial sequences of such a function in sequence
space. Do your own calculations and find out what the ratio is for
such functions.
> Functionality does not have to be perfect - it just has to be
> sufficient to produce some selective advantage. It is then driven to
> optimize to its most efficient form by mechanisms detailed above.
That's right. The problem is getting even the most imperfect sequence
with at least some selectable advantage. You might not think this
such a big deal until you realize just how constricted many types of
protein functions are as far as their density within sequence space.
> You are fond of using Lactase as an example, so let's use it here. If
> lactase is removed from an organism, it will (this is experimentally
> shown, as you know) very quickly copy and adapt a similar enzyme which
> it can then use to digest lactose. This happens very quickly, and
> illustrates the mechanisms of optimization and adaptation to new
> surroundings. However, when organisms that have neither lactase nor an
> enzyme close to it in function are placed in high-lactose
> environment...well, nothing happens on laboratory scale, even in
> thousands of generations. This is to be expected - developing a
> function of lactase without disturbing the rest of the existing system
> (since modern cells use polysaccharides for a variety of purposes, it
> is not possible to simply start with a general glycoside hydrolase)
> requires a significant sequence of mutations.
This only shows that the lactase function is rather
specific/restricted. If it were not so restricted, the other enzymes
or amino acid sequences would also have the lactase function, or at
least be fairly close to it, to do both jobs (their original function
plus the lactase function), is a beneficial manner.
> However, given a few tens of thousands of years in those conditions,
> it is highly unlikely that a mutation would *not* occur that would
> make an enzyme hydrolize lactase.
And what is this bold statement based on? In order to make such a
statement you must have at least some idea about the density of
potential lactase sequences in sequence space at the level of 400aa or
greater.
> It might be a side effect of a
> different protein, it might be a whole, novel protein, it might be a
> duplicate of some protein that has a similar structure. If it did so,
> even at 1e-20 efficiency of normal lactases, it would be conserved,
> and rapidly optimized, until we had a novel form of lactase before us.
What is the ratio of sequences with at least a 1e-20 lactase
efficiency? That is the question. If such sequences were common
enough, tens of thousands of years of random walk would not be
required at all. If they are not very common, perhaps millions and
even billions of years would not be enough time.
This is all the time I have for today.
Again, thanks for a most interesting response. I think you may be
starting to understand the issues and problems involved - at least at
some level. This is encouraging.
Mark VandeWettering
>
>> > Hmmmmm . . . Do you really think that the chicken egg was
>> > as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
>> > forming of Hamlet?
>>
>> If I had thought that, I probably would have said that. The fact that
>> I said something different probably means that I meant something different.
>
> You said that the chicken egg and Shakespeare used exactly the same
> process.
Eggs-actly.
>> > For example, a computer can be programmed to do
>> > fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
>> > "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
>> > maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
>> > know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
>> > cannot do.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Not only has it not been shown that human intelligence can do things that
>> computers can do, but there are obviously things that computers can do
>> which human brains cannot do.
>
> You seem not to understand the difference between a very specific and
> limited function that is preprogrammed and creativity.
Unsurprisingly, neither do you. Notably, you can't demonstrate that there
is any significant difference.
> Computers can indeed to many wonderful things that the human mind
> cannot do, but computers are not creative.
This is an assertion, and commonly believed, even by very intelligent
people like Penrose, but there is little evidence to suggest that it is
true.
> They cannot invent new things to do
Yes, they can.
> and create like the human mind can.
Yes, they can.
> Humans cannot make a chicken like the
> chicken egg can do. We cannot do anything that comes even close.
> However, humans are far more creative than are chicken eggs. Do you
> see the difference here?
I see the difference, but I also see that both things operate from similar
processes (namely, ordinary chemical process).
>> > Humans can create new things at high levels of functional
>> > complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
>> > create automatically.
>>
>> How can you tell? How do you know that you aren't preprogrammed?
>
> Oh, I am most certainly preprogrammed, but to be creative. I can
> actually choose to learn and create many new and very different
> things.
You're just programmed to do that.
> Chicken eggs, computers, and the like are not preprogrammed
> with enough information to be creative in this way.
I never said that chicken eggs, computers and the like were creative.
What's far from obvious is that _you_ are creative, or that even if
you are creative, that the creativity arises from anything other than
the ordinary chemical processes that turn chicken eggs into chickens.
> They are basically stuck doing one thing in the same way that they
> always did it.
That describes the vast majority of all human activity, but in any case
the point is irrelevant.
> They cannot think of imagine new things to do like the human mind
> can.
That describes the vast majority of all human activity, but in any case
the point is irrelevant.
>> > An egg or a computer program cannot create new
>> > things that they were not already programmed to create.
>>
>> You obviously haven't any knowledge of the field of genetic programming.
>
> Actually I do. Genetic programming is very limited in scope and the
> types of functions that it can produce. It is basically helpful for
> refining what is already there, not for the invention of brand new
> types of functions at high levels of complexity.
This is simply false.
> Computers simply
> cannot evolve their own software or hardware beyond the lowest levels
> of functional complexity without the higher creative informational
> input of a computer programmer.
This is also simply false.
>
>> > A chicken egg
>> > cannot make anything except for a chicken.
>>
>> Can you make a chicken? Perhaps you shouldn't criticize the humble egg.
>
> I'm not criticizing the ability of the chicken egg at all. Its
> information content goes far beyond the level of complexity that I
> could ever create.
Then doesn't it seem odd to trumpet "creativity" as something that humans
have, while denigrating the noble egg?
> However, the chicken egg is simply not as creative
> as I am. It can only make chickens.
Since you cannot, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge. A chicken
is more useful than most of the nominally `creative' works that you've
exhibited here.
> It cannot choose to make
> anything else to even to make chickens in a different way. It is no
> more creative or imaginative than a very complex assembly line.
>
>> > Shakespeare, on the other hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet
>> > or Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew.
>>
>> Really? How can we test this claim?
>
> Come on now! Do you really think to contest this claim?
I don't contest it, I merely think it is meaningless. You think that
Shakespeare's ability to pen Hamlet arises from sort of mysterious force
called "intelligence" or "creativity" that somehow other creatures aren't
endowed with. But if humans have this power, it seems to be created by
rather ordinary physical processes. There is no magic "unobtainium" in
the human brain that we don't see in the rest of creation. All available
evidence suggests that wherever intelligence or creativity comes from,
they are the result of perfectly ordinary physical processes.
In that sense, the clockwork universe makes Shakespeare's penning of Hamlet
no more remarkable than the chicken hatching from an egg.
> Hamlet was not already programmed into Shakespeare's head when he was
> born. The words for his works did not simply flow out of his pen like
> an automated recording of what was already inside his head from birth.
>
> This is not true of the chicken egg. The information for chicken
> formation was always there. No thought, sweat, rewriting, or other
> forms of editing were necessary.
Thought is merely a chemical reaction, just as egg hatching is. They are
different to be sure, but they arise as the result of similar physical
processes.
> Please now. I understand you are in a difficult position, but you
> only make yourself look more and more silly when you make such claims
> - like a chicken egg is as creative as Shakespeare.
On the contrary, my position isn't difficult at all. I'm perfectly
comfortable with my position, and have no real problem with it. I am
somewhat chagrined that you insist on misquoting me. I never said that
a chicken egg was as creative as Shakespeare. I was merely talking about
the processes that generate chickens and Hamlet, respectively.
>> But I was speaking about the nature of processes. Everything that
>> we observe indicates that thought and conciousness are just ordinary
>> chemical processes such as we see around us all the time.
>
> They are chemical processes, but they are certainly not ordinary.
They happen all the time. The processes in your brain are
indistinguishable from a large number of other vertabrates, or
invertabrates for that matter.
> Very few natural processes have them. An extremely high order of
> complexity is required to gain the ability for creative thought and
> self-consciousness.
A difference of order, but not of kind.
> A chicken egg certainly hasn't got it and neither
> does a computer. Many life forms do not have it either. Humans have
> it in far greater amounts than any other natural object or being.
I'm not arguing that eggs are creative. I'm arguing that the processes
which generate chickens and Hamlet are both ordinary chemical processes.
>> > Though these creations are admittedly not as functionally
>> > complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
>> > more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
>> > without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
>> > been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
>> > computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
>> > complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
>> > than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
>> > difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
>>
>> That Shakespeare and a chicken egg are different is not surprising, nor
>> under debate. What is apparently still under debate is the idea that
>> the processes that Shakespeare uses to create Hamlet are somehow different
>> than the processes that a egg uses to become a chicken. They are both just
>> run of the mill chemistry.
>
> They are not run of the mill chemistry. Very few chemical processes
> work like either one of these processes work. One is also very
> different from the other. One chemical interaction allows for a very
> high degree of creativity and self-awareness. The other form of
> chemistry does not allow for any form of creativity beyond the lowest
> levels of functional complexity. It simply cannot think or create any
> different function beyond the one that it was preprogrammed to create.
> It cannot do anything else. It has no choice.
Neither do you.
An unfalsifiable position, but one which isn't contradicted by available
evidence.
>> >>You are
>> >> merely presuming your conclusion when you say that "no such mindless
>> >> process can give rise to a greater level of complexity... that goes
>> >> very far beyond what its original programming allowed it to do".
>> >
>> > This conclusion happens to be my hypothesis. That is what the
>> > scientific method is all about.
>>
>> But you are using it as if it were evidence. It is not.
>
> I'm not using it as if it were evidence. I use it as an opening
> statement of my position, my hypothesis. I gave the evidence, in
> brief of what I have said at length before, later in the response.
> You have to state your hypothesis if you wish to be scientific, right?
Remind me, just what is your evidence then?
That's hardly surprising, but it doesn't support your original claim.
> It shows the relative rarity of
> beneficial sequences at higher and higher levels in sequence space.
That's hardly surprising, but it doesn't support your original claim.
>> >> The
>> >> statement itself attempts to confuse the issues by using a term which
>> >> we normally associate with human effort (namefly 'programming') with
>> >> something that seldom does (namely biological development).
>> >
>> > Biological development certainly involves pre-established information
>> > systems of extraordinary informational complexity.
>>
>> No, it "certainly" does not, at least in any non-trivial sense of the
>> term information.
>
> I'm sure you can back this statement up with some evidence that
> disproves my assertion?
That biological life relies on the particular arrangement of atoms in a DNA
strand could be sufficient to claim that it contains "information". In some
sense this "information" is a measure of the unlikeliness of particular
positioning forming at random. But many, many arrangements of atoms have
even higher "information" content by this measure.
>> > Without this
>> > information being there fully formed, random organic matter doesn't
>> > turn into much of anything besides amorphous ooze, much less a
>> > chicken. The pre-established information system is vital to the
>> > functional organizational ability of the chicken egg . . . and all
>> > other biological activities. For example, the parts of a flagellum,
>> > if added to solution suddenly or randomly, will not self-assemble.
>>
>> Which is significant, why precisely?
>
> I'm sure that you will refuse to understand even though you are
> clearly capable, but this is significant because pre-established
> information and chemical order is indeed necessary to form not only
> chickens from chicken eggs, but everything else at such levels of
> functional complexity.
You don't know what you mean when you say "pre-established information"
or even "chemical order". If there is pre-established information
in a chicken egg, tell me where it is. Tell me how much it is. Tell
me why it had to be "pre-established". What transmits this order into
the ordinary matter that forms the chicken egg?
ID proponents love to play it fast and loose with this "information" stuff.
They literally don't know what they are talking about.
> Such levels of functional complexity simply do
> not form without such pre-established order.
This is your conclusion, not your evidence. You have to show this bit.
> Look into it. You will
> find that this statement is true.
No, it's not even clear that it's meaningful.
>
>> > A
>> > very specific order and concentration of part additions is required in
>> > order for the flagellum to form in such a way that its motility
>> > function will be realized. This specific order requires a
>> > pre-established information system and physical apparatus to decode
>> > this information before a motile flagellum can be built. Information
>> > systems at such levels of complexity simply do not self-assemble
>> > without outside input from some higher information system or
>> > intelligence.
>>
>> Again, you've presumed your conclusion. You have to show that such
>> levels of complexity do not self-assemble.... blah blah blah. The fact
>> that you don't even know what you mean by "higher information system or
>> intelligence" is telling.
>
> I have looked far and wide and I have never seen such levels of
> complexity self-assembling - have you?
Plants and animals self assemble all the time.
> Please, if you know of such an
> example, please let me know. Until then, I would suggest to you that
> you have no room to deride my position.
Suck it up, you can take it.
>> >> This may be what you think the problem is in a nutshell, but it
>> >> unfortunately has no evidence to back it up at all.
>> >
>> > What would you call the fact that there is a ladder of complexity
>> > where evolution works very well on the lowest rungs, but less and less
>> > well as it tries to move up the ladder to higher levels of functional
>> > complexity (involving more and more amino acids at minimum)?
>>
>> It's not a fact. It's not even an observation. It's just nonsense.
>
> It is a real observation, although you may be too limited in your
> education or understanding to appreciate it.
There simply isn't a ladder of complexity. Evolution works fine at all
levels.
I'm not trying to help you.
Evolutionary theory predicts virtually all features which are observed
are the result of mutations followed by selection. Beneficial mutations
are more likely to be preserved in this space, followed by neutral ones,
and harmful or fatal ones aren't preserved. Therefore, if a process is
observed, it is likely to be the result of a particular set of selections
which have proven to be favorable.
So, pick your favorite feature. Eyes with crystallin lenses and variable
aperature irises.
> Such
> claims are easy enough to make, but it is a very different matter when
> you actually try to back up such bold statements with some actual
> demonstrations.
It's interesting how you don't see this flaw in your own claim that
such sequences are _impossible_.
> I'm not looking for one particular type of function.
> I'm looking for evidence that any type of function, at a given level
> of complexity involving several thousand amino acids at minimum
> working at the same time, can evolve in less than trillions of years.
We have eyes.
> You can start with absolutely any starting point that you want,
> functional or non-functional. You can use gene duplication, point
> mutation, gene transfer, and any other mindless process that you want
> to solve this problem. Of course, I'm very confident that you will
> never solve this problem because it is simply not solvable without
> invoking the involvement of an intelligent Creator who had
> intelligence and creative abilities that went far beyond what even
> humans are currently capable of achieving. Certainly no mindless
> process can do a better job that we humans can do, even given
> trillions upon trillions of years of time.
You've presented _no_ evidence that supports this claim.
>
>> Mark
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
John Stockwell
>The study of geological formations is fairly subjective - a historical
>science. For example, many scientists believe that the Coconino Sandstone
>layer found third from the top in the Grand Canyon was formed over millions
>of years in a desert-like environment. However, resent studies by
>those such as geologist Leonard Brand have shown that these formations
>are much more consistent with rapid deposition under water. See the
>following link for the details of this study:
>
>http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
Actually, this is an example of an egregious misrepresentation of
the facts. By no means did Leondard Brand show that
"...those such as geologist Leonard Brand have shown that these formations
[which is to say, the invertebrate tracks in the Cocino sandstone at
the Grand Canyon] are much more consistent with rapid deposition under
water."
What Brand [1996] said was:
"The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may
have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand."
In this case, "subaqueous" means "shallow standing water" which is what
the conditions of Brand's experiments were. If you read Brand's
paper at: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
you will see that he made absolutely no attempt to account for movement
of the water.
So, you have distorted Brand's results, which suggest more likely
that the Cocino represents deposition in coastal dunes, kind of
like what we see today in Namibia, into some
sort of totally bogus catastrophic flood scenario. News flash,
Sean, there wouldn't be any delicate tracks in a flood.
Furthermore, I would point anyone actually wanting to read something
real about the Grand Canyon and the Cocino formation to read
(in particular Chapter 10) of Bues and Morales [1990] for further
information. In particular, figure 6 on p.194 of this book shows
raindrop impressions (which incidentally imply that the sand was
dry at the time the impressions were made) Figure 7 on p.195
shows detachment structures (small plate-like sand layers pulled
apart from the substrate), which are the sort of thing that happens
when the surface sand of a dune is wetted, dries out, and then
avalanches. These sorts of detachment features are *impossible*
to form underwater.
References:
Bues, S.S. and M. Morales, editors, 1990, Grand Canyon Geology.
Oxford University Press.
Brand, Leonard, 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from
substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70(6): 1004-1011.
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
howard hershey
Sean Pitman wrote:
> sweetnes...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<4d71d185.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Here we go again. Once a critical mass of contrary information
>>accumulates in one place, change the venue and continue as if nothing
>>happened, eh, Sean?
>
>
> What "critical mass"? You presented nothing disproving my position in
> the slightest and nothing new that others have not already tried to
> float in this forum. Also, you change venues just as much as anyone.
> For example, you created a new thread for this post when you could
> have simply responded to the other.
>
>
>>>I mean, isn't the turning of a fertilized chicken
>>>egg into a chick a mindless process? Well yes
>>>it is, but it is based on a highly complex
>>>pre-established information system
>>
>>Which is based on a simpler system, which is based on a simpler
>>system, which is based on a simpler system...etc. Yes. In the final
>>iteration, you have a simple molecular process, RNA autocatalysis.
>
>
> Not at all. Emerging functional complexity is the entire issue. The
> simpler systems within higher level systems do not automatically
> self-assemble to form the function of the higher level system. There
> are in fact for more ways in which they could be assembled that would
> not yield a higher level beneficial function.
What do you mean by the above word salad? The simpler system within
higher level systems of biological utility do, in fact, self-assemble.
Lambda bacteriophage head proteins form the pre-head first via
self-assembly. This triggers the uptake of lambda DNA which triggers
changes in the head that allow the tail assemblies to be added on. The
'higher level system' here would be the phage and you can take your
choice of the simpler system within that higher level system.
Or if you do not like that, you can look at the bacterial flagella. It
also self-assembles in a step-wise fashion producing simpler subsystems
which then self-assembles into the complete system.
It goes without saying that any proteins which did not self-assemble to
yield a higher level beneficial function would not be selected for.
So *every* biological system that involves more than one protein
*always* self-assembles. Moreover, they can self-assemble in the
complete absence of the genome that produced the proteins and even in
the complete absence of the mRNAs that were translated.
Other than mouthing meaningless words that sound good, I have no idea
what you mean by the above paragraph.
>>>However, they can do nothing beyond their
>>>pre-established programming without the input
>>>of outside information. No such mindless process
>>>can give rise to a greater level of complexity
>>>or even a new type of function at its current
>>>level of complexity that goes very far beyond
>>>what its original programming allowed it to do.
>>
>>Incorrect. I have given plenty of examples here, which you ignored,
>>but I will provide another analysis further down in the text.
>
>
> This should be good . . . as always.
>
>
>>>Evolutionary processes are most certainly limited
>>>to the lowest levels of functional complexity.
>>
>>Incorrect. Again, see examples below.
>
>
> Ok . . .
>
>
>>>In real life this limit seems to stall evolution
>>>out completely when certain types of functions
>>>required a minimum number of amino acids (above
>>>a few thousand).
>>
>>There is no such thing as a minimum of amino acids. See the second
>>example in the text below.
>
>
> You're nuts. There certainly is such a thing as a minimum amino acid
> requirement for all types of beneficial protein functions.
But what, exactly does the number of amino acids have to do with
anything? The number of amino acids present in a protein (or the number
of proteins in a complex) have absolutely nothing to do with the
evolution of simple modified functions like antibiotic resistance. Why
does the number of amino acids have anything at all to do with what you
call the evolution of higher levels of complexity?
>>>Certainly there is nothing in literature detailing
>>>the evolution of a new cellular function that requires,
>>>at minimum, more than few hundred amino acids working
>>>at the same time. And, that's the problem in a nutshell.
>>
>>No. The problem in the nutshell is this: the changes happen one
>>amino-acid at a time. So new functions can and do arise, but complex
>>new functions (requiring entire new organelles, which is what you are
>>shooting for) require millions of years. We cannot demonstrate it in
>>the lab within the span of a century.
>
>
> Correction, simply functions happen, but more and more complex
> functions are exponentially harder and harder to come by until, at the
> level of less than a few thousand amino acids, new functions are
> impossible to come by within the span of trillions of centuries.
What does the number of amino acids have to do with it?
> That fact that you realize that you cannot demonstrate the evolution
> of such a level of complexity in the lab in real time is telling,
> especially since you cannot or will not say why such a level of
> complexity takes so long to achieve (even if it were only a century or
> so of time, which is an unsupported statement). What is it Sweetness,
> that slows down evolution? I mean really, the lower level functions,
> such as antibiotic resistance and short single protein enzymes evolve
> relatively rapidly. What slow things down for higher level functions?
> Come on now, I'm sure you can come up with something . . .
Well, the reason for it in the *real* theory of evolution is different
from what you claim in your *strawman* theory of evolution. In the
*real* theory of evolution, the important number is the number of
required steps to go from the original protein to one that has a new,
different, or modified *selectable* function and the number of such
steps (with *selectable* intermediates) that had to happen to,
fortuitously, reach the current function. Nowhere in this is there
*any* step that requires or depends upon thousands of amino acids
needing to change. But the requirement for useful intermediates to
arise and become fixed in populations is time consuming. No current
system is thought to have arisen in one swell foop. Of course, you know
that, right?
>>>No mindless process can change what it does beyond
>>>the lowest levels of functional complexity, even given
>>>trillions of years of time.
>>
>>It only gets more boring with repetition, not more correct.
>
>
> Tell me about it. Your same old tired arguments are really starting
> to become rather boring. Can't you think of anything new?
Not until you recognize that your "thousands of amino acids" is a strawman.
What we can see is the final step that converts a current system with
one function into different system with a different or modified system
which can be selected for, what you call, erroneously, low level
complexity. Low level complexity is simply the most recent step in the
evolutionary process.
[snip stuff which shows that Sean is no better at geology than he is at
biology]
> Evolutionists tell us that increasing levels of *functional*
> complexity evolve over time. Geology has nothing to do with
> increasing levels of functional complexity. The evidence for geologic
> patterns can be and is observed in real time. The evidence for the
> evolution of biological functional complexity shows that in real time
> increasing levels of complexity become less and less common in an
> exponential pattern. Inductive reasoning based on these findings as
> well as the statistics of the most likely neutral gaps involved give
> strong evidence that increasing levels of complexity beyond a few
> thousand amino acids really would require trillions upon trillions of
> years of time to achieve - not just a few hundred, thousand, million,
> or even billion as you are suggesting.
That is, your inductive reasoning based on a strawman version of
evolution produces these results.
>>You insist on your incorrect
>>calculations (we have discussed the reasons why they are incorrect
>>before, and I will point out several of them again in the next
>>example), completely ignoring the fact that people who devoted their
>>whole lives to examination of the origins of life have already
>>performed much more rigorous calculations many times.
>
>
> Where are these rigorous calculations?
>
>
>>We can trace
>>down genes, measure frequencies of mutation, observe the changes that
>>happen *today*, around us...and apply that knowledge in exactly the
>>same way as geologists do; the only difference is level of complexity,
>>for while geology is complex, life is more so.
>
>
> Exactly the problem. This is a problem of levels of FUNCTIONAL
> complexity. Tracing genes and understanding mutation frequencies and
> the functional limits of what such mutations can and do achieve only
> supports my position all the more, not yours.
I have no idea where the "thousands of amino acids" fit into these
calculations. Could you show us? And how does that differ from the
calculations wrt your "low level of complexity"?
>>The first point of evoutionary theory that you are refusing to accept
>>(simply refusing: you just say no! and turn your back on the evidence)
>>is that if changes happen as they do today, by the same rate, it is
>>*certain* that completely novel, complex system can and *will* evolve
>>over the course of millions of years. There is just no statistical way
>>for that *not* to happen.
>
>
> You say this over and over again like a mantra, but give absolutely no
> evidence or logical reasons to support yourself. The actual evidence
> of functional evolution supports my position. You have not been able
> to controvert my hypothesis in any sort of reasonable way.
You have no evidence. You have assertions about what would be required
for system x to evolve based on an erroneous idea about how evolution is
thought to produce systems.
[snip]
>>>The junk sequences simply outnumber the beneficial
>>>sequences in an exponential manner with each additional
>>>minimum amino acid requirement as one moves up the
>>>ladder of complexity.
>>
>>And here we go again.
>
>
> Ditto . . .
>
>
>>You assume that the cell has to go through all
>>possible combinations of amino acids in "sequence space" until it
>>"hits" one "right combination" that will produce "the function". You
>>continue at this even though the fact that the basics of this
>>assumption are wrong has been explained to you in great detail.
>
>
> They are not wrong nor have they been explained away in any sort of
> reasonable way.
Your assumption that this is how evolution works is not right. It is not
*even* wrong. It is completely bogus.
Bogus analogy.
>>Once this starting polypeptide exists, it can be duplicated, copied,
>>inserted, parts can be deleted, etc. This allows for domains to be
>>combined, and for creation of multidomain proteins with complex
>>functions.
>
>
> Again, a multi-domain protein is no more complex in functional ability
> than its most complex functional domain.
And selectable change in function is merely a single (or a few) mutation
away from the current function. The amount of change required to change
function does not map to, nor is it related to, the number of amino
acids in the 'system' or the number of proteins in the 'system'.
> The functional domains work
> independently. It is like multiple proteins stuck together. But,
> these domains do not necessarily work at the same time to give a
> greater unified function.
But they often do. Which means that many enzymes amount to domains that
happen to be stuck together on the same protein. E.g., one domain to
bind a substrate, another to hydrolyze a particular type of bond. Of
course, the same effect can be accomplished by having one domain on one
peptide bind the substrate and have that protein bind to the second
peptide, which cleaves it. Both are seen in nature, sometimes for the
same enzymatic activities.
> That is what we are talking about here -
> functions that require a minimum number of amino acids working at the
> same time. Beyond a few hundred amino acids required at minimum, such
> functions simply do not evolve.
*All* enzymatically active domains that I know of are much much smaller
than a few hundred amino acids. And most current enzymes are prolific
borrowers of active domains. You seem to have this fixation on number
of amino acids. What is it that you think these hundreds of amino acids
are doing?
> It is like sticking random small
> words together and hoping that they will make a collective function
> that is actually beneficial. Try it sometime. It is harder than you
> think. Take a bunch of short little words and put them together where
> each addition is functionally beneficial. See how long of a
> beneficial phrase you can make using this method. It is the same
> situation as for the building of single proteins using single amino
> acids. Now, you are just wanting to use blocks of amino acids, but
> the same problem remains.
In fact, protein domains are like that. In a protein, the sequence
daouyr.DOG.alkhond.EAT.laninen.CAT.aljflunv
can mean the same thing, functionally as
jadufd.DOG.ajlfne.EAT.jaldnjfk.CAT.jhflun
The domains DOG EAT CAT are the functional domains. The remainder of
the sequence can vary greatly or less greatly with no effect on function.
There are often other enzymes with the same or similar domains that do
something else similar but different. For example:
anlkyuc.DOG.hakyfynb.BEAT.hafhuy.CAT.hafyeh
Evolution does not work the way you assert.
>> In other words, you don't have to simply go through various
>>combinations of single residues, you can go through combinations of
>>large stretches (up to hundreds of residues) with already existing
>>functions. You ignore this.
>
>
> I do not ignore this at all. Try it and see how far you can get.
> Gene duplication, translocation and random insertions still run into
> the same problems. The odds that a particular sequence will get
> copied and inserted into just the right place so that it makes a
> unique and greater collective function with other genetic elements is
> truly remote at higher and higher levels of complexity.
Could you provide your evidence for this?
> Beyond this,
> it has never been demonstrated to actually happen in real life beyond
> a few hundred amino acids required for minimum function.
Duplication is so common, it is difficult or impossible to find
organisms without duplications.
>>Evolution was shown to be very fast, *experimentally*, when pressures
>>exist, and when the system has the basis to adapt.
>
>
> Yes, at the lowest levels of functional complexity. Evolution is very
> fast at these levels because the beneficial sequences are relatively
> close together in sequence space. The beneficial density is high.
> This density gets exponentially lower at higher levels and so
> evolution takes exponentially longer to evolve anything new within
> such levels.
The only difference is the number of steps required. Beneficial density
has nothing to do with it.
>>Example within the
>>example: A tiny, not very valuable improvement will take time to
>>spread in population. For instance, if a bacterium is capable of
>>sticking to substrate 1% better, it helps, but not so much that its
>>progeny will outcompete everyone else. However, if the advantage is
>>significant (say, 1% faster hydrolysis of lactose in a very
>>lactose-rich environment) it will spread very, very quickly.
>
>
> I'm not interested allelic ratios within a population. Once you have
> demonstrated the evolution of a function that is actually beneficial
> in just one individual within a population, you have achieved success
> in my book. Spreading that code around is not the problem I have with
> evolution. I am talking about the collective functional potential of
> an entire population - the entire gene pool of options. I am talking
> about evolving a new option in the gene pool as a whole, not a
> particular number of individuals.
>
> Also, I am talking about the evolution of new functions, not the
> refining of the same type of function - as far as the level of
> function of the same type is concerned.
Evolution does not poof new functions into existence. Evolution is
descent with modification.
[snip remainder due to lack of time.]
Paul J Gans
>Larry Moran
I think that Larry's post above ought to be enshrined in
the TO website. It is as clear a statement on the subject
that I've seen.
--- Paul J. Gans
sweetnes...@yahoo.com
>the slightest and nothing new that others have
>not already tried to float in this forum.
I have presented you with proof (laboratory proof, in many instances)
that your statements are incorrect.
>Also, you change venues just as much as anyone.
Not without answering.
>Emerging functional complexity is the entire issue.
>The simpler systems within higher level systems do
>not automatically self-assemble to form the function
>of the higher level system. There are in fact for
>more ways in which they could be assembled that would
>not yield a higher level beneficial function.
I have provided you with at least three examples of exactly that
happening: simpler systems combining to produce a novel, complex
system with a different, novel function. The fact that there are more
ways to combine systems nonfunctionally does not have a bearing on
this.
>You're nuts. There certainly is such a thing as a
>minimum amino acid requirement for all types of
>beneficial protein functions.
I have again and again provided you with examples - factual,
laboratory-testable examples that this statement of yours simply isn't
true. Your answer is "you're nuts"?
Let's see.
Person A: Water cannot possibly dissolve salt.
Person B: Here. Water. Salt. Mix. See? Dissolving.
Person A: You're nuts! Water cannot possibly dissolve salt.
>Correction, simply functions happen, but more and
>more complex functions are exponentially harder
>and harder to come by until, at the level of less
>than a few thousand amino acids, new functions are
>impossible to come by within the span of trillions
>of centuries.
Incorrect. The system does not work by searching randomly through
thousands of different combinations of amino-acids, until it "hits"
the right combination. This has been explained to you over and over
again. It simply does not happen, and your refutation of this does not
refute anything that is a part of evolutionary theory.
>That fact that you realize that you cannot demonstrate
>the evolution of such a level of complexity in the lab
>in real time is telling, especially since you cannot or
>will not say why such a level of complexity takes so long
>to achieve (even if it were only a century or so of time,
>which is an unsupported statement).
Yes, it is telling. It is telling that we cannot do something that
takes a very long time very quickly. I will not say why? I *told* you
why, in the very post you are replying to!
[quote]
You are fond of using Lactase as an example, so let's use it here. If
lactase is removed from an organism, it will (this is experimentally
shown, as you know) very quickly copy and adapt a similar enzyme which
it can then use to digest lactose. This happens very quickly, and
illustrates the mechanisms of optimization and adaptation to new
surroundings. However, when organisms that have neither lactase nor an
enzyme close to it in function are placed in high-lactose
environment...well, nothing happens on laboratory scale, even in
thousands of generations. This is to be expected - developing a
function of lactase without disturbing the rest of the existing system
(since modern cells use polysaccharides for a variety of purposes, it
is not possible to simply start with a general glycoside hydrolase)
requires a significant sequence of mutations.
[end quote]
When change is simple, it will happen fast. When it is relatively
complex, it will take centuries, or even millenia.
>Come on now, I'm sure you can come up with something . . .
I have a feeling you don't actually read my posts. You sit down with
intention to repeat your "theory", regardless of what I have written.
So you simply ignore the parts that don't fit, and mindlessly
proceed...
>Can't you think of anything new?
I cannot prove that salt dissolves in water to a person who
disbelieves that in any other way but by showing again, and again,
that salt does indeed dissolve in water.
>You confuse two definitions of complexity.
Sigh. No, not really. Since your "sequence space" does not exist in
reality, the kind of complexity you imagine does not exist, and
therefore cannot be confused with something that does exist.
>Sure, but we do not see such real time demonstrations
>of evolution of higher complex functions as we see
>real time demonstrations of the formation of such
>geological formations.
We don't see real time demonstrations of the formation of such
geological formations. We see miniscule steps in that formation. Just
as we see miniscule steps in evolution.
>Actually they can show such real time formations in
>geology all the time.
For some formations. For many, no. Biology can show formations of some
components in real time; others, no. I will give yet *another* example
of this later on.
>Not so with biological evolution beyond the lowest
>levels of functional complexity.
Please show me how would it be possible for a change in biological
systems, such as it happens NOW, at this moment, to go on for, say,
ten thousand years, WITHOUT producing a novel, complex system?
>You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
I am giving an analogy. But never mind. I will stick to concrete
examples from now on, to avoid giving you opportunities to digress.
>Evolutionists tell us that increasing levels of
>*functional* complexity evolve over time.
They do. We observe it.
>Inductive reasoning based on these findings as well
>as the statistics of the most likely neutral gaps
>involved give strong evidence that increasing levels
>of complexity beyond a few thousand amino acids really
>would require trillions upon trillions of years of time
>to achieve - not just a few hundred, thousand, million,
>or even billion as you are suggesting.
You are right. No, not in this statement, but in what you said at the
end of your response. I am only now begining to understand the depth
of what you are saying. The depth of ignorance in it, that is. I
didn't understand before that you believe that multiudomain proteins
are just "as complex as the most complex domain" *literally*. Gods.
And, to top this, you don't belive in the (slightly more intelligent)
idea that funcitonalities have to evolve suddenly, in a poof, from
proteins searching through all possible random combinations; you
actually believe that long proteins with functions can never arise?!?
There are hundreds of observed instances. Hell, just last week we had
a seminar on two insect proteins that mutated (independently), and
formed a complex with third one; the total complex is over five
thousand residues long. It performs a function totally unrelated to
any of its three constituents (two constituents are structural
proteins, one is, of all things, a kinase; new function has to do with
mitochondrial RNA repair).
>Where are these rigorous calculations?
Published in biological journals in many forms and shapes. Goodness
gracious, man, do you really believe that such an obvious, completely
defeating calculation such as your has been purposefully ignored by
millions of scientists over the entire century?
>Exactly the problem. This is a problem of levels
>of FUNCTIONAL complexity. Tracing genes and understanding
>mutation frequencies and the functional limits of what
>such mutations can and do achieve only supports my position
>all the more, not yours.
Incorrect. I will illustrate further below.
>You say this over and over again like a mantra, but give
>absolutely no evidence or logical reasons to support yourself.
? What would you accept as evidence, short of a full development of a
complex system in the lab (which is physically impossible to achieve
without very long periods of time)?
I have shown you how proteins change functions. I have shown you
observed examples of proteins joining together to do a novel job. I
have given you examples of proteins doubling or tripling in size (far
over your "impossibility boundary") to perform new functions. How can
such changes proceed for long periods of time without producing great,
sweeping changes to the system? It is statistically impossible.
>The actual evidence of functional evolution supports my
>position. You have not been able to controvert my hypothesis
>in any sort of reasonable way.
Actually, I have.
>If such differences really do exist between such
>otherwise similar creatures, then yes, such systems
>could not evolve in trillions of years and so they
>must have been designed. I cannot comment specifically
>on the differences between chickens and turkeys, but I
>can on the differences between several other life forms.
Such as men and monkeys, eh? Of course.
By your standards, practically every species on earth was designed
separately and recently. This makes you a YEC. How do you explain away
the fossil record, the geological data, the radiological evidence,
cosmological/astronomical evidence, etc?
>These sequences do not have beneficial functions without
>the cell being what it is - in other words, it defines
>such sequences as beneficial based on many other systems
>of function that recognize and use such short beneficial
>sequences in a beneficial way.
Incorrect. Single amino acids and short polypeptides can (and do)
catalyze various reactions that could be useful to the proto-organism.
>Try evolving this short word, one letter at a time, into
>a longer and longer word or phrase. See how far you can go.
Quite long, actually. Since words get copied, not just single letters,
I can get various phrases in. Plus, proteins are not words.
>Again, a multi-domain protein is no more complex in
>functional ability than its most complex functional domain.
>The functional domains work independently. It is like multiple
>proteins stuck together. But, these domains do not necessarily
>work at the same time to give a greater unified function.
This is perhaps the best example of how poorly you understand
biochemistry. Considering that your pet lactase is a multidomain
protein, I wonder how I didn't catch on to this earlier (I know why,
actually: I gave you far too much credit, and couldn't believe that
you would claim what you claim without knowing at least some basic
things).
Practically every large protein is formed of multiple domains, which
ALL work TOGETHER to produce the function of the protein. One domain
recognizes the substrate, another may carry the active site of
catalysis, the third may be involved in carrying the product (or
recognizing and binding a coenzyme or second substrate...). If you
don't have specifically defined domains, you have so-called motifs,
which are smaller sub-domain like structures.
Large proteins that do not work like this are *extremely* rare (which
is to be expected).
>That is what we are talking about here - functions that
>require a minimum number of amino acids working at the
>same time.
Look at the domain map of one lactase:
http://prodes.toulouse.inra.fr/prodom/current/cgi-bin/request.pl?question=SPTR&query=P70753
Put your mouse over separate domains, and you can see what they are.
While I am here, check the sequence alignment, just to see how many
residues have to be the same:
>Beyond a few hundred amino acids required at minimum, such
>functions simply do not evolve.
I gave you examples of them evolving.
>It is like sticking random small words together and hoping
>that they will make a collective function that is actually
>beneficial. Try it sometime.
Let's see. You think that it is theoretically impossible. But you can
see that it happens in practice. So what do you do? You ignore
reality, and insist that your theory is correct? Or you reexamine your
theory for possible holes in it?
>It is harder than you think.
Sean. I am a biochemist. I work with this stuff every day. How stupid
do you think I am? You are trying to teach me how to do my job, and
you are not very good at it.
>Gene duplication, translocation and random insertions
>still run into the same problems. The odds that a
>particular sequence will get copied and inserted into
>just the right place so that it makes a unique and greater
>collective function with other genetic elements is truly
>remote at higher and higher levels of complexity.
It is, actually, nearly the same for large proteins and small
proteins.
>Beyond this, it has never been demonstrated to actually
>happen in real life beyond a few hundred amino acids
>required for minimum function.
Novel proteins of sizes measured in thousands of kD have arisen
through evolution, in laboratory conditions.
>Yes, at the lowest levels of functional complexity.
All levels of existing complexity adapt to new surroundings equally
fast.
>Evolution is very fast at these levels because the
>beneficial sequences are relatively close together
>in sequence space.
There is no such thing as sequence space. It simply doesn't work that
way.
Sigh. Tell you what. You will simply ignore all the evidence I
provide, and just repeat yourself in the next message anyway. Why
don't you use a bit of time to explain to me why you didn't publish
this theory of sequence space in a major biology journal? If you
tried, and was refused, what do you think are reasons for the refusal?
>Once you have demonstrated the evolution of a function
>that is actually beneficial in just one individual within
>a population, you have achieved success in my book.
Really? Wow. Well, since the examples I gave you so far simply don't
count for some reason (mostly that you refuse to accept that things
happen if your theory says they cannot happen), let me give you a
relatively recent one. Velicer and Yu, at Max Planck institute in
Germany; the bacteria, under pressure, developed a complex
etracellular fibril matrix, and adapted it to achieve a form of
primitive cooperation.
There are more interesting examples, but you'll have to wait until
Monday, since I can't get on the SciFinder from home.
>In fact, I would say that once you have a particular
>kind of function, like the ability to digest palmitic
>acid, the refinement of such a function will occur
>much more rapidly than a few hundred thousand generations.
Excellent. You won't admit it aloud, but you just gave up on your
theory here.
>You say this over and over again, but you continually
>fail to present any relevant evidence to support this
>statement.
I gave you laboratory experiments you can do. I cannot think of any
evidence that is more compelling. I also keep throwing a few pieces of
evidence to you in every message. You simply gloss over them, and then
repeat "that is impossible, since in sequence space..."
>Ok - if it truly does nothing in an organism that is
>not so finely ballanced as to notice a loss of energy
>of producing something non-functional (i.e., most of
>the genomic real estate in organisms like bacteria is
>not wasted on non-beneficial sequences for very
>long).
Untrue again (you are greatly underestimating the amount of waste that
goes on, and number of proteins with little or no apparent function
that are still being produced). But never mind, this is not the meat
of the discussion.
>The key phrase here is "very occasionally". Your
>problem is that you think that such a level as requires
>800aa at minimum will happen in just a few years in
>most organisms. This is simply not true. The 800aa
>level of functional complexity is quite complex indeed.
Untrue. YOu can have 200 residue proteins that are functionally more
complex then 800 residue proteins. Compare your average histone with
your average keratin. Complexity of function has nothing to do with
size of the protein. And proteins don't form novel functions by
searching at random through some hypothetical "sequence space". And
large stretches of their structure are usually "fillers" that can be
anything. And...no, I won't repeat *all* the arguments I already gave
once. You can go back and read my messages again.
>Nothing very far beyond this level is detailed in literature.
>The density of beneficial functions at such a level and beyond
>becomes truly miniscule.
Bull. Again, I'll just throw one of hundreds of examples off the top
of my head. Human RNA polymerase II. If I remember correctly, it forms
a dodecamer - twelve different proteins, all working together, remove
one, everything falls apart. Irreducibly complex system. Why don't ID
advocates use it as an example? Because we simpler RNA polymerases
happen, accidentaly, to exist today, along with a number of
intermediates. Since we have the original primitive systems still
around, along with reference points for development, we can explain
the development in quite a bit of detail.
When, however, we don't have the primitive systems around anymore (as
in case of flagellum), ID-ers insist that it is irreducibly complex -
although it quite certainly could develop along the same lines as
other complex systems we know more details about.
>The problem is getting such a beneficial function, at
>such a level of complexity, to begin with.
If you knew your chemistry, you would be able to realize that
penicillinase is everything but simple. It is a truly original
application of enzymatic action, a very novel thing for a bacterial
cell. Development of a function that would satisfy your definition of
impossibility can actually be quite a bit easier (as evidenced by the
number of such novel proteins that have been registered).
>How long, on average, would it take for an average organism
>to evolve something, anything, at such a level of complexity?
Which level of complexity? Something like flagellum? Millions of
years.
<snipped a bunch of repetitions>
>That is true, but
...but you will still repeat your four-hundreth power of 20 as a
measure of "sequence space" for a given 400 residue protein?
>Certainly you must be able to recognize that not ever
>possible sequence in sequence space will have the
>lactase function at a beneficial level? Right? How
>would you calculate the density of beneficial sequences?
I wouldn't, since that is, yet again, not the way that proteins
evolve. The organism doesn't say "hey, I would like to get a lactase",
and then goes forming different random combinations of residues until
it hits upon lactase. It forms a protein that does something, and
optimizes it. The fact that organisms posess lactase today means they
either stumbled upon a precursor protein that did it (if they didn't,
they would have stumbled upon something else, and you would wonder how
is that function possible without a Designer), or (more likely)
developed it from a far simpler protein.
>Do your own calculations and find out what the ratio
>is for such functions.
Type "structural evolution" in a search engine for thousands of papers
on the topic, and calculations that go far beyond anything you or I
could come up with here.
>The problem is getting even the most imperfect sequence
>with at least some selectable advantage. You might not
>think this such a big deal until you realize just how
>constricted many types of protein functions are as far as
>their density within sequence space.
Indeed. However, since proteins do not form by random combination
searches through an imaginary "sequence space", this is irrelevant.
>If it were not so restricted, the other enzymes or amino
>acid sequences would also have the lactase function, or at
>least be fairly close to it, to do both jobs (their
>original function plus the lactase function), is a beneficial
>manner.
Give them time. If you need small mutations, you will get them
quickly. If you need large ones, it takes time for changes to
accumulate.
>And what is this bold statement based on? In order
>to make such a statement you must have at least some
>idea about the density of potential lactase sequences
>in sequence space at the level of 400aa or greater.
The density of your imaginary space has nothing to do with it.
>What is the ratio of sequences with at least a 1e-20
>lactase efficiency? That is the question.
I have no idea. I do know that enzymes that change substates, or do
something else completely, are observed in the lab. There aren't that
many substrates around. If an enzyme can suddenly decide to bind a
pterine instead of a nucleotide (about as far apart as it gets), I
can't see why a much smaller change would represent an insurmountable
problem.
>If they are not very common, perhaps millions and
>even billions of years would not be enough time.
Why don't you try to prove it? But instead of calculating meaningless
numbers of total combinations of amino acids, do it right. Take, for
example glycogen synthase (a quite distant molecule, mind you), and
give me a model how many mutations would be required to move from it
to a lactase. Or if you wish to be fair (and to reduce the amount of
work you have to do), take any disaccharide hydrolase, and estimate
the amount of time it would take to evolve a lactose recognition
domain.
>Again, thanks for a most interesting response. I think
>you may be starting to understand the issues and problems
>involved - at least at some level. This is encouraging.
I wish I could say the same. With each message, your apparent level of
knowledge is shown to be lower then what it seemed to be before.
M.
Sean Pitman
> >Pitman wrote:
> >The study of geological formations is fairly subjective - a historical
> >science. For example, many scientists believe that the Coconino Sandstone
> >layer found third from the top in the Grand Canyon was formed over millions
> >of years in a desert-like environment. However, resent studies by
> >those such as geologist Leonard Brand have shown that these formations
> >are much more consistent with rapid deposition under water. See the
> >following link for the details of this study:
> >
> >http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
>
> Actually, this is an example of an egregious misrepresentation of
> the facts. By no means did Leondard Brand show that
>
> "...those such as geologist Leonard Brand have shown that these formations
> [which is to say, the invertebrate tracks in the Coconino sandstone at
> the Grand Canyon] are much more consistent with rapid deposition under
> water."
>
> What Brand [1996] said was:
>
> "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may
> have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand."
Did you actually read all the way through Brand's article? I don't
think so. This most certainly is not a direct quote from the article.
This quote seems to be a complete fabrication. Brand never made this
comment that I am aware. In fact, in the paper that you referenced,
he says just the opposite concerning damp sand. (As an aside, the
usual spelling is "Coconino", not "Cocino").
I happen to have spoken personally with Brand him several times about
these particular experiments. And, if you actually take the time to
read the article, Brand is very clear about his conclusion that the
Coconino Sandstone trackways are most consistent with underwater
formation, NOT with formation on damp sand. Brand concludes,
"Consequently the damp sand and dry sand tracks observed in this study
do not seem to provide an adequate model for the origin of the fossil
tracks. . . Of all the laboratory trackways produced, the underwater
tracks were most similar to the fossil tracks." Nowhere in his paper
did he suggest that the trackways "may have been produced on damp
sand" as you suggest. Talk about an egregious misrepresentation of
the facts. You obviously didn't even read the paper in its entirety.
The popularity of the desert origin for the Coconino Sandstone began
with the work of McKee in the early 1930s. McKee initially focused on
the physical qualities of the sandstone to support his conclusions
that the dunes had been wind and not water deposited. Later he
studied the footprints and concluded that they were most likely formed
on dry sand - completely contrary to the work and conclusions of
Leonard Brand.
According to Brand, "Sedimentary features that were formerly thought
to be diagnostic of eolian deposits are now known to be
non-diagnostic. Stanley et al. (1971) pointed out that "grain frosting
is no longer considered a criterion of wind transport," grain size
distribution statistics have been ambiguous (for the Navajo), and "it
can no longer be assumed a priori that large festoon cross strata
prove an eolian dune origin for the Navajo or any similar sandstone
because of the essential identity of form and scale of modern
submarine dunes or sand waves.
Mckee was heavily influenced in the formation of his desert theory by
the influence of a paleontologist by the name of Peabody who told
McKee that salamanders do not generally make tracks underwater but
prefer to swim from place to place instead of walk and, even when they
do walk, they are partially buoyed up by the water so that their
tracks are vague at best. McKee seemed to indicate that he had
experimentally confirmed these suggestions made by Peabody. Thus,
McKee (1947) concluded that the fossil tracks preserved in the
Coconino Sandstone were most similar to the dry sand trackways
produced in his own experiments because only in dry sand were any
definite prints of individual feet formed. What is strange though is
that there is no documentation of how extensive McKee's observations
were as far as observing salamanders and their swimming or walking
habits while under water. Brand, on the other hand, documents that
all five species in his study walked on the bottom sands underwater
more than they swam from place to place through the water.
> In this case, "subaqueous" means "shallow standing water" which is what
> the conditions of Brand's experiments were.
The word, "subaqueous" literally means, "under water". It does not
mean "shallow" or "standing". In fact, Brand strongly suggests that
the creatures making the footprints in the Coconino sandstone were
most likely underwater at the time and that this water was moving, not
standing still. Brand observes, " Several trackways were headed
directly across the slope or at an angle across the slope (Figures 2,
8, 9), but with the toe marks of both back and front feet pointed
upslope. These trackways can perhaps be best explained by animals
being pushed by a water current moving at an angle to the direction of
movement of the animal."
> If you read Brand's
> paper at: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
> you will see that he made absolutely no attempt to account for movement
> of the water.
Did you fail to read where he talked about the evidence for "water
current moving at an angle to the direction of movement of the
animal"? What is also very interesting about Brand's observations is
that practically all the tracts found throughout the lower Coconino
sandstone head uphill. Only one poorly preserved trackway may have
been heading downhill. Now isn't that just fascinating? McKee
attempted to explain the relative absence of downhill trackways by
suggesting that the animals tended to "slide" downhill, thus
obliterating their own tracks in the sliding sand. However, Brand's
experiments concerning this suggestion do not support McKee's
hypothesis. Brand induced his experimental animals to walk both
downhill as well as uphill. On underwater sand, wet sand, and damp
sand, almost all downhill trails produced easily recognizable
trackways. Also, some of the trackways will simply disappear suddenly
and then reappear many yards later without evidence of sand-shift or
disturbance… like the creature suddenly vanished into thin air (or
swam off in the water).
> So, you have distorted Brand's results, which suggest more likely
> that the Cocino represents deposition in coastal dunes, kind of
> like what we see today in Namibia, into some
> sort of totally bogus catastrophic flood scenario. News flash,
> Sean, there wouldn't be any delicate tracks in a flood.
News flash John, delicate tracks need to be buried rapidly if they are
to be preserved. Certainly these tracks to not support the popular
idea that the Coconino Sandstone represents some dry ancient desert
sand dunes - that's for sure.
You really need to go back and read Brand's work again. He was most
clearly in favor of a flood model of deposition in his paper. He
specifically says, " The implications of this work must be considered
as we develop geologic flood models, and on the other hand perhaps our
flood models can suggest new ways of looking at the Coconino
Sandstone. A model or an idea is useful to science if it can suggest
new lines of research that can be done successfully, and that improve
our understanding of the subject we are investigating. Perhaps our
flood model can suggest useful, new types of research that need to be
done and that might not have been thought of by someone who did not
believe in a flood of worldwide geologic significance."
> Furthermore, I would point anyone actually wanting to read something
> real about the Grand Canyon and the Cocino formation to read
> (in particular Chapter 10) of Bues and Morales [1990] for further
> information. In particular, figure 6 on p.194 of this book shows
> raindrop impressions (which incidentally imply that the sand was
> dry at the time the impressions were made) Figure 7 on p.195
> shows detachment structures (small plate-like sand layers pulled
> apart from the substrate), which are the sort of thing that happens
> when the surface sand of a dune is wetted, dries out, and then
> avalanches. These sorts of detachment features are *impossible*
> to form underwater.
Short-term exposure to aerial surfaces is not a problem for an
extended watery deposition event. Tidal actions would most certainly
allow for various times of subaerial exposure. What is interesting is
that the tracks found in the Coconino dunes seem to predominate the
lower half of the Coconino layer - not so much in the upper half.
Also, underwater detachments and avalanches of sand are possible.
They can indeed form underwater though this is admittedly less common.
Also, the architecture of the Coconino sand dunes is not like that of
modern sand dunes in modern deserts. The Coconino sand dunes have an
average slope angle of 25 deg. while the average slope angle of modern
desert dunes is 30-34 deg. (the "resting" angle of dry sand). Sand
dunes formed by underwater currents do not have as high an average
slope angle as desert dunes and do not have "avalanche" faces as
commonly as deserts dunes do.
> References:
>
> Bues, S.S. and M. Morales, editors, 1990, Grand Canyon Geology.
> Oxford University Press.
>
> Brand, Leonard, 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from
> substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70(6): 1004-1011.
>
> John Stockwell
Frank Reichenbacher
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:<87udnXM8G8r...@speakeasy.net>...
> > "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
message
> > news:80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > > Several in this forum seem to be confused about my use of the term
> > > "mindless processes" and the creative limits that such processes have.
> >
> > No we're not. Your "mindless process" is anything you don't understand.
>
> Actually, it is "anything that you *evolutionists* don't understand".
This is funny. Ladies and gentlemen, a lesson in the use of a rhetorical
device.
> You haven't the first clue how the mindless processes of random
> mutation and natural selection create new functions at higher and
> higher levels of functional complexity, but you are sure that whatever
> the cause, it was a mindless cause.
The processes are extremely well known. They are the same processes that
have been demonstrated to give rise to new species, both in the lab and in
the field. Completely new structures never arise all at once and fully
formed, they are, instead accumulated through time. The processes is well
documented and very thoroughly understood. This does not mean, of course,
that there is nothing to discover about the processes of evolution.
I would post a link to a talkorigins.org FAQ which provides examples of
documented examples of the processes of evolution, but you would simply
dismiss it.
You don't understand how, but you
> still have faith that all original causes in this universe are
> mindless.
It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of evidence. Why include
possibilities that have no comprehended origination, mechanism, or action
and cannot ever be directly observed, tested, or validated in any way?
For you, mindless naturalism explains absolutely everything
> - ultimately.
To the extent that it seems like physicists are stumped on explanations of
the origin of the universe, I cannot deny that *so far* you can say the
ultimate question has not been answered. Reading cosmology I do get the
feeling that some physicists think there is a slight possibility that the
laws of physics may turn out to entirely prevent investigations of the
ultimate origin of the universe for quite a while, maybe forever. Though I
don't think it means anything about the utility of naturalistic methods.
So, can you really say that whatever explains
> everything explains nothing? - like many evolutionists in this forum
> are so fond of doing?
Uh, okay. I have no idea what this means. Perhaps it is some secret
symbolism that only you are privy to.
Frank
>
> > Frank
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
Von Smith
>
> > It is far from clear that there is any difference between the kind of
> > process which generates a chicken from a chicken egg and the kind of
> > process which allows William Shakespeare to write "Hamlet".
>
> as creative it its forming of the chicken as Shakespeare was in his
> fantastic things, but it is not creative. Now granted, the terms
> "intelligence" and "creative" have not yet been absolutely defined and
> maybe they never will be. However, they are defined enough for us to
> know that human intelligence can do things that computers and eggs
> complexity that we never created before and were not preprogrammed to
> things that they were not already programmed to create. A chicken egg
> cannot make anything except for a chicken. Shakespeare, on the other
> hand, was not preprogrammed to make Hamlet or Macbeth or the Taming of
> complex as a chicken, the process involved in their creation was much
> more creative. If Shakespeare had figured out how to make a chicken
> without some sort of internal preprogramming, then that would have
> been very creative indeed. The fact of the matter is, just because a
> computer can do something better or even at a higher level of
> complexity than you can do does not make the computer more creative
> than you are. Wouldn't you agree that this is a significant
> difference between Shakespeare and the chicken egg?
>
> > merely presuming your conclusion when you say that "no such mindless
> > process can give rise to a greater level of complexity... that goes
> > very far beyond what its original programming allowed it to do".
>
> This conclusion happens to be my hypothesis. That is what the
> then make a conclusion/hypothesis to explain this phenomenon. This is
> a valid scientific process as long as the hypothesis makes a testable
> prediction that can in fact be disproved or "falsified". This is what
> I have done. I have predicted that no mindless process will ever be
> able to create anything new within a given level of complexity or
> beyond in real time. I have drawn this line at several thousand amino
> acids working at the same time. So far, the highest level of
> functional complexity that has been observed to evolve in real time
> requires less than a few hundred amino acids at minimum for that type
> of function (i.e., the lactase or nylonase functions). Nothing beyond
> such levels of complexity have ever been shown to evolve in real time
> and even many life forms seem to be incapable of evolving much of
> anything requiring only a few hundred amino acids working at the same
> time. For example, many types of bacteria, to include Hall's double
> mutant E. coli bacteria, cannot evolve the relatively simple lactase
> function in over a million generations of positive selection pressure.
> Hall himself referred to these bacteria as having, "limited
> evolutionary potential." Now I find that most interesting . . .
>
> > statement itself attempts to confuse the issues by using a term which
> > we normally associate with human effort (namefly 'programming') with
> > something that seldom does (namely biological development).
>
> Biological development certainly involves pre-established information
> information being there fully formed, random organic matter doesn't
> turn into much of anything besides amorphous ooze, much less a
> chicken. The pre-established information system is vital to the
> functional organizational ability of the chicken egg . . . and all
> other biological activities. For example, the parts of a flagellum,
> very specific order and concentration of part additions is required in
> order for the flagellum to form in such a way that its motility
> function will be realized. This specific order requires a
> pre-established information system and physical apparatus to decode
> this information before a motile flagellum can be built. Information
> systems at such levels of complexity simply do not self-assemble
> without outside input from some higher information system or
> intelligence.
>
> > unfortunately has no evidence to back it up at all.
>
> What would you call the fact that there is a ladder of complexity
> where evolution works very well on the lowest rungs, but less and less
> well as it tries to move up the ladder to higher levels of functional
> complexity (involving more and more amino acids at minimum)?
>
> resistance, which work by blocking or interfering with other
> pre-established functions or interactions, evolve commonly and
> rapidly. This is because there are many different ways, involving
> only one or two point mutations, to interfere with the
> antibiotic-target interaction. So, there are a lot of beneficial
> sequences surrounding the starting sequence. Like stepping-stones,
> the mindless evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural
> selection can quickly cross over toward the move beneficial levels of
> more and more efficient antibiotic resistance. However, functions
> that require independent action, as is the case with enzymatic
> functions, are much more difficult to evolve since there are far fewer
> ways for a series of amino acids to achieve a particular enzymatic
> function. Still, those enzymatic functions that require fewer amino
> acids at minimum in the least specified order are the easiest ones to
> evolve. In fact, although there are far fewer examples of novel
> enzymatic functions evolving, they are still fairly common - and more
> common for shorter enzymes. However, for those functions that require
> more and more amino acids, at minimum, working together at the same
> time in a fairly constrained manner, evolution becomes exponentially
> less and less common. In fact, many life forms, such as many types of
> bacteria, simply cannot evolve something like a relatively simple
> lactase function, which requires, at minimum, only 400 or 500 amino
> acids in a fairly flexible order.
>
> that the ratio of lactase to non-lactase sequences at this level of
> complexity is as high as 1 in 1,000 sequences.
No, Dr. Pitman, that is neither what I think nor what I said. What I
said was that at least two of the several thousand genes in E. coli
had been *observed* to be able to evolve a lactase function, a fact
which belies your predictions about the density of beneficial
functions in the sequence space. You have (as far as I can pin down
your argument at all) attempted to argue that, since lactase functions
are so rare and hard to evolve, the fact that at least two genes in E.
coli can evolve it in no more than a handful of steps is some
remarkable, baffling phenomenon that can only be reasonably explained
by appealing to the notion that they are "spare tire" genes, possibly
designed to be there as backup systems.
Another possible conclusion, which you seem to have missed, is that
the presence of at least two other genes capable of evolving a lactase
function is only baffling in *your* model, and that having several
genes producing enzymes with closely-related and possibly overlapping
functions is to be expected. This being the case, your sequence
density calculations are simply irrelevant. I can see how you might
have been confused about what I said initially in the "Not a Disproof
of Pitman's ID Theory" thread, but I clarify my point in this response
to you:
<8d74ec45.03112...@posting.google.com>
> The problem here is
> that Von clearly doesn't understand the power of random walk. If the
> ratio were truly this high, only 1,000 mutations would be needed, on
> average, to find a lactase sequence in sequence space. An average
> bacterial colony would realize such a sequence many its members in
> just one or two generations. Evolution at such a high ratio for
> success would not only be guaranteed, it would be rapid. The fact is
> that E. coli, without the lacZ and ebg genes, do not evolve the
> lactase function despite tens of thousands of generations under high
> selection pressures, high mutation rates, and very large population
> numbers. Other bacteria haven't evolved this function either in over
> a million generations of time - and Von thinks that the ratio is 1 in
> 1000? Please! You've got to be kiddin me!
As I already pointed out, I do not believe that the ratio in your
"sequence space" is 1 in a 1000. I pointed out that there are
observed to be at least three genes out of a given population of a few
thousand (those in E. coli's genome) that have or can evolve a lactase
function. This is not a result anticipated by your argument about how
difficult it ought to be for evolution to "find" a lactase, given what
you believed to be the density of lactase sequences in your sequence
space, and your notion of "random walk". The reason your prediction
fails is not so much because the ratio of lactases to non-lactases in
your sequence space are as high as 1 in a 1000 so much as that your
whole discussion simply doesn't model anything relevant.
You own reaction to the ability to evolve lactase from ebg or gus
indicates that you are aware of this, even though you end up missing
the point. You talk about how remarkable and fortuitous it is for E.
coli to have at least one "spare tire" in its genetic trunk, and seem
not to consider the possibility that the reason you are so amazed by
these observations is that your expectations were flawed to start
with.
I see in the above paragraph that you are still refusing to
acknowledge the evolutionary pathway from beta-glucuronidase to
beta-galactosidase demonstrated by Matsumura et al. You have tried to
dismiss this by saying it was just an in vitro study, but you have
never presented any valid reason why such experiments shouldn't count
as a way of demonstrating evolutionary pathways.
I also see that you are still carrying on as if there were something
unique and exotic about E. coli's lactase abilities, when in fact they
are fairly common among bacteria that live in environments rich in
lactose. In fact, there are several bacteria that could be said to
have "spare tires" as they produce more than one beta-gal enzyme, or
produce both a beta-gal and a beta-glucuronidase enzyme.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
R. Dunno
The stuff at http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm is some
interesting reading. To my untrained mind, it appears he is
trying to extract a bit much information out of these tracks.
If I read correctly, he is using the tracks to determine
the sand is water deposited (at least in part). Say you
have tracks in water deposited sand that is under water.
Say you have some more tracks (same species) in wind deposited
sand that is under water. How can you tell the difference
from just the tracks?
Sean Pitman
> I have presented you with proof (laboratory proof, in many instances)
> that your statements are incorrect.
You have shown that short amino acid sequences can come together to
form a new unified function that is indeed unique and of greater
complexity. The only problem you have here is that the minimum amino
acid number required for your most complex example is only 3 or 4
hundred amino acids. My argument is that evolution becomes more and
more difficult the greater the minimum amino acid requirement until it
becomes impossible this side of zillions of years when the minimum
requirement reaches a few thousand amino acids in fairly specified
order. Where are your examples of evolution requiring such a level of
minimum amino acid specificity? I see a lot of hot air coming from
you, but no such example. Where is the reference for such a
demonstration? And, by the way, your lame bacterial swarming example
doesn't even come close (see discussion below).
Recently I have been referred to the example of the bcr-abl chimeric
protein that causes various forms of leukemia such as chronic
myelogenous leukemia. The reason for this referral is the fact that
the bcr-abl function is generally realized with the use of between
1000 and 1800 amino acids. This is good thinking since it is actually
an attempt to controvert my hypothesis whereas you haven't even tried
to present the de novo evolution of anything with a minimum function
requiring over a few hundred amino acids working together at the same
time.
But, before you become excited about the bcr-abl function, there is a
little problem in that it really isn't a new type of function or is it
a selectably beneficial function, but is based on the deregulation of
the pre-established kinase function of the abl protein. For a more
detailed discussion of bcr-abl function see:
> I have provided you with at least three examples of exactly that
> happening: simpler systems combining to produce a novel, complex
> system with a different, novel function. The fact that there are more
> ways to combine systems nonfunctionally does not have a bearing on
> this.
Actually it has everything to do with this. What you have shown are
simpler systems combining to produce a novel function that requires,
at minimum, only 3 or 4 hundred amino acids. You have also provided
examples of a simple function requiring less than a few hundred amino
acids at minimum evolving a new type of function within the same level
of complexity, but not anything much greater. Please, I think you can
at least try and do better than this.
> The system does not work by searching randomly through
> thousands of different combinations of amino-acids, until it "hits"
> the right combination. This has been explained to you over and over
> again. It simply does not happen, and your refutation of this does not
> refute anything that is a part of evolutionary theory.
You haven't explained how my ideas are wrong in this regard. All you
have shown is how the same type of function can be up-regulated and
down-regulated (See discussion below of Myxococcus xanthus swarming
evolution demonstrated by Gregory J. Velicer and Yuen-tsu N. Yu of the
Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology) but not how new types
of function within higher levels of complexity can be evolved without
searching randomly through a very large non-beneficial sequence space.
Sequences with the same types of functions can be clustered around
each other like little islands of stepping stones - very much like a
sentence who's individual letters can be rearranged somewhat without a
complete loss of beneficial meaning, but who's type of meaning is
fairly isolated from other sentences with different types of meaning
or significantly different ways of achieving the same meaning. How to
cross the non-beneficial gap between these two different types of
meaning? That is the question? For shorter sequences, the random
walk required is easier to overcome. However, with each amino acid
increase in the minimum random walk required to achieve the success of
any new type of beneficial function within that level of functional
complexity, the time required grows exponentially.
> Please show me how would it be possible for a change in biological
> systems, such as it happens NOW, at this moment, to go on for, say,
> ten thousand years, WITHOUT producing a novel, complex system?
Ok - take, for example, a particular function that requires, at
minimum 5,000aa at minimum to be realized. Say this sequence happens
to get duplicated so that it can undergo various mutations without
risking significant loss to the original beneficial function (which
has been optimized for its host by now - as far as *level* of function
is concerned). The sequence space at this level of complexity is more
than 10e6500 sequences. The question is, out of all of these
universes of possibilities, how many are or would be beneficial to the
given organism in question? If the organism could use a million
different types of functions to some benefit at this level of
complexity and if each of these million different types of functions
had at least 10e1000 different sequences with at least some selectably
advantageous level of function, then there would be 10e1006 total
beneficial sequences in sequence space with a different type of
function. The question is, how long, on average, would it take to
find any one of these other beneficial sequence islands? Well, you
have to think of ratios at this point. What is the ratio of
beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space? Well,
10e1006 divided by 10e6500 equals 10e5494. That means that for every
one beneficial sequence there are literally universes of
non-beneficial sequences (i.e., there are only around 10e80 atoms in
the entire known universe). With a mutation rate of one mutation per
sequences of 5000aa per generation in a population the size of all the
bacteria on earth, it would literally take zillions of years on
average for even one member of the population to find even one
beneficial sequence with a new type of beneficial function at this
level of complexity.
Of course, you will say that evolution doesn't work like this.
Evolution works by getting various fully formed and functional
sequences to get pasted together to gain a new collective function of
higher complexity. What many don't realize is that the same
statistical problems are involved here. Finding a way to bring a
bunch of small words or even big words totaling 5000 letters together
where each step is beneficially selectable, is much more difficult
than most people realize. The same thing is true for functional base
pair or amino acid sequences. Just because the right sequences are
there as parts of various larger systems of function does not mean
that they will be clipped out and pasted together in just the right
way to make a new system of function that is actually selectably
beneficial at such a high level of functional complexity.
You certainly haven't been able to provide me yet with any such real
time demonstration. I'm still waiting . . .
> I am only now begining to understand the depth
> of what you are saying. The depth of ignorance in it, that is. I
> didn't understand before that you believe that multiudomain proteins
> are just "as complex as the most complex domain" *literally*. Gods.
> And, to top this, you don't belive in the (slightly more intelligent)
> idea that funcitonalities have to evolve suddenly, in a poof, from
> proteins searching through all possible random combinations; you
> actually believe that long proteins with functions can never arise?!?
A bit of clarification: I am well aware that many multi-domain
proteins use all or many of their domains at the same time for a
collective function. However, when you are taking about a particular
function, multiple domains may not be required to achieve this type of
function. The question is, what is the minimum amino acid part
requirement to achieve a particular type of function to a level where
it becomes selectably advantageous? I'm not asking how one can make
the most complex Rube Goldberg-type mousetrap here. I'm asking how
one can make the most simple, bare bones, function of a particular
type that will work to at least some minimal degree of selectable
advantage. Once you have this function, refining it by increasing or
decreasing its level of function (i.e., more or less lactase ability)
is not a problem.
Now, if you can add to this minimum part requirement to achieve a new
type of function with a higher minimum part requirement (i.e.,
bacterial motility), then you will really have something. So far, you
have yet to do this.
> There are hundreds of observed instances. Hell, just last week we had
> a seminar on two insect proteins that mutated (independently), and
> formed a complex with third one; the total complex is over five
> thousand residues long. It performs a function totally unrelated to
> any of its three constituents (two constituents are structural
> proteins, one is, of all things, a kinase; new function has to do with
> mitochondrial RNA repair).
Interesting. Give me the details of this demonstration and/or the
reference for the publication of this demonstration. Does it involve
the deregulation of the kinase function, as is the case with the
chimeric bcr-able function mentioned above?
> >If such differences really do exist between such
> >otherwise similar creatures, then yes, such systems
> >could not evolve in trillions of years and so they
> >must have been designed. I cannot comment specifically
> >on the differences between chickens and turkeys, but I
> >can on the differences between several other life forms.
>
> Such as men and monkeys, eh? Of course.
As I have said over and over again in this forum, I do not think we
know enough about the functional genetic differences between humans
and apes to rule out the possibility of common origin with the use of
genetics alone.
> By your standards, practically every species on earth was designed
> separately and recently. This makes you a YEC. How do you explain away
> the fossil record, the geological data, the radiological evidence,
> cosmological/astronomical evidence, etc?
The definition of "species" is rather subjective. I do not believe
that all of what are now referred to as "separate species" where
designed separately - although I do believe that they were all here
relatively recently. The fossil record and geologic data, to include
the radiological evidence, is not nearly as solid in support of the
long ages of deposition that evolutionists claim it is. It shows very
clear evidence of rapid deposition over the course hundreds and
thousands of years, but certainly not anything even close to a
million, much less a billion years.
See: www.naturalselection.0catch.com
> >These sequences do not have beneficial functions without
> >the cell being what it is - in other words, it defines
> >such sequences as beneficial based on many other systems
> >of function that recognize and use such short beneficial
> >sequences in a beneficial way.
>
> Incorrect. Single amino acids and short polypeptides can (and do)
> catalyze various reactions that could be useful to the proto-organism.
When such sequences are beneficial (which not all of the possibilities
are), they are useful only because the system of the organism
"recognizes" them as useful in a particular environment. Not all such
sequences, even short sequences, are useful to all organisms. Just
because a particular sequence might be useful in one particular
organism does not mean that all organisms will also recognize it as
beneficial.
> >Try evolving this short word, one letter at a time, into
> >a longer and longer word or phrase. See how far you can go.
>
> Quite long, actually. Since words get copied, not just single letters,
> I can get various phrases in.
Try it. Give a demonstration here. Provide us with an environment or
situation. Start with a short word that would be beneficial in such a
situation. Then, adding letters to that word, evolve it were each
addition makes beneficial sense in that situation. Spelling does not
have to be exactly correct, just understandable in a beneficial way.
See how far you can go. Try it here in this forum and include your
demonstration in your reply to this post.
Plus, proteins are not words.
No, they are not. They are even a lot more flexible in their
functional sequencing. But they are very similar in that they are not
completely flexible in their functional sequencing. There is a
minimum limit to the size and order required by a protein-based
function - beyond which all beneficial function suddenly ceases. This
characteristic creates the neutral gap problem just like it does for
English words, sentences, and paragraphs.
> >Again, a multi-domain protein is no more complex in
> >functional ability than its most complex functional domain.
> >The functional domains work independently. It is like multiple
> >proteins stuck together. But, these domains do not necessarily
> >work at the same time to give a greater unified function.
>
> This is perhaps the best example of how poorly you understand
> biochemistry. Considering that your pet lactase is a multidomain
> protein, I wonder how I didn't catch on to this earlier (I know why,
> actually: I gave you far too much credit, and couldn't believe that
> you would claim what you claim without knowing at least some basic
> things).
You will notice that I use the word, "necessarily". A many types of
protein functions do not necessarily require multiple domains in order
to be realized. You yourself admitted as much in your first post when
you claimed that the lactase function is actually much simpler than
its usual 1000 acids would make it appear.
> Practically every large protein is formed of multiple domains, which
> ALL work TOGETHER to produce the function of the protein.
Certainly this is true. If you can present the evolution of such a
collective function that requires, at minimum, all of the various
amino acids in all of the various domains of a particular protein
working at the same time, then you will have something. You have
tried to do this, but your total number of specified amino acids falls
rather short - being less than 500aa so far. You claim to know of
functions that require much more than this, but you have yet to
provide me with the details of such observations and/or a reference to
support such claims.
> One domain
> recognizes the substrate, another may carry the active site of
> catalysis, the third may be involved in carrying the product (or
> recognizing and binding a coenzyme or second substrate...). If you
> don't have specifically defined domains, you have so-called motifs,
> which are smaller sub-domain like structures.
Yes - I agree and know full well about such collective functions. I
think you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
> Large proteins that do not work like this are *extremely* rare (which
> is to be expected).
Certainly . . .
> >Beyond a few hundred amino acids required at minimum, such
> >functions simply do not evolve.
>
> I gave you examples of them evolving.
Where? You made a blanket statement but you provided no details or
references to support this statement.
> Sean. I am a biochemist. I work with this stuff every day. How stupid
> do you think I am? You are trying to teach me how to do my job, and
> you are not very good at it.
I don't think you are stupid and I do not assume to teach you how to
do your job. However, I highly doubt that your job invokes the use of
evolution beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity. You
claim that it does or that you do in fact observe such levels of
evolution all the time, but you have yet to support such claims beyond
those that require more than a few hundred amino acids. What I am
talking about here are those types of beneficial functions that
require, at minimum, several thousand amino acids working together at
the same time in a rather specified order.
> Novel proteins of sizes measured in thousands of kD have arisen
> through evolution, in laboratory conditions.
References?
> Well, since the examples I gave you so far simply don't
> count for some reason (mostly that you refuse to accept that things
> happen if your theory says they cannot happen), let me give you a
> relatively recent one. Velicer and Yu, at Max Planck institute in
> Germany; the bacteria, under pressure, developed a complex
> etracellular fibril matrix, and adapted it to achieve a form of
> primitive cooperation.
Actually the M. xanthus bacteria did not develop their extracellular
matrix de novo. They were in fact already able to make this matrix
via the use of pre-existent genes. What happened is that when Velicer
and Yu deleated the genes that gave these bacteria that ability to
achieve S-type swarming, they increased their ability to make more
matrix necessary for A-type swarming. What they evolved was the
ability to make "enhanced quantities" of a matrix which they already
made. In fact, genetic mutants of the evolved strains were constructed
by Velicer and Yu that were unable to make this fibrilar matrix even a
little bit, and guess what, these bacteria never could evolve any type
of significant swarming ability, much less the A-type or S-types.
"Both the genetic and chemical inhibition of fibril-matrix
construction inhibited the evolved swarming phenotypes."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/m-wsb090503.php
Basically, this is no different than the evolution of penicillin
resistance in bacteria who already have the gene for penicillinase and
all they need to do is make more penicillinase enzyme by decreasing
suppression of penicillinase production. The evolution of decreased
suppression of production of a fairly complex enzyme like
penicillinase is not nearly as difficult as is the evolution of the
penicillinase code to begin with. A single point mutation (many
different ones) can decrease suppression of production. The same
thing happened with this case of M. xanthus swarming evolution.
Please! You really should try to do better than this! I really
thought that you might have it more together - being a "biochemist"
and all. Come on now, is this the very best that you have to offer?
Perhaps you don't like to list the actual references to research
studies like this because you know how very limited they are and that
they really do not support your contentions and most exaggerated
statements in the least.
In any case, this is all the nonsense I have time for today. Hope you
come up with something much better by Monday - as promised. Good luck
. . .
> M.
Bigdakine
>From: "R. Dunno" muen...@hushmail.com
>Date: 12/6/03 7:43 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrnbt5fnt....@hushmail.com>
Naturally creationists like to concentrate on trace fossils. The situation
with them is somewhat ambiguous.
However, elsewhere in the Coconino we find rain prints. This certainly
indicates subaerial exposure, no matter how long and often creationists blather
about trace fossils.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Lenny Flank
>
>
> > I have presented you with proof (laboratory proof, in many instances)
> > that your statements are incorrect.
>
> You have shown that short amino acid sequences can come together to
> form a new unified function that is indeed unique and of greater
> complexity. The only problem you have here is that the minimum amino
> acid number required for your most complex example is only 3 or 4
> hundred amino acids. My argument is that evolution becomes more and
> more difficult the greater the minimum amino acid requirement until it
> becomes impossible this side of zillions of years when the minimum
> requirement reaches a few thousand amino acids in fairly specified
> order.
How dreadful. And what, again, is the scientific theory of
intelligent deisgn whcih explains how these amino acid sequences DID
appear . . . ? What, according to the scientific theory of
intelligent design, did the designer(s) do to produce these amino acid
sequences? What mechanisms, according to the scientific theory of
intelligent design, did the designer(s) use to do whatever the heck it
is that you think it did?
Oh, and what supernatural or non-natural entities, mechanisms or
actions does ID "theory" propose? any at all? Or is ID "theory" just
another atheistic materialistic naturalistic godless scientific
theory?
What abnout YOU, Dr Pitman, are YOU just another materialist
naturalist atheist? What non-natuyral or supernatural methods or
procedures do you use in your medical practice, doctor Pitman. Or do
you simply cure people's materialistic diseases by using materialistic
antibiotics to kill their materialistic germs.
Why are you so reluctant to answer those simple questions, doc?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
Mark Isaak
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>sweetnes...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<4d71d185.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>> I have presented you with proof (laboratory proof, in many instances)
>> that your statements are incorrect.
>
>You have shown that short amino acid sequences can come together to
>form a new unified function that is indeed unique and of greater
>complexity. The only problem you have here is that the minimum amino
>acid number required for your most complex example is only 3 or 4
>hundred amino acids. My argument is that evolution becomes more and
>more difficult the greater the minimum amino acid requirement until it
>becomes impossible this side of zillions of years when the minimum
>requirement reaches a few thousand amino acids in fairly specified
>order.
Actually, your argument is that *creation* becomes more and more
difficult with more amino acids. Your argument simply does not apply
to evolution, which can build things up gradually.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Sean Pitman
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:05:37 +0000 (UTC),
> seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>
> >sweetnes...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<4d71d185.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >> I have presented you with proof (laboratory proof, in many instances)
> >> that your statements are incorrect.
> >
> >You have shown that short amino acid sequences can come together to
> >form a new unified function that is indeed unique and of greater
> >complexity. The only problem you have here is that the minimum amino
> >acid number required for your most complex example is only 3 or 4
> >hundred amino acids. My argument is that evolution becomes more and
> >more difficult the greater the minimum amino acid requirement until it
> >becomes impossible this side of zillions of years when the minimum
> >requirement reaches a few thousand amino acids in fairly specified
> >order.
>
> Actually, your argument is that *creation* becomes more and more
> difficult with more amino acids. Your argument simply does not apply
> to evolution, which can build things up gradually.
The mindless processes of evolution can only build things up gradually
if each step is selectable as beneficial to the organism that it
evolves in. This selectability becomes a real problem at higher
levels of functional complexity that require more and more fairly
specified amino acids at minimum because there are exponentially fewer
beneficial sequences at these higher and higher levels of complexity.
This exponential decrease in the density of beneficial sequences at
higher levels of functional complexity creates exponentially expanding
non-beneficial sequence gaps between the rarer and rarer islands of
beneficial sequences. Now, in order to get from one beneficial island
to the next beneficial island with a novel function, a large ocean of
non-beneficial sequences must be crossed without the aid of natural
selection. The "random walk" involved gets longer and longer in an
exponential fashion until fairly rapidly trillions upon trillions of
years are needed to cross the gaps.
Intelligent "creation" does not have this problem because intelligent
minds do not have to rely on a selection process that only recognizes
changes in function. Intelligent minds can imagine their way across
the gaps without ever having to perform the random walk required by
mindless processes. That is the difference and the reason why
intelligence at the level of humans and higher can go far beyond
anything that mindless processes and lesser intelligences can ever
hope to achieve - even given a practical eternity of time.
Sean Pitman
> > Some in this forum, such as Von Smith and a few others, have suggested
> > that the ratio of lactase to non-lactase sequences at this level of
> > complexity is as high as 1 in 1,000 sequences.
>
> No, Dr. Pitman, that is neither what I think nor what I said. What I
> said was that at least two of the several thousand genes in E. coli
> had been *observed* to be able to evolve a lactase function, a fact
> which belies your predictions about the density of beneficial
> functions in the sequence space.
Exactly - you are trying to argue that since E. coli have less than
5,000 or so genes that the finding of two and possibly three lactase
or lactase-like sequences means that the ratio of potential lactase
sequences in sequence space is actually quite high - as high as 3 in
5,000 sequences at such a length. That is in fact what you are trying
to say, is it not? The problem with this little leap of logic is that
if it were true, there would be so many potential lactase sequences in
sequence space, so close together, that all bacteria would be able to
evolve the lactase function in short order in a lactose rich
environment (i.e., in just a few weeks to a couple of months in an
average sized bacterial colony). The reason why such a suggested
ratio cannot be nearly this high is the fact that most types of
bacteria cannot evolve the lactase function despite positive selection
pressure to do so over the course of more than a million generations
of observed time.
> You have (as far as I can pin down
> your argument at all) attempted to argue that, since lactase functions
> are so rare and hard to evolve, the fact that at least two genes in E.
> coli can evolve it in no more than a handful of steps is some
> remarkable, baffling phenomenon that can only be reasonably explained
> by appealing to the notion that they are "spare tire" genes, possibly
> designed to be there as backup systems.
Exactly. If the ratio where much higher than I am suggesting it is,
then there would be no significant limits to its evolution as have
been observed by Hall and many others. The fact that Barry Hall
referred to these unfortunate kinds of bacteria as having, "limited
evolutionary potential" is quite telling as far as the actual density
of lactase sequences in sequence space.
> Another possible conclusion, which you seem to have missed, is that
> the presence of at least two other genes capable of evolving a lactase
> function is only baffling in *your* model, and that having several
> genes producing enzymes with closely-related and possibly overlapping
> functions is to be expected.
It is only "expected" if the ratio of sequences with the lactase
function is as high as you believe it to be. If it is as low as the
evidence suggests, then this would not be expected, outside of design
or extremely rare and random luck, at all. As it turns out, the
evidence that very few types of bacteria have access to anything close
to one of your "common" lactase sequences is so overwhelmingly in
favor of my idea that the density of lactase sequences is in fact
quite low that it is simply silly for you to argue this point further.
If all the evidence that you had available was the genome of E. coli,
then and only then would you have a point. However, you must look at
all the evidence taken together. Since we have far more evidence
concerning the density of the lactase function than is found in the
genome of E. coli, and since the total weight of all the evidence
strongly suggests that the density of this particular type of function
is indeed quite low, what evidence are you going to go with? Are you
going to desperately hang onto the small shred of evidence that
supports your position or are you going to finally open your eyes and
consider the vast amount of evidence that goes against your position?
> This being the case, your sequence
> density calculations are simply irrelevant.
They are only irrelevant when you blind yourself to all the evidence
besides that found in a very small portion of the evidence that is in
fact available to you.
> I can see how you might
> have been confused about what I said initially in the "Not a Disproof
> of Pitman's ID Theory" thread, but I clarify my point in this response
> to you:
>
> <8d74ec45.03112...@posting.google.com>
This link didn't take me anywhere. Sorry.
> > The problem here is
> > that Von clearly doesn't understand the power of random walk. If the
> > ratio were truly this high, only 1,000 mutations would be needed, on
> > average, to find a lactase sequence in sequence space. An average
> > bacterial colony would realize such a sequence many its members in
> > just one or two generations. Evolution at such a high ratio for
> > success would not only be guaranteed, it would be rapid. The fact is
> > that E. coli, without the lacZ and ebg genes, do not evolve the
> > lactase function despite tens of thousands of generations under high
> > selection pressures, high mutation rates, and very large population
> > numbers. Other bacteria haven't evolved this function either in over
> > a million generations of time - and Von thinks that the ratio is 1 in
> > 1000? Please! You've got to be kiddin me!
>
> As I already pointed out, I do not believe that the ratio in your
> "sequence space" is 1 in a 1000.
What would you say the ratio is? What is your estimate of the density
of the lactase function in sequence space? You seem to want to avoid
making yourself clear here since significant limitations of your
rather obvious statements concerning this idea in the past are
possibly becoming more clear to you. If you give a ratio, I can tell
you how long it would take to evolve that function on average. So, go
ahead and give me your ratio here.
> I pointed out that there are
> observed to be at least three genes out of a given population of a few
> thousand (those in E. coli's genome) that have or can evolve a lactase
> function. This is not a result anticipated by your argument about how
> difficult it ought to be for evolution to "find" a lactase, given what
> you believed to be the density of lactase sequences in your sequence
> space, and your notion of "random walk".
That is because I am looking at more of the available data that you
are choosing to take into account in your thinking of this question.
> The reason your prediction
> fails is not so much because the ratio of lactases to non-lactases in
> your sequence space are as high as 1 in a 1000 so much as that your
> whole discussion simply doesn't model anything relevant.
Hmmm . . . Oh really. How then would you suggest that new types of
functions requiring new amino acid orientations in single or multiple
proteins working together at the same time evolve beyond the lowest
levels of minimum part requirements and specified order?
> You own reaction to the ability to evolve lactase from ebg or gus
> indicates that you are aware of this, even though you end up missing
> the point. You talk about how remarkable and fortuitous it is for E.
> coli to have at least one "spare tire" in its genetic trunk, and seem
> not to consider the possibility that the reason you are so amazed by
> these observations is that your expectations were flawed to start
> with.
Hmmm . . . and the fact that many many other life forms have no such
spare tire gene or anything even close in all their collective genomic
real estate.
> I see in the above paragraph that you are still refusing to
> acknowledge the evolutionary pathway from beta-glucuronidase to
> beta-galactosidase demonstrated by Matsumura et al. You have tried to
> dismiss this by saying it was just an in vitro study, but you have
> never presented any valid reason why such experiments shouldn't count
> as a way of demonstrating evolutionary pathways.
They might be nice places to start one's theorectical work before
moving on to actual demonstration. However, the scientific method
does not stop with the paper theory. In order to support the paper
hypothesis as actually being scientifically valid or valuable, actual
"in vivo" testing of one's in vivo predictions must be performed.
This has not been done with the hypothesized pathway for the
beta-glucuronidase to beta-galactosidase evolution in any living thing
- not even E. coli. So, however reasonable it might seem on paper, it
is very interesting that such a pathway did not help out Hall's ebg
negative E. coli over the course of thousands of generations.
I have explained this to you before, but you don't seem to understand
the difference between hypothesis validation of that hypothesis with
supportive real-life tests.
> I also see that you are still carrying on as if there were something
> unique and exotic about E. coli's lactase abilities, when in fact they
> are fairly common among bacteria that live in environments rich in
> lactose. In fact, there are several bacteria that could be said to
> have "spare tires" as they produce more than one beta-gal enzyme, or
> produce both a beta-gal and a beta-glucuronidase enzyme.
Yes, there are many bacteria that can metabolize glucose, galactose,
lactose, and many other mono- and polysaccharides for energy. The
problem is that there are also many that cannot utilize lactose and
other types of sugars despite extended exposure to environments
enriched with these sugars. They simply do not evolve the ability to
use these sugars for energy despite the obvious benefits that would be
gained if they ever did. This must be a real quandary for you since
you obviously believe that the ratios are much higher than I believe
they are.
> Von Smith
> Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Sean Pitman
Well John, what do you have to say for yourself? You accused me in
public of egregiously misrepresenting the Brand paper, which obviously
I didn't do. Do you have any more comments about why you made such an
accusation in this case?
Larry Moran
Sean Pitman <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, there are many bacteria that can metabolize glucose, galactose,
> lactose, and many other mono- and polysaccharides for energy. The
> problem is that there are also many that cannot utilize lactose and
> other types of sugars despite extended exposure to environments
> enriched with these sugars. They simply do not evolve the ability to
> use these sugars for energy despite the obvious benefits that would be
> gained if they ever did. This must be a real quandary for you since
> you obviously believe that the ratios are much higher than I believe
> they are.
You've made statements like this before and I don't know what you mean.
Do you know that the ability of E. coli to use lactose confers very
little selective advantage in the real world? If there's any selective
advantage to having a lac operon it's probably because of other
beta-galactosides and not lactose. Lactose is/was not a common sugar
in the diets of most adults and E. coli doesn't become established in
the intestines of babies.
Most bacteria live in the ocean or in soil. Why do you think it would
it be a selective advantage for them to utilize lactose? The "obvious
benefits" are not obvious to me.
Larry Moran
P.S. If it's so important for bacteria to use lactose then why didn't
the intelligent designer design them properly?
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:58:09 +0000 (UTC),
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>drea...@hotmail.com (Von Smith) wrote in message news:<8d74ec45.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> > Some in this forum, such as Von Smith and a few others, have suggested
>> > that the ratio of lactase to non-lactase sequences at this level of
>> > complexity is as high as 1 in 1,000 sequences.
>>
>> No, Dr. Pitman, that is neither what I think nor what I said. What I
>> said was that at least two of the several thousand genes in E. coli
>> had been *observed* to be able to evolve a lactase function, a fact
>> which belies your predictions about the density of beneficial
>> functions in the sequence space.
>
>Exactly - you are trying to argue that since E. coli have less than
>5,000 or so genes that the finding of two and possibly three lactase
>or lactase-like sequences means that the ratio of potential lactase
>sequences in sequence space is actually quite high - as high as 3 in
>5,000 sequences at such a length.
Probably higher, Matsuma et al re-ran their experiments using error
prone PCR and got a new galactosidase with a different structure (REFS
has just eaten my database, it's Matsuma et al 2003) to the one they
got by DNA shuffling.
Then there is the lactase catalytic antibodies, which are different
again (Janda KD, et al., (1997). Chemical selection for catalysis in
combinatorial antibody libraries. Science , 275 332 [my entire refs
database has been replaced with just this reference GGRRR))
So we have 4 examples of beta-galactosidases with quite different
structures, evolved in a very short time. This is strong evidence that
galactosideases are not extremely rare in sequence space.
>That is in fact what you are trying
>to say, is it not? The problem with this little leap of logic is that
>if it were true,
It is not a leap of logic, it is true, three beta-galactosidases have
been evolved from the E. coli genome outside of the existing Lac-Z
gene. Another one has been evolved from immunoglobulin.
>there would be so many potential lactase sequences in
>sequence space, so close together, that all bacteria would be able to
>evolve the lactase function in short order in a lactose rich
>environment (i.e., in just a few weeks to a couple of months in an
>average sized bacterial colony).
Not necessarily, it depends on the environmental conditions and the
"mutator" status of the bacteria, and whether the "proto-lactase"
needs to be duplicated to free it from mission critical catalysis
first.
>The reason why such a suggested
>ratio cannot be nearly this high is the fact that most types of
>bacteria cannot evolve the lactase function despite positive selection
>pressure to do so over the course of more than a million generations
>of observed time.
Not "most bacteria", just the double knockout E. coli used by Hall
under the conditions of one published experiment.
So we have three examples of beta-galactosidease evolving in E,coli,
and one in another system. You have Halls one experiment, and you
think that Halls experiment trumps the observed evolution of different
types of beta-galactosidease. There are many reasons why Hall didn't
pick up an extra beta-galactosidase, the most likely is that the
glucuronidase would need to be duplicated to free up the duplicate for
evolution, others included that his conditions weren't right for
generating sufficient mutants, another is that he was just unlucky.
To keep waving Hall's single experiment in from of all the other
experiment is rather silly.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis,Michael James and Andrew Thomas Musgrave
reynella@RemoveInsret_werple.mira.net.au http://home.mira.net/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Mark Isaak
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<d0n9tvsbvvqqeqkvd...@4ax.com>...
>> Actually, your argument is that *creation* becomes more and more
>> difficult with more amino acids. Your argument simply does not apply
>> to evolution, which can build things up gradually.
>
>The mindless processes of evolution can only build things up gradually
>if each step is selectable as beneficial to the organism that it
>evolves in. This selectability becomes a real problem at higher
>levels of functional complexity that require more and more fairly
>specified amino acids at minimum because there are exponentially fewer
>beneficial sequences at these higher and higher levels of complexity.
>This exponential decrease in the density of beneficial sequences at
>higher levels of functional complexity creates exponentially expanding
>non-beneficial sequence gaps between the rarer and rarer islands of
>beneficial sequences.
What exponential decrease in density of beneficial mutations? What
assumptions are you making regarding whether a mutation is beneficial
or not? Beneficial relative to what?
And you only talk about building things up. What about tearing them
down or simply modifying them? We know that it is commonplace for
humungous sections of genomes to get duplicated. Why do you expect an
"exponential decrease in the density of beneficial sequences" in
adapting a gene from one function to another?
The assumptions that you base your conclusions on fail to consider
reality.
Lenny Flank
> > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:05:37 +0000 (UTC),
> > seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
> >
> > >sweetnes...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<4d71d185.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > >> I have presented you with proof (laboratory proof, in many instances)
> > >> that your statements are incorrect.
> > >
> > >You have shown that short amino acid sequences can come together to
> > >form a new unified function that is indeed unique and of greater
> > >complexity. The only problem you have here is that the minimum amino
> > >acid number required for your most complex example is only 3 or 4
> > >hundred amino acids. My argument is that evolution becomes more and
> > >more difficult the greater the minimum amino acid requirement until it
> > >becomes impossible this side of zillions of years when the minimum
> > >requirement reaches a few thousand amino acids in fairly specified
> > >order.
> >
> > Actually, your argument is that *creation* becomes more and more
> > difficult with more amino acids. Your argument simply does not apply
> > to evolution, which can build things up gradually.
>
> The mindless processes of evolution can only build things up gradually
> if each step is selectable as beneficial to the organism that it
> evolves in.
How dreadful. Now answer my questions. Forget them already? No problem:
What, again, is the scientific theory of
John Stockwell
I posted a reply to this message, which does not seem to have shown
up, so
I will post another one, hopefully maintaing most of the content to
that reply.
I have more time to reply, today, however, so the content will be
greater.
Sorry for the spelling. I was typing fast.
Before you accuse me of "fabrication" I suggest that you check the
references and note that I am *not* quoting his grisda article, but
his 1996 article in Journal of Paleontology. Which incidentally, is
a scientific journal, whereas the publication "Origins' is not.
> I happen to have spoken personally with Brand him several times about
> these particular experiments. And, if you actually take the time to
> read the article, Brand is very clear about his conclusion that the
> Coconino Sandstone trackways are most consistent with underwater
> formation, NOT with formation on damp sand. Brand concludes,
> "Consequently the damp sand and dry sand tracks observed in this study
> do not seem to provide an adequate model for the origin of the fossil
> tracks. . . Of all the laboratory trackways produced, the underwater
> tracks were most similar to the fossil tracks." Nowhere in his paper
> did he suggest that the trackways "may have been produced on damp
> sand" as you suggest. Talk about an egregious misrepresentation of
> the facts. You obviously didn't even read the paper in its entirety.
It's nice that you talk to Brand. However, because you are both in the
same
camp, and because you are not an earth scientist, it is unlikely that
you could
or would want to, ask him the hard questions that need to be asked.
Papers
in publications such as "Origins" really are not trustworthy, because
they
are not sufficiently peer reviewed.
The article in Origins is interesting, but irrelevant. His article in
Journal of Paleontology is quite explicit, in the latter part of the
discussion p.1010, Brand states:
" The fossil tracks are on sloped cross-beds of the Coconino Sandstone
are most similar to the experimental trackways in sloped, subaqueous
sand
or mud, or subariel, damp sand. The close similarity between these
experimental trackways and the Coconino Sandstone trackways does not
necessarily indicate anything about the systmatic relationship between
the trackmakers, but may be caused by a similarity in substrate
conditions. The laboratory trackways were made by modern amphibians
and the fossl trackways were made by Permian tetrapods; the data in
this study do not necessarily imply that the Permian tetrapods were
amphibians. It is quite possible that the trackways of aquatic and
terrestrial reptiles would be affected by substrate diffrences in much
the same way as newt tracks were affected. If that is correct, then
the results reported here would likely apply at least partially to
both reptiles and amphibians. The data do suggest that the Coconino
Sandstone fossil trackways may have been produced in either subaqueous
sand or subaerial damp sand. The choice of these alternatives depends
on further study of criteria that can indicate the buoyancy of
the trackmakers (Brand, 1992; Brand and Tang, 1991), and a continued
study of the sedimentological evidence."
Basically individuals like Brand "run with the foxes but bark with
the hounds". As a scientist, publishing in scientific publications,
Brand's work is quite good. However, his hobby publications in media
such as Grisda
or Origins, or for example his book, these things are suspect because
they get less peer review. His conclusions are liable to be more
heavily tainted
by his philosophical expectations, some of which are just plian
unscientific
(to wit: interventionist science).
>
> The popularity of the desert origin for the Coconino Sandstone began
> with the work of McKee in the early 1930s. McKee initially focused on
> the physical qualities of the sandstone to support his conclusions
> that the dunes had been wind and not water deposited. Later he
> studied the footprints and concluded that they were most likely formed
> on dry sand - completely contrary to the work and conclusions of
> Leonard Brand.
I suggest that you read Bues, S.S. and M. Morales [1990]. In chapter
10,
they discuss the Coconino, and the prevailing view (McKey 1979) is
that the Coconino represents a desert coastal dune field
(similar to the coast of Namibia).
> According to Brand, "Sedimentary features that were formerly thought
> to be diagnostic of eolian deposits are now known to be
> non-diagnostic. Stanley et al. (1971) pointed out that "grain frosting
> is no longer considered a criterion of wind transport," grain size
> distribution statistics have been ambiguous (for the Navajo), and "it
> can no longer be assumed a priori that large festoon cross strata
> prove an eolian dune origin for the Navajo or any similar sandstone
> because of the essential identity of form and scale of modern
> submarine dunes or sand waves.
Yes, we are talking about a coastal dune field. The idea that the sand
in
the Cocino represents subaqueous sandwaves is simply a fantasy. While
the
average dip of the crossbedding at the Coconino is about 25 degrees,
there
are crossbedding dips of greater dip, and well out of the 10 degree
average
range of sand waves. Furthermore, there are plenty of other features,
including raindrop prints, delicate detachment features, as well as
numerous
evidences of dry sand avalanching in the Cochino. Inded, the state of
preservation of the tracks suggests that they dried before being
covered again.
>
> Mckee was heavily influenced in the formation of his desert theory by
> the influence of a paleontologist by the name of Peabody who told
> McKee that salamanders do not generally make tracks underwater but
> prefer to swim from place to place instead of walk and, even when they
> do walk, they are partially buoyed up by the water so that their
> tracks are vague at best. McKee seemed to indicate that he had
> experimentally confirmed these suggestions made by Peabody. Thus,
> McKee (1947) concluded that the fossil tracks preserved in the
> Coconino Sandstone were most similar to the dry sand trackways
> produced in his own experiments because only in dry sand were any
> definite prints of individual feet formed. What is strange though is
> that there is no documentation of how extensive McKee's observations
> were as far as observing salamanders and their swimming or walking
> habits while under water. Brand, on the other hand, documents that
> all five species in his study walked on the bottom sands underwater
> more than they swam from place to place through the water.
No doubt Brand was able to create experimental conditions that would
yield tracks from newts and salamanders. Indeed, some of his results
may be useful in understanding fossilized quadruped tracks. They do
not point in the direction of support for a flood scenario. To claim
as you have that these papers support an explanation of the
origin of the Coconino via "rapid deposition under water" is just
plain
nonsense.
>
>
> > In this case, "subaqueous" means "shallow standing water" which is what
> > the conditions of Brand's experiments were.
>
> The word, "subaqueous" literally means, "under water". It does not
> mean "shallow" or "standing". In fact, Brand strongly suggests that
> the creatures making the footprints in the Coconino sandstone were
> most likely underwater at the time and that this water was moving, not
> standing still. Brand observes, " Several trackways were headed
> directly across the slope or at an angle across the slope (Figures 2,
> 8, 9), but with the toe marks of both back and front feet pointed
> upslope. These trackways can perhaps be best explained by animals
> being pushed by a water current moving at an angle to the direction of
> movement of the animal."
Brand's experiments were all conducted in the absence of current. If
not,
were are the discussions of the rates of flow and directions of the
current?
Indeed, any statements that he makes regarding the direction of
current in the
fossil species refer to the current direction inferred from looking at
the surface structure of the dune in question.
>
> > If you read Brand's
> > paper at: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
> > you will see that he made absolutely no attempt to account for movement
> > of the water.
>
> Did you fail to read where he talked about the evidence for "water
> current moving at an angle to the direction of movement of the
> animal"?
It is clear that he is inferring to the direction of current in the
fossil specimens from the location of the tracks on the windward side
of the dunes. There is nothing in either of his articles that he
performed
experiments in anything but standing water.
> What is also very interesting about Brand's observations is
> that practically all the tracts found throughout the lower Coconino
> sandstone head uphill. Only one poorly preserved trackway may have
> been heading downhill. Now isn't that just fascinating? McKee
> attempted to explain the relative absence of downhill trackways by
> suggesting that the animals tended to "slide" downhill, thus
> obliterating their own tracks in the sliding sand. However, Brand's
> experiments concerning this suggestion do not support McKee's
> hypothesis. Brand induced his experimental animals to walk both
> downhill as well as uphill. On underwater sand, wet sand, and damp
> sand, almost all downhill trails produced easily recognizable
> trackways. Also, some of the trackways will simply disappear suddenly
> and then reappear many yards later without evidence of sand-shift or
> disturbance? like the creature suddenly vanished into thin air (or
> swam off in the water).
Obviously, animals going down the leeward side of a dune will cause
avalanching. I also recall that McKee observed long "skid mark" type
structures in the Coconino, which were quite mysterious, until the
notion that these were evidences of downward travel on the dunes. I
will see if I
can find a reference for this.
However, it is not
inconceivable that Brand has gotten his shallow standing water results
correct, and that the tracks were preserved on a tidal flat. This
doesn't
really do anything to support the notion that the Coconino was
produced in
some titanic flood event. Indeed, we see in the Coconino a structure
composed
of thousands of square miles of really well sorted sand. We don't have
to
reach for a fantasy explanation. We have several examples of sand seas
in
our world today.
>
>
> > So, you have distorted Brand's results, which suggest more likely
> > that the Cocino represents deposition in coastal dunes, kind of
> > like what we see today in Namibia, into some
> > sort of totally bogus catastrophic flood scenario. News flash,
> > Sean, there wouldn't be any delicate tracks in a flood.
>
> News flash John, delicate tracks need to be buried rapidly if they are
> to be preserved. Certainly these tracks to not support the popular
> idea that the Coconino Sandstone represents some dry ancient desert
> sand dunes - that's for sure.
What is also for sure is that these features preserve best when they
dry out
prior to burial. You still haven't accounted for raindrop impressions
and
other obvious dry sand features.
>
> You really need to go back and read Brand's work again.
Yes. So do you. You need to read his real paper in the Journal of
Paleontology.
> He was most
> clearly in favor of a flood model of deposition in his paper.
No kidding.
> He
> specifically says, " The implications of this work must be considered
> as we develop geologic flood models, and on the other hand perhaps our
> flood models can suggest new ways of looking at the Coconino
> Sandstone. A model or an idea is useful to science if it can suggest
> new lines of research that can be done successfully, and that improve
> our understanding of the subject we are investigating. Perhaps our
> flood model can suggest useful, new types of research that need to be
> done and that might not have been thought of by someone who did not
> believe in a flood of worldwide geologic significance."
If the folks at Loma Linda and other Adventist organizations continue
to
publish decent science in mainstream media, then eventually they will
create a base of scientific results that will disprove many
creationist
assertions such as the idea that the crustal sediments were created in
a
worldwide flood.
However, there does seem to be a failure of the system in their case.
The
tree ring studies of Arct, for example, are crap. He basically
tortures his data and publishes only in "friendly" media. Many of the
Grisda articles are good, such as those calling into question Gentry's
polonium halos, but many of these items are simply propaganda.
The real question is whether or not Adventist culture will allow their
scientists to come to the natural conclusion that of old-earth,
no-global-flood, that mainstream geology has come to. If not, then the
best we can hope to see will be spot papers such as those of Brand,
which appear to the
nonspecialist, to support the creationist viewpoint, but fail in the
big picture to be anything that great.
>
> > Furthermore, I would point anyone actually wanting to read something
> > real about the Grand Canyon and the Cocino formation to read
> > (in particular Chapter 10) of Bues and Morales [1990] for further
> > information. In particular, figure 6 on p.194 of this book shows
> > raindrop impressions (which incidentally imply that the sand was
> > dry at the time the impressions were made) Figure 7 on p.195
> > shows detachment structures (small plate-like sand layers pulled
> > apart from the substrate), which are the sort of thing that happens
> > when the surface sand of a dune is wetted, dries out, and then
> > avalanches. These sorts of detachment features are *impossible*
> > to form underwater.
>
> Short-term exposure to aerial surfaces is not a problem for an
> extended watery deposition event. Tidal actions would most certainly
> allow for various times of subaerial exposure.
You mean like on a *coastline*, Sean?
> What is interesting is
> that the tracks found in the Coconino dunes seem to predominate the
> lower half of the Coconino layer - not so much in the upper half.
Yep. The elevation of the land changed, most likely subsidence
followed
by uplift, erosion, and then subsidence again. We are talking about
a period of high drama in plate tectonics---the beginning of the
breakup
of Pangea.
> Also, underwater detachments and avalanches of sand are possible.
Not like these. These are delicate structures that are obviously
crusts of
dry sand on a sand dune, frozen in the geologic record.
> They can indeed form underwater though this is admittedly less common.
> Also, the architecture of the Coconino sand dunes is not like that of
> modern sand dunes in modern deserts. The Coconino sand dunes have an
> average slope angle of 25 deg. while the average slope angle of modern
> desert dunes is 30-34 deg. (the "resting" angle of dry sand). Sand
> dunes formed by underwater currents do not have as high an average
> slope angle as desert dunes and do not have "avalanche" faces as
> commonly as deserts dunes do.
There are plenty of 30+ dips in the crossbedding of the Coconino.
Let's not
forget that this does not exist in isolation. The corresponding unit
can
be found here in Colorado and in Wyoming. There are plenty of dips up
to
45 degrees in the Lyons sandstone here in Colorado. (Measuring these
is
a homework assingment for local geology students.)
So no. To claim that Brand's work supports the notion of the Coconino
having
originated via some rapid flood event is an egregious
misrepresentation of his work.
>
> > References:
> >
> > Bues, S.S. and M. Morales, editors, 1990, Grand Canyon Geology.
> > Oxford University Press.
> >
> > Brand, Leonard, 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from
> > substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70(6): 1004-1011.
McKee, E.D. (1979) editor, A study of Global Sand Seas. USGS
professional
paper 1052.
> >
> > John Stockwell
>
> Sean
Mark Isaak
Stockwell) wrote:
>Obviously, animals going down the leeward side of a dune will cause
>avalanching. I also recall that McKee observed long "skid mark" type
>structures in the Coconino, which were quite mysterious, until the
>notion that these were evidences of downward travel on the dunes. I
>will see if I
>can find a reference for this.
I would like to see that reference. It is something I have wondered
about.
Sean Pitman
> > > "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may
> > > have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand."
> >
> > Did you actually read all the way through Brand's article? I don't
> > think so. This most certainly is not a direct quote from the article.
> > This quote seems to be a complete fabrication. Brand never made this
> > comment that I am aware. In fact, in the paper that you referenced,
> > he says just the opposite concerning damp sand. (As an aside, the
> > usual spelling is "Coconino", not "Cocino").
>
> references and note that I am *not* quoting his grisda article, but
> his 1996 article in Journal of Paleontology. Which incidentally, is
> a scientific journal, whereas the publication "Origins' is not.
Ok . . . I talked to Dr. Brand today about the differences between
these two articles and he told me that the "damp sand" statement made
in the JoP was based on a very unlikely scenario for the formation of
damp sand and that he knew of no natural equivalent to this method
which he achieved in the laboratory. He still feels strongly that the
Coconino tracks are most consistent with underwater formation -
especially when one considers the many other unique aspects of these
trackways and Coconino sandstone formations (see below).
> > I happen to have spoken personally with Brand him several times about
> > these particular experiments. And, if you actually take the time to
> > read the article, Brand is very clear about his conclusion that the
> > Coconino Sandstone trackways are most consistent with underwater
> > formation, NOT with formation on damp sand. Brand concludes,
> > "Consequently the damp sand and dry sand tracks observed in this study
> > do not seem to provide an adequate model for the origin of the fossil
> > tracks. . . Of all the laboratory trackways produced, the underwater
> > tracks were most similar to the fossil tracks." Nowhere in his paper
> > did he suggest that the trackways "may have been produced on damp
> > sand" as you suggest. Talk about an egregious misrepresentation of
> > the facts. You obviously didn't even read the paper in its entirety.
>
> It's nice that you talk to Brand. However, because you are both in the same
> camp, and because you are not an earth scientist, it is unlikely that you
> could or would want to, ask him the hard questions that need to be asked.
> Papers in publications such as "Origins" really are not trustworthy, because
> they are not sufficiently peer reviewed.
They still reflect the opinions of the author, and you, as the reader,
are free to look at the evidence (which is the same in both
publications), and either agree or disagree with the author's
conclusions about what this evidence means.
> The article in Origins is interesting, but irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant at all. The observations are "interesting"
because they are quite relevant indeed.
An author's bias should certainly be taken into account, but this does
not make his observations or personal opinions irrelevant or
unscientific. There is nothing in the scientific method that
necessitates the a priori assumptions of mindless causes or processes
as an explanation for all observations. This is a philosophical
position, not a scientific position. One should be open to wherever
the evidence leads.
> > The popularity of the desert origin for the Coconino Sandstone began
> > with the work of McKee in the early 1930s. McKee initially focused on
> > the physical qualities of the sandstone to support his conclusions
> > that the dunes had been wind and not water deposited. Later he
> > studied the footprints and concluded that they were most likely formed
> > on dry sand - completely contrary to the work and conclusions of
> > Leonard Brand.
>
> I suggest that you read Bues, S.S. and M. Morales [1990]. In chapter
> 10, they discuss the Coconino, and the prevailing view (McKey 1979) is
> that the Coconino represents a desert coastal dune field
> (similar to the coast of Namibia).
Are there similar tracks preserved in the desert coastal dunes of
Namibia? I will have to look up this reference. Thanks . . .
> > According to Brand, "Sedimentary features that were formerly thought
> > to be diagnostic of eolian deposits are now known to be
> > non-diagnostic. Stanley et al. (1971) pointed out that "grain frosting
> > is no longer considered a criterion of wind transport," grain size
> > distribution statistics have been ambiguous (for the Navajo), and "it
> > can no longer be assumed a priori that large festoon cross strata
> > prove an eolian dune origin for the Navajo or any similar sandstone
> > because of the essential identity of form and scale of modern
> > submarine dunes or sand waves.
>
> Yes, we are talking about a coastal dune field. The idea that the sand
> in the Cocino represents subaqueous sandwaves is simply a fantasy.
It may be a fantasy (i.e., not a true reality), but it not a "simple"
fantasy. Brand's work certainly does throw a valid question over the
standard interpretation of the Coconino sandstone formation - as does
the work of Arct on the formation of the Yellowstone fossil forests.
> While
> the average dip of the crossbedding at the Coconino is about 25 degrees,
> there are crossbedding dips of greater dip, and well out of the 10 degree
> average range of sand waves.
You talk about average ranges, but then mention that occasional
variations outside of these averages support your view of dry sand
deposits over underwater deposits. How is this consistent? If the
average is most consistent with underwater angles, how does the
occasion divergence from this average overcome the significance of
this average?
> Furthermore, there are plenty of other features,
> including raindrop prints, delicate detachment features, as well as
> numerous evidences of dry sand avalanching in the Cochino. Inded, the
> state of preservation of the tracks suggests that they dried before being
> covered again.
I have no real problem with this. Tidal actions can explain all of
these features quite well. However, the observation that the tracks
are most consistent with underwater formation and relatively rapid
preservation, is most consistent with the rapid formation of these
deposits - not with eons of time and slow deposition by a desert-like
environment.
> > Mckee was heavily influenced in the formation of his desert theory by
> > the influence of a paleontologist by the name of Peabody who told
> > McKee that salamanders do not generally make tracks underwater but
> > prefer to swim from place to place instead of walk and, even when they
> > do walk, they are partially buoyed up by the water so that their
> > tracks are vague at best. McKee seemed to indicate that he had
> > experimentally confirmed these suggestions made by Peabody. Thus,
> > McKee (1947) concluded that the fossil tracks preserved in the
> > Coconino Sandstone were most similar to the dry sand trackways
> > produced in his own experiments because only in dry sand were any
> > definite prints of individual feet formed. What is strange though is
> > that there is no documentation of how extensive McKee's observations
> > were as far as observing salamanders and their swimming or walking
> > habits while under water. Brand, on the other hand, documents that
> > all five species in his study walked on the bottom sands underwater
> > more than they swam from place to place through the water.
>
> No doubt Brand was able to create experimental conditions that would
> yield tracks from newts and salamanders. Indeed, some of his results
> may be useful in understanding fossilized quadruped tracks. They do
> not point in the direction of support for a flood scenario.
The tracks were made underwater in a current or at best on a very odd
sort of damp sand formation - which, if true, would make it rather
hard to explain the occurrence of lizard/salamander-like creatures
walking sideways for long distances. Where do such conditions occur
today in any sort of desert or coastal desert environment? Do we see
such formations and preservation of such trace fossils being formed
anywhere in the world today? Perhaps Namibia? Certainly I will have
to look into that reference.
> To claim as you have that these papers support an explanation of the
> origin of the Coconino via "rapid deposition under water" is just
> plain nonsense.
Actually, this interpretation, which is shared by Brand himself, still
seems quite reasonable to me.
> > > In this case, "subaqueous" means "shallow standing water" which is what
> > > the conditions of Brand's experiments were.
> >
> > The word, "subaqueous" literally means, "under water". It does not
> > mean "shallow" or "standing". In fact, Brand strongly suggests that
> > the creatures making the footprints in the Coconino sandstone were
> > most likely underwater at the time and that this water was moving, not
> > standing still. Brand observes, " Several trackways were headed
> > directly across the slope or at an angle across the slope (Figures 2,
> > 8, 9), but with the toe marks of both back and front feet pointed
> > upslope. These trackways can perhaps be best explained by animals
> > being pushed by a water current moving at an angle to the direction of
> > movement of the animal."
>
> Brand's experiments were all conducted in the absence of current. If
> not, were are the discussions of the rates of flow and directions of the
> current?
> Indeed, any statements that he makes regarding the direction of
> current in the fossil species refer to the current direction inferred from
> looking at the surface structure of the dune in question.
Do you have a better explanation as to why lizards/salamanders would
walk sideways for long distances or why their tracks would suddenly
vanish and then reappear several meters later - or not at all?
> > > If you read Brand's
> > > paper at: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
> > > you will see that he made absolutely no attempt to account for movement
> > > of the water.
> >
> > Did you fail to read where he talked about the evidence for "water
> > current moving at an angle to the direction of movement of the
> > animal"?
>
> It is clear that he is inferring to the direction of current in the
> fossil specimens from the location of the tracks on the windward side
> of the dunes. There is nothing in either of his articles that he
> performed experiments in anything but standing water.
Did he really need to do this in order to make a reasonable hypothesis
about why these trackways were formed like they are? What alternative
explanation do you have?
> > What is also very interesting about Brand's observations is
> > that practically all the tracts found throughout the lower Coconino
> > sandstone head uphill. Only one poorly preserved trackway may have
> > been heading downhill. Now isn't that just fascinating? McKee
> > attempted to explain the relative absence of downhill trackways by
> > suggesting that the animals tended to "slide" downhill, thus
> > obliterating their own tracks in the sliding sand. However, Brand's
> > experiments concerning this suggestion do not support McKee's
> > hypothesis. Brand induced his experimental animals to walk both
> > downhill as well as uphill. On underwater sand, wet sand, and damp
> > sand, almost all downhill trails produced easily recognizable
> > trackways. Also, some of the trackways will simply disappear suddenly
> > and then reappear many yards later without evidence of sand-shift or
> > disturbance? like the creature suddenly vanished into thin air (or
> > swam off in the water).
>
> Obviously, animals going down the leeward side of a dune will cause
> avalanching. I also recall that McKee observed long "skid mark" type
> structures in the Coconino, which were quite mysterious, until the
> notion that these were evidences of downward travel on the dunes. I
> will see if I can find a reference for this.
Such avalanching and skid marks were not observed by Brand when he
induced the lizards and salamanders in his study to walk down hill.
You can go and see the pictures at the listed link. They are very
clear trackways and were not covered up by avalanches of dry sand at
the same angle as that found on the "leeward" side or any side of the
Coconino sandstone dunes. One would think that these creatures would
not only travel down the leeward side of sand dunes but would travel
down all sides of sand dunes. Why are there not very many trackways
traveling down those places where the trackways are almost always
traveling upwards? I find this observation most interesting and
compelling. Also, if these dunes represent coastal dunes as you
suggest, why don't the trackways change as they progress uphill away
from the damper sand closer to the water's edge as they did in Brand's
experiments - and as happens when I am walking on the sand at the
beach?
> However, it is not
> inconceivable that Brand has gotten his shallow standing water results
> correct, and that the tracks were preserved on a tidal flat.
Actually Brand's interpretation was that the water was moving, not
standing. He concluded nothing about water depth. I do agree that
there is fair evidence for tidal activity however.
> This doesn't
> really do anything to support the notion that the Coconino was
> produced in some titanic flood event.
Actually it does, or so it seems to me as well as Brand. At the very
least his work calls into question the notion that this formation was
clearly the result of some dry desert sand deposit and track
formation. Your coastal deposit idea is interesting, but there are
many features about the trackways and average angle of the Coconino
dunes that may not fit your theory so well - to include the evidence
for current, the sudden appearance and disappearance of the trackways,
the degree of fine preservation, the lack of change of the trackways
over upward distance, the lack of downhill trackways leeward or
otherwise. You of course come back with the preservation of rain
imprints and the fine fracturing of the sand (which also requires
dampness or more firm sand to be preserved). Certainly these
features, taken together, support a very wet environment with
intermittent tidal activity and much underwater formation over a very
large area.
Consider also that the contact zones between those layers below and
those layers above the Coconino sandstone are very flat. The layers
above the uppermost Kaibab layer (such as those found fairly close in
formations like Red Butte) seem to have been eroded away rather
flatly. How are such flat formations and such flat erosion happen
over eons of time? What about all the layers in-between formations
found in monument valley? There are all the horizontal layers in
those monuments which were surely connected to each other once upon a
time. How did eons of erosion take away portions of these layers and
leave these monuments standing untouched?
> Indeed, we see in the Coconino
> a structure composed of thousands of square miles of really well sorted
> sand. We don't have to reach for a fantasy explanation. We have
> several examples of sand seas in our world today.
With tracks and other features matching the unique features found in
the Coconino sandstone?
> > > So, you have distorted Brand's results, which suggest more likely
> > > that the Cocino represents deposition in coastal dunes, kind of
> > > like what we see today in Namibia, into some
> > > sort of totally bogus catastrophic flood scenario. News flash,
> > > Sean, there wouldn't be any delicate tracks in a flood.
> >
> > News flash John, delicate tracks need to be buried rapidly if they are
> > to be preserved. Certainly these tracks to not support the popular
> > idea that the Coconino Sandstone represents some dry ancient desert
> > sand dunes - that's for sure.
>
> What is also for sure is that these features preserve best when they
> dry out prior to burial. You still haven't accounted for raindrop impressions
> and other obvious dry sand features.
Shortly spaced tidal actions can explain both of these features.
> > You really need to go back and read Brand's work again.
>
> Yes. So do you. You need to read his real paper in the Journal of
> Paleontology.
True. I did talk to him personally today about it though (see above).
> > He was most
> > clearly in favor of a flood model of deposition in his paper.
>
> No kidding.
So where is my "misrepresentation" of his ideas?
> > He
> > specifically says, " The implications of this work must be considered
> > as we develop geologic flood models, and on the other hand perhaps our
> > flood models can suggest new ways of looking at the Coconino
> > Sandstone. A model or an idea is useful to science if it can suggest
> > new lines of research that can be done successfully, and that improve
> > our understanding of the subject we are investigating. Perhaps our
> > flood model can suggest useful, new types of research that need to be
> > done and that might not have been thought of by someone who did not
> > believe in a flood of worldwide geologic significance."
>
> If the folks at Loma Linda and other Adventist organizations continue
> to publish decent science in mainstream media, then eventually they will
> create a base of scientific results that will disprove many creationist
> assertions such as the idea that the crustal sediments were created in
> a worldwide flood.
Or, they may continue to add to the growing mountain of evidence
favoring such a huge watery catastrophe, or series of relatively
closely spaced watery catastrophes.
> However, there does seem to be a failure of the system in their case.
> The tree ring studies of Arct, for example, are crap.
Hardly. Have you actually read his original thesis? I have. It is
not "crap" at all. It is quite convincing, especially given all the
other evidence indicating a relatively rapid formation of the
Yellowstone "forest" formations. And, don't tell me that popular and
even technical journals are not biased in the way the critique, edit,
accept and reject papers. Everyone is biased. I take this fact into
account when I read popular and technical journals published by
mainstream organizations as well as when I read non-mainstream
publications.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilrecord.html
> He basically
> tortures his data and publishes only in "friendly" media. Many of the
> Grisda articles are good, such as those calling into question Gentry's
> polonium halos, but many of these items are simply propaganda.
As are many of the items published in mainstream journals dealing with
just so stories about how evolution happened. Basically, if you are
an evolutionist, the mainstream journals are "friendly" to ideas
supporting evolutionism. So, I could also claim that you publish only
in or primarily in "friendly" media that already supports and agrees
with your basic point of view.
> The real question is whether or not Adventist culture will allow their
> scientists to come to the natural conclusion that of old-earth,
> no-global-flood, that mainstream geology has come to.
If such conclusions are indeed true, then Adventism is wrong. If
Adventists come to this standard conclusion, then they will no longer
be Adventists because the uniqueness of Adventism also sets it up for
being uniquely wrong. The same thing can be said about evolutionism.
If Adventism turns out to be right and evolutionists become
Adventists, they will no longer be evolutionists.
Of course, this is a big debate among Adventists. Many think that the
two ideas are compatible. But they really aren't. Adventism is
based, as evidenced in the name "Seventh-day Adventists" on the notion
of a literal creation week occurring less than 10 thousand years ago.
If this position fails, then so does Adventism.
> If not, then the
> best we can hope to see will be spot papers such as those of Brand,
> which appear to the nonspecialist, to support the creationist viewpoint,
> but fail in the big picture to be anything that great.
That is certainly your opinion and you are welcome to it, but my
representation of Brand's work and opinions were not wrong or
"grievously" misstated. All are welcome to look carefully into his
observations and make their own conclusions - either in keeping with
or contrary to Brand's own opinions and conclusions.
> > > Furthermore, I would point anyone actually wanting to read something
> > > real about the Grand Canyon and the Cocino formation to read
> > > (in particular Chapter 10) of Bues and Morales [1990] for further
> > > information. In particular, figure 6 on p.194 of this book shows
> > > raindrop impressions (which incidentally imply that the sand was
> > > dry at the time the impressions were made) Figure 7 on p.195
> > > shows detachment structures (small plate-like sand layers pulled
> > > apart from the substrate), which are the sort of thing that happens
> > > when the surface sand of a dune is wetted, dries out, and then
> > > avalanches. These sorts of detachment features are *impossible*
> > > to form underwater.
> >
> > Short-term exposure to aerial surfaces is not a problem for an
> > extended watery deposition event. Tidal actions would most certainly
> > allow for various times of subaerial exposure.
>
> You mean like on a *coastline*, Sean?
Certainly a coastline is reasonable here, but the tidal actions in
this case seem to have covered an absolutely huge area under water and
then receded rapidly and then come back rapidly. The trackways and
other features of the Coconino sandstone do not match modern desert
coastlines very well. It seems to Dr. Brand that something much more
massive and complex was going on.
> > What is interesting is
> > that the tracks found in the Coconino dunes seem to predominate the
> > lower half of the Coconino layer - not so much in the upper half.
>
> Yep. The elevation of the land changed, most likely subsidence
> followed by uplift, erosion, and then subsidence again. We are
> talking about a period of high drama in plate tectonics---the
> beginning of the breakup of Pangea.
And during the uplift all the desert creatures vanished?
> > Also, underwater detachments and avalanches of sand are possible.
>
> Not like these. These are delicate structures that are obviously
> crusts of dry sand on a sand dune, frozen in the geologic record.
Dry sand is not preserved by dry sand. Perhaps damp sand crusts, but
not dry sand fractures.
> > They can indeed form underwater though this is admittedly less common.
> > Also, the architecture of the Coconino sand dunes is not like that of
> > modern sand dunes in modern deserts. The Coconino sand dunes have an
> > average slope angle of 25 deg. while the average slope angle of modern
> > desert dunes is 30-34 deg. (the "resting" angle of dry sand). Sand
> > dunes formed by underwater currents do not have as high an average
> > slope angle as desert dunes and do not have "avalanche" faces as
> > commonly as deserts dunes do.
>
> There are plenty of 30+ dips in the crossbedding of the Coconino.
Do these dips make the average slope of crossbedding meaningless?
> Let's not forget that this does not exist in isolation. The corresponding
> unit can be found here in Colorado and in Wyoming. There are
> plenty of dips up to 45 degrees in the Lyons sandstone here in
> Colorado. (Measuring these is a homework assingment for local
> geology students.)
Again, the average slope seems significant to me. Certainly, if
during a tidal withdraw a fractured fact formed at 45 degrees or
greater, that would not be a problem. However, isn't the average
slope angle of these dunes most consistent with that of dunes formed
under water and not the average angle of dunes formed in predominantly
dry desert-like conditions?
> So no. To claim that Brand's work supports the notion of the Coconino
> having originated via some rapid flood event is an egregious
> misrepresentation of his work.
Not at all since my presentation of his work is most consistent with
his own interpretations of his own observations. You might disagree
with his interpretations, but you cannot say that my presentation of
his work was an egregious misrepresentation of his conclusions.
> John Stockwell
Sean
www.naturalselection.0catch.com
KelvynT
Thanks for that excellent info. A creationist misrepresenting his own
peer-reviewed work? How bizarre can you get?
Kelvyn
<snip long>
KelvynT
<snip>
>
>The tracks were made underwater in a current or at best on a very odd
>sort of damp sand formation - which, if true, would make it rather
>hard to explain the occurrence of lizard/salamander-like creatures
>walking sideways for long distances. Where do such conditions occur
>today in any sort of desert or coastal desert environment? Do we see
>such formations and preservation of such trace fossils being formed
>anywhere in the world today? Perhaps Namibia? Certainly I will have
>to look into that reference.
<snip>
I've worked a lot in various types of desert (Yemen, Oman, Libya,
Algeria, Australia), and in my experience after heavy rain, conditions
seem ideal for this sort of track formation and rapid preservation of
them - the water in puddles, watercourses, waterholes etc dries out v.
quickly and tracks then get covered over by blown sand. I'd say there
are lots of suitable areas - it depends on what type of animal tracks
you want to see, but just the countries above would cover a pretty
wide range. And coastal sand dunes aren't exactly a rare phenomenon.
Kelvyn
Bigdakine
>Date: 12/9/03 9:50 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com>
Brand's study is irrelevant.
Have Brand explain why rain prints are found in the Coconino, if they were not
subaerial.
Remember, Sean, any amount of subaerial exposure in the Coconino is enough to
sink flood theory.
Knock yourself out.
Bigdakine
>Date: 12/10/03 10:33 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <cu0ftvc2rceq7mcon...@4ax.com>
And its not unprecendented.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm
howard hershey
Sean Pitman wrote:
> Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<d0n9tvsbvvqqeqkvd...@4ax.com>...
>
>>On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:05:37 +0000 (UTC),
>>seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>sweetnes...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<4d71d185.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have presented you with proof (laboratory proof, in many instances)
>>>>that your statements are incorrect.
>>>
>>>You have shown that short amino acid sequences can come together to
>>>form a new unified function that is indeed unique and of greater
>>>complexity. The only problem you have here is that the minimum amino
>>>acid number required for your most complex example is only 3 or 4
>>>hundred amino acids. My argument is that evolution becomes more and
>>>more difficult the greater the minimum amino acid requirement until it
>>>becomes impossible this side of zillions of years when the minimum
>>>requirement reaches a few thousand amino acids in fairly specified
>>>order.
The effect of mutation on phenotype does not map to the total number of
amino acids in a protein. The total number of amino acids in a protein
tells us precisely nothing about the minimum amino acid number required
for function. This is not surprising. Most enzymes bind small
molecules as a necessary feature of their activity, which, because the
bound molecule is small, necessitates that only a few of the amino acids
in the protein be actually involved in the binding. Most of the amino
acids in a protein are essentially oragami (as another poster put it),
folding the protein so that active sites are near one another. And
general protein structure does not *usually* require specific proteins.
It is largely dependent upon the distribution of hydrophobic and
hydrophilic amino acids. Although the overall conformation of a protein
may be unique, it is usually composed of stretches of one of a very few
folding patterns, specifically beta sheets and alpha helixes. The core
(inner part) of most globular proteins are due to an antiparallel beta
sheet, formed by runs of amino acids that fold back and forth. There
are also parallel beta sheets, where the chains are running in the same
NH2 to COOH direction. These beta sheets and alpha helixes can often be
composed of a wide range of possible amino acids rather than requiring a
specific sequence of amino acids. Only the very small number of amino
acids that are directly involved in binding the substrates need to
change to affect the nature of the optimal substrate or the nature of
the reaction performed.
Similarly, proteins naturally interact with both other parts of itself
*and* with other proteins. The interaction is not across the entire
length of the protein, but is localized to certain specific external
areas. The interaction is not magic, but merely of the same type of
interaction that allows the formation of beta sheets and associations of
alpha helixes within proteins. Changes in only a few amino acids are
needed to either form such associations or prevent them. This is clear
from the cases of mutations which prevent multimer formation and their
reversion.
>>Actually, your argument is that *creation* becomes more and more
>>difficult with more amino acids. Your argument simply does not apply
>>to evolution, which can build things up gradually.
And that is the important point that Sean keeps ignoring in favor of his
strawman version of evolution. ****Evolutionary models claim that new
proteins evolve by minor alterations of old proteins (or duplicates
thereof).**** It is creation models that claim that new proteins are
made from scratch or some random or completely different sequence. What
Sean is doing is claiming that no natural mechanism can create a large
protein starting from a random or completely unrelated sequence. And
that is undoubtedly true, but it simply is not the model of new protein
formation that evolution proposes.
> The mindless processes of evolution can only build things up gradually
> if each step is selectable as beneficial to the organism that it
> evolves in.
The mindless process of evolution does indeed require that a selectable
and useful function exist no more than a few mutational events from the
starting protein. That, in fact, is precisely why they propose that
evolution involves minor modifications of old proteins (or duplicates
thereof). So, for evolution to work, there must be intermediate stages
of functional utility. But the functional utility need not be the
current utility. And, of course, entire current systems can be
duplicated and/or co-opted and functions can emerge as an unintended
consequence of other changes. That is precisely why, in discussing the
evolution of systems like flagella, finding evidence of the proteins
from which the proteins now specialized to function in flagella came
from is so important.
> Levels of functional complexity that require more and more fairly
> specified amino acids at minimum because there are exponentially fewer
> beneficial sequences at these higher and higher levels of complexity.
The number of amino acids in a protein is a very poor indicator of the
number of amino acids that must change from the starting point protein.
Just as one does not need to change hundreds of amino acids to change
the epitope to which IgM binds and thus change its 'binding function'
radically.
> This exponential decrease in the density of beneficial sequences at
> higher levels of functional complexity creates exponentially expanding
> non-beneficial sequence gaps between the rarer and rarer islands of
> beneficial sequences.
This is true for the creationist model of new protein formation from
some random sequence. It is utterly irrelevant to the evolutionary
model, which presumes that each intermediate selectable step involves
minor modification (only a few changes to reach selectable utility,
although not necessarily *optimal* utility, which can take further
change) of a pre-existing protein (or its duplicate).
> Now, in order to get from one beneficial island
> to the next beneficial island with a novel function, a large ocean of
> non-beneficial sequences must be crossed without the aid of natural
> selection.
This is true for the creationist model of new protein formation from
some random sequence. It is utterly irrelevant to the evolutionary
model, which presumes that each intermediate selectable step involves
minor modification (only a few changes to reach selectable utility,
although not necessarily *optimal* utility, which can take further
change) of a pre-existing protein (or its duplicate).
> The "random walk" involved gets longer and longer in an
> exponential fashion until fairly rapidly trillions upon trillions of
> years are needed to cross the gaps.
This is true for the creationist model of new protein formation from
some random sequence. It is utterly irrelevant to the evolutionary
model, which presumes that each intermediate selectable step involves
minor modification (only a few changes to reach selectable utility,
although not necessarily *optimal* utility, which can take further
change) of a pre-existing protein (or its duplicate).
> Intelligent "creation" does not have this problem because intelligent
> minds do not have to rely on a selection process that only recognizes
> changes in function. Intelligent minds can imagine their way across
> the gaps without ever having to perform the random walk required by
> mindless processes. That is the difference and the reason why
> intelligence at the level of humans and higher can go far beyond
> anything that mindless processes and lesser intelligences can ever
> hope to achieve - even given a practical eternity of time.
If the alternative to a supernatural intelligent designer proceding by
the creationist model (new proteins form by starting with random
sequence and requires that the formation of the new protein procede by
changing every single amino acid from that starting point) were to do
the exact same thing by random mutation and a random walk, you certainly
would have a valid point.
Since no evolutionary model actually proposes that one starts with a
random sequence and change every single amino acid by a random walk to
the one possible new functional sequence, you haven't presented any
valid argument against any *real* evolutionary model. *Real*
evolutionary models propose that new protein functions are formed by
minor modification of pre-existing proteins, and that no more than a few
such steps are observed between selectable states. And *that* model is
based on the fact that one can actually observe that changes in protein
function can and does occur with only a few mutational steps. And that
new protein functions (excepting, occassionally, those 'new' functions
that arose hundreds of millions of years ago, since time leads to loss
of historical evidence) usually are seen in proteins that have traceable
ancestry to other proteins and other functions.
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
Sean Pitman
> Since no evolutionary model actually proposes that one starts with a
> random sequence and change every single amino acid by a random walk to
> the one possible new functional sequence, you haven't presented any
> valid argument against any *real* evolutionary model.
Where did I ever say that you must start with some random sequence?
You have made this false assertion over and over again and I have
responded in the same way over and over again. Start with whatever
you want. Then, evolve something structurally and functionally new
over time that requires more and more amino acids at minimum. See how
far you can go up the ladder of functional/informational complexity.
My hypothesis is that you won't get very far beyond the minimum level
of a few hundred amino acids. At the level of a few thousand fairly
specified amino acids working together at the same time (as in various
bacterial motility systems), the neutral gaps involved would indeed
require trillions upon trillions of years to cross.
So, start with whatever you want and evolve something different, a
different type of function, at a level of complexity that requires, at
minimum, a few thousand fairly specified amino acids working at the
same time - and you will finally have some room to talk. You can
start with a very high level of functional complexity. Start with a
flagellar system of motility and then evolve a new type of motility
within the same level of complexity or higher, or a completely
different type of equally complex function. Go ahead! What ya got?
> *Real*
> evolutionary models propose that new protein functions are formed by
> minor modification of pre-existing proteins, and that no more than a few
> such steps are observed between selectable states.
Yes, that is certainly what evolutionists like to suggest as a working
model for evolution, but there is just one small problem - it doesn't
work beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity regardless what
you start with.
> And *that* model is
> based on the fact that one can actually observe that changes in protein
> function can and does occur with only a few mutational steps.
Again and again I'll ask you to present some sort of example that goes
beyond the same old examples you evolutionists always use that always
require fewer than a few hundred fairly specified amino acids working
at the same time, at minimum. Where is are your examples to back such
bold claims up?
> And that
> new protein functions (excepting, occassionally, those 'new' functions
> that arose hundreds of millions of years ago, since time leads to loss
> of historical evidence) usually are seen in proteins that have traceable
> ancestry to other proteins and other functions.
Such statements are not based on demonstration or any sort of
real-time evidence of evolution in action beyond the lowest levels of
functional complexity. They are based on nothing more than very
subjective historical correlatory assumptions that are not necessarily
true or even likely true based on the real time evidence that we have
available. The real time evidence is very clear, showing that at
increased levels of functional complexity evolutionary mechanisms
simple stall out in an exponential manner until they cannot and do not
achieve any new types of functions requiring just a few thousand
fairly specified amino acids working together at the same time, at
minimum.
Von Smith
news:<80d0c26f.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> drea...@hotmail.com (Von Smith) wrote in message
news:<8d74ec45.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > Some in this forum, such as Von Smith and a few others, have suggested
> > > that the ratio of lactase to non-lactase sequences at this level of
> > > complexity is as high as 1 in 1,000 sequences.
> >
> > No, Dr. Pitman, that is neither what I think nor what I said. What I
> > said was that at least two of the several thousand genes in E. coli
> > had been *observed* to be able to evolve a lactase function, a fact
> > which belies your predictions about the density of beneficial
> > functions in the sequence space.
>
> Exactly - you are trying to argue that since E. coli have less than
> 5,000 or so genes that the finding of two and possibly three lactase
> or lactase-like sequences means that the ratio of potential lactase
> sequences in sequence space is actually quite high - as high as 3 in
> 5,000 sequences at such a length. That is in fact what you are trying
> to say, is it not?
Sorry, no. That is not what I am saying, nor does it follow from
anything I have said. First of all, the 5,000 genes in a typical E.
coli do not represent any sort of sample. Even if we were to
interpret the numbers naively, the "sample size" in the experiments in
question (Hall's, Matsumura',s etc.) is actually the total number of
individual alleles observed to occur in the relevant populations, a
number that could well be in the millions.
But of course that is a moot point because the sample we are looking
at isn't really a random sample of some arbitrarily-defined population
of sequences, anyway. Evolution doesn't, and indeed cannot, sample
from anywhere in the sequence space by picking out any sequence at
random. It makes gradual and incremental modifications to
already-existing functional sequences, a procedure which is further
constrained by selection. This is a heavily biased sampling
procedure, and the result is unlikely to reflect accurately the
overall frequency with which sequences serving a particular function
occur in a given population of protein sequences.
There is a reason this sampling bias is so significant: the
relationship between a protein sequence and what if anything it does
is not arbitrary or random, but is a function of its chemical
properties. Sequences that share a few key relevant chemical and
physical similarities (like a handful of conserved residues on their
active sites) will show a statistically significant tendency to have
functional similarities as well.
This means that functional sequences tend to cluster together around
these key
similarities, rather than be scattered randomly and more or less
uniformly throughout the population. It also means that sequences
with more specialized activities (such as a glycosidase that cleaves
lactose) will often tend to be located within larger clusters of
sequences that have a more general function (such as a generic
hydrolase).
Finally, since certain chemical motifs are relevant to a variety of
different functions, it stands to reason that sequences serving very
different functions will show some tendency to abut and even overlap
one another. That there is an overlap or near overlap between
beta-galactosidases and beta-glucuronidases, or between beta-gals and
immunoglobins, is not just some rare, mystifying, fortuitous
coincidence; it is something to be expected. It is also borne out by
the observation that genetic sequences (and the protein sequences they
code for) tend to fall into families and superfamilies that often
include genes performing very different functions.
All of this skews the probability of evolving a sequence serving one
function into a sequence serving another one so heavily that one could
not possibly draw any meaningful conclusions about the total "density
of beneficial functions" simply from the crude observation that at
least three genes in E. coli can evolve a lactase function. I
mentioned it to point out that observation tells us that they are not
as hard to evolve as your calculations would lead one to believe. The
real problem with your sequence densities isn't so much that they are
wrong, although I suspect they are off by several orders of magnitude,
but that they are simply irrelevant.
The problem with this little leap of logic is that
> if it were true, there would be so many potential lactase sequences in
> sequence space, so close together, that all bacteria would be able to
> evolve the lactase function in short order in a lactose rich
> environment (i.e., in just a few weeks to a couple of months in an
> average sized bacterial colony).
The real problem with this little leap of logic is that it is a non
sequitur that doesn't follow from anything I have said, or from
anything we observe.
> The reason why such a suggested
> ratio cannot be nearly this high is the fact that most types of
> bacteria cannot evolve the lactase function despite positive selection
> pressure to do so over the course of more than a million generations
> of observed time.
I am not aware that it has ever been demonstrated that any particular
type of bacteria cannot evolve a lactase function. Do you have
references for this?
howard hershey
Sean Pitman wrote:
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>
>
>>Since no evolutionary model actually proposes that one starts with a
>>random sequence and change every single amino acid by a random walk to
>>the one possible new functional sequence, you haven't presented any
>>valid argument against any *real* evolutionary model.
>
>
> Where did I ever say that you must start with some random sequence?
*Every single time* you use the total number of amino acids in a system
as *the* number that should tell us the impossibility of evolution of
that system, Sean! The total number of amino acids is a completely
irrelevant number, since the *real* number that is relevant is the
*number of mutation events* in an existing protein (or a duplicate
thereof) that must occur to generate a selectable variant. By
repeatedly confounding and implying that the total number of amino acids
and the number of mutational events needed are one and the same, you
are IN FACT saying that evolution of a new function must start with a
random sequence and proceed to change every single amino acid in that
sequence. That confounding of the two numbers is a statement which is
at variance with any proposed model of evolution. It is at variance
with the truth.
> You have made this false assertion over and over again and I have
> responded in the same way over and over again.
It is not a false assertion. The *only way* the number you use (the
total number of amino acids in a system) would be meaningful is if you
thought that that number were the same number as the only relevant
number in evolution -- the number of mutational events needed to gain a
selectable variant. The only way the two numbers could possibly be the
same would be the case is if the starting sequence were random wrt the
end sequence.
If you, in fact, *know* that the only relevant number is the *number of
required mutation events* to reach a selectable function (as you seem to
be in all the cases of evolution that you recognize -- the evolution at
what you call low levels of complexity), then you must be using the
total number of amino acids number merely because it is large while
*knowing* that that number is irrelevant and dishonest.
Yet even in those cases of evolution at what you call low levels of
complexity, you repeatedly present the number of amino acids as if it
were somehow relevant to the number of mutational changes needed to
produce a modified protein. It doesn't matter one bit.
> Start with whatever
> you want. Then, evolve something structurally and functionally new
> over time that requires more and more amino acids at minimum.
How MANY amino acids do you think *need* to change to convert a alpha
globin of hemoglobin into a beta globin? How MANY amino acids needed to
change to convert ebg into a betagalactosidase?
> See how
> far you can go up the ladder of functional/informational complexity.
> My hypothesis is that you won't get very far beyond the minimum level
> of a few hundred amino acids.
What *system* do you have evidence for that arose via a mechanism that
you know *required* a few hundred different mutational events? There
are mutational events that can change more than one amino acid at a time
(including chimeric duplication and internal duplications like those you
pooh-poohed as minor changes in the large proteins you excluded).
Exactly in what way do you think the *total number of amino acids* is at
all relevant? It certainly isn't relevant to *any* of the observed
cases of evolution. That ebg has very little amino acid sequence
homology to the native beta galactosidase and has no functionally
selectable activity prior to mutation doesn't matter one bit. All that
matters is the number of mutational changes needed to generate beta
galactosidase activity. The total number (whether it was a few hundred
or a few thousand amino acids) doesn't matter at all. Only a few amino
acids need to change to gain selectable beta galactosidase activity; yet
you keep tossing out the strawman number of the length of the amino acid
sequence as if it were relevant. Why? Are you really that ignorant?
Or do you really think that the total amino acid number is important?
If so, you certainly have not presented any case for that. All you have
done is to repeatedly toss out the bogus "total amino acid sequence" as
if that number had some meaning. It doesn't unless you are arguing that
evolution starts with a random sequence.
> At the level of a few thousand fairly
> specified amino acids working together at the same time (as in various
> bacterial motility systems), the neutral gaps involved would indeed
> require trillions upon trillions of years to cross.
Where is your evidence that *any* system evolved by a mechanism anything
like this strawman? I hear lots of assertions, but no evidence.
> So, start with whatever you want and evolve something different, a
> different type of function, at a level of complexity that requires, at
> minimum, a few thousand fairly specified amino acids working at the
> same time - and you will finally have some room to talk. You can
> start with a very high level of functional complexity. Start with a
> flagellar system of motility and then evolve a new type of motility
> within the same level of complexity or higher, or a completely
> different type of equally complex function. Go ahead! What ya got?
I have already pointed out that simple single mutations and subsequent
reversion can accomplish such a change in function from a system which
has the function of motility + protein export to a system which only has
the function of protein export and back again.
The *final* selectable step in the evolution of bacterial flagella
undoubtedly involved the conversion of a system that had protein export
function to one that had both protein export and some motility function
(but probably not the same level of motility as the current flagella do;
but low levels of motility is a selectable function as is increased
levels of motility -- see Nicholas Matzke's article
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagellum.cfm). Some of the changes
in the 'system' probably arose subsequent to its emergent property of
motility.
Previous selectable steps involved changes that involved the *stepwise*
recruitment of pre-existing proteins into a protein export machinery of
greater complexity and length. This is reflected in the ontological
self-assembly of bacterial flagella, which involves a protein export
function at every stage in the ontology of whip formation. Even the
core transmembrane pore acts as a protein export machine that could
easily have functional utility as a stand-alone feature of a bacterial
cell, secreting materials from the inside to the transmembrane area.
The *real* models of bacterial flagella evolution involves a step-wise
process of creating these intermediate stand-alone subsystems that are
selectable in their own right. It does not involve anything like your
strawman conception of starting with nothing of any possible utility to
modern flagella by a chain of completely random and non-selectable
intermediates.
>>*Real*
>>evolutionary models propose that new protein functions are formed by
>>minor modification of pre-existing proteins, and that no more than a few
>>such steps are observed between selectable states.
>
>
> Yes, that is certainly what evolutionists like to suggest as a working
> model for evolution, but there is just one small problem - it doesn't
> work beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity regardless what
> you start with.
How would you know, since you have presented nothing but an evidenceless
strawman argument that implies that some teleological function has to
arise by unselectable random events from scratch starting with a random
or non-existent sequence and that is nothing like the model actually
proposed for any of those systems?
>>And *that* model is
>>based on the fact that one can actually observe that changes in protein
>>function can and does occur with only a few mutational steps.
>
>
> Again and again I'll ask you to present some sort of example that goes
> beyond the same old examples you evolutionists always use that always
> require fewer than a few hundred fairly specified amino acids working
> at the same time, at minimum. Where is are your examples to back such
> bold claims up?
Every example evolutionists will give starts with a pre-existing protein
that gets modified to either perform a new function (say binding a
different epitope or changing substrates) or otherwise modified in a
selectively useful fashion. Some changes (specifically and most
commonly rearrangement mutations that produce chimeric proteins; but
also, as is the case with nylonase, frameshifts) can change hundreds of
amino acids in a single mutational event. In all cases, the end
selectable result does not involve hundreds of mutational changes. But
all of them involve producing proteins several hundreds of amino acids
long working together at the same time. But NOT by changing hundreds of
amino acids via a non-selectable random walk. By modifying a few
specific amino acids in a pre-existing protein, like ebg. There is no
class of evolution that involves a higher level of complexity than that
seen in producing beta galactosidase from ebg or producing resistant
malarial trypanosomes or producing bacterial ribosomes (a system of
thousands of amino acids) that resist streptomycin (a single specific
point mutation on one of the proteins).
>>And that
>>new protein functions (excepting, occassionally, those 'new' functions
>>that arose hundreds of millions of years ago, since time leads to loss
>>of historical evidence) usually are seen in proteins that have traceable
>>ancestry to other proteins and other functions.
>
>
> Such statements are not based on demonstration or any sort of
> real-time evidence of evolution in action beyond the lowest levels of
> functional complexity.
And your conception of "increasing functional complexity" is completely
bogus. The number of amino acids in a system tells us precisely
nothing about how many mutational events were needed to produce it
during its evolution. A single amino acid change may be enough to
convert a protein that interacts with other identical proteins to
produce a nice round cell into one that produces, under low oxygen
tension, a cell with a sickle shape. A single nucleotide change is
sufficient to convert a human into an achondroplastic dwarf. The total
number of amino acids in those proteins is completely irrelevant. In
both cases, a single nucleotide change is sufficient to change function
dramatically and selectably. Yet you keep implying that the total
number of amino acids *is* relevant without presenting a shred of
evidence that this is the case. That makes your entire argument
completely bogus and irrelevant.
> They are based on nothing more than very
> subjective historical correlatory assumptions that are not necessarily
> true or even likely true based on the real time evidence that we have
> available. The real time evidence is very clear, showing that at
> increased levels of functional complexity evolutionary mechanisms
> simple stall out in an exponential manner until they cannot and do not
> achieve any new types of functions requiring just a few thousand
> fairly specified amino acids working together at the same time, at
> minimum.
You have shown no such thing. You assert it without presenting evidence
by assuming, falsely, that the total number of amino acids in some
current system (the teleological goal), rather than the number of
mutational changes needed to reach a selectable intermediate function is
what is requried. That is a bogus strawman of no relevance whatsoever.
If you want to present evidence that evolution is not possible, you have
to actually demonstrate that it is *impossible* for one or more of the
proposed intermediate steps to be selectively useful and/or that
evolution must work by changing every single amino acid in a random
starting point to a new specific amino acid before there is any possible
selective activity. You have done neither.
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
John Stockwell
>jo...@dix.mines.edu (John Stockwell) wrote in message news:<42ad2938.0312...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> > > "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may
>> > > have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand."
>> >
>
>these two articles and he told me that the "damp sand" statement made
>in the JoP was based on a very unlikely scenario for the formation of
>damp sand and that he knew of no natural equivalent to this method
>which he achieved in the laboratory. He still feels strongly that the
>Coconino tracks are most consistent with underwater formation -
>especially when one considers the many other unique aspects of these
>trackways and Coconino sandstone formations (see below).
According to Brand's 1996 paper:
"Although some authors (e.g. McKeever, 1991) have suggested that
tracks made on sand not enriched with clay could still be preserved
if the sand was damp, previous efforts were not successful (Brand, 1979).
The results reported here now confirm that good trackways can be
formed in damp sand. When the sand was moderately moisened and left
overnight, then it had enough cohesion to produce good foot impressions
(Figure 6)."
So, I don't see what is so "unlikely" about this.
>>
>> It's nice that you talk to Brand. However, because you are both in the same
>> camp, and because you are not an earth scientist, it is unlikely that you
>> could or would want to, ask him the hard questions that need to be asked.
>> Papers in publications such as "Origins" really are not trustworthy, because
>> they are not sufficiently peer reviewed.
>
>They still reflect the opinions of the author, and you, as the reader,
>are free to look at the evidence (which is the same in both
>publications), and either agree or disagree with the author's
>conclusions about what this evidence means.
Opinions are interesting. However, in science it is convincing the
community of scientists that an idea is of merit that counts. The fact
that Brand and company have not had any success in convincing the
members of the mainstream scientific community of their claim that you
should find interesting.
Indeed, without familiarity with the mainstream scientific communities'
evidence, papers and the like, it is not possible for an outsider to
make an evaluation of the value of the items that would be of merit.
So, looking at Brand's paper and thinking that you can make an informed
decision is just plain wreckles.
>
>> The article in Origins is interesting, but irrelevant.
>
>It is not irrelevant at all. The observations are "interesting"
>because they are quite relevant indeed.
The alleged observations are interesting. The real question is of
their relevance to the Coconino.
>> Basically individuals like Brand "run with the foxes but bark with
>> the hounds". As a scientist, publishing in scientific publications,
>> Brand's work is quite good. However, his hobby publications in media
>> such as Grisda or Origins, or for example his book, these things are
>> suspect because they get less peer review. His conclusions are liable
>> to be more heavily tainted by his philosophical expectations, some
>> of which are just plian unscientific (to wit: interventionist science).
>
>An author's bias should certainly be taken into account, but this does
>not make his observations or personal opinions irrelevant or
>unscientific. There is nothing in the scientific method that
>necessitates the a priori assumptions of mindless causes or processes
>as an explanation for all observations. This is a philosophical
>position, not a scientific position. One should be open to wherever
>the evidence leads.
The real question is what the paper is actually about. The paper is
actually about "variations in salamander tracks resulting from
substrate differences". period. He is able to produce tracks of a
variety that superificially look similar to some of the tracks in the
Coconino. In short his paper is "hey guys, some of these tracks look
like some of the tracks in the Coconino!" but that's about it.
The author deals only with a part of the phenomenon in this case. He
cannot claim that he has shown that the origin of the Coconino is anything
but the standard coastal desert scenario, simply because he has not
dealt with the other dry sand features (rain drop prints, etc.) or
the other tracks (running quadruped, spider like tracks, millipede-like
tracks). Nor has he shown that his underwater tracks (in the presence
of current) are actually preserved. (Effectively he preserves them by
drying as part of his experimental method.)
Indeed, his Origins/Grisda materials attempt to make leap without
supplying the necessary science, which takes this material far from
the domain of science, and into the realm of propagandizing.
>
>> > The popularity of the desert origin for the Coconino Sandstone began
>> > with the work of McKee in the early 1930s. McKee initially focused on
>> > the physical qualities of the sandstone to support his conclusions
>> > that the dunes had been wind and not water deposited. Later he
>> > studied the footprints and concluded that they were most likely formed
>> > on dry sand - completely contrary to the work and conclusions of
>> > Leonard Brand.
>>
>> I suggest that you read Bues, S.S. and M. Morales [1990]. In chapter
>> 10, they discuss the Coconino, and the prevailing view (McKey 1979) is
>> that the Coconino represents a desert coastal dune field
>> (similar to the coast of Namibia).
>
>Are there similar tracks preserved in the desert coastal dunes of
>Namibia? I will have to look up this reference. Thanks . . .
I don't know about Namibia, in particular, but it is the type of
environment that is most like the standard view Coconino.
The phenomena of preservation of quadruped tracks on dune was addressed
a long time ago by McKee and others. I would point out that these investigators
did many of their experiments on actual dunes, which have the proper
structure.
A sand dune is an organized structure that is built up by the sorting
and deposition of sand grains through a process of grain saltation.
A pile of sand is not a sand dune. If you want to actually study what happens
on a sand dune in a laboratory setting, then you have to replicate this
organization. It does not appear that Brand has done this in his 1996
paper.
>
>> > According to Brand, "Sedimentary features that were formerly thought
>> > to be diagnostic of eolian deposits are now known to be
>> > non-diagnostic. Stanley et al. (1971) pointed out that "grain frosting
>> > is no longer considered a criterion of wind transport," grain size
>> > distribution statistics have been ambiguous (for the Navajo), and "it
>> > can no longer be assumed a priori that large festoon cross strata
>> > prove an eolian dune origin for the Navajo or any similar sandstone
>> > because of the essential identity of form and scale of modern
>> > submarine dunes or sand waves.
>>
>> Yes, we are talking about a coastal dune field. The idea that the sand
>> in the Cocino represents subaqueous sandwaves is simply a fantasy.
>
>It may be a fantasy (i.e., not a true reality), but it not a "simple"
>fantasy. Brand's work certainly does throw a valid question over the
>standard interpretation of the Coconino sandstone formation - as does
>the work of Arct on the formation of the Yellowstone fossil forests.
At most Brand is considering some experiments that may be of importance some
day for some other geologic environment. Arct's work likely only has the
impact of damaging the credibility of himself and his collegues.
>> While
>> the average dip of the crossbedding at the Coconino is about 25 degrees,
>> there are crossbedding dips of greater dip, and well out of the 10 degree
>> average range of sand waves.
>
>You talk about average ranges, but then mention that occasional
>variations outside of these averages support your view of dry sand
>deposits over underwater deposits. How is this consistent? If the
>average is most consistent with underwater angles, how does the
>occasion divergence from this average overcome the significance of
>this average?
The problem is that it is possible to change the angle of repose of sand
by the presence or absence of organic materials, the grain size distribution,
and the water content. Crossbedding angle alone cannot do much for
us to decide either way. The 25 degree average is consistent with coastal
dunes. It is similar to the issue of grain frosting. Now, if the average
crossbedding were much lower, such as 10 degrees, that would be something
that would tend to support an underwater origin.
>
>> Furthermore, there are plenty of other features,
>> including raindrop prints, delicate detachment features, as well as
>> numerous evidences of dry sand avalanching in the Cochino. Inded, the
>> state of preservation of the tracks suggests that they dried before being
>> covered again.
>
>I have no real problem with this. Tidal actions can explain all of
>these features quite well. However, the observation that the tracks
>are most consistent with underwater formation and relatively rapid
>preservation, is most consistent with the rapid formation of these
>deposits - not with eons of time and slow deposition by a desert-like
>environment.
Actually, you *do* have a problem, because, if there were "tidal action"
you would have a tidal flat type environment, and that is not apparent
in the Coconino. (The bedding would be nearer to flat, 0-3 degrees.)
So, no tidal action. That gets us back to sand dunes that get rained
on occassionally.
>>
>> No doubt Brand was able to create experimental conditions that would
>> yield tracks from newts and salamanders. Indeed, some of his results
>> may be useful in understanding fossilized quadruped tracks. They do
>> not point in the direction of support for a flood scenario.
>
>The tracks were made underwater in a current or at best on a very odd
>sort of damp sand formation - which, if true, would make it rather
>hard to explain the occurrence of lizard/salamander-like creatures
>walking sideways for long distances. Where do such conditions occur
>today in any sort of desert or coastal desert environment? Do we see
>such formations and preservation of such trace fossils being formed
>anywhere in the world today? Perhaps Namibia? Certainly I will have
>to look into that reference.
Lizards control their body temperature by angling their bodies, either
for increased or decreased exposure. Sideways walking is quite common.
>
>> To claim as you have that these papers support an explanation of the
>> origin of the Coconino via "rapid deposition under water" is just
>> plain nonsense.
>
>Actually, this interpretation, which is shared by Brand himself, still
>seems quite reasonable to me.
Your opinion is not worth the mud on the average geologists' shoe.
As to Brand's, he has not been able to turn that opinion into the necessary
science that would convince other (non-floodite) scientists of his view.
>>
>> Brand's experiments were all conducted in the absence of current. If
>> not, were are the discussions of the rates of flow and directions of the
>> current?
>> Indeed, any statements that he makes regarding the direction of
>> current in the fossil species refer to the current direction inferred from
>> looking at the surface structure of the dune in question.
>
>Do you have a better explanation as to why lizards/salamanders would
>walk sideways for long distances
Yep. Temperature control, or strong wind blowing. (Remember that the sand
they are walking on has been dampened.)
>or why their tracks would suddenly
>vanish and then reappear several meters later - or not at all?
You have line of tracks, with varying conditions of dampness/composition.
Some tracks either are not preserved in the first place, or they are
obliterated by wind blowing them away. (Winds are not locally the same
strength along a sand dune.)
>> > > If you read Brand's
>> > > paper at: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
>> > > you will see that he made absolutely no attempt to account for movement
>> > > of the water.
>> >
>> > Did you fail to read where he talked about the evidence for "water
>> > current moving at an angle to the direction of movement of the
>> > animal"?
>>
>> It is clear that he is inferring to the direction of current in the
>> fossil specimens from the location of the tracks on the windward side
>> of the dunes. There is nothing in either of his articles that he
>> performed experiments in anything but standing water.
>
>Did he really need to do this in order to make a reasonable hypothesis
>about why these trackways were formed like they are? What alternative
>explanation do you have?
You're taking his ad hoc hypothesis and are investing it with the
strength of "fact". That "current" can just as easily be the wind direction.
How long will a track be preserved in a water current? He doesn't answer
that question, you don't even want to ask it.
>>
>> Obviously, animals going down the leeward side of a dune will cause
>> avalanching. I also recall that McKee observed long "skid mark" type
>> structures in the Coconino, which were quite mysterious, until the
>> notion that these were evidences of downward travel on the dunes. I
>> will see if I can find a reference for this.
>
>Such avalanching and skid marks were not observed by Brand when he
>induced the lizards and salamanders in his study to walk down hill.
>You can go and see the pictures at the listed link. They are very
>clear trackways and were not covered up by avalanches of dry sand at
>the same angle as that found on the "leeward" side or any side of the
>Coconino sandstone dunes.
There is no evidence from his article or his pictures that Brand
accurately reproduced the necessary conditions for his experiments
to actually compare these to real dunes. What, for example, was the
wind speed during his experiments? Where his laboratory dunes made
by wind deposition of the sand? Remember that the process of deposition
of a dune involves saltation followed by avalanching onto the leeward
side of the dune.
>One would think that these creatures would
>not only travel down the leeward side of sand dunes but would travel
>down all sides of sand dunes. Why are there not very many trackways
>traveling down those places where the trackways are almost always
>traveling upwards? I find this observation most interesting and
>compelling.
I would invite you to go climb on some sand dunes sometime. You will
find that it is way easier to go up the windward side of a dune and
to go down the lee ward side, than vice versa.
Basically, the one-way travel kills the aqueous explanation. The
alleged salamanders in Brand's world can swim. Why can't they swim in
from any direction and start walking on the dune? Remember, in Brand's
world there is also no water currents to prevent them from doing this.
>Also, if these dunes represent coastal dunes as you
>suggest, why don't the trackways change as they progress uphill away
>from the damper sand closer to the water's edge as they did in Brand's
>experiments - and as happens when I am walking on the sand at the
>beach?
The quadrupeds weren't walking on a beach. That would be a tidal flat,
which as discussed above, is inconsistent with your tidal imaginings.
The quadrupeds were climbing up coastal dunes, that were likely wetted
by the mists, fogs, and rains that even desert coasts occasionally
are subject to.
>
>> However, it is not
>> inconceivable that Brand has gotten his shallow standing water results
>> correct, and that the tracks were preserved on a tidal flat.
>
>Actually Brand's interpretation was that the water was moving, not
>standing. He concluded nothing about water depth. I do agree that
>there is fair evidence for tidal activity however.
Brand apparently did not perform moving water experiments, so that
is also an unsupported conjecture.
>You of course come back with the preservation of rain
>imprints and the fine fracturing of the sand (which also requires
>dampness or more firm sand to be preserved). Certainly these
>features, taken together, support a very wet environment with
>intermittent tidal activity and much underwater formation over a very
>large area.
Sorry, Sean, but raindrop prints support the idea of a very dry environment
punctuated with only occassional rains. It rains even in the desert.
The very existence of the sand dunes in the first place indicate
thousands of years of interaction of the atmosphere with the earth's
surface.
>
>Consider also that the contact zones between those layers below and
>those layers above the Coconino sandstone are very flat. The layers
>above the uppermost Kaibab layer (such as those found fairly close in
>formations like Red Butte) seem to have been eroded away rather
>flatly. How are such flat formations and such flat erosion happen
>over eons of time? What about all the layers in-between formations
>found in monument valley? There are all the horizontal layers in
>those monuments which were surely connected to each other once upon a
>time. How did eons of erosion take away portions of these layers and
>leave these monuments standing untouched?
Sorry, Sean, but obviously you are not aware that the effect of erosion
is to reduce the average elevation of a land surface. Material is
removed from higher elevations and deposited on lower elevations. As
to butte type formations, the material in the tops of the buttes are
more resistant to erosion than the parts that were eroded away. This
is all GE101 stuff, Sean. You are merely revealing your amateurishness
with these comments.
>
>> Indeed, we see in the Coconino
>> a structure composed of thousands of square miles of really well sorted
>> sand. We don't have to reach for a fantasy explanation. We have
>> several examples of sand seas in our world today.
>
>With tracks and other features matching the unique features found in
>the Coconino sandstone?
Yes. Actually.
>>
>> What is also for sure is that these features preserve best when they
>> dry out prior to burial. You still haven't accounted for raindrop impressions
>> and other obvious dry sand features.
>
>Shortly spaced tidal actions can explain both of these features.
Nope. Raindrop impressions have to be made on completely dry material.
If you have tides, you will tend to have erosion to the horizontal. We
don't see that in the Coconino, so you are merely creating an ever
tangled web of ad hoc hypotheses.
>> > He was most
>> > clearly in favor of a flood model of deposition in his paper.
>>
>> No kidding.
>
>So where is my "misrepresentation" of his ideas?
You are misrepresenting his ideas, as he misrepresents them.
>> If the folks at Loma Linda and other Adventist organizations continue
>> to publish decent science in mainstream media, then eventually they will
>> create a base of scientific results that will disprove many creationist
>> assertions such as the idea that the crustal sediments were created in
>> a worldwide flood.
>
>Or, they may continue to add to the growing mountain of evidence
>favoring such a huge watery catastrophe, or series of relatively
>closely spaced watery catastrophes.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
>
>> However, there does seem to be a failure of the system in their case.
>> The tree ring studies of Arct, for example, are crap.
>
>Hardly. Have you actually read his original thesis? I have. It is
>not "crap" at all. It is quite convincing, especially given all the
>other evidence indicating a relatively rapid formation of the
>Yellowstone "forest" formations. And, don't tell me that popular and
>even technical journals are not biased in the way the critique, edit,
>accept and reject papers. Everyone is biased. I take this fact into
>account when I read popular and technical journals published by
>mainstream organizations as well as when I read non-mainstream
>publications.
It may be convincing to creationists, but it is not convincing to
the mainstream. (Mainstream science tends to be biased toward competence.)
>> The real question is whether or not Adventist culture will allow their
>> scientists to come to the natural conclusion that of old-earth,
>> no-global-flood, that mainstream geology has come to.
>
>If such conclusions are indeed true, then Adventism is wrong. If
>Adventists come to this standard conclusion, then they will no longer
>be Adventists because the uniqueness of Adventism also sets it up for
>being uniquely wrong. The same thing can be said about evolutionism.
>If Adventism turns out to be right and evolutionists become
>Adventists, they will no longer be evolutionists.
Sorry, but all of this "evolutionism" stuff that you are spewing is
propaganda labeling. The conclusions of the scientific community are
not the results of some philosophy called "evolutionism". Rather,
the conclusions are *scientific* conclusions that stand alone unsupported
by any particular worldview philosophy.
This really outlines the problem facing
an individual such as Leonard Brand. On one hand, through his mainstream
scientific education, he knowns the extreme weight of evidence that mainstream
geology has for its positions. He also knows his Church-approved Biblical
literalism based view, which also must be true.
So, if you want to be a scientist under these conditions,
you are going to become a quixotic figure, tilting at windmills. You
can either abandon science all together, and produce stuff that is neither
peer reviewed or publishable, or you can engage in the process of science,
tiptoeing through a minefield of scientific results that you can't use,
looking for those items that appear to support your position, and are
publishable in mainstream media.
Now, this isn't the real damage. The real damage is that the importance
of your results will be inflated to such a degree that the folks closest
to you will be immediately convinced of the truth of your results---being
not informed, but rather victims of propaganda (that's you Sean!).
>
>Of course, this is a big debate among Adventists. Many think that the
>two ideas are compatible. But they really aren't. Adventism is
>based, as evidenced in the name "Seventh-day Adventists" on the notion
>of a literal creation week occurring less than 10 thousand years ago.
>If this position fails, then so does Adventism.
>
>> If not, then the
>> best we can hope to see will be spot papers such as those of Brand,
>> which appear to the nonspecialist, to support the creationist viewpoint,
>> but fail in the big picture to be anything that great.
>
>That is certainly your opinion and you are welcome to it, but my
>representation of Brand's work and opinions were not wrong or
>"grievously" misstated. All are welcome to look carefully into his
>observations and make their own conclusions - either in keeping with
>or contrary to Brand's own opinions and conclusions.
My opinion as an earthscientist is an expert opinion. Brand has overstated
the importance of his findings. You have continued this misrepresentation,
by inflating a rather unimportant collection of results into a worldshaking
discovery.
>> > Short-term exposure to aerial surfaces is not a problem for an
>> > extended watery deposition event. Tidal actions would most certainly
>> > allow for various times of subaerial exposure.
>>
>> You mean like on a *coastline*, Sean?
>
>Certainly a coastline is reasonable here, but the tidal actions in
>this case seem to have covered an absolutely huge area under water and
>then receded rapidly and then come back rapidly. The trackways and
>other features of the Coconino sandstone do not match modern desert
>coastlines very well. It seems to Dr. Brand that something much more
>massive and complex was going on.
On the contrary, Brand has *not* disproven the desert scenario.
>
>> > What is interesting is
>> > that the tracks found in the Coconino dunes seem to predominate the
>> > lower half of the Coconino layer - not so much in the upper half.
>>
>> Yep. The elevation of the land changed, most likely subsidence
>> followed by uplift, erosion, and then subsidence again. We are
>> talking about a period of high drama in plate tectonics---the
>> beginning of the breakup of Pangea.
>
>And during the uplift all the desert creatures vanished?
Sure, the coast moved miles further away.
>
>> > Also, underwater detachments and avalanches of sand are possible.
>>
>> Not like these. These are delicate structures that are obviously
>> crusts of dry sand on a sand dune, frozen in the geologic record.
>
>Dry sand is not preserved by dry sand. Perhaps damp sand crusts, but
>not dry sand fractures.
Crusts of dry sand are not preserved underwater.
>> So no. To claim that Brand's work supports the notion of the Coconino
>> having originated via some rapid flood event is an egregious
>> misrepresentation of his work.
>
>Not at all since my presentation of his work is most consistent with
>his own interpretations of his own observations. You might disagree
>with his interpretations, but you cannot say that my presentation of
>his work was an egregious misrepresentation of his conclusions.
Brand's published work stands alone and apart from the man himself.
His *work* does not support the grandios claims that you are ascribing
to that work. You have been, and continue to misrepresent that *work*.
>> John Stockwell
>
>Sean
>www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
>> > > References:
>> > >
>> > > Bues, S.S. and M. Morales, editors, 1990, Grand Canyon Geology.
>> > > Oxford University Press.
>> > >
>> > > Brand, Leonard, 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from
>> > > substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70(6): 1004-1011.
>>
>> McKee, E.D. (1979) editor, A study of Global Sand Seas. USGS
>> professional
>> paper 1052.
>
>
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Sean Pitman
<snip>
> The author deals only with a part of the phenomenon in this case. He
> cannot claim that he has shown that the origin of the Coconino is anything
> but the standard coastal desert scenario, simply because he has not
> dealt with the other dry sand features (rain drop prints, etc.) or
> the other tracks (running quadruped, spider like tracks, millipede-like
> tracks). Nor has he shown that his underwater tracks (in the presence
> of current) are actually preserved. (Effectively he preserves them by
> drying as part of his experimental method.)
Agreed. Some sort of exposure of the sand dunes to open air does seem
to me to be required in order for the tracks and other features to be
preserved and even formed in certain cases. I am not so much arguing
for the idea that all or any of the features must have been formed
under water as I am for the idea that the classic view that a dry
desert-like environment was not required to produce these tracks over
millions of years of time. There are many features of these dunes
that still seem to me as uniquely different from what would be
expected by a normal desert-like or even coastal desert-like
environment produced over millions of years of time.
For example, why are there no burrows or skeletal preservation of the
animals that made the tracks? Why are there no fossilized plant
materials? Why is there so little evidence of bioterbation? Why do
the animals sometimes walk at a rather sharp angle while leaving
tracks on damp, rather firm sand that is not hot? Why are practically
all the trackways going uphill? I mean really, when I have visited
areas with desert sand dunes in modern deserts I see animal trackways
going every which way on these dunes. It seems to me quite
impractical to only allow for upward movement on the windward side of
a dune and all downward movement on the leeward side of the dune.
What if the creature needed to get back to it's burrow quick like?
Are you telling me that it would have to go all the way to the top of
the dune, slide down the leeward side (which would also be damp from
the general wetness of dew or whatever caused the general dampness),
and then go around the bottom of a very large dune in order to climb
back up the dune to get home. Come on now, is this what you are
saying? Really, you don't even ponder why the trackways are only
going uphill on these dunes? This fact doesn't even cause you the
briefest pause?
> >Are there similar tracks preserved in the desert coastal dunes of
> >Namibia? I will have to look up this reference. Thanks . . .
>
> I don't know about Namibia, in particular, but it is the type of
> environment that is most like the standard view Coconino.
Well then, it might be interesting to see if similar trackways are
preserved in this region. Wouldn't you agree?
> The phenomena of preservation of quadruped tracks on dune was addressed
> a long time ago by McKee and others. I would point out that these investigators
> did many of their experiments on actual dunes, which have the proper
> structure.
McKee did not document, as Brand has, the degree of crispness and the
detail of the tracks that his experimental creatures formed. Brand,
not McKee, has shown that fairly significant dampness of sand and/or
even underwater formation is more consistent with the degree of detail
found in the Coconino trackways than are dry sand trackways.
> A sand dune is an organized structure that is built up by the sorting
> and deposition of sand grains through a process of grain saltation.
> A pile of sand is not a sand dune. If you want to actually study what happens
> on a sand dune in a laboratory setting, then you have to replicate this
> organization. It does not appear that Brand has done this in his 1996
> paper.
You do not need to replicate dune organization in order to accurately
observe how footprints in sand are formed and preserved. The dune
organizational features are interesting, but I don't think you are
suggesting that these features are an integral part of trackway
formation and/or preservation - are you?
> >> While
> >> the average dip of the crossbedding at the Coconino is about 25 degrees,
> >> there are crossbedding dips of greater dip, and well out of the 10 degree
> >> average range of sand waves.
> >
> >You talk about average ranges, but then mention that occasional
> >variations outside of these averages support your view of dry sand
> >deposits over underwater deposits. How is this consistent? If the
> >average is most consistent with underwater angles, how does the
> >occasion divergence from this average overcome the significance of
> >this average?
>
> The problem is that it is possible to change the angle of repose of sand
> by the presence or absence of organic materials, the grain size distribution,
> and the water content. Crossbedding angle alone cannot do much for
> us to decide either way. The 25 degree average is consistent with coastal
> dunes. It is similar to the issue of grain frosting. Now, if the average
> crossbedding were much lower, such as 10 degrees, that would be something
> that would tend to support an underwater origin.
Agreed, except if the underwater origin was produced by very deep
water by heavy currents, which can produce dunes with an average slope
angle of 25 degrees. The grain frosting is another issue which is no
longer thought to be only found in dry desert-like dunes, but can be
produced via underwater chemical processes during the cementing of
sand grains.
> >> Furthermore, there are plenty of other features,
> >> including raindrop prints, delicate detachment features, as well as
> >> numerous evidences of dry sand avalanching in the Cochino. Inded, the
> >> state of preservation of the tracks suggests that they dried before being
> >> covered again.
> >
> >I have no real problem with this. Tidal actions can explain all of
> >these features quite well. However, the observation that the tracks
> >are most consistent with underwater formation and relatively rapid
> >preservation, is most consistent with the rapid formation of these
> >deposits - not with eons of time and slow deposition by a desert-like
> >environment.
>
> Actually, you *do* have a problem, because, if there were "tidal action"
> you would have a tidal flat type environment, and that is not apparent
> in the Coconino. (The bedding would be nearer to flat, 0-3 degrees.)
> So, no tidal action. That gets us back to sand dunes that get rained
> on occassionally.
Not necessarily. If the dunes were built via intermittent
tsunami-like flooding events. The time between these huge waves of
high-current flooding would most likely leave the sediments exposed to
the air for certain relatively short periods of time. Surviving
critters could run around on the exposed surfaces for a while. Rain
imprints could be made. Areas of relatively quick drying and strong
winds would pick up sand from elsewhere to cover these impressions and
other features (sand ripples, sharp sand fractures, and cracks etc).
> >The tracks were made underwater in a current or at best on a very odd
> >sort of damp sand formation - which, if true, would make it rather
> >hard to explain the occurrence of lizard/salamander-like creatures
> >walking sideways for long distances. Where do such conditions occur
> >today in any sort of desert or coastal desert environment? Do we see
> >such formations and preservation of such trace fossils being formed
> >anywhere in the world today? Perhaps Namibia? Certainly I will have
> >to look into that reference.
>
> Lizards control their body temperature by angling their bodies, either
> for increased or decreased exposure. Sideways walking is quite common.
Really? On damp sand where the sand is not hot? I have never seen
such sideways walking on surfaces that are not hot, and I have seen a
lot of lizards in my years. Where can I go to see such trackways
being made? Do you have pictures or know of some sort of reference
where I can read about this?
> Your opinion is not worth the mud on the average geologists' shoe.
Hmmmm . . . then why are you talking to me? If my opinions are so
insignificant and so obviously so, then why do you stoop so low to
help such a no account?
> As to Brand's, he has not been able to turn that opinion into the necessary
> science that would convince other (non-floodite) scientists of his view.
Not yet. He does need to do more work on his theory. However, his
work has already caused many to take some pause as they reconsider
standard interprestations of many geologic formations (not just the
Coconino Sandstone formations, but many others as well - such as those
that contain many large exquisitely preserved whale fossils).
> >Do you have a better explanation as to why lizards/salamanders would
> >walk sideways for long distances
>
> Yep. Temperature control, or strong wind blowing. (Remember that the sand
> they are walking on has been dampened.)
Exactly. Why would they walk sideways for temperature control on damp
non-hot sand? I've never seen this happen, have you? If they are
already warm enough to run around on damp sand, do you really think
that angling their bodies is going to help them get warmer? Also, the
wind hypothesis here would seem to require quite a strong wind indeed,
sometimes picking the little boogers up off the ground for long
stretches before putting them down again. Now that's quite a wind.
Have you ever seen wind strong enough to pick a lizard off the ground?
That is like a gale-force wind!
> >or why their tracks would suddenly
> >vanish and then reappear several meters later - or not at all?
>
> You have line of tracks, with varying conditions of dampness/composition.
> Some tracks either are not preserved in the first place, or they are
> obliterated by wind blowing them away. (Winds are not locally the same
> strength along a sand dune.)
Hmmmm . . . interesting. So the tracks just disappear suddenly
because of a sudden change in preservation and/or sand composition?
Where is the evidence of wind disturbance of the surface where a
trackway suddenly disappears? Wouldn't one expect some sort of
physical evidence to support this hypothesis? Also, if dew or some
other general wetting mechanism wets the sand, how does such a general
process work in such a patchy way? I'm sorry, but I am having
difficulty imagining how such a process might work so as to yield such
sudden and neat trackway stops and starts.
> >Did he really need to do this in order to make a reasonable hypothesis
> >about why these trackways were formed like they are? What alternative
> >explanation do you have?
>
> You're taking his ad hoc hypothesis and are investing it with the
> strength of "fact". That "current" can just as easily be the wind direction.
Not just as easily. Such a strong wind, so close to the ground, as
would cause relatively heavy lizard-like creatures to walk sideways,
would be quite a wind indeed.
> How long will a track be preserved in a water current? He doesn't answer
> that question, you don't even want to ask it.
Sure I do. This is a great question. I will certainly ask Brand this
question next time I talk to him. I do not have the references
actually with me right now, but I do remember reading a description of
some of his experiments that did include the actual production of a
current in the tank that he was doing trackway experiments with. I
will have to ask him more about what happened to the trackways in such
currents. It seems to me that track preservation requires relatively
rapid burial after some sort of solidification process that would be
most easily achieved by a period of subarial exposure. I'm not sure
if Brand would agree with this idea, but I will most certainly ask him
his thoughts about it next time I talk to him.
> >> Obviously, animals going down the leeward side of a dune will cause
> >> avalanching. I also recall that McKee observed long "skid mark" type
> >> structures in the Coconino, which were quite mysterious, until the
> >> notion that these were evidences of downward travel on the dunes. I
> >> will see if I can find a reference for this.
> >
> >Such avalanching and skid marks were not observed by Brand when he
> >induced the lizards and salamanders in his study to walk down hill.
> >You can go and see the pictures at the listed link. They are very
> >clear trackways and were not covered up by avalanches of dry sand at
> >the same angle as that found on the "leeward" side or any side of the
> >Coconino sandstone dunes.
>
> There is no evidence from his article or his pictures that Brand
> accurately reproduced the necessary conditions for his experiments
> to actually compare these to real dunes. What, for example, was the
> wind speed during his experiments? Where his laboratory dunes made
> by wind deposition of the sand? Remember that the process of deposition
> of a dune involves saltation followed by avalanching onto the leeward
> side of the dune.
Again, what does the process of dune formation have to do with
trackway production or preservation? Brand did demonstrate the
production of very distinct downhill trackways (25 degrees) on dry and
damp sand. They were not covered up by avalanching sand. They were
well preserved. If you know of some sort of experiment or observation
that counters this result, then present it. Until then, I have no
idea what relevance there is to the statement that Brand did not do
his experiments on actual desert sand dunes.
> >One would think that these creatures would
> >not only travel down the leeward side of sand dunes but would travel
> >down all sides of sand dunes. Why are there not very many trackways
> >traveling down those places where the trackways are almost always
> >traveling upwards? I find this observation most interesting and
> >compelling.
>
> I would invite you to go climb on some sand dunes sometime. You will
> find that it is way easier to go up the windward side of a dune and
> to go down the lee ward side, than vice versa.
I have climbed on sand dunes quite a lot and have seen desert
creatures doing the same - in all directions. They do not climb up
the windward side of dunes and go down the leeward side of dunes in
any sort of exclusive way such as is found in the Coconino Sandstone
dunes. I find this most fascinating.
> Basically, the one-way travel kills the aqueous explanation. The
> alleged salamanders in Brand's world can swim. Why can't they swim in
> from any direction and start walking on the dune? Remember, in Brand's
> world there is also no water currents to prevent them from doing this.
What if they were trying to escape a rising water level? Why would
they then go swimming and or walking downhill? The same is true of
the tracks were made on damp sand by creatures trying to get away from
a rising water level. Why would they head toward that which they are
trying to get away from?
> >Also, if these dunes represent coastal dunes as you
> >suggest, why don't the trackways change as they progress uphill away
> >from the damper sand closer to the water's edge as they did in Brand's
> >experiments - and as happens when I am walking on the sand at the
> >beach?
>
> The quadrupeds weren't walking on a beach. That would be a tidal flat,
> which as discussed above, is inconsistent with your tidal imaginings.
> The quadrupeds were climbing up coastal dunes, that were likely wetted
> by the mists, fogs, and rains that even desert coasts occasionally
> are subject to.
Again, it is interesting that such uniform wetting mechanisms would
result in the preservation of only uphill trackways, trackways with
such distinct starts and stops, and sideways walking . . .
> >> However, it is not
> >> inconceivable that Brand has gotten his shallow standing water results
> >> correct, and that the tracks were preserved on a tidal flat.
Which is it? - a "tidal flat" or coastal desert dunes?
> >You of course come back with the preservation of rain
> >imprints and the fine fracturing of the sand (which also requires
> >dampness or more firm sand to be preserved). Certainly these
> >features, taken together, support a very wet environment with
> >intermittent tidal activity and much underwater formation over a very
> >large area.
>
> Sorry, Sean, but raindrop prints support the idea of a very dry environment
> punctuated with only occassional rains. It rains even in the desert.
How are you going to preserve a rain imprint on perfectly dry, loose,
desert sand? I can see preserving a raindrop imprint on damp sand,
but not "very dry" sand.
> The very existence of the sand dunes in the first place indicate
> thousands of years of interaction of the atmosphere with the earth's
> surface.
I'm not so sure that this statement is so self-evident from the
evidence you have presented thus far.
> >Consider also that the contact zones between those layers below and
> >those layers above the Coconino sandstone are very flat. The layers
> >above the uppermost Kaibab layer (such as those found fairly close in
> >formations like Red Butte) seem to have been eroded away rather
> >flatly. How are such flat formations and such flat erosion happen
> >over eons of time? What about all the layers in-between formations
> >found in monument valley? There are all the horizontal layers in
> >those monuments which were surely connected to each other once upon a
> >time. How did eons of erosion take away portions of these layers and
> >leave these monuments standing untouched?
>
> Sorry, Sean, but obviously you are not aware that the effect of erosion
> is to reduce the average elevation of a land surface. Material is
> removed from higher elevations and deposited on lower elevations.
Then what happened to the layers that were once above the Grand
Canyon? They were evidently eroded away quite flatly. Also,
deposition is not generally so flat as we see in the geologic
layering. How did these layers get to be so flat and crisp at their
contact zones? Remember that the top of each layer must once have
formed the sea floor or a land surface before being covered up by the
next layer. Of course, as the surface layer, one would think that such
a surface would become significantly changed by the forces of erosion
over relatively short periods of time. The very next tide or rainstorm
will begin working upon what came before, making surfaces uneven in
various patterns common to the way erosional and depositional forces
act today. Channels and gullies will begin to form. Soon, parts or
sections of various layers will be completely removed. Also, living
creatures that burrow into the sediment, excavating it to build
dwelling places or to feed, will mix up the neat layering lines of the
original layers.
For example, consider the layers found in the Grand Canyon again. Note
that the entire Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras (the most recent ones) are
completely missing - eroded away as flatly as a pancake from the top
of Arizona and yet it is known that these layers were in fact once
there. Consider Red Butte, a nearby butte that is very close to the
Grand Canyon and yet contains layers that were once covering the
topmost layers of the Grand Canyon and much of Arizona. How where
these layers eroded away so neatly from the rest of Arizona and over
the Grand Canyon over an extended course of time and yet Red Butte
remains - apparently so resistant to such powerful erosive forces? The
same question can be asked about the formations found in places like
Monument Valley and Beartooth Butte.
This erosion problem is especially interesting in light of the various
"paraconformities" or missing layers found throughout the geologic
column, to include those found exposed in places like the Grand
Canyon. The top layers of the Grand Canyon are classified as part of
the Permian age (about 250 million years old). The usual expectation
of geologists would call for the Pennsylvanian layer to be below that,
but there simply is no Pennsylvanian layer. Millions of years of
sedimentary time are completely missing with the next layer down, the
top of the Redstone Limestone layer (part of the Mississippian age
dated at between 345 to 325 million years old), still as flat as a
pancake with no evidence of erosion at all as a mechanism to remove
the Pennsylvanian layers. Below the "Redwall" should come the
Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician layers (totaling over 150 million
years of time), but they too are completely missing except for a few
small "lenses" of Devonian. Instead, the Redwall is found resting
directly and flatly on the Muav Limestone - which contains many
trilobites and other Cambrian fossils. What is even more interesting
is that on the north side of the Grand Canyon there can be found
several alternating layers of Cambrian Muav neatly and very flatly
interspersed between layers of Mississippian Redstone! How can this
interbedding of two widely separated periods of sedimentary rock be
easily explained by popular geologists who think that these periods
really did exist millions of years apart in time?
Then, there is the Deccan Plateau in India, which is made up of a
thick pile of basalt lava flows. These basalts are thought to have
erupted throughout a period of several million years. Interestingly
enough, it is well recognized that each individual lava flow must have
formed very quickly because they spread out over very large distances
(some can be traced over 100 miles) before they had time to cool. Each
flow probably formed in just a few days, so the bulk of the geological
time is thought to have passed between each eruption. This creates a
problem since evidence for long time gaps between the flows is
lacking. The tops of the flows are strikingly flat, implying that
there was no time for erosion to take place between eruptions. For
instance, the village of Shyampura is built on top of one of the lava
flows which forms a flat plateau nearly three miles long and more than
a mile wide. The level does not vary more than 50 feet over the whole
area. If thousands of years passed between each eruption, then why had
the lavas not been eroded into the conical hills that modern day
erosion is producing in that region?
> As
> to butte type formations, the material in the tops of the buttes are
> more resistant to erosion than the parts that were eroded away. This
> is all GE101 stuff, Sean. You are merely revealing your amateurishness
> with these comments.
Oh really? Explain to me then how Red Butte or Beartooth Butte could
have resisted erosion over the course of the millions of years of time
that it took to erode away all of the very same layers around them for
hundreds and thousands of square miles in such a flat way? I mean
really, it still rains on this buttes, right? The wind still blows
around on these buttes, right? It is estimated that continental
erosion occurs at about 5 to 10cm/thousand years. How old are these
buttes? How old are the monuments in Monument Valley supposed to be?
Again, how does one remove the very same material, the very same
layers from between the monuments at monument valley over the course
of very long periods of time without and leave such monuments behind
pretty much untouched? Does that really make sense to you? Is this
really what is taught in GE101 because it doesn't seem to make very
good sense to me.
> >> Indeed, we see in the Coconino
> >> a structure composed of thousands of square miles of really well sorted
> >> sand. We don't have to reach for a fantasy explanation. We have
> >> several examples of sand seas in our world today.
> >
> >With tracks and other features matching the unique features found in
> >the Coconino sandstone?
>
> Yes. Actually.
Where? Where do you have *preserved* trackways in modern environments
similar to those preserved in the Coconino Sandstone?
> >> What is also for sure is that these features preserve best when they
> >> dry out prior to burial. You still haven't accounted for raindrop impressions
> >> and other obvious dry sand features.
> >
> >Shortly spaced tidal actions can explain both of these features.
>
> Nope. Raindrop impressions have to be made on completely dry material.
Not at all. Have you ever tried to make raindrop marks on dry sand?
It doesn't look like the raindrop circles preserved in the Coconino
Sandstone. It looks like the sand was wet/damp when the rain hit it.
Anyway, this is all I have time for today. It's been most
interesting. Thanks again for your time and thoughts.
> John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
KelvynT
The answer to all of the above is 'fossilisation is a very unusual
event' Can't you understand that? It's incredibly rare for anything to
be fossilised - it's just the Law of Very Big Numbers and Very Long
Periods of Time that means we see any fossils at all.
Kelvyn
Stuart
> John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.031215...@wenzel.Mines.EDU>...
>
> <snip>
> > The author deals only with a part of the phenomenon in this case. He
> > cannot claim that he has shown that the origin of the Coconino is anything
> > but the standard coastal desert scenario, simply because he has not
> > dealt with the other dry sand features (rain drop prints, etc.) or
> > the other tracks (running quadruped, spider like tracks, millipede-like
> > tracks). Nor has he shown that his underwater tracks (in the presence
> > of current) are actually preserved. (Effectively he preserves them by
> > drying as part of his experimental method.)
>
> Agreed. Some sort of exposure of the sand dunes to open air does seem
> to me to be required in order for the tracks and other features to be
> preserved and even formed in certain cases.
In otherwords, it wasn't formed as a result of a global deluge.
<snip>
Stuart
R. Dunno
Nonsense. Once there is enough water to cover the continents, you
get an enormous tidal bulge making the earth egg shaped. The bulge
will track the moon, draining the back side of the earth leaving it
exposed and dry.
-
fbzrobql uryc zr cyrnfr, V arrq Ybxv cbvagf
Stuart
LoL, Now that is funny!
Stuart
John Stockwell
>
>>John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.031215...@wenzel.Mines.EDU>...
>
>to me to be required in order for the tracks and other features to be
>preserved and even formed in certain cases. I am not so much arguing
>for the idea that all or any of the features must have been formed
>under water as I am for the idea that the classic view that a dry
>desert-like environment was not required to produce these tracks over
>millions of years of time. There are many features of these dunes
>that still seem to me as uniquely different from what would be
>expected by a normal desert-like or even coastal desert-like
>environment produced over millions of years of time.
I will agree that we do not know everything about tracks on dunes,
but as far as the Permian sand deposits we have been discussing,
you can't claim that you have an anomaly unless
you know enough about the phenomena to make reasonable predictions.
At best, what we are questioning is our knowledge of exactly how tracks
are made and preserved. To decide that such questions cast doubt on
the basic notion that the Permian sand seas are eolian is not a reasonable
next step from that position.
Since you have decided to go into rapid-fire creationist-question asking
mode, I am going to try to boil this down to as few a topics as possible.
Regarding many of those observations:
1) For example the claim that the tracks are
all climbing upward on dunes. Yet some of th tracks are in interdune flats.
In that situtation shallow standing water after a rainstorm may be the
best explanation. Brand's experiments were conducted in 10cm deep water,
also, in the case of lizards tested, these animals were not completely
submerged. As to his salamanders and newts, these animals are
considerably smaller than the organism that made many of the quadruped
tracks in the Coconino.
Lockley and Hunt 1995 point out that it is neither true that all
of the trails go up the dunes in the Coconino, nor that foot orientation
in these tracks may be in an uphill direction, when the trail is
traveling transverse to the dune. I would point to a quote from
Lockley and Hunt quoted by Glen Morton at:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199801/0043.html
Morton's quote of Lockley and Hunt:
"Trackways found in fossil sand dune deposits have generated
much interest over the years. One of the most common
observations is that the tracks often have bulges or sand
crescents on one side, thereby proving that they were made [p.
42]on inclined surfaces. Typically these sand crescents--also
sometimes referred to as impact rims--are situated behind the
rear or 'heel' of footprints, showing that the animals were
progressing upslope. It seems that this type of upslope trackway
is the most common and usually the best preserved. Even so,
trackways that indicate downslope progression are also known, as
are a number that show sideways or oblique movment across dune
faces. These sideways or transverse trackways are especially
interesting because the tracks often point upslope while the
trackway crosses the slop horizontally or obliquely. There is,
however a modern analog. We have observed fresh trackways of
lizards with tail drag marks, that run transversely across dune
faces, leaving individual tracks that point uphill." Lockley and Hunt,
Dinosaur Tracks, (New York:Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 41-42
The issue is more of track preservation than of tracks that were
made. The explanation that Brand rejects (and consequently studies only
cursively) involved letting his wet sand stand overnight, most likely
accounts for the state of preservation of some of the tracks.
2) >For example, why are there no burrows or skeletal preservation of the
>animals that made the tracks?
As to the lack of skeletal fossils, this is obvious. You are forgetting
the main characteristic of the Coconino (and much of the corresponding
rock units seen throughout the western US) is that much of it is a
redbed unit, indicating that the environment of deposition was primarily
oxidizing. Redbed rock units tend not to be the greatest producers of
fossils in part for this reason, but also due to the
postdepositional conditions.
There are some exceptions, such as excellent fossil preservation seen in
Cretaceous aged deposits in the Gobi desert. In this case, there does
not seem to have been much wetting of the formation
after deposition. The formations are largely still unconsolidated,
indicating that there was little in the way of mineralized waters impregnating
the formations with a cementing material.
Another redbed fossil preserving unit is the Jurassic aged Morrison formation.
In this case, silicious groundwaters seem to be the best explanation of
the preservation. This mode of preservation is also apparent in the
Triassic aged Petrified forrest.
Now, the Coconino, Lyons, etc. are hard units, cemented with calcium
carbonate. Rather than replacing any skeletal remains, it seems likely
that these waters disolved them while the rock unit was still in an
unconsolidated state.
I do believe that some burrows have been seen in the Coconino.
3) > Why are there no fossilized plant
>materials? Why is there so little evidence of bioterbation?
It's a desert Sean. There isn't much organic there to start with.
4)
>> A sand dune is an organized structure that is built up by the sorting
>> and deposition of sand grains through a process of grain saltation.
>> A pile of sand is not a sand dune. If you want to actually study what happens
>> on a sand dune in a laboratory setting, then you have to replicate this
>> organization. It does not appear that Brand has done this in his 1996
>> paper.
>
>You do not need to replicate dune organization in order to accurately
>observe how footprints in sand are formed and preserved. The dune
>organizational features are interesting, but I don't think you are
>suggesting that these features are an integral part of trackway
>formation and/or preservation - are you?
The consistency of the substrate (which is what Brand was studying) of
a dune is different than for a random pile of sand. The sand is laminated,
and if there are different degrees of clays present, this would be of
interest, particularly since different conditions of humidity existed
over a period of a few days. If there is a particular sequence of
wet-dry-clay-sand that is in common in those track forming events, then
that would be important to know.
>> The problem is that it is possible to change the angle of repose of sand
>> by the presence or absence of organic materials, the grain size distribution,
>> and the water content. Crossbedding angle alone cannot do much for
>> us to decide either way. The 25 degree average is consistent with coastal
>> dunes. It is similar to the issue of grain frosting. Now, if the average
>> crossbedding were much lower, such as 10 degrees, that would be something
>> that would tend to support an underwater origin.
>
>Agreed, except if the underwater origin was produced by very deep
>water by heavy currents, which can produce dunes with an average slope
>angle of 25 degrees. The grain frosting is another issue which is no
>longer thought to be only found in dry desert-like dunes, but can be
>produced via underwater chemical processes during the cementing of
>sand grains.
The problem for you now is that you have to make dunes under deep water,
under high speeds, then have the water level drop to dry them out so
you can make your tracks, but then you have have them be deep again so
you can deposit more dunes. Now, you have to do this all without killing
off your newts, salamanders, spider, scorpions, and millipedes.
You have to keep repeating this process, so you can capture all of the
raindrop prints. You have be able to make mudcracks (which in our world
today, may take weeks to form.) Then, you have to find some way to make
water created ripples that all have the period/height ratio of wind
ripples, and not create a single set of water wave ripples.
And you have to do all of this really fast, because you are only half way
through depositing the geologic column.
>> Actually, you *do* have a problem, because, if there were "tidal action"
>> you would have a tidal flat type environment, and that is not apparent
>> in the Coconino. (The bedding would be nearer to flat, 0-3 degrees.)
>> So, no tidal action. That gets us back to sand dunes that get rained
>> on occassionally.
>
>Not necessarily. If the dunes were built via intermittent
>tsunami-like flooding events. The time between these huge waves of
>high-current flooding would most likely leave the sediments exposed to
>the air for certain relatively short periods of time.
Ok, so now you have to have repeating tsunamis. It just gets better.
So, now you have to go from a giant sandwave friendly environment to
a air exposed, drying environment, and track-preserving small organism
friendly environment, back and forth again, so that you can preserve
the trace fossils that occur throughout these rock units. You have
to find a way to dry out mud in interdune regions to make mudcracks, and
preserve raindrop prints.
But then you have to go back to the deepwater environment to continue to
build up the dunes. And then do it again, and again and again....
Deep water sandwaves and trace fossils are mutually
exclusive.
Now, compare this to the mainstream explanation. Saharan sand sea, with
the coast somewhwere near the present-day Grand Canyon area. Dunes
are well developed, you have the rainstorm followed by sandstorm pattern
that allows tracks to be preserved. A lot less ad hocness and greater
consistency with everything else we know about geology.
6)
>
>> Your opinion is not worth the mud on the average geologists' shoe.
>
>Hmmmm . . . then why are you talking to me? If my opinions are so
>insignificant and so obviously so, then why do you stoop so low to
>help such a no account?
Hey. I talk to Pagano, too. How much are his opinions worth?
>
>> As to Brand's, he has not been able to turn that opinion into the necessary
>> science that would convince other (non-floodite) scientists of his view.
>
>Not yet. He does need to do more work on his theory. However, his
>work has already caused many to take some pause as they reconsider
>standard interprestations of many geologic formations (not just the
>Coconino Sandstone formations, but many others as well - such as those
>that contain many large exquisitely preserved whale fossils).
Basically the only impact that Brand has made is to point out
damp sand/standing water as a possibility for the Coconino tracks.
As published, Brand's work is useful. Even his Origins article really
is closer to mainstream science in that he doesn't actually present anything
that is outrageous. It is when you try to read in a great flood connection
to his paper that you go off the deep end.
7)
>>
>> Yep. Temperature control, or strong wind blowing. (Remember that the sand
>> they are walking on has been dampened.)
>
>Exactly. Why would they walk sideways for temperature control on damp
>non-hot sand?
It is not necessary to say that the organisms were sideways walking if
their feet point upslope when they cross the dune in a transverse way.
However, it is also possible that it is the sun that they are angling
with respect to and not hot sand. However, the fact that we both agree
that we have both seen lizards walk sideways indicates that this isn't
that big of an issue.
>Also, the
>wind hypothesis here would seem to require quite a strong wind indeed,
>sometimes picking the little boogers up off the ground for long
>stretches before putting them down again. Now that's quite a wind.
>Have you ever seen wind strong enough to pick a lizard off the ground?
>That is like a gale-force wind!
I am not suggesting that the lizards were picked up by the wind. If the
wind is blowing and there is sand in it, the animal may respond to this
by walking sideways.
As to missing versus preserved tracks, this is an issue of the preservation
of tracks.
>
>> >or why their tracks would suddenly
>> >vanish and then reappear several meters later - or not at all?
>>
>> You have line of tracks, with varying conditions of dampness/composition.
>> Some tracks either are not preserved in the first place, or they are
>> obliterated by wind blowing them away. (Winds are not locally the same
>> strength along a sand dune.)
>
>Hmmmm . . . interesting. So the tracks just disappear suddenly
>because of a sudden change in preservation and/or sand composition?
>Where is the evidence of wind disturbance of the surface where a
>trackway suddenly disappears?
>
> Wouldn't one expect some sort of
>physical evidence to support this hypothesis? Also, if dew or some
>other general wetting mechanism wets the sand, how does such a general
>process work in such a patchy way? I'm sorry, but I am having
>difficulty imagining how such a process might work so as to yield such
>sudden and neat trackway stops and starts.
This is pretty inane. First of all, there is the issue of making tracks
and then there is the issue of preserving tracks. Obviously, not all
tracks that are made get preserved because they get blown away. So,
one more time slowly. If you see an interrupted line of tracks, it is
not because the organism left the ground, it is because either the tracks
were not made in the first place, or they were made and not uniformly
preserved.
>> How long will a track be preserved in a water current? He doesn't answer
>> that question, you don't even want to ask it.
>
>Sure I do. This is a great question. I will certainly ask Brand this
>question next time I talk to him. I do not have the references
>actually with me right now, but I do remember reading a description of
>some of his experiments that did include the actual production of a
>current in the tank that he was doing trackway experiments with. I
>will have to ask him more about what happened to the trackways in such
>currents. It seems to me that track preservation requires relatively
>rapid burial after some sort of solidification process that would be
>most easily achieved by a period of subarial exposure. I'm not sure
>if Brand would agree with this idea, but I will most certainly ask him
>his thoughts about it next time I talk to him.
Basically if you believe that the tracks were preserved owing to sediment
in water flowing over them, you have a big problem. You are going to
try to fill a track that is made with wet sand in with a slurry of wet sand.
All you are going to do is wash the track away.
Preservation requires some drying out. The best explanation is that *dry* sand
blew over the tracks after they were made. Rainstorm followed by sandstorm
perhaps?
8)
>Again, what does the process of dune formation have to do with
>trackway production or preservation? Brand did demonstrate the
>production of very distinct downhill trackways (25 degrees) on dry and
>damp sand. They were not covered up by avalanching sand.
>They were
>well preserved. If you know of some sort of experiment or observation
>that counters this result, then present it. Until then, I have no
>idea what relevance there is to the statement that Brand did not do
>his experiments on actual desert sand dunes.
Sorry, but Brand has not addressed the issue of track preservation at
all. He has merely been making tracks under highly controlled conditions.
A dune is continuously forming by sand being transported from
the windward side up and over the leeward side. That process inherently
causes avalanching. The issue is preservation of the tracks after they
are made, which is something that Brand did not write about.
>> I would invite you to go climb on some sand dunes sometime. You will
>> find that it is way easier to go up the windward side of a dune and
>> to go down the lee ward side, than vice versa.
>
>I have climbed on sand dunes quite a lot and have seen desert
>creatures doing the same - in all directions. They do not climb up
>the windward side of dunes and go down the leeward side of dunes in
>any sort of exclusive way such as is found in the Coconino Sandstone
>dunes. I find this most fascinating.
Of all those tracks, will any of them be preserved in the normal course
of a day? No. The question of seeing the tracks formed and preserved
immediately after a rain is the one that is of interest.
>> Sorry, Sean, but raindrop prints support the idea of a very dry environment
>> punctuated with only occassional rains. It rains even in the desert.
>
>How are you going to preserve a rain imprint on perfectly dry, loose,
>desert sand? I can see preserving a raindrop imprint on damp sand,
>but not "very dry" sand.
Drops impinging on dry sand make little craters. I'm talking powder dry
here. Now, as you say the surface of the sand is wetted, but not rained
on so heavily as to oblitterate the impressions. Then dry sand is
blown over--- rainstorm followed by sand storm. Or, if you like, the sand
is damp and then rained on, but not rained on so much as to wash the
prints away. Then dry sand is blown over the top preserving the impressions.
9) Erosion
>> Sorry, Sean, but obviously you are not aware that the effect of erosion
>> is to reduce the average elevation of a land surface. Material is
>> removed from higher elevations and deposited on lower elevations.
>
>Then what happened to the layers that were once above the Grand
>Canyon? They were evidently eroded away quite flatly. Also,
>deposition is not generally so flat as we see in the geologic
>layering.
The resistant layers that compose the uppermost rock units are flat,
and they are what remains. The Grand Canyon, itself is part of the
erosional surface, so the erosional surface is not really flat.
> How did these layers get to be so flat and crisp at their
>contact zones? Remember that the top of each layer must once have
>formed the sea floor or a land surface before being covered up by the
>next layer. Of course, as the surface layer, one would think that such
>a surface would become significantly changed by the forces of erosion
>over relatively short periods of time.
>
>The very next tide or rainstorm
>will begin working upon what came before, making surfaces uneven in
>various patterns common to the way erosional and depositional forces
>act today. Channels and gullies will begin to form. Soon, parts or
>sections of various layers will be completely removed. Also, living
>creatures that burrow into the sediment, excavating it to build
>dwelling places or to feed, will mix up the neat layering lines of the
>original layers.
The general tendency of erosion is to flatten topography by first reducing
the average elevation of an area, and eventually reducing the average itself
to some global mean level, which near the sea shore will be sea level.
Where depressions or basins exist, the material eroded from higher
elevations, tends to be transported to these low elevations filling them up.
Hills erode, basins fill up. The land surface tends to an average.
Indeed, a gully can only exist if there is a lower elevation for it to
flow into.
>
>For example, consider the layers found in the Grand Canyon again. Note
>that the entire Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras (the most recent ones) are
>completely missing - eroded away as flatly as a pancake from the top
>of Arizona and yet it is known that these layers were in fact once
>there.
Yes, and what sort of environment was it? Probably a tidal flat or near
shore environment. As the erosion progresses the shore moves inland.
This erosion can be accompanied by uplift, with erosion continuing to
keep the land surface level at sea level. If subsidence occurs then shallow
water deposition is now possible.
>Consider Red Butte, a nearby butte that is very close to the
>Grand Canyon and yet contains layers that were once covering the
>topmost layers of the Grand Canyon and much of Arizona. How where
>these layers eroded away so neatly from the rest of Arizona and over
>the Grand Canyon over an extended course of time and yet Red Butte
>remains - apparently so resistant to such powerful erosive forces?
At the top of every mesa is some resistant layer of material. You
are watching a frame of the erosion in the middle of the movie, so
to speak. Red Butte is being eroded away as you watch it, and in a
few tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, it will be gone to.
The soft stuff underneath goes until the land level is flattened, or
goes to the next resistant layer.
Again, erosion tends to be a flattening process.
> The
>same question can be asked about the formations found in places like
>Monument Valley and Beartooth Butte.
>
>This erosion problem is especially interesting in light of the various
>"paraconformities" or missing layers found throughout the geologic
>column, to include those found exposed in places like the Grand
>Canyon. The top layers of the Grand Canyon are classified as part of
>the Permian age (about 250 million years old). The usual expectation
>of geologists would call for the Pennsylvanian layer to be below that,
>but there simply is no Pennsylvanian layer. Millions of years of
>sedimentary time are completely missing with the next layer down, the
>top of the Redstone Limestone layer (part of the Mississippian age
>dated at between 345 to 325 million years old), still as flat as a
>pancake with no evidence of erosion at all as a mechanism to remove
>the Pennsylvanian layers.
No. There is no requirement that all geologic ages be represented in
a sequence. Indeed, look around you in the area where you live. There
are hills (erosional) and depressions (depositional), and tidal flats
and beaches where erosion may equal deposition, and not much happens.
Or if there is erosion at a beach, then the shore simply moves closer
inland.
The flattness here indicates that the erosion was in its extreme stage.
10)
>Below the "Redwall" should come the
>Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician layers (totaling over 150 million
>years of time), but they too are completely missing except for a few
>small "lenses" of Devonian.
>Instead, the Redwall is found resting
>directly and flatly on the Muav Limestone - which contains many
>trilobites and other Cambrian fossils.
This is not an issue. The area was uplifted, and eroded down to the
Cambrian, then there was subsidence, and deposition began again in
the Mississipian. The Muave is eroded flat, because it was at or near
sea level. The event is called the Antler orogeny which occurred from
the Devonian through the Mississippian. If there are lenses of the
Devonian, then this is likely what is left of karsting on a sea shore.
This is the sort of thing that you see where thick limestone sequences
are eroded on a coast line. Usually you will see a collection of
mushroom shaped islands offshore, each in varying stages of being eroded
away.
> What is even more interesting
>is that on the north side of the Grand Canyon there can be found
>several alternating layers of Cambrian Muav neatly and very flatly
>interspersed between layers of Mississippian Redstone! How can this
>interbedding of two widely separated periods of sedimentary rock be
>easily explained by popular geologists who think that these periods
>really did exist millions of years apart in time?
There is karsting of the Redwall limestone (as seen in Yucatan today)
and there is Suprise canyon (also Mississippian) filling the valleys
and caves in this karsting. The Supai group rests unconformably
on top of these.
There is some folding in the area. Perhaps
you are referring to an erosional surface across the top of an anticline
along the Tanner trail. This is discussed on p 271 of Bues and Morales.
The erosion across the top of an anticline produces a young-old-young
pattern, which would be what you are misinterpreting as being
"interspersing".
If you have some other reference, I would be interested in seeing it.
11) Deccan Traps (which incidentally would still be molten if the
earth were only a few thousand years old, as would the Siberian Traps)
>
>Then, there is the Deccan Plateau in India, which is made up of a
>thick pile of basalt lava flows. These basalts are thought to have
>erupted throughout a period of several million years. Interestingly
>enough, it is well recognized that each individual lava flow must have
>formed very quickly because they spread out over very large distances
>(some can be traced over 100 miles) before they had time to cool. Each
>flow probably formed in just a few days, ...
..or weeks, or months.
>...so the bulk of the geological
>time is thought to have passed between each eruption.
>
>This creates a
>problem since evidence for long time gaps between the flows is
>lacking.
Eroded away perhaps? Basalt is much more resistant to weathering
particularly if the climate is relatively dry, than sediments.
(Ironically, the minerals that make up the basalt are some of the least
resistant to chemical weathering, so when the basalt erodes away, there
isn't much left to be found.)
>The tops of the flows are strikingly flat, implying that
>there was no time for erosion to take place between eruptions.
So, if there was no erosion, it may be because the climate was dry
or that there was deposition on top of the lava flow that protected it.
>For
>instance, the village of Shyampura is built on top of one of the lava
>flows which forms a flat plateau nearly three miles long and more than
>a mile wide. The level does not vary more than 50 feet over the whole
>area. If thousands of years passed between each eruption, then why had
>the lavas not been eroded into the conical hills that modern day
>erosion is producing in that region?
What was deposited on top of the lava? Also, how many lava layers are missing
that are completely eroded away?
There are two mesas (called North and South Table Mountain) next to
the town of Golden, Colorado, where I work.
There are several layers of latite (a basalt-like rock) that cap these
mesas. Interestingly, below the bottom most layer of basalt, there is a
layer of cobbles and pebbles composed of a similar latite to others
that lie above. This is layer of eroded material is all that remains
of an earlier lava flow that has eroded almost completely away.
12)
>> As
>> to butte type formations, the material in the tops of the buttes are
>> more resistant to erosion than the parts that were eroded away. This
>> is all GE101 stuff, Sean. You are merely revealing your amateurishness
>> with these comments.
>
>Oh really? Explain to me then how Red Butte or Beartooth Butte could
>have resisted erosion over the course of the millions of years of time
>that it took to erode away all of the very same layers around them for
>hundreds and thousands of square miles in such a flat way? I mean
>really, it still rains on this buttes, right? The wind still blows
>around on these buttes, right? It is estimated that continental
>erosion occurs at about 5 to 10cm/thousand years.
No doubt the average rate of erosion is something like this. You will
have to tell the folks in California whose houses are slipping off into the
Pacific that they need not worry, because the average rate of erosion
is only 5 to 10 cm/thousand years.
Remember also that the tops of those buttes were buried in thousands
of feet of sediment
and all of this that was near or below sea level when it was deposited.
So, you have more geology to put into your head. All this stuff was
uplifted during the Pliocene (5.5mya), and all of the current topography dates
from just a few million years ago. The specific buttes were larger in
the past, of course.
>How old are these
>buttes? How old are the monuments in Monument Valley supposed to be?
>Again, how does one remove the very same material, the very same
>layers from between the monuments at monument valley over the course
>of very long periods of time without and leave such monuments behind
>pretty much untouched? Does that really make sense to you? Is this
>really what is taught in GE101 because it doesn't seem to make very
>good sense to me.
It's not the same material. Layer thickness varies throughout a formation.
Layer hardness and competence also varies. Once the protective layer is
breached, then the softer, less consolidated material goes pretty fast.
This leaves buttes and mesas. Eventually those are gone too, and what
is left is a flatter overall surface.
Incidentally, I am going on break so this is the last message I will
post this year. I will be back sometime early in January. Have a good
holiday.
Refs:
Lockley and Hunt, 1995, Dinosaur Tracks, Columbia University Press.
Bues, S.S. and M. Morales, editors, 1990, Grand Canyon Geology.
Oxford University Press.
>Sean
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
So you have a titanically violent, yet gentle catastrophic event that
occurs over a short time, but which is punctuated by thousands of years
of quiescent turmoil.
-John Stockwell to Zoe Althrop regarding her view of Flood geology.
KelvynT
>
>11) Deccan Traps (which incidentally would still be molten if the
>earth were only a few thousand years old, as would the Siberian Traps)
I'd never thought of that one...lovely..
Kelvyn
Sean Pitman
>
> >11) Deccan Traps (which incidentally would still be molten if the
> >earth were only a few thousand years old, as would the Siberian Traps)
>
> I'd never thought of that one...lovely..
>
> Kelvyn
It is common for 'ghost' uniformitarian time intervals, and much
greater ones than those discussed above, to be inserted into
vertically (and also horizontally) contiguous lava flows. For example,
the Plio-Pliestocene Rampart beds of California (USA) yielded isotopic
dates ranging from 1.4 Ma to 2.56 Ma, but this range of dates is
admittedly difficult to accept because of the absence of deep erosion
or soil horizons between superjacent lava flows. As another example,
the Lincoln Porphyry of Colorado (USA), was originally mapped as a
single unit because of the geographic proximity of the outcrops and
the mineralogical and chemical similarity of the igneous body
throughout its extent. It is therefore incongruous to find that parts
of the Lincoln Porphyry are 29 million years apart in time, according
to isotopic dating. As a final example, consider the Garrawilla Lavas
of New South Wales, Australia. These are bracketed between Upper
Triassic and Jurassic sedimentary rock. Yet these lavas, over a large
horizontal scale, grade imperceptibly into lavas which overlie Lower
Tertiary sedimentary rock. Consequently, the latter lavas are
considered younger, on an ad hoc basis. Otherwise, geologists would
have to acknowledge that there is actually only one set of lava flows,
and that everything between Jurassic and Early Tertiary is
contemporaneous.
As far as the "the lava would still be molten if they were formed
within only a few thousand years before present" argument, consider
the evidence that many of these formations were formed in the presence
of a lot of water or even underwater. For example, consider the
Columbia River basalts. Throughout these basalts are found "pillow
lava" and palagonite formations - especially near the periphery of the
lava flows. In most of the outcrops, pillow structures cover only a
few square meters of the outcrop. However, there are a few outcrops
where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds of meters of
horizontal outcrop consist entirely of interfingered pillow
structures. Palagonite, evidenced by a greenish-yellow reaction
product of hot lava and water, is found throughout.
Although pillow lavas clearly indicate underwater deposition,
certainly lavas can be extruded subaqeously without producing pillow
structures. The potential to form pillow lava decreases as the volume
of extruded lava increases. Thus, the effective contact area between
lava and water (where pillow lavas can potentially form) becomes
proportionately smaller as the volume of lava extruded becomes larger.
So also, for similar reasons, the probability becomes smaller that a
subsequently-formed erosional surface (outcrop) will happen to expose
pillow structures. There are a variety of additional evidences, which
indicate that most, if not all, of the Columbia River basalts were
extruded underwater. These include marine fossils (such as sponge
spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) that are found between lava
flows, and numerous areas of well-rounded, exotic quartzite gravel,
cobbles, and boulders locally interbedded with the flows (but mostly
lying above the basalt). The quartzite clasts, some of which lie
1,000m above sea level (ASL) upon lava anticlines and 2,500m ASL on
ridges of the Wallowa Mountains, north-east Oregon, indicate
high-energy transport over long distances. The indicators of much
subsequent erosion, such as smoothly eroded lava anticlines in the
Yakima fold belt, and water gaps, are also consistent with a submarine
origin for the basalt flows.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v16n1_columbia.asp
Harlequin
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v16n1_colum
> bia.asp
This article gets devestating debunking at:
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000092.html
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000092-2.html
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
Creationist arguments are like orcs. They are wimpy and
easy to slay. But there just so many of them....
KelvynT
<Reposted due to server glitch (I think..)>
>KelvynT <takethisof...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<d4q9uvo75hbkp5tl2...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> >11) Deccan Traps (which incidentally would still be molten if the
>> >earth were only a few thousand years old, as would the Siberian Traps)
>>
>> I'd never thought of that one...lovely..
>>
>> Kelvyn
Amazing guys, Woodmorappe & Oard. A single summer's field trip and
they can reinterpret the history of the world. Armchair geology at its
best. Thanks of course to the basic groundwork by dozens of
'traditional' geologists.
>It is common for 'ghost' uniformitarian time intervals, and much
>greater ones than those discussed above, to be inserted into
>vertically (and also horizontally) contiguous lava flows. For example,
>the Plio-Pliestocene Rampart beds of California (USA) yielded isotopic
>dates ranging from 1.4 Ma to 2.56 Ma, but this range of dates is
>admittedly difficult to accept because of the absence of deep erosion
>or soil horizons between superjacent lava flows.
Why should there be deep weathering between flows? Do the figures -
the Columbia River basalts consist of around 300 flows over a period
of about 11 million years. That's one flow (average 580 cu. km) on
average every 36.000 years - not a long time for any 'deep erosion' or
even soil horizons to form, even if the lava had fully cooled
immediately. And in fact, 96% of the basalts are estimated to have
been erupted in a period of about 1.5my.
And the authors ignore the contemporaneous climate, a major factor in
the rate of weathering. The fastest rate of weathering measured on
volcanic rock is around 58m per million years (in Puerto rico, with an
annual rainfall of 4.2m!), the global average is around 6m/ma. So for
36,000 years the weathering might be expected to be maximum 2m,
average 20cm.
The source you cite admits that columnar jointing is typical of the CR
flows - this is indicative of slow cooling of a thick homogenous flow
(like the Giant's Causeway). It's not a feature of rapid cooling as
they describe - for one thing, the lava must have stopped flowing
first. They also ignore crystal structure, which is diagnostic of
cooling rate - if it had cooled as quickly as they suggest it would
probably be the world's biggest glass deposit. And I'm suree the heat
generated by the one-time eruption of 173,000cu. km of lava would have
boiled any flood dry.
Additionally, weathering rate of igneous rock is very low at temperate
latitudes For instance, glacial striations are still visible on
igneous rocks in many areas of the world. Even in the Columbia River
area. Oops.
Some of my information on weathering rates is was from this site.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sap.htm
>As another example,
>the Lincoln Porphyry of Colorado (USA), was originally mapped as a
>single unit because of the geographic proximity of the outcrops and
>the mineralogical and chemical similarity of the igneous body
>throughout its extent. It is therefore incongruous to find that parts
>of the Lincoln Porphyry are 29 million years apart in time, according
>to isotopic dating.
He gives no references to this except his own book.
>As a final example, consider the Garrawilla Lavas
>of New South Wales, Australia. These are bracketed between Upper
>Triassic and Jurassic sedimentary rock. Yet these lavas, over a large
>horizontal scale, grade imperceptibly into lavas which overlie Lower
>Tertiary sedimentary rock. Consequently, the latter lavas are
>considered younger, on an ad hoc basis. Otherwise, geologists would
>have to acknowledge that there is actually only one set of lava flows,
>and that everything between Jurassic and Early Tertiary is
>contemporaneous.
No references for this either apart from his own book.
>As far as the "the lava would still be molten if they were formed
>within only a few thousand years before present" argument, consider
>the evidence that many of these formations were formed in the presence
>of a lot of water or even underwater. For example, consider the
>Columbia River basalts. Throughout these basalts are found "pillow
>lava" and palagonite formations - especially near the periphery of the
>lava flows. In most of the outcrops, pillow structures cover only a
>few square meters of the outcrop. However, there are a few outcrops
>where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds of meters of
>horizontal outcrop consist entirely of interfingered pillow
>structures. Palagonite, evidenced by a greenish-yellow reaction
>product of hot lava and water, is found throughout.
Given the areal extent of the basalts, it's hardly surprising some
encountered bodies of water. But some isn't all.
>Although pillow lavas clearly indicate underwater deposition,
>certainly lavas can be extruded subaqeously without producing pillow
>structures. The potential to form pillow lava decreases as the volume
>of extruded lava increases. Thus, the effective contact area between
>lava and water (where pillow lavas can potentially form) becomes
>proportionately smaller as the volume of lava extruded becomes larger.
>So also, for similar reasons, the probability becomes smaller that a
>subsequently-formed erosional surface (outcrop) will happen to expose
>pillow structures. There are a variety of additional evidences, which
>indicate that most, if not all, of the Columbia River basalts were
>extruded underwater. These include marine fossils (such as sponge
>spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) that are found between lava
>flows, and numerous areas of well-rounded, exotic quartzite gravel,
>cobbles, and boulders locally interbedded with the flows (but mostly
>lying above the basalt). The quartzite clasts, some of which lie
>1,000m above sea level (ASL) upon lava anticlines and 2,500m ASL on
>ridges of the Wallowa Mountains, north-east Oregon, indicate
>high-energy transport over long distances. The indicators of much
>subsequent erosion, such as smoothly eroded lava anticlines in the
>Yakima fold belt, and water gaps, are also consistent with a submarine
>origin for the basalt flows.
More misinformation from Woodmorappe - according to this discussion
forum the references he cites discuss freshwater fossils, not marine.
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000092-2.html
Note this an unconfirmed source - I've never personally read the
papers they're talking about, but I'm sure someone here has.
(Barnett, J. and Fisk, L.H., Palynology and paleoecology of a
sedimentary interbed in the Yakima Basalt (Miocene), Palouse Falls,
Washington, (4):259-278, 1980. Northwest Science 54")
Kelvyn
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v16n1_columbia.asp
>
>Sean
>www.naturalselection.0catch.com
KelvynT
>KelvynT <takethisof...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<d4q9uvo75hbkp5tl2...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> >11) Deccan Traps (which incidentally would still be molten if the
>> >earth were only a few thousand years old, as would the Siberian Traps)
>>
>> I'd never thought of that one...lovely..
>>
>> Kelvyn
Amazing guys, Woodmorappe & Oard. A single summer's field trip and
they can reinterpret the history of the world. Armchair geology at its
best. Thanks of course to the basic groundwork by dozens of
'traditional' geologists.
>It is common for 'ghost' uniformitarian time intervals, and much
>greater ones than those discussed above, to be inserted into
>vertically (and also horizontally) contiguous lava flows. For example,
>the Plio-Pliestocene Rampart beds of California (USA) yielded isotopic
>dates ranging from 1.4 Ma to 2.56 Ma, but this range of dates is
>admittedly difficult to accept because of the absence of deep erosion
>or soil horizons between superjacent lava flows.
Why should there be deep weathering between flows? Do the figures -
>As another example,
>the Lincoln Porphyry of Colorado (USA), was originally mapped as a
>single unit because of the geographic proximity of the outcrops and
>the mineralogical and chemical similarity of the igneous body
>throughout its extent. It is therefore incongruous to find that parts
>of the Lincoln Porphyry are 29 million years apart in time, according
>to isotopic dating.
He gives no references to this except his own book.
>As a final example, consider the Garrawilla Lavas
>of New South Wales, Australia. These are bracketed between Upper
>Triassic and Jurassic sedimentary rock. Yet these lavas, over a large
>horizontal scale, grade imperceptibly into lavas which overlie Lower
>Tertiary sedimentary rock. Consequently, the latter lavas are
>considered younger, on an ad hoc basis. Otherwise, geologists would
>have to acknowledge that there is actually only one set of lava flows,
>and that everything between Jurassic and Early Tertiary is
>contemporaneous.
No references for this either apart from his own book.
>As far as the "the lava would still be molten if they were formed
>within only a few thousand years before present" argument, consider
>the evidence that many of these formations were formed in the presence
>of a lot of water or even underwater. For example, consider the
>Columbia River basalts. Throughout these basalts are found "pillow
>lava" and palagonite formations - especially near the periphery of the
>lava flows. In most of the outcrops, pillow structures cover only a
>few square meters of the outcrop. However, there are a few outcrops
>where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds of meters of
>horizontal outcrop consist entirely of interfingered pillow
>structures. Palagonite, evidenced by a greenish-yellow reaction
>product of hot lava and water, is found throughout.
Given the areal extent of the basalts, it's hardly surprising some
encountered bodies of water. But some isn't all.
>Although pillow lavas clearly indicate underwater deposition,
>certainly lavas can be extruded subaqeously without producing pillow
>structures. The potential to form pillow lava decreases as the volume
>of extruded lava increases. Thus, the effective contact area between
>lava and water (where pillow lavas can potentially form) becomes
>proportionately smaller as the volume of lava extruded becomes larger.
>So also, for similar reasons, the probability becomes smaller that a
>subsequently-formed erosional surface (outcrop) will happen to expose
>pillow structures. There are a variety of additional evidences, which
>indicate that most, if not all, of the Columbia River basalts were
>extruded underwater. These include marine fossils (such as sponge
>spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) that are found between lava
>flows, and numerous areas of well-rounded, exotic quartzite gravel,
>cobbles, and boulders locally interbedded with the flows (but mostly
>lying above the basalt). The quartzite clasts, some of which lie
>1,000m above sea level (ASL) upon lava anticlines and 2,500m ASL on
>ridges of the Wallowa Mountains, north-east Oregon, indicate
>high-energy transport over long distances. The indicators of much
>subsequent erosion, such as smoothly eroded lava anticlines in the
>Yakima fold belt, and water gaps, are also consistent with a submarine
>origin for the basalt flows.
More misinformation from Woodmorappe - according to this discussion
Stuart
> KelvynT <takethisof...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<d4q9uvo75hbkp5tl2...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > >11) Deccan Traps (which incidentally would still be molten if the
> > >earth were only a few thousand years old, as would the Siberian Traps)
> >
> > I'd never thought of that one...lovely..
> >
> > Kelvyn
>
> It is common for 'ghost' uniformitarian time intervals,
Translation: I have have no refutation which addresses the length of
time it takes the Deccan Traps, Siberian Traps, Karoo basalts etc. to
cool and solidify. This period of time greatly exceeds 6000 years.
Therefore I will change the subject to something I can parrot from a
lies for Jesus site.
Good grief.
Stuart
Sean Pitman
>
> Amazing guys, Woodmorappe & Oard. A single summer's field trip and
> they can reinterpret the history of the world. Armchair geology at its
> best. Thanks of course to the basic groundwork by dozens of
> 'traditional' geologists.
Everyone uses and builds upon the work of others that came before.
This is not to say that I think everything Woodmorappe and Oard say is
the gospel truth, but I certainly am interested in the replies that
you evolutionists come up with in regards to certain of their
observations and interpretations.
> >It is common for 'ghost' uniformitarian time intervals, and much
> >greater ones than those discussed above, to be inserted into
> >vertically (and also horizontally) contiguous lava flows. For example,
> >the Plio-Pliestocene Rampart beds of California (USA) yielded isotopic
> >dates ranging from 1.4 Ma to 2.56 Ma, but this range of dates is
> >admittedly difficult to accept because of the absence of deep erosion
> >or soil horizons between superjacent lava flows.
>
> Why should there be deep weathering between flows? Do the figures -
> the Columbia River basalts consist of around 300 flows over a period
> of about 11 million years. That's one flow (average 580 cu. km) on
> average every 36.000 years - not a long time for any 'deep erosion' or
> even soil horizons to form, even if the lava had fully cooled
> immediately. And in fact, 96% of the basalts are estimated to have
> been erupted in a period of about 1.5my.
>
> And the authors ignore the contemporaneous climate, a major factor in
> the rate of weathering.
Are you sure that climate is usually a major factor in determining the
weathering rate? Perhaps you should look at the following link to a
May 2001 paper published in the journal "Geology":
http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/2001_41_minimal_climatic.pdf
> The fastest rate of weathering measured on
> volcanic rock is around 58m per million years (in Puerto rico, with an
> annual rainfall of 4.2m!), the global average is around 6m/ma. So for
> 36,000 years the weathering might be expected to be maximum 2m,
> average 20cm.
So, you are saying that the highest rate of basalt erosion is only
about 6cm/1000yrs at best? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under
the impression that average continental erosion rates have been
calculated via real time observations at between 6cm to as much as
1900cm per 1000 years. I was also under the impression that the
"average weathering rate for basalts is about 4 times as fast as that
of non-basaltic rocks." This estimate may even be higher considering
that there is good evidence for a fairly wet environment at the time
these basalts were deposited (i.e., fresh-water diatoms,
dinoflagellates, and sponge spicules - clearly underwater creatures in
between the layers). Now, in 35,000 years we might expect to see up
to 840cm (8.4 meters) of vertical erosion before the next lava flow
came along. This is quite a bit greater than your suggested average
of 20cm, but even if we take your 0.6cm/thousand year average you
would still have a big problem explaining the relative flatness of
many of the layers that are supposed to have been formed over many
millions of years of time. Consider an except from Lindale published
in the American Journal of Science, 1979:
"Even if it is accepted that estimates of the contemporary rate of
degradation of the land surface are several orders too high to provide
an accurate yardstick of erosion in the geological past, there has
surely been ample time for the very ancient features preserved in the
present landscape to have been eradicated several times over. Yet the
silcrated land surface of central Australia has survived perhaps 20
million years of weathering and erosion under varied climatic
conditions as has the laterad surface of the northern areas of the
continent. The laterad surface of the Gulf region of South Australia
is even more remarkable, for it has persisted, through some 200
million years of epigene attack . . . The survival of the paleoforms
is to some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models
of landscape development."
(American Journal of Science, Vol. 276: 81-1976)
http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/geo/Publications/FY97Summ/yale.htm
http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/2001_41_minimal_climatic.pdf
> The source you cite admits that columnar jointing is typical of the CR
> flows - this is indicative of slow cooling of a thick homogenous flow
> (like the Giant's Causeway). It's not a feature of rapid cooling as
> they describe - for one thing, the lava must have stopped flowing
> first.
And why is it a problem for a particular lava flow to stop flowing
after having spread out rapidly over a few days to weeks and then cool
relatively rapidly to form columnar jointing?
> They also ignore crystal structure, which is diagnostic of
> cooling rate - if it had cooled as quickly as they suggest it would
> probably be the world's biggest glass deposit.
Now I thought that the faster the cooling the smaller the crystalline
structures? The formation of large crystals are thought to require
very slow cooling that allows more time form crystals to form - not
less time as you seem to be indicating here.
http://www.earth.nwu.edu/people/seth/demos/XTAL/xtal.html
> And I'm sure the heat
> generated by the one-time eruption of 173,000cu. km of lava would have
> boiled any flood dry.
Remember, the173,000cu km of lava was set down in 300 layers that were
indeed separated by at least some time to allow each layer, with a
whole lot of relative surface area, to cool off for a while before the
next layer came along. If a lot of water was involved in intermittent
pulses (floods or storms), why would a lot of time be required for
formation or cooling?
> Additionally, weathering rate of igneous rock is very low at temperate
> latitudes For instance, glacial striations are still visible on
> igneous rocks in many areas of the world. Even in the Columbia River
> area. Oops.
Are you sure that current climate conditions were in place for any
significant period back in time - even within fairly recent history?
> Some of my information on weathering rates is was from this site.
> http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sap.htm
As already noted once above, perhaps you'd be interested in a paper
published by Clifford S. Riebe et. al., entitled, "Minimal climatic
control on erosion rates in the Sierra Nevada, California" in the May,
2001, issue of Geology (Geology; May 2001; v. 29; no. 5; p. 447–450)
The authors of this paper performed real time studies on erosion rates
on granite. The erosion of granite ranged from a low of 2.9cm to a
high of 6.1cm per 1000 years on average with some locations eroding as
fast as 50cm/k.y. Interestingly enough, these authors concluded that
climate had very little to do with how fast granite eroded.
http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/2001_41_minimal_climatic.pdf
Now, if granite erodes in widely divergent climates at between 3 and
6cm per 1000 years, how fast do you think basalts should erode? Lasaga
and Rye from the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale
University suggest that basalts would erode at least 4 times as fast.
This means that it is not completely unreasonable to expect that
basaltic rock should erode at between 12cm and 24cm/k.y. Over 36,000
years, this works out to be between 4.32 and 8.64 meters of erosion.
http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/geo/Publications/FY97Summ/yale.htm
> >As another example,
> >the Lincoln Porphyry of Colorado (USA), was originally mapped as a
> >single unit because of the geographic proximity of the outcrops and
> >the mineralogical and chemical similarity of the igneous body
> >throughout its extent. It is therefore incongruous to find that parts
> >of the Lincoln Porphyry are 29 million years apart in time, according
> >to isotopic dating.
>
> He gives no references to this except his own book.
Now that's true. I guess we will just have to look up what reference
he used in his book . . .
> >As a final example, consider the Garrawilla Lavas
> >of New South Wales, Australia. These are bracketed between Upper
> >Triassic and Jurassic sedimentary rock. Yet these lavas, over a large
> >horizontal scale, grade imperceptibly into lavas which overlie Lower
> >Tertiary sedimentary rock. Consequently, the latter lavas are
> >considered younger, on an ad hoc basis. Otherwise, geologists would
> >have to acknowledge that there is actually only one set of lava flows,
> >and that everything between Jurassic and Early Tertiary is
> >contemporaneous.
>
> No references for this either apart from his own book.
Yes, this will take some looking into. However, until then, take a
look at a publication of the 1998 Australian Geologic Survey
Organization (by Robert Kingham), which noted the following about
these lavas:
Triassic sediments unconformably overlie the Permian sequences. . .
The Napperby depositional sequence represents the upper limit of the
Gunnedah Basin sequence, with a regional unconformity existing between
the Triassic and overlying Jurassic sediments of the Surat Basin north
of the Liverpool Ranges (Tadros, 1993). The Gunnedah Basin sequence
includes a number of basic intrusions of Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks.
These are associated with massive extrusions of the Garrawilla
Volcanic complex and the Liverpool, Warrumbungle and Nandewar Ranges
(Tadros, 1993).
Isn't it interesting that Tertiary sediments in the Gunnedah Basin
sequence exist between Triassic and Jurassic sediments?
http://www.brs.gov.au/mdbsis/mdbgeol.pdf
> >As far as the "the lava would still be molten if they were formed
> >within only a few thousand years before present" argument, consider
> >the evidence that many of these formations were formed in the presence
> >of a lot of water or even underwater. For example, consider the
> >Columbia River basalts. Throughout these basalts are found "pillow
> >lava" and palagonite formations - especially near the periphery of the
> >lava flows. In most of the outcrops, pillow structures cover only a
> >few square meters of the outcrop. However, there are a few outcrops
> >where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds of meters of
> >horizontal outcrop consist entirely of interfingered pillow
> >structures. Palagonite, evidenced by a greenish-yellow reaction
> >product of hot lava and water, is found throughout.
>
> Given the a real extent of the basalts, it's hardly surprising some
> encountered bodies of water. But some isn't all.
Ok - some isn't all, but how does this solve your problem of no
evidence of erosion between the various layers?
I read this snippet from the discussion forum link. As far as I can
gather without reading the primary reference yet, the authors seem to
think the fossils were fresh-water fossils, but that conclusion seems
to be up for debate since the specific identity of the creatures was
not determined (marine vs. fresh water varieties of dinoflagellates,
sponges, diatoms, etc.) Really though, what does it matter if the
fossils were freshwater or not? The main point was that a fair amount
of water might have been encountered, which would markedly increase
the rate of cooling (at least the evidence does not seem to
significantly controvert this position). And again, what about the
primary problem that none of the layers show the erosion that would be
expected if 36,000 years lapsed, on average, between the formation of
each successive layer.
> Kelvyn
KelvynT
>KelvynT <takethisof...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<2v5fuvo97j31u3kvp...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Amazing guys, Woodmorappe & Oard. A single summer's field trip and
>> they can reinterpret the history of the world. Armchair geology at its
>> best. Thanks of course to the basic groundwork by dozens of
>> 'traditional' geologists.
>
>Everyone uses and builds upon the work of others that came before.
>This is not to say that I think everything Woodmorappe and Oard say is
>the gospel truth, but I certainly am interested in the replies that
>you evolutionists come up with in regards to certain of their
>observations and interpretations.
Of course they do. It was a snide remark, but if they're going to
throw away years of scientific work they could at least have remapped
the area first. After all, if geologists could be wrong about the
causes of the CRB they could be wrong about the areal extent.
>> >It is common for 'ghost' uniformitarian time intervals, and much
>> >greater ones than those discussed above, to be inserted into
>> >vertically (and also horizontally) contiguous lava flows. For example,
>> >the Plio-Pliestocene Rampart beds of California (USA) yielded isotopic
>> >dates ranging from 1.4 Ma to 2.56 Ma, but this range of dates is
>> >admittedly difficult to accept because of the absence of deep erosion
>> >or soil horizons between superjacent lava flows.
>>
>> Why should there be deep weathering between flows? Do the figures -
>> the Columbia River basalts consist of around 300 flows over a period
>> of about 11 million years. That's one flow (average 580 cu. km) on
>> average every 36.000 years - not a long time for any 'deep erosion' or
>> even soil horizons to form, even if the lava had fully cooled
>> immediately. And in fact, 96% of the basalts are estimated to have
>> been erupted in a period of about 1.5my.
>>
>> And the authors ignore the contemporaneous climate, a major factor in
>> the rate of weathering.
>
>Are you sure that climate is usually a major factor in determining the
>weathering rate? Perhaps you should look at the following link to a
>May 2001 paper published in the journal "Geology":
>
>http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/2001_41_minimal_climatic.pdf
Yep, that's a specific study relating to granite/granodiorite/tonalite
erosion in mountainous terrain in temperate latitudes. The CR basalts
ain't granite (a plutonic rock as opposed to volcanic like basalt), in
which weathering varies considerably depending on the chemical
composition of the feldspar, which is v. susceptible to chemical
weathering. I don't see how they can meaningfully extrapolate their
results outside the study area, as they're only talking about a
limited range of climates.
Basalt is a different beast, as shown in the link I gave:
"Observation of weathering on historic basalt flows in Hawaii (Jackson
and Keller, 1970) Senegal (Nahon and Lappartient, 1977), basalt clasts
from the western USA (Colman and Pierce, 1981) and elsewhere also
demonstrate the extremely slow rate at which chemical weathering
occurs. For instance, in the Jackson and Keller study, lichen-covered
basalts extruded in 1907 had mean weathering rind thickness of 0.142mm
thick, while lichen-free basalts had mean weathering rinds only
0.002mm thick. According to Nieuwenhuyse (2000), andesitic lava clasts
from the 2000 years old Rio Jimenez flows in tropical Costa Rica have
weathering rinds <1mm thick."
>> The fastest rate of weathering measured on
>> volcanic rock is around 58m per million years (in Puerto rico, with an
>> annual rainfall of 4.2m!), the global average is around 6m/ma. So for
>> 36,000 years the weathering might be expected to be maximum 2m,
>> average 20cm.
>
>So, you are saying that the highest rate of basalt erosion is only
>about 6cm/1000yrs at best?
I'm not, the authors of the link I gave were.
>Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under
>the impression that average continental erosion rates have been
>calculated via real time observations at between 6cm to as much as
>1900cm per 1000 years.
Basalts make up a small proportion of continental rocks - sediments
weather much more quickly.
>I was also under the impression that the
>"average weathering rate for basalts is about 4 times as fast as that
>of non-basaltic rocks."
Don't know where this came from.
>This estimate may even be higher considering
>that there is good evidence for a fairly wet environment at the time
>these basalts were deposited (i.e., fresh-water diatoms,
>dinoflagellates, and sponge spicules - clearly underwater creatures in
>between the layers). Now, in 35,000 years we might expect to see up
>to 840cm (8.4 meters) of vertical erosion before the next lava flow
>came along.
You're extrapolating from a continental average, not a rock-specific
one. Tut tut. And ignoring my comment that 96% of the flows happened
in 1.5my.
>This is quite a bit greater than your suggested average
>of 20cm, but even if we take your 0.6cm/thousand year average you
>would still have a big problem explaining the relative flatness of
>many of the layers that are supposed to have been formed over many
>millions of years of time. Consider an except from Lindale published
>in the American Journal of Science, 1979:
The flatness of the layers is due to the fact they were very fluid and
spread very quickly, An individual flow didn't form over millions of
years. I'm not sure what your point is here, but the whisky's starting
to take effect so don't read too much into that :-)
> "Even if it is accepted that estimates of the contemporary rate of
>degradation of the land surface are several orders too high to provide
>an accurate yardstick of erosion in the geological past, there has
>surely been ample time for the very ancient features preserved in the
>present landscape to have been eradicated several times over. Yet the
>silcrated land surface of central Australia has survived perhaps 20
>million years of weathering and erosion under varied climatic
>conditions as has the laterad surface of the northern areas of the
>continent. The laterad surface of the Gulf region of South Australia
>is even more remarkable, for it has persisted, through some 200
>million years of epigene attack . . . The survival of the paleoforms
>is to some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models
>of landscape development."
>(American Journal of Science, Vol. 276: 81-1976)
Don't quite know what relevance this quote has. It's saying that
erosion isn't very quick in some areas.
>http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/geo/Publications/FY97Summ/yale.htm
>http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/2001_41_minimal_climatic.pdf
>
>> The source you cite admits that columnar jointing is typical of the CR
>> flows - this is indicative of slow cooling of a thick homogenous flow
>> (like the Giant's Causeway). It's not a feature of rapid cooling as
>> they describe - for one thing, the lava must have stopped flowing
>> first.
>
>And why is it a problem for a particular lava flow to stop flowing
>after having spread out rapidly over a few days to weeks and then cool
>relatively rapidly to form columnar jointing?
>
>> They also ignore crystal structure, which is diagnostic of
>> cooling rate - if it had cooled as quickly as they suggest it would
>> probably be the world's biggest glass deposit.
>
>Now I thought that the faster the cooling the smaller the crystalline
>structures? The formation of large crystals are thought to require
>very slow cooling that allows more time form crystals to form - not
>less time as you seem to be indicating here.
Volcanic glass is formed when lava cools almost instantaneously. Glass
isn't a large crystal, it's amorphous. There's no time for crystals to
form. That's why granite has enormous crystals and basalt much smaller
ones. It cools quicker, but still slow enough to form crystals.
>http://www.earth.nwu.edu/people/seth/demos/XTAL/xtal.html
>
>> And I'm sure the heat
>> generated by the one-time eruption of 173,000cu. km of lava would have
>> boiled any flood dry.
>
>Remember, the173,000cu km of lava was set down in 300 layers that were
>indeed separated by at least some time to allow each layer,
Remember, you've only got a year or so of Flood Time. One flow a day?
A few hours isn't enough - here are some very interesting figures from
Iceland when they tried to divert lava with pumped water:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of97-724/lavacool.html#nature
You might get a solid layer 1m thick after 24 hrs of pumping water.
>with a
>whole lot of relative surface area, to cool off for a while before the
>next layer came along. If a lot of water was involved in intermittent
>pulses (floods or storms), why would a lot of time be required for
>formation or cooling?
>
>> Additionally, weathering rate of igneous rock is very low at temperate
>> latitudes For instance, glacial striations are still visible on
>> igneous rocks in many areas of the world. Even in the Columbia River
>> area. Oops.
>
>Are you sure that current climate conditions were in place for any
>significant period back in time - even within fairly recent history?
I refer the honorable gentleman to the very same paper he quoted in
his defence above:
"Paleoclimate records for the Sierra Nevada reveal roughly uniform
climatic conditions over the past several thousand years. For example,
tree-ring records and tree-line reconstructions from bristlecone pine
show that, over the past 5500 yr, temperatures have varied by ,2 8C in
the nearby White Mountains (LaMarche, 1973). Paleosalinity records
from San Francisco Bay sediments indicate no overall trend in Sierran
river discharge over the past 2700 yr (Ingram et al., 1996)."
>> Some of my information on weathering rates is was from this site.
>> http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sap.htm
>
>As already noted once above, perhaps you'd be interested in a paper
>published by Clifford S. Riebe et. al., entitled, "Minimal climatic
>control on erosion rates in the Sierra Nevada, California" in the May,
>2001, issue of Geology (Geology; May 2001; v. 29; no. 5; p. 447–450)
>The authors of this paper performed real time studies on erosion rates
>on granite. The erosion of granite ranged from a low of 2.9cm to a
>high of 6.1cm per 1000 years on average with some locations eroding as
>fast as 50cm/k.y. Interestingly enough, these authors concluded that
>climate had very little to do with how fast granite eroded.
>
>http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/2001_41_minimal_climatic.pdf
>
>Now, if granite erodes in widely divergent climates at between 3 and
>6cm per 1000 years, how fast do you think basalts should erode? Lasaga
>and Rye from the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale
>University suggest that basalts would erode at least 4 times as fast.
>This means that it is not completely unreasonable to expect that
>basaltic rock should erode at between 12cm and 24cm/k.y. Over 36,000
>years, this works out to be between 4.32 and 8.64 meters of erosion.
But note that they don't quantify the rates, so your presumption is
invalid.
No, because they're basic igneous intrusions, not sediments. Don't be
so devious.
>http://www.brs.gov.au/mdbsis/mdbgeol.pdf
>
>> >As far as the "the lava would still be molten if they were formed
>> >within only a few thousand years before present" argument, consider
>> >the evidence that many of these formations were formed in the presence
>> >of a lot of water or even underwater. For example, consider the
>> >Columbia River basalts. Throughout these basalts are found "pillow
>> >lava" and palagonite formations - especially near the periphery of the
>> >lava flows. In most of the outcrops, pillow structures cover only a
>> >few square meters of the outcrop. However, there are a few outcrops
>> >where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds of meters of
>> >horizontal outcrop consist entirely of interfingered pillow
>> >structures. Palagonite, evidenced by a greenish-yellow reaction
>> >product of hot lava and water, is found throughout.
>>
>> Given the a real extent of the basalts, it's hardly surprising some
>> encountered bodies of water. But some isn't all.
>
>Ok - some isn't all, but how does this solve your problem of no
>evidence of erosion between the various layers?
See above.
Was the global flood freshwater?
>The main point was that a fair amount
>of water might have been encountered, which would markedly increase
>the rate of cooling (at least the evidence does not seem to
>significantly controvert this position). And again, what about the
>primary problem that none of the layers show the erosion that would be
>expected if 36,000 years lapsed, on average, between the formation of
>each successive layer.
You again missed my point that 96% of the flows were erupted in 1.5my.
>> Kelvyn
>
>Sean
>www.naturalselection.0catch.com