An Engineer's Viewpoint on Progressive Evolution

YZF-R1 · #1 05-01-2009, 08:30 AM

http://telicthoughts.com/combinatorial-dependencies/

Quote:

Several years back I thought that the Darwinian theory was probably the best explanation for the emergence of biotic structures. That was before the stunning details of molecular machines were discovered. As the details of these remarkable machines rolled in, I became more and more skeptical that the random step-by-step process of mutations propounded by Darwinian theory could, in fact, account for what we see. It wasn't common descent or the increase of complexity over time that bothered me. It was the idea that the complex machines we see could come about with no planning or some sort of cognitive factor. Having been a machine designer for many years and designed many complex machines and systems, the probability that such remarkable machines could come about unplanned just seemed beyond rationality.

This is not to say that people haven't tried to construct gradualistic scenarios to account for these machines. The problem is that they seem to be totally oblivious to the combinatorial dependencies that are present in any complex machine. One predominant idea in these scenarios is exaptation. This idea suggests that something that offers some function can be utilized with other components to create a new function. So far so good. This happens all the time in design engineering. You take a gear box that is used for rotary motion, add a worm screw at its output and you've got a linear motion. What is ignored in these "just so" scenarios is that you can't just grab any ole gear box and any ole worm screw and get anything that works. The gear box has to be the right size, power factor, rpm, output size, materials, etc. The worm screw also has to have the right coupling design, pitch, power capacity, length, diameter, etc. And that's only one part of the design. The motor has to be the right type, size, torque, power, rpm, etc. Then there is whatever function is at the end of the worm screw. All these components are interdependent. In every complex function there are combinatorial dependencies.

An illustration of one such "just so" scenario can be found here. It's an animation to illustrate Nick Matzke's proposed Darwinian process to create bacterial flagellum. To the uninitiated this all looks pretty reasonable. From a combinatorial-dependency perspective it looks incredibly improbable.

Let's take a look at this in a little detail. First we have a passive pore that starts things off. Since this is the base of the eventual flagellum one has to ask is the pore the right size that the whip of the flagellum can provide the locomotion we see? If it is too small the resulting whip will not be able to handle the stresses from torsion and coupling. If it is too big the whip will be too bulky to be driven in any effective way by the motor. Then we add the secretion system. Is the pore the right size and of the right protein type for the existing secretion system? If not there will be no coupling of the two and no progress.

Ok now we have a selective pore and an secretion system but does it secrete proteins that will be right for the whip? The whip has to have the right protein shape. In engineering the components of a flexible whip have to be designed to mesh correctly such that there is just the right combination of coupling, flexibility, and rigidity. They also have to be the right material. If they are too soft there will be galling. If they are too hard fatigue cracks will set in and destroy the whip. The same goes for clearances between parts. This is a goldie-locks situation. Things have to be just right or it won't work.

Next we have to add the motor. Let's assume we're very lucky that a motor will fit and couple with what we have so far. However, the motor has to have the rpm and torque to drive the whip just right. If it doesn't have enough torque we won't get what we see. If the rpm is too fast the whip will destroy itself because of the hydrodynamic forces applied to it by the fluid. Then it and all the other components have to be sized just right to reverse or the torsional forces on the wip will rip it apart. Remember the diameter, materials, meshing of parts, etc. in this Darwinian scenario have no idea what will be required later.

I could go on and on but I hope you get the idea of combinatorial dependencies. And things are really worse when you consider the problem of "you just can't get there from here". If one component violates the needed dependencies that must be satisfied, you can't just mutate that one component because every component depends on the others. As any design engineer will attest from their mistakes, you just have to start over. In real design a computer program would probably be written to play what-if scenarios to match the torque required, the materials and configuration of whip components, the bearing size and thickness based on cell wall strength, hydrodynamic factors, torsional and coupling stresses, etc and etc. Also this doesn't even take into account the assembly processes that are required. They also have their own dependencies.

The point is that simplistic just-so stories based on random mutations just aren't adequate from an engineering perspective. There's entirely too much luck involved to be taken seriously. Darwinian proponents will have to do much better than this to convince anyone acquainted with real machines.

once again, engineers >>> biologists

BackyardSog · #2 05-01-2009, 01:46 PM

That guy is a retard. ya lets keep arguing irreducible complexity (The Behe version) even though its been completely blown out of the water and denounced by the originator himself. What is that article like 10 years old?

YZF-R1 · #3 05-01-2009, 03:02 PM

when a hopelessly indoctrinated zealot refers to anyone as "retarded", it smacks of peerless irony and hypocrisy

btw, nothing about the article has been "blown out of water", conjecture by brainwashed darwinists is worthless

BackyardSog · #4 05-01-2009, 07:35 PM

Sure thing dude. Not blown out of the water? Feel free to take a look at the Dover case where the stupid ass claim from above was laughed right out of the courtroom by a republican judge.

YZF-R1 · #5 05-01-2009, 07:42 PM

so what??

BackyardSog · #6 05-01-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

so what??

Quote:

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

btw, nothing about the article has been "blown out of water", conjecture by brainwashed darwinists is worthless

So what? Obviously you can't put 1+1 together (which isn't surprising with the nonsense you post on here continually). I guess that's what happens when you join a cult.

You're the one spreading worthless conjecture. Like I said who ever wrote that garbage above is a complete moron. Even the speacialists of irreducible complexity and the flagellum motor theory have abandoned it because it has been destroyed with real scientific data.

czarofzar · #7 05-01-2009, 07:55 PM

wut? remember, its all about describing evolution. the more info, the better we can describe what evolution is. also remember, evolution exist. you know it, i know it and ark knows it.

YZF-R1 · #8 05-01-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackyardSog

So what? Obviously you can't put 1+1 together

obviously you don't grasp the big picture: agnostics and atheists mock Creation all day long, and always have...proves nothing

Quote:

I guess that's what happens when you join a cult.

not sure when the 3500 year history of the scriptures became a "cult"...more of your random drama

Quote:

You're the one spreading worthless conjecture.

correction, son, I stand for the truth

Quote:

Like I said who ever wrote that garbage above is a complete moron.

more accurately, you're a hopelessly biased critic

Quote:

Even the speacialists of irreducible complexity and the flagellum motor theory have abandoned it because it has been destroyed with real scientific data.

such as? how can the concept of irreducible complexity be disproven? loudly argued against, shouted down? yes...disproven? impossible

BackyardSog · #9 05-01-2009, 11:16 PM

lol try telling that to Behe! hahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahhaa

laughed out of court.....remember that!

What's remarkable is that there is a niche of morons still claiming it's still true (like who ever wrote that moronic article).

YZF-R1 · #10 05-01-2009, 11:58 PM

Behe may have popularized the concept, but it's rooted in plain logic

Quote:

The infamous Flagellum, for example, being what has been called the most efficient motor in the known universe, must be structured to fit with the principles of mechanics and entropy.

Rotor, washers, torque, rpm, gears, etc. cannot just arrive by chance - everything that fits together - must meet the minimal structural requirements: resistance to shear, friction, temperature, pressure, etc. must all be considered when planning any kind of mechanical machine.

If the torque on the rotor is too high the shaft will break, if too much heat is generated by the rotation the machine will seize and fail, .... one could go on an on on these things.

The only difference in biological machines is the materials which they are made of. If Darwinism can't explain how all of this finely tuned machinery can be produced by RM + NS it utterly fails. And in fact we do now know that it cannot explain such delicate mechanical tuning let alone the origin of the instructions contained in DNA for the assembly of so many critical parts.

There are over 40 protein parts to the E.coli flagellum. They must be assembled in the correct order or it will not function. Worse still for Darwinism is that if the assembled flagellum is defective - anything out of order - error detection mechanisms detect it and destroy the failed product!
There is no such thing as error detection without intelligence.

Furthermore the assembly of the parts, as critical to function as it is, is only a fraction of the true complexity involved. The parts must all be the correct size, strength and form. The whole must allow resistance to friction, torque and shear etc. The whole, once assembled must be able to withstand the 10 to 100 thousand rpm the flagellum is subjected to!! If not it will auto-destruct.

Even worse - yes it gets worse for Darwin - Combinatorial Dependencies (something engineers know a lot about but biologists don't usually have a clue) come into play in any such complex mechanism. Any one part failing reduces the whole to shambles.

To suppose that a mere flagellum (let alone an entire genome) could arise by rm + ns is utterly ludicrous. And this is not an "argument from incredulity" but from statistical mechanics and the laws of physics.

YZF-R1 · #11 05-02-2009, 12:04 AM

---

Quote:

When I code a computer program, I include error checking and correcting mechanisms in my code. All decent software developers or engineers have to do the same or end up with software full of nasty bugs.

The mechanism itself isn't intelligent, but is designed by intelligence. Error correction is impossible without pre-existing knowledge of correct system state. And this applies as much to genetic code as all other code used for creating function.

If your computer - from CPU to software - did not have error (exception trapping) code built into it, it wouldn't work very well at all unless the designers had perfect algorithms, perfect design analysis and perfect, bugless code.

Ex. When you build a text document in MS Word, there is a spelling checker embedded in the application. It alerts you to spelling and grammar errors. Is the digital code underlying that error checker intelligent in itself? No.

But intelligent agents had to code in the structure of the language used, with a large database of proper words, plus a 'knowledge base' of the rules of grammar. No randomly obtained 'mechanism' can detect a spelling error. Randomness never creates informational order. The creator of that mechanism must know correct spelling of words in the given language. Same applies to grammar. Languages have syntax, semantics. So does the genetic code. Sentences must follow grammatical rules. No knowledge of rules = incapacity to detect errors. Obviously spelling checkers are not a natural property of silicon or computer chips.

Just so, biological error detecting mechanisms intrinsically imply an underlying intelligence. The genetic code is mathematically identical, in structure, to language and codes in general (see H. Yockey). It is not an analogy. So there you have it - ID required from step one.

The genome would have spiraled into mutational meltdown long ago and all organisms would be extinct if not for error checking.

Entropy applies to genetics as much as anything else. Things deteriorate over time. While the genome is programmed for stability, the genome is still degenerating due to thousands of years of mutations entering the population and spreading and accumulating. Do the math.

Does that mean error correction mechanisms aren't there? No. It changes nothing of their implications. A degenerating genome is caused by accumulation of mutations - most of which are deleterious. Eventually the error trapping is unable to 'keep up'.

I suggest you ask your friends to present a functional example of a randomly generated error correction mechanism - no intelligence allowed, no designing allowed. Your buddies with their patently false and antiquated answers with absence of current information are way off.

IC has never, I repeat, never been refuted. All we've seen is lame attempts and bare assertions with half-intelligent references to T3SS (whose existence they can't explain either!). The only adequate refutation is to demonstrate a single, plausible and precise rm + ns pathway from raw genetic material to flagellum. Never been done, yet you all swallow these Darwinist 'refutations' as though it had been! But - do we have empirical evidence that it can't happen? Yes. See "Edge of Evolution" - another unrefuted, empirically based (not speculative) actual research-based book.

The flagellum's evolution explained? Sure if you call speculative devolution from the flagellum to T3SS an explanation!! So where'd the T3SS come from? Do you have a valid path for that? No.

Some of your buddies are so full of delusional propaganda it's truly sad. "The favorite example is the eye, even though that's been shown over and over exactly how it developed," Now that is laughable! There is not a single known genetic RM + NS pathway for a functional vision system! Not one. Just more hypothetical just-so stories that fall so far short of being scientific they are a shame to Darwinists everywhere!

"Over and over"!? Where? Pointing us to hypothetical just-so stories without the slightest content of knowledge of the complexity of bio vision systems is not evidence, and is not even scientific. Indeed, 'just imagine a light sensitive spot' - what trash. Bio doesn't work on imagination!

Another buddy reasons with salient logical error, "So this person knows every conceivable path by which organisms could have arisen? It's ignorant and more importantly, it is an invalid assumption because (to my knowledge) no one knows these things with mathematically rigorous certainty (and unless he proves otherwise, his claim is invalid)." Obviously no understanding of either the laws of probability nor, more specifically, statistical mechanics - such as the engineer I quoted does. Kenyon and others have already demonstrated that a chemical pathway to life is impossible. Yes that's abiogenesis but Darwinian evolution depends on it!

BackyardSog · #12 05-02-2009, 02:49 AM

No Behe is a moron and even he realized it once the true evidence slapped him in the face. It's rooted in plain ignorance. Which is exactly why you continue to parrot these fellow cultists.

YZF-R1 · #13 05-02-2009, 03:29 AM

new concepts always face intense opposition from the indoctrinated faithful (which was also true in Darwin's day); however, science is progressively nailing the coffin shut on the old hermit's ideas in 2009: you're on a sinking ship, and Dawkins is going down with you

IC has never, I repeat, never been refuted. All we've seen is lame attempts and bare assertions with half-intelligent references to T3SS (whose existence they can't explain either!). The only adequate refutation is to demonstrate a single, plausible and precise rm + ns pathway from raw genetic material to flagellum. Never been done, yet you all swallow these Darwinist 'refutations' as though it had been! But - do we have empirical evidence that it can't happen? Yes. See "Edge of Evolution" - another unrefuted, empirically based (not speculative) actual research-based book.

The flagellum's evolution explained? Sure if you call speculative devolution from the flagellum to T3SS an explanation!! So where'd the T3SS come from? Do you have a valid path for that? No.

Some of your buddies are so full of delusional propaganda it's truly sad. "The favorite example is the eye, even though that's been shown over and over exactly how it developed," Now that is laughable! There is not a single known genetic RM + NS pathway for a functional vision system! Not one. Just more hypothetical just-so stories that fall so far short of being scientific they are a shame to Darwinists everywhere!

czarofzar · #14 05-02-2009, 04:07 AM

anything intertesting being said? hate to waste any more of my time

Quote:

This message is hidden because YZF-R1 is on your ignore list.

YZF-R1 · #15 05-02-2009, 11:31 AM

machine design at the microscopic level....in fact, beyond that point

makes your head explode, how can anyone believe this arose by chaos, even the atomic structures themselves?