On 4/19/2010 3:47 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of
>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems,
>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing.
>> Basically, lets say that:
>>
>> GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can
>> have mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work
>> like their original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What
>> you do is start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a
>> few different ways:
>> GTTsGTGs
>> GTTsGTTGs
>> GGTsGTTs
>>
>> The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a
>> working copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But,
>> the GTGs version would be "irreducible", once other related genes
>> become dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc.
>> versions to "break" the system.
>>
>> The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are
>> inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger
>> number of variations and errors than the final version. At some point
>> though, you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs,
>> or variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the
>> other gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in
>> the process produced new behaviors/functions.
>>
>> Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry,
>> limb formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small*
>> number of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the
>> gene that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and
>> developmental code is different, producing a new pattern of growth.
>> Other cases "both" the transcription/development code *and* the
>> control genes differ, but they are still identifiably variations on
>> existing genes, that do similar things. Any irreducibility seems to
>> come from a duplicate copy changing, and linking up with other
>> changes, to produce a unique result, then undergoing subtractions,
>> which fail to disable the new effect, but which render reversal to an
>> earlier form impossible.
>
> So in essence you are arguing that any irreducible complexity was
> preceded by reducible complexity.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
Not my argument, its the argument of biologists, and has been both shown 
to work in simulation *and* within some cases of actual DNA, where 
identification of the genes involved show that they are modified 
versions of existing ones (and, I believe, in a few cases, new changes 
have been identified, in the state of 'reducible complexity', where its 
not to hard to see where minor changes would make it irreducible). But, 
yes. That is how it seems to work, and there is no evidence that it 
did/had to work any other way.

Oh, and, just for an odd bit, I mentioned fingers. Turns out that 
fingers grow from the middle out. There are two control genes in place, 
one determines when the pattern ends, and a second reacts to that 
deactivation by forming a "thumb". If you get an error in the code, you 
end up with more or less fingers, or not having a thumb at all, 
depending on which one changed. This is why the most common result in 
such errors is extra, or less, fingers, but the thumb is almost always 
still there. Now *most* people imagine that they all grow at once, or 
that they grow starting with the thumb, or pinkie, then run across in 
sequence.

Another odd bit is being observed in lizards. Some are in progress of 
becoming snake like. Seems that the gene involved is responsible for 
forming ribs. It doesn't shut off correctly, so just keeps making more 
and more ribs, which elongates the body. This seems to also muck up limb 
formation, reducing the structures from which those form to a point 
where they nearly disappear. But, you will still find snakes with 
vestigial limbs, under the skin.

Its really quite interesting to read about how it all works, and which 
types of genes are involved, as well as, in some cases, how small the 
changes need to be. Though, most of them are not visible stuff. Like 
having two copies of a gene to produce saliva, and having one of them 
mutate to produce venom instead. Or quirks in eyes, like the fact that 
*some* rare humans end up with an extra copy, and an error, which result 
in them seeing 4 colors, not the normal 3, a trait that birds have.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message