Posted: Jul 01, 2010 11:21 pm
by CharlieM
PhiloKGB:
How have you come to understand that evolution proceeds by using "archetypal plan[s]" with "instructions" inbuilt? Your argument appears to assume facts not in evidence and Matzke's is therefore preferable on that basis alone.


I look at the same facts that he does. We both believe that homology points to a relationship. Matzke assumes that this relationship comes about by fortuitous changes being selected. I believe that the changes are more directed and that the plasticity of protein structure is being used in a creative manner. I would say that the evidence points more towards the assumptions that I am making. If you propose that two functional proteins are the unplanned "offspring" of a single protein, you need to look at the search space needed to be sampled, the regulatory changes that need to accompany the new function, the various connections that need to be considered in order for the proteins to be installed in their new roles. Where in the organisms of the earth are all the functionless proteins or proteins with an inefficient function waiting to slot into a new system that evolution has brought forth? Has anyone observed a biological system becoming more efficient over time as natural selection working on changes makes the necessary tweeks. And if the hook protein FlgE had no functionless precursors what was the path in the diversification between it and its homologs? If you try to make a hook out of proteins that don't have the specific properties of FlgE and you will no doubt end up breaking the flagellar drive. And there is no evidence whatsoever of a pre-existing universal joint being co-opted and slotted into place in the drive train.

Goal directed development is something we see all the time. We see it every time an individual organism grows from an egg or a seed. The fact that self-aware creative beings have appeared on the earth is no accident just as it is no accident that I developed from a fertilized egg (no matter what my mother says).

CharlieM:
I was talking about natural selection on its own. I know things are different when mutations are taken into account. My point was that natural selection cannot create novelty it only removes or lets through what is already there.

PhiloKGB:
This is pure bullshit, an assertion which can only be made by those merely Google-educated who nonetheless consider themselves experts.


I don't know why you think I consider myself an expert. I came here to learn and I think the best way to learn is to share your opinions with those who you know are going to disagree with them and to see what they come back with.

If you think what I said is bullshit can you explain to me how natural selection on its own can create anything that was not already there waiting to be selected?