Quote:
Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
If you look at any cell, it is highly integrated and very efficient. All the mechanisms suggested by Galapagos imply the cell is making itself less than integrated and less efficient, with all those random trail balloons.
|
While subjective, there are endless arguments that cells are neither highly integrated nor very efficient. They are very sensitive to outside conditions and cannot survive without lots of external entities in order to survive. Many cell types have got all sorts of bits and pieces that both do not perform useful functions and yet use up energy. The energy mechanism they do use leaves much energy wasted because it's not fully utilized.
Galapagos is not "implying the cell is making itself less than integrated and less efficient": this sort of anthropomorphising of evolutionary processes is typical of fallacious arguments attempting to disprove evolution: there is no Intent or Desire or Trying or Goal involved in evolution.
What Evolution does imply is that it the evolutionary selections may be "efficient" or "effective" under current conditions and then become "inefficient" or even detrimental under later different conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
Highly integrated and efficient means the cellular contents have a low degree of disorder. It is only when order appears, do we have selective advantage. Say we have all those duplexes, triplexes, etc., where are they when selective advantage appears? It is like they never existed.
|
No, there is no link between decreasing entropy and "efficiency" or "integration."
"Efficiency" can only be measured under specific environmental conditions: for example evolving a thick coat during extended ice ages will become a distinct disadvantage when the ice age ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
Say the cells of your body started to make all types of trial balloons. It is full of junk that is lowering the integration of the once well oiled machine. Wouldn't that make you sick instead of give you an advantage?
|
The adaptations in the genes can be not only turned on or off, but they can be lost over time or reused for different purposes. We can see this in similarities between genes that encode for completely different traits.
A gene for thick fur that becomes recessive during hot ages, end up being the one thing that allows a particular line of species to survive the next ice age.
I've been reading your posts for a very long time, and you continually avoid this issue of the interaction of the environment and evolutionary selection. You should either ask more questions about it if you don't understand it or start to incorporate it into your thinking about evolution, because repeating these statements that ignore it makes it look like you have no intent to understand evolution but rather to irrationally argue against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
I am not a Creationist, although this the label is used to silence opposition. It like calling someone a Communist during the 1950's.
|
Note that I have not called you a Creationist, but rather have simply pointed out that your arguments are identical to those used by Creationists. This is not inherently problematic if you are willing to recognize and discuss the weaknesses of Creationist arguments that have been endlessly proved incapable of either disproving evolution or providing an alternative, supportable theory.
The labels here are of no importance except to create categories that can be edifying. Finding them pejorative is something one might choose to do, but I would not advocate it.
But at the same time, it is perfectly fair game to point out that "irreducible complexity" is just as much a failed theory as the argument that "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will never become corrupt" is.
Trying to avoid the long-proven validity of those issues by trying to say they're "name calling" is simply avoiding the facts.
Fishing is a delusion entirely surrounded by liars in old clothes,
Buffy
