Of Baramins and Baloney 24

April 1, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Mark,
We may be getting toward the end of our discussion.
If I responded to your request for an hypothesis at any time with a list of topics, books, and referred articles, you would have rejected it. I could list for you example referred publications defending ID, communism or any number of topics, but I will respond:
Your example of nylonase in bacteria was better. At least it still holds more mystery in its cause. The research I have read on duplication of organs seems pretty straightforward. All organic processes begin and end with a molecular “command.” Simply looking at the chemical reactions, something starts to reproduce and grow because a molecular signal is given to begin. Likewise, other than by simply running out of raw materials, the process stops because a molecular command is given to stop. The same is true in my Excel programs. The program loops while it continually checks for some condition. When that certain level of computation is reached in a “compute” loop, the loop is sidetracked by an alternative “stop” command. If the beginning command does not occur in an organism, there is no continuation of life. If the ending command does not kick in at all, well we usually call that cancer. Sometimes the stop command looses function only partially, so that replication continues to abnormal size in an organ, or an organ is produced where it did not occur at all in previous generations. It is not new information; it is replication of old information by a degenerated mechanism. This explains fruit flies with extra wings, sticklebacks with extra fins, and freak shows where animals have too many legs. In any case, it can be explained by the loss of complexity, not the gain.
I think complexity is a legitimate term in biology, since one of your example answers was Carroll’s book, The Making and Evolution of Complexity. Modern technology has taken us to the molecular level, and demonstrated that information is stored there, something Darwin could not have imagined. Therefore, by increased complexity I mean there occurs (for whatever reason) more information at the molecular level than was present in the predecessor molecules. What I’d like to see is something pertaining to an increase in complexity.
I need nothing about natural selection. No one argues against natural selection’s power to eliminate the less competitive organisms, and thus the molecules that gave them rise. That is logical, and it is demonstrated daily. The part I need help with is the power of chance to mutate more complex alternatives from which nature is then to select.
So, more important than examples of change or defense of natural selection, I would like to see a logical argument supporting an hypothesis pertaining to increased complexity by random mutation. Where I come from, no hypothesis can stand, regardless of what it predicts or what is observed, without a logical, step-by-step explanation for why the observation supports the conclusion, and only that conclusion. I’m guessing you call that construct validity, just as I do.
I believe I can give an example of an hypothesis supporting design and based on the probable cause of the stickleback condition (and thus pertaining to the Cambrian issue), but I should wait for your example of validity and hypothesis on some aspect of increased complexity. Otherwise, I’m confident it will not meet your standard.
Don

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »