Horizontal gene transfer discovered from bacteria to insects

Gary S. Gaulin: Thoughts Zachriel? Yes, your paragraph did not answer the question you had posed. Zachriel

Thoughts Zachriel? https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-534918 Gary S. Gaulin

Gary S. Gaulin: could you please in around one paragraph explain the premise, systematics, requirements and necessary variables in the theory that has changed a lot since Darwin’s time, and without confusing it with other theories such as Cell Theory, Gene Theory and all others? No. Zachriel

Zachriel, could you please in around one paragraph explain the premise, systematics, requirements and necessary variables in the theory that has changed a lot since Darwin’s time, and without confusing it with other theories such as Cell Theory, Gene Theory and all others? Gary S. Gaulin

bornagain77: (it is apparently not a universal law like other physical sciences are) The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a law. Zachriel

Zach, I rest my case. I feel, for the unbiased reader. I have more than defended my position and shown your 'evidence' to be vacuous and even deceptive. It now seems we are just repeating points that I have already refuted and you refuse to accept. Thus, I'll leave to the last word to you if you want it. bornagain77

Of humorous note to Zach's 'excuse' for why Darwinism does not have a rigid mathematical basis (it is apparently not a universal law like other physical sciences are),,, It is interesting to note that a materialist/atheist finally gets around to appealing to Darwinism as proof for the multiverse: Excerpt: "Peiris acknowledges that this argument has its critics. “It can predict anything, and therefore it’s not valid,” Peiris said of the reasoning typically used to dismiss the notion of a multiverse as a tautology, rather than a true scientific theory. “But I think that’s the wrong way to think about it.” The theory of evolution, Peiris argues, also resembles a tautology in certain respects — “an organism exists because it survived” — yet it holds tremendous explanatory power. It is a simple model that requires little initial input to produce the vast diversity of species we see today." per Denyse O'Leary https://docs.google.com/document/d/13kI7_fHCT7SHTcFjUPyAKWSjRv9XsvSlgj_zMElD3fc/edit?usp=sharing :) Yep folks the multiverse exists in the minds, excuse me, brains of atheists because Darwinism is a fact! LOL bornagain77

bornagain77: corrected to how all the species of life originated on earth. No. Darwin did not explain all species, including the most recent common ancestor and its ancestors. bornagain77: Moreover, in regards to the origin of life, was Darwin really a Theist when he said God created the first life, or was he just lying about his motives so as make his book more acceptable to the public? He was being poetic. In any case, it wasn't a scientific hypothesis. bornagain77: Claiming that Darwinism encompasses everything from genetics to paleontology is a blatant lie, Genetics and paleontology contradicts Darwinian claims! Not according to the vast majority of geneticists and paleontologists. bornagain77: And why no observational evidence from Lenski’s LTEE? Huh? Lenski has published several papers from his experiment, including the role of contingency in evolution. See Blount, Borland & Lenski, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 2008. bornagain77: I cited evidence that clearly shows that entropy holds for biology. Of course entropy applies to biology. bornagain77: It is on you to empirically show why the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations compared to an extremely rare rate of beneficial mutations does not constitute a insurmountable barrier for Darwinian claims. That has nothing to do with entropy. bornagain77: Understanding the limits of what evolution can do was what was effective in developing the drug cocktail against HIV. Behe had nothing to do with the development of drug cocktails. Behe pointed out that rare events are rare, which everyone already knew. bornagain77: Evolutionary story telling has nothing scientific to say about how feathers originated. Evidence indicates they evolved from scales. Zachriel

corrected to how all the species of life originated on earth. And you still refused to honestly address the evidence I presented anyways!' Moreover, in regards to the origin of life, was Darwin really a Theist when he said God created the first life, or was he just lying about his motives so as make his book more acceptable to the public? Do you consider that deception 'scientific'? And do you support abiogenesis or do you think that God created life on earth as Darwin seemed to believe in his book? Claiming that Darwinism encompasses everything from genetics to paleontology is a blatant lie, Genetics and paleontology contradicts Darwinian claims! Newton could not put a planet in his lab, but you can easily put trillions of bacteria in a lab, so why the dodge? And why no observational evidence from Lenski's LTEE? as to: " In any case, evolution doesn’t contradict the laws of thermodynamics." another lie, I cited evidence that clearly shows that entropy holds for biology. It is on you to empirically show why the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations compared to an extremely rare rate of beneficial mutations does not constitute a insurmountable barrier for Darwinian claims. Moreover, by understanding 'pathogens' Dr. Behe has deduced the 'edge of evolution'. and Understanding the limits of what evolution can do was what was effective in developing the drug cocktail against HIV. Darwinian presupposition that there is no limit to what Darwinian processes can accomplish certainly did not contribute to that breakthrough in finding an effective treatment. It was in realizing the limits of Darwinian processes that an effective treatment was found for HIV! Evolutionary story telling has nothing scientific to say about how feathers originated. Disagree? Go into the lab and prove that lizards can start growing feathers! bornagain77

bornagain77: Darwinism makes claims for how all life originated on earth. Darwin didn't propose a theory about life's origin, only its diversity. bornagain77: Yet Darwinism is certainly not, like other physical sciences, a ‘well established’ field of study. Evolutionary biology is certainly an established field, and encompasses everything from genetics to paleontology. bornagain77: I dare you to go into the lab, using all evolutionary biologists and all the computer power in the world, and by using the mathematics of population genetics, and all the chemicals you want, to turn a bacteria into a jelly fish And Newton couldn't move planets, much less make one. Science works by proposing and testing of hypotheses. bornagain77: lying that evolution does not contradict entropy, and Darwinists trying to censor papers that point out the contradiction of evolution with entropy Sure. The physics community is in on the conspiracy. In any case, evolution doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics. You do realize that adding intelligence doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics? bornagain77: Science Owes nothing to Darwinism Understanding evolution is crucial for fighting pathogens such as influenza. Not to mention feathered dinosaurs. Zachriel

Zach as to: "The Theory of Evolution only applies to biological organisms. They are also all well-established fields of study." Darwinism makes claims for how all the species of life originated on earth. That is a sweeping claim that goes all the way down to the foundation of physical science. Yet Darwinism is certainly not, like other physical sciences, a 'well established' field of study. That is the entire point. Darwinism lacks rigor at all levels.,,, You have no observational nor mathematical evidence to point to tell me how even a single metazoan originated. I dare you to go into the lab, using all evolutionary biologists and all the computer power in the world, and by using the mathematics of population genetics, and all the chemicals you want, to turn a bacteria into a jelly fish,,, It can't be done by humans! Not now, not ever! "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Moreover, Zach, lying that evolution does not contradict entropy, and having Darwinists trying to censor papers that point out the contradiction of evolution with entropy, does not constitute a honest scientific rebuttal of the fact that evolution does, in fact, contradict the degenerative effects of entropy. This is borne out empirically: Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Zach you say: "It’s just not realistic to think that scientists from all over the world, the people who have helped make great advances in science, don’t understand the scientific method." Science Owes nothing to Darwinism, there is not one major breakthrough in science that is attributable to Darwinian presuppositions: Science Owes nothing to Darwinism Excerpt: “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/science-owes-nothing-to-darwinism-jonathan-wells/#comment-531669 Moreover, Darwinism has no observational evidence of a single molecular machine arising by unguided Darwinian processes. To claim Darwinism is a 'well established' science without any such an observation is 'not realistic' to put it mildly and, without such confirming observational evidence is to certainly not 'understand the scientific method'. Moreover, by using the same exact method of reasoning that Darwin himself used to make Darwinism seem 'scientific', (presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question in the remote past), Dr. Stephen Meyer has shown that Intelligent Design is far superior to Darwinism as a scientific explanation for how all life got here: Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design https://vimeo.com/32148403 bornagain77

bornagain77: “geology, medical science, astronomy, germ theory”, do not claim to be overarching theories of science, as well established as Gravity, as Darwinism does. The Theory of Evolution only applies to biological organisms. They are also all well-established fields of study. bornagain77: Nor do they make claims that contradict known laws of science. Nor does the Theory of Evolution. If it did, it wouldn't be considered a valid field of study. bornagain77: Moreover they, especially astronomy and medical science, are heavily reliant on observational evidence. All sciences rely on observation. It's just not realistic to think that scientists from all over the world, the people who have helped make great advances in science, don't understand the scientific method. Zachriel

Zach, "geology, medical science, astronomy, germ theory", do not claim to be overarching theories of science, as well established as Gravity, as Darwinism does. Nor do they make claims that contradict known laws of science. Moreover they, especially astronomy and medical science, are heavily reliant on observational evidence. Darwinism contradicts observational science! as to: "There are areas of evolutionary theory which have a mathematical basis, including cladistics and population genetics," As was pointed out previously, cladistics is a joke that is severely abused by Darwinists, (see Berlinski's reply to the literature bluff of Matzke, One Man Clade, ENV), and population genetics, when modeled correctly using real world data, shows Darwinism to be compliant with the principle of genetic entropy. Moreover population genetics quickly breaks down when trying to model the higher overlapping levels of functional complexity found in life, much less is it useful for making predictions as to how those overlapping levels of functional complexity got here, In fact, in the following video, Fisher's work in population genetics is shown to be mathematically invalid for modeling overlapping complexity. Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k bornagain77

ba, Without a rigid mathematical basis to test against, that will allow scientists to potentially falsify Darwinism, (as other theories of science, including ID, are measured) Darwinism can forever play dodge ball with the evidence and be falsified by nothing. Can you provide a premise of ID that can be mathematically falsified? velikovskys

bornagain77: Yet, contrary to what you believe to be true, ALL RIGID theories of physical science that claim to have vast explanatory power, such as General Realtivity, Quantum Mechanics, Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, ALL, i.e. EVERY ONE OF THEM, have a rigid mathematical basis that can be tested against to extreme levels of precision. So you're claiming that geology, medical science, astronomy, germ theory, etc., are not sciences. That sounds like an argument by definition. There are areas of evolutionary theory which have a mathematical basis, including cladistics and population genetics, but the theory is broader than what can be encapsulated in a few simple formulas, especially with regards to untangling historical events. Zachriel

,,,Despite the red herring tactics from Darwinists about the Entropy of open systems not 'preventing' evolution from happening, the fact of the matter is that when the equations of thermodynamics are scrutinized, we find that purely material processes are not sufficient to explain why life exists in such a extremely high thermodynamically 'non-equilibrium' state. In the following paper, Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that non-material information is what is constraining the cell to be in such a extremely high thermodynamic non-equilibrium state. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information to be independent of energy and matter, instead of emergent from energy and matter, 'resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions'.

Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008

Here is a recent video by Dr. Giem, that gets the main points of Dr. McIntosh’s paper over very well for the lay person:

Biological Information – Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 11-22-2014 by Paul Giem (A. McIntosh) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_r6mFdwQM

Of supplemental note,, It is also very interesting to note that Ludwig Boltzmann, an atheist, when he linked entropy and probability, did not, as Max Planck, a Christian Theist, points out in the following link, think to look for a constant for entropy:

The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: “This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann’s constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant.” http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.html

I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out, or even propose, a precise measurement for the constant on entropy is that he, as an atheist, had thought he had arrived at the ultimate ‘random’ explanation for how everything in the universe operates when he had link probability with entropy. i.e. In linking entropy with probability, Boltzmann, again an atheist, thought he had explained everything that happens in the universe to a ‘random’ chance basis. To him, as an atheist, I hold that it would simply be unfathomable for him to conceive that the ‘random chance’ (probabilistic) events of entropy in the universe should ever be constrained by a constant that would limit the effects of ‘random’ entropic events of the universe. Whereas on the contrary, to a Christian Theist such as Planck, it is expected that even these seemingly random entropic events of the universe should be bounded by a constant. In fact modern science was born out of such thinking:

‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true.’ Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Verse and Music:

Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. Phillips, Craig & Dean - When The Stars Burn Down - Worship Video with lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPuxnQ_vZqY

bornagain77

And, unlike Darwinian claims for which I can find no substantiating evidence, these degenerating effects of entropy in biology are overwhelmingly borne out empirically,,,

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video https://vimeo.com/91162565 Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 1/2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PHsu94HQrL0#t=1040s Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.

Thus contrary to what you want to believe to be true Zach, Darwinism is in fact a pseudo-science that not only does not have a mathematical basis, but is in fact, a pseudo-science that almost directly contradicts a known theory of science (Entropy) that does have an extremely rigid mathematical basis in science:

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

Moreover, Darwinists, instead of ever being honest to these crushing mathematical and empirical difficulties that Entropy presents to Darwinism, have used heavy handed tactics to try to censor any papers pointing these fatal problems with Entropy for Darwinism out,,,

Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article - Granville Sewell episode - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey Luskin - August 20, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/censorship_lose075541.html

,,, and apart from the Darwinian red hearing rhetoric about the Entropy of open systems not 'preventing' evolution from happening (which makes about as much sense as saying that the law of Gravity does not 'prevent' a two-tons of aluminum from flying,,, (but just try to make two-tons of aluminum fly without a massive input of functional information/complexity to make that two tons of aluminum fly!),,,

"The laws of probability apply to open as well as closed systems." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas El Paso Here is a video based on Granville Sewell's 2013 Biocomplexity paper Biological Information - Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems 11-15-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_G9HtsfXfs The Common Sense Law of Physics - Granville Sewell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB-ylAMJfxA&list=UUFtmZ8EmhTxzFJD6Uga9YTg

bornagain77

Zach, like a boy who didn't do his homework, you make a flimsy excuse for why Darwinism does not have a rigid mathematical basis:

"Many areas of science don’t have a “rigid mathematical basis”,"

Yet, contrary to what you believe to be true, ALL RIGID theories of physical science that claim to have vast explanatory power, such as General Realtivity, Quantum Mechanics, Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, ALL, i.e. EVERY ONE OF THEM, have a rigid mathematical basis that can be tested against to extreme levels of precision. You can see the foundational equations of modern science on Table 1 of the following paper:

"Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?" Walter Bradley - paper Excerpt: Only in the 20th century have we come to fully understand that the incredibly diverse phenomena that we observe in nature are the outworking of a very small number of physical laws, each of which may be described by a simple mathematical relationship. Indeed, so simple in mathematical form and small in number are these physical laws that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper, as seen in Table 1. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/scievidence.html Designed Universe - Walter Bradley PhD.- video (24:30 minute mark for list of equations) https://vimeo.com/105537135

Yet, Darwinism is the only hypothesis in science that claims to be an overarching theory of science, and which claims to have vast explanatory power for how life came to be on earth, (which is certainly not a minor claim for a supposedly 'scientific' theory to make), that has nothing of the sort that we can test against. Even Darwin himself admitted that his theory lacked the rigor of a proper science:

Science owes nothing to Darwinism – Jonathan Wells - November 24, 2014 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/science-owes-nothing-to-darwinism-jonathan-wells/

Indeed, Darwinism does not even appeal to any known physical laws of the universe, as other overarching theories of science do, so as to derive any of the so called 'predictions' of Darwinism, (forget all the major failed predictions of Darwinism for a moment!).

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

Moreover, the Second Law of thermodynamics, which is based on rigid, testable, mathematics,,,

Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

,,,, Entropy is VERY antagonistic to any Darwinian claims of easily increasing functional complexity/information! In fact, entropy is the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.

Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both - 2007 Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,, http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030220

This following video, visually, brings the point very personally home to us about the degenerating effects of Entropy on our bodies:

Aging Process - 85 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk

bornagain77

There are a number of ways to show how mutation and selection can create new structures.

And yet no one has been able to do such a thing. Very telling, that. Joe

You claim that Darwinism has a demonstrated empirical basis, but cite no evidence. Zachriel:

The nested hierarchy

Liar. Darwin specifically claimed that the numerous transitional fossils required by his concept precludes such an arrangement. Joe

What matters is science is the scientific method, the ability to predict and test entailments of the theory.

Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have any entailments.

As the Theory of Evolution posits

Please reference this alleged theory of evolution.

Let’s consider the mammalian middle ear.

Please do. Start by telling us how many mutations it took to produce and what genes were involved.

Provide a precise definition of information, and a testable entailment for your claim.

Buy a dictionary and then learn how to use it. Your ignorance means nothing. Joe

bornagain77: 1. Without a rigid mathematical basis to test against, that will allow scientists to potentially falsify Darwinism, (as other theories of science, including ID, are measured) Darwinism can forever play dodge ball with the evidence and be falsified by nothing. Many areas of science don't have a "rigid mathematical basis", whatever that is supposed to mean. What matters is science is the scientific method, the ability to predict and test entailments of the theory. bornagain77: Not even the infamous hypothetical Precambrian rabbit would falsify Darwinism since Darwinists can always spin a story as to why it doesn’t falsify Darwinism. As the Theory of Evolution posits an ancestor-descendant relationship, showing that an organism precedes any plausible ancestor would falsify the Theory. bornagain77: 2. You claim that Darwinism has a demonstrated empirical basis, but cite no evidence. The nested hierarchy. Fossil succession. bornagain77: 3. You claim there are a number of ways to show that unguided processes can ‘create new structures’. Sure. Let's consider the mammalian middle ear. bornagain77: 4. Actually, contrary to what you personally believe is ‘scientifically meaningless, information being shown to be its own independent entity that is not reducible to a material basis Gobbledygook. Provide a precise definition of information, and a testable entailment for your claim. Zachriel

Zach, 1. I wholeheartedly disagree. Without a rigid mathematical basis to test against, that will allow scientists to potentially falsify Darwinism, (as other theories of science, including ID, are measured) Darwinism can forever play dodge ball with the evidence and be falsified by nothing. Not even the infamous hypothetical Precambrian rabbit would falsify Darwinism since Darwinists can always spin a story as to why it doesn't falsify Darwinism. Dr. Hunter puts the situation between Darwinism and the abundant contrary scientific evidence to Darwinism like this:

“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter

It is interesting to note that ID, unlike Darwinism, can easily be falsified by empirical evidence,,, One molecular machine, or non-trivial functional information, generated by unguided material processes, would falsify ID,,

Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

2. You claim that Darwinism has a demonstrated empirical basis, but cite no evidence. Funny, if Darwinism had a demonstrated empirical basis, such as one molecular machine generated by unguided material processes, then ID would be falsified. Of note, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:

Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

Zach, let's, to put it nicely, just say you are bluffing about the empirical evidence shall we. 3. You claim there are a number of ways to show that unguided processes can 'create new structures'. Okie dokie, would one of those 'structures' happen to include a molecular machine such as a flagellum???

Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors - 2011 Excerpt: Figure 3 - Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/figure/f3/

A citation from you including a video of molecular machines, such as a ribosome, spontaneously assembling themselves from a soup of amino acids would be the perfect refutation. We eagerly await your refutation! :) 4, You claim that the fact that information is not reducible to a material basis is 'Scientifically meaningless'. Actually, contrary to what you personally believe is 'scientifically meaningless, information being shown to be its own independent entity that is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact quantum teleportation shows material to be reducible to a information basis), is one of the most important scientific facts a person can learn about the structure of reality.

"I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons. I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself. Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory." – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.

etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77

bornagain77: The primary reasons that Darwinism is a pseudo-science are as such:

1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis

1. Not required of a scientific theory, though population genetics does have a mathematical basis. 2. False. 3. False. There are a number of ways to show how mutation and selection can create new structures. 4. Scientifically meaningless. Zachriel

In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Thus Darwinism, even though Darwinists will refuse to accept the falsification, is empirically falsified as far as our best science can tell us. Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Moriah Peters - You Carry Me - music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H-zQjgurQ

bornagain77

And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to demonstrate how a single gene/protein of those ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathways arose.

"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

The reason why a ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure, such as a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway, would be, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to a 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:

Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Dr. Quantum – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

I personally hold that the reason why internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional instead of three dimensional is because of exactly what Darwinian evolution has consistently failed to explain the origination of. i.e. functional information. ‘Higher dimensional’ information, which is bursting at the seams in life, simply cannot be reduced to any 3-dimensional energy-matter basis:

John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw

In the following paper, Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that non-material information is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter 'resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions'.

Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, (Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. - the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008

Here is a recent video by Dr. Giem, that gets the main thermodynamic points of Dr. McIntosh’s paper over very well for the lay person:

Biological Information – Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 11-22-2014 by Paul Giem (A. McIntosh) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_r6mFdwQM

Dr. McIntosh's contention that 'non-material information' must be constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium has been borne out empirically. i.e. It is now found that 'non-local', beyond space-time matter-energy, Quantum entanglement/information 'holds' DNA (and proteins) together:

Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/

That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, i.e. found in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, per physorg etc.. etc..

bornagain77

Moreover, Natural Selection, that other great pillar upon which Darwinian evolution rests, has also been undermined as having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have attributed to it. Even William Provine himself admits that Natural Selection is not a 'force' that pushes or pulls anything,,

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) William Provine - Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University

To the extent that Natural Selection does do anything, Natural Selection is found to be a eliminative force not a generative force as is commonly believed in Darwinian thought:

"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk From a Frog to a Prince - video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) - No Beneficial Mutations - Gitt - Spetner - Denton - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

As well, Natural Selection is grossly inadequate to do the work attributed to it by Darwinists because of what is termed ‘the princess and the pea’ paradox. The devastating ‘princess and the pea’ paradox is clearly elucidated by Dr. John Sanford, at the 8:14 minute mark, of this following video,,,

Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933

Dr. Sanford points out, in the preceding video, that Natural Selection acts at the coarse level of the entire organism (phenotype) and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘slightly detrimental’, and have no noticeable effect on phenotypes, and are thus far below the power of Natural Selection to remove from genomes before they spread throughout the population. Here is a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Sanford on the subject:

“Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations” - John Sanford - September 6, 2013 Excerpt of concluding comments: Our findings raise a very interesting theoretical problem — in a large genome, how do the millions of low-impact (yet functional) nucleotides arise? It is universally agreed that selection works very well for high-impact mutations. However, unless some new and as yet undiscovered process is operating in nature, there should be selection breakdown for the great majority of mutations that have small impact on fitness.,,, We show that selection breakdown is not just a simple function of population size, but is seriously impacted by other factors, especially selection interference. We are convinced that our formulation and methodology (i.e., genetic accounting) provide the most biologically-realistic analysis of selection breakdown to date. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0011

Here are a few more notes on this insurmountable ‘princess and the pea’ paradox:

Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video https://vimeo.com/91162565 The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm

Moreover, as if the princess and the pea paradox were not devastating enough as to undermining any credibility Natural Selection might have had as to having the causal adequacy to explain the highly integrated levels of overlapping functional information found in life, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is now known to not even be on the right playing field in the first place:

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf

Here is, what a Darwinist termed, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway (which operates as if it were ’4-Dimensional):

ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1

bornagain77

Another primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that Darwinian evolution does not have a demonstrated empirical basis to support its claims (in fact empirical evidence also consistently shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html

Another reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that the two foundational pillars of Darwinian evolution, Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection, are both now shown to be severely compromised as to having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have presupposed for them. In regards to random mutation, although Darwinian evolution appeals to ‘unguided’ random mutations/variations to DNA as the main creative source for all evolutionary novelty, there are now known to be extensive layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any unguided “random” changes happening to DNA in the first place:

The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011 Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.” http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf

Moreover, for the vast majority of times that changes do happen to DNA, they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ by sophisticated molecular machines, not unguided ‘random changes’ from a cosmic ray, chemical imbalance, or some such entropy driven event as that:

How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

And when random, accidental, mutations do slip through the multiple layers of error correction, they are found to be, as was highlighted in the preceding Behe paper, detrimental to the organism for the vast majority of times. Here are many more references along that line in the following paper:

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

bornagain77

Zach, Darwinism is a pseudo-science in the full meaning of the word. The primary reasons that Darwinism is a pseudo-science are as such:

1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis

Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, who won the ‘censor of the year award’ from ENV admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science:

“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago

The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Chaitin is quoted by Dr. Robert Marks at the 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600

One of the primary reasons why a rigid mathematical basis for Darwinism will never be formulated is because of the insistence of Darwinists for the 'randomness postulate' at the base of Darwin's theory:

“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli - Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher(pp. 27-28) “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

Moreover, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, math consistently shows us that Darwinism is astronomically unlikely:

HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford , Walter ReMine

bornagain77

One of the alleged ToE's facets is the ability to stay hidden. :razz: Joe

LoL! @ Zachriel:

The Theory of Evolution has many facets, some of which have a mathematical basis, such as population genetics, and others which are qualitative. The Theory also includes historical components which are often subject to change.

Please link to this alleged theory if evolution so we can all see what it really says.

The most direct falsification would be to show an organism precedes any plausible ancestor.

Unguided evolution evolution is stuck at prokaryotes... Joe

Hey Zachriel, I think you mean to be addressing bornagain77 instead of little ole me peace fifthmonarchyman

bornagain77: Darwinism is not a science but a pseudo-science. Darwinism has several meanings. The most common is evolution by natural selection. You probably mean the Theory of Evolution. bornagain77: Then provide the rigid mathematical falsification criteria that we can test against and so as to potentially falsify Darwinism with! The Theory of Evolution has many facets, some of which have a mathematical basis, such as population genetics, and others which are qualitative. The Theory also includes historical components which are often subject to change. The most direct falsification would be to show an organism precedes any plausible ancestor. bornagain77: The fossil(s) did not ‘fit a prediction’. Of course it did. It's right in your video. The speaker is making fun of the notion of a hypothesis from the 1970s, then you immediately afterwards post the fossil findings from 2011. You have to really try to avoid the implications of what you yourself posted. -- ETA: fixed attribution Zachriel

Darwinism is not a science but a pseudo-science. Disagree? Then provide the rigid mathematical falsification criteria that we can test against and so as to potentially falsify Darwinism with! Calling words that Darwinists use 'scientific definitions' makes as much sense as calling the terms alchemists used 'scientific definitions'. The fossil(s) did not 'fit a prediction'. It was shoe horned into your imagination: http://creation.com/mammal-ear-evolution Moreover, I have more than enough reason to request observational evidence for your claim that such transitions are possible since the fossil record is not one of transitions, as Darwin predicted, but is a record of sudden appearance and overall stasis: Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their intermediate ancestors are absent in the earlier geologic strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution? Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 14 - Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." Robert L Carroll (born 1938) - vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50 (January 1979): 23, 22-29. "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Tom S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999), 246. - Curator of Zoological Collections "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.” Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould "The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34. "Species [in the strata of the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming] that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95. "The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 40. "No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links . . . There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed." Niles Eldredge, quoted in George Alexander, “Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978. "Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks." Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24. "Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89. bornagain77

bornagain77: I disagree that the fossils are transitional, I disagree that the characteristics are ‘primitive’ and ‘derived’. These terms have specific scientific definitions. bornagain77: I disagree that the fossils were ‘predicted’. YOU provided the evidence. First, you linked to a video which had a diagram from the 1970s with the predicted fossil forms. Then you linked to a recent find of fossils that fit those predictions. Zachriel

I disagree that the fossils are transitional, I disagree that the characteristics are 'primitive' and 'derived'. I disagree that the fossils were 'predicted'. I hold that the fossils were force-fit into an imaginary sequence and that the only thing really connecting the fossils are the imaginary lines evolutionists have drawn on paper. ‘Transitional form’ in mammal ear evolution—more cacophony http://creation.com/mammal-ear-evolution Moreover, I also note that you failed (once again) to provide any direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence to substantiate your claim that such transitions are possible. (this is because you have no evidence!) ,,, Observational evidence so as substantiate your 'just so' story as to how my exquisitely designed hearing ear got here,,, Of note: There are about.... Ten-trillion levels of intensity to human hearing (from threshold to pain, 0 to 130 decibels). This makes the sense of hearing the widest ranging of all senses. The ear is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than two-ten-thousandths-of-a-millionth of barometric pressure. This moves the eardrum about one-hundreth-millionth of an inch. This threshold of hearing corresponds to a vibration width of only one-hundreth of an hydrogen atom’s diameter. (Hydrogen is the smallest atom.) Under favourable conditions a normal person may actually perceive sound waves with the power of only 10-16 (1/10,000,000, 000,000,000) of a watt. Golden Ratio in The Ear The ear reflects the Fibonacci spiral. The Fibonacci spiral stars out with a perfect golden rectangle. The you follow the Fibonacci pattern and create smaller and smaller golden rectangles. From this, a spiral can be drawn, where the radius of the spiral, at any given point, is the length of the corresponding square to a golden rectangle. Golden Ratio In the Cochlea It is also in the cochlea inside the ear. The cochlea is a small organ inside the ear which helps you hear. It has a spiral shape although it is not a prefect spiral. http://goldenratioiseverywhere.weebly.com/face.html How the ear works - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgdqp-oPb1Q bornagain77

bornagain77: I disagree that the fossils are transitional. The fossils show the primitive and derivde structure that were predicted to exist. Of course, each new transitional makes two new gaps! Did ID predict the existence of these fossils? Zachriel

I disagree that the fossils are transitional. And I disagree that lining various fossils up in a row to give the illusion of a transition qualifies as rigid science. I call it more akin to seeing faces in the clouds. And with the Cambrian explosion and the sudden appearance and stasis throughout the fossil record noted by Gould and others, I have more than sufficient reason to be skeptical of your 'just so' story as to how my hearing ear got here. Thus I ask you for direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence that what you claim to be possible for unguided material processes is actually possible for unguided material processes,,,, Surely after 150 plus years you should have countless examples you can point to?!? Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany. Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 1 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-09T17_31_28-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 2" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-11T15_59_50-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt.3" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-13T16_47_09-08_00 Mutation + Selection = Stasis - October 8th, 2014 Excerpt: As a trained physicist, Desai applied a statistical perspective using robots to precisely manipulate hundreds of lines of yeast to perform large scale evolutionary experiments. Scientists have long studied genetic evolution of microbes, but until now, only a few strains at a time. Robotically managing 640 lines of yeast from a single parent cell, Desai’s team was efficiently tooled to statistically analyze evolution at this level for the first time. In an interview with Singer, Joshua Plotkin, an evolutionary scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “This is the physicist’s approach to evolution, stripping down everything to the simplest possible conditions… They could partition how much of evolution is attributable to chance, how much to the starting point, and how much to measurement noise.”,,, While early mutations in the experiment initially variably influenced fitness, fitness in the final generations was the same. “Scientists,” Singer noted, “don’t know why all genetic roads in yeast seem to arrive at the same endpoint”.,,,, “I think many people think about one gene for one trait, a deterministic way of evolution solving problems,” David Reznick, a biologist at the University of California-Riverside, told Singer. “This says that’s not true.” Unexpectantly, Desai’s team discovered genetic mutations plus selection yields stasis in the microbe model– not evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2014/10/mutation-selection-stasis/ Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here, and no evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution surfaces: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper in this following podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 bornagain77

I disagree that the fossils are transitional. And I disagree that lining various fossils up in a row to give the illusion of a transition qualifies as rigid science. bornagain77

bornagain77: what part of ‘assuming your conclusion’ do you not understand It's not assuming a conclusion to posit the existence of a transitional, then to find empirical evidence of the transitional. What's interesting is that it was your own citation! bornagain77 (quoting): “Finally, in the absence of a viable materialistic mechanism to account for the transition in question, the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular” No. That's not what is meant by circular reasoning. If you posit a transitional and find a transitional, it lends support to the hypothesis. It's called the scientific method. Zachriel

Zach what part of 'assuming your conclusion' do you not understand "Finally, in the absence of a viable materialistic mechanism to account for the transition in question, the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular" Jonatham M bornagain77

PaV @ 5 -

IOW, there are lots of possibilities, ones more probable than simply HGT in the direction of ‘bacteria’ to ‘animal,’ and yet, our Darwinist brethren simply go into their Darwinian toolhouse, pick out a few little tools that give some kind of plausible explanation, and then off they go.

I don't know if you've read the paper, but the phylogeny in Fig. 1b suggests two HGT events from bacteria to eukaryotes: one in Daphnia, and one in mites. If the HGT had been the other way around, one would expect the bacteria to be placed within a small number of lineages within the tree, as each clade would represent one HGT event. Bob O'H

bornagain77: as to middle ear evolution, like everything else, that supposed evidence for evolution falls apart on scrutiny First, you post a video using a forty year old diagram showing a posited transitional. Then you quote-mine a paper which provides the fossil evidence of the transition. From Meng et al., "Here we report the first unambiguous ectotympanic (angular), malleus (articular and prearticular) and incus (quadrate) of an Early Cretaceous eutriconodont mammal... This transitional mammalian middle ear narrows the morphological gap between the mandibular middle ear in basal mammaliaforms and the definitive mammalian middle ear (DMME) of extant mammals; it reveals complex changes contributing to the detachment of ear ossicles during mammalian evolution." Zachriel

Box:

A prerequisite of an hierarchic classification system, is the absence of any overlapping classes. However, due to this absence of any overlapping classes, a hierarchic classification system is – by definition – the wrong tool to show evolution; overlap by gradual change via branching descent.

That is correct. The following may help- summary of the principles of hierarchy theory Joe

sparc, I don't have the link. Moreover, beneficial mutations that gain a fitness advantage by breaking something are a dime a dozen and greatly out numbered beneficial mutations that are on their way to building some supposed new molecular machine (Behe's First Rule). That by itself renders Darwinian explanations untenable. As to the specifics of the Gauger experiment, and whether it produced new functional complexity/information above Behe's 2 protein-protein binding site limit, I don't have any details. It is interesting that Darwinists, instead of producing any observational evidence of unguided Darwinian processes producing functional information, would have to rely on this murky episode from a speech given years ago by Dr. Gauger. Perhaps you would like to clarify how many binding sites were produced and how much functional information was generated in the Gauger experiment so as to 'clear the fog' as it were and forever vindicate Darwinism as being a science instead of a unsubstantiated pseudo-science? bornagain77

BA77

HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.

There have been reports that during Wistar II DI's and Biological Institute's own Dr. Gauger reported such findings in E. coli:

The next presentation in this session was by Ann Gauger, a microbiologist and employee of the Biologic Institute, whose presentation was entitled, “Assessing the difficulty of pathway evolution: an experimental test.” Her presentation was remarkable in part because she performed experiments and reported original data. She began with the repetitive attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, stating that the current complexity of metabolic pathways within cells could not have been created by gene duplication or gene recruitment (another name for co-option), and therefore they were designed. She suggested that contemporary evolutionists believe if there is not a payoff in terms of adaptive value within a few generations, any duplicated gene will be lost, and that for recruitment/co-option to work, function must change within a very few mutations. It is factually untrue that these assertions are an essential part of Darwinian theory. At most, they were initial starting points for investigations into protein evolution long ago, but today’s evolutionary biology does not adhere to any of them. Gene duplication is considered an integral part of evolutionary dynamics and one major source of the co-option that is so ubiquitous in evolution. She suggested that when similar proteins are “arranged by hierarchy,” the evidence suggests they arose from a common ancestor that predates the eukaryote/prokaryote split and perhaps even the Archaea. Gauger thus, like Behe, accepted not only a phylogeny of life but an ancient singular origin of life. Then she embarked on a series of experiments designed to emulate 2 billion years of microbial evolution in Petri dishes over a few bacterial generations. Specifically, she wanted to see if either of two forms of a protein would mutate directly into the other under those experimental conditions. They did not. Gunther Wagner congratulated Dr. Gauger on doing some great experimental work, but noted some logical inconsistencies in inference. The first is a phylogenetic comparative issue; it is necessary to know the ancestral state of the two proteins. If you are dealing with two proteins each derived separately from a common ancestor, then the experiment involves a minimum of two steps, backwards to the ancestral condition and then forwards to the alternative derived condition. It seems unlikely that you would be able to do that experimentally, especially if you have no idea of the environmental conditions under which the evolutionary diversification took place, and no idea if there were any intermediate forms that no longer survive. In response, Gauger admitted that the two proteins she studied are quite old and that studies of enzymes that are more recently diverged from each other report a lot of functional co-option, but only on a small scale. She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

I would appreciate if you could help with a video link to said conference. sparc

Joe, Would you care to answer my question on ONH here? Box

Yes, the nested hierarchy is an entailment of the Theory of Evolution. See Darwin 1859.

That is a lie. First there isn't a theory of evolution and second Darwin said that given the number of transitionals we shouldn't be able to form a nested hierarchy. Joe

as to middle ear evolution, like everything else, that supposed evidence for evolution falls apart on scrutiny,, Neo-Darwinists have a fictitious fossil series leading from jaw bones to inner ear bones. That particular Darwinian fairy tale is addressed at the 31:49 minute mark of this following video (you have to skip over 31:49 minutes of a ‘brief’ description of the stunning engineering and design found in the ear to get to the ludicrous, and laughable, Darwinian explanation proffered by evolutionists for this amazing sophistication we find in the ear). The Hearing Ear by Dr. David Menton - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPiXlJ3eIwo On the Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear - Jonathan M. - July 25, 2012 Excerpt: Moreover, Meng et al. (2011) report that Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon.",,, In general, what have been interpreted as ear ossicles in Yanoconodon differ significantly from the middle ear elements of Liaoconodon.,,, Finally, in the absence of a viable materialistic mechanism to account for the transition in question, the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular -- it assumes that these structures are connected by descent. When one's entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset, it is no wonder that any and every observation is taken as supportive of that paradigm. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/on_the_evolutio062511.html bornagain77

gain, you might want to consider the evidence for the evolution of the mammalian middle ear.

There isn't any such evidence. No one knows how many mutations were involved nor what genes were involved. It is not science Joe

Zach, I ask for a mathematical proof for Darwinism and you refer to cladistics? I hate to have to tell you this, but cladistics is far from a rigid mathematical proof for Darwinism! In fact, like embryo comparisons, cladistics is, as was made abundantly clear by Matzke's reply to Meyer's Darwin's Doubt, more than ripe for abuse by Darwinists: A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin's theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. "Phylogenetic systematics," the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, "relies on the theory of evolution." To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air. Tight fit, major fail.7 No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that "phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever."8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer's Argument for Intelligent Design Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4 Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k Stephen Meyer explains why the use of cladistic analysis -- stem groups, crown groups, cladograms, ghost lineages -- fails to satisfy. "In order to compensate for missing fossils, we have to postulate more missing fossils. So I don't think that this really solves the problem of the missing fossils. I think it actually accentuates it." Stephen Meyer bornagain77

Zach, since you have no OBSERVATIONAL evidence, you accuse me of refusing to look at the evidence of ‘embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence’ that you imagine supports Darwinism. Contrary to what you believe, I have looked at the evidence from each field and found it severely wanting. In fact, just on this thread, in post 11, I have listed much evidence that refutes your claim that molecular and fossil evidence supports Darwinism (and also shows you to be dishonest (surprise!) in your claim that I refuse to look at the evidence): https://uncommondescent.com/news/horizontal-gene-transfer-discovered-from-bacteria-to-insects/#comment-533102 as to embryos, neither do they, in the least, support your claims for Darwinism. In fact, Haeckel's embryos are known to be one of the biggest perpetuated frauds in science: One of the most blatant examples of a known falsehood being taught as proof of evolution is Haeckel's Embryo drawings. Though the drawings have been known to be fraudulent for over 100 years; Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Casey Luskin - October 11, 2012 Excerpt: embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again." Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." ,,, So if you're a Darwin lobbyist defending a textbook that uses Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, be forewarned: neither Bob Richards nor any other credible authorities I'm aware of endorse the unqualified and uncritical use of Haeckel's original inaccurate drawings in biology textbooks today. You're on your own. per ENV Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's (Bogus) Embryos - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Haeckels-Embryos-Cropped-II.jpg Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997 Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154 Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution - June 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/current_textbooks_misuse_embry035751.html etc.. etc.. A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Still Awaiting Engagement: A Reply to Robert Bishop on Darwin's Doubt - Paul Nelson - September 8, 2014 Excerpt: "Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan." Eric Davidson - 2011 ,, it is difficult to miss Davidson's thrust. As far as the origin of animal body plans is concerned, neo-Darwinism isn't incomplete or insufficient. It is dead wrong.,,, bornagain77

Zach, since you have no OBSERVATIONAL evidence, you accuse me of refusing to look at the evidence of ‘embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence’ that you imagine supports Darwinism. Contrary to what you believe, I have looked at the evidence from each field and found it severely wanting. In fact, just on this thread, in post 11, I have listed much evidence that refutes your claim that molecular and fossil evidence supports Darwinism (and also shows you to be dishonest (surprise!) in your claim that I refuse to look at the evidence): https://uncommondescent.com/news/horizontal-gene-transfer-discovered-from-bacteria-to-insects/#comment-533102 as to embryos, neither do they, in the least, support your claims for Darwinism. In fact, Haecel's embryos are known to be one of the biggest perpetuated frauds in science: One of the most blatant examples of a known falsehood being taught as proof of evolution is Haeckel's Embryo drawings. Though the drawings have been known to be fraudulent for over 100 years; Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Casey Luskin - October 11, 2012 Excerpt: embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again." Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." ,,, So if you're a Darwin lobbyist defending a textbook that uses Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, be forewarned: neither Bob Richards nor any other credible authorities I'm aware of endorse the unqualified and uncritical use of Haeckel's original inaccurate drawings in biology textbooks today. You're on your own. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1065151.html Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's (Bogus) Embryos - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Haeckels-Embryos-Cropped-II.jpg Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997 Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154 Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution - June 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/current_textbooks_misuse_embry035751.html etc.. etc.. A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Still Awaiting Engagement: A Reply to Robert Bishop on Darwin's Doubt - Paul Nelson - September 8, 2014 Excerpt: "Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan." Eric Davidson - 2011 ,, it is difficult to miss Davidson's thrust. As far as the origin of animal body plans is concerned, neo-Darwinism isn't incomplete or insufficient. It is dead wrong.,,, bornagain77

bornagain77: where is the unlimited plasticity instead of just variation within kind? The definition of "kind" seems to vary considerably. Sometimes all vertebrates are the same kind. Now cats and dogs different kinds. Zachriel

We offered to discuss specifics of reproductive isolation, and to discuss the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. This is your answer. bornagain77: {piles of citations} bornagain77: "You instead have a literature bluff" bornagain77: perhaps you can show us the rigid mathematical basis that will allow Darwinism to potentially be falsified as other overarching theories of science are potentially falsifiable? "Darwinism" is rather vague. If you mean the Theory of Evolution, you start with branching descent, which provides the historical framework for understanding the mechanisms involved in shaping the tree. There are entire scientific journals dedicated to cladistics. Zachriel

as to,,, "Other mechanisms include changes to behavior, coloration, song, sexual organs, none of which requires a loss of genetic information." Methinks you are much too easily hoodwinked! How about changing a dog into a cat? i.e. where is the unlimited plasticity instead of just variation within kind? bornagain77

as to polyploidy,,, John Sanford, a leading expert in plant genetics, examines Polyploidy (Gene/Chromosome Duplication) fallacies in Appendix 4 of his book "Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Genome". "What about polyploidy plants? It has been claimed that since some plants are polyploidy (having double the normal chromosome numbers), this proves that duplication must be beneficial and must increase information. Polyploidy was my special area of study during my Ph.D. thesis. Interestingly, it makes a great deal of difference how a polyploid arises. If somatic (body) cells are treated with the chemical called colchicine, cell division is disrupted , resulting in chromosome doubling - but no new information arises. The plants that result are almost always very stunted, morphologically distorted, and generally sterile. The reason for this should be obvious - the plants must waste twice as much energy to make twice as much DNA, but with no new genetic information! The nucleus is also roughly twice as large, disrupting proper cell shape and cell size. In fact, the plants actually have less information than before, because a great deal of the information which controls gene regulation depends on gene dosage (copy number). Loss of regulatory control is loss of information. This is really the same reason why an extra chromosome causes Down's Syndrome. Thousands of genes become improperly improperly regulated, because of extra genic copies. If somatic polyploidization is consistently deleterious, why are there any polyploidy plants at all - such as potatoes? The reason is that polyploidy can arise by a different process - which is called sexual polyploidization.This happens when a unreduced sperm unites with a unreduced egg. In this special case, all of the information within the two parents is combined into the offspring, and there can be a net gain of information within that single individual. But there is no more total information within the population. the information within the two parents was simply pooled. In such a case we are seeing pooling of information, but not any new information.",,, "in some special cases, the extra level of gene backup within a polyploidy can outweigh the problems of disrupted gene regulation and reduced fertility - and so can result in a type of "net gain". But such a "net gain" is more accurately described as a net reduction in the rate of degeneration." John Sanford - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome - pages 191-192 - Dr. John Sanford has been a Cornell University Professor for more that 25 years (being semi-retired since 1998). He received his Ph. D. from the University of Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics.,,, His most significant scientific contributions involved three inventions - the biolistic ("gene gun") process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. (Due to such a stellar record in plant genetics, I take Dr. Sanford's unmatched experimental experience of plants, strictly obeying the principle of Genetic Entropy, with never a violation, to be 'state of the art' for what we can expect for the polyploidy of plants). Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany. bornagain77

As to falsifying Darwinism, perhaps you can show us the rigid mathematical basis that will allow Darwinism to potentially be falsified as other overarching theories of science are potentially falsifiable? “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Chaitin is quoted at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600 HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford bornagain77

bornagain77: reproductive isolation through loss of genetic information (i.e. sub-speciation) is not what you need to prove Darwinism true and ID false One means of reproductive isolation is polyploidy, which increases genetic information. Another is chromosome rearrangement, which does not result in the loss of genetic information. Other mechanisms include changes to behavior, coloration, song, sexual organs, none of which requires a loss of genetic information. Zachriel

Zach, reproductive isolation through loss of genetic information (i.e. sub-speciation) is not what you need to prove Darwinism true and ID false: A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012 - article http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin's speciation FAQ as a 'literature bluff' Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00 bornagain77

bornagain: your appeal to millions of years instead of direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence to falsify ID and substantiate Darwinism is duly noted and dismissed as completely unscientific Hypothesis: evolution occurs over millions of years fifthmonarchyman: I can't see it happening before my eyes. You do realize that's not a valid falsification. bornagain (quoting): None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Speciation has been observed. Varying degrees of reproductive isolation have been observed. bornagain: moreover, contrary to what you imagine, ‘embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence’ are certainly not your friends in trying to substantiate Darwinism As you refuse to look at it, it's not clear you would be able to tell. You don't even seem to understand the basic evidence scientists consider important in support of evolutionary theory. Again, you might want to consider the evidence for the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. It's a excellent example because the modern structure is irreducibly complex, but we have fossils showing how it evolved. Zachriel

Zach, your appeal to millions of years instead of direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence to falsify ID and substantiate Darwinism is duly noted and dismissed as completely unscientific:

Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: "Eldredge claims that, after 150 years, science has failed to disprove the theory of evolution and, therefore, "evolution has triumphed". In other words, the theory of evolution rests on the failure of science to show that it is false. Nevertheless, he believes the theory can be scientifically tested. But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.,,," Alan H. Linton is emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/159282.article

moreover, contrary to what you imagine, 'embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence' are certainly not your friends in trying to substantiate Darwinism,,, bornagain77

bornagain77: contrary to what you imagine to be true, you have no cited OBSERVATIONAL evidence for codes originating, nor getting more complex, by unguided material processes. The authors, peer reviewers, and editors of scientific journals disagree. As do we. bornagain77: You instead have a literature bluff Teehee. Oh. Sorry. bornagain77: You instead have a literature bluff saying how the genetic code MIGHT HAVE originated. But instead of responding to the specifics as to why the researchers may be mistaken, you just wave your hands and spew forth a long "literature bluff". bornagain77: if there were ever ANY OBSERVED instances of unguided material processes creating functional information and/or complexity, then ID would be quickly falsified. Evolution occurs over millions of years, so it's unlike you will see much happening in a few years. Let's try a simler example. A canonical example is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, which is supported by studies of embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence. Zachriel

Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting - Michael Behe - November 21, 2013 Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture -- a cumulative total of trillions of cells -- has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that's equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski's project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,, ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 Dear Professors Miller and Myers, Talk is cheap. Let's see your numbers. In your recent post on and earlier reviews of my book The Edge of Evolution you toss out a lot of words, but no calculations. You downplay FRS Nicholas White's straightforward estimate that -- considering the number of cells per malaria patient (a trillion), times the number of ill people over the years (billions), divided by the number of independent events (fewer than ten) -- the development of chloroquine-resistance in malaria is an event of probability about 1 in 10^20 malaria-cell replications. Okay, if you don't like that, what's your estimate? Let's see your numbers.,,, ,,, If you folks think that direct, parsimonious, rather obvious route to 1 in 10^20 isn't reasonable, go ahead, calculate a different one, then tell us how much it matters, quantitatively. Posit whatever favorable or neutral mutations you want. Just make sure they're consistent with the evidence in the literature (especially the rarity of resistance, the total number of cells available, and the demonstration by Summers et al. that a minimum of two specific mutations in PfCRT is needed for chloroquine transport). Tell us about the effects of other genes, or population structures, if you think they matter much, or let us know if you disagree for some reason with a reported literature result. Or, Ken, tell us how that ARMD phenotype you like to mention affects the math. Just make sure it all works out to around 1 in 10^20, or let us know why not. Everyone is looking forward to seeing your calculations. Please keep the rhetoric to a minimum. With all best wishes (especially to Professor Myers for a speedy recovery), Mike Behe http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html etc.. etc.. bornagain77

Zach, contrary to what you imagine to be true, you have no cited OBSERVATIONAL evidence for codes originating, nor getting more complex, by unguided material processes. You instead have a literature bluff saying how the genetic code MIGHT HAVE originated. For you to claim that is OBSERVATIONAL evidence is, sans Matzke, dishonest! Moreover, if there were ever ANY OBSERVED instances of unguided material processes creating functional information and/or complexity, then ID would be quickly falsified. As it is, as Dr. Stephen Meyer has repeatedly pointed out, every time we see information (or functional complexity) we invariably trace its source back to mind. There simply are no instances where we trace functional information and/or complexity back to unguided material processes. A few notes to that effect:

Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996 Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum - March 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors - 2011 - pictures Excerpt: Figure 3 - Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/figure/f3/ Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291 The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html "As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information." - Stephen Meyer http://www.signatureinthecell.com/responses/response-to-darrel-falk.php

bornagain77

Hypothesis: An idea you can test. References https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0CGhy6cNJE http://www.pbs.org/parents/dinosaurtrain/activities/a-colorful-hypothesis/ Gary S. Gaulin

bornagain77: you equate hypothesis with observational evidence! No. It's hypothesis, entailed predictions, observation. The hypothesis is a tentative assumption held for the purpose of deducing and testing its empirical implications through observation. bornagain77: NO ONE has ever SEEN any code arise, nor any simpler code get more complex, by unguided material processes! And Galileo couldn't see the Earth move. bornagain77: Galileo could directly observe the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter and could hypothesize from that direct observational evidence he saw. That's correct. Galileo had indirect evidence of the Earth's movement. In any case, you continue to ignore the cited evidence. Zachriel

Zach, it may interest you to know that observation has a far more important place in science than you seem to realize. Einstein's breakthroughs in relativity came from thought experiments in which he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference to make measurements: Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein's approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct "frame of reference" in which velocities are measured,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video https://vimeo.com/93101738 Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.). Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 Einstein - General Relativity - Thought Experiment - video https://vimeo.com/95417559 Moreover, quantum mechanics has an irreducible subjective element of conscious observation to it that is not merely a 'hypothetical observer' as it was/is in special relativity. How observation (consciousness) is inextricably bound to measurement in quantum mechanics: Quote: "We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/neumann/ The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE On The Comparison Of Quantum and Relativity Theories - Sachs - 1986 Excerpt: quantum theory entails and irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis. In contrast, the theory of relativity when fully exploited, is based on a totally objective view. http://books.google.com/books?id=8qaYGFuXvMkC&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' bornagain77

Zach, that is your problem, you equate hypothesis with observational evidence! NO ONE has ever SEEN any code arise, nor any simpler code get more complex, by unguided material processes! Moreover, to equate what Galileo did to what you are doing is an insult to Galileo. Galileo could directly observe the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter and could hypothesize from that direct observational evidence he saw. You have nothing of the sort to equate to Galileo. bornagain77

bornagain77: MIGHT HAVE evolved certainly do not count as direct observational evidence for unguided processes creating a code. You asked for observational evidence. Many scientific findings are supported by such means. It's not as if Galileo could see the Earth's motion. Ignoring the evidence is not an argument. Zachriel

So Zach, once again, you have no direct observational evidence that HGT machinery evolved from simpler machines as you had claimed???? Moreover, Hypothetical papers as to how the DNA code, ribosome, etc.. MIGHT HAVE evolved certainly do not count as direct observational evidence for unguided processes creating a code. OBSERVATIONAL science means exactly that. WE OBSERVE IT! We don't simply hypothesize it and then accept our hypothesis because it sounds pretty. Moreover, I have ample reason to request observational evidence instead of hypothetical evidence since it is known that the first DNA code of life on earth had to be at least as complex as the current DNA code found in life: Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video https://vimeo.com/106430965 “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life Moreover, the simplest way to explain why channel capacity is so problematic for unguided Darwinian processes to overcome is best explained by Dawkins himself: Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011 Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal: "The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10) OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code). Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuI Of related note: “Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature.” (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107." (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.) etc.. etc.. bornagain77

bornagain77: Present your observational evidence Where to start! How about the genetic code? The order of incorporation of amino acids into the genetic code. See Bernhardt & Patrick, Genetic Code Evolution Started with the Incorporation of Glycine, Followed by Other Small Hydrophilic Amino Acids, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2014. Here's an overall map of the process. See Hartman & Smith, The Evolution of the Ribosome and the Genetic Code, Life 2014. On triplet expansion. Frenkelab & Trifonov, Origin and evolution of genes and genomes. Crucial role of triplet expansions, Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics 2014. Even practical uses for this knowledge. See Davis & Chin, Designer proteins: applications of genetic code expansion in cell biology, Nature 2012. How protein function guided expansion. Francis, Evolution of the Genetic Code by Incorporation of Amino Acids that Improved or Changed Protein Function, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2013. Here's an overview. Flügel, The Evolution of the Genetic Code, Chirality and Life 2010: "To date, most agree that the Genetic Code was formed in the RNA world and that a primitive mechanism of translation predated the Code." bornagain77: I, and many others on UD, truly want to see ANY observational evidence whatsoever that unguided Darwinian processes can produce this level of sophistication: "The origin of the life we know Just like this poem rose from simple forms, In meaning, and in kind, step-by-step." Zachriel

Zach, "We have evidence that the current mechanisms evolved from more primitive mechanisms." well what are you waiting for man? Present your observational evidence and let's shut ID down baby! I, and many others on UD, truly want to see ANY observational evidence whatsoever that unguided Darwinian processes can produce this level of sophistication: Virus – Assembly Of A Nano-Machine – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofd_lgEymto Bacteriophage T4 DNA Packing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQQz0NGUNQ Here is a short video of the Bacteriophage ‘landing’ on a bacterium: Bacteriophage T4 – landing – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc… mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. Moreover Zach, although you deny making any claims about a designer, since you have no observational evidence that unguided processes can produce such sophistication, then your entire argument against ID, and your belief that unguided processes built all the wondrous complexity in life, must be based on your subjective opinion as to what a designer would and would not do. You simply have no other path available to arrive at your atheistic/deistic belief since you have no direct observational evidence for unguided processes producing functional complexity/information. and FYI, I don't care what your subjective opinion is. bornagain77

bornagain: so once again, what you are really saying is that you have no observational evidence whatsoever for unguided processes creating any of the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT We have evidence that the current mechanisms evolved from more primitive mechanisms. bornagain: but you subjectively believe that HGT is not the way a designer would do it if He did it We didn't make any claims about the designer. Zachriel

Zach, so once again, what you are really saying is that you have no observational evidence whatsoever for unguided processes creating any of the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT, i.e. machines that transfer the 'simple strings of genetic material', but you subjectively believe that HGT is not the way a designer would do it if He did it, and you consider that subjective opinion of yours to be proof enough that sophisticated molecular machines, that outclass anything man has built, can arise by unguided processes! Thanks for clearing that up! bornagain77

bornagain77: so what you are really saying is that you don’t have ANY evidence that unguided processes built the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT, you just presume what you listed is incompatible with what a designer would do for HGT. In the case of viruses, we have simple strings of genetic material that can invade a genome. We also have evidence of their long evolutionary history, including examples of genomic invasion. No one knows the origin of genomes, if that is what you are asking, however, there is evidence that the genetic code evolved from simpler relationships. If you want to put your purported design in the gaps, just keep in mind that the gaps keep getting smaller. Mapou: a tree that incorporates horizontal gene transfers does not form a nested hierarchy by definition. It forms a statistically significant nested hierarchy. Mapou: I remember a time when you used to argue for a strictly nested hierarchy. No. See Darwin 1859. Zachriel

Zachriel, a tree that incorporates horizontal gene transfers does not form a nested hierarchy by definition. So stop lying. I remember a time when you used to argue for a strictly nested hierarchy. I noticed that, recently, you have changed your tune and have taken to calling it "an objective nested hierarchy". What we need is a theory of the evolution of Darwinian evolution (TEDE). Mapou

Moreover, many times evolutionists will scan molecular sequences using computer algorithms designed to look solely for evidence that accords to a preconceived evolutionary conclusion whereas ignoring all sequences that disagree with their inherent bias:,,,

Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract “The computer programs that analyze the sequence similarities, or differences, are programmed in advance to generate a tree-like pattern. In other words, the assumption of a common ancestor is built into the way in which the analysis is performed. So there is no way you would get anything other than the conclusion,,, It’s a question begging assumption.” Stephen Meyer – on the Cambrian Explosion – podcast (15:25 minute mark) http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-05-30T17_33_15-07_00 Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070 - Whif Excerpt: One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well.,,, Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden. But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contradictory-trees-evolution-goes-0.html Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush - May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/

of related note:

Heks' in depth refutation of keith s's 'trillions to one' claim for 'Objective Nested Hierarchy' https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heks-continues-to-suggest-a-way-forward-on-the-ks-bomb-argument/#comment-532847

bornagain77

Despite what Darwinists falsely imagine to be true, the fossil record and genetic evidence simply looks nothing like what we would expect to see if neo-Darwinism were actually true, but it does look like what we would expect if top-down design were true::

What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? - Stephen Meyer - video - (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

, as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif

But that 'tree pattern' that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.

The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt' (Disparity preceding Diversity) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html

Moreover, there are 'yawning chasms' in the 'morphological space' between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion, which is certainly not what Darwin predicted,,

"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this 'top down', disparity preceding diversity, pattern is also found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” TS Kemp - Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

The genetic evidence, contrary to what many Darwinists tell the public, is as problematic as the fossil record is for them,,

Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: ,,,there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”,,, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”,,, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.”,,, he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.” “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.” And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php Darwin’s Tree of Life was uprooted in the Cambrian explosion - March 17, 2014 Excerpt: ,,,The study had sought to determine the evolutionary history of the animal phyla by analyzing fifty genes along seventeen taxa. He hoped that a single, dominant phylogenetic tree would emerge. Rokas and his team reported that “a 5-gene data matrix does not resolve relationships among most metazoan phyla” because it generated numerous conflicting phylogenies and historical signals. Their conclusion was candid: “Despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved.”,,, Sean B. Carroll went so far as to assert that “certain critical parts of the TOL [Tree of Life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available.” This problem applies specifically to the relationships of many of the animal phyla, where “[m]any recent studies have reported support for many alternative conflicting phylogenies.” Investigators studying the animal tree found that “ a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality” such that in one case, a study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom”,,, Their article brings the discussion of the Cambrian explosion full circle from an attempt to use genes to compensate for the absence of fossil evidence to the acknowledgment that genes do not convey any clear signal about the evolutionary relationships of the phyla first preserved by fossils in the Cambrian. Steve Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (pp. 120–21) https://uncommondescent.com/tree-of-life/darwins-tree-of-life-was-uprooted-in-the-cambrian-explosion/

bornagain77

lifepsy: Nor does Evolution, your denial notwithstanding. Yes, the nested hierarchy is an entailment of the Theory of Evolution. See Darwin 1859. lifepsy: Evolution doesn’t even necessarily predict a variety of traits that make classifying distinct organisms possible. Yes, variation is observed, and is fundamental to the Theory of Evolution. See Darwin 1859. lifepsy: Yet all intelligently designed objects fall into distinct groups that can be organized hierarchically, as we see in life. Artifacts do not generally form an objective nested hierarchy. They can be arranged in many equally consistent ways. Library books, for instance, can be arranged by Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress classification, or any of a number of systems. Zachriel

Zachriel, Human designers mix-and-match so much that artifacts generally don’t form an objective nested hierarchy. Nor does Evolution, your denial notwithstanding. Evolution doesn't even necessarily predict a variety of traits that make classifying distinct organisms possible. Yet all intelligently designed objects fall into distinct groups that can be organized hierarchically, as we see in life. Life appears far more designed than evolved any way you look at it. lifepsy

OT: Biologists Are Getting to Be Less Reticent About Using the Phrase "Design Principles" - November 28, 2014 Excerpt: The word "design" appears 24 times in the paper. "Selection" appears twice, in the phrase "selective pressure" (one of them is just a repetition from the Abstract). Any form of the word "evolution" appears just once:,,, We see, therefore, that "design" references outnumber evolutionary references eight to one. We also find "machine" or "machinery" four times, "coding" or "encoding" 15 times, "information" (in terms of information to be processed) five times, "accurate" (in terms of sensing accuracy) 11 times, "precision" 29 times, "efficient" four times, and "optimal" or "optimum" 28 times. Taken together, these design words outnumber evolution words 40 to 1. Do the three passing references to evolution/selection add anything to the paper? One would expect to see it in the final Discussion section, but instead, we find these references to design:,,, The paper would lose nothing if its three passing references to evolution/selection were left on the cutting-room floor. All these scientists could do was look at the end product and decide, "Yep, it's fit. It's optimal." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/biologists_are091531.html bornagain77

Zach, so what you are really saying is that you don't have ANY evidence that unguided processes built the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT, you just presume what you listed is incompatible with what a designer would do for HGT. To give you a clue what kind of scientific proof I'm asking you Darwinists for, do you have any observational evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can build a 'simple' bacteriophage virus? Virus - Assembly Of A Nano-Machine - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofd_lgEymto Bacteriophage T4 DNA Packing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQQz0NGUNQ Here is a short video of the Bacteriophage 'landing' on a bacterium: Bacteriophage T4 - landing - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. bornagain77

bornagain77: put more simply, you actually don’t have any proof that the sophisticated mechanisms/machines behind HGT are the result of evolution, you just think that the designer wouldn’t have done it that way??? Well, we might presume that the designer of all life would have more capabilities than humans, not less. But leaving that aside, and to answer your question, we have evidence of mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer, such as hybridization, endogenous retroviruses, and specifics regarding bacterial invasions. Zachriel

Here's what we KNOW:

When we started digging into genome databases, we were surprised to find that toxin genes we thought were present only in bacteria were also in several animals,” explained co-author Matt Daugherty, a postdoctoral fellow in the Malik lab.

Here's what happens next:

“We immediately started wondering why they were there.”

This means: "think like evolutionists," as if the theory is dogma, or fact. This results in:

Now, in a surprising twist, Mougous and colleagues have found that many animals have taken a page from the bacterial playbook. They steal these toxins to fight unwanted microbes growing in or on them

This is all conjecture passing itself off as learning. It is more probable that the "bacteria" received the "toxin" from the "animal." Why? Because snake 'toxins,' e.g., are simply a combination of proteins that are not normally produced by somatic cells. IOW, the so-called "toxin" is nothing more than 'proteins' that are not in their proper place. You can see that one bacteria might excise one protein to act as a 'toxin,' while another bacteria might select another, and thus, the two bacteria 'compete' with each other. This is more probable than HGT from "bacteria" to "animals." If you want to complicate the scenario even more, than you only have to consider that the 'bacteria' might simply commandeer the m-RNA responsible for the 'toxic' protein and incorporate it into its genome with a reverse transcriptase. IOW, there are lots of possibilities, ones more probable than simply HGT in the direction of 'bacteria' to 'animal,' and yet, our Darwinist brethren simply go into their Darwinian toolhouse, pick out a few little tools that give some kind of plausible explanation, and then off they go. Again, this is ALL we know:

When we started digging into genome databases, we were surprised to find that toxin genes we thought were present only in bacteria were also in several animals,” explained co-author Matt Daugherty, a postdoctoral fellow in the Malik lab.

As to what happened to brings this about, well, any old Darwinian "just-so" story will do. Let's hear it for science! PaV

Zach, put more simply, you actually don't have any proof that the sophisticated mechanisms/machines behind HGT are the result of evolution, you just think that the designer wouldn't have done it that way??? Thanks for clearing that up. bornagain77

Mung: I don’t know why the designer didn’t think of using HGT. That's rather the point. Human designers mix-and-match so much that artifacts generally don't form an objective nested hierarchy. Zachriel

I don't know why the designer didn't think of using HGT. Mung

News: Determining when a change actually happened in a Darwinian way (natural selection acting on random mutation) as opposed to horizontal gene transfer is now a matter for research You seem to be conflating natural selection with branching descent. Natural selection acts on variations, whether from mutation or horizontal gene transfer or whatever. And yes, that's what evolutionary biologists do, research. Zachriel