PaV

Here’s a quote from a paper I ran into a few months back. I’ve been meaning to post it. I certainly have Liz Liddle in mind as I do so.

I would ask that you resist your urge to ‘google’ the quote, and simply ask yourself the question: when was this paper published. Then have a gander. It’s a paper by Hampton L. Carson. From the abstract:

The experiments reported in this paper are designed to test the effect of raising
the genetic variance in experimental populations in a different way, namely, by
the use of large doses of X-rays delivered frequently to all the adults in the popu-
lation. The populations were thus closed ones in which the mutation rate was
artificially maintained at a very high level. Under these conditions, the experi-
mental populations represent a sensitive system for the detection of the effects of
newly induced genes that cause increase in fitness, whether these effects may be
manifested in the heterozygous condition, the homozygous condition, or both.
The results clearly show that there is no sustained increase in fitness despite an
increased genetic variance as indicated by an observed increase in genetic load.
There is thus no evidence for single-gene heterosis or for the induction of new
genes having a favorable effect on any of the fitness characters.

Read More ›

In an incredible display of irrational thinking, scientists studying the availability of amino acids as life was forming concluded this: “We found that chance alone would be extremely unlikely to pick a set of amino acids that outperforms life’s choice, . . . Here we found a very simple test that begins to show us that life knew exactly what it was doing. This is consistent with the idea that there was natural selection going on.” This type of thinking, wherein “life” is linked to “natural selection” although NS is impossible without life first existing, only demonstrates the degree to which modern scientists have effectively become ‘brainwashed’. It is political correctness come to science. What an incredible quote: “Life knew Read More ›

Over at PhysOrg.com, there’s a new news item about a computer program that was run simulating evolutionary characteristics. What’s interesting about it are two things: (1) who the people are that are running this program, and (2) one of the results—which is being downplayed, it would seem. First, one of the people associated with this new program is Christoph Adami, who, with others, gave us the touted “Avida” evolutionary algorithm. So, this isn’t just anybody doing this simulation. Second, here’s what the lead author had to say: “These fitness landscapes simply could not be traversed with mutations that did not interact.” This wasn’t a ‘main conclusion’ of the study; however, I don’t know about you, but this sounds to me Read More ›

In a seemingly stunning laboratory tour de force, scientists were able to extract ancient enzymatic samples and analyze their structure. From the information so gleaned, they built and tested a synthetic enzyme. Here’s what they report: ” . . . we found that enzymes that existed in the Precambrian era up to four billion years ago possessed many of the same chemical mechanisms observed in their modern-day relatives.” And what were their Darwinian expectations? “Given the ancient origin of the reconstructed thioredoxin enzymes, with some of them predating the buildup of atmospheric oxygen, we expected their catalytic chemistry to be simple.” And given the ID perspective, what would we have expected? We would have expected an almost identical degree of Read More ›

This is a FYI post. As I’m given to say: another day, another bad day for Darwinism. Years ago, it became apparent that with whole gene analysis (WGA), either the case for, or against Darwinism, and vice-versa, would happen. Population genetics looks at very small part of the genome, a limitation that is obviated through WGA. And, so, ‘new discoveries’ are happening. In this particular case, it has to do with angiosperms (flowering plants). What they’ve found is that new features appear early on in its phylogeny, and then, only later, is there great speciation, or diversification. This is pretty much OPPOSITE of Darwinian expectations. Darwin would presumably argue that through diversification of species, little-bit by little-bit, some new feature Read More ›

Here’s the latest from PhysOrg:

The process of “spatial sorting” relies on genes for speed accumulating at the increasingly fast-moving frontline. Unlike natural selection – a process first described by Charles Darwin, stating that traits which help an organism survive and reproduce will build up over time – spatial sorting does not require an animal’s survival or reproduction to be increased by it being quicker. The new process can only work within the limits set by natural selection, but may be an important cause of evolutionary change in species that are expanding their ranges into new territory.

There’s a name for this kind of process, isn’t there? I think you would term this a “sieve-like” process. But, IIRC, Richard Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker says that a “sieve-like” can’t explain the complexity we see. So, here we have “changing gene frequencies” that have no connection to what NS is purported to be able to do. We simply have changing gene frequencies without any “increase in fitness”. It’s simply a matter of non-random mating patterns, patterns that are imposed simply by proximity of mates. I’m more than willing to concede that these kinds of “changing gene frequencies” happen all the time; but I’m not willing to say that this constitutes “evolution”. I think there is some “microevolution” that takes place, but that the most of what happens is right along this sieving process that is proposed by these experimenters. Share your thoughts. Read More ›

Recently Bill Dembski posted on the Origin of Life debate that took place at ASU not too long ago. At issue was the exchange that took place between Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter over the Tree of Life. Venter expressed a contrarian view, saying that he saw a “bush” instead of a “tree”. The article below from New Scientist I believe let’s us know just what Venter was thinking. So, for those involved in that original post here’s the article.

I just couldn’t resist including these two quotes from a new posting on PhysOrg. It has to do with lateral gene transfer, and the study as to what kind of information is swapped between microbes. The bottom line, apparently, is that “lone” genes—rather than metabolic apparatus or interacting genes—are what is swapped most commonly between bacteria. But as the scientists describe their work, it’s really a wonder to listen to the imagery they invoke. Sit back and enjoy! Genes whose protein products rely on many partners to do their job are less likely to work properly in a new host, Gophna said. Transferring a highly connected gene into a new host is like importing a fax machine into a remote Read More ›

Just recently Dr. Dembski posted a conference on the origins of life. Craig Venter was asked how old he thought life was. He responded: “3.5 billion years old.” This was based on what was previously considered to be organic fossils dating from formations of that age. But now comes research showing that all the scientists were looking at were minerals. It would have been nice for the Darwinists to have the 1.5 billion years between what may have been extremely primitive “life” and the full-fledged appearance of bacteria 2 billion years ago—a whole 1.5 billion years for the complexity of bacterial life to have emerged (evolved). Poor Darwinists. Another day; another bad day for Darwinists! Here’s the link to the Read More ›

In the Early Edition of PNAS, there’s an article about the fly’s evolutionary tree. While not having access to the article, the supplemental information is available online.

In the abstract the authors note that:

. . . we use micro-RNAs to resolve a node with implications for the evolution of embryonic development in Diptera. We demonstrate that flies experienced three episodes of rapid radiation—lower Diptera (220 Ma), lower Brachycera (180 Ma), and Schizophora (65 Ma)—and a number of life history transitions to hematophagy, phytophagy, and parasitism in the history of fly evolution over 260 million y.

If you connect to the link below, and then scroll to the last page (p. 8), you’ll see the graph which compares the actual species diversity (clade size) versus the age of the fly grouping, and which includes dark lines indicating the “expected” relationship between “clade size” and “age”. The dark line is at a 45-degree angle, in conformity with the notion of Darwinian gradualism: that is, as organisms slowly evolve (a radiation outward from the major form), they slowly diverge morphologically, one from the other. So, the greater amount of time, the greater amount of diversity in a particular family of flies.

Clade Size vs. Age for Diptera Families pnas Mar 14 2011

But what the graph demonstrates is that the diversification happened suddenly, and over a short period of time.

Read More ›

Here’s an article about Chernobyl. Quite fascinating—and extremely long!! The pertinent pages are the last two: pp. 6-7. The biologist working at Chernobyl is studying the effects of cesium and strontium, presumably the by-products of fission present at Chernobyl after the reactor failure. It’s been 25 years since the accident. They’ve been studying animals for 17.

What are the results? For the most part, life is abundant at Chernobyl. It’s become a new Garden of Eden (less man, for the most part). But NO new life forms.

What about changed life forms? Well, . . . yes. Here’s what they say:
On the surface, Igor says, the wildlife seems to be thriving, but under the fur and hide, the DNA of most species has become unstable. They’ve eaten a lot of food contaminated with cesium and strontium. Even though the animals look fine, there are differences at the chromosomal level in every generation, as yet mostly invisible. But some have started to show: there are bird populations with freakishly high levels of albinism, with 20 percent higher levels of asymmetry in their feathers, and higher cancer rates. There are strains of mice with resistance to radioactivity—meaning they’ve developed heritable systems to repair damaged cells. Covered in radioactive particles after the disaster, one large pine forest turned from green to red: seedlings from this Red Forest placed in their own plantation have grown up with various genetic abnormalities. They have unusually long needles, and some grow not as trees but as bushes. The same has happened with some birch trees, which have grown in the shape of large, bushy feathers, without a recognizable trunk at all.

All of these documented changes are defects of one kind or another, making them “less fit” in normal populations. This is true of the animals more than for the plants; but even for the plant life present, what good is a birch tree without a trunk? Can you call it a tree?

Now, with all the great amount of variety that mutations can cause in such an irradiated environment, one would think that this would be a great place for Darwinian mechanisms to work their ‘magic’. But that is not what we see. We see deterioration. We see life becoming less fit, not more. We don’t see new species; we see old species that have become bizarre, with “genetic abnormalities”.
Read More ›

For us here at UD, this article doesn’t need much explanation. It certainly fits into the “Genetic Entropy” scheme, and what Michael Behe has demonstrated of late. This is just for your information. Enjoy! How’s this for a quote: The finding mirrors accumulating evidence from other species that changes to regulatory regions of DNA – rather than to the genes themselves – underlie many of the new features that organisms acquire through evolution. And think of all those who say over and over: “Evolution is a change in gene frequency.” Well, I guess it isn’t. It’s a change in gene regulation. It appears to be the end of “gene-centrism” (and, with it, classical population genetics as we’ve known it).

This is mildly off-topic. And I’m guilty of little bit (maybe a lot) of ‘venting’. But here’s a link to what has allegedly happened at Oregon State University. It appears that a scientist whose children are on their way to Ph’D’s at OSU are being thrown out of the Ph’D program (one has been there 4 years already) because faculty members with connections to local Democratic politics are not happy that the scientist ran for state office as a Republican. It is simply mind-numbing what has happened to our Universities. When I was young and in college in the 60’s, the local SDS (Students for a Democratic Society–of Marxist bent) chapter yelled and screamed for a “free speech” area to Read More ›

In this week’s issue of Nature Physics, a small article appears highlighting the discoveries—or, rather, the lack of discoveries—at the LHC in Geneva, Switzerland. As they have amped up their energies, more massive particle should have been discovered. Supersymmetry (SUSY) theory predicts symmetrical partners to the standard model’s particles, but of more mass. But they’re not finding any. Here’s a few (for us) interesting quotes: SUSY’s utility and mathematical grace have instilled a “religious devotion” among its followers, says Adam Falkowski, a theorist at the University of Paris-South in France. But colliders have failed to turn up direct evidence of the super particles predicted by the theory. And, then: “This is a big political issue in our field,” [adds] Alessandro Read More ›