Care what Dawkins says?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 5, 2014

Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Well, here is a chart:

Embedded image permalink

Comments

Acartia_bogart, sorry but I don't see what your seeing about BA77. What I see from him is that he always backs up his assertions and claims with actual evidences, not meaningless evidences . If they were meaningless evidences I wouldn't have copied and pasted many of them and saved them to my notepad. :) You couldn't be more wrong dudewallstreeter43_{June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

I wouldn't deny for a second the source of your inspiration, BA. No more than I would for the way your life and the lives of so many others of us have been turned around by the Holy Spirit.Axel_{June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Axel, I can assure that I certainly am not in the ranks of Newton, Plank and Bohr, in fact, judging from how I lived most of my life as young man, before I finally realized my rebellious ways were self-destructive madness, I would say that if a history of my life were reviewed I would be considered a fool among fools for way that I lived. and If I have 'discovered' anything that is interesting that was not already made known before, it certainly was not me, by my own effort, that made the discovery but was something that God, in his infinite wisdom, made known to me. Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.bornagain77_{June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

BA: Interwoven codes is such a high art in design that when I heard of it, I was dumbfounded and profoundly thankful I did not have to try in my own microprocessor designs as EPROMS had enough space by then at reasonable cost! And the notion that a random change can be polyfunctional to the point that cumulatively we get to genomes, is to simply beggar description. KFkairosfocus_{June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

To think that some dolt scoffed because you didn't finish a doctorate is beyond laughable; par for the course, for the burblings of a dirt-worshipper.Axel_{June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

You know, BA, I wonder if, one day, your constantly augmented, encyclopaedic monitoring of the thoroughgoing falsity of the dirt-worship cult, might see you as a figure in science not far below the giants, such as Newton, Plank and Bohr - evidently, not as regards innovative ideas, but in a unique field, you seem to have made your own. Not because the apotheosis of nihilism (nothing turning itself into everything) is the apotheosis of anything much (anything at at all?), but because Mammon has imposed it on the world with all the malice and power required.Axel_{June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

As to what Trifonov speculations for the 'evolutionary' origin of life are, while interesting, I have little use for because of Shannon channel capacity. i.e. The optimal 1 in 10^18 code we find in life is a all or nothing deal. It must be in place all at once,, (References upon request), But where Trifonov's work interests me most is in his work on parallel codes. In fact Dr. Robert Marks published a paper in which elucidated the severe constraints on evolutionary processes that Trifonov's findings imposed: 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 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006bornagain77_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Bornagain @3: Edward N. Trifonov is an interesting person. If you can get your hands on it, read his article: "Theory of early molecular evolution: predictions and confirmations." It is in interesting look at abiogenesis through early molecular evolution. Yes, he's an evolutionary biologist that works in a department named the "Institute for evolution." His distaste for "junk" DNA is interesting, perhaps reflecting what a non-starter it is for anti-evolutionists. Reference: Trifonov, Edward N. (2006). "Theory of early molecular evolution: predictions and confirmations". In Eisenhaber, Frank. Discovering biomolecular mechanisms with computational biology. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-34527-7.REC_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

He's also a very poor philosopher and logical thinker. He is, by all accounts, a talented and intelligent biologist, but he needs to stick to the facts concerning life and stop the evolutionary speculation.OldArmy94_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Well, here is a chart:
Why should we care what he has to say about evolutionary biology? He's an ex-scientist who's been out of the field for years. Maybe he'd be worth listening to regarding the history of evolutionary biology.nullasalus_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Mountains of evidence I don’t have a problem with, but mountains of meaningless evidence I do. Select one or two of the most relevant links (or excerpts) to continue the discussion.
Why don't you select two of those links you think are "meaningless", and explain how you came to that conclusion - hopefully in more than just one sentence or just a short paragraph. .cantor_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

@Cantor: "What? All of a sudden, you don’t like “mountains of evidence” any more?." Mountains of evidence I don't have a problem with, but mountains of meaningless evidence I do. Select one or two of the most relevant links (or excerpts) to continue the discussion. If the discussion continues, by all means bring up another one. But using the shotgun approach, especially when many of the references are simply links to opinions, not evidence, detracts from the argument, it does not add to it.Acartia_bogart_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

I am very happy that BA77 doesn't attempt arguments from authority, and thoroughly backs his assertions. It's a good thing to critically engage with his sources; but to simply say he is wrong without any backing is not worthy of this forum. Keep it up, BA77. I'm learning more from you than your critics ; they never seem to give us the respect of providing data for our scrutiny. We can handle it!Bateman_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Nevermind. I see in comment #1 you say it's at the 10:30 mark.JoeCoder_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

@BA77 #3 Can you tell me at about what time in that video Trifonov makes that comment? I'm writing an article on junk DNA and I would like to include that statement among my sources.JoeCoder_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

an intelligent person can make their point in a paragraph. So, books are irrelevant now? Really? Only the indefensible repeatedly (and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly) try to bolster their arguments with meaningless references. References aren't meaningless if they prove your thesis to be correct. Intelligent people know this, and they also know that some questions cannot be answered with a simple sentence or paragraph.Barb_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Ahh but bogart, he was not off by just a little and had to have a minor adjustment to his basic ‘thought experiment’, but his “concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years”
Except of course that it didn't. I personally know biologists who disagreed with Dr Dawkins then and now and who continued to do research opposed to the notion. It wasn't a research paper or an academic treatise. It was a popular book he wrote in an attempt to convey understanding.Jerad_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

bogart as to,,, 'an intelligent person can make their point in a paragraph.' And how would you know? Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things.bornagain77_{June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

BA77, an intelligent person can make their point in a paragraph. Only the indefensible repeatedly (and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly) try to bolster their arguments with meaningless references. Less is more.
IOW: "My mind is made up. Don't bother me with the facts". .cantor_{June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

BA77, an intelligent person can make their point in a paragraph. Only the indefensible repeatedly (and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly) try to bolster their arguments with meaningless references. Less is more.
What? All of a sudden, you don't like "mountains of evidence" any more?cantor_{June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

BA77, an intelligent person can make their point in a paragraph. Only the indefensible repeatedly (and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly) try to bolster their arguments with meaningless references. Less is more.Acartia_bogart_{June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Perhaps it is good to reflect on just how little we know biologically speaking. Although Darwinists are notorious in their hubris for claiming they know for a fact how all life on earth originated, the plain fact of the matter is far more humbling. We are far from understanding how a organism operates in any sufficient detail, much less understanding how any organism originated. Even the cellular complexity of the 'simplest' life on Earth has turned out to be nearly unbelievable:
To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Thus researchers have not even 'realistically' modeled even the simplest life on Earth to the molecular level. And our ignorance at how organisms actually operate at the molecular level is orders of magnitude more acute for higher organisms than it is for the 'simplest' life. In fact, it is almost a guaranteed certainty that mortal man will NEVER understand how multicellular organisms operate in any meaningful detail at the molecular level:
Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. 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.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:,,, "Allen and Greaves recently introduced the metaphor of a "complexity brake" for the observation that fields as diverse as neuroscience and cancer biology have proven resistant to facile predictions about imminent practical applications. Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge.",,, Why can't we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are "purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number." The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. "None of this is true for nervous systems.",,, to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
And that is the monumental brick wall facing researchers in just trying to understand how an existing organism operates, day by day, at the molecular level. As to how a single cell on millions of protein molecules transforms itself through embryogenesis into a coherent single living organism containing 100 trillion cells, at million trillion protein molecules total, without falling into complete disarray is a miracle upon the miracle of existing that is even more astonishing.
HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
And yet Darwinists, apparently completely oblivious to the miracle that is a million trillion protein molecules all operating in a cohesive fashion to keep their bodies alive, and oblivious to the fact that NO ONE has a clue how that miracle all 'comes together' into a cohesive whole, dogmatically pretend as if they know for a fact how all life on Earth originated. ,, Unbounded pride in towering ignorance is a fair assessment of the Darwinian mindset!
Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012 Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html One Body - animation - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Introduction to Cells - Anatomy - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFuEo2ccTPA
Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; God Of Brilliant Lights - Aaron Shust http://myktis.com/songs/god-of-brilliant-lights/
bornagain77_{June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Ahh but bogart, he was not off by just a little and had to have a minor adjustment to his basic 'thought experiment', but his "concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years" – Edward N. Trifonov - Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – video https://vimeo.com/81930637 Thus regardless of his personal character his science is not sound, in fact it is pseudo-scientific tripe!bornagain77_{June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

@BA77: "Well actually, since Dawkins’s primary contribution to evolutionary biology, ‘The Selfish Gene, has now been falsified, then wouldn’t that make anything he says in regards the evolutionary biology not worth listening to either???:" First, it has never been falsified because it was never a scientific theory. It was never more than a thought experiment, a different way to think about natural selection. A way that even Dawkins admits is overly simplified. I am not a big supporter of Dawkin's anti religion opinions. But a person's mid-directed opinion ions do not mean that his science is not sound. Newton was a paranoid, vindictive a-hole. But his theories and calculus are still used to move people and probes through space.Acartia_bogart_{June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Well actually, since Dawkins's primary contribution to evolutionary biology, 'The Selfish Gene, has now been falsified, then wouldn't that make anything he says in regards the evolutionary biology not worth listening to either???:
Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene). Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong. -per UncommonDescent Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212 ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Revisiting the Central Dogma - David Tyler - Nov. 9, 2012 Excerpt: "The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome - that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence - have all been called into question in the last few years.",, Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma: http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/11/09/revisiting_the_central_dogma At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? - 12/04/2012 - Stuart A. Newman - Professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College Excerpt: First, let's look at some of the expectations of the natural selection-based modern synthesis (of Darwinism): (i) the largest differences within given categories of multicellular organisms, the animals or plants, for example, should have appeared gradually, only after exceptionally long periods of evolution; (ii) the extensive genetic changes required to generate such large differences over such vast times would have virtually erased any similarity between the sets of genes coordinating development in the different types of organism; and (iii) evolution of body types and organs should continue indefinitely. Since genetic mutation never ceases, novel organismal forms should constantly be appearing. All these predictions of the standard model have proved to be incorrect.,,, With a 19th century notion of incremental material transformations no longer relevant to comprehending the range of organismal variation that has appeared throughout the history of life on Earth, the other pillar of the standard model can be discarded along with it. Specifically,,, there is no need for cycles of selection for marginal adaptive advantage to be the default explanation for macroevolutionary change. - per Huffington Post The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis 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/ Why the 'Gene' Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking - James Shapiro - 11/30/2012 Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: "genes are the basic units of all living things.",,, This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian "Modern Synthesis" emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene." In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled "Complexity of the Gene Concept." Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term. The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become "systems all the way down." There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other "DNA elements" (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,, Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/why-the-gene-concept-hold_b_2207245.html The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf Not Junk After All—Conclusion - August 29, 2013 Excerpt: Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism — the genotype-phenotype mapping — cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences. Atlan and Koppel wrote in 1990 that advances in artificial intelligence showed that cellular operations are not controlled by a linear sequence of instructions in DNA but by a “distributed multilayer network” [150]. According to Denton and his co-workers, protein folding appears to involve formal causes that transcend material mechanisms [151], and according to Sternberg this is even more evident at higher levels of the genotype-phenotype mapping [152]. https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/open-mike-cornell-obi-conference-chapter-11-not-junk-after-all-conclusion/
etc.. etc.. etc.. Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:13-14 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. Kari Jobe - Revelation Song - Passion 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE
bornagain77_{June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply