Epigenetics News

Experts: “Epigenetics can drive genetics”

Spread the love

From ScienceDaily:

Washington State University researchers say environmental factors are having an underappreciated effect on the course of disease and evolution by prompting genetic mutations through epigenetics, a process by which genes are turned on and off independent of an organism’s DNA sequence.

Their assertion is a dramatic shift in how we might think of disease and evolution’s underlying biology and “changes how we think about where things come from,” said Michael Skinner, founding director of the Center for Reproductive Biology in WSU’s School of Biological Sciences.

Why does this remind one of Further to “Philosopher of science: Schoolbook Darwinism needs replacement” (Witzany: All these concepts that dominated science for half a century are falsified now)?

This, said Skinner, suggests that environment has a more important role in mutations, disease and evolution than previously appreciated, and appears to be one of the main drivers of intergenerational changes, not simply a passive component. In short, Skinner and his colleagues say, the environment and epigenetics can drive genetics.

Exciting times.

Here’s the abstract:

A variety of environmental factors have been shown to induce the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease and phenotypic variation. This involves the germline transmission of epigenetic information between generations. Exposure specific transgenerational sperm epimutations have been previously observed. The current study was designed to investigate the potential role genetic mutations have in the process, using copy number variations (CNV). In the first (F1) generation following exposure, negligible CNV were identified; however, in the transgenerational F3 generation, a significant increase in CNV was observed in the sperm. The genome-wide locations of differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations) and genetic mutations (CNV) were investigated. Observations suggest the environmental induction of the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of sperm epimutations promote genome instability, such that genetic CNV mutations are acquired in later generations. A combination of epigenetics and genetics is suggested to be involved in the transgenerational phenotypes. The ability of environmental factors to promote epigenetic inheritance that subsequently promotes genetic mutations is a significant advance in our understanding of how the environment impacts disease and evolution. (Public access) – Michael K Skinner, Carlos Guerrero-Bosagna, M Muksitul Haque. Environmentally induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of sperm epimutations promote genetic mutations. Epigenetics, 2015; 10 (8): 762 DOI: 10.1080/15592294.2015.1062207

See also: Larry Moran misses the point about Gunther Witzany. (The perspective of the critics of the modern synthesis—so far from being shunned—is now one that attracts an “outer circle.” Hardly the sign of a failing cause.)

Note: Moran also misses the point about interviewer Suzan Mazur, of whom he says dismissive things. When journalists who publish in key venues become interested in an otherwise obscure train wreck, we can reasonably suspect that a shift is taking place. That’ why we call it “news” and not “olds.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

74 Replies to “Experts: “Epigenetics can drive genetics”

  1. 1
    nightlight says:

    That’s bad news for Meyer’s Seattle ID — the intelligence guiding the biological evolution is already built into the cell. Hence, there is no need to look for Meyer’s external ‘intelligent mind’ stepping in and out of ‘nature’ at his whim to tweak the molecular reactions for particular irreducibly complex structure that ‘nature’ according to Meyer can’t do on its own.

    The ‘nature’ of the cell (as intelligent computing system) is doing it on its own just fine.

  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    nightlight, your comment reveals that you don’t know the first thing about Dr. Meyer’s project and that you did not read his book (Darwin’s Doubt), which has a lengthy section on epigenetics. If you did, you would know that he has taken epigenetics into account and that far from being “bad news” it makes the ID case stronger.

  3. 3
    vh says:

    The only thing dumber than Neo Darwinism is the crowd who was dumb enough to fall for it for decades, who Lynn Margulis boldly and accurately described as “a minor 20th-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology….Neo-Darwinism is (in) complete funk.” All you can do is pity these people at this point.

  4. 4
    wd400 says:

    Have you guys read the paper? What do you think it has to do with “Darwinism” or ID — I honestly can’t see a link.

  5. 5
    vh says:

    wd400, it’s just another confirmation that the adaptive force is within the individual…that the mechanisms of variation are nonrandom and sufficiently adaptive. In this case epigenetics is leading to genetic mutations, which indicates that mutations are not haphazard. It indicates that they’re regulated just as epigenetic changes are regulated. ToE says the adaptive mechanism is external (selection.)…that the source of variation is random. Neither seem to be the case, hardly ever anyway. In short, it’s just another indicator that Lamarck was right, that evolution (if you want to call it that) is accomplished by a one-step mechanism, not a two-step mechanism. that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is true and that populations change almost immediately in response to environmental threats and challenges. The whole darwinian paradigm has collapsed. ToE is a dud of a theory and it’s really tragic that so many people believe in it still. But I guess some people like to believe in lies. not me.

  6. 6
    wd400 says:

    I really don’t think you’ve read the paper, vh. There is no reason to think the mutations are adaptive and they’re pretty haphazard

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    Epigenetics kills Darwinian evolution dead. It gets rid of the need for RM+NS. Not that RM+NS was a viable mechanism to start with. As anybody who has experimented with genetic algorithms knows, the combinatorial explosion kills them dead. This is why they’re only good for toy stuff. Besides, all optimization systems, which is what RM+NS is, invariably get stuck in local minima or local maxima. The theory of evolution is pure pseudoscience based on superstition.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    From the paper …

    Our observations provide an example of the ability of epigenetic mechanisms to drive genetic change. Environmental epigenetics may be the major molecular mechanism involved in environment-gene interactions and emergence of genetic variation. The predominant current view for the origin and evolution of disease considers genetic mutations as the primary molecular mechanism involved.

    There’s a conflict between “the predominant current view” and “our observations”.

    What do we call it when a theory fails to explain observations?

  9. 9
    wd400 says:

    Where’s the conflict?

  10. 10
    wd400 says:

    Mapou, has anyone claimed evolution finds globally optimal solutions? Or biological systems are optimal?

  11. 11
    Mapou says:

    wd400:

    Mapou, has anyone claimed evolution finds globally optimal solutions? Or biological systems are optimal?

    Another reason that evolution is crap. Getting stuck in a local minimum is a surefire strategy for mass extinction. But RM+NS will never reach far enough to get stuck in any kind of local minima because the combinatorial explosion has already killed it dead before it could set foot out of the gates. Evolution is like a dead sloth in a horse race.

  12. 12
    tintinnid says:

    Another reason that evolution is crap. Getting stuck in a local minimum is a surefire strategy for mass extinction…”

    Who has said that RM + NS can’t lead to extinction? It can certainly lead to dead-ends. In fact, it is inevitable for a large percentage of lineages. I think that is what you call a prediction, one of those sciency things that Virgil says that evolution can’t do.

    By the way, how does ID explain the high percentage of extinct species? Bad design? Nazi-like experiments? A malicious god? An incompetent god? Free will? But seriously, how does ID explain this? I am curious.

  13. 13
    Mapou says:

    tintinnid:

    “Another reason that evolution is crap. Getting stuck in a local minimum is a surefire strategy for mass extinction…”

    Who has said that RM + NS can’t lead to extinction? It can certainly lead to dead-ends. In fact, it is inevitable for a large percentage of lineages. I think that is what you call a prediction, one of those sciency things that Virgil says that evolution can’t do.

    The problem is that any optimizing system eventually gets stuck in a local minimum and that means extinction for all lineages because they are all optimizing something. The environment will not wait for a lineage to get out of a local minimum. It kills it dead.

    By the way, how does ID explain the high percentage of extinct species? Bad design? Nazi-like experiments? A malicious god? An incompetent god? Free will? But seriously, how does ID explain this? I am curious.

    ID itself does not explain it but based on what we know about intelligence, we can say the following. The designers either made mistakes, were conducting ecological-terraforming/data collection experiments or they were having fun. Mistakes or not, those who designed the amazing variety and complexity of lifeforms on earth could hardly be called incompetent. When it comes to know how and scientific understanding, you are an insignificant cockroach compared to them.

  14. 14
    EugeneS says:

    tintinnid #12,

    Please stop it. If you were really interested, you would not speak like that.

    ID explains it as simply loss of information in autonomous replicating systems. Some of this loss is attributed to the limitations of physical systems themselves and others to the hostile environments in which living systems operate. There is no need to concoct a caricature of Nazi experiments or other nonsense. It is simply bad taste.

    Please don’t go down the route of imperfect designs etc. either because chances are you don’t even appreciate the grandeur of the engineering task and challenges behind possible implementations of living systems. I already conversed with people who claimed ‘they could do it better’. From such conversations I have taken away nothing else but a feeling of wasted time.

    ID is perfectly fine with degradatory (and BTW sometimes beneficial) mutations in a Darwinian fashion. ID has problems with statements like ‘all observed bio-complexity can be explained by NS+RV’ or even ‘by neutral evolution’. For such grand claims one needs the same scale empirical support, which is not there. What Darwinian evolution explains is small adaptations with loss of information. M. Behe is famous for shedding light on this issue in detail. But in order for such adaptations to even be possible one needs a stable functional replicating system.

    Living organisms are decision making systems whereas there is absolutely no decision making in non-living nature. The only sensible explanation to that is that naturalistic causation is not enough to explain life. Life (biological decision making) required purposeful decision making (i.e. agency) to kick-start it. There is NO other alternative. All these RNA worlds, multiverses and other rubbish are smoke in mirrors intended to camouflage the bankruptcy of naturalism in addressing life and how it started.

  15. 15
    Zachriel says:

    EugeneS: There is no need to concoct a caricature of Nazi experiments or other nonsense.

    The vast majority of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Was the designer a petulant child who broke all her toys?

    Evolution provides a scientific explanation for diversification and extinction.

    EugeneS: ID has problems with statements like ‘all observed bio-complexity can be explained by NS+RV’ or even ‘by neutral evolution’. For such grand claims one needs the same scale empirical support, which is not there.

    In order to understand the broad sweep of evolutionary history, start with the evidence for common descent.

    EugeneS: M. Behe is famous for shedding light on this issue in detail.

    Most biologists have probably never heard of Behe. He’s a sideshow in the ID movement.

  16. 16
    EugeneS says:

    Zachriel,

    “Was the designer a petulant child who broke all her toys?”

    Pardon? Why “her”? Oh, boy!

    How is common descent relevant to the basic claims of ID (whether it is right or wrong)? These issues are orthogonal.

    Darwinism has already been debunked. Those who insist upon Darwinism today are incompetent and/or have a hidden agenda. Don’t conflate Darwinism with a Darwinian model, which has, as everything else in science, its application area and limitations. Vast experimental data meticulously recorded and available suggests that the capabilities of Darwinian evolution are rather modest. But even that is a side issue as far as the basic claims of ID are concerned.

    The most generic ID claim is that intelligent causation (choice contingency) is a separate causation category irreducible to chance and law-like necessity. Certain phenomena are best explained as having intelligent origin.

    Please don’t hypothesize about most biologists. This is pointless.

  17. 17
    Virgil Cain says:

    The vast majority of species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

    Terraforming.

    Evolution provides a scientific explanation for diversification and extinction.

    Your equivocation is duly noted.

    In order to understand the broad sweep of evolutionary history, start with the evidence for common descent.

    In order to understand the evidence for common descent one has to start with the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote. Unfortunately for you there isn’t any evidence that such a thing is possible.

    Most biologists have probably never heard of Behe.

    Most biologists cannot support the claims of their own position. Most are too specialized to care about universal common descent. And not one can do any better than Lenski, who has proven evolution is very limited.

  18. 18
    Virgil Cain says:

    tintinid:

    By the way, how does ID explain the high percentage of extinct species?

    Shit happens.

  19. 19
    Virgil Cain says:

    wd400:

    Mapou, has anyone claimed evolution finds globally optimal solutions? Or biological systems are optimal?

    The TSZ ilk have. Lizzie says that natural selection optimizes- a local optimum. Go there and ask.

  20. 20
    velikovskys says:

    vc:
    Terraforming

    A designer who creates a fine tuned universe needs bacteria ? What terraforming did the dinos preform?

    In order to understand the evidence for common descent one has to start with the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote. Unfortunately for you there isn’t any evidence that such a thing is possible.

    What is the evidence of how the designer did it?


    Shit happens.

    Funny that is the same answer as naturalism proposes. So design does not have a purposeful plan?

    Eugene:
    Pardon? Why “her”? Oh, boy!

    Why? I thought ID cannot say anything about the designer specifically?

  21. 21
    wd400 says:

    The TSZ ilk have. Lizzie says that natural selection optimizes- a local optimum. Go there and ask.

    I think most people would agree N.S can approach local optima, and sometimes even traverse from one to another. But that’s not the same as finding a global optimum.

  22. 22
    Virgil Cain says:

    wd400:

    I think most people would agree N.S can approach local optima, and sometimes even traverse from one to another.

    If, and only if, natural selection was an actual selection process. However it isn’t and given the changing nature of nature “local optima” is an unhittable moving target.

  23. 23
    Virgil Cain says:

    velikovskys:

    A designer who creates a fine tuned universe needs bacteria ?

    Bacteria are part of the design. And yes, the design needs them.

    What terraforming did the dinos preform?

    It’s not my design.

    Funny that is the same answer as naturalism proposes

    That is naturalism’s answer to everything. Shit happens and some sticks.

    What is the evidence of how the designer did it?

    Intelligent Design. 😎

    So design does not have a purposeful plan?

    Of course it does.

  24. 24
    Mapou says:

    Getting stuck in a local minimum or maximum is the least of the problems that Darwinists must solve. The hard and painful truth is that RM+NS can never reach far enough to get stuck in any kind of local minima or maxima because the combinatorial explosion (CE) has already killed it dead before it could set foot out of the gates.

    CE is the biggest enemy of stupid blind evolutionary searches. It kills them even at the minimum useful complexity for life. This is why genetic algorithms are only used for little toy problems. The space that evolution must search to arrive at the human genome is 4 raised to 3 billion! Darwinian evolution never gets out of the gates.

    What a pathetic bunch of morons evolutionists are. It’s painful to just watch you people squirm. Go learn some simple math and let the world be.

  25. 25
    Mung says:

    wd400: Where’s the conflict?

    Where the Conflict Really Lies

  26. 26
    Zachriel says:

    EugeneS: How is common descent relevant to the basic claims of ID (whether it is right or wrong)?

    Because common descent provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms of that history.

  27. 27
    Virgil Cain says:

    Because common descent provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms of that history.

    Yet given that the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote is imagined rather than evidenced, it appears the historical context and the history is unknown.

    Zachriel would have us assume everything that needs to be demonstrated.

  28. 28
    Mapou says:

    Virgil Cain:

    Zachriel would have us assume everything that needs to be demonstrated.

    Despite the appearances, Darwinism is a faith-based religion after all.

  29. 29
    ChrisM says:

    “The most generic ID claim is that intelligent causation (choice contingency) is a separate causation category ”

    If you mean by intelligent causation (choice contingency) the higher thing of ‘conscious choice’, Free Will, and so on, then I would certainly agree with you some sort of distinction would be necessary.

  30. 30
    ChrisM says:

    Just out of interest, you all seem very sure what God wants. But how do you know this? What if God wants science. has a purpose for it.

  31. 31
    EugeneS says:

    ChrisM,

    Good comments. Yes, that what I mean. Nature cannot make purposeful choices, cannot aim at pragmatic utility, cannot by itself operate by rules (not to be confused with laws). Simply because nature is blind to utility, it does not care whether anything ‘works’. And yet, we see rules operating in living organisms, we see choices being made at all levels of biological organization. Something that is driven exclusively by the laws of nature eliminates a choice, which is only possible where there is a multiplicity of equilibrium states. IN living systems, we see programs and their processors. The only option is to assume that living systems themselves are a result of decision making.

    On a different note.

    God wants us to be His children, not necessarily scientists ;). Science is not that important as far as our eternal destiny is concerned, probably not important at all 😉 Science should be used with caution because it encourages skepticism, which is not always a good thing, in my opinion.

    The Book of Proverbs 23,26: “My son, give me your heart and let your eyes delight in my ways”.

    That’s what God wants from us. God wants everyone to be saved and to know the truth. Recall what Blaise Pascal said about a peasant’s faith. He was a clever chap. He said, “I have learned a lot and I know a lot and I believe as a peasant from Brittany, but if I knew even more, I would believe as his wife”.

    St Paul wrote in his 1st epistle to the Corinthians [3,19]:

    “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”.

    I believe the testimony of the Orthodox Christian Church.

  32. 32
    EugeneS says:

    Zachriel #26,

    The contention is, the intended evolutionary mechanism which is a combination of chance and necessity is too weak for the generation of autonomous evolvable self-replicating rule-based decision support systems such as biological organisms. The question about the limits of evolution is interesting but different.

    These systems are appropriately classed as AI systems rather than products of natural causation. Intelligence is expressed in particular in decision making, planning, forethought.

    On the side of ID is a solid experimental base, on your side all there is, is bare claims. The strong experimental indicator is that all intelligent systems known to exist are themselves a result of intelligent agency, either human or animal. The only question is about the biological systems themselves.

    Are you really saying that biological decision support systems are not a result of decision making, planning and forethought? Show how this is possible.

  33. 33
    Zachriel says:

    EugeneS: The contention is, the intended evolutionary mechanism which is a combination of chance and necessity is too weak for the generation of autonomous evolvable self-replicating rule-based decision support systems such as biological organisms.

    Evolution theory currently only explains the long term behavior of life, not its origin. The contention, then, it would seem, is that the intended evolutionary mechanism is too weak to explain the diversification and adaptation of biological organisms.

    EugeneS: On the side of ID is a solid experimental base, on your side all there is, is bare claims.

    A perusal of the scientific literature clearly shows your claim is false. That vast majority of research in biology is done within the paradigm of evolutionary theory, while ID has a scant record of publication, most of which are found in vanity journals.

  34. 34
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    Evolution theory currently only explains the long term behavior of life, not its origin.

    The two, evolution and origins, are directly linked. That is because how life originated would determine how it evolved.

    The contention, then, it would seem, is that the intended evolutionary mechanism is too weak to explain the diversification and adaptation of biological organisms.

    That is what the evidence and science has demonstrated.

    That vast majority of research in biology is done within the paradigm of evolutionary theory

    There isn’t any “evolutionary theory”! And thanks to evolutionism we have no idea what makes an organism what it is.

    Heck not one article supports natural selection’s ability to produce ATP synthase. Yours doesn’t have any mechanisms capable of explaining life’s diversity.

  35. 35
    velikovskys says:

    What is the evidence of how the designer did it?

    VC

    Intelligent Design. ????

    That isn’t a ” how” Virgil. That is a ” what”.

  36. 36
    Upright BiPed says:

    How?

    Through the use of representations as “boundry conditions that harness the laws of nature” (Polanyi 1968).

    Its the same as it is today.

    A singular unambiguous process (semiosis) from a singular unambiguous source (intelligence).

  37. 37
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    Yours doesn’t have any mechanisms capable of explaining life’s diversity.

    But ID has no mechanisms at all.

    ID itself is no more a “mechanism” for creating biological organisms than saying “horsepower” is a “mechanism” for creating electric motors.

    Show how ID could work today for biological organisms.

    Design one from scratch.

  38. 38
    Mapou says:

    Carpie,

    ID does not claim to have a mechanism. Do you even know what ID is?

    Do you know the mechanism that was used to build Stonehenge? Does that prevent you from knowing that Stonehenge was built by intelligent beings? Why do you people keep repeating the same old tired and stupid arguments? It’s annoying.

  39. 39
    Carpathian says:

    Mapou:

    Carpie,

    ID does not claim to have a mechanism. Do you even know what ID is?

    Then ID is of no use in explaining how life got to be the way it is today.

    Its only use seems to be to try and convince people that life cannot be explained by one particular theory.

    Other than saying life is so improbable it must have been designed because Stonehenge was designed by us , I have not seen anything to indicate that biological ID is possible.

    That is the IDist’s only argument against “Darwinism”, i.e. that it isn’t possible.

    Why can’t anyone show how biological ID is possible?

    Show how you would design a biological organism and then roll your product out into an ecosystem.

  40. 40
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    But ID has no mechanisms at all.

    Design is a mechanism. But I digress. ID is not about the mechanism. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any.

    ID itself is no more a “mechanism” for creating biological organisms than saying “horsepower” is a “mechanism” for creating electric motors.

    Design is the mechanism for creating electric motors.

  41. 41
    Virgil Cain says:

    velikovskys- Intelligent design is a “how”. For example, you can build something by intelligent design or just throw it together willy-nilly.

  42. 42
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    That is the IDist’s only argument against “Darwinism”, i.e. that it isn’t possible.

    So to refute ID all you have to do is demonstrate that it is possible. But you can’t so you rail against ID with your ignorance.

  43. 43
    Mapou says:

    Carpie:

    Mapou:
    Carpie,
    ID does not claim to have a mechanism. Do you even know what ID is?

    Then ID is of no use in explaining how life got to be the way it is today.

    Sigh. ID gives half of the answer: Intelligence was required to bring about life on earth.

    Its only use seems to be to try and convince people that life cannot be explained by one particular theory.

    Other than saying life is so improbable it must have been designed because Stonehenge was designed by us , I have not seen anything to indicate that biological ID is possible.

    ID does not claim that life is improbable. It claims that it is impossible that life on earth arose by itself. The search space for the human genome is so huge (4 raised to 3 billion) that no random searching mechanism such as RM+NS has a chance to find anything more complex than simple stuff. This is why genetic algorithms are only used for toy applications. The combinatorial explosion just kills them dead as soon as you want to do anything more complex than tic-tac-toe. It is not a matter of improbability. It’s impossible to use RM+NS to arrive at anything more interesting than little toy stuff. IMPOSSIBLE.

    That is the IDist’s only argument against “Darwinism”, i.e. that it isn’t possible.

    ID completely refutes Darwinism. It relegates it into the vast bin of pseudoscientific crap. ID is an awesome argument, if you ask me.

    Why can’t anyone show how biological ID is possible?

    Show how you would design a biological organism and then roll your product out into an ecosystem.

    A company called Monsanto uses genetic engineering to create genetically modified organisms. If chicken shit Monsanto can design new genes, so can the advanced designers who created all life on earth. Get a clue.

  44. 44
    Carpathian says:

    Mapou:

    A company called Monsanto uses genetic engineering to create genetically modified organisms. If chicken shit Monsanto can design new genes, so can advanced designers who created all life on earth. Get a clue.

    That would be like buying a car and customizing it with parts that were made by someone else.

    Design a biological organism from scratch and roll it out into an ecosystem.

    It can’t be done, because it’s impossible.

  45. 45
    Mapou says:

    Carpie:

    Design a biological organism from scratch and roll it out into an ecosystem.

    It can’t be done, because it’s impossible.

    I don’t know who you are but it would not surprise me if you are some well-known evolutionist or other. You people are stupid as sh!t. Adios.

  46. 46
    Carpathian says:

    Mapou:

    You people are stupid as sh!t.

    Good tactic.

    Sentences like this should be in all ID teachers toolbox.

    Whenever a teacher can’t answer a question, blame the student.

    This will happen in all ID classes multiple times a day.

  47. 47
    Mapou says:

    Pack it, Carpie. LOL

  48. 48
    velikovskys says:

    Virgi:
    velikovskys- Intelligent design is a “how”. For example, you can build something by intelligent design or just throw it together willy-nilly.

    They both are an aspect of a mechanism, not the actual mechanism.

  49. 49
    Carpathian says:

    Mapou:

    Pack it, Carpie. LOL

    I’ll put that in the ID Teacher’s Guide too! 🙂

  50. 50
    Virgil Cain says:

    velikovskys- Design is a mechanism. Look up the words in a dictionary.

  51. 51
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    Design a biological organism from scratch and roll it out into an ecosystem.

    Only an imbecile on an agenda would ask us to do something that is beyond the current capability of humans. Enter Carpathian.

  52. 52
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    Only an imbecile on an agenda would ask us to do something that is beyond the current capability of humans. Enter Carpathian.

    It is not only beyond the ability of us, it is also beyond the ability of anyone but someone with the attributes of God.

    Not even the aliens you once mentioned can do it because of the difficulties involved in the logistics.

    No IDist has ever posted anything on that.

    Just show the logistics side.

    How would you determine what to do?

    How tightly coupled is your ecosystem?

    How much energy flows into that ecosystem that can be used by the organisms that inhabit it?

    No one has even thought of the questions to ask.

  53. 53
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    It is not only beyond the ability of us, it is also beyond the ability of anyone but someone with the attributes of God.

    That’s your opinion.

    Not even the aliens you once mentioned can do it because of the difficulties involved in the logistics.

    Your opinion is not an argument.

    No IDist has ever posted anything on that.

    We have better things to do than to hump your strawman.

    How would you determine what to do?

    Break it all down and lay it all out. Engineering 101.

    No one has even thought of the questions to ask.

    I am sure there are other little kids asking the same questions.

  54. 54
    Mapou says:

    Virgil Cain @53,

    LOL

  55. 55
    Box says:

    Carp: It [creating organisms] is not only beyond the ability of us, it is also beyond the ability of anyone but someone with the attributes of God.

    You seem to forget your main argument — which is that blind non-telic uncomprehending particles in motion can do it. I mean, why argue that an advanced alien scientist can’t do what utter stupidity — blind particles in motion — can do?

  56. 56
    EugeneS says:

    Box #55,

    Excellent!

  57. 57
    EugeneS says:

    UB #36,

    Spot on.

  58. 58
    EugeneS says:

    Carpathian,

    “It can’t be done, because it’s impossible.”

    Well, at least something already can be done (irrespective of its ethical side).

    http://www.theguardian.com/sci.....-life-form

    This is proof of concept for ID and another blow against naturalism in its current form.

  59. 59
    Carpathian says:

    Box:

    You seem to forget your main argument — which is that blind non-telic uncomprehending particles in motion can do it. I mean, why argue that an advanced alien scientist can’t do what utter stupidity — blind particles in motion — can do?

    “Utter stupidity” and “blind particles” is not “evolution” but simply a strawman to make ID seem a favorable alternative.

    ID has been commenting for years on the improbability of “Darwinism” but has never computed the improbability of creating life without the abilities of God.

    When you do, you’ll find it’s less probable than “Darwinism”.

  60. 60
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian- According to evolutionism all mutations are accidents, errors and/ or mistakes. Natural selection is blind and without purpose.

    And if “darwinism” or “neo-darwinism” had something then no one would have to calculate probabilities.

  61. 61
    Mapou says:

    I can never figure out how Darwinists can be so stupid and yet somehow managed to take over the institutions of learning. Carpie is a case in point. It is time to kick them out.

  62. 62
    Carpathian says:

    Mapou:

    I can never figure out how Darwinists can be so stupid and yet somehow managed to take over the institutions of learning. Carpie is a case in point. It is time to kick them out.

    It sounds like you like the idea of censorship.

    I don’t.

    I think everyone should see the ID argument.

    Why don’t you show me how stupid I am by showing me that ID is more likely than Darwinism.

    Since you’ve determined that I am stupid for taking a non-ID position, you must have the answers to the questions I have asked other IDists.

    Pretend I am a student in a class and “Darwinism” has been removed from the curriculum.

    Just outline the steps you would need to determine when and where a new biological organism is required in an ecosystem.

    Show how you would determine its impact on other organisms already in that ecosystem.

    Show me that ID is possible .

    If you can’t, then I the student will assume that ID isn’t science.

  63. 63
    Box says:

    Carp:
    ID has been commenting for years on the improbability of “Darwinism” but has never computed the improbability of creating life without the abilities of God.

    When you do, you’ll find it’s less probable than “Darwinism”.

    So tell me, what does Darwinism / evolution have that advanced alien scientists cannot have? Which necessary Godlike capabilities does evolution have that advanced alien scientists cannot possibly have?

  64. 64
    Carpathian says:

    EugeneS:

    [From the article] The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

    It’s not from scratch.

    More importantly, there is nothing that indicates he has done any work at all at the effects his modification will do in an ecosystem if released.

    The logistics of introducing an organism is many times more complex than building it because other organisms will react to it.

    Something like this is nowhere close to designing something like a predatory bird or mammal that will be introduced into an ecosystem.

  65. 65
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    Carpathian: No IDist has ever posted anything on that.

    Virgil Cain: We have better things to do than to hump your strawman.

    I don’t think asking how ID is possible is a strawman.

    I’d like to see how students in a class would react to an answer like that when they ask questions.

  66. 66
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    Carpathian: No one has even thought of the questions to ask.

    Virgil Cain: I am sure there are other little kids asking the same questions.

    If you can’t answer the questions of the little kids, how are you going to answer the questions of the big kids?

  67. 67
    Mapou says:

    Carpie:

    Why don’t you show me how stupid I am by showing me that ID is more likely than Darwinism.

    Do you understand the concept of combinatorial explosion? Do you understand the concept of an exponent? The search space of the human genome is 4 raised to 2 billion! This means that the chance of using a random search algorithm (RM+NS) to arrive at the human genome is exactly ZERO.

    Now intelligent engineering can solve the problem because it eliminates almost the entire search space and focuses on what’s relevant.

    This is the reason that ID is, not just more likely than Darwinism, but is the only possible solution. Live with it, moron.

    [edit] For comparison, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^85. Compare that to 4^(2 billion).

  68. 68
    Mapou says:

    Darwinian evolution is so stupid, Karl Popper called it a “metaphysical research project”.

    ahaha…ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  69. 69
    Carpathian says:

    Box:

    So tell me, what does Darwinism / evolution have that advanced alien scientists cannot have? Which necessary Godlike capabilities does evolution have that advanced alien scientists cannot possibly have?

    All the negatives that we see in human design, would exist for the aliens on a bigger scale with something as complex as biology.

    Read all the following and think about how you would do it if tomorrow, you had the ability to design any organism you want.

    No intelligent agent can see the future, which is what will be required for something on the scale of biological ID.

    One mistake in any organism you design might lead to world-wide extinction.

    Evolution does not have this problem since most changes get eliminated due to failure to survive before they can take hold in an ecosystem.

    ID however, needs to introduce a design all at once, due to IC, in a large quantity since a new design will only mate with another of its population.

    In evolution, small changes still allow mating until differences become large between groups.

    Since we are not talking about God, but aliens, mistakes will be made and there needs to be a way to fix a design that has already been introduced.

    How would you do that to millions of individuals spread out over thousands of square miles?

    I’ve said it before that Creationism by God is more likely than ID by aliens.

  70. 70
    Carpathian says:

    Mapou:

    Do you understand the concept of combinatorial explosion? Do you understand the concept of an exponent? The search space of the human genome is 4 raised to 2 billion! This means that the chance of using a random search algorithm (RM+NS) to arrive at the human genome is exactly ZERO.

    Do you understand the concept of evolution?

    Do you understand that evolution doesn’t search?

    There is no target.

    When you have an argument against evolution , present it.

    Live with it, moron.

    If ID gets taught in schools, will you introduce this sort of language when teaching it?

  71. 71
    Mapou says:

    Carpie:

    Do you understand that evolution doesn’t search?

    Moron.

  72. 72
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    Do you understand that evolution doesn’t search?

    There is no target.

    Do you understand that you just admitted unguided evolution is impotent?

    No intelligent agent can see the future,..

    You don’t know that.

    which is what will be required for something on the scale of biological ID.

    That is only your opinion.

    One mistake in any organism you design might lead to world-wide extinction.

    Talk about moronic absolute extremes…

    ID however, needs to introduce a design all at once, due to IC,

    BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Intelligent agencies produce IC step-by-step all of the time.

  73. 73
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    I don’t think asking how ID is possible is a strawman.

    ID isn’t about the “how”. Your position is and it can’t answer the questions pertaining to “how”.

    I’d like to see how students in a class would react to an answer like that when they ask questions.

    ID wouldn’t be taught in third grade.

    If you can’t answer the questions of the little kids, how are you going to answer the questions of the big kids?

    Big kids ask coherent and relevant questions.

  74. 74
    EugeneS says:

    Carpathian,

    You are engaging in a ‘No true Scotsman’ argument. Whatever is presented to you, is not enough. It is never enough. You are fixated on your opinion and do not wish to look afresh on your own position. It is your choice, mate.

Leave a Reply