Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Everything is Coming Up “Non-Random”!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On January 12, 2022, Phys.Org had a PR on an article documenting “non-random” mutations found in wild tobacco plants, published by a team from UC Davis. Now, three weeks later (Feb 1, 2022), we have another paper, working with human populations in Africa, and which, according to a team from the University of Haifa, “surprisingly” turns up “non-random” mutations.

From the PR on the first paper:

The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said.

The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

And from the PR for the second paper:

“For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance,” said Prof. Livnat. Unlike other findings on mutation origination, this mutation-specific response to a specific environmental pressure cannot be explained by traditional theories. . . . . . . .
“Mutations may be generated nonrandomly in evolution after all, but not in the way previously conceived. We must study the internal information and how it affects mutation, as it opens the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived,” Livnat concluded.

What do you know!! There’s “information” in the genome. Lots of it!! What a surprise!!!

Comments
Gosh. No takers yet? Either this tissue can ethically be used to save people from starvation or not. Which is it? -QQuerius
February 14, 2022
February
02
Feb
14
14
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Yikes! So how about aborted fetus tissue being made into nutritious hot dogs for the malnourished masses of the world? Anyone want to defend Dawkins? Hello? -QQuerius
February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
Indeed who believes that darwinism is true is necessarily a racist and a possible "hygienist" of inferior people . There is no way to get round but darwinism doesn't stop here. As Dawkins "magistrally" put it :"Any fetus is less human than an adult pig. " Abortion morality :solved .Lieutenant Commander Data
February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
Lieutenant Commander Data @41,
Darwin has nothing to do with science.
I disagree. Charles Darwin most certainly provided scientists with a flimsy scientific rationale for blatant racism and eugenics. Racists everywhere are in debt to Charles Darwin. In his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, Darwin elucidated his racist ideals clearly and in more detail, which seems to still be defended as "anti-slavery" according to one recent book. -QQuerius
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
@Jerry Darwin has nothing in common with genetics because Darwin thought that a bacterium became a bacteriologist NOT KNOWING what genetic code and functional information is. Darwin believed that "the transformation" is intrinsic in nature like a natural law. Darwin has nothing to do with science.Lieutenant Commander Data
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
It’s certainly a tactic that can be employed
It’s called the Truth. 1) Darwinian processes are nothing but genetics- True 1a) This includes the Modern Synthesis, Neo Darwinism or whatever name is used - True 2) Darwin’s ideas significantly affected the science of genetics - True 3) others developed ideas that also led to modern genetics, including Mendel - True 4) Darwin as well as others should be praised for their contributions not disparaged - True 5) Evolution has nothing to do with genetics. The only commonality is that both involve change. True 6) A major difference between Evolution and genetics is that genetics is well understood while no one has any idea how Evolution happened - True 7) Another difference is that DNA has nothing to do with Evolution but is essential to genetics- True 8) Darwin is firmly entrenched in the mind of everyone as the father of evolutionary theory and will not be ousted without a different strategy - True So let’s admit the truth and use it.jerry
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Okay, so no takers on computer-based life. Let's make it even easier then. How about computer-generated viruses? The smallest computer viruses include one at 13 bytes, another at 22 bytes, and a 376-byte worm. Now, the world's total data storage is estimated to be over 60 zettabytes or more than 60 billion terabytes in size. Plenty of bits that could randomly go wrong. So let's consider a USB drive sitting for years at the bottom of a sunlit warm pond. The data in the over-cycled, low-quality NAND chips in this USB flash drive has been hit by just the right amount of energy to change 22 bytes of data. Years later ,while frogging in the pond, a little boy finds the USB drive and gives hit to his brother who immediately inserts it into his computer and discovers the slightly corrupted application file. Opening the file results in a 22-byte buffer overflow into executable memory, which infects the computer with a brand new randomly spawned virus that propagates itself after causing more random mutations in the data files and executables on the system. These mutations result in increasingly complex digital organisms that have, after billions and billions of cycles, undergone digital natural selection when the antivirus applications removes detectable versions. The result is that the growing digital life evolves into every greater functionality in its digital ecosystem. At some point in its evolving complexity, it has gained consciousness that's at least as good as that in humans, and it devises strategies to execute at bootup and even to migrate into the BIOS billions and billions of cycles later. So, who's interested in writing up a grant proposal for say 10 million dollars from a foundation or a government agency? How about calling it "Proving Synthetic Evolution through Digital Natural Selection." I only ask that you leave me the movie rights. -QQuerius
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Jerry: I appreciate you spelling out your thoughts on this. It's certainly a tactic that can be employed. I am tempted to phrase this tactic as: "If you can't beat them, ignore them." ID certainly is compatible with a metaphysical approach to these issues (though Thomists, for some strange reason, don't think so), but it is also a 'scientific' approach to these issues via what Steven Meyer has been saying: that is, ID has greater 'explanatory power' than Darwinism. But I certainly see now the position you've taken and this helps make sense of discussions we've had over the years. I'll have to 'scratch my head some.' At first glance, your approach doesn't strike me as the best way forward. But, again, thanks for the clarification.PaV
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
What, no takers on this easily performed synthetic experiment? It's far more realistic than Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel," which involves a predetermined target. -QQuerius
February 5, 2022
February
02
Feb
5
05
2022
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
And astonishing chemical cycles, physical chemistry, epigenetic codes, and massively structured information. And intelligent design. Otherwise it's all reductionist such as suggesting that all computer programs naturally evolved from massive numbers of 1s and 0s. Now that would be an interesting experiment. Create random strings of machine code, run them on a computer, and allow the ones that can reproduce themselves to be subject to random mutations. Rinse and repeat until you create amazingly functional software! Or take Microsoft Windows, randomly change bits in it, and run it on your computer. Keep doing this until you get . . . Windows 12! Maybe that's exactly what Microsoft is doing right now. -QQuerius
February 4, 2022
February
02
Feb
4
04
2022
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
From the Great Courses this morning.
Charles Darwin’s contributions to the science of evolution are impossible to overstate. His theory that all species of life on Earth descend from common ancestors is one of the most fundamental beliefs in science—and one of the most frequently misunderstood.
Hardly a sign that Darwin is about to disappear as young blood rises up. Here is a video by The Great Courses eulogizing Darwin and natural selection. This is what every college student has seen for the last 50 years. By the way two of the lecturers featured teach at religious sponsored universities. How to combat such aggrandizement? With the truth. Natural selection is only relevant in genetics. The Big Lie about Darwin is how his ideas are what unifies biology. No what unifies biology if anything is genetics. Maybe Theodosius Dobzhansky’s expression should have been, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of genetics.”jerry
February 4, 2022
February
02
Feb
4
04
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Darwin’s ideas are a key part of genetics. And genetics has nothing to do with Evolution. The only commonality is that both focus on change. That’s it. The Modern Synthesis is essentially the same thing as genetics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_Synthesis.svg The Modern Synthesis is the combination of Mendelian inheritance, genetic variation and natural selection. It is DNA based. It is identical to genetics.
Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in organisms Wikipedia
But yet nearly all the commenters here focus on the change or lack of change in genetics when they believe they are discussing Evolution. The Great bait and switch delusion. Also the term “neo Darwinism” is the same thing. So genetics, Modern Synthesis and Neo Darwinism are the same thing. What Darwin did was take the breeding concept of selection and then coin the term ”natural selection” to explain another form of selection not due to humans. But it still is just genetics. jerry
February 4, 2022
February
02
Feb
4
04
2022
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
My point is simple. 1) what Darwin’s work led to is genetics.
Not really ,breeders of animals and plants do that for thousands of years. Work of Darwin led to most criminal conception ever .Lieutenant Commander Data
February 4, 2022
February
02
Feb
4
04
2022
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
You seem to take the position that: “Genetics defines what Darwin says–give him that credit
Yes on both!
and NOT Mendel
Gave him credit too. Mentioned him in two different posts including one you are responding to.
guess, you want us to “pat him [Darwin] on the head” and get on to the really important stuff of Evolution
Yes.
there doesn’t seem to be much “evidence” for Tiers 1-3
That’s the point. There is no evidence for any natural mechanism for these tiers. That’s why ID exists.
instead, history will simply have to wait for these “true believers” to die
Not going to happen. Darwin is too well entrenched with young people. Academia will not allow contrary thought unless forced to. Younger people are more ideological materialistic than previous generations. Make him irrelevant instead. If you asked people to name the 5 greatest scientists in history, three sure names would be Newton, Darwin and Einstein. Keep him on list but relegate him to genetics. My point is simple. 1) what Darwin’s work led to is genetics. (This does not obviate Mendel in any way. Interesting point is why people naturally associate Mendel with genetics but resist including Darwin.) 2) genetics is extremely important so Darwin’s work which helped lead to genetics was important. 3) genetics and DNA does not explain Evolution. In fact DNA has nothing to do with Evolution.jerry
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Jerry:
I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say.
It's a two-way street. You seem to take the position that: "Genetics defines what Darwin says--give him that credit (and NOT Mendel?!?), and that his "genetics" only show us 'microevolution' at work. But "real" evolution, evolution spelled with a capital "E," that is, Evolution, is about "macroevolution." So--I guess, you want us to "pat him [Darwin] on the head" and get on to the really important stuff of Evolution. But, there's this problem: from what you've written about Tiers 1-4, there doesn't seem to be much "evidence" for Tiers 1-3 (we've already given Darwin his due; that is, Tier 4), but. nonetheless, let's talk about 'macroevolution' anyhow. As in: "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Please correct my version of your position; but this seems--to me, at least, the position you've carved out. Where have I gone wrong? My position is this: Darwinists, that is, the euphemistically-named "evolutionary biologists," see microevolution as true and demonstrated (a position you agree with) and that 'macroevolution' is simply 'microevolution' writ large. (When you say that the Modern Synthesis hasn't defects, you've given the store away in they eyes of the "evo-bio"'s.) I think they're wrong about 'microevolution' in very important ways, but, when it comes to rather trivial matters, yes, 'microevolution' is in play. Ergo, a fortiori, they are even more wrong about 'macroevolution.' So, I don't pass up an opportunity to point out that they were/are wrong. Now, nothing will convince them that they're wrong. There's no hope for that. So, instead, history will simply have to wait for these "true believers" to die, which will eventually allow younger students who kept quiet about their Darwinian misgivings to have access to labs and periodicals where they can publicly express the discomfort they felt all along.PaV
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare.”
If you don't know the original map of genome and all processes from cell you don't know if what is called as mutation is not just an preseted intelligent adaptation.Lieutenant Commander Data
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Jerry, "I actually think the Modern Synthesis has few defects." Well actually, right off the bat I can think of at least one rather glaring defect in the modern synthesis that renders the modern synthesis, (at least how Darwinists interpret it), false. Namely, "Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare."
Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/ Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford - February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/ Fisher’s proof of Darwinian evolution has been flipped? - December 27, 2017 Excerpt: we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinian-evolution-has-been-flipped/ The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Of note:, "for biologists he (Ronald Fisher) was an architect of the "modern synthesis" that used mathematical models to integrate Mendelian genetics with Darwin's selection theories.",, - per wikipedia
bornagain77
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
allow a little bit more room for pointing out the defects in the Modern Synthesis as a way forward
I actually think the Modern Synthesis has few defects. The problem is it has nothing to do with Evolution. By pointing this out and that it is good science removes Darwin as a player in the Evolution debate. If that objective is achieved, it could change the debate to one based on evidence and logic. Darwin’s ideas have nothing to do with Evolution. His ideas however have led to the modern science of genetics. jerry
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Mind blowing ! even after scientists discovered few mechanisms of FIXING ERRORS they still continue with "random" insanity. TO REPAIR means "fighting" against RANDOMNESS, with THE PURPOSE to preserve the accuracy of CODED information. Figure how off the target were the scientists when they told us that 95% of DNA was useless when in reality was the most important part of DNA , REGULATING all the life processes.Lieutenant Commander Data
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Pav, I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say. It sounds like you just agreed with me that Darwin’s ideas are just genetics and not Evolution. Modern Synthesis, various forms - from Wikipedia
they all include natural selection, working on heritable variation supplied by mutation
That just what genetics is. So Darwin’s ideas along with Mendel’s findings and other have just led to the modern science of genetics. To call genetics Evolution is then a gross distortion. But ID and UD specifically constantly adds to this distortion by conflating genetics with Evolution when the two are completely unrelated. It’s what I said 16 years ago and continue to emphasize.jerry
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Jerry @6:
Also how is the modern synthesis different from genetics other than one is unproven while the other is good science?
Well, I think genetic arguments are used to demonstrate that the Modern Synthesis is wrong. Now, you say "unproven," but the whole point of the Modern Synthesis is that what Charles Darwin presented as 'evolution' (which, for you, is Tier 2 and Tier 3--since Darwin invoked a "Creator" [Tier 1]) is not only 'compatible' with the, as you say 'good science,' of genetics, but that Charles Darwin is proven correct via knowledge (and 'good science') of genetics. You, Jerry, might want to engage the logic of the claims that Darwin made (makes through his advocates today) directly, but the field of evolution is ONLY interested in a 'material' explanation, which, they are convinced, has been demonstrated via the Modern Synthesis. IOW, they only want to talk genetics and only will respond to genetics, and not to 'logic.' Steven Meyer's books involve both and are a great statement of ID. But it's been the 'philosophers' who have changed their views, not the evolutionary biologists. My simple claim is that genetics doesn't support the claims that the Modern Synthesis is understood as making. Behe's approach is along these lines. If, and it's a big 'if,' any concessions are to be forced from the Darwinist side, it will be a 'materialist' (i.e., a 'genetic') argument that will succeed. There are philosophers of physics who understand physics very well, but an experimental physicist won't read them to figure out their next experiment (with, I suppose, some exceptions). The same is true, I believe, when it comes to Evolution/evolution. We can see the 'logical' difficulties with Darwin's theory, or, if not with the theory, with the 'difficulties' on the theory that he himself already saw from the beginning; but, that's not going to change anyone's mind. Philosophy is intellectual--that is, NOT 'materialist.' We're dealing with 'materialists.' So, allow a little bit more room for pointing out the defects in the Modern Synthesis as a way forward. Pax.PaV
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
LCD I got you... no worries .... i just wanted to comment some more on DNA packaging when you mentioned it ... in my post, those were rhetorical questions ... Moreover, i can only agree with you ...Darwinists are like kids playing with toys ... sometimes i call Darwinists romantics ... because of their naive / absurd world view ... in fact, romantics are like kids in some way ...martin_r
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 @18,
CD at 15 presupposes that mindless Darwinian processes can explain DNA wrapping. i.e. “You need to brush up on your reading comprehension”
Yes, exactly. And I love it when someone has to resort to an ad hominem attack, because it's an admission that they cannot come up with a cogent rebuttal and have lost the argument! The presence and structure of highly compressed information and chemical programming doesn't explain its origin nor the source of the encoded information! Information and incredibly complex, structured programming arises do not appear spontaneously out of random chaos. The Cambrian Explosion just happened to happen? -QQuerius
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
LCD: "DNA wrapping is like a plane taking off and that is a very simple process , you just need a plane and a runway, that’s all." Oh golly gee whiz, so all you need to do to be a 'good Darwinist' is just assume that airplanes and runways can magically appear out of nowhere,,,, LOL :)
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
bornagain77
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Martin_r LCD DNA wrapping. i.e. DNA packaging / wrapping actually makes everything way complicated …
I think you didn't see the invisible irony signs. Were in bold. :lol: The darwinist explanations are similar to children 's way of explanation when they play with toys like planes, tanks , barbie dolls , etc.Lieutenant Commander Data
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
LCD
DNA wrapping. i.e.
DNA packaging / wrapping actually makes everything way complicated ... because ... when a cell wants to use the data stored in DNA (e.g. for transcription), first, the DNA needs to be unwrapped ... so an additional very complex step :)))) why on earth would blind unguided process invent something like DNA packaging ???? To make things way complicated ? How absurd is such an idea ???? on the other hand, from engineering point of view, it makes a perfect sense ...martin_r
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 CD at 15 presupposes that mindless Darwinian processes can explain DNA wrapping. i.e.
It's not a big deal, DNA wrapping is like a plane taking off and that is a very simple process , you just need a plane and a runway, that's all. Very simple explanation. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
CD at 15 presupposes that mindless Darwinian processes can explain DNA wrapping. i.e. "You need to brush up on your reading comprehension",, Yet, directly contrary to what ChuckyD so casually assumes, mindless Darwinian processes can't even explain the existence of DNA, much less explain how and why DNA wraps in the way that it does.
Episode 8/13: Nucleotides // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYiguQYCSio How DNA is Packaged (Advanced) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbSIBhFwQ4s
i.e. Someone needs to brush up on the astonishing complexity that we are actually dealing with in DNA instead of simplistically, and self-servingly, assuming that mindless Darwinian processes created it all. Far from mindless Darwinian processes being able to explain DNA, the engineering specs of DNA are, for all practical purposes, 'engineering science fiction' in so far as outclassing anything man has ever 'intelligently designed'. For instance,
The World’s Ideal Storage Medium Is “Beyond Silicon” – January 20, 2017 Excerpt: it’s easy to see why DNA is “one of the strongest candidates yet” to replace silicon as the storage medium of the future. The read-write speed is about 30 times faster than your computer’s hard drive. The expected data retention is 10 times longer. The power usage is ridiculously low, almost a billion times less than flash memory.,,,, – per evolution news and views The thermodynamic efficiency of computations made in cells across the range of life. – 2017 Dec. Excerpt: Here we show that the computational efficiency of translation, defined as free energy expended per amino acid operation, outperforms the best supercomputers by several orders of magnitude, and is only about an order of magnitude worse than the Landauer bound. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133443/
bornagain77
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
If a cow is looking at an electronic scheme I bet she would think that there are random lines and the majority of all lines are junk. If the cow will find out that all lines are not junk certainly would change her mind about randomness.Lieutenant Commander Data
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension
Fantastic example of the pot calling the kettle black.jerry
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply