Researchers “very shocked” by recent new genes that form distinctly human brain

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 19, 2011

Human evolution, News}

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

File:Gray726-Brodman-prefrontal.svg — from Gray's Anatomy, the prefrontal cortex

In “New Genes, New Brain” (The Scientist , October 19, 2011), Cristina Luiggi reports,

The evolution of the human brain may have been driven by a group of novel genes that arose fairly recently in primate evolution.

A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex—the area of the brain associated with human intelligence and personality—took shape in primates, a new study published yesterday (October 18) in PLoS Biology found. The timing suggests that the new genes may have been intimately tied to the evolution of the human brain.

Previous research focused on older genes conserved across the animal kingdom, looking at new genes is hoped to provide insight. Like:

“We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures. It seems that around the same time that the neocortex and the prefrontal cortex arose, and then expanded in humans, a large collection of genes also popped up.

That’s something the old genes were never going to tell researchers.

It feels like a rollout of some kind, no?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BA: "you’ve pegged my position quite well!" ok good, I thought I was close.junkdnaforlife_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Which "bald assertion" of mine did you think it was a response to?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

continued: The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose). The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists (Please note; the 'infinity problem' is focused primarily in black holes) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/
Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
Also of related interest to this ‘Zero/Infinity conflict of reconciliation’, between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is the fact that a ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single (photon) qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Moreover there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ:
THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. - Isabel Piczek - Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Holographic Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.” St. Augustine
While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ since all things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a ‘unification into a theory of everything’ for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have in hand that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.
Psalms 16:10 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.” Achieved Is The Glorious Work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTFG2KJf9M
further note: It should also be pointed out that Special and General Relativity reveal two very, very different 'eternalities of time' within space-time. The 'eternality of time' revealed for black holes is rather disturbing for those of us of spiritual persuasion:
On The Mystery of Time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FFKL3FeyebpNNyal1DQ64y20zlplVrjkaLXrM0P5ES4/edit?hl=en_US
bornagain77_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

junkdnaforlife, you've pegged my position quite well! Save for I would have argued very strongly that Christian Theism is, by far, the best empirically supported position, not merely a choice, among many. In fact a 'Christian' interpretation offers a very plausible, empirically backed, reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics: First a little background: ,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;
The Known Universe - Dec. 2009 - a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as 'center of the universe' as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered 'center of the universe'. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.
4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/
,,, yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a 'mental experiment' of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so i dug around a bit and found this;
The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf
and also 'serendipitously' found this,,,
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel's personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein's seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, "the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point." This means that "a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel." In fact, "Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements." Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html
But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,,
This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous' for each observer: Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the "hidden-variables" approach. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori
Shoot there is even a experiment that shows the preceding quantum experiments will never be overturned by another 'future' theory;
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory - May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this (quantum theory). http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0133
,, and to make universal quantum Wave collapse much more 'personal' I found this,,,
"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
bornagain77_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: blockquote>Thanks for the link. I rightly surmised that the 99% did not apply to this finding. What finding? I responded to your bald assertion.Joseph_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

It’s an extremely coherent theory. It simply says that if self-replicator replicate with differential variance in reproductive success, the best replicators will come to dominate the population, i.e. the population will evolve – aka adapt to its environment. How can this not be true? So the question is: does it apply to biological reproduction? And we find – yes: we have self-replication with differential variance in reproductive success, we have sources of variance, and we have evidence that it does actually work
Let's look at the moves you've made here. You set up a kind of generalized truth---- . . . self-replicators replicate . . . ---and then go on to apply it to biology. But, please, Lizzie, where else, other than in biology, do you see "self-replicators"? Where do they exist? So you take an abstract concept that has biology as its basis of origin, and then you apply it to biology as a kind of analysis of what makes biology tick. And then you ask the question: How can this not be true? Well if self-replicators don't replicate, then they can't be self-replicators can they? So how can the statement that self-replicators replicate ever be wrong? Of course this is true. But you wouldn't even be saying this unless life existed. So you're simply looking at what life does and then saying this is true. Bravo. The rest of your "true" statement is simply a way of attempting to explain something else we see in the life around us: adaptation. And, so, this too is true---self-evidently true. But this was known long before Darwin's Origin of Species. And the mechanism Darwin proposed was also proposed as an explanation for adaptation. Where all of this steers off the path of what is true is when Darwin posits the Law of Divergence, an absolute necessity if he is going to claim that adaptive mechanisms can also explain the progressive evolution of life forms. IOW, its a circular way of thinking. As is Darwinism. And that's why it's incoherent. But apparently, some people swoon over this kind of muddled thinking.
Do you envisage that one day an orang gave birth to a chimp, with a whole set of new genes, and then later a chimp gave birth to a human, with another new set? Or what do you envisage?
"Envisaging" is the problem, isn't it? How did things happen? Well, if we look to the fossil record to help us, we don't see true intermediate forms. And when we document what life can, or cannot do, in a highly detailed way, as is only now possible, we find that proposed Darwinian mechanisms can produce very little change. (cf Behe's Edge of Evolution) So that means Darwin's theory is out. What the fossil record does show, however, is that new forms "suddenly appear" and "suddenly disappear". So this suggests a stochastic history of life, rather than a continuous one. We also seem to be finding, as we're discussing here, the new appearance of genes, and, genes that provide a vital difference between one order of beings versus another. Now, should this all be attributable to genes? Hard to say. But we know that it has to be more than just genes since regulatory pathways seem to be of extreme importance. Now does this mean that "an orangutan gave birth to a chimp'? No. But whatever happened had to have looked more like this than anything Darwinism has to offer since there is no real evidence supporting any role for adaptive forces giving rise to macroevolution (Darwinism), and there is evidence for life evolving in a discontinuous fashion. IOW, how can this not be true?PaV_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

"Yes. PaV, you’re making some sort of argument that because cytochrome c is required for animal life, that what exactly? It isn’t required for all life. There isn’t any meat on this one." And your argument is that cytochrome c is not required for other forms of life, so therefore, cytochrome c doesn't matter? Does that make sense? You've just admitted: "It isn't required for all life." Thus, implicit in this comment is the admission that cytochrome c is necessary for life. And, yet, the probability of this one protein forming by chance mechanisms---remember, other forms of life don't need it---are astronomical. So, how did it form? How did this huge probabilistic problem get overcome? “Cross-species analysis revealed interesting evolutionary paths of how this gene had originated from noncoding DNA sequences: insertion of repeat elements especially Alu contributed to the formation of the first coding exon and six standard splice junctions on the branch leading to humans and chimpanzees, and two subsequent substitutions in the human lineage escaped two stop codons and created an open reading frame of 194 amino acids.” Based on your subsequent comment, you consider this to be a Darwinian explanation. But it isn't. It is a Darwinian description, of sorts. It is a description of what can be discerned, but utilizing a discernment process guided by Darwinian presumptions. No more. Take, for instance, this phrase: " . . and two subsequent substitutions in the human lineage . . . " What is the Darwinian explanation for this? How did it happen? What was the time frame? Per an article by evolutionary biologists wanting to refute Behe's Edge of Evolution claims, they said that it would take 31.6 million years for two amino acids to become fixed. So, how do you square these two findings as a Darwinian? You can't. Humans haven't been around for 31.7 million years. So, there is no plausible Darwinian explanation. Shouldn't we, then, seek a better explanation?
Creation of new fCSI.
We can be sure of two things here: (1) if it truly is fCSI, then an intelligent agent was involved, and (2) as I demonstrated above, there is no Darwinian explanation for fCSI.PaV_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the link. I rightly surmised that the 99% did not apply to this finding. As you were.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Quantum entanglement falsifies local realism and thus finding quantum entanglement in molecular biology (on a massive scale) ONLY falsifies the atheistic/materialistic form of neo-Darwinian evolution since the atheistic/materialistic form of neo-Darwinian evolution is based upon 'local realism' (more specifically atheistic neo-Darwinism is based upon a reductive materialistic form of local realism). QM does not falsify the possibility of Theistic evolution! (Although I find theistic evolution implausible from many other lines of evidence) QM certainly makes 'intellectually fulfilled' atheism an impossibility, :) .Local realism simply refers to the entire space-time, mass-energy, of the universe, and all causes inherent therein. Non-local realism refers to the fact that local realism is found to be insufficient to explain all phenomena inherent within the space-time mass-energy of the universe, specifically local realism is found to be insufficient to explain quantum entanglement (A. Aspect), and even quantum wave collapse (J. Wheeler), and even, most recently, found to be insufficient to explain the 'local' existence of mass-energy itself within space-time (A. Zeilinger) (i.e. mass-energy is found to be NOT self-sustaining but depends upon a non-local cause (beyond space-time matter-energy cause) to explain its continued existence with space-time). But even before Zeilinger's recent formal experimental proof against self-sustaining 'material', Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics, understood many years ago the need for a 'non-local' cause to explain material reality;
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

I never appealed to any truth. I was explaining why BA ends up at his conclusions. They are based on his interpretation of QM, (his first premise). And the reason he chooses that specific interpretation of QM and not another is based on his Christianity. I am of course, doing my best to explain what is in BA's head. He may say something completely different. But again, this all based on interpretation. Some interpretations of QM are equally as spooky, one being that there are possibly an infinite amount of Drrecs operating online right now in some fashion, (not to be confused with the multi-verse). You keep asking me to argue for BA, that's not my intention. I could not do his link carpet bomb's justice. You said in the earlier post that most are at a loss when it comes to BA's qm arguments. I was stating that I am not. I understand his arguments, and that they are based on a specific interpretation of QM. To your specifics: 1.) Qm does not falsify this. However, the specific interpretation, the one BA accepts (consciousness causes collapse), if this were found to be the empirically true model, would seem to suggest that the mind is some separate immaterial thing. (Someone more familiar with that interpretation could answer that better. Buddhists I believe accept his interpretation also.) 2.) I don't see how any Qm interpretation would falsify evolution.junkdnaforlife_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

junkdna, Please describe, then, in a few sentences: 1) How quantum mechanics falsifies metaphysical realism. 2) How quantum mechanics falsifies evolutionary biology, I call BS on you, too. What kind of moron say there are "14 or so flavors" in one field, and that since another idiot "draws upon his Judeo-Christian theology/philosophy to shape which of the 14 or so flavors seems to make the most sense" and concludes the poop that comes out to be the truth? Really?DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

You may conclude his interpretation is bs sure. But he does understand the data. And what is on the table is about 14 or so choices for QM models. All of which are no more correct than the next. So what BA does is collect the QM data and reviews the options. Then draws upon his Judeo-Christian theology/philosophy to shape which of the 14 or so flavors seems to make the most sense. Many atheist physicists, I believe prefer decoherence, for the same faith based, or lack of, reasons. What I think BA is doing absolutely correct is searching in the right places. The answers to many puzzles are probably nested somewhere in QM superpositions.junkdnaforlife_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

My objections are specifically: 1) Proceeding from "local realism" to metaphysical realism in the same breath, which I doubt you can justify, 2) Taking a complex and unresolved field, and concluding it falsifies evolution because??? It is just BS. Sorry.DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

DrRec: "I really think even your peers who support you here probably are at a loss when it comes to your conception of quantum mechanics," Probably true for most that don't understand QM. But first you have to understand that BA's (if i'm wrong ba say so) arguments from QM are based on the Copenhagen interpretation, on the idea that an observer plays some role in collapsing wave function, but more specifically that consciousness causes collapse. Which is not that same as the Copenhagen interpretation in the sense that observer does not necessarily = consciousness. So based on this first premise, many of BA arguments do make sense. However, often he gets involved in debates whereas the differences are in the interpretation of wave-particle duality, (not the data), and whether or not wave-particle duality exists at all. Specifically, many of his opponents argue from the position of quantum decoherence, and that wave function collapse in an illusion. Differing interpretations (first premise) will naturally lead to different conclusions. This all comes down to which of the 14 or so interpretations of QM you accept. And it is impossible to know, at this stage of the game, which is the correct model.junkdnaforlife_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

1 quadrillion years vs. 10 hours. Man, thats a margin of error. Doesn't really convince me the design inference is valid. Hmm.DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Just to follow up, PaV has provided us with a falsification of ID...the creation of fCSI by generation of a de novo gene by tractable mechanism, where no locus existed before. 20^194 power exceeds the universal probability bound, does it not? My my.... "“Cross-species analysis revealed interesting evolutionary paths of how this gene had originated from noncoding DNA sequences: insertion of repeat elements especially Alu contributed to the formation of the first coding exon and six standard splice junctions on the branch leading to humans and chimpanzees, and two subsequent substitutions in the human lineage escaped two stop codons and created an open reading frame of 194 amino acids." Human-Specific De Novo Protein-Coding Gene Associated with Human Brain Functions, Chuan-Yun Li, Yong Zhang, Zhanbo Wang, Yan Zhang, Chunmei Cao, Ping-Wu Zhang, Shu-Juan Lu, Xiao-Mo Li, Quan Yu, Xiaofeng Zheng, Quan Du, George R. Uhl, Qing-Rong Liu*, Liping Wei*, 2009:DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

Define "ultimate realism." And while your at it, why don't you, in your own words, explain how quantum mechanics falsifies evolution? I really think even your peers who support you here probably are at a loss when it comes to your conception of quantum mechanics, and the fairy tale world of links you've built up around it.DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

DrREC, oh please do tell me of your imaginary concept of ultimate realism, I do need a good laugh! :)bornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

You still don't get that realism in physics does not mean metaphysical realism do you? Another mad-lib argument, really. Toss words together, stir.DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

linky, linky
The explanation that best fits the data tells us that >99% of all evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift and not natural selection.
But don't worry I am told that remaining 1% is more than enough- 1% plus a whole lot of imagination and your position has all it needs.Joseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Link please Joe.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 but hey if you disagree with these population geneticists you can always apply for the job at Oxford to 'fix' the fact that neo-Darwinism has no mathematical basis: Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html something tells me you won't be able to lie your way out of this one guys (although I'm sure you will try!) Conservation of Information In Search - William Dembski and Robert Marks - Sept. 2009 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=5208652&arnumber=5204206 The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag "No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA – David J D’Onofrio1, Gary An – Jan. 2010 Excerpt: It is also important to note that attempting to reprogram a cell’s operations by manipulating its components (mutations) is akin to attempting to reprogram a computer by manipulating the bits on the hard drive without fully understanding the context of the operating system. (T)he idea of redirecting cellular behavior by manipulating molecular switches may be fundamentally flawed; that concept is predicated on a simplistic view of cellular computing and control. Rather, (it) may be more fruitful to attempt to manipulate cells by changing their external inputs: in general, the majority of daily functions of a computer are achieved not through reprogramming, but rather the varied inputs the computer receives through its user interface and connections to other machines. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/7/1/3bornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.”
Do you actually think antibiotics are something new that humans invented?Petrushka_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Larry Moran just posted that 99% of the variation is due to random genetic drift. And unfortunately there still isn't any evidence that darwinian processes can create regulatory networks and there isn't any evidence said processes can produce protein-coding genes!Joseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Antibiotic resistance is a very old story of competition. Antibiotics are chemical compounds that inhibit and/or prevent bacterial replication through a number of different mechanisms. That the first compounds with antibiotic properties were found in mold surprises no one today. What better way to protect a food source than to excrete a compound toxic to your competition...shades of hag fish slime by golly!Acipenser_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Darwinism refutes Darwinism. It is an incoherent theory.
It's an extremely coherent theory. It simply says that if self-replicator replicate with differential variance in reproductive success, the best replicators will come to dominate the population, i.e. the population will evolve - aka adapt to its environment. How can this not be true? So the question is: does it apply to biological reproduction? And we find - yes: we have self-replication with differential variance in reproductive success, we have sources of variance, and we have evidence that it does actually work - populations adapt by the generation in the short term to cyclical changes in the environment, and track changes in the long term to long-term changes in the environment. Plus we also see interesting non-linear effects of drift.
Isn’t it obvious why I highlighted the words in the post you’re responding to?
No, it isn't. Regulatory networks are just as evolvable by Darwinian process as protein coding genes. There's no difference to the process. You objection just seems to be "It looks too much to me". And the research suggests the opposite to your own conclusion, that wholesale batches of new genes with regulatory networks got plonked into the genomes of certain individuals at certain times. Do you envisage that one day an orang gave birth to a chimp, with a whole set of new genes, and then later a chimp gave birth to a human, with another new set? Or what do you envisage? The evidence suggests continuous evolution with the PFC genes and gene networks evolving along the whole lineage, probably from the fairly clearcut survival advantage in having a substantial PFC.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

suppose you want to claim they were random?bornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution - September 2011 Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.” http://crev.info/content/110904-a_tale_of_two_falsifications_of_evolution Antibiotic resistance is ancient - September 2011 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110922 Evolution - Tested And Falsified - Don Patton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036803 List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.aspbornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

When in doubt, invent some big, big numbers. Or when in science just falsify neo-Darwinism altogether using empirical evidence: Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_USbornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Also realize there are contrasting claims, like the fixation of four substitutions in 10 HOURS. "... four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential (21–23). The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer (24)." Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin, Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767DrREC_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply