Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Hidden LightThe Fibonacci post has generated a longer comment thread than anything else I’ve written. I was just digging a little dirt and must have hit a power line. The question I tried to address, was “is there any physics in Fibonacci, or is it just a mathematician’s curiosity?

Here’s the physics that came back:

a) AJ Meyer has looked at the galactic rotation curves, and pointed out that “rigid-body” rotation which is observed, can be obtained by having a mass which increases with radius. Now since we can look at galaxies from the side, and they don’t get thicker with radius,  it would seem that this increase in mass must be due to something else. Gallo argues that it could be dust, or non-glowing “dark” matter. Meyer argues that a logarithmic spiral distribution, like the arms of spiral galaxies, would contribute more mass at larger radii, exactly as required to match the rotation curves. In other words, there is no “missing matter” in spiral galaxies, but precisely the rotation curve for being a spiral galaxy. Of course, Meyer has no explanation for why the stars are arranged in Fibonacci spirals.

Read More…

Comments
ellazimm you state: 'First of all, the talk origins website lists several examples of recent speciation if you want to argue against specific examples.' If any of the examples are semi-compelling,, They will all be examples of reproductive isolation that is brought about by loss of genetic information. This is always measurable as loss of genetic diversity in genomes, as well as measurable by loss of variability for breeding population when compared to the parent species, yet both measures conform to genetic entropy exactly. ellazimm then you state the whole evolutionary theory in a nutshell: 'Dawkins is very careful to state that only the mutation part of RM + NS is random. And that selection is a cummulative process. It’s not necessary to search the whole ‘solution space’. Evolution takes an existing form and modifications are ‘tested’ by natural, sexual and sometimes artificial selection. Those forms that better exploit whatever niche environment they are in tend to have more offspring and become more dominant. Sometimes the old form is wiped out but not always.' One huge problem,,, mutations have NEVER been observed generating functional information that was not already present in the parent species genome,,, For a broad outline of the 'Fitness test', required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp You state; I appreciate that a lot of thought and effort has gone into lots of your beliefs and I respect that. I would hope that we planted a seed to make you reexamine your atheistic beliefs more thoroughly, and honestly, since from my perspective your beliefs have been severely compromised as far as the empirical evidence is concerned.bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Okay, last post of the night for me. It's almost 10:30pm where I live and I've got a full day ahead of me. First of all, the talk origins website lists several examples of recent speciation if you want to argue against specific examples. Artificial selection as practiced by animal and plant breeders works (or did until recently anyway) on the same basis of mutation to provide alternate characteristics. Having a human being selecting desired traits is faster than nature but it's still true that the underlying machinery is the same. Sexual selection also drives morphological changes; is pea hens preferring males natural or artificial selection? Obviously I can't give you a step-by-step explanation that leads to humans! No one can yet. But, as I said before, all the evidence I've seen indicates that it happened. And I think the Lenski experiments did show that a new, environment exploiting trait can arise under a purely blind and undirected process and in his papers he does show exactly what the step-by-step process was. I'm sure more and more such experiments will be conducted so stay tuned!! Dawkins is very careful to state that only the mutation part of RM + NS is random. And that selection is a cummulative process. It's not necessary to search the whole 'solution space'. Evolution takes an existing form and modifications are 'tested' by natural, sexual and sometimes artificial selection. Those forms that better exploit whatever niche environment they are in tend to have more offspring and become more dominant. Sometimes the old form is wiped out but not always. Anyway, I haven't got to everything but I really need to call it a night now. I really didn't want to be defending my views . . . but as doing so brought out some of your views and made them more explicit in my mind I guess it was worth it from my point of view. And, as I said before, I appreciate that a lot of thought and effort has gone into lots of your beliefs and I respect that. Night all!! Hope the rest of your days are happy and meaningful.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Anyway, you all have heard everything I’m saying many, many times. I don’t doubt that you will be able to score some points against me but I hardly count.
A decent attitude. I promise (for myself at least) that I am not trying to score points against anyone! These are really interesting questions, and if everyone is too dogmatic in their position, then no-one will benefit. I'm certainly happy to see you pick apart my (borrowed) reasoning above. Perhaps I am missing something important.equinoxe
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
ellazim you state: 'BA: larger genomes don’t mean more evolved! There is no measure of more or less evolved anyway.' you are completely missing the point, if materialism truly could account for the generation of functional information, then we should naturally expect there to be a corollary between the complexity of a animal and the size of the genome, at least some rough measure, but as I pointed out genomes are all over the place. for you to try to claim genomes 'being all over the place' as evidence for evolution is ludicrous for that is not the natural presupposition of materialism for genome sizes. In fact the un-patterned variability of genome sizes in all honesty counts in favor of Intelligent Design, since optimality of function would dictate such flexibility for genome sizes!bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
#71 Of course, I meant "I hope my comments have been useful..." Time for bed :)equinoxe
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
ellazimm: Thanks for your ongoing interesting posts. I hope they have been useful in outlining my position, even if you ultimately disagree. It is too late here to reply to your recent comments in detail, save to add one note:
I have no idea what God is or is not capable of.
The scholastic philosophers maintained a principle of not being allowed to affirm that God must have done anything any particular way. I wish modern theologians would bother to read their work! There seems to be a lot of emphasis on whether the design of the genome is elegant or not. I don't find this a particular useful way to approach the problem; it is almost impossible to look at DNA and say that has a "God-like" arrangement (unless it contains those spooky messages you alluded to!) However, one can observe that it bears the information concerning how to build a human being that can think about whether it was designed (for example). This really is quite striking. The elegance or otherwise of the script which holds this information is moot, at least IMO.equinoxe
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
the one 'elephant in the living room' problem for both natural selection and mutation, is that they both reduce genetic information: Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816 EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED No Matter What Type Of Selection, Mutations Deteriorate Genetic Information - article and video https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/nachmans-paradox-defeats-darwinism-and-dawkins-weasel/ I saw your allusion to the physicist and atheist Stenger to try to counter the Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, and in responce I will paraphrase Behe from this video: Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181 "Denying Intelligent Design makes you irrational" And indeed I have seen atheists take irrationality to heights of absurdity I would have never dreamed possible in science.bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
BA: larger genomes don't mean more evolved! There is no measure of more or less evolved anyway. Some creatures and plants have stayed relatively constant because they are very well adapted to their niche environments and most modifications are selected against. And there are similarities in the genomes of most multi-celled creatures; we share genes with kangaroos, chimps, giraffes, sharks, horses, etc. Isn't the question really which other species' genomes are the most like ours? And, as far as I am aware, chimps and bonobos have genomes more like ours than any other species. I even heard recently that chimps and bonobos are more closely related to us than they are to the other primates. And that argument was made based on genomic similarity. Anyway, I'm not a researcher but I have not heard of any recent result that is widely considered to overturn the basic consensus paradigm. Most researchers seem to feel that more and more evidence is building up in support of the consensus paradigm. There are modifications and refinements some of which are hotly debated and tested before they are accepted (Lynn Margolis fought for years and years to get her ideas appreciated). And we learn new things all the time that fill in details which were not completely understood before. The recent 'controversy' over bacterial gene swapping and the tree of life being more like a bush are examples. Gaps in the fossil record are being filled with 'transitional' forms all the time. Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters is recent and has some excellent discussions of why that line of evidence gets stronger all the time. Anyway, you all have heard everything I'm saying many, many times. I don't doubt that you will be able to score some points against me but I hardly count. You need to be arguing with the scientists who have spent decades in some cases looking at the evidence. What they say makes sense to me and seems consistent. And is the most parsimonious explanation I've come across.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
ellazimm @60:
Anyway, isn’t the blind watchmaker just an analogy created by Richard Dawkins as a way of thinking about the engine that drives evolution: copying errors, gene duplications, gene swapping filtered through various selection criteria?
Sure. And it is a very good analogy, in the sense that it puts across very well what he has in mind when he talks about evolution. Several other authors are fond of using it, and of course, the mount improbable analogy does the same kind of job. When objections to BW are raised, I have often heard its defenders reply, "Of course, RD was simply forming an analogy; it doesn't cover every details..." Now, analogies are fine as they go. The trouble with Dawkins' BW thesis is that, it really does appear to be how he conceives of natural selection operating. In other words, his interpretation of evolutionary history stands or falls with the success or failure of his illustration. (But not, I hasten to add, whether evolution has taken place.) RD speaks as if random mutation (RM) and natural selection (NS) - with an accent on the latter - are capable of actually forming the kinds of complex entity we encounter the real world, such as dogs and cats and mice. (I believe that RD concedes that organisms are complex and in need of explanation.) The trouble is, we know of no artificial process involving only RM and NS that can churn out more than is put in in terms of information specifying the types of entities that evolve. Indeed RD's own examples never solely rely on RM and NS but always invoke design principle. But I invite you to correct me on that last point. Now, to take a simple example. Suppose I want to evolve an artifical entity with the binary genome 10010001. It has been demonstrated often (and well before Dembski added his voice to the chorus) that to evolve this binary pattern is exactly as difficult as simply picking patterns out of a list of all possible patterns and saying when you reach the right one. But if this is the case, then it is radically affects BW because it holds for patterns millions of bits in length. Dawkin's denies that the genome could be arrived at by luck and suggests RM and NS as a process which does not require luck, but he is wrong I think. Provided that we allow the mechanistic assumptions that pervade modern thought - for good or ill - to persist, the BW thesis will remain simply a word (or maths) game, in which one complicated solution is reached by a complex arrangement of many simple solutions. markf:
Find a large magnet. Scatter a large number of iron filings over it. They will form a well specified pattern.
I'm not sure how much stock I place in CSI or LCI. But I'm pretty sure this example misses the mark. If you were to copy the pattern and then throw down the filings again, then it would be specified. In fact, if they fell the same way, you'd hunt for a reason why they did.equinoxe
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
RE 64 "Well, speciation has been observed to occur within the last couple of centuries" What speciation? "And it’s very obvious that artificial selection can bring about huge morphological changes." So I ask for evidence for unguided blind natural forces and you respond with intelligent design as evidence for non intelligent design LOL Artificial selection is 1) not blind and unguided rather it is the result of intelligent design, 2) empirical evidence that there is a limit to change. "So I think the mutation + selection process has shown it can create CSI . ." Give me an example of mutation + selection of transpecies evolution. Otherwise you are left with nothing but an extrapolation, we see small changes therefore given enough time any change is possible. "plus the fossil record records gradual modification of forms where new features are ‘created’." Fossil records are not evidence that the change was the result of blind unguided natural forces. Once again like common descent your claim is that the fossil record is the result of blind unguided natural forces thus a non sequitur. "And Dawkins discusses Lenski’s experiments (in The Greatest Show on Earth) where complex changes can occur in a step-wise fashion . . . ." Great then you should be able to give all of us the step by step, empirically confirmed detail pathway from LUCA to man!! Vividvividbleau
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
ellazimm you state: 'Intelligence can create information, obviously, and I think blind, unguided natural, cumulative processes can as well.' That is the brass tax,,, now all you got to do is show it! as far as your claim for observed speciation,,, Darwinism’s Last Stand? - Jonathan Wells Excerpt: Despite the hype from Darwin’s followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best. Natural selection - like artificial selection - can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_darwinisms_last_stand.html#more Accidental origins: Where species come from - March 2010 Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel's team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation - but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: "It isn't the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it's single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html?page=2bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Ellazimm "BA: I know the genome is very complicated, very complicated. It’s also got some junk, some ERVs, is grouped into different number of chromosomes for different species . . . I think the Fern species has 144 chromosomes and a much bigger genome than ours. some individuals have more or less repeated sections than others; sometimes that’s bad, sometimes it’s neutral." Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119 Genetic Similarity is not where you want to go ellazimm,,, Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 I'm just left wondering exactly where evolutionists should place the kangaroos on their cartoon drawings that show man evolving from apes. As mentioned previously, the chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is 'more evolved' than us humans, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical 'evolutionary progression' to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the size of genomes found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species despite their differences in complexity and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma and just how similar do you really think humans and chimps are ellazimm?,, Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 Even this more recent evolution friendly article found the differences in the protein coding genes of the Y chromosome between chimps and Humans to be 'striking': Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: “many of the stark changes between the chimp and human Y chromosomes are due to gene loss in the chimp and gene gain in the human” since “the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans.”,,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,," http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes. http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary 'just so' stories of 'dramatically sped up evolution' for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain. CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists and to make matters completely ludicrous for your position, mutations to DNA do not even effect Body Plan morphogenesis in the first place ellazimm: Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4187488 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bsbornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
VB: Well, speciation has been observed to occur within the last couple of centuries. And it's very obvious that artificial selection can bring about huge morphological changes. So I think the mutation + selection process has shown it can create CSI . . . plus the fossil record records gradual modification of forms where new features are 'created'. And Dawkins discusses Lenski's experiments (in The Greatest Show on Earth) where complex changes can occur in a step-wise fashion . . . .ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
BA: I know the genome is very complicated, very complicated. It's also got some junk, some ERVs, is grouped into different number of chromosomes for different species . . . I think the Fern species has 144 chromosomes and a much bigger genome than ours. some individuals have more or less repeated sections than others; sometimes that's bad, sometimes it's neutral. But just being complicated beyond our ability to understand or construct it doesn't mean it was designed. I admit the design inference is compelling but because there is no outside evidence of a designer and because the genome is messy and carries seemingly inherited characteristics across species 'boundaries' then I find the non-design explanation more compelling. Of course there is information in the genome! Vast quantities of information. I'd call it a series of control sequences. Intelligence can create information, obviously, and I think blind, unguided natural, cumulative processes can as well. And natural processes are much messier than guided processes and carry around lots of 'junk' that is not necessary for the implementation of the control sequences. I have no idea what God is or is not capable of. I chose not to speculate. Quantum mechanics eludes me so I shall steer clear of those arguments. But it's my impression that a lot of physicists would not see the need for a deity. In fact there is a book by a physicist called God: the Failed Hypothesis . . . author's last name is Stegner. He's only one physicist but his interpretation differs from yours.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
#61 Find a large magnet. Scatter a large number of iron filings over it. They will form a well specified pattern. Applying Bernouilli's principle of indifference (which I don't hold with - but is essential to the calculation of CSI and the LCI) the probability of them falling at any angle is the same. So the probability of them all falling into the pattern is very small and can be made as small as you like simply by increasing the number of iron filings. So you have a specified outcome the probability of which as low you as you like generated by a natural process.markf
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
RE 60 "I think that multiple lines of physical evidence point to common descent with modification AND explain the presence of complex specified information in the genome. " Yes I am well aware that you think unguided blind natural forces EXPLAIN the presence of CSI. I am not asking for an explanation I am asking for "gasp" empirical scinetific evidence to support that claim. Have any? Vividvividbleau
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
VB: did I? That would have been very naughty of me. I think that multiple lines of physical evidence point to common descent with modification AND explain the presence of complex specified information in the genome. Anyway, isn't the blind watchmaker just an analogy created by Richard Dawkins as a way of thinking about the engine that drives evolution: copying errors, gene duplications, gene swapping filtered through various selection criteria?ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Aleta 'coincidentally' see post 58, ,,, I just love these 'coincidences"bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
ellazimm you state: 'I completely agree that intelligence can create complex and specified information but without some outside evidence to prove the existence of the designer then I find the unguided process more parsimonious.' Evidence for a transcendent designer such as perhaps,, the entire universe being created within exceedingly tight parameters ex-nihlo, or perhaps the fact that quantum wave collapse requires a conscious observer: Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/ But ellazimm you probably say God can't possibly control every wave collapse of this universe to every observer, but that is in fact what I'm saying that the empirical evidence now dictates, moreover, the necessity of God to explain 'each moment' of the universe has been known for centuries,,, "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a 'First Mover' accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. This is since the possibility for the universe to be considered a self-sustaining 'closed loop' of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the 'hidden variable' argument in entanglement experiments. As well, there also must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain quantum wave collapse for 'each moment' of the universe.bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
ba, suppose one believed, as some do, that a universal Mind (not the Christian God) created the universe with the properties and order than it has, and then let things play out (without any further intervention, or personnal involvement) on their own, and that from this process humankind evolved. Would you say we were designed, since the universe that created us was designed, or would you say we were not designed because the universal mind did nothing special or specific to bring us into being any more than it did to bring anything else into being? What would you say?Aleta
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
further notes on the 'cobbled together DNA'; i.e. DNA functions exactly as a 'devised code': Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) Ode to the Code - Brian Hayes The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code. It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we'll never see again in the modern world. https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/ode-to-the-code/4 Moreover the first DNA code in life had to be at least as complex as the current DNA code found universally in life: “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code Excerpt: When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of the 10 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature. http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code DNA - The Genetic Code - Optimal Error Minimization & Parallel Codes - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491422 Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA - Jonathan McLatchie - July 2010 Excerpt: It appears then, that the genetic code has been put together in view of minimizing not just the occurence of amino acid substitution mutations, but also the detrimental effects that would result when amino acid substitution mutations do occur. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nick_lane_and_the_ten_great_in036101.html Though the DNA code is found to be optimal from a error minimization standpoint, it is also now found that the fidelity of the genetic code, of how a specific amino acid is spelled, is far greater than had at first been thought: Synonymous Codons: Another Gene Expression Regulation Mechanism - September 2010 Excerpt: There are 64 possible triplet codons in the DNA code, but only 20 amino acids they produce. As one can see, some amino acids can be coded by up to six “synonyms” of triplet codons: e.g., the codes AGA, AGG, CGA, CGC, CGG, and CGU will all yield arginine when translated by the ribosome. If the same amino acid results, what difference could the synonymous codons make? The researchers found that alternate spellings might affect the timing of translation in the ribosome tunnel, and slight delays could influence how the polypeptide begins its folding. This, in turn, might affect what chemical tags get put onto the polypeptide in the post-translational process. In the case of actin, the protein that forms transport highways for muscle and other things, the researchers found that synonymous codons produced very different functional roles for the “isoform” proteins that resulted in non-muscle cells,,, In their conclusion, they repeated, “Whatever the exact mechanism, the discovery of Zhang et al. that synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code.”,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm#20100919a The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. Werner Gitt - In The Beginning Was Information - p. 95 Collective evolution and the genetic code - 2006: Excerpt: The genetic code could well be optimized to a greater extent than anything else in biology and yet is generally regarded as the biological element least capable of evolving. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes.... the present findings support the view that protein-coding regions can carry abundant parallel codes. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/405.full The data compression of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (12 different ways of DNA transcription) (Trifonov, 1989). (This is well beyond the complexity of any computer code ever written by man). John Sanford - Genetic Entropy The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Trifonov EN. - 1989 Excerpt: Nucleotide sequences carry genetic information of many different kinds, not just instructions for protein synthesis (triplet code). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673451bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Ellazimm you state this: "BA: I am aware of Dr Meyer’s arguments but the ‘signature’ in the cell tells us nothing about the designer and much of the genetic code looks very much like what we’d expect from unguided processes." So the DNA looks like a bunch of cobbled together junk (but then you say "well not really junk BA just similar sequences???)?,,,, Your getting about as bad as Aleta in being wishy washy with your position so as to always have a way to slip out and not be pinned,,, Anyway here are a few points on the 'cobbled together DNA' that you feel should be exactly what we would expect if DNA were an accident,, Excerpt: These nucleobases maximally absorb UV-radiation at the same wavelengths that are most effectively shielded by ozone. Moreover, the chemical structures of the nucleobases of DNA allow the UV-radiation to be efficiently radiated away after it has been absorbed, restricting the opportunity for damage. http://www.reasons.org/dna-soaks-suns-rays Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Divine Engineering: Unraveling DNA's Design": The DNA packing process is both complex and elegant and is so efficient that it achieves a reduction in length of DNA by a factor of 1 million. DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin each of us has enough DNA to go from here to the Sun and back more than 300 times, or around Earth's equator 2.5 million times! How is this possible? 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm Scientists' 3-D View of Genes-at-Work Is Paradigm Shift in Genetics - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Highly coordinated chromosomal choreography leads genes and the sequences controlling them, which are often positioned huge distances apart on chromosomes, to these 'hot spots'. Once close together within the same transcription factory, genes get switched on (a process called transcription) at an appropriate level at the right time in a specific cell type. This is the first demonstration that genes encoding proteins with related physiological role visit the same factory. Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm Researchers discover how key enzyme repairs sun-damaged DNA - July 2010 Excerpt: Ohio State University physicist and chemist Dongping Zhong and his colleagues describe how they were able to observe the enzyme, called photolyase, inject a single electron and proton into an injured strand of DNA. The two subatomic particles healed the damage in a few billionths of a second. "It sounds simple, but those two atomic particles actually initiated a very complex series of chemical reactions," said Zhong,,, "It all happened very fast, and the timing had to be just right." http://www.physorg.com/news199111045.html Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome - Oct. - 2009 Excerpt: We identified an additional level of genome organization that is characterized by the spatial segregation of open and closed chromatin to form two genome-wide compartments. At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5950/289 Splicing Together the Case for Design, Part 2 (of 2) - Fazale Rana - June 2010 Excerpt: Remarkably, the genetic code appears to be highly optimized, further indicating design. Equally astounding is the fact that other codes, such as the histone binding code, transcription factor binding code, the splicing code, and the RNA secondary structure code, overlap the genetic code. Each of these codes plays a special role in gene expression, but they also must work together in a coherent integrated fashion. The existence of multiple overlapping codes also implies the work of a Creator. It would take superior reasoning power to structure the system in such a way that it can simultaneously harbor codes working in conjunction instead of interfering with each other. As I have written elsewhere, the genetic code is in fact optimized to harbor overlapping codes, further evincing the work of a Mind. http://www.reasons.org/splicing-together-case-design-part-2-2 "There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). (Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005) Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQbornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
RE 53 "And anyway, as I said before I don’t hang my hat on any one line of evidence. Darwin knew nothing about genetics and he still came to a conclusion of common descent with modification" ella commonn descent with modification is NOT empirical evidence for the blind watchmaker hypothesis. Your claim is that common descent is the result of blind unguided natural processes, to appeal to common descent as evidence for that claim is a non sequitur. Vividvividbleau
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
BA: well, I don't think the redundancy issues have to do with so called 'junk' DNA . . . and the ERV evidence points out the same genetic sequences appearing in the same location in the genome of different species so that's not really a 'junk' DNA issue, just a sequence similarity. And anyway, as I said before I don't hang my hat on any one line of evidence. Darwin knew nothing about genetics and he still came to a conclusion of common descent with modification. As did a century of biologists did before the 'discovery' of the structure of DNA.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
BA: I am aware of Dr Meyer's arguments but the 'signature' in the cell tells us nothing about the designer and much of the genetic code looks very much like what we'd expect from unguided processes. I would say I have a lot more than faith in the process; I'd say the molecular evidence I gave before looks more like an unguided process than one guided by a designer. I completely agree that intelligence can create complex and specified information but without some outside evidence to prove the existence of the designer then I find the unguided process more parsimonious.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
ps Ellazimm, since most of your illustrious 'talkorigins' evidence has to do with 'Junk DNA" all I have to ask you is do you really want to hang your hat on that nail before I address it?bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Aleta, though I'm not to fond of your dancing around the issue, I find that if you hold that you were designed, that you hold a general Theistic position, (save Dawkins's UFO's of course) whereas if you hold you were not designed then you hold a general materialistic position no matter how perverted from the classic definition of materialism you want to be,,,, The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4744145 ,,,Now I know this will probably kill you to answer in a straight way, but please tell me Aleta just what percentage of intelligent design in life would be acceptable for you?bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Ellazimm, though you were being cute with this remark,,, "Now, if tomorrow some non-coding DNA is found which includes an actual message from a designer (a copyright perhaps?, some design credits?), then I shall revise my stance." ,,,the fact is that Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has wrote a book called 'Signature In The Cell' Journey Inside The Cell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg ,,,with the not to subtle hint that the information we find in DNA, indeed in the entire cell, is the Signature of a Intelligent Designer. In fact he argues in this following video that this 'signature' of information is in fact what gives Intelligent Design its scientific basis,,, Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651 ,,, do you deny that information is in the cell Ellazimm?,,,, The Cell - A World Of Complexity Darwin Never Dreamed Of - Donald E. Johnson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4139390 The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell - EXPELLED http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4227700 ,,, do you deny that Darwinists have never generated even one single functional protein by material processes?,,, Origin Of Life - Problems With Proteins - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490 ,,,do you deny that mutations to DNA do not even effect Body Plan morphogenesis?,,, Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 ,,, do you deny that intelligence can and does generate functional information while material processes do not? 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: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag ,,, so basically Ellazimm you got nothing but your unreasonable faith that blind, pitiless, indifferent, evolution put you together, while I have every single word that you have written on this post to show you that intelligence does have the wherewithall to generate the functional information to explain the origination of you!bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Aleta: your cloud example reminded me of a George Carlin quote: when you break a crumb in half you don't have two half-crumbs, you've got two crumbs. :-) Easy enough in those cases to redefine the situations to look at mass or volume but the point about making sure the terms are well defined is the heart of good modelling.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
RE 46 "rather it’s a case of many convergent lines of evidence that all point to common descent with modification." Coomon descent is NOT evidence for the blind watchmaker hypothesis. Vividvividbleau
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply