A Common Code: Surely That Means They’re All Related—Doesn’t It?

_{Cornelius Hunter
March 8, 2013

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists don’t think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists don’t matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesn’t come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences. Read more

Comments

RIP Duane T. Gish. Sad news indeed.julianbre_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Mung @23: Yeah, it would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall to hear some of those planning discussions. My suspicion is that it has a fair amount to do with where the money is -- where can we continue to get fat donations to keep the funds flowing? No doubt, though, there are some true believers in the group. After all, the NCSE is all about consensus propaganda, so it is a nice fit. One thing that came out of the climate change flap, including the Gleick fiasco, is that a lot of people became disillusioned with the NCSE for a whole new reason. A number of people on the climate blogs were aghast that the NCSE would commit such a blunder and act as a propaganda piece, "in contrast to the great work they do on the evolution science front," I heard more than once. I took the occasion to point out that this climate change propagandizing was not a change from the NCSE's regular, careful outlook on science. Rather, the propagandizing was NCSE's regular approach.Eric Anderson_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Someone ought to cover the evolution of NCSE from "an organization devoted to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, and keeping creationism out" to a climate change advocacy organization. Are they really just a front for left wing wackos? Are they opposed to the use of drones against American citizens, as long as they don't oppose climate change?Mung_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

EA @ 7&19 +1 Nice post, CH!Optimus_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

NCSE - National Center for Science Education. Nick must have left due to his lack of interest in actually educating the uninformed. OT: The young-earth creationist Duane T. Gish died on March 5, 2013, at the age of 92, according to Answers in Genesis's obituary. I'm sure he galloped until the end.Mung_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Nick, like Alan, can't be taken seriously. Nick's "field" is "macroevolution" (whatever that is)." The standard text in the field is...? Nick can't even tell us where he learned macroevolutionary theory from. I want to buy a textbook on macroevolutionary theory. Nick can't even be bothered to recommend one. And when asked about macroevolution in single-celled organisms, Nick has no answer. "Poof" - he disappears. Just like the evidence for his "theory." Nick doesn't seem to be able to allow for the fact that if he would provide a source, that people here at UD would actually spend the time and effort (and money, if required) to read the material and attempt to become informed. What's the theory, Nick? And where's the evidence? p.s. "stuff happens" is not a theory.Mung_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Nick, the real situation is how I have outlined it in #7. ----- And stop being silly. No-one is suggesting that DNA 'fingerprinting' is invalid for the crime labs. Nice strawman, though.Eric Anderson_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

There's something a bit odd, I think, about Darwinian materialists praising Hume for his devastating rebuttal of the "like effects suggest like causes" argument in his Dialogues and then employing pretty much the same argument themselves to support common ancestry.Dick_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox and Nick Matzke, both dumb as a rock. Proof of common ancestry.Mung_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent.
Oh, really? Call the crime labs, Cornelius Hunter has just disproven DNA fingerprinting! Call the logicians, apparently it is wrong to say that the process of copying produces similar copies! Call even the creationists, who assume that species and "kinds" have common ancestry, based almost entirely on similarity!NickMatzke_UD_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Moreover Mr. Fox, since you are into 'the pot calling the kettle black type' of thinking. Let's see if we can find a 'scientific' basis in which to qualify Darwinism as a 'true' scientific hypothesis: It interesting to note what Dr. Torley stated in his recent article exposing the 'in thin air' foundation that Darwinism rests upon:
Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
The lack of a mathematical foundation was particularly surprising for me, because I had been assured by a evolutionary professor (whom Dr. Torley referenced in his article) here on UD, years ago, that Darwinism was 'mathematical' through and through. And yes one can say that Darwinism is 'mathematical' through and through, but what one cannot say is that Darwinism has a rigid mathematical basis from which one can make extensive predictions with) Well, after being subtly misled for years by that professor's distortion of the facts, I finally, in my slow pace, started to piece together the fact that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical foundation at all,,
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE 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.
In fact, contrary to what the employers at Oxford would like to believe, the truth is that there is not some magical mystery equation out there waiting to be discovered to finally give Darwinism the foundation that it needs to be considered truly scientific. The fact is that Darwinists have refused to listen to what the equations of population genetics are thus far telling them. i.e. Darwinists refuse to accept the falsification of their theory from mathematics:
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf
This is simply unheard of in science. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics subject themselves constantly to potential falsification, as well as refinement for accuracy, to see if their mathematical descriptions of reality accurately predict what is observed for reality.
"On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) "No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci
In my unsolicited personal opinion, the main reason Darwinism cannot be formulated into any coherent mathematical model to give accurate, 'daring', predictions is because of its reliance on the 'random variable postulate' at the base of its formulation:
“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64. “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
Moreover, as Alvin Plantiga has shown in his Evolutionary argument against naturalism, (i.e. a refinement of "The argument from reason" from CS Lewis), this 'random variable postulate' ends up driving neo-Darwinism (and science) into epistemological failure,,,
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/
,,, i.e. the 'unrestrained randomness' at the base of Darwinism, if neo-Darwinism were actually true, results in the epistemological failure of science itself! But this really should not come as a surprise to anyone for how can a theory which denies the reality of mind in the first place be said to guarantee that our perceptions and reasoning of mind are trustworthy?
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”. J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
Supplemental notes: In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (determinism) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,, Here is another piece of evidence that solidly demarcates the randomness of the material particles of the universe from the randomness that would be necessarily inherent within 'conscious' creatures created by God with free will:
Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/tonights-feature-presentation-epigenetics-the-next-evolutionary-cliff/#comment-445840
Since material particles are held to 'randomly' decay, why in blue blazes is conscious observation putting a freeze on 'random' entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than 'random' entropic decay is? This point is really driven home when we realize that the initial entropy of the universe was 1 in 10^10^123, which is, by far, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the universe.
"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." Charles Darwin to Doedes, N. D. - Letter - 2 Apr 1873
Music and verse:
Phillips, Craig & Dean - Great I Am - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSoz6L1vqm8 Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
bornagain77_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, I've noticed of late that you have taken to the tact of denying that ID has a scientific 'hypothesis'. This is funny for you to claim as such for the scientific basis for the ID 'hypothesis' is exactly the same scientific basis that Charles Darwin used to formulate his 'hypothesis':
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design https://vimeo.com/32148403
i.e. presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question! Thus either ID is scientific of Darwinism is not. Which is it Mr. Fox? Moreover Mr. Fox, I have actual empirical evidence that Intelligent Design can produce the effect in question (functional complexity), whereas you have ZERO evidence that your preferred hypothesis of neo-Darwinism (chance and necessity) can produce the same effect. Thus Mr. Fox, despite what you would prefer to believe, the plain fact of the matter is that the 'hypothesis' of Intelligent design has empirical confirmation, whereas neo-Darwinism has ZERO empirical confirmation!,, Empirical confirmation of a hypothesis in science is called 'substantiation'. And 'substantiation' of a hypothesis gives preferred status to that hypothesis in science Mr. Fox! notes: In spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist
The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ Dr. Michael Behe - Quote: "Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here are several examples that intelligence can do as such:
(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067 Examples of molecular machines - Synthetic (Made By Chemists) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#Examples_of_molecular_machines
The same situation goes for proteins Mr. Fox:
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design Sick! (as in cool) - Fazale Rana - June 2011 Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required: "...cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2" If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely? In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs requires intelligent agency to arise. http://www.reasons.org/viral-binding-protein-design-makes-case-intelligent-design-sick-cool Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses - June 1, 2012 Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, "to leapfrog over bottlenecks" to improve the activity of the binder. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-computer-designed-proteins-variety-flu-viruses.html
bornagain77_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

AF: It seems to me that there is a pivotal issue of the empirically warranted adequate cause of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I). When all the smoke and mirrors and distractive or evasive tactics clear, it remains so that:
(i) intelligent design is a routinely observed cause of FSCO/I, (ii) it is the only such actually observed cause, (iii) neither (a) chemical- and- physical- forces- in- any- plausible- non- intelligently- directed- environment nor (b) chance- variation- and- differential- reproductive- success- in- ecological- niches have been observed to be credibly observed source of FSCO/I. In addition, (iv) the needle in the haystack search challenge at a threshold of 500 bits of complexity shows why that is so.
On (i) to (iv), it is quite evident that there is an inference on empirically warranted adequate cause that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as cause. The very fact that in the teeth of overwhelming inductive, empirical evidence that such is so, and that this is inference on a strongly observed pattern, you find yourself compelled to resort to dismissal by denial, speaks volumes to the discredit of the system you find yourself compelled to argue for like that. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Reynard, to have your respect coveted has to be earned.Axel_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

It's your choice guys, but continually harping on about perceived inadequacies in evolutionary theory doesn't advance ID. Get a hypothesis and you might start getting some respect!Alan Fox_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

'It is ridiculous how Darwinists practice science. Without even one real world demonstration of how just a single protein can arise by neo-Darwinian processes(Axe; Sauer), or even how just one existing protein can be ‘transformed’, in a minor way to a brand new function, by neo-Darwinian processes (Axe), Darwinists constantly point to something similar in another organism, or in another irreducible system, and insist that it is conclusive ‘scientific’ proof that protein in question arose from the similar protein.,,, In any other branch of hard science, if someone tried the same tactic to try to establish conclusive scientific proof, they would be laughed at and summarily dismissed if they continued in such practices!' More absolutely hilarious, knock-about stuff, Philip - although, unfortunately its course on this forum, is rather anomalous. Instead of the building ino farcical crescendo, perhaps even to a punch-line, it starts off as ROFL material, and becomes, instead, increasingly sad. Still, that initial burst of high farce raises one's spirits enough to accept its tapering off with a certain resignation. It sets me up for the evening.Axel_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

OT: Unexpected allies help bacteria clean uranium from groundwater - March 8, 2013 Excerpt: Since 2009, SLAC scientist John Bargar has led a team using synchrotron-based X-ray techniques to study bacteria that help clean uranium from groundwater in a process called bioremediation. Their initial goal was to discover how the bacteria do it and determine the best way to help, but during the course of their research the team made an even more important discovery: "Nature" thinks bigger than that. The researchers discovered that bacteria don't necessarily go straight for the uranium, as was often thought to be the case. The bacteria make their own, even tinier allies – nanoparticles of a common mineral called iron sulfide. Then, working together, the bacteria and the iron sulfide grab molecules of a highly soluble form of uranium known as U(VI), or hexavalent uranium, and transform them into U(IV), a less-soluble form that's much less likely to spread through the water table. According to Barger, this newly discovered partnership may be the basis of a global geochemical process that forms deposits of uranium ore.,, Discovering that bacteria work together with minerals to transform uranium was a surprise, said Bargar.,,, But as a scientist, he appreciates the glimpse he's been given into "Nature's" abilities to multitask. "Originally we wanted to see what happened to uranium and how it could help bioremediation technology to be successful," he said. "But scientifically the results are much deeper than that." And since their original hypothesis focused on bacteria alone, it's a little humbling, too. http://phys.org/news/2013-03-unexpected-allies-bacteria-uranium-groundwater.html Wow "Nature" can now think and multitask!bornagain77_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

The Teaching Company/The Great Courses just released a course today on Life in the Universe. Looks like a lot of speculation but may be interesting. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1898jerry_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

I have to offer one clarification: The reason similarity (same gene, for example) is good evidence for common descent is that everyone realizes that it would be absurd for a complex functional structure to arise multiple times through some kind of chance process. You know, the old probabilities issue those nefarious evolution skeptics keep bringing up. So evolutionists are perfectly willing to implement a probability calculation -- as long as it supports common descent. Except when it doesn't. We have many cases in which similarities exist in disparate lines which everyone acknowledges cannot be related by common descent. In those cases evolutionists call it "convergent evolution" and immediately turn their backs on the probability calculations and gladly embrace the idea that similar structures can arise multiple times -- as long as it supports common descent. So it really is not about the evidence anyway. Common descent is assumed to be true before any examination of the evidence. Universal common descent is assumed to be true. The varying observations are explained by the fallback position, that ultimate untouchable answer to all conundrums, that most important explanation in all of evolutionary theory, what I call the Great Evolutionary Explanation:* Stuff Happens. ----- Otherwise known as GEE, as in GEE Whiz!Eric Anderson_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

semi related note: Two of the World's Leading Experts on Bacterial Flagellar Assembly Take on Michael Behe Jonathan M. - March 8, 2013 Excerpt: To conclude, the claim of Hughes and Blair to have refuted Behe on the bacterial flagellum is unfounded. Although there are sub-components of the flagellum that are indeed dispensable for assembly and motility, there are numerous subsystems within the flagellum that require multiple coordinated mutations. The flagellar motor is not the kind of structure that one can at all readily envision being produced in Darwinian step-wise fashion. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/kelly_hughes_an069881.html It is ridiculous how Darwinists practice science. Without even one real world demonstration of how just a single protein can arise by neo-Darwinian processes(Axe; Sauer), or even how just one existing protein can be 'transformed', in a minor way to a brand new function, by neo-Darwinian processes (Axe), Darwinists constantly point to something similar in another organism, or in another irreducible system, and insist that it is conclusive 'scientific' proof that protein in question arose from the similar protein.,,, In any other branch of hard science, if someone tried the same tactic to try to establish conclusive scientific proof, they would be laughed at and summarily dismissed if they continued in such practices!bornagain77_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Taking Craig Venter's idea of a bush of life a step further, why couldn't life have sprung up multiple times along different lines, all using the same mechanism depending on their environment. I think the point Venter is making is that life is so diverse that it may have different origins though similar mechanisms. Which, if the definition of evolution is stretched a bit, doesn't prove evolution couldn't have been the driving force. The bigger issue is the one bornagain brings up which is that of information. There is no hypothesis that I know of that explains how information was at first created in the DNA, then the RNA and then the amino acids to proteins which would create a system that would bring forth "life." Or if RNA was the initial molecule. That step of amino acids simply getting together to form a protein in a soup going to an integrated system in which the information of how those amino acids are to combine and store it in DNA and then create a mechanism through RNA to now create that very protein is the difficult step for me to believe. Even one of the participants in the video said that he is amazed at how complex life is turning out to be. This sheer complexity of information is what bothers me about evolution.billmaz_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Just how important is the tree of life - one common ancestor - for Darwin's theory? Can one argue that - given that the emergence of life from chemicals is a highly unlikely event - a 'bush of life' makes the theory exponentially less probable?Box_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent.
From the way they argue, their premise is that genetic similarity conclusively proves common descent.EvilSnack_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

CH, I did listen to those two sections of the lecture and it was great stuff with a little drama too. Your articles are nearly always some of the most incisive and thought provoking on this website, in my opinion.qwerty_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Notes: Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011 Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal: "The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10) OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code). Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/ “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet, 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 “The genetic code’s error-minimization properties are far more dramatic than these (one in a million) results indicate. When the researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of the one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10^18 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 means of 10^18 codes few, if any have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code,, (that they look at).” Fazale Rana - From page 175; 'The Cell’s Design' http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code Also of interest is that the integrated coding between the DNA, RNA and Proteins of the cell apparently seems to be ingeniously programmed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle for ‘reversible computation’, as elucidated by Charles Bennett from IBM of Quantum Teleportation fame, in order to achieve amazing energy efficiency. Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon - Charles H. Bennett Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,, http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/bennett_shpmp_34_501_03.pdf Life Leads the Way to Invention - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100226a Extreme genetic code optimality from a molecular dynamics calculation of amino acid polar requirement – 2009 Excerpt: A molecular dynamics calculation of the amino acid polar requirement is used to score the canonical genetic code. Monte Carlo simulation shows that this computational polar requirement has been optimized by the canonical genetic code, an order of magnitude more than any previously known measure, effectively ruling out a vertical evolution dynamics. http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v79/i6/e060901bornagain77_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply