Intelligent Design

A Marine Mollusk Grinds Down Rock

Spread the love

Algae do not merely grow onrocks, they also grow in the cracks and crevices of rocks making the seaweed organisms a difficult meal for consumers such as Cryptochiton stelleri, otherwise known as gumboot chiton, a marine mollusk off the coast of California. This tenacious chiton solves the problem by grinding down rocks with an amazing set of teeth which contain the hardest known biomineral, magnetite. The outer shell of the chiton’s teeth, as professor David Kisailus explains in his latest paper, develop in four distinct stages:  Read more

12 Replies to “A Marine Mollusk Grinds Down Rock

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    This tenacious chiton solves the problem by grinding down rocks with an amazing set of teeth which contain the hardest known biomineral, magnetite.

    The Journal of Memetics has published an amazing new discovery. The primary material element in the atheist brain is, you guessed it, magnetite.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    On cue Thorton, (over on Hunter’s blog) invoked Natural Selection to the rescue, yet here are a few ‘minor’ problems with Natural Selection that evolutionists seem to be very reticent to talk about:

    An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation – Cornelius Hunter – December 2012
    Excerpt: And as for Darwin’s grand principle, natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. (Adam Sedgwick – 1859)” Yet Darwin had smuggled in teleological language to avoid the absurdity and make it acceptable. For Darwin had written of natural selection “as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.” Yet again, this criticism is cogent today. Teleological language is rampant in the evolutionary literature.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ed-of.html

    Major problems with natural selection – list of major problems
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-441150

    As well, ‘selection’ acts at the very coarse level of the entire organism and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘seen’ at the very fine ‘molecular’ level and are far below the power of selection to remove. i.e. ‘princess and the pea paradox’

    The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009
    Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level.
    http://www.bioscience.org/2009.....lltext.htm

    Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/

    Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video
    http://vimeo.com/35088933

    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......aproof.pdf
    MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
    http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net/

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    of note:

    Mendelian genetics, named after a monk named Gregor Mendel who discovered the laws by which fixed traits are passed on, is very anti-Darwinian in its formulation. In fact, it was only the addition of ‘random mutations’, in the modern synthesis which was developed from 1936 and 1947, that allowed a very, very, rough fit between Mendelian Genetics and Darwinism. The trouble is that Mendelian Genetics remains steadfast to this day (perhaps some refinement with Genetic Entropy is needed), whereas the force fitted addition of random mutations from Darwinism (modern synthesis) is what is now known to be severely inadequate if not outrightly wrong.

    Notes:

    The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis – January 2012
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....03g3t7002/

    With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory – November 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52821.html

    The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? – Koonin – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index....._synthesis

    Shapiro on Random Mutation:
    “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....11144.html

    Majority of mutations are directed (non-random) – Jonathan Bartlett – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJwWhhpua_o

    Revisiting the Central Dogma – David Tyler – Nov. 9, 2012
    Excerpt: “The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome – that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence – have all been called into question in the last few years.”,,
    Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma:
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....tral_dogma

    The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011)
    Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory!
    http://www.biosignaling.com/co.....X-9-30.pdf

    The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    This looks interesting:

    Refuting Darwinian Evolution – Jon Rittenhouse – Biola – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLPk4IJw_E8

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    KF, I snipped this from the preceding video. You may like it for your references.

    Probability of Simple Cell Spontaneously Forming? (Not Gonna Happen!) – Jon Rittenhouse – Biola – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/9742745

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77:

    Interesting. Good ideas, but some technical point stumbles by someone not speaking in his main field, e.g. on describing chirality. The overall point is valid.

    I looked also at especially Thaxton.

    My own inclination, on experience, is that the more robust approach is to lay out the sampling challenge in the config space, rather than to attempt specific probability calculations that attract distractive rhetoric and dismissals based on that. Chance dominated high contingency processes [there is no evident constrained programming of proteins or D/RNA in the mechanical necessities of relevant chemistry and physics] that are only sampled in tiny fractions will on highly robust statistics, overwhelmingly reflect the bulk of possibilities. (Notice how objectors tip-toe around that point, guess why. They know it and know the robustness that is as easy to see as shaking up a sack of beans and pulling out a handful to see the typical quality — how many are bad. Any farmer will understand that chance samples strongly tend to be fairly typical.)

    There is no good observational reason to think that functionally specific configurations dependent on specific arrangements and coupling of many components, constitutes either that bulk or anything but an exceedingly sparse fraction of the raw possibilities. That is what is captured in the term, isolated islands of function, which is so stridently rhetorically objected to by materialism advocates. The common attempted example they use, a genetic algorithm, from its very approach of hill climbing on a fitness function, is already confined to incremental steps in such an island. (As a basic comparison: You don’t see the overall GA program forming by incremental chance and success from digital noise!)

    If someone objects, let him show it. From realistic, plausible start points.

    That they don’t, as a predictable rule, is telling.

    (For instance, now that she is reportedly attempting the 6,000 word essay challenge, PETRUSHKA SHOULD BE SEEING THAT THE OOL AS ROOT OF THE DARWINIST TREE OF LIFE PROBLEM IS PIVOTAL. Accounting for cell based life without intelligent injection of information and organisation, is a real challenge. But, no roots, no shoots or branches. And if we have reason to see design as a plausible explanation for the root, then there is no reason to imagine an unobserved world of incremental branching. Design makes excellent sense of body plans and design for adaptation and robustness would account for the actual empirically supported evidence of change, micro changes within major body plans.

    The reason why this is not straightforwardly put on the table as a viable and serious view, is that it does not fit the dominant materialist ideology. And ideological polarisation and agendas easily explains the onward feature: intense hostility that sometimes becomes hate, slander and persecution.

    As we see ever so commonly.

    KF

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Sorry KF, I should have known better than to think you would be impressed with a video that is not exacting in its accuracy! 🙂

    Of note, here is the entire video by Thaxton that gets the technical aspects right:

    On The Origin Of Life – Charles Thaxton – video
    http://www.veoh.com/watch/v185.....chemistry+

    Here is another video by Prof. Jon Rittenhouse, pointed out by mung yesterday, that looks a bit closer to Rittenhouse’s area of expertise in Theology at Biola, evangelism and apologetics:

    Scientism – Jon Rittenhouse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnxrmF9O1ko

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    footnotes to post #3:

    Soft Inheritance (Epigenetics): Challenging The Modern Synthesis – Lablonka, Lamb – 2008
    Excerpt: We believe that rather than trying to continue to work within a framework of a Synthesis that was made in the last century, we now need a new type of evolutionary theory, one that acknowledges Darwinian, Lamarkian and saltational processes.
    http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf

    as well:

    A little known fact, a fact that is very antagonistic, indeed completely contrary, to the genetic reductionism model of neo-Darwinism, is that, besides environmental factors, even our thoughts and feelings (mental states) can ‘epigenetically’ control the gene expression of our bodies:

    Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life – July 12, 2012
    Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants.
    If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes.
    http://crev.info/2012/07/anxie.....cell-life/

    Genie In Your Genes – video
    http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html
    main website
    excerpt: There are over 100 genes in your body that are activated by your thoughts, feelings and experiences
    http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/

    Upgrade Your Brain
    Excerpt: The Research; In his book The Genie in Your Genes (Elite Books, 2009), researcher Dawson Church, PhD, explains the relationship between thought and belief patterns and the expression of healing- or disease-related genes. “Your body reads your mind,” Church says. “Science is discovering that while we may have a fixed set of genes in our chromosomes, which of those genes is active has a great deal to do with our subjective experiences, and how we process them.”
    One recent study conducted at Ohio University demonstrates vividly the effect of mental stress on healing. Researchers gave married couples small suction blisters on their skin, after which they were instructed to discuss either a neutral topic or a topic of dispute for half an hour. Researchers then monitored the production of three wound-repair proteins in the subjects’ bodies for the next several weeks, and found that the blisters healed 40 percent slower in those who’d had especially sarcastic, argumentative conversations than those who’d had neutral ones.
    http://experiencelife.com/arti.....our-brain/

    Genie In Your Genes – Book
    Book review: First of all, if you are a newcomer to Dawson Church’s writing, you need to know that his facts are unimpeachable – they were stringently peer-reviewed before publication. What is more, when Church makes categorical statements, he provides research to corroborate them.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....1600700225

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note to mental states having a pronounced epigenetic effect on genes (which is completely contrary to the materialistic presupposition of Darwinism), it turns out that having the positive ‘mental state of love’ has a tremendous impact on health:

    ABC News – The Science Behind the Healing Power of Love – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t1p-PwGgE4

    Social isolation and its health implications January 2012
    Excerpt: Studies show that social isolation and/or loneliness predict morbidity and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and a host of other diseases. In fact, the body perceives loneliness as a threat. Research from the University of California suggests that loneliness or lack of social support could triple the odds of being diagnosed with a heart condition. Redford Williams and his colleagues at Duke University directed a study in 1992 on heart patients and their relationships. They discovered that 50% of patients with heart disease who did not have a spouse or someone to confide in died within five years, while only 17% of those who did have a confidante died in the same time period.12
    http://www.how-to-be-healthy.o.....lications/

    Of course from a Theistic perspective this tangible effect of love is to be expected, whereas from the materialistic perspective, well to put it mildly, from a materialistic perspective it is counterintuitive:

    Verse and music:

    1 Corinthians 13:1-8
    If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
    Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
    Love never fails.,,,

    For King & Country “The Proof Of Your Love”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr9YVD05x8M

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    BA77, that looks like a very interesting site, but I don’t read German!

    http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Mung, this looks interesting, in the king’s English to boot:

    Creation and Evolution: The Biological Evidence – Dr. Marc Sutees – Edinburg Creation Group
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HT70ltbkQo
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/39

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    mung, This following talk by Paul James-Griffiths is a pleasure to listen to and is more relevant to Intelligent Design than Dr. Surtees’s talk is:

    Creation: The Evidence – Paul James-Griffiths – video – Edinburg Creation Group
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmL7nSsKitI

Leave a Reply