Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An Evolutionist Just Made An Incredible Blunder In a Sodium Channel Evolution Paper As Evolutionists Continue To Drink Their Own Bathwater


You won’t believe Harold Zakon’s fallacy in the very first sentence of his new PNAS paper on sodium channel evolution. The University of Texas evolutionist writes:  Read more

This following video gives a glimpse of this 'higher level' information in action:
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713 A Piece from the Developmental Symphony - February 2012 Excerpt: Embryonic development is an astounding process that seems to happen "automatically.",,, The timing of each step is too precise and the complexity is too intricate to assume that these processes are the mere accumulation by happenstance of changes to regulatory genes. Each gene plays its role at a certain time, and like a symphony, each is activated and silenced in turn such that the final result is a grand performance of orchestrated effort that could only have occurred through design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/a_piece_from_th055921.html Human Anatomy - Impressive Transparent Visualization - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - video http://vimeo.com/26011909
Music and verse:
Apocalypitca - Nothing Else Matters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4 Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
Here is a article that gives a very small glimpse at the extreme organizational complexity that would go into crafting different cells into one multicellular creature:
How many different cells are there in complex organisms? Excerpt: The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the cellular ontogeny of which has been precisely mapped, has 1,179 and 1,090 distinct somatic cells (including those that undergo programmed cell death) in the male and female, respectively, each with a defined history and fate. Therefore, if we take the developmental trajectories and cell position into account, C. elegans has 10^3 different cell identities, even if many of these cells are functionally similar. By this reasoning, although the number of different cell types in mammals is often considered to lie in the order of hundreds, it is actually in the order of 10^12 if their positional identity and specific ontogeny are considered. Humans have an estimated 10^14 cells, mostly positioned in precise ways and with precise organization, shape and function, in skeletal architecture, musculature and organ type, many of which (such as the nose) show inherited idiosyncrasies. Even if the actual number of cells with distinct identities is discounted by a factor of 100 (on the basis that 99% of the cells are simply clonal expansions of a particular cell type in a particular location or under particular conditions (for example, fat, muscle or immune cells)), there are still 10^12 positionally different cell types. http://ai.stanford.edu/~serafim/CS374_2006/papers/Mattick_NRG2004.pdf
Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules - A Whole New Level Of Scarcely Understood Functional Information on The Surface of Cells https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bO5txsOPde3BEPjOqcUNjL0mllfEc894LkDY5YFpJCA/edit
A few related notes:
Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - No Evidence For Body Plan Morphogenesis From Embryonic Mutations - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/ The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ Transcription Factors: More Species-Specific Biology - Cornelius Hunter - October 2011 Excerpt: In fact, the binding sites are often so-called “lineage-specific,” meaning that the transcription factor binds to a section of DNA that is unique to that species. As one writer explained: "Remarkably, many of these RABS [repeat-associated binding sites] were found in lineage-specific repeat elements that are absent in the comparison species, suggesting that large numbers of binding sites arose more recently in evolution and may have rewired the regulatory architecture in embryonic stem cells on a substantial scale." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/10/transcription-factors-more-species.html Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012 Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html
as to the Darwinian claim from the article:
"Multicellular animals evolved >650 million years ago (1)."
For evidence they cite chemical signatures of,,,
Demosponge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosponge
Yet sponges, rather than just being an accident of Darwinism, give very strong indication of 'purpose': ,,,Interestingly, 'soft-bodied' Jellyfish and Sponges appeared suddenly in the fossil record before the Cambrian Explosion, and have remained virtually unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record. Moreover, contrary to evolutionary thinking, Jellyfish and Sponges are found, much like photosynthetic bacteria, to have essential purpose in preparing the ecosystem for the Cambrian Explosion that was to follow.
Marine animals cause a stir - July 2009 Excerpt: Kakani Katija and John Dabiri used field measurements of jellyfish swimming in a remote island lake, combined with a new theoretical model, to demonstrate that the contribution of living organisms to ocean mixing via this mechanism is substantial — of the same order of magnitude as winds and tides. (Winds and tides, due to their prevention of stagnation, are known to be essential for life on earth.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7255/edsumm/e090730-08.html Sponges Determine Coral Reef's Nutrient Cycle Excerpt: Sponges, which have worldwide distribution in the oceans, filter water. They take up planktonic particles such as bacteria and excrete inorganic nutrients. In turn, these nutrients can facilitate the growth of marine plants and other organisms. Sponges filter water at a phenomenal rate: if the seawater were to remain stationary, the sponges would have completely pumped it away within five minutes,,,, these organisms play a key role in the marine nutrient cycle due to their incredible capacity to convert enormous quantities of organic plankton into inorganic material (nutrients). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050917085649.htm
Fossils of all types of sponges alive today have been found virtually unchanged in rocks dated from 635 to 580 million years ago. Moreover, sponges with photosynthesizing endosymbionts produce up to three times more oxygen than they consume, as well as more organic matter than they consume (Wikipedia).
Barrel and Chimney Sponges Filtering Water - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7E1rq7zHLc
Moreover, despite what Darwinists automatically imply from the mere presence of chemical signatures for sponges, there is no actual empirical evidence that sponges, or anything else, ever evolved from single cell creatures to multicellular creatures: There simply isn't any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells ever formed anything other than 'simple aggregates':
"We go from single cell protozoa. which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they're still individual cells that aggregate together. They don't seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don't really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don't have anything like that." - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this following video Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ
Nor is there experimental evidence to suggest that such a transition from single cell aggregates to multicellular organisms is possible:
More Darwinian Degradation - M. Behe - January 2012 Excerpt: Recently a paper appeared by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled “Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity” and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times.,,, It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2012/01/more-darwinian-degradation/
In fact Dr. Stephen Meyer's next book is going to be on the sheer impossibility of neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origination of 'Body-Plan information' from single cells to multicellular organisms in the Cambrian Explosion. Here is a sneak peek at his forthcoming book:
Dr. Stephen Meyer: Why Are We Still Debating Darwin? pt. 2 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-05-23T13_26_22-07_00
related notes: 'Body Plan' information, which is required to 'build' cells into a coherent functional multicellular organism simply is not even understood to any sufficient degree:
An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFe5CaDTlI

Leave a Reply