Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Animal DNA modifier captured from bacteria 60 million years ago

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

By the bdelloid rotifer:

Epigenetic marks are modifications to DNA bases that don’t change the underlying genetic code, but “write” extra information on top of it that can be inherited along with your genome. Epigenetic marks usually regulate gene expression — turn genes on or off — particularly during early development or when your body is under stress. They can also suppress “jumping genes” — transposable elements that threaten the integrity of your genome.

In humans and other eukaryotes, two principal epigenetic marks are known. A team from the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) has discovered a third, novel epigenetic mark — one formerly known only in bacteria — in bdelloid rotifers, small freshwater animals. This fundamental and surprising discovery is reported this week in Nature Communications.

“We discovered back in 2008 that bdelloid rotifers are very good at capturing foreign genes,” said senior author Irina Arkhipova, senior scientist in the MBL’s Josephine Bay Paul Center. “What we’ve found here is that rotifers, about 60 million years ago, accidentally captured a bacterial gene that allowed them to introduce a new epigenetic mark that was not there before.” This is the first time that a horizontally transferred gene has been shown to reshape the gene regulatory system in a eukaryote.

“This is very unusual and has not been previously reported,” Arkhipova said. “Horizontally transferred genes are thought to preferentially be operational genes, not regulatory genes. It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system, because the existing regulatory systems are already very complicated.”

“It’s almost unbelievable,” said co-first author Irina Yushenova, a research scientist in Arkhipova’s lab. “Just try to picture, somewhere back in time, a piece of bacterial DNA happened to be fused to a piece of eukaryotic DNA. Both of them became joined in the rotifer’s genome and they formed a functional enzyme. That’s not so easy to do, even in the lab, and it happened naturally. And then this composite enzyme created this amazing regulatory system, and bdelloid rotifers were able to start using it to control all these jumping transposons. It’s like magic.”

Marine Biological Laboratory, “New DNA modification system discovered in animals, captured from bacteria more than 60 MYA” at ScienceDaily (February 28, 2022)

The obvious question this raises is, what about all the detailed Darwinian narratives that a horizontal gene transfer could obviate?

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more.

Comments
"What kind of evidence would you accept?" JVL, I accept all evidence. I don't consider just-so stories as "scientific". Andrew PS All these years of waiting, it's finally going to happen! lol ;)asauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Asauber: Of course I can’t. Well done for admitting that. And you can’t provide an “unguided” process that results in the human hand. What kind of evidence would you accept?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
"So, Asauber can’t provide a mathematical model for how ID works. Noted." JVL, Of course I can't. And you can't present an "unguided" process that results in the human hand. Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Asauber: Sure. I’ll wait. I’ve been waiting for most of my life already for such a demonstration. What’s a few more years? So, Asauber can't provide a mathematical model for how ID works. Noted.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
"Ah but right now the topic is: what mathematical models are there for ID? Let’s decide on that first shall we?" JVL, Sure. I'll wait. I've been waiting for most of my life already for such a demonstration. What's a few more years? Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: I gave JVL a test for ID at least two times on this blog. He never responded but then came back later making the same claims that there’s no way to test the power of unguided, random mutations. Um, a mathematical test for ID is not the same as a mathematical model for ID is it? Are you sure you really understand how this all works? Third time: Take the first sentence I wrote here. Scramble it with a randomizer. Then use the same randomization process to put it back together again. Your belief in blind, unintelligent powers will be equivalent to the amount of money you’re willing to wager on having that sentence appear again. But supposedly, materialism did something much more difficult than this many times. Sigh, you really don't understand the basic concepts do you? You are making a (flawed) argument for somethings being intelligently designed. That is not the same as a mathematical model for how ID works is it? Over and over and over again I hear: unguided evolution is not a science, you don't have a mathematical model for it. I am asking: do you have a mathematical model for ID? NOT do you have a mathematical argument for the existence of ID. The difference is really pretty simple but I guess you don't get it. And if you don't get the difference then why do you think you're right?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Asauber: Please show us “scientifically” how “unguided” results in something like the human hand, not once, but billions+ of times. I got some snacks ready. Ah but right now the topic is: what mathematical models are there for ID? Let's decide on that first shall we?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You said that it’s a science even though it is non-predictive and virtually impossible to model mathematically because of messy variables. I didn't actually say that. You insist, as with the evolutionary science community (99% of biologists) that this does not disqualify evolution as a science. So, the same standard holds for ID. Actually, there are a lot of mathematical models and unmessy variables in unguided evolutionary theory. But ID has no variables and no mathematical models. Go figure. We had G Puccio on here for years with all sorts of mathematical models. UprightBiPed did that. There are peer reviewed papers by Axe and Thurston. Dembski did that thing decades ago. Information theory and statistical modelling. You can research and study quite a lot of it. Start with the peer reviewed ID papers. Why don't you pick one of those mathematical models for ID and explain it to us here. Show us your theory. You’ve never studied Marks or Dembski on this but you claim there is no mathematical modelling for ID. So, you’ve been proven wrong, and I hope the information you’ve been given will help you learn about the topic. Firstly, you don't know that your statement is true. Secondly, you should be able to present those models to us and explain how they work. So . . . go ahead.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
I gave JVL a test for ID at least two times on this blog. He never responded but then came back later making the same claims that there's no way to test the power of unguided, random mutations. Third time: Take the first sentence I wrote here. Scramble it with a randomizer. Then use the same randomization process to put it back together again. Your belief in blind, unintelligent powers will be equivalent to the amount of money you're willing to wager on having that sentence appear again. But supposedly, materialism did something much more difficult than this many times.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: Perhaps you'd like to start encompassing these kinds of results: How Mathematicians Make Sense of Chaos: Dynamical systems can be chaotic and impossible to predict, but mathematicians have discovered tools to help understand them. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-mathematicians-make-sense-of-chaos-20220302/JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
JVL
Please explain this mathematical proof. In your own words. If you can’t, how do you know it’s valid? Or are you just accepting in on faith?
You've never studied Marks or Dembski on this but you claim there is no mathematical modelling for ID. So, you've been proven wrong, and I hope the information you've been given will help you learn about the topic.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
JVL, Please show us "scientifically" how "unguided" results in something like the human hand, not once, but billions+ of times. I got some snacks ready. Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
JVL
What I would like to see is ID proponents holding ID to the same standards they insist unguided evolutionary theory match.
I just applied the same standards you used for evolution. You said that it's a science even though it is non-predictive and virtually impossible to model mathematically because of messy variables. You insist, as with the evolutionary science community (99% of biologists) that this does not disqualify evolution as a science. So, the same standard holds for ID.
But no one is even suggesting any kind of variables or models for ID.
We had G Puccio on here for years with all sorts of mathematical models. UprightBiPed did that. There are peer reviewed papers by Axe and Thurston. Dembski did that thing decades ago. Information theory and statistical modelling. You can research and study quite a lot of it. Start with the peer reviewed ID papers.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: And without a solid mathematical foundation, Darwinian evolution simply does not even qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place (R. Marks). What is the solid mathematical foundation of ID? Go on, stop dodging the issue, stop running away from questions you can't answer. Be an adult and address that issue. Or not. Which is what I expect. You never, ever even attempt to hold ID to the same standard you insist unguided evolution has to uphold. So, by your standards, is ID a science? William Dembski and Robert Marks have (mathematically) shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Please explain this mathematical proof. In your own words. If you can't, how do you know it's valid? Or are you just accepting in on faith? “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, Again, can you explain this in your own terms? Or is it just mystical sounding stuff that you agree with even though you don't understand it? What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, Again, please explain their proof.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: If you want to play to a draw between ID and evolution, then ID wins a major victory with that. I think most of us would accept that as a starting point: ID is as much of a science as evolution is, given messy variables and difficulty of modelling. What I would like to see is ID proponents holding ID to the same standards they insist unguided evolutionary theory match. But no one is even suggesting any kind of variables or models for ID. Nothing. But I am told over and over and over again that unguided evolution is not even science but ID is when no one can give me any kind of model or variables for ID. Can you?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Whatever JVL, I am satisfied to let my comments stand as stated and see nothing within your responses that would mitigate the devastating (mathematical :) ) criticisms of Darwin's theory by Godel and company. And without a solid mathematical foundation, Darwinian evolution simply does not even qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place (R. Marks). As to ID being based on a solid mathematical footing.
Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have (mathematically) shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html Of related note: Conservation of information, evolution, etc - Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: "The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation]." Gödel - As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/
bornagain77
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
JVL
Could it be that a science which depends on messy variables like climate, proximity, existing resources, etc might be harder to codify mathematically. And that means it’s not a science?
If you want to play to a draw between ID and evolution, then ID wins a major victory with that. I think most of us would accept that as a starting point: ID is as much of a science as evolution is, given messy variables and difficulty of modelling.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: So JVL now apparently considers himself a better mathematician than Kurt Godel? A typical intentional (?) misunderstanding. I'm suggesting that IF your quote is correct considering the context from which it was taken then, perhaps, Godel didn't understand the biology despite the fact that you FALSELY tossed in the word 'mathematical'. Shame on you. You really should try harder to actually pay attention. And to be honest. AND you really should provide a rigorous, mathematically sound model of intelligent design if that's what it takes to be a science. But you won't. That's easy to predict.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
JVL, (who claims that he really exists as a real person despite the fact that Darwinian materialism denies his existence as a real person and states that his sense of self is merely a 'neuronal illusion' (Coyne)) among many other fallacious comments, JVL also claims, "I guess Mr Godel didn’t quite understand the actual (mathematical) arguments. Oh well." So JVL now apparently considers himself a better mathematician than Kurt Godel? Nothing else really needs to be said after that.bornagain77
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: So JVL, (charitably assuming that you really exist as a real person and not as a meat robot (J. Coyne)), how is an event, (say the ‘by chance’ appearance of a Butterfly Wing), being completely unpredictable within Darwinian theory as you are holding, (i.e. not anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability of it happening in a predictable fashion), NOT to be considered anything less than a miracle? I do really exist. There was no way ahead of time to predict the emergence of a butterfly wing, especially at a particular place or time. Considering the physical pressures and constraints the emergence of certain kinds of biological structures and functions seem to be very likely. “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” I guess Mr Godel didn't quite understand the actual arguments. Oh well. “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.” Strange they didn't deal with the fact that selection is NOT random. Oh well, maybe, back in 1967, non-biologists hadn't really come to terms with what the actual theory of evolution was saying. “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. Too funny. You don't have 'proofs' in science as any scientist can tell you. Are these your best refutations? “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” Oh, gosh, biology isn't the same as physics and chemistry and mathematics. What a revelation!! Who would have thought! Could it be that a science which depends on messy variables like climate, proximity, existing resources, etc might be harder to codify mathematically. And that means it's not a science? Really? I tell you what: why don't you propose a mathematically sound theory of intelligent design? You say it's a science so let's see the mathematically sound and rigorous model. Go ahead . . . whenever you're ready . . . what are you waiting for? . . . Is there a problem? . . .JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 but ‘chance’ is actually ‘our ignorance’, (C. Darwin)
:lol: Darwin completely blew it with evolution but is closer to truth with this one. I'm glad he admited that he was totally ignorant when he talked about his warm pond fable. I give him the pressumption of innocence because he didn't know the complexity of a single cell "blob" but I can't give a pass to clowns that today repeat same idiocy from 1859. I'm laughing when some say that you don't understand a idiocy because you don't understand math .
Bornagain77 So JVL, (charitably assuming that you really exist as a real person and not as a meat robot (J. Coyne)), how is an event, (say the ‘by chance’ appearance of a Butterfly Wing), being completely unpredictable within Darwinian theory as you are holding, (i.e. not anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability of it happening in a predictable fashion), NOT to be considered anything less than a miracle?
They can't explain a single cell that have to be with all processes in place in order "to boot" (metabolism- nutrition and excretion, external movement , internal active transport-diffusion, osmosis , respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction)let alone a Butterfly Wing. Too complicated.Lieutenant Commander Data
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
JVL (who believes his own brain was an unforeseen Darwinian accident, and that his brain was not Intelligently Designed,), tries to clarify the 'smoke and mirrors' of Darwinian explanations, and states, "when they (Darwinists) say something happened ‘by chance’ they mean it was unpredicted or unpredictable." So JVL, (charitably assuming that you really exist as a real person and not as a meat robot (J. Coyne)), how is an event, (say the 'by chance' appearance of a Butterfly Wing), being completely unpredictable within Darwinian theory as you are holding, (i.e. not anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability of it happening in a predictable fashion), NOT to be considered anything less than a miracle?
Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011? Excerpt: renowned butterfly scholar and photographer Bernard d'Abrera considers the mystery of mimicry.,,, For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html
Moreover JVL, since you believe that you firmly understand the math of Darwinian evolution, and ID advocates don't understand it, perhaps you would like to school Kurt Gödel, Murray Eden, Gregory Chaitin, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II on the precise mathematical formulation of Darwinian evolution?
“The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” - Kurt Gödel “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. Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 ?Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4? Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
bornagain77
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: As I noted the other day, (via Wolfgang Pauli and Stephen Talbott), when Darwinists say something happened randomly, or that it happened by ‘chance’, they are not referring to some realistically defined mathematical probability of something happening by chance in the universe, but are instead claiming that ‘chance’ is, basically, a cause unto itself. And yet, in this untethering of the word ‘chance’ from any realistically defined mathematical probability, Darwinists make the word ‘chance’ ‘very irrational’ and, more of less, make the word ‘chance’ virtually synonymous with the word ‘miracle’. No, when they say something happened 'by chance' they mean it was unpredicted or unpredictable. Chance is not a cause in any sense and no one says it is. It certainly does not mean miracle either. Perhaps if you understood the mathematics better you'd understand the way it's used better.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
martin_r and BA77 - agreed. They're telling us that their own theory requires magic and impossible to believe scenarios.
When you listen to a Darwinist, it is like to listen to a mentally ill person …
I don't see that as an insult, but just a true statement. It's evidenced in the quotes. She says it's "almost unbelievable" and then asks us to "try to picture" a blind, unintelligent material chance occurrence causing the development of a new regulatory system. Something that is difficult to do in an optimized lab environment just supposedly happened "in nature". She knows it's insane, and so does everyone involved. She says "it's hard to imagine" - but the fact is, they're demanding that everybody has to imagine it or else you're subject to their ridicule. The people who mock the idea of God or even that there is evidence of intelligence conclude "it's like magic". Then after all of that, the reason they're like mentally ill people is they say these insane things and nobody says anything else. They just leave it hanging out there. "There's a 5000 ton pink elephant in my living room." And the scientists can't think of one follow-up question. The paper just leaves it. "That's just the way it is, folks. It's just impossible to imagine, but true - just like magic". That's what they think science is. Just idiotic statements that we all have to believe. Nobody can even ask: "Wait, you're saying it's difficult in an intelligently-designed experiment with controlled variables, but random, mindless nature just did it? Can we question whether this is even possible?" The fall-back they always use: "We observe it, therefore evolution did it". The mentally ill have an excuse. It's a terrible illness that deserves care and treatment. But people who are willfully stupid or who make themselves blind from their own arrogance and belief in the authority of their own academic credentials are a different category in the causes.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Martin_r
in many of my previous UD posts, i have claimed, that Darwinists believe in miracles (magic).
I could not agree more. Darwinists do indeed wholeheartedly believe in miracles and/or magic. Even though Darwinists often like to claim that 'miracles' are strictly forbidden in scientific explanations, i.e. "To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen" (Lewontin)
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. " - Richard Lewontin
,,, even though Darwinists often like to claim that 'miracles' are strictly forbidden in scientific explanations, it turns out that miracles, (i.e. magic), are central in the supposedly 'scientific' explanations of Darwinists. As I noted the other day, (via Wolfgang Pauli and Stephen Talbott), when Darwinists say something happened randomly, or that it happened by 'chance', they are not referring to some realistically defined mathematical probability of something happening by chance in the universe, but are instead claiming that 'chance' is, basically, a cause unto itself. And yet, in this untethering of the word 'chance' from any realistically defined mathematical probability, Darwinists make the word 'chance' 'very irrational' and, more of less, make the word 'chance' virtually synonymous with the word 'miracle'. As Wolfgang (not even wrong) Pauli himself noted, “While they (Darwinists) 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.’”
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “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) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf
Moreover, even Charles Darwin himself honestly admitted that this is a wholly inadequate way to treat the word ‘chance’.
“I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.” Charles Darwin – Origin – Chapter V http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1860/1860-131-c-1859.html
Yet this “wholly incorrect expression” of “chance”, which “serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation”, has, in the minds of Darwinists, become a cause unto itself. As Nobel laureate Jacques Monod himself stated, “It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution”,,,
“It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition – or the hope – that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.” – Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
Yet, as biophysicist Donald M. MacKay pointed out, to speak of chance as a cause unto itself, without it being anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”
What Is Chance? – Nicholas Nurston Excerpt: “The vague word ‘chance’ is used as a substitute for a more precise word such as ’cause’. “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent,” notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.” Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’” Others who reasoned in this fashion, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod, for one, used this chance equals cause line of reasoning. “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, (is) at the root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,”… https://books.google.com/books?id=bQ5OAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT25&lpg=PT25
In short, and as Wolfgang Pauli observed, speaking of “chance” as a cause unto itself, without any anchor to any realistically defined mathematical probability, is make chance, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with the word “miracle”. Stephen Talbott’s following illustration, (which plays off the old joke “and then a miracle occurs’), gets this “chance is synonymous with the word miracle” point across very clearly.
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
Moreover, as Dr. Egnor pointed out in the following article, there simply can be no realistic mathematical definition for ‘chance’ unless it is defined against a backdrop of purposeful, i.e. teleogical, events. (For instance, the chance of drawing a Royal Flush presupposes the existence of a 'intelligently designed' deck of cards). As Egnor succinctly put it, “Chance presupposes design.”, (at least if ‘chance’ is to be anchored to a realistically defined mathematical probability in order to make it scientifically useful).
Evolution Presupposes Intelligent Design: Case of the Coronavirus – Michael Egnor – April 7, 2020 Excerpt: Aristotle saw this in his definition of chance in nature — chance is the accidental conjunction of purposeful events. Without purpose there can be no chance. His example is instructive: he considered a farmer who ploughs his field and by chance discovers a treasure buried by someone else. The treasure is discovered by chance, but everything else — the farmer’s ownership of the field, his decision to plough it, the accumulation and burial of the treasure by the other man — is purposeful, and in fact the only reason the accident of discovery happened is because it is embedded in a world of purpose. Chance can’t happen — the word has no meaning — in an entirely accidental world. Chance presupposes design. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/04/evolution-presupposes-design-the-case-of-covid-19/
Thus when Darwinists claim that "chance alone is at the source of every innovation" (Monod), Darwinists are ‘very irrationally’, (as Pauli put it), using the word “chance” in such a way as to make virtually synonymous with the word “miracle”. Moreover, since ‘chance’ does not even exist as a known cause for anything, but ‘chance’ is actually ‘our ignorance’, (C. Darwin), of the actual cause, then Darwinian Atheists actually believe in magic minus any magician to perform their magic. (And/or believe in miracles without any God to perform miracles). A magic show without any magician to actually perform the magic? Now that is certainly one hell of a magic show for Darwinists to believe in. i.e. It is, to put it very mildly, "very irrational" (Pauli). And this 'very irrational' belief in 'random miracles' as an explanatory principle in science, that is at the core of Darwinian explanations, has now apparently infected theoretical physics as well. As Dr. Bruce Gordon noted in his critique of the Atheistic Naturalist's appeal to the multiverse to try to 'explain away' the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, "the (Atheistic) materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle." which, "makes scientific rationality impossible"
* In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. - Contemporary Physics and God - Part 2 - Dr Bruce Gordon - video (25:17 minute mark) https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=1517
Verses:
Psalm 77:14 You are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples. John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
bornagain77
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
BA77 in many of my previous UD posts, i have claimed, that Darwinists believe in miracles (magic). Also, let me add the following (from the above article):
It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system, because the existing regulatory systems are already very complicated.
it is not easy to understand, how a Darwinist think ... " It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system" but obviously, it is NOT hard to imagine, how many other /existing regulatory systems emerged ... When you listen to a Darwinist, it is like to listen to a mentally ill person ...martin_r
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
“It’s almost unbelievable,” said co-first author Irina Yushenova, a research scientist in Arkhipova’s lab. “Just try to picture, somewhere back in time, a piece of bacterial DNA happened to be fused to a piece of eukaryotic DNA. Both of them became joined in the rotifer’s genome and they formed a functional enzyme. That’s not so easy to do, even in the lab, and it happened naturally. And then this composite enzyme created this amazing regulatory system, and bdelloid rotifers were able to start using it to control all these jumping transposons. It’s like magic.”
So they believe something "not so easy to do, even in the lab" "happened naturally" and they admit "It’s like magic"? And so there you have it in their own words. Darwinists believe in magic, not science! :)bornagain77
March 1, 2022
March
03
Mar
1
01
2022
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Accidentally captured? Perhaps some animals have a special system for capturing genes, and a 'smell organ' to detect genes worth consuming.polistra
March 1, 2022
March
03
Mar
1
01
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply