Scientists’ reaction to ever more of the cell’s complexity in its own environment

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 28, 2021

Cell biology, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity}

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

For a few weeks in 2017, Wanda Kukulski found herself binge-watching an unusual kind of film: videos of the insides of cells. They were made using a technique called cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) that allows researchers to view the proteins in cells at high resolution. In these videos, she could see all kinds of striking things, such as the inner workings of cells and the compartments inside them, in unprecedented detail. “I was so overwhelmed by the beauty and the complexity that in the evenings I would just watch them like I would watch a documentary,” recalls Kukulski, a biochemist at the University of Bern, Switzerland.
In recent years, imaging techniques such as cryo-ET have started to enable scientists to see biological molecules in their native environments. Unlike older methods that take individual proteins out of their niches to study them, these techniques provide a holistic view of proteins and other molecules together with the cellular landscape. Although they still have limitations — some researchers say that the resolution of cryo-ET, for example, is too low for molecules to be identified with certainty — the techniques are increasing in popularity and sophistication. Researchers who turn to them are not only mesmerized by the beautiful images, but also blown away by some of the secrets that are being revealed — such as the tricks bacteria use to infect cells or how mutated proteins drive neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Diana Kwon, “The secret lives of cells — as never seen before” at Nature (October 26, 2021)

No wonder panpsychism is catching on, among those who are forbidden to think in terms of design.

Comments

Of related interest to the Darwinist's complete lack of evidence for 'observed' speciation events, Richard Lenski, in his Long Tern Evolution Experiment, had tried to claim that the citrate adaptation was proof of a unique speciation event,
“The citrate-eaters still eat glucose, but they aren’t quite as successful at competing for that sugar as they were before. As a consequence of that tradeoff, their cousins persist as glucose specialists. So the bacteria in this simple flaskworld have split into two lineages that coexist by exploiting their common environment in different ways. And one of the lineages makes its living by doing something brand-new, something that its ancestor could not do. That sounds a lot like the origin of species to me.” - Richard Lenski - “Lenski RE. 2011. Evolution in action: a 50,000-generation salute to Charles Darwin. Microbe 6:30–33.” https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/misleading-claims-about-a-long-running-evolution-experiment/#comment-733206
Yet, Dr. Scott Minnich came along and falsified Lenski's claim that the citrate adaptation was a unique speciation event.
Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. - Minnich - Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416
As Michael Behe explained, "they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski's lab did as easily as falling off a log -- within weeks, not decades.,,,"
Richard Lenski and Citrate Hype -- Now Deflated - Michael Behe - May 12, 2016 Excerpt: ,,, for more than 25 years Lenski's lab has continuously grown a dozen lines of the bacterium E. coli in small culture flasks, letting them replicate for six or seven generations per day and then transferring a portion to fresh flasks for another round of growth. The carefully monitored cells have now gone through more than 60,000 generations, which is equivalent to over a million years for a large animal such as humans.,,, In 2008 Lenski's group reported that after more than 15 years and 30,000 generations of growth one of the E. coli cell lines suddenly developed the ability to consume citrate,,, the authors argued it might be pretty important.,,, They also remarked that,,, perhaps the mutation marked the beginning of the evolution of a brand new species.,, One scientist who thought the results were seriously overblown was Scott Minnich, professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho ,,, So Minnich's lab re-did the work under conditions he thought would be more effective. The bottom line is that they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski's lab did as easily as falling off a log -- within weeks, not decades.,,, Richard Lenski was not pleased.,,, In a disgraceful move, Lenski impugned Scott Minnich's character. Since he's a "fellow of the Discovery Institute" sympathetic with intelligent design,,, (Regardless of the ad hominem) With regard to citrate evolution, the Minnich lab's results have revealed E. coli to be a one-trick pony.,,, The take-home lesson is that,,, (Lenski's overinflated) hype surrounding the (implications of the citrate adaptation) has seriously misled the public and the scientific community. It's far past time that a pin was stuck in its (Lenski's citrate) balloon. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/richard_lenski102839.html
And please note that Lenski did not respond to Minnich's work as a scientist who is falsified by experimental evidence should have done, i.e. by humbly admitting that he was wrong. No, Lenski responded with hostility and ad hominem towards Minnich. Which is the exact opposite reaction that any responsible scientists, who is more concerned with the truth than with his reputation, should have had when shown to be wrong by experimental evidence itself.bornagain77_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

At 9 Seversky pulls Douglas Theobald's old "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" out of cold storage and pretends like it has not already been addressed.
A Critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution " By Ashby L. Camp Excerpt: In "29 Evidences for Macroevolution," Douglas Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all living organisms descended from "one original living species." He does so by listing what he claims are 29 potentially falsifiable predictions of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry and presenting the evidence that he believes confirms each of those predictions.,,, Prediction 1: The Fundamental Unity of Life,, Prediction 2: A "Nested" Hierarchy of Species,,, Prediction 3: Convergence of Independent Phylogenies,,, Prediction 4: Possible Morphologies of Predicted Common Ancestors,,, Prediction 5: Chronological Order of Predicted Common Ancestors,,, Prediction 6: Anatomical Vestigal Structures,,, Prediction 7: Molecular Vestigial Characters,,, Prediction 8: Ontogeny and Development of Organisms,,, Prediction 9: Present Biogeography,,, Prediction 10: Past Biogeography,,, Prediction 11: Anatomical Paralogy,,, Prediction 12: Molecular Paralogy,,, Prediction 13: Anatomical Convergence,,, Prediction 14: Molecular Convergence,,, Prediction 15: Suboptimal Anatomical Function,,, Prediction 16: Molecular Suboptimal Function,,, Prediction 17: Functional Molecular Evidence-- Protein Functional Redundancy,,, Prediction 18: Functional Molecular Evidence-- DNA Coding Redundancy,,, Prediction 19: Nonfunctional Molecular Evidence-- Transposons,,, Prediction 20: Nonfunctional Molecular Evidence-- Pseudogenes,,, Prediction 21: Nonfunctional Molecular Evidence-- Endogenous Retroviruses,,, Prediction 22: Genetic Change,,, Prediction 23: Morphological Change,,, Prediction 24: Functional Change,,, Prediction 25: Earth's Strange Past and the Fossil Record,,, Prediction 26: Stages of Speciation,,, Prediction 27: Speciations,,, Prediction28: Morphological Rates of Change,,, Prediction 29: Genetic Rates of Change,,, Conclusion ,,, I have argued that what he (Theobald) labels falsifiable predictions of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry are in fact mere observations that have been read back into a plastic theory and claimed as predictions. His hypothesis accommodates these observations, but since it could also accommodate contrary ones, that fact has little or no probative value. As Hunter says, "There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory." (Hunter, 38.) I have shown how Dr. Theobald's evidence can be accommodated by alternative hypotheses. I have also highlighted instances where his interpretation of the evidence is driven by theological assumptions. One who rejects those underlying assumptions is justified in rejecting the conclusions that follow from them. http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/theobaldcritique.htm
Looking over Theobald's list of "falsifiable' predictions, I note that many, if not all, of those predictions have now been falsified. For instance, the fossil record, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, is definitely not to be considered a successful 'prediction' for Darwinism in any way, shape, or form. But anyways, perhaps the most 'infamous' example of one of Theobald's predictions being falsified was when Winston Ewert falsified Douglas Theobald's claim, via genetic evidence, that he had found 'statistically significant' support for common ancestry. Theobald had claimed,,,
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution – Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.?Part 1: – The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree – Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species Excerpt: Seventy-five independent studies from different researchers, on different organisms and genes, with high values of CI (P less than 0.01) is an incredible confirmation with an astronomical degree of combined statistical significance (P less than less than 10-300, Bailey and Gribskov 1998; Fisher 1990). per Talk Origins under 'Potential Falsification' section: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
Yet, there was a small problem with Theobald's claim. As Casey Luskin noted, "The problem is that Theobald didn't test universal common ancestry against "creationism." He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good."
Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis - Casey Luskin November 29, 2010 Excerpt: National Geographic notes in a subheadline: "Creationism called 'absolutely horrible hypothesis' -- statistically speaking." The problem is that Theobald didn't test universal common ancestry against "creationism." He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good. Again, if you don't believe me, consider what reviewers of a critique of Theobald's paper had to say (approving the critique!): Cogniscenti cringed when they saw the Theobald paper, knowing that "it is trivial". It is trivial because the straw man that Theobald attacks in a text largely formulated in convoluted legalese, is that significant sequence similarity might arise by chance as opposed to descent with modification. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html Douglas Theobald's Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design – December 1, 2010 Excerpt: Why is common design at least as good an explanation for functional genetic similarities as common descent? It’s simple. As Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells observe, “An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply, intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently” ?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html
And when Winston Ewert ran the test properly, using a proper null hypothesis, and testing common descent against the intelligent design model, (and using a much larger genetic data set than Theobald used), the results were drastically different from the 'skewed' results that Theobald had found. In the following article Dr. Cornelius Hunter explains just how badly the common decent model was falsified when the test was run properly by Dr. Ewert.,,, Dr. Hunter stated, "Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!"
New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data. Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model. Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree. Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process. Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model. Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/
Needless to say, that is by no means to be considered a 'soft falsification' of Theobald's prediction, but is about as 'hard' of a falsification of his prediction as can possibly be had.bornagain77_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

ChuckyD, As per your latest comment’s I’m unsure whether your being genuine or simply feigning ignorance. As a convinced deist whom has no use of ID science, I have to ask why waste your time here at UD? It’s obvious you have no real intention to engage in any sort of discussion. As such most of your comment’s are simply your opinion or hyperbole. If you want to entice people to understand your position why not simply engage in some form of conversation. It would seem a more fruitful use of one time than to simply stop by for a troll post so to speak.Seekers_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Zweston, You might be lucky to get a response to your queries, it has been pointed out fairly regularly that Seversky it particular in his reply’s. With most comments alluding to him either being a troll or simply a bot. If it’s a discussion your after perhaps JVL may answer your questions.Seekers_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Over related interest:
Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change A Response to TalkOrigins’ “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (Updated Sept. 9, 2013) PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The TalkOrigins Speciation FAQ, titled “Observed Instances of Speciation”1 (herein “FAQ”), claims it “discusses several instances where speciation has been observed.” For years, this FAQ has been cited by pro-Darwin internet debaters as allegedly demonstrating that neo-Darwinian evolution is capable of producing significant biological change. However, an analysis of the technical literature regarding many of the examples discussed in the FAQ2 reveals that such claims are clearly incorrect. This assessment finds: * NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change. * The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a “species” is defined according to the standard definition of a “reproductively isolated population.” Only one single example shows the production of a new species of plants via hybridization and polyploidy, but this example does not entail significant biological change. * Only one of the examples purports to document the production of a reproductively isolated population of animals—however this example is overturned by a later study not mentioned in the FAQ. Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals—e.g., the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population—is given in the FAQ. https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/03/Casey-Luskin-Specious-Speciation.pdf
bornagain77_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Sev @ 9... what is most compelling to you...not an article. I can post a link too, what do you find most compelling? Maybe 3? And have you ever doubted the theory? Have you ever tried to critique it to falsify it?zweston_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Jerry: Not one is an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means. What would an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means look like?JVL_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Something easy for you to start with:
All irrelevant. Not one is an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means. My guess is Seversky never read what he linked to. They don’t know how anything happened. Which means that common descent which happened has an unknown mechanism. It’s essentially an article endorsing ID. Case closed.jerry_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Seversky: Methodological naturalism does not exclude any explanations a priori. The door is open to any who can step over the threshold. Partially that means you have to be able to set up experiments and situations where you can predict that some event will occur. If you can't do that, if something happens unpredictably and with no discernible cause or effect then . . . . What can you do with that? You can't come up with a law or rule. You can't build or construct something. Now, some things that most people are pretty sure are natural are still hard or impossible to predict. When and where will lighting strike? What will be the high temperature tomorrow? But scientists are learning more and more about the unguided and purely natural processes that (probably) determine those behaviours. There may be too much noise or unknowns for us ever to be able to predict, precisely, what the high temperature will be tomorrow BUT they are getting better and better. That indicates it's not being done at will or randomly. Likely to be unguided, natural processes that can be studied and modelled. How can you model an undefined, unobserved, unlimited being who can act without leaving a trace violating physical laws which work 99.999 . . . . % of the time?JVL_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Methodological naturalism does not exclude any explanations a priori. The door is open to any who can step over the threshold. That threshold is that if you want your pet explanation to be considered, be it God or gravity, you need to provide good reasons for doing so. As CD pointed out, just complaining you're not being treated fairly doesn't cut it. Where's your evidence that compels ID as a conclusion?Seversky_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Zweston/8
CD, what are you greatest evidences for macroevolution? Have you ever doubted it or tried to disprove it? What are the biggest weaknesses of the theory?
Something easy for you to start with:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Version 2.89 Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Introduction Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences. This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
Seversky_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

CD, what are you greatest evidences for macroevolution? Have you ever doubted it or tried to disprove it? What are the biggest weaknesses of the theory?zweston_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

seversky:
It just doesn’t add anything to science or offer a fruitful alternative to methodological naturalism.
Seriously? Methodological naturalism is anti-science as it forces you to start with a conclusion. Not only that MN has NOT helped you and yours support your asinine position. ID offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.ET_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

ChuckDarwin- Your ignorance is not an argument. Your side doesn't have any science to supports its asinine claims. It is a given that you and yours don't understand what science entails. Your position is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but lies and bluffs. It is very telling that the way to refute ID is for you and yours to actually support your claims and yet you have to resort to lying about ID. You are patheticET_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Ditto re Seversky's comment. ID spends way more time honing its feigned victimhood and attempts to elbow its way to the table than it does on real science. After 30 some years, the best it can come up with is "God did it" and "Darwin was a racist." That, my friends, is far cry from a Copernican revolution...chuckdarwin_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

It just doesn’t add anything to science or offer a fruitful alternative to methodological naturalism.
So truth is not part of methodological naturalism. Interesting admission.jerry_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

when i watched the DNA replication animation for the first time, i, as an engineer, instantly knew, that Darwinian biologists trying to mislead lay public (politely said), claiming that biology and processes inside the cell are a product of blind unguided natural process. An educated, rational, 21st century person just can't buy this non-sense... what is wrong with Darwinists, why they claim such absurd things ? Especially in 21st century ? For example, during DNA replication, the copy of the lagging strand is being processed way different than the copy of the leading strand. The copy of the lagging strand is being assembled by so called Okazaki fragments - short chucks of DNA. On the other hand, the leading strand is being copied continuously, as it is, a continuous copy - this is exactly what i would expect (more or less) by blind unguided natural process ... Why would a blind natural unguided process complicate already pretty complicated process by making short chucks of DNA and then join it together piece by piece, when it also can be done by a continuous copy as we can see by leading strand ??? here is the animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKWgcFPHqwmartin_r_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

Sev, so the multiverse does?anthropic_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Nobody is forbidden to think in terms of design. There are still plenty of proponents of design and they still publish books and articles and videos. It just doesn't add anything to science or offer a fruitful alternative to methodological naturalism.Seversky_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply