Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: Mathematical model of animal growth shows life is defined by biology, not physics

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Monash University scientists have challenged the conventional wisdom that biological patterns are explained by physical constraints.

In a study published today in Science, the researchers present their mathematical model of animal growth which describes how animals devote energy to growth and reproduction as they age and increase in size.

“Despite the fact that living organisms cannot break the laws of physics, evolution has shown itself to be extraordinarily adept at finding loopholes,” said lead study author Professor Craig White, from the Monash University School of Biological Sciences, and the Center for Geometric Biology.

An unexplained problem in biology concerns the non-proportional (allometric) relationship between energy metabolism and size.

“Finding that an animal’s metabolism can be explained without invoking physical constraints means that we’ve been looking in the wrong place when it comes to finding answers for why this widespread pattern occurs,” Professor White said.

“We believe that physical constraints don’t drive as much of the biology that we observe as previously supposed, and that evolution has a wider range of options than previously thought,” he said.

An increase in size, during development or evolution, is typically accompanied by a less-than-proportional increase in energy requirements such that, when compared gram-for-gram, large animals burn less energy and require less food than small ones.

For example, small mammals such as shrews might need to consume as much as three times their body weight in food each day, whereas the largest—baleen whales—eat just 5–30% of their body weight in krill each day.

Note: This comparison fails to take into account the difference in metabolism between a shrew and a whale. Also, another obvious difference affecting energy requirements is that the shrew moves on land and the whale moves through water. Finding an allometric relationship between body mass and energy requirements, but failing to take into account all the relevant physical and environmental factors, and then ascribing it to the cleverness of natural selection is a stretch. The laws of physics universally set limits on performance.

“Our study argues against the conventional wisdom that biological patterns such as allometric scaling occur because of physical constraints,” said Professor White.

“We devised a mathematical model of animal growth that describes how animals shift their energy allocation from growth to reproduction as they increase in age and size, and show that lifetime reproduction is maximized when metabolism scales out of proportion with size,” he said.

“Many models presented since the early nineteenth century have used physical or geometric constraints to explain this pattern, but ours does not. Simply put, classic theories argued that animals have the metabolism they have because they must, we find they have the metabolism they have because it’s the best.”

Professor White said the study showed that allometric scaling does not have to be a result of physical or geometric limits. Instead, natural selection, not physics, favors allometric scaling.

Phys.org
Comments
The reason why the 4-Dimensional realm is, for all practical purposes, completely invisible to 3-Dimensional realm is best demonstrated by the thought experiment of 'flatland’:??
Dr Quantum - Flatland - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z-BmUnCxtM
Moreover, although Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for this allometric 4-D invariant scaling of the physiology, metabolism, and anatomy, of living things, they do not seem to fully realize the implications that this 'four dimensional scaling' of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from an Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional’, and ‘immaterial’, information is more foundational to life, (and even to the universe itself), than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional 'expectation' for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the a priori expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an 'emergent' property of the 3-D material realm.
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics (of life) to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Without immaterial information being separate from matter and energy, and matter and energy being 'passive' to information, Darwinists simply have no explanation for how life can possibly resist the 'ravages of entropy'
"Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information." Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing”
As Stephen Talbott asked, "the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?"
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
And again to repeat, whereas Darwinists simply have no clue how life can possibly 'resist the ravages of entropy', ID proponents readily do have an explanation with 'immaterial' information.
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics (of life) to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Quotes and Verse
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." - Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892 John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
bornagain77
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
As Michael Lynch stated, “There is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection…”
“There is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection…” - Michael Lynch, “The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes,” Nature Rev. Gen., 8:803-13, (October, 2007)
And as James Shapiro and company at the 'Third Way' have observed, “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.”
“The Third Way” – James Shapiro, Denis Noble, etc.. etc..,,, Excerpt: “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.” http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
Moreover, besides its failure to have any 'real empirical basis', natural selection is also found, via the mathematics of population genetics and the 'waiting time problem', to be grossly inadequate in its role as a supposed 'designer substitute',
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. ,,, While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution.,,, Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. ,,, When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
Moreover, it is because of such failures within the mathematics of population genetics, (i.e. waiting time problem , genetic load, etc..), that evolutionists, such as Dan Graur and Larry Moran, have argued for 'neutral theory'. A theory where it is held that "the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance", not natural selection., (As well, Graur and Moran, because of 'neutral theory', also adamantly hold that upwards of 90% of the genome must be junk, despite extensive empirical evidence to the contrary, i.e. ENCODE etc...)
Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory - Laurence A. Moran - June 19, 2017 Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/austin-hughes-and-neutral-theory.html
Thus, with Natural selection being tossed to the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and by empirical evidence I might add), as the explanation for the 'wonderful design' we see in life, evolutionists such as Moran and Graur did not accept such a devastating finding as an outright falsification of evolution, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing that the 'wonderful design' we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all. . Yet, even Richard Dawkins himself finds the claim that chance can build such 'well designed' organisms to be 'absolutely inconceivable'. Specifically, In the following video Dawkins states that, “it cannot come about by chance. It's absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance.'
4:30 minute mark: "It cannot come about by chance. It's absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That's absolutely out.,,, It's out of the question.,,, So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins - From a Frog to a Prince - video https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267
To put it even more bluntly than Richard Dawkins did, Jay Homnick states, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
It’s Really Not Rocket Science – Granville Sewell – November 16, 2015 Excerpt: “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” Jay Homnick – American Spectator 2005 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt100911.html
Contrary to what proponents of neutral theory may want to believe beforehand, with natural selection shown to be grossly inadequate as the explanation for the 'wonderful design' we see in life, then the explanation for that 'wonderful design' we see in life does not go to 'chance' as the explanation for that 'wonderful design', but instead the explanation for that 'wonderful design' reverts back to its original assumption that life appears to be 'wonderfully designed' because it actually is 'wonderfully designed'. As Richard Sternberg states, “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
“Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q
As to allometric scaling in particular. Natural selection simply can't 'see' allometric, 1/4 power, scaling. The reason why these allometric ‘4-Dimensional’ quarter power scaling laws are impossible for Darwinian evolution to explain is simply because Natural Selection, in so far as it can even be said to operate, operates at the 3-Dimensional level of the organism, and the ’4-Dimensional’ quarter power scaling laws would therefore simply be ‘invisible’ to natural selection Specifically, as the following article states, “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional."
Post-Darwinist - Denyse O'Leary - Dec. 2010 Excerpt: They quote West et al. (1999), What Darwin Got Wrong – pg 79 “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection." They comment, "In the words of these authors, natural selection has exploited variations on this fractal theme to produce the incredible variety of biological form and function', but there were severe geometric and physical constraints on metabolic processes." "The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection. It's inconceivable that so many different organisms, spanning different kingdoms and phyla, may have blindly 'tried' all sorts of power laws and that only those that have by chance 'discovered' the one-quarter power law reproduced and thrived." Quotations from Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79. http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-much-of-body-plans-of-organisms-can.html#links The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology – 2004 Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00856.x
bornagain77
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
As to:
"Simply put, classic theories argued that animals have the metabolism they have because they must, we find they have the metabolism they have because it’s the best.” Professor White said the study showed that allometric scaling does not have to be a result of physical or geometric limits. Instead, natural selection, not physics, favors allometric scaling."
First off, natural selection, Darwin's supposed 'designer substitute',,,
“Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought By Ernst Mayr - November 24, 2009 Excerpt: Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/ "The real core of Darwinism,,,, the 'design' of the natural theologian, by natural means." - Ernst Mayr Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, Darwin's Explanation of Design Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full
,,,, First off, natural selection, Darwin's supposed 'designer substitute', functions far more in the realm of imagination, and fictional 'just-so story' telling, than it does in the real world of empirical science,
Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology PHILIP S. SKELL AUGUST 29, 2005 Excerpt: Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive, except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed, except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution, whatever its other virtues, does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. https://www.discovery.org/a/2816/ Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller - September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: "Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument." Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 (2009) To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/ Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. - per google books From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 - Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,, We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml "Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for, or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Necker/Stahl phlogiston or Newton's 'ether'...Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for Darwinists now. Creationists have discovered our empty 'natural selection' language, and the 'actions' of natural selection make huge vulnerable targets." - William B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 199-200
,,, Darwinists, although they, in their 'just-so stories', often speak as if natural selection can explain any facet of biology, no matter how sophisticated the 'design feature' in biology may be, Darwinists simply have no real-time empirical evidence, especially for multicellular creatures, that natural selection can do anything of significance. For instance, the impotency of Natural Selection was clearly illustrated in the following study on fruit flies where “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.”
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila – 2010 Excerpt of concluding paragraph: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.” https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09352 Genome-wide analysis of long-term evolutionary domestication in Drosophila melanogaster - 2016 Excerpt: We used next-generation resequencing data from this experiment to examine genome-wide patterns of genetic variation over an evolutionary time-scale that approaches 1,000 generations. We also compared measures of variation within and differentiation between our populations to simulations based on a variety of evolutionary scenarios. Our analysis yielded no clear evidence of hard selective sweeps, whereby natural selection acts to increase the frequency of a newly-arising mutation in a population until it becomes fixed. We do find evidence for selection acting on standing genetic variation, as independent replicate populations exhibit similar population-genetic dynamics, without obvious fixation of candidate alleles under selection. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311852574_Genome-wide_analysis_of_long-term_evolutionary_domestication_in_Drosophila_melanogaster
bornagain77
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply