Cambrian explosion Intelligent Design News stasis

Cambrian shrimp’s heart more complex than modern one

Spread the love

We’ll let BioScience Technology tell it:

“This is only the second case of the description of a cardiovascular system in a Cambrian arthropod, the first one being that of the inch-long Marrella from Burgess Shale,” emailed Diego Garcia-Bellido of the University of Adelaide, who co-discovered that first arthropod while at the University of Cambridge. Garcia Bellido was not involved in the new study. “This new finding of a cardiovascular system in a larger animal (Fuxianhuia is about two to three times as large, thus more detail), together with a fantastically preserved, and very complex, nervous system, unknown in Marrella, and the gut, make it probably the most complete arthropod internal anatomy known in the fossil record.”

The main conclusion drawn, said Garcia-Bellido: “The level of complexity of the Fuxianhuia was extremely high, considering that we are studying some of the oldest animals on Earth.”

This leaves how much time for neo-Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation)?

It’s a good thing that most Americans doubt Darwin.

As the facts roll in relentlessly, to believe in Darwinism is to believe in magic.

Indeed, even the language assumes that character, as when scientists (scientists!) say things like,

“Evolution is telling us these genes are really important for survival,” adds Winston Bellott, a research scientist in the Page lab and lead author of the Nature paper. “They’ve been selected and purified over time.”

They believe in a wizard and his name is Darwin.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

75 Replies to “Cambrian shrimp’s heart more complex than modern one

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    News, Can we start adding ‘more complex than expected’ to the usual ‘earlier than expected’ findings in fossils?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    If evolution were true should they not find the ‘missing’ transitional fossils before the Cambrian period instead of finding that the animals of the Cambrian were ‘more complex than expected’? i.e. The trend in evidence is that Meyer’s thesis in ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ keeps getting verified whilst Darwinian predictions go begging for any confirming evidence whatsoever!

    “Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…
    To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer…
    The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
    —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin – fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.

    A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
    Excerpt: Representatives of twenty-three of the roughly twenty-seven fossilized animal phyla, and the roughly thirty-six animal phyla overall, are present in the Cambrian fossil record. Twenty of these twenty-three major groups make their appearance with no discernible ancestral forms in either earlier Cambrian or Precambrian strata. Representatives of the remaining three or so animal phyla originate in the late Precambrian, but they do so as abruptly as the animals that appeared first in Cambrian. Moreover, these late Precambrian animals lack clear affinities with the representatives of the twenty or so phyla that first appear in the Cambrian.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74221.html

    graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin’s Dilemma – The Significance of Sponge Embryos – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPs8E7y0ySs

    “So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record.”
    Sean Carroll developmental biologist

    Darwin’s Doubt and the Plea for more time! – Dr. Stephen Meyer – audio
    http://radiomaria.us/discoveri.....t-29-2013/

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

    “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
    (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine”

    In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin’s Dilemma? – JonathanM – May 2012
    Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....59171.html

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY

    Disparity preceding diversity is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is found after it as well. In fact, in the following paper, some Darwinists tried to argue that since Disparity preceding Diversity is a consistent pattern in the fossil record after the Cambrian Explosion then, by their reasoning, that means the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t that special after all:

    Cambrian Explosion Solved? – October 2010
    Excerpt: Looking at the big picture, though, they argued that the Cambrian explosion was really not all that special; other parts of the fossil record show similar patterns: “the observation that disparity reaches its peak early in a group’s history seems to reflect a general phenomenon, also observed in plants (Boyce, 2005), the Ediacara biota (Shen et al., 2008), Precambrian microfossils (Huntley et al., 2006), and within many individual animal clades, such as crinoids (Foote, 1997), gastropods (Wagner, 1995), and ungulates (Jernvall et al., 1996). Although of significant interest, this high disparity soon after a group’s appearance is not unique to the Cambrian,” they said.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20101031a

  3. 3
    News says:

    bornagain77, Will build macro for same.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Mantis Shrimp Stronger than Airplanes – April 21, 2014
    Inspired by mantis shrimp, researchers design composite material stronger than standard used in airplane frames (w/video)
    Excerpt: Inspired by the fist-like club of a mantis shrimp, a team of researchers led by University of California, Riverside, in collaboration with University of Southern California and Purdue University, have developed a design structure for composite materials that is more impact resistant and tougher than the standard used in airplanes.
    “The more we study the club of this tiny crustacean, the more we realize its structure could improve so many things we use every day,”,,
    The peacock mantis shrimp, or stomatopod, is a 4- to 6-inch-long rainbow-colored crustacean with a fist-like club that accelerates underwater faster than a 22-calibur bullet. Researchers, led by Kisailus, an associate professor of chemical engineering, are interested in the club because it can strike prey thousands of times without breaking.
    The force created by the impact of the mantis shrimp’s club is more than 1,000 times its own weight. It’s so powerful that Kisailus needs to keep the animal in a special aquarium in his lab so it doesn’t break the glass,,,
    ,,,Kisailus recently learned he has been selected to receive a $7.5 million Department of Defense grant to continue this work.
    “Biology has an incredible diversity of species, which can provide us new design cues and synthetic routes to the next generation of advanced materials for light-weight automobiles, aircraft and other structural applications,” Kisailus said.
    http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/21670

    Hmmm, with all this talk of shrimp today,,, I’m getting hungry for a plate of shrimp tonight! 🙂

  5. 5
    OldArmy94 says:

    But, Darwinian evolution is a fact. The science is settled. Go away, creationist fools.

    😉

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    as to disparity preceding diversity:

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

  7. 7
    Box says:

    This is easily explained by neutral evolution theory, right?

  8. 8
    Barb says:

    For several years, the Awake! magazine has had a featured called “Was It Designed?” In the November 2010 issue, they discussed the peacock mantis shrimp.

    The peacock mantis shrimp, found on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, is equipped with the most complex eyesight in the animal kingdom. “It really is exceptional,” says Dr. Nicholas Roberts, “outperforming anything we humans have so far been able to create.”

    Consider: The peacock mantis shrimp can perceive polarized light and process it in ways that humans cannot do. Polarized light waves may travel along a straight line or rotate in a corkscrew motion. Unlike other creatures, this mantis shrimp not only sees polarized light in both its straight-line and corkscrew forms but is also able to convert the light from the one form to the other. This gives the shrimp enhanced vision.

    DVD players work in a similar way. To process information, the DVD player must convert polarized light aimed at a disc into a corkscrew motion and then change it back into a straight-line format. But the peacock mantis shrimp goes a step further. While a standard DVD player only converts red light—or in higher-resolution players, blue light—the shrimp’s eye can convert light in all colors of the visible spectrum.

    Researchers believe that using the peacock mantis shrimp’s eye as a model, engineers could develop a DVD player that plays discs with far more information than today’s DVDs. “What’s particularly exciting is how beautifully simple it is,” says Roberts. “It works much, much better than any attempts that we’ve made to construct a device.”

    What do you think? Is the remarkable eye of the peacock mantis shrimp a product of chance? Or was it designed?

    Here’s a picture: http://www.livescience.com/207.....hrimp.html

  9. 9
    ppolish says:

    Progress will be meaningful after “appearance of design” is replaced by “unadulterated design”.

    Then the debate becomes Guided Natural Design or Guided SuperNatural Design.

    But unguided “appearance of design” is Victorian Era myth. The “standard model” of Evo Sci is broken kaput. Exciting times for real Scientists.

  10. 10
    rhampton7 says:

    This leaves how much time for neo-Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation)?

    Possibly two to three hundred million years is Knauth keeps finding more evidence to support his theory…

    In 2009, Knauth and Martin Kennedy of the University of California, Riverside, shocked their more conservative colleagues with a meta-analysis of thousands of geochemical records from around the planet. They reported additional evidence that a land-based explosion of photosynthesizing algae, mosses, fungi and other organisms was likely to have greened the continents and facilitated the global expansion of multicellular life (including animals) as long ago as 850 million years ago, giving even more geochemical teeth to Knauth’s reverse Cambrian-explosion model.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    rhampton7 thanks for the link. The only evidence I see is telltale evidence for plants. Which is good. But I see no evidence for animals. So do you think that Cambrian animals came from Precambrian plants that lived on the land? I don’t. Moreover, it might interest you to know that many times atheists will attack the Genesis account of creation by saying that plant life on the land did not precede the Cambrian explosion of animal life in the seas as the Bible account in Genesis says it does.

    Genesis 1:11-12
    Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation:

    Funny how the evidence you cited refutes that argument.

    Of note:

    Ediacarans Not Related to Cambrian Animals – December 16, 2012
    Excerpt: “These fossils have been a first-class scientific mystery,” he said. “They are the oldest large multicellular fossils. They lived immediately before the Cambrian evolutionary explosion that gave rise to familiar modern groups of animals.”,,
    If not sea creatures, what are they? Retallack suggested they could be “lichens, other microbial consortia, fungal fruiting bodies, slime molds, flanged pedestals of biological soil crusts, and even casts of needle ice.” In the paper and the press release, he had very little to say about evolution, except that the Ediacarans represent “an independent evolutionary radiation of life on land that preceded by at least 20 million years the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals in the sea.”
    http://crev.info/2012/12/ediac.....n-animals/

  12. 12
    ppolish says:

    Oh great, Rhampton7, now we have two Origin of Lifes – origin of sea life and separate origin of plant life:)

    And Origin of Animal life too. Three origins of life to explain.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    of related note is this 2.7 feet long shrimp-like creature:

    Gigantic Cambrian Shrimplike Creature Unearthed in Greenland – March 26, 2014
    Excerpt: A new filter-feeding giant that trolled the Cambrian seas has been unearthed in Greenland.
    The species, dubbed Tamisiocaris borealis, used large, bristly appendages on its body to rake in tiny shrimplike creatures from the sea,,,
    While on an excavation trip in 2009, the team unearthed fragments of strange feeding appendages attached to a head shield from an unknown creature. The appendages, which date to about 520 million years ago,,,
    These ancient sea monsters grew to about 70 centimeters (2.7 feet) long and “looked like something completely out of this planet,” with massive frontal appendages for grasping prey, huge eyes on stalks, and a mouth shaped like a piece of canned pineapple, Vinther told Live Science.
    But the appendages from T. borealis were different from those of other anomalocarids. Instead of large grasping claws, the front pieces sported fine, delicate bristles, much like the baleen found in the mouths of filter-feeding whales.
    http://www.livescience.com/443.....rthed.html

    also of note:

    Giant Sea Scorpion Discovered; Was Bigger Than a Man
    Excerpt: The size of a large crocodile, the 390-million-year-old sea scorpion
    http://news.nationalgeographic.....rpion.html

    Ancient sea monsters not to be messed with
    Bizarre shrimp-like predators grew larger and survived longer than thought – May 2011
    Excerpt: Past research showed they dominated the seas during the early and middle Cambrian period 542 million to 501 million years ago, a span of time known for the “Cambrian Explosion” that saw the appearance of all the major animal groups and the establishment of complex ecosystems.,,, Now, extraordinarily well-preserved fossils unearthed in the rocky desert in southeastern Morocco by local collector Mohammed Ben Moula reveal giant anomalocaridids that measured more than 3 feet in length.,,, “There have been suggestions of Cambrian anomalocaridids of over 6 feet in length, but these estimates are extrapolations from very fragmentary material, and hence not too reliable.” Moreover, these newly examined creatures date back to the period that followed the Cambrian, the early Ordovician, 488 million to 472 million years ago, meaning these predators lived for 30 million years longer than previously known. “Now we know that they died out much more recently than we thought,” Briggs said.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43.....e-science/

  14. 14
    rhampton7 says:

    Not just plants, but animals like Kimberella have been found before their supposed Cambrian origins. [Note these papers appear after Ediacaran life on land, Gregory J. Retallack, Nature 493, 89–92 (2012)]

    Palaeontology: Fossils come in to land, Shuhai Xiao & L. Paul Knauth, Nature 493, 28–29 (03 January 2013)

    Trace fossil evidence for Ediacaran bilaterian animals with complex behaviors, Zhe Chen, Chuanming Zhou, Mike Meyer, Ke Xiang, James D. Schiffbauer, Xunlai Yuan, Shuhai Xiao, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author Precambrian Research 224, 690-701 (January 2013)

    Reply to comment on “Trace fossil evidence for Ediacaran bilaterian animals with complex behaviors” [Precambrian Research 224 (2013) 690–701], Zhe Chen, Chuanming Zhou, Mike Meyer, Ke Xiang, James D. Schiffbauer, Xunlai Yuan, Shuhai Xiao, Precambrian Research 231, 386-387 (2013)

    Ediacaran matground ecology persisted into the earliest Cambrian, Luis A. Buatois, Guy M. Narbonne, M. Gabriela Mángano, Noelia B. Carmona & Paul Myrow Nature Communications 5, (March 2014)

    Trace Fossils of Precambrian Metazoans “Vendobionta” and “Mollusks”, Andrey Ivantsov, Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation Vol. 21 No. 3, 252–264 (2013)

    Scratch Traces of Large Ediacara Bilaterian Animals, James G. Gehling, Bruce N. Runnegar, and Mary L. Droser, Journal of Paleontology 88(2), 284-298, (March 2014)

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    rhampton7, color me unimpressed. Those papers all appear to be of the ‘seeing faces in the clouds’ wishful speculation variety. ,,,, Moreover, as Meyer pointed out in Darwin’s Doubt, common descent is, in reality, an aside to the main issue. Indeed many here on UD, such as Dr. Torley and gpuccio, support common descent. The main problem for you as a Darwinist is that Atheistic Darwinists have no demonstrated mechanism to account for the huge influx of information required to generate new body plans.

    On Darwin’s Birthday Big Fossil Find Deepens His Dilemma, says New York Times Bestselling Author of Darwin’s Doubt – Feb. 12, 2014
    Excerpt: “Even if one were to take the most generous evolutionary estimate for the length of the Cambrian explosion, it would not allow enough time for natural selection and random mutations to do the job.” All the animals are complex at their first appearance. The first trilobite is 100% trilobite, complete with jointed appendages, eyes, and internal organs. No “pre-trilobites” or “half-trilobites” are found. The same is true for all the other animals discovered there.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/22571

    Storming the Beaches of Norman – Jonathan Wells
    Excerpt: Even if the Cambrian explosion had lasted 40 million years, as Westrop had claimed, there would not have been enough time for unguided processes to produce the enormous amount of specified complexity in the DNA of the animal phyla.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....orman.html

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    https://vimeo.com/91322260

    Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

    Darwin’s Doubt narrated by Paul Giem – The Origin of Body Plans – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?l.....page#t=290

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism – Stephen C. Meyer – April 25, 2014
    Excerpt: in Chapters 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt, I addressed six new (that is, post neo-Darwinian) theories of evolution — theories that proposed new mechanisms to either supplement or replace the reliance upon mutation and natural selection in neo-Darwinian theory.,,
    I show that, although several of these new evolutionary theories offer some intriguing advantages over the orthodox neo-Darwinian model, they too fail to offer adequate explanations for the origin of the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to account for new forms of animal life — such as those that arise in the Cambrian period.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84871.html

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem – video – The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization
    Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to ‘make up’ for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....Ow3u0_mK8t

  17. 17
    rhampton7 says:

    ba77,

    Not sure what #16 has to do with evidence of an undetermined number of phyla originating in the Ediacaran instead of the Cambrian. If, as you say, nature can not evolve new features/ information, then it does not matter how many years were involved. Making the argument that a certain period of time is too short, however, implies that the problem is not with nature’s creative abilities, but its opportunity. Two different arguments.

    But now I’m wondering … does S. Meyer believe that it is hypothetically possible for the Cambrian phlya to evolve naturally if given 10 billion years instead of millions?

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    rhampton7, undirected Darwinian processes are shown to be grossly inadequate towards the generation of ‘classical’ functional information even if the processes are given the entire time the universe has existed to try to generate it. For instance:

    Book Review – Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
    Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren’t chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.
    So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it’s a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume.....k_726.html

    HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_e.....hist12.htm

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....t-collide/

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    Don’t Mess With ID by Paul Giem (Durrett and Schmidt paper)- video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o

    William Lane Craig – If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA

    Quote from preceding video – In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.
    William Lane Craig

    etc.. etc..

    In fact, besides not being able to generate functional information, neo-Darwinian processes are shown to be vastly more likely to destroy existing functional information than to ever generate it anew:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    The reason for the sheer impossibility of material processes to ever generate functional information within the lifetime of the universe is fairly straightforward to understand.,,, Information is transcendent of any material basis!

    “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
    Norbert Weiner – MIT Mathematician -(Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132) Norbert Wiener created the modern field of control and communication systems, utilizing concepts like negative feedback. His seminal 1948 book Cybernetics both defined and named the new field.

    “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
    And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
    In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires.
    Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.”
    -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.

    Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – Stephen Meyer – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

    John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw

    In fact, it is now shown that material reduces to ‘quantum’ information as a Christian Theist would presuppose. and information does not reduce to material as a Atheistic materialist would presuppose:

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    New Breakthrough in (Quantum) Teleportation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xqZI31udJg
    Quote from preceding video:
    “There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe.”

    Of related note, encoded ‘classical’ information such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of conserved ‘non-local’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    Verse and Music:

    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.

    Kutless- Never Too Late (Lyrics)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIKQbqawdF8

  20. 20
    ppolish says:

    Rhampton7, Dr Meyer seems to think 100 trillion years is not enough time for Cambrian Critterdom to arise unguided naturally. I would agree. What comes after trillion, a thousand trillion? Still not enough time. “Darwin’s Doubt” a spectacular book:)

  21. 21
    rhampton7 says:

    Can nature generate 1 new bit of information, and if so, how long would it take?

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    rhampton7, first what do you mean by ‘nature’? That ‘simple’ question by itself has many subtle, but important, nuances that must be worked out so as to answer your question properly. For instance, do you hold that nature is information?:

    “it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    Zeilinger’s principle
    Zeilinger’s principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1]
    http://www.eoht.info/page/Zeilinger%27s+principle

    In the beginning was the bit – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Zeilinger’s principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron’s spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....302101.php

    Is it possible to find the radius of an electron?
    The honest answer would be, nobody knows yet. The current knowledge is that the electron seems to be a ‘point particle’ and has refused to show any signs of internal structure in all measurements. We have an upper limit on the radius of the electron, set by experiment, but that’s about it. By our current knowledge, it is an elementary particle with no internal structure, and thus no ‘size’.
    http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~huyn.....14.cfm.htm

    “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
    Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 – Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis – Eminent Chemist

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    a few more notes:

    John Wheeler (1911–2008) summarizes his life in physics – February 2014
    Excerpt: “I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons.
    I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself.
    Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory.”
    – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-physics/

    Then there is the whole issue of consciousness: i.e. due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    So rhampton7 when you ask ‘Can nature generate 1 new bit of information?’ what exactly do you mean by nature? If you hold to a materialistic view of ‘nature’, I hold your view to be wrong. If you hold to a information theoretic view of ‘nature’, well then ‘nature’ is already quantized into bits of information from the get go and to ask if a bit of information can generate a bit of information is redundant. And if you hold that consciousness is foundational to ‘nature’ like I do, then, of course, consciousness can generate bits of information.

    Then there is the subtle issue of ‘context’,,, but save that issue for later:

    Verse and music:

    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.

    You Are God Alone-Phillips, Craig, & Dean
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xPzTSpbYmk

  23. 23
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    The issue is simple. The improbability of a functional result must always be matched with the probabilistic resources of the system (the number of states which can be physically tested).

    Most biological information is beyond Dembski’s UPB (500 bits), and therefore could not be explained even by 15 billion years of random search in the whole universe. In that sense, “nature” (that is, in this case, a random unguided search) cannot explain it. 10 billion years would not help much. That’s why some materialists recur to the multiverse hypothesis, trying to get infinite probabilistic resources for their poor theory.

    However, it is obvious that a time span restricted to a few million years cuts down the probabilistic resources of the system of many orders of magnitude. Under such constraints, not even 150 bits are remotely achievable. Indeed, most empirical observations support a higher limit for a biological search of, at most, 5 AAs (that is, about 22 bits). Therefore, the identification of a realistic time span for the evolution of important features is definitely relevant to the probabilistic argument.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    gpuccio, I appreciate you trying to help, but I was trying to challenge rhampton7’s basic assumptions about what ‘nature’ is before moving into ‘context dependency’ (which I already answered in part in post 18). ,,, Do you not think that I am capable of answering the question directed towards me in a proper fashion?

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    For instance gpuccio, in challenging rhampton7?s basic assumption about ‘nature’, the ‘assumption’ of space-time itself, which rhampton7 takes for granted, cannot be taken for granted without reference to ‘logical information’ in the first place.

    “It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”
    – Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics)
    Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

    I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

    John1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

    supplemental note:

    Digital Physics Argument for God’s Existence – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

    Digital Physics Argument
    Premise 1: Simulations can only exist is a computer or a mind.
    Premise 2: The universe is a simulation.
    Premise 3: A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind.
    Premise 4: Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3).
    Premise 5: This mind is what we call God.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

  26. 26
    gpuccio says:

    BA:

    I was not trying to help, and I was not answering for you. I found the question interesting, and I offered my thoughts. I believed we were in a free blog.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Well gpuccio, I’m sorry for making it appear as if I was trying to limit your freedom to comment in any way shape or form on this blog (as if I even matter on this blog). I just felt it very important to focus on the assumption hidden within rhampton7’s question before moving on:,,,,, And in regards to moving on

    At the 19:45 minute mark of the following video, the ‘exponential explosion’ that is encountered when trying to account for a functional protein of even a modest sequential length is discussed:

    The Origin of Life – Professor John Walton – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/28

    also of note:

    Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009
    Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9951

    Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute’s Ann Gauger – podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper
    Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger’s paper, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,”.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....4_13-07_00

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

  28. 28
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7 at #21:

    Can nature generate 1 new bit of information, and if so, how long would it take?

    Yes, sure. Indeed, the minimum change at genome level is one nucleotide. That would be 2 bits.

    If we assume a mutation rate of 0.003 mutations per genome per generation for bacteria, and a genome size of 1 Mb, the probability of each nucleotide to mutate at each duplication is 3e-09, and in a small population of 1e+09 bacteria each nucleotide has a probability of mutating, at each generation, of generation, of about 0.80.

    If even one of those mutations can confer some advantage, even in extreme contexts, like antibiotic driven selection, then it will probably be positively selected and expand. That’s what happens in simple antibiotic resistance.

    A “positive” mutation of one nucleotide is not exceptional, and it represents 2 bits of variation.

    Now, try to repeat the reasoning for 150 bits…

  29. 29
    gpuccio says:

    errata corrige:

    each nucleotide has a probability of mutating, at each generation, of about 0.80.

  30. 30
    gpuccio says:

    BA:

    I absolutely agree with those arguments.

  31. 31
    rhampton7 says:

    If 2 bits are easy (how long would it take?), then suppose each parent has 2 new bits, wouldn’t it be possible for a child to inherit 4 new bits without having any mutations itself? Or would those 4 bits be considered ‘old’ because they didn’t originate with the child?

  32. 32
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    No. You just don’t understand the math. Bits of information are not summed. Bits are logarithms.

    Let’s try to explain.

    A function with 2 bits of information is specified by one sequence out of 4. For example, if my functional sequence is 00 (in binary), the probability of finding it by a random search if 1 out of 4 (the search space is made of 4 sequences, 00, 01, 10 and 11, and only 00 is hye fuctional sequence.

    If a function has 4 bits of specific information, the probability of finding it by a random search is 1 out of 16.

    If a function has 20 bits of information, the probability is 1 out of 1048576.

    Five aminoacids correspond to 1 : 3200000 (a little less than 22 bits)

    With 150 bits, the probability is 1 : 1,42725E+45. That corresponds more or less to 35 aminoacids. It is probably just a little less than the total number of atoms in our planet.

    Therefore, if any single functional protein needs 35 specific AAs to be functional, the probability of finding that sequence by a random search will be of the order of 10E+45.

    And so on.

    OK?

  33. 33
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    IOWs, there is no difference if the mutations happen in the two parents and are inherited, or if they happen in a single individual. A specific 4 bits sequence has always 1 probability out of 16 to be found. The only important factors are the probability of the functional sequence and the number of states tested by the system (the probabilistic resources of the system).

    The probability of finding a 35 AAs specific functional sequence will always be of the order of 1 : 10E+45, beyond the probabilistic resources of any natural biological system.

  34. 34
    Mung says:

    News:

    It’s a good thing that most Americans doubt Darwin.

    Most Americans have probably never read Darwin.

  35. 35
    Mung says:

    ppolish:

    Oh great, Rhampton7, now we have two Origin of Lifes – origin of sea life and separate origin of plant life:)

    And Origin of Animal life too. Three origins of life to explain.

    Independent Birth of Organisms. A New Theory that Distinct Organisms Arose Independently from the Primordial Pond, Showing that Evolutionary Theories are Fundamentally Incorrect

  36. 36
    Mung says:

    gpuccio:

    The issue is simple. The improbability of a functional result must always be matched with the probabilistic resources of the system (the number of states which can be physically tested).

    On paper, ribosomal RNA can fold in an almost infinite number of ways (over 10^80), yet only one catalytically active structure is adopted. p.22

    Information Processing at the Cellular Level: Beyond the Dogma

  37. 37
    Mung says:

    gpuccio:

    No. You just don’t understand the math. Bits of information are not summed. Bits are logarithms.

    Sorry mate. Got to call you on this one. It is applying a log that allows them to be summed!

  38. 38
  39. 39
    AVS says:

    Looking at the probability of a specific sequence arising in these ways doesn’t really tell us much. You are assuming that the entire sequence arose at once, basically ignoring the entire biological aspect of the situation. You can do all the work on paper that you want, but in the end it doesn’t really tell us much about how biological molecules actually behave.

  40. 40
    Mung says:

    gpuccio:

    If a function has 4 bits of specific information, the probability of finding it by a random search is 1 out of 16.

    Function schmunction.

    How many questions would you need to ask to find out the state of a system of four coins which can each exist in one of two states, with each state being equiprobable?

    Given that there are sixteen possible states of such a system, does it not require sixteen questions?

    Q1: Is the state HHHH.
    Q2: Is the state TTTT.
    etc.

    If not, why not?

  41. 41
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    You are assuming that the entire sequence arose at once, basically ignoring the entire biological aspect of the situation.

    No, he isn’t.

    If you consider the system I present in my post @ 40, what difference does it make if all four coins are tossed at once or if each coin is tossed individually over time?

  42. 42
    AVS says:

    Again, your example completely ignores the biological aspect of the situation. In the evolution of a coding sequence it is much more complex. A specific sequence doesn’t necessarily need to arise from scratch and evolution does not “search” for specific sequences as it does not have a specific direction.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    AVS you claim we are,,,

    basically ignoring the entire biological aspect of the situation

    Well let’s take a closer look at the ‘biological aspect’ of the situation. From ‘biology’ itself, it is found that the probability of finding a functional protein is sequence space is prohibitive:

    Evolution vs. Functional Proteins – Doug Axe – Video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

    Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....article-in

    Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie – Douglas Axe August 16, 2013
    Excerpt: Poenie want to be free to appeal to evolutionary processes for explaining past events without shouldering any responsibility for demonstrating that these processes actually work in the present. That clearly isn’t valid. Unless we want to rewrite the rules of science, we have to assume that what doesn’t work (now) didn’t work (then).
    It isn’t valid to think that evolution did create new enzymes if it hasn’t been demonstrated that it can create new enzymes. And if Poenie really thinks this has been done, then I’d like to present him with an opportunity to prove it. He says, “Recombination can do all the things that Axe thinks are impossible.” Can it really? Please show me, Martin!
    I’ll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF within a few billion years.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75611.html

    Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script – Cornelius Hunter – March 2012
    Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assume the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ution.html

    Even the lowest end estimate that I have ever seen, which is one in a trillion for a man-made functional protein which was arrived at by a evolutionist, is still very rare:

    Fancy footwork in the sequence space shuffle – 2006
    “Estimates for the density of functional proteins in sequence space range anywhere from 1 in 10^12 to 1 in 10^77. No matter how you slice it, proteins are rare. Useful ones are even more rare.”
    http://www.nature.com/nbt/jour.....6-328.html

    The sheer absurdity of finding a 1 in a trillion functional protein in sequence space is gone over here,,,

    How Proteins Evolved – Cornelius Hunter – December 2010
    Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....olved.html

    The funny thing in all this is that neo-Darwinists imagine that if they can just show the slightest feasibility of a functional protein arising by unguided processes then they have somehow proven that Darwinism is true beyond doubt. That simplistic notion for proof of ‘bottom up’ Darwinism is absurd. Finding a functional protein in sequence space is only the beginning of the problem. Once you have a functional protein then the protein must somehow, much like a sentence in a book,

    Fred Sanger, Protein Sequences and Evolution Versus Science – Are Proteins Random? Cornelius Hunter – November 2013
    Excerpt: Standard tests of randomness show that English text, and protein sequences, are not random.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....s-and.html

    ,,,then the new protein must find its proper place in the cell/book so that it does not disrupt the operation/storyline of the cell/book.,,,, And when the man-made 1 in 10^12 ATP binding protein was tested for its ability to ‘get along’ with all the other proteins in the cell it was found,,,

    A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells – 2009
    Excerpt: “Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division.”
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0007385

    Strange Behavior: New Study Exposes Living Cells to Synthetic Protein – Dec. 27, 2012
    Excerpt: ,,,”ATP is the energy currency of life,” Chaput says. The phosphodiester bonds of ATP contain the energy necessary to drive reactions in living systems, giving up their stored energy when these bonds are chemically cleaved. The depletion of available intracellular ATP by DX binding disrupts normal metabolic activity in the cells, preventing them from dividing, (though they continue to grow).,,,
    In the current study, E. coli cells exposed to DX transitioned into a filamentous form, which can occur naturally when such cells are subject to conditions of stress. The cells display low metabolic activity and limited cell division, presumably owing to their ATP-starved condition.
    The study also examined the ability of E. coli to recover following DX exposure. The cells were found to enter a quiescent state known as viable but non-culturable (VBNC), meaning that they survived ATP sequestration and returned to their non-filamentous state after 48 hours, but lost their reproductive capacity.
    Further, this condition was difficult to reverse and seems to involve a fundamental reprogramming of the cell.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....143001.htm

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus Darwinists have not even demonstrated the origination of a single protein by unguided processes that would contribute to the ‘story of the cell’ instead of harming it:

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe – 2010
    Excerpt Pg. 11: “Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.”
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.1

    Moreover, Darwinists, once faced with this reality, claim that existing functional proteins of one structure/function can easily mutate into other functional proteins, of a completely different structure/function, by unguided processes. Yet once again the empirical evidence betrays the materialist. The proteins that are found in life are shown to be highly constrained in their ability to evolve into other proteins:

    Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
    Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975

    Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
    “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.”
    http://www.princeton.edu/main/...../60/95O56/

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....nt-collide

    Why Proteins Aren’t Easily Recombined, Part 2 – Ann Gauger May 17, 2012
    Excerpt: In other words, even if only 10% of non-matching residues were changed, the resulting hybrid enzyme no longer functioned. Why? Because the substitution of different amino acids into the existing protein structure destabilized the fold, even though those same amino acids worked well in another context. Thus, each protein’s amino acid sequence works as a whole to help generate a proper stable fold, in a context-dependent fashion.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....59771.html

    (A Reply To PZ Myers) Estimating the Probability of Functional Biological Proteins? Kirk Durston , Ph.D. Biophysics – 2012
    Excerpt (Page 4): The Probabilities Get Worse
    This measure of functional information (for the RecA protein) is good as a first pass estimate, but the situation is actually far worse for an evolutionary search. In the method described above and as noted in our paper, each site in an amino acid protein sequence is assumed to be independent of all other sites in the sequence. In reality, we know that this is not the case. There are numerous sites in the sequence that are mutually interdependent with other sites somewhere else in the sequence. A more recent paper shows how these interdependencies can be located within multiple sequence alignments.[6] These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well. In other words, the numbers we obtained for RecA above are exceedingly generous; the actual situation is far worse for an evolutionary search.
    http://powertochange.com/wp-co.....Myers_.pdf

    Of related note, I highly recommend Wiker & Witt’s book “A Meaningful World” in which they show, using the “Methinks it is like a weasel” phrase that Dawkins’ used from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, that the problem is much worse for Darwinists than just finding the “Methinks it is like a weasel” phrase by a blind search, since the “Methinks it is like a weasel” phrase doesn’t makes any sense at all unless the entire play of Hamlet is taken into consideration so as to give the “Weasel” phrase a proper context. Moreover the context in which the phrase finds its meaning is derived from several different levels of the play. i.e. The ENTIRE play, and even the Elizabethan culture, provides meaning for the individual “Weasel” phrase.

    A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature – Book Review
    Excerpt: They focus instead on what “Methinks it is like a weasel” really means. In isolation, in fact, it means almost nothing. Who said it? Why? What does the “it” refer to? What does it reveal about the characters? How does it advance the plot? In the context of the entire play, and of Elizabethan culture, this brief line takes on significance of surprising depth. The whole is required to give meaning to the part.
    http://www.thinkingchristian.n.....821202417/

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Steven Curtis Chapman – Lord of the Dance (Live)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXbvMcMbU0

  45. 45
    AVS says:

    “I’ll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF”
    Like I said, evolution does not have a direction. This study would be pointless.

    If you skim the article you post further, you’ll see they say “Evolution works because functional proteins are not evenly distributed in sequence space. Functional proteins are surrounded by other functional proteins that share the same overall structure. Even though most random amino acid substitutions are deleterious, many are not. Sometimes, a single substitution can improve a protein; accumulating such beneficial mutations over iterative rounds of mutagenesis and selection is an effective evolutionary strategy. Random mutation is only one search mechanism that explores sequence space efficiently.” In fact it goes on and on disproving your claims.

    “If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials.”
    That is exactly what evolution does, thank you BA.

    Your “man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division” does nothing but tell us that the reason this protein hasn’t come about naturally is because it does exactly that: limits reproductive competency.

    You’re losing your touch BA. Let me know when you have something good to say.

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    AVS, Darwinists claim that unguided processes can generate new proteins fairly easily but they/you have no evidence that unguided processes can do what you claim for them. All the evidence we have tells that unguided Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate for the claim being made. Hand-waving, and name-calling, that proteins can be created without Intelligence is not science. It is dogmatism. Moreover, where Darwinian evolution has failed to back up its claim for the generation of new proteins, it has been demonstrated that Intelligence can create proteins:

    Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?”
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093

    Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous effort that went into building the preceding protein:

    Science – Fuz Rana – Unbelievable? Conference 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=8

    Also of note:

    Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses – June 1, 2012
    Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, “to leapfrog over bottlenecks” to improve the activity of the binder.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-c.....ruses.html

    of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here are some examples that intelligence can do as such:

    (Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video
    https://vimeo.com/36880067

    Whether Lab or Cell, (If it’s a molecular machine) It’s Design – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_41-08_00

    Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw

    ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7t2_Ph-ck

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    of note:

    Virus-inspired DNA nanodevices
    https://vimeo.com/91950046

  48. 48
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    Again, your example completely ignores the biological aspect of the situation. In the evolution of a coding sequence it is much more complex.

    And you’re just being obtuse. Or maybe you just don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re arguing that “in the evolution of a coding sequence it is much more complex,” by which you can only mean that’s it’s much more improbable.

    How does that help your case?

    A specific sequence doesn’t necessarily need to arise from scratch and evolution does not “search” for specific sequences as it does not have a specific direction.

    No one is claiming that the sequences just arise from scratch. That’s a straw-man.

    And from the premise that “evolution” does not have a specific direction it does not follow that “search” is inappropriate.

    In fact, evolution does have a specific direction, towards those forms that leave more offspring .

    So what is wrong with describing evolution as a search for those forms which leave more offspring?

    And further, contrary to your misguided claims, evolution does search for specific sequences. It searches for those specific sequences that provide a reproductive advantage.

    No reproductive advantage, no evolution.

    No specific sequence, no reproductive advantage.

    No specific sequence, no evolution.

  49. 49
    gpuccio says:

    Mung:

    Sorry mate. Got to call you on this one. It is applying a log that allows them to be summed!

    OK, that’s correct. I just meant that by summing the logs you are not really summing the real numbers, but multiplying them.

    How many questions would you need to ask to find out the state of a system of four coins which can each exist in one of two states, with each state being equiprobable?

    Given that there are sixteen possible states of such a system, does it not require sixteen questions?

    I am not sure I understand what you mean. I said that the probability to find a functional state which is one out of 16 in one random attempt is 1 : 16. That means that if you generate randomly one of the 16 configurations, and you “ask” if it is the functional one (for example, by testing in some way the function), you have 1 : 16 probabilities to get a success in one attempt.

    I think we are saying the same thing.

    If you are lucky enough, you can find the right configuration in one attempt.

    But, if the configuration is one out of 10^45 (150 bits of functional information), then all the biological attempts available on our planet will never suffice.

    And with 500 bits you have no chance even with all the material attempts available in our universe.

  50. 50
    AVS says:

    Mung, do you not see how terrible your argument is?

    “In fact, evolution does have a specific direction, towards those forms that leave more offspring”
    This is one of the grossest oversimplifications I have ever seen.

    “It searches for those specific sequences that provide a reproductive advantage.”
    Do you not realize how broad the spectrum is of possible sequences that could provide a reproductive advantage?
    And yet in your example you are looking for a single specific sequence.

    You gloss over the biology because you don’t know anything about it.

  51. 51
    gpuccio says:

    AVS:

    You are assuming that the entire sequence arose at once, basically ignoring the entire biological aspect of the situation.

    No, I am not, as Mung kindly already explained.

    As you can see if you really read my posts, I am always referring to all the probabilistic resource of a system, therefore to multiple attempts in the time span. The “entire sequence arising at once” objection is a classical example of how darwinists don’t understand ID.

  52. 52
    gpuccio says:

    AVS:

    You are repeating two other objections which are standard stupid darwinist propaganda.

    a) Evolution has no direction. That is partly true, mostly false. Neutral drift has no direction. And it can do nothing to generate function. Positive NS, if and in the measure that it exists, has one definite direction: reproductive success.

    b) Evolution (NS) can find “any possible function”. Your: “Do you not realize how broad the spectrum is of possible sequences that could provide a reproductive advantage?”.

    Stupid and false. In a complex system, only a few changes will give reproductive advantage, and they are mostly complex changes, which add complex functionality to an existing very complex system. Simple variations in a complex system are almost always neutral or deleterious (as well known by neutralists). The few known cases of microevolution are the only examples of simple variations which confer some reproductive advantages, and they almost always happen with some loss of the original complex function, and under extreme environmental selection (see the case of simple antibiotic resistance).

  53. 53
    AVS says:

    For some reason nobody seems to understand ID except you guys. Maybe it’s because it doesn’t make any sense at all. You guys love pulling out these astronomical numbers and saying “it’s impossible!” with absolutely no regard for the actual biology behind what you are talking about.

  54. 54
    AVS says:

    Yes poochy, lets here it, everything I say is stupid, stupid, stupid darwinist propaganda and everything you say about biology is true.

    “only a few changes will give reproductive advantage”
    Really? that’s all I needed to hear.
    You’re clueless.

  55. 55
    AVS says:

    Alright ladies, it’s been fun once again, but this is just too addicting.
    I can’t wait to read about you guys and all the work you’re doing to falsify evolution. You guys have so much evidence backing up your claims that it should be any day now right?

    Oh wait, no, that my side of the argument that has all the evidence.
    Oh well, maybe next time guys.
    Enjoy “teaching” the scientifically illiterate about “evolution,” unfortunately for you the only thing that does is bolster your ranks with more and more of the scientifically illiterate.
    Sayonara! <3

  56. 56
    gpuccio says:

    AVS:

    everything I say is stupid

    Not everything. But a lot of it.

    Sayonara!

    Ciao, e buona fortuna.

  57. 57
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7 (if you are still there):

    I think a practical example is the best way to explain what functional complexity is.

    Let’s take ATP synthase, a very old, very important molecule. The foundation of cell metabolism, in a sense (it stores energy in the for of ATP).

    Let’s take subunit alpha of that molecule in humans. It’s 553 aminoacids long. And it is only a subunit .of the whole molecule.

    Well, that is a molecule that has been around for billions of years, probably from the times very near to OOL.

    If we BLAST it against the genome of bacteria, what do we find?

    I have done it for E. coli.

    The result is really amazing. The rtwo molecules, human and bacterial, share 290 identical aminoacids! The whole result is 57% identities, 72% positives.

    Therefore, even if we just stick to those 290 aminoacids which are identical, what can we say? However you want to look at it, one conclusion is inevitable: those 290 AAs are really necessary for the protein function. They must be what they are. No neutral mutations, with or without drift, have been able to change them in billion of years.

    Do you know which is the probability of finding a specific sequence of 290 AAs, without any possible change?

    About 1 : 10^377.

    Any comments, anyone?

  58. 58
    rhampton7 says:

    gpuccio,

    A few thoughts come to mind. First, a 500 bit threshold could be met by having 250 individual 2 bit mutations. I presume it would take several generations to accumulate those 250 mutations, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem unless some portion of them are no longer considered ‘new’ (as I alluded to before). And that brings me to me second thought, when does a new bit of information become old?

    Third, amino acids have been found in space, and have formed complex dipeptides within the simulated conditions of space. But I understood your point to be that proteins (many, most, all?) exceed the 500 bit threshold and therefore could not naturally originate without intelligent intervention. Therefore proteins are the direct result of an intelligent agent. Is that a fair assessment?

  59. 59
    Mung says:

    gpuccio:

    The “entire sequence arising at once” objection is a classical example of how darwinists don’t understand ID.

    I think it’s a classic example of how they don’t understand biology!

  60. 60
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    The answers:

    a) A 500 bit threshold means that a specific function needs at least 500 bits of sequence information to be implemented and to work. “250 individual 2 bit mutations” should be the exact 250 individual 2 bit mutations. There is a 2e-500 probability of getting that exact result in a random system, and that is beyond the probabilistic resources of the whole universe. So yes, it is a problem.

    b)New and old does not refer to the individual bits, but to the whole function. The new function must be there to be fixed and therefore to become a permanent part of the genome. To be there, it needs at least those exact 500 bits of information, which cannot arise in a random system because the functional space is too small compared to the search space. Your bits can be as new or as old as you like, but if you have not the exact 500 bits (new or old), the new function is simply not there.

    c) Yes, my point is that many proteins exceed the 500 bit threshold (universal probability bound for the whole universe), and therefore could not naturally originate without intelligent intervention.

    And most proteins (30 out of 35 protein families in Durston’s paper) exceed the 150 bit threshold (my proposed biological probability bound for our planet), and therefore could not naturally originate on our planet without intelligent intervention.

    And practically all proteins (exceed the 22 bit threshold (empirical biological probability bound derived from Axe’s work), and therefore could not reasonably naturally originate without intelligent intervention.

    You choose the statement you like most.

    d) You ask: “Therefore proteins are the direct result of an intelligent agent. Is that a fair assessment?”

    Yes.

    To be more precise, the functional information in them is “the direct result” of the design intervention “of an intelligent agent”

  61. 61
    rhampton7 says:

    Not sure what you meant in a). I understand the argument for one feature that requires 500 bits of information, but not for 250 individual 2 bit mutations. For example, I presume there is more than 500 bits of information that differentiate lions from tigers, of that differentiate the subspecies of Siberian from Malayan tigers. Yet I would think that ID theory does not object to a natural origin in either case.

    If I understand b) correctly, then an existing 2 bit function that mutated to become a new 4 bit function would count as 4 new bits, not 2 old and 2 new. So the proper identification and documentation of any new functionality, going forward, would require comparing the a genome of a parent and child, and then its child, and so forth. Tracking the code changes seems easy enough (given the technical resources), but what about functionality? If DNA is mostly not junk (that is, mostly functional) then most of those mutations would be functional, yes?

    As for c), the 22 bit threshold seems dubious as I would think chemistry alone could generate molecules as complex.

  62. 62
    rhampton7 says:

    I had an idea and I wonder if you would indulge me. Do you think you could produce a table showing the number of bits in a function and the expected time to develop and/or number of incidence to occur within a 13 billion year span?

    Something like:
    Bits per Function | Time to Appear (yrs OR generations) | Events per Universe
    ——————————————————————–
    2 … 1 year (1 generation) … 13,000 million events
    3 … 10 yrs (10 gen) ……… 1,300 million events
    4 … 100 yrs (100 gen) ……. 130 million events
    (numbers are not representative of actual values – for display only)

    Does this make sense?

  63. 63
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    If a function has 500 bits of functional information, than you need those 500 bits for the function to exist.

    “250 individual 2 bit mutations” are the same as 500 bits. Obviously, you need the correct 250 mutations in the same individual, to generate the 500 bit function. The probability is the same. It is not important if the mutations happen in one day or in one million years, the only important facts are the probability of the outcome and the probabilistic resources (how many states are tested by the system). I don’t understand your problem.

    A single 2 bit mutation which generates a naturally selectable function can be expanded and fixed. So, if you are saying that 250 individual mutations, each naturally selectable and selected, can happen sequencially, you are right. The simple problem is that no 500 bit function can be deconstructed into 250 2 bit steps, each of them naturally selectable. Indeed, no selectable precursors are known for protein superfamilies. That’s why my reasoning is about the potentialities of a random system, which are nil. The contribution of NS is nil too, and has never be demonstrated. And never will be.

    Single mutations can sometimes be functional, but they do not lead to a functional complex sequence. IOWs, by mutation single bits you can sometimes get some simple advantage (very rarely), but you will never get a new software with new procedures and complex new code.

    In the same way, by mutating single letters in a shopping list you will never get a Shakespeare poem.

    More in next post.

  64. 64
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    If a function has 500 bits of functional information, than you need those 500 bits for the function to exist.

    “250 individual 2 bit mutations” are the same as 500 bits. Obviously, you need the correct 250 mutations in the same individual, to generate the 500 bit function. The probability is the same. It is not important if the mutations happen in one day or in one million years, the only important facts are the probability of the outcome and the probabilistic resources (how many states are tested by the system). I don’t understand your problem.

    A single 2 bit mutation which generates a naturally selectable function can be expanded and fixed. So, if you are saying that 250 individual mutations, each naturally selectable and selected, can happen sequencially, you are right. The simple problem is that no 500 bit function can be deconstructed into 250 2 bit steps, each of them naturally selectable. Indeed, no selectable precursors are known for protein superfamilies. That’s why my reasoning is about the potentialities of a random system, which are nil. The contribution of NS is nil too, and has never be demonstrated. And never will be.

    Single mutations can sometimes be functional, but they do not lead to a functional complex sequence. IOWs, by mutation single bits you can sometimes get some simple advantage (very rarely), but you will never get a new software with new procedures and complex new code.

    In the same way, by mutating single letters in a shopping list you will never get a Shakespeare poem.

    More in next post.

  65. 65
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    I copy here an example from a recent post of mine in another thread. I was answering a question by VJ Torley which was in part similar to yours.

    “There is no problem about the simultaneous or sequential appearance of new proteins.

    Just follow me a little bit.

    a) “Simultaneous” obviously does not mean “in one attempt”. What we have to consider is the whole system, which is made of:

    a1) a population size (a number of replicators)

    a2) a mean replication time

    a3) a time span (the time available for the new “species”, or whatever, to appear), IOWs for the transition from A (the precursor) to B (the new thing)

    a4) a mutation rate

    a5) the number of new proteins that characterizes the new state (B) versus A

    a6) the probability for each new protein to arise in a random system, in one attempt

    b) Given those numbers, we can make a few easy computations

    c) I will assume an extremely generous model.

    c1) Out population is the whole prokaryotic population on our planet. I will estimate it at 5*10^30 individuals (I have found that on the internet)

    c2) I assume a mean replication time of one division every 30 minutes

    c3) I assume a time span of 4 billion years (2.1*10^15 minutes)

    c4) I assume a mutation rate of 0.003 mutations per genome per generation (from internet, again)

    c5) I assume that B is characterized, versus A, by 3 new proteins, completely unrelated at sequence level with all the proteins in A, and unrelated one with the others

    c6) I assume the same functional complexity for each of the 3 proteins, of 357 bits (Fits), which is the median value for the 35 protein families evaluated in Durston’s paper.

    Multiplying c1 by c2 by c3 by c4, we get the total number of possible mutations in our system in the time span of 4 billion years. The result, with those numbers, is 1.0512*10^42. That is a higher threshold for the total number of individual new states that can be reached in our system in the time span (if each mutation gives a new state).

    OK?

    Now, each of our 3 functional proteins has a probability of 1:2^357 of being found in one attempt (one new state tested). That is 1:(3.4*10^108).

    Now, using the binomial distribution, it is easy to compute the probability of having 3 successful results in 1.0512*10^42 attempts, when the probability of success in one attempt is 1:(3.4*10^108).

    The result is: 5.568067e-264

    That is the probability of finding our 3 new functional proteins in our system, in all the time span, with all the reproductions and mutations possible in that system.

    Obviously, I am considering the system as random, with uniform probability distribution. I am not considering any intervention of NS, in any sense, so this is a computation for the powers of neutral variation.

    As already said, genetic drift is irrelevant in that reasoning, because we are already considering all the possible states that can be reached in the system.

    I am fully available to discuss any aspect of this model.”

    More in next post.

  66. 66
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    So, as you can see from the previous post, I have grossly calculated the total number of possible mutations (states) in a maximal bacterial system on our planet in 4 billion years.

    The result? 10^42. And that is very generous. It means 140 bits. Those are the maximum biological probabilistical resources of our planet.

    That’s why I have suggested 150 bits as a reasonable biological probability bound for our planet. That means that any protein with more than that level of functional information has no real chance to emerge by random variation in 4 billion years on our earth.

    Now, let’s go to another example I have recently given. ATP synthase.

    That is a very old and very important complex protein which is in all living cells, and appears in LUCA, more or less at the origin of life.

    Its subunit beta is about 500 AAs long.

    Now, let’s compare the sequence in E. coli (a prokaryote) and in humans. Very distant species, reasonably separated by a very old divergence.

    a) ATP synthase subunit beta E. Coli: 460 aminoacids

    b) ATP synthase subunit beta Human: 529 aminoacids

    Alignment (BLASTP):

    Score Expect Identities Positives
    660 bits(1703) 0.0 334/466(72%) 382/466(81%)

    Now, let’s consider only the identities, for the moment.

    334 aminoacids are identical. Absolutely conserved.

    Now, each AA completely conserved corresponds to 4.32 bits of functional information. Therefore, the minimal functional information in this molecule is 1443 bits.

    1443. Without considering the functional information in the AAs which are only “similar”.

    For one subunit of one fundamental, very old molecule.

    500 bits of functional information is the Dembski’s UPB. That is the number of different quantum states which took place in out universe from the big bang to now.

    Here, we have 1443 bits at least for one subunit of a protein.

    How many universes do you think we need to get that sequence in a random way?

    About 10^283 universes. At least.

    Isn’t that funny?

  67. 67
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    By the way, 22 bits is not “dubious”. It is an empirical threshold (again, very generous) for what is really onserved.

    Behe sets the edge of evolution at 2-3 coordinated aminoacid mutations. Axe is a little bit more generous. I have taken 5 aminoacids (22 bits).

    Almost all cases of microevolution observed are 1 aminoacid. A few may be 2 (see Behe). Some functional tweaking in an existing active site could in principle happen with 3, 4 AA variation by chance (but that is not really proved). Nothing observed suggests anything more complex.

  68. 68
    rhampton7 says:

    Almost all cases of microevolution observed are 1 aminoacid

    Do you mean to say that the difference between species or subspecies is one 1, perhaps 2, amino acids? If we were to compare the genomes between tigers and lions, for example, would we really only find a difference of a few amino acids?

    Also, are you saying that there can be no more than a total of 500 new bits of information (to have formed without intelligent intervention) in all the genomes of all the creatures that ever lived. Surely that can’t be right.

    As for the table, I really do hope you make an attempt. I take it that your probabilities for bits works by factors of two (you made a comment about 4bits being a 1 in 16 event)

    2 bits … 1 in 4
    3 bits … 1 in 8
    4 bits … 1 in 16
    5 bits … 1 in 32
    6 bits … 1 in 64

    And I presume the 4, 8, 16 represent individual organisms. For example, we would expect to find a new four bit function in only 1 of 16 humans, tigers, bacteria, etc.

  69. 69
    rhampton7 says:

    Incidentally, I just found this:
    The tiger genome and comparative analysis with lion and snow leopard genomes, Nature Communications 4, (September 2013)

  70. 70
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    Do you mean to say that the difference between species or subspecies is one 1, perhaps 2, amino acids?

    No, my statement has nothing to do with comparing the genomes. It refers to observed cases of microevolution, like antibiotic resistance. We don’t know the mechanisms of speciation. In most cases, speciation is certainly macroevolution.

    Also, are you saying that there can be no more than a total of 500 new bits of information (to have formed without intelligent intervention) in all the genomes of all the creatures that ever lived. Surely that can’t be right.

    I am saying that no function with more than 500 bits of functional information can ever originate without a design intervention. Believe it or not, that is the truth. No example falsifying that has ever been observed.

    And I presume the 4, 8, 16 represent individual organisms. For example, we would expect to find a new four bit function in only 1 of 16 humans, tigers, bacteria, etc.

    No, you are confused. The numbers represent the ratio between the number of sequences exhibiting the defined function and the number of possible sequences of the same length (the target space/search space ratio). That is the probability of finding the functional sequence by a random search/walk in one attempt.

    For example, the probability of getting the subunit beta of ATP synthase with its constrained 334 aminoacids is, as I have said, 1: 2^-1443. IOWs, you should perform a number of attempts in generating new random sequences of the order of that number (2^1443), if you want to have realistic probabilites to find that functional sequence.

  71. 71
    rhampton7 says:

    I am saying that no function with more than 500 bits of functional information can ever originate without a design intervention. Believe it or not, that is the truth. No example falsifying that has ever been observed.

    I do believe you, but my questions have to do with much smaller functional elements (2 bit changes). To put this in context, it was reported that:

    Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

    Now, if we assume that most of bits in DNA are not junk, then most of these mutations ought to be functional. Otherwise the amount of junk would accumulate along with the number of mutations.

    To make things simple, lets works with 100 mutations per generation, 51 of which are functional (be it as one 51 bit functional unit or many smaller units in aggregate). How does this stack up to your assessment of probabilities – natural origin or intelligent intervention?

    In any case, it would seem that functional mutations of at least 2 bits are “a dime a dozen” so to speak. And again, because these mutations accumulate, I should think it not unreasonable that one or more mutations could (and do) combine into a new and unique functional unit.

  72. 72
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    No. Random variation is mostly neutral, that is well known.

    So, your 100 mutations will be mostly neutral, if they are really random.

    Neutral mutations can happen in functional sequences. How many of them can happen in a functional sequence depends on the type of functional sequence. Some proteins, like ATP synthase, seem to tolerate only minimal neutral variation through the ages. Other proteins are much more robust to neutral variation. We don’t know how tolerant of neutral variation are the different forms of functional non coding DNA.

    The remaining random mutations are usually deleterious, and many of them are eliminated by negative (purifying) selection. That’s why they mostly disappear, and are not fixed, not even by drift.

    What about positive mutations? IN a random system, they are exceedingly rare, almost non existent. And they are always simple. The only observed ones are those cases of 1 – 2 aminoacid variation which confer some advantage under extreme pressure in the known cases of microevolution (antibiotic resistance, and similar). All other forms of naturally selectable positive mutations exist only in one place: the rich imagination of darwinists.

    But the, what about the observed positive variation? What about new proteins that appear, non coding sequences which become functional, new body plans and regulatory networks in new species, and so on?

    The answer is simple: that is designed variation. It is not random variation, neither neutral nor deleterious nor positive random variation. It is the obvious product of design.

    However, to answer you last question:

    To make things simple, lets works with 100 mutations per generation, 51 of which are functional (be it as one 51 bit functional unit or many smaller units in aggregate). How does this stack up to your assessment of probabilities – natural origin or intelligent intervention?

    In any case, it would seem that functional mutations of at least 2 bits are “a dime a dozen” so to speak. And again, because these mutations accumulate, I should think it not unreasonable that one or more mutations could (and do) combine into a new and unique functional unit.

    No. As already said, in you 100 mutations lot there would be no functional mutations, they would probably be 99 neutral and 1 deleterious.

    But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is 1 functional 2 bit mutation in 10^12 mutations in, say, 100 years (a much more realistic, and still very generous, scenario).

    I think that your arguments is: then in one million years I will have 1000 one bit functional mutations which could “combine into a new and unique functional unit”, let’s say of 2000 bits of functional complexity.

    Absolutely not! That shows that you have not understood the nature of functional complexity.

    Those 1000 functional mutations, each of 2 bits complexity, are mutations which confer advantage in 1000 different ways and contexts. They are not related the one with the other. Even if the single mutation is functional in some way, the sequence of 1000 mutations has the same probability of being functional, in the sense of generating a new complex sequence, as any other sequence of 1000 variated bits.

    IOWs, functionality is relative to the function. It does not simply “accumulate”. Obviously not!

    Let’s say that you have 1000 english words. Let’s say that, with some algorithm, and using some intelligent information (like an english dictionary) you introduce random one letter mutations in each word until you get another correct english word. That’s all your algorithm can do. And it is the equivalent of getting 1000 “functional” simple mutations in a genome. Not easy, but possible. How many are the probabilities that those 1000 mutated words form a Shakespeare poem?

    Would those 1000 mutations represent 4000 bits of new functional information? (I am assuming here 4 bits for each letter, which is a little bit underestimated). Absolutely not! A Shakespeare poem, made with those 1000 words, would represent new complex functional information. You will never get it from your algorithm.

    2000 bits of functional information means one single sequence with one specific function which cannot exist unless there are at least 2000 specific bits in that sequence, which can be only in that configuration.

    It does not mean 1000 single functional variations of 2 bits, for 1000 different functions.

    I will also make the calculation for you, to show the difference.

    Let’s say, to simplify, that in a system we have a one bit mutations, and a probability of 1:10^6 that a single mutation (one attempt) generates an advantage. To have 100 positive mutations in that system, how many attempts (mutations) do we need?

    Applying the binomial distribution, the answer is:

    a) with 10^8 attempts, you have a probability of 0.4734378 of getting at least that number of positive individual mutations.

    Perfectly reasonable.

    Now, let’s go to the “combination”. What is the probability, in that system, of getting a single exact sequence of just 100 one bit mutations which has a specific new function, for which those exact 100 mutations are necessary? Now, the probability of the event is 1: 2^100, that is 1:1.26765e+30.
    Again, we apply the binomial distribution:

    b) Now, the probabilities of getting that event are so low, with 10^8 attempts, that my software (R) gives 0 as an answer. If we increase the number of attempts, you need 10^30 attempts (mutations) to have a probability of 0.3616739 of getting at least one positive outcome.

    Not so reasonable any more.

    Can you see the difference?

  73. 73
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    Errata corrige:

    The first probability should be 0.5132988, not 0.4734378

    The second probability should be 0.7185076, not 0.3616739.

    My mistake. Nothing changes in the reasoning.

  74. 74
    rhampton7 says:

    Thank you for being patient and responding to my questions. I think I understand your position better.

    Thinking things through last night I think I see the obstacle that prevents us from ultimately agreeing. Behe described the scenario of an “uberphysicist” selecting a universe with one specific history (an act of design) without requiring interference.

    After the first decisive moment the carefully chosen universe undergoes “natural development by laws implanted in it.” In that universe, life evolves by common descent and a long series of mutations, but many aren’t random. There are myriad Powerball–winning events, but they aren’t due to chance. They were foreseen, and chosen from all the possible universes.

    The point you are making about evidence for design still holds true, but natural processes (mutations, et. al.) are proximally responsible for “new” information to any observer within the universe, although ultimate causation is still attributable to God.

    So if we were lucky enough to be in the lab with all kinds of sensors running and happened to witness a new function being “created”, it would do so by physical processes like mutations. And this is the point I am making. Objectively, the scientific description of the mechanics involved is entirely correct, not so the metaphysical assumption of being unguided.

  75. 75
    gpuccio says:

    rhampton7:

    Thank you for your patience too. I think you sum up our differences fairly.

    You see, I don’t agree with that specific statements by Behe (indeed, I have many times criticized that specific part of TEOE, which is IMO too similar to a “theistic evolution” position, a position which I fully reject).

    You are perfectly right that if we witnessed in a lab a new function being generated in a living being, “it would do so by physical processes like mutations”. I have never thought that design requires any violation of physical laws.

    But it is not true that the simple inference that we are observing a guided process would be “metaphysical”, whatever it means. Not at all. Not any more than the inference, if we see a person writing a poem, or if we just find a poem, that the physical process is being guided, or has been guided, by a conscious being.

    ID is exactly about that: the inference of design intervention from conscious intelligent beings, in this world, with its physical laws. Is that metaphysical? I leave it to you (the word really means little for me).

    If it is metaphysical for the poem, it is metaphysical for biological information too.

    But I will not try to explain the poem by the physical processes which are “proximally responsible” for its writing, alone.

Leave a Reply