Genetics Intelligent Design

Can quantum mechanics explain spontaneous mutation of DNA?

Spread the love

Despite otherwise “astounding precision”?

The molecules of life, DNA, replicate with astounding precision, yet this process is not immune to mistakes and can lead to mutations. Using sophisticated computer modelling, a team of physicists and chemists at the University of Surrey have shown that such errors in copying can arise due to the strange rules of the quantum world.

The two strands of the famous DNA double helix are linked together by subatomic particles called protons – the nuclei of atoms of hydrogen – which provide the glue that bonds molecules called bases together. These so-called hydrogen bonds are like the rungs of a twisted ladder that makes up the double helix structure discovered in 1952 by James Watson and Francis Crick based on the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins.

Normally, these DNA bases (called A, C, T and G) follow strict rules on how they bond together: A always bonds to T and C always to G. This strict pairing is determined by the molecules’ shape, fitting them together like pieces in a jigsaw, but if the nature of the hydrogen bonds changes slightly, this can cause the pairing rule to break down, leading to the wrong bases being linked and hence a mutation. Although predicted by Crick and Watson, it is only now that sophisticated computational modelling has been able to quantify the process accurately.

University of Surrey, “Quantum mechanics could explain why DNA can spontaneously mutate” at Eurekalert (May 5, 2022)

The paper is open access.

72 Replies to “Can quantum mechanics explain spontaneous mutation of DNA?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    A theory that works only when the tenured Scientist is present can explain anything the tenured Scientist wants it to explain.

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    The molecules of life, DNA, replicate with astounding precision,

    as to astounding DNA replication precision

    Darwinists claim, that DNA replication process is astounding precise. Yet, they BELIEVE, that DNA replication errors created millions if not billions of species on this planet.

    COPYING ERRORS created MILLIONS OF PERFECTLY WORKING SPECIES :))))))))

    So how perverted a Darwinian scientist has to be to claim such absurd things ?

    Seriously, what is wrong with these people (Darwinists) ?

  3. 3
    chuckdarwin says:

    A more useful question would be can QM explain the stock market………

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    I’m sure a lot of people in Wall Street have asked the same question. I wonder what the stock answer is?

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: COPYING ERRORS created MILLIONS OF PERFECTLY WORKING SPECIES :))))))))

    So how perverted a Darwinian scientist has to be to claim such absurd things ?

    Copying errors created genetic variations which translated to physiological variations some of which were better able to survive and exploit the local environment and resources. A lot of the variation generated died out and left no offspring; it’s a wasteful process.

    No one says any of the species were ‘perfectly working’. All the ones that left offspring were well-enough adapted to their environment to leave offspring. The ones with the most offspring(s) had the greatest influence.

    It’s not an engineering problem. It’s a trial-and-error scenario.

  6. 6
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Copying errors created genetic variations which translated to physiological variations

    :))) Yep and you have no logical explanations. Isn’t it wonderful that smart people blunder like toddlers.

  7. 7
    Fred Hickson says:

    LCD

    Yep and you have no logical explanations. Isn’t it wonderful that smart people blunder like toddlers.

    That’s false. JVL gave a reasonable summary of the two core porcesses of evolution: random variation and non-random selection. I don’t believe anyone in the ID fold has yet proposed an alternative hypothesis. Can you?

  8. 8
    martin_r says:

    JVL, Hickson and Co.

    you don’t get it… ( i discussed this issue before, nobody seems to understand what i mean, perhaps it is because English is not my first language. So please let me know if you don’t understand my English or what’s the problem … )

    Darwinism claims, that copying errors created millions of perfectly working species … because, what we see today, plus, what we can see in fossil record, are ONLY perfectly working and fully developed species … we don’t see any faulty species …

    SO PLEASE SHOW ME, WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES … YOU SAID, ONLY THE ‘GOOD DESIGN’ HAS BEEN SELECTED, I AM OK WITH THAT, BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW ME THE FAULTY SPECIES AS WELL. HAD TO BE MILLIONES OF THEM IF NOT BILLIONS (in fossil record).

    SHOW ME ONE.

  9. 9
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Martin

    i discussed this issue before, nobody seems to understand what i mean

    Your English is fine. They know exactly what you mean.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    And in another post, I provided the following information. Random mutation and natural selection is a lousy explanation for genetic change! It is used by Darwinists to rationalize all new discoveries, but has never made a successful prediction, but tons of wrong ones including so-called “vestigial” organs and “junk DNA.”

    According to his book, Evolution 2.0, Perry Marshall claims there are five, maybe six ways that a genome can change. The weakest one is random mutation.

    1. Transposition
    2. Horizontal gene transfer
    3. Epigenetics
    4. Symbiogenesis
    5. Genome duplication
    6. Random mutation (maybe rarely)

    He’s offered a $10,000,000 US prize to anyone who can replicate cellular evolution. Details here:
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

    This would also be a good book to bone up on rather than just blather on about random mutations and impossible rates of change hidden beneath an impenetrable cloak of millions of years originating from the age of wooden ships that’s been used (and in some cases, still used) to justify European colonialism, African slavery, eugenics, and genocide of indigenous peoples.

    -Q

  11. 11
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Martin_r
    SO PLEASE SHOW ME, WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES …

    🙂 The faulty species haven’t been caught in Flood, they managed to escape with an Alien Ship. The “evolutionists” have no clue about basics of genetics it’s just a bluff .

  12. 12
    marker says:

    FH,

    This is an unproven fiction. As you know, most mutations are neutral or harmful. Next, to be passed on, the mutation must exist in the appropriate genetic material. A working eye, for example, cannot exist by itself. Aside from the eyeball, there needs to be an optic nerve which connects to the right part of the brain to decode the incoming information. The rods and cones in the eye just happened to appear one day? More wishful thinking. In the human head, the eyes “knew” how to separate precisely at the right distance apart in the skull, which also somehow invented eye sockets, to allow for stereoscopic vision?

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Marker @12,
    I think everyone is busy responding to each other regarding the Supreme Court and abortion.

    But to your point, apparently the chemical cycles converting light into electrical pulses to the brain is also incredibly complex.

    If eyesight were so simple, then millions of blind people would certainly want their eyesight restored by means of retinal transplants. But apparently that’s not so easy either despite how this is waved off as trivial by the Darwin crowd:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12885930/

    -Q

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    Also note that the interocular distance can vary between people and animals.

    When I was a teenager, I once cobbled together an optical rangefinder in a long tube with four mirrors, two on each side. My intended result was to make my eyes effectively wider apart for enhanced stereoscopic vision.

    It “sort of” worked, but I had to make a lot of very small adjustments, which never were quite good enough to lock both eyes together. This same problem occurs after strabismus surgery if not performed during the time that the brain is still able to lock in small adjustments. Also, some adults use prismatic lenses to compensate for slightly misaligned eyes or eye-muscle tension.

    Here’s what I had in mind:

    https://www.navalgazing.net/Rangefinding

    Incidentally, our stereoscopic vision is much more limited than what you might think. We use other visual cues to determine differences in distant objects.

    -Q

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    I don’t believe anyone in the ID fold has yet proposed an alternative hypothesis.

    Again, your ignorance is not an argument. Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolutionary hypothesis” was published in 1997. Only 25 years ago.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Evolutionists would have us believe that all literature arose from one book via a differential accumulations of copying errors.

  17. 17
    marker says:

    Again, starting with an analogy, a bicycle cannot mutate into a motorcycle which then mutates into a car. Increasing complexity is not about isolated parts. All of the parts have to work together, quickly and accurately. There needs to be support parts in place. Having an ear does not assume anything else. But a close examination reveals small bones and very small ‘hairs’ and a means to interpret the information coming in. Random mutations are not goal oriented.

    Back to eyes. Birds have them on each side of the head but their brains interpret the information coming in correctly. No accidents and no randomness.

  18. 18
    Querius says:

    ET @15,
    On the contrary, ignorance is an impenetrable shield! (wink)

    Marker @17,
    Nicely stated! To “ratchet up” information content requires the equivalent of a Maxwell’s demon. I believe that this device has also been falsified WRT information.

    -Q

  19. 19
    Fred Hickson says:

    Hmm.

    Odd responses to “what is the ID explanation”. ET refers me to a 25 year old idea by Lee Spetner that doesn’t seem to have got into the mainstream. How does that work?

    Everyone else, deflect to “evolution sucks”. Color me unimpressed though ET might have something with Spetner.

    Let’s see.

  20. 20
    Fred Hickson says:

    Spetner’s latest book “The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People are Rethinking Evolution” develops his nonrandom hypothesis (NREH) and was published in 2014 by Judaica Press.

    (Wikipedia)

    Non-random? That’s selection! 😉

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Wow. Natural selection is a process of elimination. It is non-random in a trivial sense in that not all variants have the same chance of being eliminated. Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity. Loss of function can even increase the odds of survival. Clearly you don’t understand the concept of natural selection.

    And the non-random evolutionary hypothesis is not natural selection. But you, being ignorant of both concepts, could easily confuse them.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    ET refers me to a 25 year old idea by Lee Spetner that doesn’t seem to have got into the mainstream. How does that work?

    How does it work that mainstream doesn’t even know what determines biological form? How does it work that mainstream can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution? And how does it work that after all your socks, you are still a willfully ignorant troll and equivocating coward?

    Everyone else, deflect to “evolution sucks”.

    Wow. Intelligent Design isn’t anti-evolution.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    JVL gave a reasonable summary of the two core porcesses of evolution: random variation and non-random selection.

    Elimination. Non-random ELIMINATION. And no one can say, specifically, what gets varied. So, it remains untestable nonsense. But we understand how the simple-minded are easily fooled by it.

  24. 24
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson,

    What about the Evolution 2.0 mechanisms? From another post . . .

    According to his book, Evolution 2.0, Perry Marshall claims there are five, maybe six ways that a genome can change. The weakest one is random mutation.

    1. Transposition
    2. Horizontal gene transfer
    3. Epigenetics
    4. Symbiogenesis
    5. Genome duplication
    6. Random mutation (maybe rarely)

    He’s offered a $10,000,000 US prize to anyone who can replicate cellular evolution. Details here:
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

    According to Evolution 2.0, the first five mechanisms listed above are far more efficient and probable (as a fine-tuning mechanism at the best in my opinion) than RANDOM mutations producing anything both mildly complex AND useful in a series of tiny increments.

    Also, natural selection happens AFTER a series of random mutations and the change must appear multiple times in a population before the change becomes fixed.

    Let’s say a duck somehow randomly mutates a feathery propeller that allows it to fly faster and farther on the same amount of energy. A lucky duck. However, the first such duck gets run over by a pickup, and many centuries later, the second one with the same mutation loses control and flies into the side of a barn, and after many more centuries pass, several others can’t attract mates. The eventual offspring will face the same obstacles. However, the number of “propeller ducks” must reach a critical number in the population. Also note that the rate of change in DNA to produce the number of changes required for a feathery propeller is limited (surprisingly small) as described by Haldane’s dilemma.

    The $10,000,000 prize is still available after almost seven years.

    -Q

  25. 25
    Sandy says:

    🙂 There is nothing random in cell/organisms because wherever exist a programming language the very reason of its presence is to fight randomness not to produce more randomness. On the other hand to produce variability you need a very stable and reliable machine to do that. A postal van do nothing random but obey very strict instructions. That car stoped at a certain address not by chance or randomnly even an uninformed by-stander (that have no clue what is the purpose of a mail van neither the specific letter/parcel to be delivered )could think that.

  26. 26
    martin_r says:

    Dear friends… i see lots of arguments about natural selection … what was selected, what was not and so on … does it even matter ?

    @8 … i put a simple question:

    WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES ?

  27. 27
    Querius says:

    Martin_r @26,

    WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES ?

    Reminds me of a fictional conversation between an artist and a critic:

    C: And what do we have here?
    A: This is a fabulous painting of a cow eating grass.
    C: Where’s the grass?
    A: The cow has eaten it.
    C: Where’s the cow?
    A: Why would the cow stick around after eating all the grass?

    So, in this case, all the faulty species and links between the successful ones were eaten and did not survive in large numbers to have enough preserved in the “fossil record” to be discovered by paleontologists. But, starting with Charles Darwin, we have their sincere assurances that they will someday be found.

    -Q

  28. 28
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius asks

    What about the Evolution 2.0 mechanisms?

    Well what about them? What is “evolution 2.0”? Who is Perry Marshall?

  29. 29
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @28,

    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

    -Q

  30. 30
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Querius

    Ah, Denis Noble and the Third Way! Professor Noble is another example of a reputable academic (and he does have an excellent reputation in his field of physiology) pontificating outside his field of expertise.

  31. 31
    Fred Hickson says:

    But Perry Marshall? Who he?

  32. 32
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius, your propeller powered duck:

    Rotating locomotion in living systems

    Couldn’t happen.

  33. 33
    Fred Hickson says:

    WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES ?

    All caps! Must be an urgent question.

    According to evolutionary theory there are three main processes at play: adaptation, speciation and extinction. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which fate befalls the FAULtY SPECIES

  34. 34
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Molecular Mechanisms of Splicing 😆 Hey Fred Hickson could you explain what is all about?
    https://vimeo.com/401600532

    Fred Hickson
    According to evolutionary theory there are three main processes at play: adaptation, speciation and extinction.

    🙂 Martin_r asked why weren’t caught in mud(to be fossilised) those incomplete/trasitional/midway organisms but only complete functional organisms?

  35. 35
    marker says:

    Obviously, chemical reactions occurring at the cellular level would involve atomic events or quantum events. The switches that control cellular function are still not well understood, not to mention how the switches got there to act in precise ways to make sure that nutrients got into the cell and at the right amount, and to make sure waste products were removed.

  36. 36
    Fred Hickson says:

    Martin_r asked why weren’t caught in mud(to be fossilised) those incomplete/trasitional/midway organisms but only complete functional organisms?

    Fossilization is rare, most especially for terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) organisms. Hard parts, teeth, shells, bones, fossilize whereas soft parts almost never do. Complete organisms? Fossils are never complete. Organisms go extinct for a number of reasons, the most obvious is niche change or destruction which is too rapid for the species to adapt to. The Chicxulub bolide caused the extinction of some otherwise very successful dinosaurs. The Permian extinction… I could go on. People here seem to have a problem with strawmen.

  37. 37
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson,

    Ah, Denis Noble and the Third Way! Professor Noble is another example of a reputable academic (and he does have an excellent reputation in his field of physiology) pontificating outside his field of expertise.

    Yeah, I guess an expert in physiology would be totally ignorant of the physiological aspects of genetics and evolution, right?

    But Perry Marshall? Who he?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Marshall

    Querius, your propeller powered duck . . . Couldn’t happen.

    If you read the link you provided, you’d have noticed that propellers can and actually do exist in some bacteria. But, you seem to have forgotten the point of my post. It was about the requirements for fixation of a trait in a population and Haldane’s dilemma. Are you familiar with these concepts?

    I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which fate befalls the FAULtY SPECIES

    Oh, I know. They get eaten and don’t leave any fossils–sorta like the grass and the cow story in @27. This explains why Darwin’s theory has still failed to produce any missing links. What is not being done with today’s technologies includes:

    • Subjecting the “stretchy” tissue and red blood cells found in many dinosaur bones to Carbon-14 dating.
    • Discovering how dinosaur tissue and bones have survived intact without being turned into dust by 60-70 million years of background radiation.
    • Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotype differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.”
    • Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolution for approximately 65 million years without any visible changes.

    -Q

  38. 38
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    Yeah, I guess an expert in physiology would be totally ignorant of the physiological aspects of genetics and evolution, right?

    True, because he’s just an expert in physiology of organisms and not an expert in the physiological aspects of organisms.
    Anybody who questions something about evolutionary theory has just proven that he cannot possibly understand it. No evolutionary expert ever has questioned the theory, or any part of the theory – from Darwin to today. The sky is blue. H2O is water. Bacteria became human beings. Experts know these things.
    Of course this must be true because in order to even understand evolutionary theory, you have to be convinced of its validity. And that’s what it takes to become an expert.

  39. 39
    marker says:

    SA,

    Nonsense. Experts need evidence. Evolution works for or against an organism as a storytelling mechanism. If information was taken away, evolution did it. If it was added, evolution did it. If an organism survives over an alleged millions of years then evolution didn’t have to change anything. Such flexible, no matter what, explanations ignore that a lot was happening to and on the earth over those alleged millions of years.
    I’m not convinced evolution is valid because it consists of so many stories that involve too many assumptions.

  40. 40
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    Oh, I know. They get eaten and don’t leave any fossils–sorta like the grass and the cow story in @27.

    The Darwin enterprise owes you an award for that one. You just solved a big problem. Of course, flawed species don’t leave any fossils. Everybody knows that.

    • Subjecting the “stretchy” tissue and red blood cells found in many dinosaur bones to Carbon-14 dating.

    There’s no need for Carbon-14 dating because we know how old dinosaurs are. And if we came up with different dates because of the spongy tissue, that would just confuse everyone.

    • Discovering how dinosaur tissue and bones have survived intact without being turned into dust by 60-70 million years of background radiation.

    Obviously, soft tissue has been known to be preserved for 60-79 million years because we have found it in dinosaur bones that old. Some tissue is just like that. It’s stretchy and doesn’t lose moisture over tens of millions of years. So it’s no surprise here. We knew this a long time ago – maybe even Darwin knew it.

    • Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotype differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.”

    if they look similar, then they’re obviously ancestral. If they look similar but the DNA doesn’t align, then obviously they evolved independently. That’s been very predictive so far.

    • Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolution for approximately 65 million years without any visible changes.

    Unlike bacteria which had to evolve into pine trees, elephants, killer whales and Mozart just to find some food, the coelacanth found the perfect form and was able to fight off evolution and persist through 300 billion different niches. Good for them. It’s always helpful to fight off mutations and just preserve your identity. Evolution is always threatening to give you more speed, power, intelligence, longevity – an aptitude for calculus – but the coelacanth would have none of it.

  41. 41
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Marker

    If information was taken away, evolution did it. If it was added, evolution did it. If an organism survives over an alleged millions of years then evolution didn’t have to change anything. Such flexible, no matter what, explanations ignore that a lot was happening to and on the earth over those alleged millions of years.
    I’m not convinced evolution is valid because it consists of so many stories that involve too many assumptions.

    I was tongue-in-cheek with the two previous. But I fully agree.
    For example, in the exact environment where there are dozens of plant species surviving and thriving quite well, supposedly, a species had to evolve the capability to catch, digest and nourish itself on insects. Because supposedly it couldn’t find any other way to survive just with plain old photosynthesis and nutrition from the soil and water like all the other plants in that niche?
    It doesn’t make sense.
    As you say, in the end all they have to do is claim “evolution did it” – no matter what we observe.

  42. 42
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    “There is no single evolutionary mechanism – there are countless. Evolutionary theory is a smorgasbord: a vast buffet of disjointed and conflicting mechanisms waiting to be chosen by the theorist. For any given question, the theorist invokes only those mechanisms that look most satisfying. Yet, the next question elicits a different response, with other mechanisms invoked and other neglected. Evolutionary theory has no coherent structure. It is amorphous. It is malleable and can readily adjust to disparate patterns of data. Evolution accommodates data like fog accommodates landscape. In fact, evolutionary theory fails to clearly predict anything about life that is actually true. As a result evolution is not science.” (Walter Remine,Biotic message).

    ” Whatever your personality or history may be, a good astrologer will find some conjunction of the planets that explains why you are this way, even though as a Sagittarius you’re ‘expected’ to be the opposite. ….there is more to a good scientific hypothesis than corroboration; it must be falsifiable.” (Futuyma, Science On Trial: The Case for Evolution 1983,Pantheon Books p 168 )

  43. 43
    Querius says:

    Good points all!

    As I’m sure you know, Evolution can explain everything in retrospect, but has never been able to correctly predict anything. The stories just keep changing or are forgotten.

    Remember that there were once over 100 “vestigial” organs presented as evidence for evolution? This included the thyroid gland.

    Once again, the ID hypothesis would have accelerated scientific progress over the assumption that whatever we don’t understand must be leftover junk from the evolutionary process.

    Oh, but science was so backward then and now we’re modern and know everything, right? And in 100 years, what will they think of our current science?

    -Q

  44. 44
    Fred Hickson says:

    Googled “upright biped semiotic theory” and first hit was this blog post by someone with pseudonym “Elizabeth” in 2011. Interestingly, biochemistry hardly gets a mention. I see UB posted a comment.

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....or-design/

  45. 45
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius and rotation.

    Yes, I’m quite aware of the two examples of rotary propulsion: one in archaea, the other in bacteria. These are at a molecular scale. The wheel doesn’t work in whole multicellular organisms as organisms grow. A biological system has to grow with the organism. Can’t do that with a wheel.

  46. 46
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Querius

    Good point about how science follows reality and does not lead. Half the battle in understanding is to see the world as it is rather than as you’d like it to be.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    According to evolutionary theory there are three main processes at play: adaptation, speciation and extinction.

    Except there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. And ID is OK with adaptation, speciation and extinction.

  48. 48
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @46,

    Half the battle in understanding is to see the world as it is rather than as you’d like it to be.

    Nicely stated. I’d say it’s far more than half the battle, especially considering the Bayesian nature of what we believe we understand.

    As a counterexample, consider the immediate acceptance of evolutionary punctuated equilibrium by Marxists on ideological compatibility alone. This sort of anti-scientific prejudice has also been termed ideological poisoning and we’re all susceptible to it.

    -Q

  49. 49
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson,
    Silver Asiatic’s satirical-though-realistic responses notwithstanding, what’s your explanation of the Darwinian community’s lack of response to the following:

    • Subjecting the “stretchy” tissue and red blood cells found in many dinosaur bones to Carbon-14 dating.

    • Discovering how dinosaur tissue and bones have survived intact without being turned into dust by 60-70 million years of background radiation.

    • Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotypic differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.”

    • Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolutionary change for approximately 65 million years.

    The brilliant photographer, Anselm Adams, once claimed that “everything interesting happens at the edges of things. I think the same dynamic is also active in science, where the edges of things are populated with exceptions, paradoxes, and mysteries.

    These scientific issues are routinely ignored until they become critical.

    – The deviations of the planet Mercury from standard orbital mechanics is one famous example.

    – Another example is how quantum effects were largely ignored until miniaturization of microprocessors and data storage hit a wall.

    – Even such well-established “facts” of physics such as the Bernoulli Principle being responsible for lift in wings have been overthrown (although still found in science and physics textbooks).

    Search on Bernoulli Principle to see what I mean. Here’s what NASA says about it now:
    https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

    -Q

  50. 50
    martin_r says:

    Hickson @30

    Ah, Denis Noble and the Third Way! Professor Noble is another example of a reputable academic (and he does have an excellent reputation in his field of physiology) pontificating outside his field of expertise.

    Perry Marshall – “who he?”

    and who are you ? What is your education / field of expertise ?
    With people like you (Darwinists) it is very difficult. Even if R Dawkins would admit, that he was wrong about evolution and now he believes in creation, you would say, that R DAWKINS is now too old and probably got mad.

    Talking about experts, look what E.O. WILSON (called “Darwin of the 21st century”) said about R. Dawkins (for BBC):

    There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson

    This perfectly illustrates Darwinists … no one is a good-enough expert on E-Theory :))))))

  51. 51
    martin_r says:

    Hickson @30

    Perry Marshall – “who he?”

    Perry Marshall is an electrotechnical engineer.

    He is more qualified to talk about design in nature than all biologists on this planet … because, biologists (natural science graduates) never made anything …

    Ironically, engineers are the only qualified persons to comment on design in biology.

    I don’t know who you are, i have noticed your first comment like 2 weeks ago, I am a mechanical engineer with a decent IT background, and when a biologist talks about bad design in nature, i can only laugh in his face. Biologists don’t even realize how terrible wrong they are …

  52. 52
    martin_r says:

    Hickson

    the wheel issue …

    Are you saying, if there would be a species that uses wheels for legs, would you start believe in creation ? Such wheels would convince you about a creator/designer ?
    Or why did you mention this ?

  53. 53
    martin_r says:

    Hickson

    Fossils are rare

    Right now, there are 10,000,000 of living species on this planet. All perfectly working ….
    Fossils are rare.

    So you can’t show me any faulty species, right ?

    So it really seems, that according to your absurd theory, COPYING ERRORS created MILLIONS OF PERFECTLY WORKING SPECIES :))))))))

    PS: i always wanted to know, when the very first copying error occurred … in other words, was there a time when DNA molecule was without a single copying error ? Obviously, molecular clock started ticking at some point, when was it, the TIME ZERO ? And how looked all the species at that TIME ZERO, when you are saying, that copying errors/mutations created all the species ?

  54. 54
  55. 55
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius

    As a counterexample, consider the immediate acceptance of evolutionary punctuated equilibrium by Marxists on ideological compatibility alone. This sort of anti-scientific prejudice has also been termed ideological poisoning and we’re all susceptible to it.

    I’m not hugely familiar with Marx. I know he (with Engels) wrote The Communist Manifesto. I didn’t know he expressed a view on evolutionary theory. I’m also dubous as to whether Communism as espoused by Marx has ever really been put into practice. Cuba, maybe?

  56. 56
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Talking about fossils, is the principle of stratification false?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SGB_uMRNU&t=320s

  57. 57
    Fred Hickson says:

    Martin_r

    Perry Marshall is an electrotechnical engineer.

    OK

    He is more qualified to talk about design in nature than all biologists on this planet … because, biologists (natural science graduates) never made anything …

    How did the Covid-19 vaccines get made?

    Ironically, engineers are the only qualified persons to comment on design in biology.

    I don’t find that statement ironic, I find it is inaccurate.

    I don’t know who you are,

    Is anyone else here not posting under a pseudonym?

    i have noticed your first comment like 2 weeks ago,

    OK

    I am a mechanical engineer with a decent IT background,

    OK

    …and…

    The “and” emphasizes the non sequitur

    when a biologist talks about bad design in nature, i can only laugh in his face. Biologists don’t even realize how terrible wrong they are …

    Well, I can only assess your abilities by reading your comments here and I’ll continue to decide for myself as to their value. I see there’s more from you below. Let’s see.

  58. 58
    JVL says:

    Banned again from a thread. Apologies to those I didn’t get a chance to respond to. Not my fault. Talk to the site admins.

  59. 59
    Fred Hickson says:

    Are you saying, if there would be a species that uses wheels for legs, would you start believe in creation ? Such wheels would convince you about a creator/designer ?
    Or why did you mention this ?

    It’s quite simple to a biologist. Multicellular organisms grow from an embryo. At all stages of their development they have to remain viable. Explain to me how nutrients etc can pass between the static and rotating parts of a biological wheel.

  60. 60
    Fred Hickson says:

    Banned again from a thread. Apologies to those I didn’t get a chance to respond to. Not my fault. Talk to the site admins.

    Take it as a compliment. I would. 😉

  61. 61
    Fred Hickson says:

    Martin-r

    There may be formatting errors in your comment but I’ll have a go at making sense of it belox.

    Right now, there are 10,000,000 of living species on this planet. All perfectly working ….

    Are there? That may be someone’s estimate. I see a 2011 figure was 8.7 million but some talk of a trillion.

    Fossils are rare.

    Agreed.

    So you can’t show me any faulty species, right?

    No idea what you think a faulty species is. So, no, I can’t.

    So it really seems, that according to your absurd theory, COPYING ERRORS created MILLIONS OF PERFECTLY WORKING SPECIES :))))))))

    Nope. Perfection is for Platonists. What I can attempt to show you is organisms extremely well adapted in form and behavior to their particular niche environments. Take Eremitalpa granti for example. It’s an excellent swimmer…

    in sand!

    PS: i always wanted to know, when the very first copying error occurred … in other words, was there a time when DNA molecule was without a single copying error ? Obviously, molecular clock started ticking at some point, when was it, the TIME ZERO ? And how looked all the species at that TIME ZERO, when you are saying, that copying errors/mutations created all the species ?

    The first biological information storage was not DNA, RNA precedes DNA (though that might not have been the first biomolecule storing information. What we see is what survived. As usual, history is written by the winners.

    I’ll be Frank rather than Fred for the moment and say you seem to have a poor grasp of biology. First understand, then criticize.

  62. 62
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Fred Hickson
    The first biological information storage was not DNA, RNA precedes DNA (though that might not have been the first biomolecule storing information. What we see is what survived. As usual, history is written by the winners.

    🙂 Darwinists just can’t resist to make unprovable statements. Storytelling is not science but I guess is too late for some darwinists. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks .

    I’ll be Frank rather than Fred for the moment and say you seem to have a poor grasp of biology.

    Your storytelling ideologic darwinism can’t be called biology .

  63. 63
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson,

    I’m not hugely familiar with Marx. I know he (with Engels) wrote The Communist Manifesto. I didn’t know he expressed a view on evolutionary theory.

    Notice that I specified that Marx-ISTS, not Karl Marx, quickly embraced punctuated equilibrium. Since you’re not familiar with Marxism, then you wouldn’t understand my example. Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium?

    What about addressing the questions to you in @49?

    -Q

  64. 64
    Querius says:

    JVL @58,

    Banned again from a thread. Apologies to those I didn’t get a chance to respond to. Not my fault. Talk to the site admins.

    This seems to happen randomly to people, myself included.

    -Q

  65. 65
    Fred Hickson says:

    What about addressing the questions to you in @49?

    The first one about soft tissue in dinosaurs presumes, well, preservation of soft tissue in dinosaurs. What the fossil record shows precisely is still controversial.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1

  66. 66
    Fred Hickson says:

    Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotypic differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.”

    This one made me chuckle. The literature is bursting with discussion on homologues. We can sequence whole genomes cheaply. We can synthesize novel sequences. Why don’t engineers and ID proponents get busy and find out how to design function from sequence. Biologists (Jack Szostak being a prime example) can only use nature’s method of trial and error. An ID proponent (anyone, really) making an effort at predicting function from sequence would be wonderful.

  67. 67
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @65,
    What I liked about the article in Nature was that the miraculous preservation for fresh tissue in dinosaur bones is no longer controversial, but rather how is was preserved is “controversial” (i.e. science fiction).

    Hollow, pliable, and transparent vessel-like structures have been recovered from skeletal elements of multiple fossil vertebrates, including non-avian dinosaurs. Their vascular affinities have been supported through the application of varied independent methods to identify endogenous component proteins, including collagen, which is not produced by microbes, and elastin, which is vertebrate-specific.

    And collagens degrade rapidly:
    https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/uncategorized/dinosaur-collagen-decay-rates-are-thousands-of-years-not-millions/

    Not to mention the red blood cells present in the samples! And no, the iron in heme molecules won’t protect them for 60-70 million years.

    These post mortem reactions may [i.e. MAY IN OUR WILDEST DREAMS] contribute significantly [OR NOT AT ALL] to tissue preservation by conferring resistance to degradation to the structural proteins that form the basis for the vessel structure.

    Background radiation doesn’t care about “non-enzymatic crosslinks between or within structural proteins.” Background radiation simply roasts organic material over time. It’s like what happens when you leave your food cooking in a microwave oven for a few thousand years too long. Putting cellophane wrap over it won’t help.

    -Q

  68. 68
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @66,

    This one made me chuckle.

    Glad to hear that. These’s far too little humor nowadays.

    The literature is bursting with discussion on homologues. We can sequence whole genomes cheaply.

    Not feature homologues, but rather the issue of finding modern species in the same strata as those supposedly millions of years older. To solve this embarrassment, the out-of-place fossils are given different taxonomic classification based purely on conjecture. The ones that are obviously still alive are called “living fossils.” I’m sure their survival is also “controversial.” (smile).

    We can sequence whole genomes cheaply.

    Oh, are you involved in genome sequencing?

    How about completing the sequencing the modern platypus genome to show its evolutionary path. Also, there are numerous plants and animals whose genomes seem to be in conflict with their taxonomic classifications.

    For some additional humor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrlVEUdV2n8

    And here’s a Nature article published about a year ago on the magical homologues that suggest perhaps an alternative and more believable explanation:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03039-0

    -Q

  69. 69
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson,

    Care to address my question on your involvement with genome sequencing and what the platypus genome reveals?

    -Q

  70. 70
    Fred Hickson says:

    No I’ve not worked on gene sequencing.

    Regarding platypus genome, 2008 was the year.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06936#:~:text=The%20platypus%20genome%2C%20as%20well,of%20reptilian%20macro%2D%20and%20microchromosomes.

  71. 71
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @70,

    Ok, I just didn’t know what you meant by “we” when you wrote

    We can sequence whole genomes cheaply.

    It gave me the impression that you worked for a genetics lab that performed such sequencing.

    Yes, I’m aware of the 2008 Nature article. But what does it tell you about Darwin’s theory of tiny incremental mutations over many generations when both reptilian and mammalian genes appear ex nihilo in the same genome?

    Didn’t you read the 2021 Nature article that I linked to on the subject?
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03039-0

    -Q

  72. 72
    Querius says:

    Oh, and your responses to these questions from @45 would be enlightening to all:

    . . . what’s your explanation of the Darwinian community’s lack of response to the following:

    • Subjecting the “stretchy” tissue and red blood cells found in many dinosaur bones to Carbon-14 dating.

    • Discovering how dinosaur tissue and bones have survived intact without being turned into dust by 60-70 million years of background radiation.

    • Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotypic differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.”

    • Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolutionary change for approximately 65 million years.

    The brilliant photographer, Anselm Adams, once claimed that “everything interesting happens at the edges of things. I think the same dynamic is also active in science, where the edges of things are populated with exceptions, paradoxes, and mysteries.

    These scientific issues are routinely ignored until they become critical.

    – The deviations of the planet Mercury from standard orbital mechanics is one famous example.

    – Another example is how quantum effects were largely ignored until miniaturization of microprocessors and data storage hit a wall.

    – Even such well-established “facts” of physics such as the Bernoulli Principle being responsible for lift in wings have been overthrown (although still found in science and physics textbooks).

    Search on Bernoulli Principle to see what I mean. Here’s what NASA says about it now:
    https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

    -Q

Leave a Reply