Darwinism Intelligent Design stasis

Darwinism must have bypassed Chernobyl

Spread the love

In 2011, it was noted that Chernobyl, forbidden to humans due to radiation after the nuclear accident, had not shown signs of new species evolving by natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism), as hoped. But it was simply teeming with usual wildlife.

A recent article updates the theme:

Most Chernobyl Animals Don’t Look Any Different from Their Non-Chernobyl Counterparts.

Tour guides tell visitors not to pet Chernobyl animals due to potential radioactive particles in their fur, but some biologists have been surprised that the incidence of physical mutations appears lower than the blast of radiation would have suggested. There have been some oddities recorded within the area—such as partial albinism among barn swallows—but researchers think that the serious mutations mostly happened directly after the explosion. Today’s wild animals are sporting their normal number of limbs and aren’t glowing.

Claudia Dimuro, “8 Facts About the Animals of Chernobyl” at Mental Floss

Insects suffered a drop in numbers though.

See also: Is there anything city life can’t do? We are now told it is affecting evolution.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “Darwinism must have bypassed Chernobyl

  1. 1
    Mimus says:

    …had not shown signs of new species evolving by natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism), as hoped.</blockquote?

    Who hoped this?

  2. 2
    Brother Brian says:

    Mimus

    Who hoped this?

    Producers and directors of b-movies? Because nobody with any understanding of evolution suggested this.

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    Chernobyl should increase the mutation rate (which has been documented), but will only lead to further evolution if there is selection, which we also have evidence for. It’s not obvious how Chernobyl will affect reproductive isolation, though.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob and weave states “Chernobyl should increase the mutation rate (which has been documented), but will only lead to further evolution if there is selection, which we also have evidence for.”

    Funny, they were talking about major morphological changes, i.e. ‘serious mutations’, and yet Bob cites “adaptation to oxidative stress in birds” as his proof for evolution?

    The fact of the matter is that, despite the fact that scientists have literally mutated the crap out of certain species, scientists have never been able to evolve, and/or depart, a species from its basic biological and/or architectural form that it originally had.

    As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.

    Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form – March 31, 2014
    Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,,
    (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes:
    A normal fruit fly;
    A defective fruit fly; or
    A dead fruit fly.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.html

    There are many other lines of evidence that now conclusively prove that the basic biological form of an organism is forever beyond the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. The following video touches on many of those lines of evidence

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Bob also mentioned selection, yet selection is also now shown to be extremely limited in its explanatory power as the supposed ‘designer substitute’ that Darwinists falsely imagine it to be:

    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    After a while of repeatedly correcting Bob on these issues, one begins to seriously wonder whether Bob even has the mental capacity to understand these issues. These are elementary mistakes that should be easily learned and corrected by normal people.

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – there have been major morphological changes, but they have reduced fitness, and so have been selected out. Anders Pape Møller & co. have been working on this for several years.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    Because nobody with any understanding of evolution suggested this.

    Wow. Mutations “acting” on random mutation is the alleged mechanism to bring about new species, new body parts and new body plans. So clearly evos were hoping for something to help their cause coming out of this disaster.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob states: “there have been major morphological changes, but they have reduced fitness, and so have been selected out.”

    I guess a six legged, glow in the dark, rabbit would tend to be ‘selected out’. 🙂

    Bob, you still do not get the point. Even though gross deformities in the basic morphology of a organism have been observed by mutating DNA alone, (such as legs growing out of the head of a fruit fly), there has NEVER been a major departure from the basic biological form and/or architectural plan of an organism.

    As mentioned previously, there are many lines of evidence that establish this fact. For instance, besides the saturation mutagenesis studies I cited from Dr. Wells, it is safe to say that nobody really knows how an organism might achieve its basic form. In the following article, Michael Denton remarks that,’to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint.’

    The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism – Michael J. Denton – 2013
    Excerpt: Cell form ,,,Karsenti comments that despite the attraction of the (genetic) blueprint model there are no “simple linear chains of causal events that link genes to phenotypes” [77: p. 255]. And wherever there is no simple linear causal chain linking genes with phenotypes,,,—at any level in the organic hierarchy, from cells to body plans—the resulting form is bound to be to a degree epigenetic and emergent, and cannot be inferred from even the most exhaustive analysis of the genes.,,,
    To this author’s knowledge, to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint. As mentioned above, between genes and mature cell form there is a complex hierarchy of self-organization and emergent phenomena, rendering cell form profoundly epigenetic.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.3

    And in the following article entitled ‘how do rod-like bacteria control their geometry?’, in the concluding paragraph, the authors conceded that, ‘We are still far from unravelling the fundamental “engineering” challenges that biology has to overcome in shaping single cells as well as multi-cellular tissues.,,,’

    Getting into shape: how do rod-like bacteria control their geometry? – March 31, 2014
    Excerpt from concluding paragraph: We are still far from unravelling the fundamental “engineering” challenges that biology has to overcome in shaping single cells as well as multi-cellular tissues.,,,
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.0015.pdf

    And in the following study, the researchers fully expected to confirm a widely-held belief, backed by strong theoretical predictions,, that (the) shape and motility (of bacteria) had co-evolved. (Yet, the researchers remarked,) to our great surprise we didn’t find any association between the two traits.”

    Reshaping our ideas of bacterial evolution – November 22, 2016
    Excerpt: “We fully expected to confirm a widely-held belief, backed by strong theoretical predictions, that rod-shaped cells would move more effectively than coccoid (spherical) cells, and that shape and motility had co-evolved. We used a number of approaches to confirm our findings, and to our great surprise we didn’t find any association between the two traits.”
    https://phys.org/news/2016-11-reshaping-ideas-bacterial-evolution.html

    In the following article it was found that ‘cousins’ of a type of single cell organism had the same morphology despite having very different DNA. Specifically they stated, “ placozoan genome was about as different from that of T. adhaerens as human DNA is from mouse DNA. “It was really striking,” Eitel said. “They look the same, and we look completely different from mice.”

    World’s Simplest Animal Reveals Hidden Diversity – Sept. 2018
    Excerpt: When the team finally had a full genome ready for comparison, the payoff turned out to be worth the wait. “We expected to find differences, but when I first saw the results of our analyses, I was really overwhelmed,” Eitel said.
    A quarter of the genes were in the wrong spot or written backward. Instructions for similar proteins were spelled nearly 30 percent differently on average, and in some cases as much as 80 percent. The Hong Kong variety was missing 4 percent of its distant cousin’s genes and had its own share of genes unique to itself. Overall, the Hong Kong placozoan genome was about as different from that of T. adhaerens as human DNA is from mouse DNA. “It was really striking,” Eitel said. “They look the same, and we look completely different from mice.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/worlds-simplest-animal-reveals-hidden-diversity-20180912/

    In short, molecular biologists don’t even understand how a single cell might achieve its basic form, much less do they understand how a multicellular organism might achieve its basic form.

    Here is an excellent powerpoint presentation by Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876

    Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution – podcast – April 15, 2016
    On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Listen in as Dr. Wells explains.
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2016/04/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/

    Besides DNA sequences failing to explain the basic form of an organism, protein sequences also fail to explain their basic form. The following article reveals that the same sequence of amino acids can be folded differently to produce proteins with different three-dimensional shapes. Conversely, proteins with different amino acid sequences can be folded to produce similar shapes and functions.

    Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information – Jonathan Wells – May 2013
    Conclusion:,, Protein function depends on three-dimensional shape, and the same sequence of amino acids can be folded differently to produce proteins with different three-dimensional shapes [144–147]. Conversely, proteins with different amino acid sequences can be folded to produce similar shapes and functions [148,149]. Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism – the genotype-phenotype mapping = cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0009

    Moreover, up to one third of proteins, which are termed Intrinsically Disordered Proteins, assume different shapes when they interact with other molecules in different ‘contexts’,,,

    podcast – Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution – September 17, 2014
    “We are talking about 1/3 of the proteins in our body, (could be Intrinsically Disordered Proteins)” – Jonathan Wells
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....evolution/

    Unfolded ‘junk’ Proteins have function – April 2014
    Excerpt: In 2013 functions were identified for many of these (unfolded) “intrinsically disordered proteins” (IDPs), as they are sometimes called. Functions such as crucial roles in regulating ion channels and molecular hubs in intracellular signaling networks. A friend points us to:
    [1] Bozoky Z, Krzeminski M, Chong PA, Forman-Kay JD (2013) Structural changes of CFTR R region upon phosphorylation: A plastic platform for intramolecular and intermolecular interactions. FEBS J 280:4407-4416. doi:10.1111/febs.12422
    [2] Ferreon ACM, Ferreon JC, Wright PE, Deniz AA (2013) Modulation of allostery by protein intrinsic disorder. Nature 498:390-394. doi:10.1038/nature12294
    [3] Cumberworth A, Lamour G, Babu MM, Gsponer J (2013) Promiscuity as a functional trait: Intrinsically disordered regions as central players of interactomes. Biochem J 454:361-369. doi:10.1042/BJ20130545
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-show-and/

    Furthermore, the following article reveals that, contrary to Darwinian expectations, RNAs with the same shape could vary very widely in sequence:

    The Strange Inevitability of Evolution – Philip Ball – Jan. 2015
    Excerpt: Naively, you might expect RNAs with a similar shape, and thus presumably phenotype, to share a similar sequence, so that a map of the possible sequences—the sequence space, which can be represented as a many-dimensional space where each grid point corresponds to a particular sequence—is divided up into various “shape kingdoms” (See Not a Patch, a). But that wasn’t what Schuster found. Instead, RNAs with the same shape could vary very widely in sequence: You could get the same shape, and therefore potentially the same kind of catalytic function, from very different sequences.
    per nautilus

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, the following studies reveal that the three-dimensional arrangements of membrane-associated proteins, lipids and carbohydrates, cannot be reduced to sequence information in DNA and that the three-dimensional arrangement of the molecular components constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo.

    Development Needs Ontogenetic Information that Cannot Arise from Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms – Casey Luskin – June 2, 2014
    Excerpt: So membrane patterns — the three-dimensional arrangements of membrane-associated proteins, lipids and carbohydrates, as they change over time — carry essential ontogenetic information. Yet (as I demonstrate below) the information carried by membrane patterns cannot be reduced to sequence information in DNA, for at least two reasons. First, the vast majority of proteins in eukaryotes are not completely specified by DNA sequences. Second, even if DNA sequences completely specified all proteins, DNA would not specify their spatiotemporal arrangements in membranes.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/06/peer-reviewed_p_2/

    As well, the shape of genomes themselves is not dependent of the sequential information in DNA but varies according to context. In particular, the following study found that “Our results demonstrate that the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific and point to a role for tissue-specific spatial genome organization in the formation of recurrent chromosome arrangements among tissues.”

    Tissue-specific spatial organization of genomes – June 21, 2004
    Results
    Using two-dimensional and three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization we have carried out a systematic analysis of the spatial positioning of a subset of mouse chromosomes in several tissues. We show that chromosomes exhibit tissue-specific organization. Chromosomes are distributed tissue-specifically with respect to their position relative to the center of the nucleus and also relative to each other. Subsets of chromosomes form distinct types of spatial clusters in different tissues and the relative distance between chromosome pairs varies among tissues. Consistent with the notion that nonrandom spatial proximity is functionally relevant in determining the outcome of chromosome translocation events, we find a correlation between tissue-specific spatial proximity and tissue-specific translocation prevalence.
    Conclusions
    Our results demonstrate that the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific and point to a role for tissue-specific spatial genome organization in the formation of recurrent chromosome arrangements among tissues.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC463291/

    Moreover, in the following podcast, at the 4:45 minute mark, Dr. Wells briefly outlines 5 different codes found within biological systems which are not reducible to DNA sequences.

    podcast – Dr. Jonathan Wells explains the concept of codes in living things, and how they affect the debate over neo-Darwinism and intelligent design. (at least 5 different codes outside of DNA are discussed) – Oct. 2015 – 4:45 minute mark
    1. Epigenetic Code – modifies DNA molecule
    2. RNA (Alternative) Splicing Code – modifies RNA sequences to produce many different proteins from same DNA sequence
    3. Sugar Code – almost every protein is further modified by the addition of complex sugar molecules
    4. Membrane Code – membrane patterns are inherited independently of DNA, and yet determine the spatial arrangement in the cell.
    5. Bio-electric code – altering the bio-electric field without altering the underlying molecules affects the three-dimensional shape of the developing embryo
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....more-31141

    Moreover, to further drive the point home that the sequences in DNA cannot explain how any particular kind of organism achieves its basic form, in the following article Dr. Jonathan Wells states, “I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”

    Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
    Excerpt: humans have a “few thousand” different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,,
    The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It’s called genomic mosaicism.
    In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,,
    ,,,(then) “genomic equivalence” — the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA — became the accepted view.
    I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common.
    I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93851.html

    James Shapiro weighs in here and states, ‘Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs).’

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

    And here is a particularly crystal clear example of the ‘organism controlling the DNA, and not the DNA controlling the organism’, as is presupposed in Darwinian thinking. Specifically, a bacterium, ‘after shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces,,, miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,,’

    Extreme Genome Repair – 2009
    Excerpt: If its naming had followed, rather than preceded, molecular analyses of its DNA, the extremophile bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans might have been called Lazarus. After shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces by desiccation or a high dose of ionizing radiation, D. radiodurans miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3319128/

    Moreover, in the following study, researchers implanted human embryonic neuronal cells into a mouse embryo.,,, Yet, the human neurons, despite having human DNA, had a mouse morphology. If DNA really ruled morphology, we would have expected a human morphology.

    If DNA really rules (morphology), why did THIS happen? – April 2014
    Excerpt: Researchers implanted human embryonic neuronal cells into a mouse embryo. Mouse and human neurons have distinct morphologies (shapes). Because the human neurons feature human DNA, they should be easy to identify.
    Which raises a question: Would the human neurons implanted in developing mouse brain have a mouse or a human morphology?
    Well, the answer is, the human neurons had a mouse morphology. They could be distinguished from the mouse ones only by their human genetic markers.
    If DNA really ruled, we would expect a human morphology.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....is-happen/

    The following article notes that ‘a brief time-lapse video can teach more about embryonic development than any amount of reading. And further noted that “it is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment.”

    Criticality in morphogenesis – September 17, 2013
    Excerpt: In many regards, a brief time-lapse video can teach more about embryonic development than any amount of reading. It is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment. While it had been hoped that concepts borrowed from statistical mechanics or the ideas of self-organized criticality could help to create some kind of physics-based theory of development, much of what has been done lies only at the level of metaphor. In a paper just released to ArXiv, William Bialek and his colleagues from Princeton University, have taken their search for the signature of criticality in a more specific direction. They looked at a particular set of transcription factors in Drosophila embryos which control spatiotemporal development. By analyzing fluctuations in the expression levels of these so-called gap genes, they found evidence for critical (fine) tuning in this particular network.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-09-c.....nesis.html

    To further drive the point home that the basic form of any particular organism is not reducible to the DNA sequences, nor to any other material particulars of an organism, in the following article it is noted that, Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern.

    What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011
    Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]”,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....nisms-mean

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    This failure of Darwinian evolution, particularly the failure of the reductive materialism on which Darwinian evolution is based, to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Moreover, there is now found to be an enormous amount of positional information in organisms that simply is not reducible to the sequential information on DNA, and that must, somehow, be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method

    At about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, who specializes in embryology, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that during embryological development ‘positional information’ must somehow be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into their multiple different states during embryological development.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

    The amount of ‘positional information’ that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method is immense. Vastly outstripping, by many orders of magnitude, the amount of sequential information that is contained within DNA itself. As Doug Axe states in the following video, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”

    “There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”
    Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video (1 hour 16 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwBaD8-00w&t=4575s

    And as the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    To put this in context, just one thumb drive is more than enough to contain the sequential information encoded on DNA.

    In fact, advances in quantum biology and in quantum information theory, (via the recent experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment), have shown that this immense amount of positional information, (that is somehow coming into the developing embryo,’from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method), must be “a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    The following video goes into greater detail on that particular line of evidence from quantum biology:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    Thus in conclusion, the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution is found, from several lines of empirical evidence, to be grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form. Moreover, to state what should be glaringly obvious, since neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.

    Whereas, on the other hand, Theism, especially with these recent breakthroughs in quantum biology and quantum information theory, is found to be very well supported in its claim that God, Who is beyond space and time, has formed each of us in our mother’s womb.

    Verses:

    Psalm 139:13-14
    For You formed my inward parts;
    You covered me in my mother’s womb.
    I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Marvelous are Your works,
    And that my soul knows very well.

    Jeremiah 1:5
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

  10. 10
    aarceng says:

    Since mutations lead to beneficial changes and improvement of the species then logically evolutionists should be moving to Chernobyl so that their descendants can have an advantage over other people.

  11. 11
    aarceng says:

    Since mutations lead to beneficial changes and improvement of the species then logically evolutionists should be moving to Chernobyl so that their descendants can have an advantage over other people.

Leave a Reply