Enzymes can’t evolve genuinely new functions by unguided means?

_{News
December 5, 2014

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News

1}_{Categories
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
News}

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

Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute writes to say

Monday we published a paper in the journal BIO-Complexity that demonstrates that enzymes can’t evolve genuinely new functions by unguided means. We argue that design by a very sophisticated intelligent agent is the best explanation for their origin. I want to take some time to lay out our argument against evolution and for intelligent design. It’s important, because it reveals the logical fallacy in most evolutionary thinking. More.

Be grateful you live in a place where people are still permitted to lay out an argument against Darwin. Or magic.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Alicia Renard:
I suspect Edward, Steve, Mapou, Bornagain77, JDH and Quest are all YEC, so what does it matter about the details if you reject the whole idea of common descent out of hand?
I guess the same can be said for materialists; what difference do the details make if you reject the idea of ID out of hand? If "the details" show it to be a matter of fact that natural selection and random mutation are not sufficient to explain novel enzyme functions, and that intelligence is required, I suggest that would be quite important to people on both sides of the ID debate regardless of their original position.
Oops I missed WJM. I guess it would be giving too much away for WJM to say whether he rejects common descent out of hand or whether he merely questions whether evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to explain the observed pattern of common descent.
I question whether the theoretical capacity of supposedly unguided evolutionary mechanisms (1) have been shown by Darwinists to be sufficient, and (2) can be shown to be sufficient even in principle. Common descent is an entirely irrelevant consideration as far as I'm concerned.William J Murray_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Another critique of Axe's 2004 paper. I see it has been cited 77 times according to Google Scholar. So it seems to have had adequate exposure to those working in the field.Alicia Renard_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Oops I missed WJM. I guess it would be giving too much away for WJM to say whether he rejects common descent out of hand or whether he merely questions whether evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to explain the observed pattern of common descent.Alicia Renard_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

I'm a little unclear on Gauger's position regarding evolution. Is she in the Behe camp - an Old Earth Creationist who accepts the observed pattern of common descent and just rejects variation and selection as sufficient to account for all the observed changes? I suspect Edward, Steve, Mapou, Bornagain77, JDH and Quest are all YEC, so what does it matter about the details if you reject the whole idea of common descent out of hand?Alicia Renard_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Moose Dr I too have made many spelling mistakes and English has so many instances for homophone misplacement, so please don't think I am picking on you. It's just that your mistake had so much unintended winsomeness. You stated:
That said, there were at least two research papers sited that do a rather impressive job of countering Ann’s paper.
--emphasis mine. Now I could give you the benefit of the doubt that you were using the transitive verb "sited" as seen in this definition from "The Free Dictionary"
tr.v. sit·ed, sit·ing, sites To situate or locate on a site: sited the power plant by the river.
But I don't think you were commenting on how the papers were placed on the web site. Of course you could have also meant "sighted" as in they had previously not been seen and then they suddenly came into view. But this usually happens to various types of prey and not to research papers. I think what you meant is "cited".
tr.v. cit·ed, cit·ing, cites 1. To quote as an authority or example.
Anyway, please don't take offense. I found the mistake very amusing. Just think, it shows that is possible to cite a sighting that is sited, a remarkable stuffing of homophones into one clause which although obscure, has a perfectly acceptable meaning. I also find it amazing that there are people out there that look at the incredible ability we as humans have to amuse ourselves with the intricacies of similar sounding words and their meaning and yet think all of this happened by chance.JDH_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

WJM:
Well, that sure shoots a hole in Keith’s claim that virtually all ID advocates agree that microevolution is unguided.
Well, I, for one, am an ID advocate and I certainly disagree that microevolution is unguided.Mapou_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

Larry's post is: http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/12/a-creationist-argument-against.html I did not find any post from Ann Gauger on sandwalk. It is very difficult to read the sandwalk comments because they are so darn snooty and disrespectful. That said, there were at least two research papers sited that do a rather impressive job of countering Ann's paper. I do wish that respectful, honest conversation on this topic were more common. It would be nice to see people willing to recognize the points that the other side had made, and honestly search for truth.Moose Dr_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Steve:
I see Ann seems to have responded to Larry.
Link, please. (What is it about IDers and links??)keith s_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Denyse, I see Ann seems to have responded to Larry. I guess she is not all that worried about amorous viral cyber-infections. She knows her microbiology!!!Steve_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

WJM:
Well, that sure shoots a hole in Keith’s claim that virtually all ID advocates agree that microevolution is unguided.
It does?keith s_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
One thing they teach in public schools is the English conventions for punctuation, such as using one comma at a time.
Careful, LH. Spamagain77's punctuation tics are a sensitive subject. :Dkeith s_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

In public schools they also teach the English conventions for punctuation, such as using one comma at a time. And at least when I was in school, the value of making an argument rather than merely regurgitating. (Edited to fix my own grammar.)Learned Hand_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Denyse, our favorite IDist in disguise Larry Moran, has picked on Ann's post. Please ask Ann if she will respond to his comments. I would understand it if Ann demurred, since it appears Larry has a thing for her. And you know, I wouldn't want false rumours going viral. Viruses can be nasty beasts.Steve_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Well, that sure shoots a hole in Keith's claim that virtually all ID advocates agree that microevolution is unguided.William J Murray_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

So, since Darwinism is certainly not a real science with a rigid falsification criteria, it's OK for the theologically based 'pseudo-science' of Darwinism to be taught without criticism in public schools?
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740 "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000) "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis What the vast majority of Darwinists fail to realize (or ever honestly admit to) is that Darwinian evolution is not even a 'real' physical science in any proper sense but that Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science. Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, who won the ‘censor of the year award’ in 2014 from ENV, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science: “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago,,,, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
bornagain77_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Do you live in a public school?Learned Hand_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Are you allowed to argue against darwinism in the public schools?Edward_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

I read the longer version at the link, and I think Ann Gauger missed 1 thing: stasis. We do in fact know quite a bit about ancient enzymes because we have dozens of examples of living, modern life that appear to be identical to fossils that are, depending on the species, 30 million to 400 million years old.mahuna_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Thanks. Seems like that's the sort of thing you'd expect to find in the post. Is there a place where people aren't "permitted to lay out an argument against Darwinism," and is that relevant to the news of someone making just such an argument? Or just another brick in the martyrdom narrative?Learned Hand_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

News:
Be grateful you live in a place where people are still permitted to lay out an argument against Darwin.
Denyse, Are you aware of places where the citizens are no longer permitted to argue against Darwin?keith s_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

The paper can be found here: Enzyme Families–Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Familykeith s_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply