Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution and Imagination

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An interesting exercise is to read through a brief introduction to the origin of multicellular organisms, such as the Wikipedia article linked here.

Although a more rigorous analysis of the issues of the origin of multicellular organisms would be found elsewhere, Wikipedia, with its naturalistic predilection, still makes it plan that a scientific explanation is lacking.

When we consider the system-level functionality of even the simplest animals, we can use our imaginations to propose scenarios that might lead to their origin.  The Wikipedia article mentions several imaginative proposals:

“Multicellular organisms arise in various ways, for example by cell division or by aggregation of many single cells.”

“One hypothesis for the origin of multicellularity is that a group of function-specific cells aggregated into a slug-like mass called a grex, which moved as a multicellular unit.”

“A unicellular organism divided, the daughter cells failed to separate, resulting in a conglomeration of identical cells in one organism, which could later develop specialized tissues.”

The symbiotic “theory suggests that the first multicellular organisms occurred from symbiosis (cooperation) of different species of single-cell organisms, each with different roles.”

“The colonial theory of Haeckel, 1874, proposes that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism.”

The oxygen availability hypothesis “suggests that the oxygen available in the atmosphere of early Earth could have been the limiting factor for the emergence of multicellular life.”

“The snowball Earth hypothesis in regards to multicellularity proposes that the Cryogenian period in Earth history could have been the catalyst for the evolution of complex multicellular life.”

All of these imagined scenarios, and others not mentioned, fail to fill in the void with any mechanism consistent with known laws of physics explaining how unguided natural processes resulted in functional biological systems that had never been seen (or imagined) before on Earth.

Imagine a world in which the existence of anything other than single-cell organisms is absent from reality.  What natural process, consistent with the action of the laws of physics, would cause single cells to move towards the unimagined goal of differentiating themselves into all of the needed types of cells that then organize themselves into an creature that possesses a digestive system, or a circulatory system, or a nervous system, or an immune system, or a reproductive system?

Does the committed evolutionist unconsciously impute their imagination into the supposed biological outworkings of the laws of nature? Should scientists imagine that a higher partial pressure of a certain gas can cause the origin of complex functional biological systems? 

Comments
And back to the original topic, the multiverse is another sci-fi idea that took on a life of its own after stirring in some imagination...EDTA
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
JVL et al, In general, it is not possible to determine whether a sequence of digits was generated by a short algorithm or not. Basic Kolmogorov complexity. If you want to limit the running time of the search algorithm, then you can get a little further in figuring things out. In general, the question is probabalistic, not one a person can figure out with absolute certainty. Others here may be alluding to the fact that as soon as you have copied down a particular sequence and sent it to someone, you have added the element of design to the mix: the second copy of the sequence can be paired up with the first to show design in the latter. It is too unlikely to have arisen independently from the first sequence.EDTA
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Perhaps ideally, Relatd. The problem is that many ground-breaking discoveries are panned by status quo reviewers and have difficulty getting published. However, for every significant breakthrough, there are large numbers of quack papers and falsified studies that usually get filtered. Conversely, there's been a widely acknowledged and disturbing frequency of papers in which the results cannot be replicated, perhaps as many as a third in some fields of science. Having said all this, I freely admit that I don't have any idea of how these issues can be rectified. -QQuerius
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Querius at 22, The best candidates for science have good imaginations and they thoroughly understand the basics. Regardless of specialty, those looking to solve a specific problem look at the data. They then look at the best explanations. If an explanation only manages to solve part of the problem, it's time to use your imagination. To speculate. Then, after several ideas occur, write them down. Then leave them and go back to reconsider them a little later. Usually, a burst of insight occurs or connections that weren't apparent become apparent. Then you can formulate a theory. If possible, you can discuss your thoughts with others in your field to get their feedback and comments. Perhaps even a few good suggestions. Once you think your theory is solid, and you can show how it solves all or mot of the problem, you publish it for scientific review.relatd
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @19 and Related @20, Good point and I agree. However, imagination should not be *filtered* based on acceptability or philosophical presumptions. Here are some examples from astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and evolutionary biology: 1. In an astrophysics class I took many years ago, the professor related how researchers once asked bright high school students for imaginative ideas concerning the physics of pulsars exactly for this reason, namely that these students didn't know enough to filter out any possibilities--and some of their ideas were wild, involving things like stars spinning at relativistic speeds, hairy stars, cylindrical stars, and so on. 2. Observations in quantum mechanics continue to baffle some of the brightest minds on the planet. Most of them focus their imaginations on ideas that preserve deterministic materialism. But, in response to Einstein, what if "God" absolutely LOVES to play dice? What if we allowed that our existence might be within an information and probability field, embracing rather than fighting our experimental results? 3. Instead of a tree model of the "species" (a problematic term, by the way), why not a "hair comb" model? By this , I mean that we start with a long comb with thousands of teeth. When environmental conditions change, many of the teeth get broken off in competition within isolated ecosystems. The apparent result is the same as what we observe now, but it doesn't depend on deep time with billions of miracles of luck changing DNA in tiny increments, a very few of which are presumably beneficial. Fossil evidence simply doesn't show such a gradual continuum, plus there seems to be a mixture of modern-looking species as well as extinct ones in the fossil record. -QQuerius
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Martin_r @11,
PS: I am getting used to it, that these miracles always happen in deep past :)))) you never see that today
Exactly! Aren’t the processes of the deep past supposed to be the same as those that are observable today? Instead, we take the shards of the past and fit them into a fantastical mosaic of our liking with plenty of rhetorical grout in between. Any dissent from the chosen image is smothered by academia. For example, this is exactly what happened to the Clay hypothesis of the origin of life proposed by A. Graham Cairns-Smith. It makes MORE sense compared to the standard aqueous "primordial soup" fantasy. This is an obvious fantasy to any expert in chemical synthesis. See James Tour on OOL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36_v4hsB-Y -QQuerius
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
CD at 19, Imagination is a requirement in science. But so is repeatable, testable evidence.relatd
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Does the committed evolutionist unconsciously impute their imagination into the supposed biological outworkings of the laws of nature?
One shouldn't dismiss the role of imagination in scientific thought so cavalierly:
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. --Albert Einstein
chuckdarwin
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Querius at 2, The answer to all of your questions is: Trust us. Just trust us. This is the way it happened. Even though they can demonstrate none of it. You know, repeatable, testable.relatd
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Red Reader: “If I gave you…” = Design Um, why would that be? It doesn't indicate how it was generated. “a sequence” = Design Um, no. A sequence just means a list. “numbers” = Design You're really reaching here. Sounds like your design inference is unfalsifiable as you seem to think everything is designed. “algorithm” = Design Yes but the point is can you distinguish between algorithmic and non-algorithmic generation. Even your “random sequence” is intelligently designed. Again, it depends on how it's generated or discovered, i.e. whether or not it truly is random. No doubt, you imagined valid results from those rigged amino acid “experiments” Can we just stick to the questions I asked you? Quite a few which you ignored for whatever reason. Your mathematical knowledge seems very idiosyncratic, elementary and biased. But, just to be clear . . . If I presented a list of numbers here would you always assume that the list was generated via some kind of algorithm? In your view is there no way to have any event that is not designed?JVL
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
JVL @ 8 "Here’s a thought: can you detect design in a number sequence? If I gave you a sequence of numbers could you tell if they were more-or-less random or generated by a short, simple algorithm?" "If I gave you..." = Design "a sequence" = Design "numbers" = Design "algorithm" = Design Even your "random sequence" is intelligently designed. No doubt, you imagined valid results from those rigged amino acid "experiments" conducted by "scientists" = Design "in a laboratory" = Design "under controlled conditions" = Design "parameters 'tweaked' until desired outcomes appeared" = DesignRed Reader
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Querius at 1, Science-fantasy. I don't think so. I would toss the word "science" and just call it fantasy and bad storytelling.relatd
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Darwinian materialists claim that mutations to DNA can (eventually) change the basic biological form of an organism into a brand new organism. Yet, despite that widely held belief, they simply have no empirical basis for that claim. How do you think new 'biological forms' come about? To further drive the point home that the sequences in DNA cannot explain how any particular kind of organism achieves its basic form . . . So, how do you think it happens? 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 does the 'cell-mediated processes' work? How are they stored? Where are they stored? How do they interact with and influence embryonic and beyond development?JVL
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 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 . Moreover, up to one third of proteins, which are termed Intrinsically Disordered Proteins, assume different shapes when they are in different molecular ‘contexts’.
:) That is news for me.We don't know how much we don't know (about how many more layers of complexity lay ahead of a scientists that study a single cell) .Sandy
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
I am getting used to it, that these miracles always happen in deep past
There has been only one honest defender of natural Evolution here since the site was started. His examples were all genetic. He was an evolutionary biologist and eventually left and never came back. But he was nice, polite and recognized the shortcomings of the theory. The level of discussion here has deteriorated and strayed from the basic premises of ID. Discussions now are on whatever peripheral target the anti ID person believes the ID person can be made to look bad. Both sides ignore the obvious. There is little effort to get at the truth. That’s not the objective.jerry
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
just to remind you guys, that according to Darwinists, the transition from single cell to multicellularity was not some rare one-time event. According to Darwinists, multicellularity evolved multiple times independently...
Simple multicellularity has evolved numerous times within the Eukarya, but complex multicellular organisms belong to only six clades: animals, embryophytic land plants, florideophyte red algae, laminarialean brown algae, and two groups of fungi. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100209#:~:text=Simple%20multicellularity%20has%20evolved%20numerous,and%20two%20groups%20of%20fungi. or here Multicellularity evolved from multiple independent origins. https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/multicellularity-evolved-from-multiple-independent-origins-14458921/
PS: I am getting used to it, that these miracles always happen in deep past :)))) you never see that today ...martin_r
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
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
Likewise, protein sequences also fail to explain their own 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/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0009
Moreover, up to one third of proteins, which are termed Intrinsically Disordered Proteins, assume different shapes when they are in different molecular ‘contexts’,,,
Biology's Quiet Revolution - Jonathan Wells - September 8, 2014 Excerpt: In 1996, biologists discovered a protein that does not fold into a unique shape but can assume different shapes when it interacts with other molecules. Since then, many such proteins have been found; they are called "intrinsically disordered proteins," or IDPs. IDPs are surprisingly common, and their disordered regions play important functional roles.,,, So it is not true that biologists know all the basic features of living cells and are merely filling in the details. Nor is it true that Darwinian evolution is a settled scientific "fact," as its defenders claim. Huge unanswered questions remain, and they will only be answered by going beyond the discredited myth that "DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/biologys_quiet_089651.html
Moreover, the failure of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form and/or shape 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-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In short, Darwinists simply have no empirical, nor theoretical, support for their widely held reductive materialistic belief that the basic biological form and/or shape of any given organism is reducible to mutations to DNA, (or reducible to any other material particulars in biology that a Darwinist may wish to invoke). Moreover, and as if that was not already bad enough for the committed Darwinian materialist, it is also interesting to note that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, have also completely lost the ability to delineate what a species even is in the first place.
At New Scientist: Questioning The Idea Of Species – Nov. 2020 Excerpt: Take the apparently simple organising principle of a species. You might have learned at school that a species is a group of individuals that can breed to produce fertile offspring. But this is just one of at least 34 competing definitions concocted over the past century by researchers working in different fields.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/at-new-scientist-questioning-the-idea-of-species/
As the headline of the following article stated, “What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery”
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Charles Darwin
As should be needless to say, the inability of a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to rigidly demarcate what a species truly is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the correct ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place! The reason why Darwinists will never be able to rigidly demarcate what a species actually is because the concept of species turns out to be an 'universal', abstract, i.e. immaterial, conceptualization of the immaterial mind. As Logan Paul Gage states in the following article, ”a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.”,,, ” this denial (of true species) is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge.”
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Indeed, as Dr. Michael Egnoir has pointed out, "Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation", and it is in our ability to think about 'immaterial' universals that "We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses." and also "The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men."
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. It is obvious and manifest in our biological nature. We are rational animals, and our rationality is all the difference. Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man. The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/
Thus in conclusion, we find that Darwinian materialism is grossly inadequate to explain the basic biological form and/or shape of any given organism. Shoot, as Darwinists themselves have admitted, the framework of Darwinian materialism can't even rigidly demarcate, and/or define, what a species actually is. And again, this is not a minor failing for any 'scientific' theory that purports itself to be the be all, end all, explanation for all the wondrous diversity of life, and/or 'biological forms', we see about us.
Genesis 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
bornagain77
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Despite the many imaginary speculations, ('just-so stories"), that Darwinists offer for the origin of multicellular organisms, as far as empirical science is concerned, the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution is found to be grossly inadequate to explain the origin of multicellular organisms. Darwinian materialists cannot even explain how a single celled organism achieves its 'form', much less do they have any realistic clue how a multicellular organism achieves its form. 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
Darwinian materialists claim that mutations to DNA can (eventually) change the basic biological form of an organism into a brand new organism. Yet, despite that widely held belief, they simply have no empirical basis for that claim. 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/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
And 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/
Shoot, DNA does not even control the form and/or shape of the genome, thus much less can DNA possibly dictate what form and/or shape that an organism may take. 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/
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/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html Contrary to expectations, genes are constantly rearranged by cells - July 7, 2017 Excerpt: Contrary to expectations, this latest study reveals that each gene doesn’t have an ideal location in the cell nucleus. Instead, genes are always on the move. Published in the journal Nature, researchers examined the organisation of genes in stem cells from mice. They revealed that these cells continually remix their genes, changing their positions as they progress through different stages. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-contrary-to-expectations-genes-are-constantly-rearranged-by-cells/
bornagain77
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Red Reader: Pursuit of such imaginings is evidence of insanity and insane people rarely realize they are insane. Wow, no well poisoning, agi-prop, straw man tactics here eh Kairosfocus? Or do you only police those with whom you disagree? The beginning of insanity is a choice one makes to ignore the logical and intuitive ability of one’s own brain to recognize intelligent causes for non-random, complex, efficient, purposeful, interdependently functioning objects—art, machinery, social systems, etc.—not only in the man-made world but in the world of nature and biology. How do you know your innate recognitions are correct? Here's a thought: can you detect design in a number sequence? If I gave you a sequence of numbers could you tell if they were more-or-less random or generated by a short, simple algorithm? The person’s will separates the person’s wilful self from his logical, intuitive self by demanding that the world conform to his wishes (imaginings). Nothing like being a theist then? The classic example (stated here before) is the bank robber who is convinced the world owes him a living for the wrongs he has suffered. Or the person who thinks what consenting adults do in private has anything to do with them? Or the person who thinks it's okay to be prejudice against people who have different sexual mores than themselves? Here's another question: do you think it's okay for Islamic states to require women to wear a hijab in public? Why or why not? Keeping in mind they say it's a tenet of their holy scriptures. How about this: do you think it's okay for a state/nation to require by law that a person has to have at least liability car insurance and a legal driving license to drive a car? How about this: do you think it's okay for a state/nation to insist citizens who are medically able to get vaccinated or isolate themselves from others? How about this: do you think it's moral or ethical for a state/nation to collect taxes from their citizens?JVL
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
Red Reader @5, Ah, got it. Incidentally, it might be better to edit in a text editor and paste it in all at once. That's what I do . . . unless, I feel lucky and write a long post only to be bumped off the site. Since then, I've mostly learned my lesson. Mostly. ;-) -QQuerius
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Tjguy @4, Yes, on the paradigm filter. However, I'm not so sure how "conscious" or "imaginative" people are when parroting the Darwinian narrative. - Pedagogues teach theories as facts and test them as multiple-choice questions because they're easier to grade. - Professors and professionals in other fields of study assume that origin-of-life and Darwinistic professors have done the research and trust their imaginative explanations. This is kinda fun . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQaReWoUyyQ -QQuerius
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Querius @ 2 Sorry, was running out of time on my edits and deleted "1.". Finished comment which appears to be number 3 now.Red Reader
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Unconsciously? Of course that happens because they interpret everything through the Darwinian paradigm and sometimes that takes real imagination. But much of the time, I think the imagination is quite conscious. Everyone else said it so much better than me, but anyway....tjguy
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
“Does the committed evolutionist unconsciously impute their imagination into the supposed biological outworkings of the laws of nature?” It may be “unconscious” in some cases and conscious in others. Pursuit of such imaginings is evidence of insanity and insane people rarely realize they are insane. To that extent, it would be unconscious. But, some people may know they are being dishonest with themselves and others. The beginning of insanity is a choice one makes to ignore the logical and intuitive ability of one's own brain to recognize intelligent causes for non-random, complex, efficient, purposeful, interdependently functioning objects—art, machinery, social systems, etc.—not only in the man-made world but in the world of nature and biology. Once the choice is made, a person’s mind fractures in opposition to itself. The person’s will separates the person’s wilful self from his logical, intuitive self by demanding that the world conform to his wishes (imaginings). From that point on, the person is on a desperate quest to believe something which he does not and cannot believe. Having made a decision to ignore the logic of intelligent cause and effect—all intelligent effects have intelligent causes—the person has nothing left BUT imagination to accomodate his wilful mind and to make some sense of the world. The insanity spills over into the man-made world in many different ways. The classic example (stated here before) is the bank robber who is convinced the world owes him a living for the wrongs he has suffered. This makes it easier for him to keep robbing banks.Red Reader
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Red Reader @ 1, I call it ideological poisoning. Certain miracles must be excluded even if the naturalistic explanation requires more miracles. Most Darwinists personalize nature and express their views using Lamarckian language. When confronted, they immediately correct themselves, invoking purposeless changes moving in random directions over near-infinite amounts of time. They use a lot of "musta" and "mighta," and "coulda" words in their stories. -QQuerius
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Darwinism is science fantasy. Here's why. Darwinism depends on random mutation, natural selection, reproduction and heritability, and deep time. Thus, given enough time, any and every combination of mutations is not only possible, but also inevitable. For example, we know that reproduction and heritability exist now, so they must have also evolved from organisms that didn't reproduce or have any way of passing along their characteristics to the next generation. -QQuerius
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply