Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution’s Grand Challenge

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Steve Laufmann is a consultant in the growing field of Enterprise Architecture, dealing with the design of very large, very complex, composite information systems that are orchestrated to perform specified tasks in demanding environments. In an extremely interesting ENV article that we commend to our readers, he wites:

Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers.

It’s like the guy who, after untying his boat, finds himself with one foot on the dock and one foot in the boat. As the gap grows, it becomes increasingly hard to ignore. And uncomfortable. And temporary.

And this is evolution’s grand challenge: The complex programs and amazing molecular machines at the heart of life simply cannot be explained by any current or proposed theory of evolution, nor by any other completely material cause. Apologists for materialism cannot hide this fact much longer. Neither the volume of their arguments nor any level of vitriol can change the fact that the data is skewing against them.

Rarely has any field of science had to deal with questions so difficult, or that cut so deeply into the worldviews, minds, and hearts, of thoughtful men and women.

Evolution sits at the center of a front-and-center debate — with too much to explain, in too little time, with insufficient causal power, and with so many watching and so much at stake.

Comments
Alicia Cartelli:
Natural selection “killing off stuff,” means those that survive are better replicators/translators. It’s the most basic idea of evolution.
"Better" is relative and eliminating the worst of the lot if very different from selecting the best. That is why that most basic idea of evolution has failed in explaining the diversity of life.Virgil Cain
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli, Mr. Laufmann has his own definition of life. I don't see that it necessarily makes abiogenesis impossible but I will admit it seems very, very unlikely when defined as he has. But let me inquire, "How does that differ from your definition? Does your definition not seek to make abiogenesis plausible or even likely?" His definition, it seems to me, has the distinct advantage in that it describes that which we routinely observe. Yours tries to suggest that there is something between simple chemistry and Mr. Laufmann's "first life." Some kind of not-quite-life you cannot show me under a microscope because you have not found it. I disagree to some extent that it requires "extensive knowledge of both chemistry and biology" to make an assessment of the evolutionist claims for molecular evolution. I will accept the word of a survey paper that put the bits and pieces of the pathway from individual atoms to the most simple life form we know exist or ever existed. I don't need to understand all the details. I just need to know that the facts presented are true, reproducible, and not worldview driven interpretations, stories of what nature must have accomplished against all the odds or promises of what further research might, someday, yield, especially when past research has not made all that much progress, as far as I have been shown, except to eliminate possibilities. Until molecules are shown to "evolve" as opposed to react, "molecular evolution" is "vaporware." StephenSteRusJon
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
HeKS, nice subtle point! A purely neutral "Larry Moran universe".Box
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
The only thing I'm weeping about is your fundamental misunderstanding, Boxy. Nothing in that post is new or worrisome, it merely says we have more work to do in the lab. We have made some of the small steps already, but still have a ways to go. And in the next post? Natural selection "killing off stuff," means those that survive are better replicators/translators. It's the most basic idea of evolution.Alicia Cartelli
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Box, You know, it's funny, because once they invoke an infinite multiverse to explain the origin of life, speculative hypotheses about actual mechanisms of macroevolution become pointless window-dressing. If there's an infinite multiverse out there, then there are an infinite number of universes identical to ours, in which versions of all of us exist, but where evolution arrived at its current state purely by chance. So who is to say that we're not actually in one of those infinite universes? Any attempt to say that we have evidence in our universe to support the idea that some non-random mechanism played a key role is pointless, because there will also be an infinite number of universes where evolution took place purely by chance but where apparent evidence supposedly supporting non-random mechanisms was also derived purely by chance. Infinite universes are fun. Too bad they utterly destroy science.HeKS
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Koonin: Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection.
Koonin is correct of course, but not about "natural selection". Think about it, what good is natural selection? Let's say that, against all odds, chance produces efficient systems for replication and translation. *ENTERS natural selection*. How is that of any help? All it does is killing off stuff and making things even harder.Box
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Take a look for yourself Cartellia, and weep:
Koonin: Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection. The currently favored (partial) solution is an RNA world without proteins in which replication is catalyzed by ribozymes and which serves as the cradle for the translation system. However, the RNA world faces its own hard problems as ribozyme-catalyzed RNA replication remains a hypothesis and the selective pressures behind the origin of translation remain mysterious. Eternal inflation offers a viable alternative that is untenable in a finite universe, i.e., that a coupled system of translation and replication emerged by chance, and became the breakthrough stage from which biological evolution, centered around Darwinian selection, took off. A corollary of this hypothesis is that an RNA world, as a diverse population of replicating RNA molecules, might have never existed. In this model, the stage for Darwinian selection is set by anthropic selection of complex systems that rarely but inevitably emerge by chance in the infinite universe (multiverse).
Box
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments.
Alleged early environments with each step requiring different environments. Some environments even preclude the products of the other small steps. The shortest RNA capable of being a catalyst is 5 nucleotides. Even that seems to be beyond the reach of chemistry and physics. Joyce and Lincoln's RNAs were 35 nucleotides and needed two to get a sustained replication. And that was with a supply of macromolecules that were half the size of the originals. That is way out of the reach of chemistry and physics. Alicia Cartelli would have us believe that since mother nature can easily produce stones that she can also produce Stonehenges.Virgil Cain
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Feel free to take a look for yourself Boxy. Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments.Alicia Cartelli
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli: When talking about abiogenesis you can’t really have a concrete definition of life, especially with the field of molecular evolution currently in its infancy. A lot of work has been done already and it is promising, (...)
What exactly do you consider to be "promising"? Koonin's desperate appeal to the multiverse? I wouldn't consider that "promising". Terms that come to mind are "cringe-worthy" and "steaming pile of cowchips". IOW it is just "pseudoscientific trash that you and your ilk love to eat right up."Box
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
It is obvious you don’t have an answer
And yet I provide answers.
Childish remarks like this one are all you’re capable of.
That is all you and Alicia are capable of, anyway. My retorts just mock you.Virgil Cain
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
It is obvious that Alicia Cartelli is just a steaming pile of cowchips.
It is obvious you don't have an answer, ...to anything. Childish remarks like this one are all you're capable of.Carpathian
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain @30
What else is there?
Nothing, simply nothing. You may want to consider not asking difficult questions that could overwhelm your "nice" (well mannered and polite) interlocutor. That would be unfair and abusive. :) Instead, you may ask this fundamental but easy question about all the evo-devo pseudoscientific literature piled up out there: Where's the beef? :) https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-581219Dionisio
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
Well of course he has his own definition of life, this allows him to make his argument in a way that makes abiogenesis seem impossible.
Abiogenesis is impossible, Alicia. You can't get the molecules and you can't get life.
A lot of work has been done already and it is promising
Only if you are an IDist or Creationist. Then all work on abiogenesis is very promising to support ID and/ or Creation.
Molecular evolution isn’t just a “coined term,” it’s an entire field of inquiry with significant supporting research.
That's your opinion. Reality says otherwise. The RNA world is a bust. Metabolism first is a bust. What else is there?Virgil Cain
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Well of course he has his own definition of life, this allows him to make his argument in a way that makes abiogenesis seem impossible. When talking about abiogenesis you can’t really have a concrete definition of life, especially with the field of molecular evolution currently in its infancy. Lines are going to be blurred, life and non-life exist on a spectrum during abiogenesis. A lot of work has been done already and it is promising, but unfortunately the biological layman will find it difficult to sift through and understand the research as it requires extensive knowledge of both chemistry and biology. Molecular evolution isn’t just a “coined term,” it’s an entire field of inquiry with significant supporting research.Alicia Cartelli
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli, Except for the condescending tone I am glad you are willing to "focus a bit." I noted the lack of mention of the molecular evolution hypothesis myself. I did not swallow everything Mr. Laufmann had to say uncritically. However, it is apparent, at least to me, that Mr. Laufmann has a definition of life. His list of requirements for "first life" serves as that definition. The definition of life has been fuzzy and subjective. I see nothing wrong with his. Most things which are considered to be life have the characteristics listed by Mr. Laufmann or are dependent on entities that do. So without something corresponding to Mr. Laufmann's "first life" those other "living" things are inert. Molecular evolution is nothing more than chance chemical reactions, essentially, organic chemistry for the most part which evolutionist hope some way or another bridge the gap from non-life to life. The chasm separating chance chemistry from the information harnessing machinery of "first life" is huge. The evolutionist abracadabra words "molecular evolution" are not in my opinion, enough to cover it. I do not see where anyone has even begun to make the case that they are. I am aware of the existence of a number of molecular evolution proposals. I am reasonably sure that Mr. Laufmann is as well. For me, I just don't see it as a plausible stop-gap to cover the transition between non-living energy potential driven chemistry and living information/machinery driven chemistry. I concede there may be a pathway. You are welcome to search for it. More power to you and be sure to let me know when you've cracked the case. I'd really like to know about it. I'll take it into consideration. Until then, don't ask or expect me to accept it as proven fact just because someone coined the term "molecular evolution" because their worldview requires it to be there. StephenSteRusJon
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
He makes it sound like the first living organism had to be a complex cell similar to organisms we see today, completely skipping molecular evolution.
There isn't any evidence for molecular evolution. And there isn't any evidence that cells were once more simple than what we see today. So what, exactly, is he skipping?
He is simply taking a non-biological approach to explaining biology.
Biologists can't take a biological approach to explaining biology. Look, Alicia, you can't explain evolution nor biology. Evolutionary biologists can't even do that. All of your posts are cringe-worthy. Your entire position is cringe-worthy.Virgil Cain
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Fine Stevie, I'll play along. Most of the text you've copy/pasted is just non-biological doublespeak, but he makes many of the same mistakes you guys love to make when talking about evolution. I'll focus on the bit about abiogenesis, which is completely wrong. He makes it sound like the first living organism had to be a complex cell similar to organisms we see today, completely skipping molecular evolution. He most likely does this because he knows nothing about the topic, which is only slightly less than what he seems to know about biology as a whole. He is simply taking a non-biological approach to explaining biology. It's fine for informal and general understanding, but in a debate about the complexities of biology and its evolution, it's cringe-worthy.Alicia Cartelli
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
It is obvious that Alicia Cartelli is just a steaming pile of cowchips. She can't even rise above play ground level of childish taunts. And she definitely cannot defend molecular biology from the likes of Steve Laufmann. Alicia Cartelli is the poster child for losers.Virgil Cain
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli, In other words, "I can't point out anything specifically wrong with what Mr. Laufmann has to say but take my word for it, It's crap!" Well argued. NOT! And you just proved my original point in #8. Thanks for the confirmation. StephenSteRusJon
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
No need to "do any better," Stevie. Anyone with knowledge in the field of molecular biology can see exactly what this guy's ramblings amount to: a steaming pile of cowchips.Alicia Cartelli
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
In fact, like I said earlier, the big questions have remained the same; such as what was the first living organism?
And yet there are still new questions being asked. Those big questions remain unanswered and new questions are being asked. Guess what that means? Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers.
“Shrinking answers” is his attempt to discredit an entire scientific field,...
Grow up.Virgil Cain
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
#4 addendum The link posted @4 points to comments @942-951 within the "third way" thread.Dionisio
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli, You didn't do one bit better the second time around than the first. Typical. StephenSteRusJon
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
“Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers" is a summary of what this guy wants you to think. In fact, like I said earlier, the big questions have remained the same; such as what was the first living organism? We attempt to answer these question's by asking smaller questions, slowly working our way to a better understanding. "Shrinking answers" is his attempt to discredit an entire scientific field, a field which he obviously knows very little about. His case is simply a whole lot of nothing. He loads his language with computer science vocabulary and twists things to suit his needs. Like I said, it's just the typical pseudoscientific trash that you guys love to eat right up.Alicia Cartelli
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli, Thanks for a confirmation of the modus operandi. The quote you presented as "right off the bat" was preceded by the following quote. It was a summary statement of all the thought and analysis that is in the quote and probably much more that was not essential to his case. I specifically paste this long quote to demonstrate your penchant for not addressing the issue.
Enter Information, Stage Right Evolutionary biology was very much like other sciences up until the 1950s, when the information-bearing capabilities of DNA and RNA were discovered inside living cells. These discoveries fundamentally changed biology. And as the information payload is increasingly unraveled, we're seeing ever more complex and interdependent assembly instructions, activation circuits, programming sequences, and message payloads. This information is decoded and operated on by molecular machines of similar complexity, and the whole (information + machines) is self-generating, self-sustaining, and self-replicating. The information has some intriguing properties: It must perform an astounding number of complex functions in order to create, sustain, and replicate life. Each function requires multiple distinct programs or sequences for the various phases of its lifecycle: assembly, operation, complex orchestration with other functions, error detection and correction, replication, and so on. These are functionally distinct types of activities, so it's almost certain that they are encoded separately, perhaps with completely different coding structures and mechanisms. It has no value without a complex collection of molecular machines, yet it must also include the instructions for generating those same machines. The result is an immensely complex choreography of separate but interrelated information and molecular machines. Neither can function without the other -- a ginormous chicken-and-egg problem. It exhibits the design properties of the best human-engineered software systems, yet its capabilities extend well beyond any current human-engineered systems. For example, no human-engineered system is capable of self-replicating both the software that operates on the machinery and the machinery that decodes the software. Further, based on the observed functionality in living organisms, there are many undiscovered types of information that must be present in a living cell, but which haven't been decoded or understood yet. Kinesin offers a fascinating example of undiscovered information in action. What programs and machinery are required to assemble the structure and function of kinesin? What information is needed for kinesin to achieve its "runtime" functions? How does kinesin know where to go to pick up a load, what load to pick up, what path to take, and where to drop its load? How does it know what to do next? All this functionality takes information, which must be encoded somewhere. Indeed, the level of complexity is monotonically increasing, with no end in sight. With no possibility that new discoveries will ever decrease the observed complexity, it may not be long before we see a seismic shift in the research paradigm -- from the study of biological systems that happen to contain information, to the study of information systems that happen to be encoded in biology. Causal Requirements and Causal Forces Aside from the obvious (and intriguing) challenge of understanding the enormous complexity of life's information payload, evolution purports to explain its origins. The origin of life is perhaps the most obvious example of information's formidable hurdle to evolutionary explanations. First life requires all of the following: Sufficient complex programs and sequencing to support first life's complete lifecycle (i.e., the directions have to be complete and correct). Sufficient machinery to interpret the programs and to operate life (i.e., the directions must have proper effect). Sufficient programs and machinery to replicate both the programs and the machinery (i.e., the directions must be passed to the next generation). And all this must be present at the same time, in the same place, in at least one instant in history, at which point the whole must somehow be animated to create life. And all this must occur, by definition, before an organism can reproduce. Without reproduction, there is no possibility to accumulate function, from simple to complex, as required by evolution. Hence, the programs must have contained all the complexity required for first life at inception. By definition, then, the minimal programs and machinery required for first life must have predated any creative capabilities (real or imagined) of Darwinian processes. Further, since the information necessary for first life must have been assembled prior to the animation of first life, the minimal information payload must have predated first life. And it must therefore have derived from a source beyond biology as we know it. This poses a causal quandary for evolutionary biology. For there are only two known classes of causal forces, and these have dramatically different qualities. First, there are physical laws, which include mathematics, physics, and chemistry. These are repeatable (i.e., the same inputs always produce the same results) and purposeless (i.e., the same inputs produce the same results, no matter who gets hurt). Their repeatability makes science effective. But physical laws are not capable of acting with intent, which limits their creative capabilities. Operating within the physical laws are random events that can change the information payload of life in various ways. But these are constrained by the same physical laws, so are similarly incapable of acting with intent. Random events cannot create complex information, except in two circumstances: (a) there is some predefined notion of a desirable outcome, and (b) any "positive gains" toward that outcome are protected from random degradation through some external mechanism. Both of these special circumstances require intention, which the physical laws cannot offer. Second, there are intelligent causes, which are purposeful and therefore not generally repeatable. The creation of complex programming requires non-repeatability. While intelligent causes are capable of generating the right kind of information, it's difficult to pin down when and how their actions occurred, or what their intent might have been. All sciences that deal with intelligent causes (e.g., archaeology) are made more difficult by non-repeatability. An Impending Worldview Crisis The search for a purposeful cause that predates biology as we know it inevitably drives the conversation to metaphysics. And this places evolution (and biology) at the center of a conflict between worldviews. For materialists, the first class of causal force is insufficient and the second is unacceptable. Materialist biologists are thus pressed to find a third class of causal force -- one that works without purpose (required to adhere to materialist philosophy), yet produces purposeful outcomes (required to adhere to the observed world). As yet no reasonable candidate forces have been proposed. So materialists face growing dissonance between their philosophical commitment and biology's complex programming. As the quality and quantity of the discovered interdependent programs and processing machinery increases, the plausibility of material causation gets weaker. So the materialist position is weak, and going in the wrong direction (from their perspective). On the other hand, for anyone not fully committed to materialist philosophy the options are much more interesting. For those willing to consider the second class of causal force, things begin to fall into place and the dissonance dissipates. For theists, the second class of causal force is not only acceptable, but expected. Further, theists are unsurprised to learn that the causal forces in class #1 are finely tuned to enable life, and they have no problem with the notion that random events are more likely to destroy information than create it (e.g., there are far more possible non-functioning programs than functioning programs). Ongoing discoveries about the nature of the information at the core of life present a growing hurdle for the materialist worldview, but are increasingly friendly to any worldview that's open to a pre-biological intelligence with some means to assemble the programs and machinery minimally required for first life. And this sets up a worldview collision. Evolution's Grand Challenge
"Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers." is a summary of the above which is the bulk of the article. It should be understood in that light and the criticism should reference that discussion. Now would you like to engage Mr. Laufmann's case? Or, would you rather mischaracterize it and then dismiss it? I challenge you to point out the weak and missing links in his chain. StephenSteRusJon
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
One thing that is undeniable today, is that biology has changed forever. It is never going to be the biology of Darwin or Haeckel again.EugeneS
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
'I agree with BA77@3, almost poetic . . . so without further ado:' Strange, Tim. I was only thinking this morning I should have written precisely to the effect you have just posted here.Axel
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli, (despite you a priori atheistic preferences), continually insisting that unguided material processes created the jaw dropping levels of complexity currently being discovered in molecular biology, as Darwinists do, and the chasm growing ever wider and wider for the man on the boat dock, is a perfect metaphor for the predicament Darwinists are currently in.
New Studies Reveal Higher Levels of Genetic Complexity - April 6, 2014 Excerpt: It is not known how many overlapping codes there are. There are multiple factors that determine the opening of the histones. Multiple factors determine which pieces of DNA will be used. A fantastic array of promoters and enhancers and large and small RNAs interact in multiple ways to regulate what pieces of DNA are used. Thousands of different multiple large protein promoters operate in multiple start sites and with multiple proteins either binding to the DNA, or forming large structures by attaching to the other promoters. In some DNA there are two superimposed codes at once. Also, somehow, many different mechanisms are used to repair DNA errors (see post). Eight million factors affect the RNA particles that are made from at least 20% of all DNA (maybe up to 50%). Messenger RNA somehow determines multiple different edits from the same pieces of DNA. Pieces are taken from multiple places, strands are cut out and others sewn together without clear direction. New 3D folding of the RNA also forms a new code. All of these processes create a code of amino acids that the cell knows will form a very specific very complex protein shape. Proteins only work through exact shapes. Although it would take current supercomputers 2000 years to figure out the folding of one 400 amino acid length protein, proteins are actually folded in primary, secondary, tertiary and quarternary structures in a millisecond, with the help of complex proteins called chaperones. Manufactured proteins then affect all the different neuroplastic mechanisms in a large circuit at once. These proteins, also, affect immune cells throughout the body. Where is the regulation and control for all of this? How can anyone say that these overlapping codes involving hundreds of thousands of interacting factors is in any way random? http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the idea of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark): "Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 Time mag: (Another) Second Code Uncovered Inside the DNA -- Scientists have discovered a second code hidden within the DNA, written on top of the other. - December 2013 http://science.time.com/2013/12/13/second-code-uncovered-inside-the-dna/ To get a sense of the breath-taking complexity this represents, watch this video of J.S. Bach's "Crab canon." It was composed to be played backwards and forwards at the same time, and then with one part flipped upside down on the music stand. http://www.openculture.com/2013/02/the_genius_of_js_bachs_crab_canon_visualized_on_a_mobius_strip.html Design In DNA – Alternative Splicing, Duons, and Dual coding genes – video (5:05 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm67oXKtH3s#t=305 Mammalian overlapping genes: the comparative perspective. - 2004 Excerpt: it is rather surprising that a large number of genes overlap in the mammalian genomes. Thousands of overlapping genes were recently identified in the human and mouse genomes. However, the origin and evolution of overlapping genes are still unknown. We identified 1316 pairs of overlapping genes in humans and mice and studied their evolutionary patterns. It appears that these genes do not demonstrate greater than usual conservation. Studies of the gene structure and overlap pattern showed that only a small fraction of analyzed genes preserved exactly the same pattern in both organisms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14762064 "applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It's just not going to work." - David Berlinski "The very notion that nanotechnology, the functional complexity of which is beyond the ability of modern science to create intentionally, came about mindlessly and accidentally is what is as unbelievably stupid as it is false. If atheistic science knew even one way to build technology from scratch that could also manufacture more instances of itself from available raw materials, then it might be able to begin explaining how such a technological feat could have occurred mindlessly and accidentally, because it would then at least have some idea of what would be required for something like that to take place. As it is, atheistic science insists that that which it has no idea how to make happen on purpose happened accidentally. The stupidity of that is something like jungle savages insisting, even though they didn’t have any idea how to manufacture one, that the laptop PC they found came about accidentally. The functional complexity of life’s nanotechnology is light years beyond our own." Harry UD Blogger
bornagain77
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli has the integrity of a snake-oil salesperson.
Everyday new information is added to our understanding of molecular biology and its evolutionary past.
That's your opinion. However unguided evolution can't be modeled and adds nothing to our understanding.Virgil Cain
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply