Evolution’s Repeat Performances

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 24, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Would you believe that the blind, unguided process of evolution repeats itself? Would you believe that evolution somehow repeats striking patterns of change? Evolutionists do.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Dave, The theory doesn't predict anything. It doesn't predict constraints, or no constraints. Junk DNA, or no Junk DNA. Evolutionists don't see multi-maxed attributes in nature, so they tell a story about how variant, maximal attributes might be constrained by evolution. Proving it false doesn't prove evolution false; it just means their story was wrong. It's like telling a story about how the giraffe got a long neck. Or why humans have "vestigial" organs. It's a story, not a prediction, the seeks to rationalize why we see what we see from the materialist perspective. Here's the problem, Dave. When it comes to real science - numbers, physics, DNA mutations, watching decades worth of bacterial generations breed, we not only don't see any macro-evolution; we don't even see that it is reasonably possible. The only thing that claims macro-evolution is possible are Darwinian myths that "explain" .. from that perspective ... away junk DNA, non-junk DNA, vestigial organs, non-vestigial organs, gradualism, punctuated equillibrium ..... and on and on.William J. Murray_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

one last comment BA77 - do you have any actual response to comment 57 or is simply saying "theological argument" and presumably crossing your fingers behind your back it?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, And yet, as with Dr Lenski's work, we see that in the right conditions new features can and do evolve. Your "fitness tests" of bacteria are flawed, flawed in a blindly obvious way. I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to determine how. As you appear to think that youtube and answersingenesis is a legitimate way of arguing I think I'll leave it here with you.Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

levy is ad homenim attack on 56 and theological argument on 57bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Levy defends malaria with: "Yet the malaria parasite is and remains one of the most sucessfull organisms on the planet." And yet the fact that no change was observed is dismissed with a superficial rationalization and you think nothing of it! How about a little more evidence then or do you really even care what the actual evidence says?. Michael Denton - Stromatolites Are Extremely Ancient - Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4lDkOsrbcU Both the oldest Stromatolite fossils, and the oldest bacterium fossils, found on earth demonstrate an extreme conservation of morphology which, very contrary to evolutionary thought, simply means they look very similar to Stromatolites and bacteria of today. AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. Though it is impossible to reconstruct the DNA of these earliest bacteria fossils, that scientists find in the fossil record, and compare them to their descendants of today, there are many ancient bacterium recovered and "revived" from salt crystals and amber crystals that have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence. The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 and this: Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart, (thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution's "genetic drift" theory requires.) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/5213/1060 30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD61439F93AA25756C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the "Fitness Test" that I had asked him about: Dr. Cano stated: "We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative "ancient" B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.": Fitness test which compared the 30 million year old ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy: a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria. Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "Fitness Test" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstorebornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Hi William, Dave quoted: Without constraints, organisms would evolve to become masters of all traits. As they do not, organisms must have a limited set of possible phenotypes (Maynard Smith, 1978). ” How is this not the same process of shoehorning a fact into a theory with a covenient story? Perhaps you can point out to me where the theory predicts no constraints?Dave Wisker_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy.
Bornagain77 - why would the designer design the genome so that the lactase enzyme was disabled when I think most would agree lactose tolerance enables access to an amazing resource? It would be like designing a car to run on very low octane fuel and very high octane fuel but then covering up the high octane fuel port with a thin piece of paper. Why create it in the first place then?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

bornagain77
Well Dave if they can’t back up all their fancy talk with actual evidence what is the paper worth save for the john?
Rather then wipe yourself with it, have you considered burning it? You could also add that stack of papers Behe dismissed without reading to the bonfire.Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Why quote the peer reviewed literature when you can quote DaveScot from UD? :)Nakashima_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

bornagain77
The result of random mutation + natural selection being given billions of trillions of opportunities to generate significant novel biological complexity was essentially nil.
Yet the malaria parasite is and remains one of the most sucessfull organisms on the planet. Despite the best efforts of humanity it retains it's ability to have "in 1 year more mutation/duplication/selection events than all mammal lineages would have had in the entire +100 million years they have been in the fossil record". Not bad eh? Perhaps it does not need to generate new "novel biological complexity" because it's doing just fine as it is? Ever considered that? Do you think novel biological complexity just develops on it's own with no input from the enviroment? Why would an organism well adapted to the enviromental niche it finds itself in change at all?
Dang real world evidence is not so nice to all that theoretical posturing you cited.
And yet average lifespans increase every generation despite this so called "genetic entropy". When will we see the effects then? At some ill defined point in the future perhaps?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Dave quoted: Without constraints, organisms would evolve to become masters of all traits. As they do not, organisms must have a limited set of possible phenotypes (Maynard Smith, 1978). " How is this not the same process of shoehorning a fact into a theory with a covenient story?William J. Murray_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Well Dave if they can't back up all their fancy talk with actual evidence what is the paper worth save for the john?bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Theoretical Population Biology: The name says it all: Heaven forbid cracking it open and actually reading it.Dave Wisker_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Theoretical Population Biology: The name says it all: Let's see what real world evidence says: The malaria parasite, due to its comparatively large population size, has in 1 year more mutation/duplication/selection events than all mammal lineages would have had in the entire +100 million years they have been in the fossil record. Since single cell organisms, and viruses, replicate far more quickly than multi-cellular life-forms can, scientists can do experiments on single celled organisms, and viruses, to see what we can actually expect to happen over millions of years for larger life forms if evolution were true. Malaria and AIDS are among the largest real world tests that can be performed to see if evolutionary presumptions are true. "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html Genetic Entropy and Malarial Parasite P. falciparum - Dave Scot Edge of Evolution I found to be amazing. It presented a case history of a eukaryote (P.falciparum) (Malaria) that has replicated billions of trillions of times within a span of a few decades. More importantly this is one of the most well studied organisms in biology due to its huge toll on human lives. In the last decade we’ve gone beyond phenotype analysis of the bug and have completely sequenced its genotype. This represents the largest test of evolution that we can hope to observe. The result of random mutation + natural selection being given billions of trillions of opportunities to generate significant novel biological complexity was essentially nil. Except for biochemically (but medically important) trivial changes in genotype the bug went exactly nowhere. It’s still the same old P.falciparum as its great grandparents billions of trillions of generations removed. It neither progressed nor regressed in an evolutionary sense. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/genetic-entropy-and-malarial-parasite-pfalciparum/ Behe goes even further in addressing the Gene Duplication scenario in this following study: Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues: Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke excerpt of abstract: Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. (However), At smaller population sizes, the time to fixation varies linearly with 1/N and exceeds the inverse of the point mutation rate. We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2286568 Also see: Michael Behe's Amazon Blog - Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Parts 1-5 http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2 The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population (Philip J. Gerrish & Richard E. Lenski) "As shown by Manning and Thompson (1984) and by Peck (1994), the fate of a beneficial mutation is determined as much by the selective disadvantage of any deleterious mutations with which it is linked as by its own selective advantage." "I have seen estimates of the incidence of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). Therefore, I cannot ...accurately represent how rare such beneficial mutations really are." (J.C. Sanford; Genetic Entropy page 24) - 2005 Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? (Thomas Bataillon) Abstract......It is argued that, although most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favourable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate. Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli Excerpt: At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect. High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans ( Esther K. Davies, Andrew D. Peters, Peter D. Keightley) "In fitness assays, only about 4 percent of the deleterious mutations fixed in each line were detectable. The remaining 96 percent, though cryptic, are significant for mutation load...the presence of a large class of mildly deleterious mutations can never be ruled out. " "Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.” Sanford: Genetic Entropy Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to the DNA of humans that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a "truly" beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker). "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders... Dang real world evidence is not so nice to all that theoretical posturing you cited.bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Hi William,
On the other hand, given enough time and chance, anything can happen in evolution, right?
No, of course not:
The notion of trade-offs is central to evolutionary theory. Without constraints, organisms would evolve to become masters of all traits. As they do not, organisms must have a limited set of possible phenotypes (Maynard Smith, 1978). At the boundary of this set organisms face a trade-off: they can only improve one trait at the expense of the others. There exists a long literature that tells how, given such boundary constraints and given that evolution maximizes some optimization criterion, we can calculate the phenotypes that we should expect to evolve (e.g. Maynard Smith, 1978; Stephens and Krebs, 1986; Lessells, 1991; Roff, 1992; Stearns, 1992; Alexander, 1996; McNamara et al.,2001).
Rueffler C, TJM VanDooren & JAJ Metz (2004). Adaptive walks on changing landscapes: Levins’ approach extended. Theoretical Population Biology 65: 165-178Dave Wisker_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Excession, No. In any specific claim of ID, I.D. is easily disqualified simply by showing that law & chance are sufficient explanations. On the other hand, given enough time and chance, anything can happen in evolution, right? Order, disorder, junk DNA, non-junk DNA, gradualism, punctuated equillibrium, distinctly different evolution because of divergence; similar/identical convergent and parallel evolution even when separated, defiance of genetic entropy, manufacturing of specified, complex coded information, ancient organisms with virtually identical DNA as present organisms, fast-reproducing organisms, slow-reproducing organsims.William J. Murray_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Excession states: Yes, it explains how organisms adapt from generation to generation and provides a framework for explaining many of the things we observe in the history of life on earth, without recourse to supernatural deities. Genetic Entropy explains the pattern of life's history far more clearly and has a rigid basis for falsification. I think your framework is severely lacking in explanatory power: First and foremost, we now have concrete evidence for life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth. Scientific Evidence For The First Life On Earth - video http://science.discovery.com/videos/the-planets-life-earliest-evidence.html Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEl9PZW4hc The hard physical evidence scientists have discovered in the geologic record is stunning in its support of the anthropic hypothesis. The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of “photosynthetic” life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks (U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003). Thus we now have conclusive evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found by scientists on earth. The simplest photosynthetic bacterial life on earth is exceedingly complex, too complex to happen by accident even if the primeval oceans had been full of pre-biotic soup. General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology: ---- The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-10^18. That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 10^18 zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an infinite number of universes, the chance of life occurring on earth is vanishingly small. Koonin's estimate of 1 in 10 followed by 10^18 zeros, for the probability of the simplest self-replicating molecule, is a fantastically large number. The number 10^10^18, if written out in its entirety, would be a 1 with a million trillion zeros following to the right! The universe itself is estimated to have only 1 with 80 zeros following particles in it. Second: Most people have been taught that the evidence in the fossil record overwhelmingly confirms gradual evolution, whether gradual Theistic or gradual Darwinian evolution. Yet this is not the case at all. The fossil record itself is one of the most crushing things for people who believe in gradual evolution. In fact, what is termed the “Cambrian Explosion” is a total departure from the gradual theory of evolution and finds easy resolution for its suddenness in God's fifth day of creation in Genesis. Genesis 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,".... Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion PART 1 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion PART 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk The hard facts of science betray the materialist once again. Some materialists say the evidence for the fossils transmutation into radically new forms is out there somewhere; we just have not found it yet. To justify this belief, a materialist will often say that soft bodied fossils were not preserved in the Cambrian fossil record, so transitional fossils were just not recorded in the fossil record in the first place (artifact hypothesis). Yet, the Chinese Cambrian fossil record is excellent in its preservation of delicate soft-bodied fossils which clearly show much of the detail of the soft body structures of these first creatures (And even detail of the sponge embryos before the time of the Cambrian period). So the problem for the materialist has not been alleviated. In fact the problem has become much worse. As Dr. Ray Bohlin stated, some of these recently discovered fossils are extremely unique and defy any sort of transitional scenario to any of the other fossils found during the Cambrian explosion. Besides the fossil record, recent DNA analysis testifies against any transitional scenario between Cambrian phyla: The new animal phylogeny: Reliability and implications: excerpt: "The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages." From Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 - I like this following paper for though it is materialistic in its outlook at least Eugene Koonin, unlike many materialists, is brutally honest with the evidence we now have. The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background: "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable; I could go a lot further for the evidence against evolution is so overwhelming.bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

"You seem to be defending the neo-Darwinian position, which is strictly materialistic in its premise" Yes, it explains how organisms adapt from generation to generation and provides a framework for explaining many of the things we observe in the history of life on earth, without recourse to supernatural deities. "your god, base philosophy, seems to be powerful enough to create the universe but not powerful enough to create life in it." No, Clever enough perhaps to design a universe in which life would arise. You are assuming that a god powerful enough to create a universe would have to hand design all life in it. Why? "All individual constants are of such a high degree of precision as to defy human comprehension." Speak for yourself. I said: "the fact that we live in a lucky universe where life emerged must indicate that the universe was created intentionally. " then you disagreed before proceeding to outline how the fact that we live in a universe that can support life means that it must have been designed. A position entirely compatible with the MES. I didn't read the rest of your post, there seemed little point.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

excession states: I don’t presume to know the motivations of an hypothetical creator. I also don’t see anything yet in the material world, created or otherwise, that prevents evolution from working or makes it incompatible with the idea of a created universe, just certain, very specific notions of creation." Well excession: You seem to be defending the neo-Darwinian position, which is strictly materialistic in its premise, without subscribing to the materialistic philosophy. i.e. your god, base philosophy, seems to be powerful enough to create the universe but not powerful enough to create life in it. Don't you find your position odd? and then excession goes on to state: As I understand ID it is quite easy to take any piece of evidence and argue that it fits with the ID hypothesis at some level, after all the fact that we live in a lucky universe where life emerged must indicate that the universe was created intentionally. Don’t you agree? Well no I don't! There are no apparent reasons why the value of each individual transcendent universal constant could not have been very different than what they actually are. In fact, the presumption of any materialistic theory based on blind chance expected a fairly large amount of flexibility in any underlying natural laws for the universe, since the natural laws themselves were postulated to arise from a material basis. They "just so happen" to be at the precise unchanging values necessary to enable carbon-based life to exist in this universe. All individual constants are of such a high degree of precision as to defy human comprehension. For example, the individual cosmological constant (dark energy) is balanced to 1 part in 10^120 and the individual mass density constant is balanced to 1 part in 10^60. Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe - Hugh Ross - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B0t4zSzhjg To clearly illustrate the stunning degree of fine-tuning we are dealing with in the universe, Dr. Ross has used the illustration of adding or subtracting a single dime's worth of mass in the observable universe would have been enough of a change in mass density to make life impossible in this universe. This word picture he uses, with the dime, helps to demonstrate a number used to quantify that fine-tuning of mass, namely 1 part in 10^60 for mass density. Compared to the total mass of the observable universe, 1 part in 10^60 works out to about a tenth part of a dime, if not smaller. --- Where Is the Cosmic Density Fine-Tuning? - Hugh Ross Although 1 part in 10^120 and 1 part in 10^60 far exceeds, by trillions upon trillions of levels of tolerance, the highest tolerance ever achieved in any man-made machine, (which is the 1 in 10^22 tolerance achieved for the Gravity Wave Detector; Ross), according to the esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the “original phase-space volume” of the universe, required such precision that the “Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it. The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." This 1 in 10^10^123 number, for the initial state of entropy for the universe, also lends strong support for "highly specified infinite information" creating the universe since; "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert Newton Lewis This staggering level of precision, for each individual universal constant scientists can measure, is exactly why many theoretical physicists have suggested the existence of a “super-calculating intellect” to account for this fine-tuning. This is precisely why the anthropic hypothesis has gained such a strong foothold in many scientific circles. American geneticist Robert Griffiths jokingly remarked about these recent developments, "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use anymore." Further comments: "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially." Nobel Prize winning Physicist Charles Townes "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan." Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias "If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA) "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage (preeminent Astronomer from 1960's - 70's): The only other theory possible for the universe’s creation, other than a God-centered hypothesis, is some purposeless materialistic theory based on blind chance. Materialistic blind chance only escapes being completely crushed, by the overwhelming weight of evidence for design, by appealing to an infinity of other un-testable universes in which all other possibilities have been played out. Yet there is no hard physical evidence to support this blind chance conjecture. In fact, the “infinite multiverse” conjecture suffers from some very serious flaws of logic. For instance exactly which laws of physics, arising from which material basis, are telling all the other natural laws in physics what, how and when, to do the many precise unchanging things they do in these other universes? Plus, if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator to exist? I bet evolutionists will suddenly find a limit to what evolution is capable of doing when they realize that unconstrained possibility! Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to explain the extreme fine-tuning of this one, if it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist, then all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, All Powerful. To illustrate the absurdity of what the materialists now consider their cutting edge science: The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to explain the fine tuning of this one also insures the 100% probability of the existence of Pink Unicorns no matter how small the probability is of them existing. In fact a infinity of universes insures the existence of an infinity of Pink Unicorns an infinite number of times. Thus it is self-evident the materialists have painted themselves into a inescapable corner of logical absurdities in trying to find an escape from the Theistic implications we are finding for the fine-tuning of this universe. Considering Buying Into the Multiverse? Caveat Emptor http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/caveat_emptor_if_buying_multiverse.html Another escape from the theistic implications that materialists have postulated was a slightly constrained "string-theoretic" multiverse: Baron Münchhausen and the Self-Creating Universe: That the universe did not always exist is certain, even when multiverse scenarios are considered, since the mechanism of “eternal inflation” postulated to give rise to the multiverse is not eternal into the past (Borde, Guth& Vilenkin: arXiv:gr-qc/0110012 v2 14 Jan 2003).....design inferences are epistemically warranted when specified information of a certain complexity (high improbability) is observed, quite independent of whether we have an explanation for the intelligence behind the design. Here’s a particularly telling example: Roger Penrose has calculated that the entropy of the big bang itself, in order to give rise to the life-permitting universe we observe, must be fine-tuned to one part in e10exp(123)?10^10exp(123). Such complex specified conditions do not arise by chance, even in a string-theoretic multiverse with 10^500 different configurations of laws and constants, so an intelligent cause may be inferred. What is more, since it is the big bang itself that is fine-tuned to this degree, the intelligence that explains it as an effect must be logically prior to it and independent of it – in short, an immaterial intelligence that transcends matter, energy and space-time. So much, then, for a personified universe engineering its own bio-friendliness: the universe is not a free lunch and the intelligence of which it gives evidence is not incipient within it. The following expert shows why the materialistic postulation of "string theory" is, for all intents and purposes of empirical science, a complete waste of time and energy: Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law: Peter Woit, a PhD. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. Materialists also use to try to find a place for the blind chance of materialism to hide by proposing a universe which expands and contracts (recycles) infinitely. Even at first glance, the “recycling universe” conjecture suffers so many questions from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as to render it effectively implausible as a serious theory, but now the recycling universe conjecture has been totally crushed by the hard empirical evidence for a "flat" universe by the "BOOMERANG" experiment. Evidence against the oscillating universe- Michael Strauss - video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9G8k02vpI Evidence For Flat Universe Reported By Boomerang Project http://www.lbl.gov/ScienceArticles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html A "flat universe", which is actually another surprisingly finely-tuned "coincidence" of the universe, means that this universe, left to its own present course of accelerating expansion due to "Dark Energy", will continue to expand forever, thus fulfilling the thermodynamic equilibrium of the second law to its fullest extent (entropic "Heat Death" of the universe). The Future of the Universe excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. ---- Not a happy ending. Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. The only hard evidence there is, the stunning precision found in the universal constants, points overwhelmingly to intelligent design by an infinitely powerful Creator who originally established what the unchanging universal constants of physics could and would do at the creation of the universe. The hard evidence left no room for the blind chance of natural laws in this universe. Thus, materialism was forced into appealing to an infinity of un-testable universes for it was left with no footing in this universe. These developments in science make it seem like materialism was cast into the abyss of nothingness in so far as rationally explaining the fine-tuning of the universe. Proverbs 8:29-30 "When He marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;"bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

"When your theory can take two entirely contradictory evidences(junk DNA and not-junk DNA) and interpret them both as supportive of your theory, then you don’t have much of a theory." True, but I've never considered junk vs no junk to be evidentially relevant to the theory. BTW, its not 'my theory' I do comp science and I sometimes create instances of evolution. Junk 'DNA' is not required for virtual instances of evolution to work, nor is the absence of junk a requirement. As I understand ID it is quite easy to take any piece of evidence and argue that it fits with the ID hypothesis at some level, after all the fact that we live in a lucky universe where life emerged must indicate that the universe was created intentionally. Don't you agree?Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

There's an interesting common thread here, and about the dino-bird news; after evolutionists claim something "is evidence of evolution", i.e., junk DNA, or their supposed dino-bird link, when it is later found to not be true, evolutionists then say "well, evolutionary theory never predicted those things in the first place, and the new facts are entirely consistent with evolutionary theory." True. Evolutionary theory doesn't really predict anything; evolutionists just take whatever current "facts" come to light and interpret them in some mannner so they support evolutionary theory. Then later, when new facts contradict those facts, the new facts are interpreted as being supportive of evolution as well. When your theory can take two entirely contradictory evidences(junk DNA and not-junk DNA) and interpret them both as supportive of your theory, then you don't have much of a theory.William J. Murray_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

"And yet darwinists are expert at making imaginary conjectures (seeing things) with no basis in reality (which are not there)" I'm quit familiar with the science and I know how to distinguish between conjecture theory, prediction and evidence. Yo don't appear to be which helps explain why you see things that aren't there. "what “colorful interpretation of reality” brought you into existence? " I have no idea. As I have already hinted I'm not opposed to the idea of a created universe but, unlike some on this forum, I don't presume to know the motivations of an hypothetical creator. I also don't see anything yet in the material world, created or otherwise, that prevents evolution from working or makes it incompatible with the idea of a created universe, just certain, very specific notions of creation.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Mr Bornagain77, But Darwins main prediction is ever widening dissimilarity at the tips and nodes of his now discredited tree of life. Do you have a reference to Darwin himself for this idea?Nakashima_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

The problem is that evolutionists have never shown that such a series of steps can be done even once, much less twice, relying on law and chance to accomplish it. Evolutionists like Iconofid and Excession assert that such changes are evidence of convergent or parallel evolution without even having demonstrated that natural evolutionary forces are sufficient to generate even one such lineage, much less two. How can they be “evidence” of a duplicate of a process that has never even been demonstrated possible in the first place?William J. Murray_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Excession states: ??? I think you may be seeing things. And yet darwinists are expert at making imaginary conjectures (seeing things) with no basis in reality (which are not there) then excession states: "I don’t subscribe to this colourful interpretation of reality (materialism) at all" Please do tell excession, if blind material processes were not responsible for your life, what "colorful interpretation of reality" brought you into existence?bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

"I brought the topic up because evolution is without any rational foundation in science, and yet you pretend this is all fine and well with the esoteric predictions you try to defend. Please do elaborate (”tell me another fairy tale”) on evolutions ability to overcome the limits to variability now elucidated with the complex interwoven network tied to Mendelian genetics." ??? I think you may be seeing things. "I interchange materialists and Darwinists interchangeably in the preceding post because it is appropriate to elucidate the philosophical foundation to which neo-Darwinism is irrevocably married. i.e. materialism is the laughingstock of philosophy by the way." You are very strange. I don't subscribe to this colourful interpretation of reality at all but if it makes you happy then that's OK with me, just so long as you don't try and hurt me for not believing in the same god(s) as you.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

I brought the topic up because evolution is without any rational foundation in science, and yet you pretend this is all fine and well with the esoteric predictions you try to defend. Please do elaborate ("tell me another fairy tale") on evolutions ability to overcome the limits to variability now elucidated with the complex interwoven network tied to Mendelian genetics. I interchange materialists and Darwinists interchangeably in the preceding post because it is appropriate to elucidate the philosophical foundation to which neo-Darwinism is irrevocably married. i.e. materialism is the laughingstock of philosophy by the way.bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: We were discussing convergence not junk DNA. Why are you changing the subject? "neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes." I agree. I've met quite a few scientists, including evolutionary biologists who also agree. I said to one myself once that just because it doesn't appear to do anything that doesn't mean that it is junk. you say: "Some materialists, I’ve debated, have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA was totally functionless" you then go on to provide a series of quotes in which some scientists hypothesise about why there is this apparent junk DNA. It turns out they were wrong but I've never found anyone who can explain to me WHY evolution predicts junk DNA, just a load of scientists who got it stuck in their heads that there was junk DNA and that it needed explaining. I'm curious, you use the terms Darwinists and materialists interchangeably to refer to people who though that some DNA might be junk. Is there a reason for this?Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

"The underlying assumption of evolution seems to be anything is possible." I'm not at all sure this is true. I don't think you will find any credible biologist arguing that e.coli could suddenly develop a way of metabolising steel. "That claim forms the basis of a lot of the criticism tossed Michael Behe’s way" I'm not sure that is really the point they were making. There are lots of restraints on evolution, all dictated by the physical properties of the environment. Gravity prevents elephants from having skinny legs. As I understand Behe, he believes that evolution is constrained so as to only be capable of linear progressions which makes certain structures impossible, whereas others argue that the progressions can be more circular, for example in employing scaffolding. "So, if there is no restraint on biological evolutionary change, then why would we expect to see the same patterns emerge from similar enviromental changes" Because there are constraints.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Excession states: “Don’t you mean that the modern evolutionary synthesis is the product of decades of research and careful refinement in the light of new evidence?” Yet the “complex interwoven network” finding is absolutely devastating for the population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright, since genes are now shown not to be the independent entities evolutionists required them to be (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005). Nor does it appear that evolution has any non-coding sections in the genome left to pull off its duplication/random mutation smoke and mirrors with any longer. Here are a few articles announcing these “revolutionary” interwoven complexity findings of the ENCODE study: BETHESDA, Md., Wed., June 13, 2007 -” An international research consortium (ENCODE) today published a set of papers that promise to reshape our understanding of how the human genome functions. The findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood.” Encyclopedia Of DNA: New Findings Challenge Established Views On Human Genome: The ENCODE consortium’s major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. A ’scientific revolution’ is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle: “The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.” Concluding paragraph of the ENCODE study: At the outset of the ENCODE Project, many believed that the broad collection of experimental data would nicely dovetail with the detailed evolutionary information derived from comparing multiple mammalian sequences to provide a neat ‘dictionary’ of conserved genomic elements, each with a growing annotation about their biochemical function(s). In one sense, this was achieved; the majority of constrained bases in the ENCODE regions are now associated with at least some experimentally derived information about function. However, we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome. Believe it or not, materialists use to insist that most of the 95% of the genome, which did not directly code for proteins, was useless “Junk DNA”: Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Orgel LE, Crick FH. The DNA of higher organisms usually falls into two classes, one specific and the other comparatively nonspecific. It seems plausible that most of the latter originates by the spreading of sequences which had little or no effect on the phenotype. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7366731 Kimura (1968)6 developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional. The slow, painful death of junk DNA: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically ….Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation…Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties. Some materialists, I’ve debated, have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA was totally functionless (as if this helps them explain the “higher level” functionality being found for the “Junk DNA”): These following quotes expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists: Susumu Ohno, a leader in the field of genetics and evolutionary biology, explained in 1972 in an early study of non-coding DNA that, “they are the remains of nature’s experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?” In 1994, the authoritative textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, co-authored by National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts, suggested (incorrectly!) that introns are “largely genetic ‘junk’”: Unlike the sequence of an exon, the exact nucleotide sequence of an intron seems to be unimportant. Thus introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk” Soon thereafter, the 1995 edition of Voet & Voet’s Biochemistry textbook explained that “a possibility that must be seriously entertained is that much repetitive DNA serves no useful purpose whatever for its host. Rather, it is selfish or junk DNA, a molecular parasite that, over many generations, has disseminated itself throughout the genome…” Will Darwinists try to Rewrite the History of Junk-DNA? In 1996, leading origin of life theorist Christian de Duve wrote: “The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.” (Richard Dawkins makes similar pronouncements that DNA is junk in an article after 1998) Despite the unfounded disappointment of materialists, a large sampling of recent studies indicates that high level regulatory function is to be found for all sorts of previous "Junk DNA" sequences across the entire spectrum of the human genome. Sequences which were adamantly claimed to be absolute proof for Junk DNA by materialists, as well as adamantly claimed to be absolute proof for common ancestry by them. Yet if Junk DNA sequences show high-level regulatory function, then clearly the Junk DNA sequences can not possibly be considered "recent evolutionary add-ons", and as such, nor can they be construed as proof for common ancestry. These following sites are excellent and have over one hundred peer-reviewed papers refuting every single class of Junk DNA that has been put forth by materialists: How Scientific Evidence is Changing the Tide of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate by Wade Schauer: List Of "Junk DNA discussed: Tandem Repeats, Transposons/Retrotransposons, SINE/Alu Sequences, LINES, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) and LTR retrotransposons, Pseudogenes, C-Value Enigma, “Junk DNA” becomes “The Transcriptome”, "Junk DNA – the biggest mistake in the history of biology", EVOLUTIONARY CONSERVATION, Human Accelerated Regions (HARs), ....What can we conclude from the evidence presented in this essay: · Every type of “Junk DNA” presented by pro-evolution websites has been found to have functional roles in organisms, which severely undermines the “shared errors” argument; www.geocities.com/wade_schauer/Changing_Tide.pdf On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system: - Sternberg R. It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian "narratives" have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply