Intelligent Design

Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis

Spread the love

The headline says it all: “Environs Prompt Advantageous Gene Mutations as Plants Grow; Changes Passed to Progeny.” It could also have read: “Lamarck Was Correct, Evolution is False.” Of course this is not new news. For the umpteenth time we hear about the inheritance of acquired characteristics—the catch phrase most often associated with the pre Darwin naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck—which evolutionists desperately opposed for so many years until it could no longer be suppressed so now they say it was their idea all along. Yes there is indeed a battle against science, it’s just not the one evolutionists want you to believe.  Read more

14 Replies to “Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    This following paper reflects how this actually relates to ID instead of neo-D,

    A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA – David J D’Onofrio1, Gary An – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: It is also important to note that attempting to reprogram a cell’s operations by manipulating its components (mutations) is akin to attempting to reprogram a computer by manipulating the bits on the hard drive without fully understanding the context of the operating system. (T)he idea of redirecting cellular behavior by manipulating molecular switches may be fundamentally flawed; that concept is predicated on a simplistic view of cellular computing and control. Rather, (it) may be more fruitful to attempt to manipulate cells by changing their external inputs: in general, the majority of daily functions of a computer are achieved not through reprogramming, but rather the varied inputs the computer receives through its user interface and connections to other machines.
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/7/1/3

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    Targeted, highly specific, complex insertion events that directly and instantly respond to environmental shifts is not exactly what today’s Epicureans had in mind.

    I don’t see this as Lamarckian though. Comments?

  3. 3
    ScottAndrews says:

    I understand DNA and genes to be essentially chemicals and molecules that do something without knowing what or how. No one fully understands how they work. If I need bigger muscles to attract a mate or a slower metabolism to survive a famine, I can’t deliberately manipulate my own DNA. Even if I had the tools, I wouldn’t know what to change or what to replace it with.
    So how does a plant know how to do that? How does it know what to delete and what to add? How do you edit DNA without understanding it or even knowing that it exists?

  4. 4
    DrREC says:

    “I can’t deliberately manipulate my own DNA.”

    Not deliberately, but your DNA, and that passed to your offspring (and their’s) can be modified. In humans, starvation can cause changes in DNA methylation that persist for a generation or two, and tend to yield smaller offspring.

    Now, those humans aren’t ‘choosing’ to do this, or willfully altering their DNA. It is just an adaptive response. Seems like the plants have a quite complex, not yet understood adaptive response.

    The leap to concluding these adaptive mechanisms require design, or agency to ‘will’ their execution it is a stretch. As is saying they can’t have evolved.

  5. 5
    ScottAndrews says:

    It is just an adaptive response. Seems like the plants have a quite complex, not yet understood adaptive response.
    Ok, let’s call it an adaptive response. It’s still a response that requires specific knowledge of the organism’s own genetics and foresight.

    The knowledge is required to know which genes to modify in order to produce a particular modification. Foresight is required to know that the modification will be beneficial.

    That’s more knowledge than anyone else has right now, and for a plant, any foresight is a lot. (Not that plenty of forward-thinking behaviors haven’t been explained away as reactions.)

    I’m not disputing that it happens, or that it is complex. But the conclusion that such mechanisms require design is the default. The burden of proof to demonstrate that dumb plants accidentally began genetically engineering themselves is a tough one to meet, tossed on top of many others.

    Anyone not bound to such reasoning by faith would consider it nonsense.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    DrREC:

    The leap to concluding these adaptive mechanisms require design, or agency to ‘will’ their execution it is a stretch. As is saying they can’t have evolved.

    Wrong focus.

    1. They are not random changes to the genome.

    2. They are changes to the genome by the organism. One that even appears to have a purpose.

    http://www.accessexcellence.or.....entral.gif

  7. 7
    gpuccio says:

    ScottAndrews:

    I’m not disputing that it happens, or that it is complex. But the conclusion that such mechanisms require design is the default.

    And you are perfectly right. Design is the obvious best explanation, and a kind of design whose nature and implementation at molecular level we cannot at present understand.

    Let’s recapitulate. What has been described in Flax for the Lis 1 element is really revolutionary. Here is a link to a general review of the subject, together with other useful information:

    http://www.plantcell.org/conte.....2.full.pdf

    In pract ice, new genetic information is added to the genome, under stress, always in the same way and at the same point. That information is apparently new (it cannot be identified in the original genome in its final form), and as far as I understand nobody has really any idea of where does it come from, or of how the modification is implemented.

    Truly interesting. Whatever the developments, I am sure that this new line of research will have important consequences for the ID – neo darwinism debate.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    gpuccio, welcome back!

  9. 9
    Upright BiPed says:

    Ahhh gpuccio, nice to see you posting again.

  10. 10
    gpuccio says:

    Hi, BA. It’s a pleasure to find the time to come here sometimes!

    I was really intrigued by Cornelius’post here. He has certainly a talent in finding important data.

    Sometimes really new developments are not very well known, and I believe that one important function of a site like this is to alert us to the truly new and important discoveries, so that they can be integrated in the general debate.

  11. 11
    gpuccio says:

    Hi, UB. It’s beautiful to find again all the old friends…

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    gpuccio, I know you were fairly heavily involved in calculating information gain in ‘beneficial’ adaptations, did you ever find a violation of the UPB even with these ‘calculated’ responses, which are non-Darwinian in nature???

  13. 13
    gpuccio says:

    BA:

    I don’t think that we can do exact calculations, but probably antibody maturation could be an example of relevant information gain obtained by an intelligent algorithm incorporating specific target information (the antigen). Anyway, it is not certainly of the range of UPB.

    UPB is really an extreme value. It corresponds to about 115 AAs (if we consider a value of 1:10^150), and is IMO beyond the reach of any known adaptive response. However, it is probably not beyond the reach of some theorical intelligent system of protein engineering.

    A more practical biological limit for random systems could be set at 30-35 AAs. And you know very well that the empirical limit (always for random systems) is in the range of 3 – 10 AAs (at present, 3 seems a very good candidate).

    But intelligent search can operate true miracles. Adaptations in the active site, which are probably of the order of a few AAs, are certainly in the range of an intelligent search, even in the form of a targeted random search with intelligent selection based on active information, like in the case of antibody maturation.

    But the case of flax seems really amazing, because it seems to involve a lot of new DNA content (Lis 1 is only a small part of the transformation). And it is repeatable. So, it really seems to involve some unknown source of information, rather than a mere adaptive search.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks gpuccio!

Leave a Reply