The giant coniferous tree’s fossils date from 52 million years ago. Current representatives of the tropical Agathis no longer thrive in (now) cold, wet Patagonia.
From ScienceDaily:
“These spectacular fossils reveal that Agathis is old and had a huge range that no one knew about — from Australia to South America across Antarctica,” said Peter Wilf, professor of geoscience, Penn State.
…
According to the researchers, the Argentinian fossil Agathis clearly belongs to the same natural group as those living today up to almost 10,000 miles away in the tropical West Pacific.
“Agathis is a very dramatic example of survival via huge range shifts, from the far south to the tropics, in response to climate change and land movement over millions of years,” said Wilf. “It is not clear that Agathis can adapt to the severely more rapid human-induced pressures it is experiencing now from deforestation, selective logging and climate change.”
A few related notes:
Professor Stein states in the following video at the 4:47 minute mark;
Video
What are some of the problems for the natural selection and mutation arguments? Who are some famous scientists in our current time in the 21st century who disagree with this mechanism?
OT: Does intelligent design provide a plausible account of life’s origins? – Stephen C. Meyer vs. John Derbyshire – Jan-Feb 2014
Science vs. Name Calling (Guess which side employs which method)
http://spectator.org/articles/.....es-origins
Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness – Dr. VJ Torley – April 2012
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ciousness/
Jaceli123, though I am no lawyer, I am pretty sure that is not legal. If you send an e-mail to Casey Luskin, who has a law degree, via cluskin@discovery.org , and tell him of your situation and recording, he will give you advise on your legal remedies. I can assure you that he will seek to protect you first and foremost and will not get you in any trouble and will be, by far, the best person that I know of to help you, since he specializes in exactly this type of situation.
Ok I wonder if I can share the recording through a mp3 file.
I don’t know how would be best to e-mail the recording. mp3 attachment should do the trick as far as I know.
Hey, Bornagain77, is it possible that mutation produces new information?
origin_surgeon
I have never seen any convincing evidence, that held up to rigid scrutiny, for non-trivial functional information (as opposed to mere Shannon information) produced above and beyond what is already present in life. In fact there is a null hypothesis that states purely material processes will never produce non-trivial levels of functional information:
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC).,,, Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,,
Testable hypotheses about FSC
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins – Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors – 2007
Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,,
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
http://www-qa.scitopics.com/Th.....iency.html
The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009
Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.”
http://www.bioscience.org/2009.....6/3426.pdf
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
1) Mathematical Logic
2) Algorithmic Optimization
3) Cybernetic Programming
4) Computational Halting
5) Integrated Circuits
6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
9) Language
10) Formal function of any kind
11) Utilitarian work
http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag
Hi origin_surgeon-
The argument is that blind and undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch- real information not just Shannon information. It also extends to increasing the amount of information.
Thanks, Bornagain77! especially about The GS (genetic selection) Principle.
Hi, Joe, if I understand your argument correctly: Mutation doesn’t increase information but just complexity?
No @origin_surgeon it cant increase complexity either this was found by Doug Axe who found that its unlikley for mutations to account for new functions in proteins. The probabilty is about 10^70 power. If im not mistaken im not an expert on this stuff so dont take my word for it.
Origen, the question was not addressed to me, but I stand with Bornagain on this. I’ve heard claims of beneficial mutations but usually these are due to a loss of genetic information. It is hard to conceive of random changes in a computer program adding function to the program. I am a creationist so this link is from a Creationist site, but the information is solid. If interested, please take a look.
Sorry. I’m having trouble posting the link. Search for “Is it legitimate to demand of evolutionists an explanation for the origin of genetic information?” On creation.com
This article is a response to this claim by evolutionists: “Charging evolutionists to describe a mutation which would ‘add information’ to an organism’s genome is an irrelevant question. In fact, there ARE actually such mutations, which will increase the volume of a genome and even add genes (they are due to the activity of some viruses and of translocons, and to chromosomal recombination).”
Read the article to see the creationist response.
tj
TJG: Is this the link to the article, entitled: Dawkins and the origin of Genetic Information? KF
Thanks KF. That’s the one.
How did you do that? Enclose the link with your own words like that?
tj
Um, these people do understand that what we now call Antarctica used to be at the Equator, right? And so the climate in which these trees grew before they became fossils was probably the same as where they grow now.
So what’s the big deal about finding evidence that lands that were part of the same land mass in the same climatic zone had the same plant life?
origin_surgeon:
In a design scenario all the information is already present and mutations are part of the design. With unguideed evolution/ blind and undirected processes, there isn’t any data which shows those processes can produce useful information.
One of the things that cause me to really doubt about Darwinian Evolution when Dr. Stephen Meyers said that evolution couldn’t produce new information but I had to be sure, So I went to here and they showed this diagram: Sequence A: TACACACCCAAGACC to Sequence B: TACACACCCAAGGCC, So to you guys response is this either recombination, degradation, or new information from genes? Just to be clear.
@Tjguy, at the bottom of your comment it should say:
Copy & paste ?a href=” placeyourlinkhere.com” title=””>type in the title you want ?/a> and that’s it.
origin_surgeon- changing one letter in a word could change the existing information. It has nothing to do with “new” information. Increase of information and information from scratch are what is being argued.
@Origin_surgeon Heres a anology take a page of a book and add a few letters to it. Does this change the story or what happened in the plot no. For a new story you need more sentences new plots different characters this is the same for a animal!
Okay, Thank you everyone, but we’re really off topic of the post.
The conclusion is; evolution can’t provide “new” information rather increase information towards previously existent genes which mutated in that particular orgasm.
I ment “organism”!
(Crap!)@Origin_surgeon a good video to watch on the neo darwinistic mechanism is a video by Denis Noble a phsyoligist at oxford.
origin_surgeon, the major problem for Darwinists, with their ‘bottom up’ random variation/natural selection scenario, is not just to explain the origin of proteins and genes (as extremely difficult as that problem is turning out to be for them, Axe; Sauer), but the main problem for Darwinists is to explain the higher orders of information that arrange these proteins into a cohesive whole. Dr. Meyer puts the problem this way:
Talbott, with his unusual clarity, puts the problem to be explained this way:
As would seem obvious, Darwinists simply have no evidence whatsoever that the ‘bottom up’ process of random variation has access to the ‘top down’ information of the body plan organization:
In fact, ‘alternative splicing patterns’, which are part of extremely complex developmental gene regulatory networks, are now found to be very different even between humans and chimpanzees
As should be clear by now, this ‘top down’ organizational information for distinct body plans is much more than just a minor problem for neo-Darwinists.
Of somewhat related note to the brick wall Darwinists have run into trying to explain the origination of the large percentage of ORFan proteins being found in each new genome sequenced;