Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francisco Ayala: “You’re a heretic and blasphemer, but don’t ask me what I am.”

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Darwin's Gift to Science and ReligionFrancisco Ayala has taken an aggressive theological stance against intelligent design, even using words like “blasphemy” and “atrocity” to characterize it (go here). But if Ayala feels entitled to make such strong accusations against ID, one might wonder what Ayala’s own theological views are. I therefore emailed him and copied Michael Ruse:

Dear Prof. Ayala,

I’m writing to inquire whether in any of your writings you lay out your present religious faith (and, if so, where?). I’m copying my friend Michael Ruse because I find his criticisms of ID parallel your own, and yet he makes clear that he himself is an atheist. You, on the other hand, regularly cite your background in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest. Yet you left the priesthood and it’s not clear what aspects of the Christian faith you retain. Do you, for instance, believe in a personal God who created the world? Do you believe that humans experience continued conscious existence after they die? Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate? I would appreciate any clarifications you can provide. Thank you.

Blessings,
Bill Dembski

Ruse got back to me first and suggested that Ayala would not be forthcoming about his religious views, whereupon Ayala got back to me, agreeing with Ruse: “What Michael Ruse told you about my not asserting publicly my religious convictions is correct. I have stated that on numerous occasions, quoted in all sorts of publications from The New York Times and Scientific American to religious journals and periodicals.”

Interesting that Ayala is willing publicly to acknowledge his former theological views as a Roman Catholic priest (presumably he embraced RCC dogma). And yet his present theological views are off limits. Perhaps when Dover II rolls around, Ayala will be an expert witness and under deposition be required to state his theological views. In the mean time, Ayala’s reticence about his present religious faith (or lack thereof) is at best a convenient ploy.

Comments
one more for you Petruska: "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1.html#morebornagain77
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PST
post note: If materialists were to actually try to account for the origination of completely unique genes, and proteins, between chimps and humans, instead of just ignoring them, they would find novel genes, and functional proteins, are exceedingly rare to "find": Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."bornagain77
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PST
Petruska you state: "My reading indicates that no significant DNA has been found that is more than a million years old. Claims of older DNA are generally regarded to be the result of methodological errors." And just how connected are you to evolutionary thought Petruska? Will you relinquish through reason or will you defend it no matter what the evidence says? Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ First study hints at insights to come from genes unique to humans Excerpt: Among the approximately 23,000 genes found in human DNA, scientists currently estimate that there may be as few as 50 to 100 that have no counterparts in other species. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/11349.aspx The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families - Jeffery P. Demuth Excerpt: Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000085 A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf Moreover, when scientists did a actual Nucleotide by Nucleotide sequence comparison, to find the "real world" difference between the genomes of chimps and Humans, they found the difference was even more profound than Dr. Richard Buggs estimate: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes. http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary "just so" stories of "dramatically sped up evolution" for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes they are required to explain. CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 etc...etc.. etc... Petruska just how committed are you to finding the truth?bornagain77
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PST
Petrushka: Call it new information if you want. I see the mutations as the new bricks, and natural selection as the mortar which holds the new bricks in place. But mortar isn't a new brick, and I see no point in calling that information. It's rather the fixing into place of the newly created information. But let's not quibble over mere words. I don't deny the importance of natural selection. The question is whether the thousands or millions of "very small changes" needed to create an eye or a new body plan are likely to occur in the right order and within the right timeframe, and no one has shown this in a detailed way for any major macroevolutionary change. We've been asking here for five years for the books and articles with the details, and we always get either silence or literature bluffs. So much for the science that is supposed to be as solid as the theory of gravity or electromagnetism. T.Timaeus
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PST
...but natural selection creates nothing. All the heavy lifting is done by the variations. Natural selection can only accept or reject. It does not add one bit of new information to the genome; ...
But it does add information. Every selection event confirms or rejects a genome. It is negative feedback, and any system having negative feedback will be shaped. It constrains the content of genomes to a combination of exact replication and non-fatal changes, in general, very small changes.Petrushka
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST
Nakashima @ 91: It is not necessary for an ID person to hold that neo-Darwinian processes are entirely responsible for lower-level evolution (species, genus) and that miracles or interventions are needed for higher-level changes (kingdom, phylum, class). That is a possible view within ID, but it is not necessary. It seems more reasonable to me to imagine that the "design component" and the "chance component" are running in parallel all the way up and down, with the design component restricting the freedom of the chance component. Further, we must remember that "design" need not imply miracles or interventions, if the design is pre-programmed into the primitive genomes (which is not the Darwinian view, but is found in Denton's writing). So there can be design "all the way down", within a naturalistic framework. The intelligent designer's work is thus taken out of the process by being pushed back in time to the origin, the first genomes (or in Denton further back, to the cosmic fine tuning). No miracles are necessary, but intelligence is definitely necessary. Thus, ID can co-exist with evolution, but not with pure neo-Darwinism. (ID can co-exist with a constrained, limited neo-Darwinism, but the Darwinists will not tolerate that option. They want it all their way.) T.Timaeus
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PST
Nakashima: I agree with you about the calculation. And would you not agree that there would be a number sufficiently low, after which you would infer that the result (for all practical purposes) could not have been produced by chance, and required design by agents unknown? If so, you agree in principle with the approach of ID theory. Yes, I know that natural selection is brought in, but natural selection creates nothing. All the heavy lifting is done by the variations. Natural selection can only accept or reject. It does not add one bit of new information to the genome; it only decides what will be preserved. So you still end up having to map out which variations would be necessary, and in which order, and how fast the creature reproduces, and how much time there is in the fossil record, etc., and do a probability calculation. And your admission above grants that at least in principle, one might come up with a number so low that it would be irrational to attribute the result to neo-Darwinian means. Of course, at present, we have nowhere near the ability to calculate these probabilities, so I am not claiming that ID has been proved; but by exactly the same token, neo-Darwinism has not been established either. No hard numbers, no proof. The objective scientist would vote for "insufficient data for a firm conclusion". But that's not what Darwinists do. They dogmatize and insist that their theory is as certain as Newton's or Einstein's. If you are so eager to come to the aid of people who are being slandered, you might consider coming to the aid of ID. ID's arguments have been regularly misrepresented, caricatured, etc. by TEs and atheists alike. Every form of ad hominem argument has been used against ID proponents. TEs have regularly accused ID of being not only bad science but bad theology, accusing it of a false understanding of creation, a bad understanding of the problem of evil, a low view of God, etc. If you are so concerned to defend those who are repeatedly accused of false charges, maybe you can spare us some of that "justice for the underdog" that you are currently supplying to the TEs. T.Timaeus
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST
Mr Timaeus, Please don't worry about not seeing questions. My answer re radium is similar to yours. I would investigate natural causes first. This would include a quick calculation of just how unlikely such a message is. It would also include getting some other people to verify the message's existence, on the theory that it was all in my head. I would posit space aliens communicating through rocks, and God, as a last resort. Having answered, I have to say I think your motivation for asking is mistaken. The random decay of the radium is analogous to only one aspect of the evolutionary process, variation. It says nothing about selection. The iterative combination of these two is what evolution is all about. But of course, you knew that, having read Darwin, Mayr, etc. On the question of why I've expressed such strong opinions, I have to say that I have been more motivated by the flawed nature of the argument, and the way this flaw has been used to slander a class of people in a way reminiscent of the use psychiarty by the Soviets. You don't have to be the same religion as someone to come to their aid, as Jesus pointed out with a parable about a man from Samaria.Nakashima
May 27, 2010
May
05
May
27
27
2010
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PST
Nakashima: I didn't see your question at 91. I'll answer it after you've dealt with the questions I've already posed. T.Timaeus
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PST
Sorry, Nakashima, I didn't notice your #85 until just now. Here's my answer: No, your opinion about the radium is not irrelevant. When I offered the example of the radium I was not addressing your claims about Christian theology and randomness, but your implied claim that randomness of mutations was not incompatible with building complex, integrated biological systems. And the point is that if you don't believe that even in four billion years the radium would ever spell out "Bring home the laundry, Dear", then you are being inconsistent in believing that random mutations, in the same time, could produce roses, aardvarks, and man, which contain orders of magnitude more integrated complexity than that simple message. So, would you believe me if I told you that the message was spelled out by a block of radium? And would you believe me if I told you that Microsoft Word was created by accident when a chess program was left exposed to input for ten years, and a random error was introduced into the code at the rate of five errors per second? And since I expect you to answer my question, I'll answer yours: Yes, I'd be surprised, because I would not expect the radium block to produce specified complexity. I would therefore investigate further. I would first investigate all naturalistic alternatives, i.e, some kind of trickery or Candid Camera joke. After exhausting all of those, I would consider the possibility of miraculous intervention. I would never, not with my dying breath, believe that the message "just happened" to be meaningful, on the grounds that "it's bound to happen" somewhere in the universe, if you have enough galaxies, etc. I would never accept that sort of irrational abdication of explanation. Miracle is more rational than that. Now, I've answered your question. If you answer mine, I'll continue the conversation. If not, you won't be discussing in good faith, and I'll discontinue. By the way, if I may be permitted one more question: if you're not even sure you are a Christian, why do you have such strong opinions about the compatibility of Christian theology with random mutations? Why are you concerned to defend the TEs' desperate reasoning when you don't even share their faith? Do you just like playing devil's advocate here at UD? T.Timaeus
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PST
My reading indicates that no significant DNA has been found that is more than a million years old. Claims of older DNA are generally regarded to be the result of methodological errors. Populations, dogs or otherwise, that have diversity, can adapt more readily than small, inbred populations, all else being equal. But even a single bacterium, given time, will develop into a diverse population.Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PST
Petrushka you ask; "Are you saying that the parent species had all the alleles now found in their descendants? Or has some of the variation arisen through mutation?' I'm not saying anything. It is the evidence that says: 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" 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 loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria. Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "Fitness Test" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there "HAS" to be “significant genetic/mutational drift” to the DNA of bacteria within 250 million years, even though the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. I find it interesting that the materialistic theory of evolution expects there to be a significant amount of mutational drift from the DNA of ancient bacteria to its modern descendants, while the morphology can be allowed to remain exactly the same with its descendants. Alas for the materialist once again, the hard evidence of ancient DNA has fell in line with the anthropic hypothesis. Petruska you then state; "But not all species are rigid and unable to recover from overspecialization. Dog populations seem able to revert to a wild type when allowed to become feral" Does a "specialized" dog automatically become feral if returned to the wild? Or does that "specialized" dog, that has a extreme lack of genetic diversity, have to breed with other dogs that have more of the original genetic code which has more gentic diversity in order to accomplish variation? It is all about the information Petruska! IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!bornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PST
Mr Timaeus, You mentioned several higher level taxonomic categories. So, where for you does "macroevolution" leave off, and "microevolution" take up? What I hear you saying is that microevolution can cause speciation events, that Arctic terns are an example of such. Is that an accurate staement of your position?Nakashima
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PST
Timaeus, I remember this basic question you ask from more than a year ago - then asked of professor of biology at Cornell. I wish you luck in getting a straightforward answer, but I believe Nakashima will punt into irrelevance just as the professor did. After all, what else could happen? Nothing else has happened so far.Upright BiPed
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PST
I guess I'm asking a more specific question. Are you saying that the parent species had all the alleles now found in their descendants? Or has some of the variation arisen through mutation? It's quite true that highly specialized creatures are likely to fail when the ecosystem changes. Particularly if population is small and there is little diversity. But not all species are rigid and unable to recover from overspecialization. Dog populations seem able to revert to a wild type when allowed to become feral. I can't really see what specific predictions are being made by the concept of genetic entropy. There are species that seemed, based on gross morphology,to have existed unchanged for tens of millions of years. Things like alligators and cockroaches do not seem to have suffered from their relative stasis. What exactly happens to the genome when it degrades?Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PST
Petruska, I'm saying all observed sub-speciation events within the cat family are the result of a loss of the information that was originally encoded in the parent kind. Such as the wolves to dogs example: ,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) Natural Selection Falsified - Dr John Sanford - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4587204 Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - Dr. Georgia Purdom - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036808 Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816 EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134 etc.. etc.. I don't know how to make it any more clear Petruska.,,, There is variability within a created kind , such as the diversity seen within the cat family, but all variations from the original parent kind will always come at a cost of information. Material processes (neo-Darwinism) have never demonstrated a gain in functional information above what was already present in the parent species genome. i.e. if you were to sub-speciate a "new" species away from a lion or tiger, you would do so at a cost of the inherent information in the genome. Yet material processes cannot replace that lost information thus the sub-speciation events all "run into a wall" in which no more variation is possible, such as with extreme lack of genetic diversity found within cheetahs.bornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PST
Nakashima: If you can't distinguish between "macroevolution" and "speciation", I'm not sure you should be entering into these debates. You may need to do some more studying first. But I'll try to help. An Arctic tern, after long geographical separation, becoming a distinct species, not interbreeding with the parent stock, is "speciation". "Macroevolution" is the large sweep from bacteria to man, a process in which, allegedly, wholly natural mechanisms (for Darwinists, neo-Darwinian mechanisms) frequently generated radically new body plans and high-level distinctions such as kingdom, phylum, class, and order. There is *no proof whatsoever* that such mechanisms as can cause Arctic terns to diverge sufficiently that they can no longer interbreed, can rearrange the body plan of a marine worm into a lobster or a lizard or a cat. That is, there is no proof that the genetic mechanisms which drive *microevolution* (changes at the level of variety, species, and possibly genus) are capable of driving macroevolution. Such an extension is speculative. In other words, Darwinian mechanisms might be able to explain the evolution of lions and housecats from some wild common ancestor, but they haven't yet explained the evolution of the order of bats from a non-flying primitive mammalian ancestor, or the evolution of a whale from a putative hippo ancestor, of the evolution of lobsters from marine worms, or the evolution of multi-celled animals from single-celled animals. The number of differences between a lion and a tiger are relatively small compared with the number of differences between a hippo and a whale. Asking random processes to produce a whale from a hippo is much more than asking them to produce one Artic tern from another, or a lion and tiger from a common wildcat ancestor. And it's not just the number of individual changes, like a bigger eye or things of that sort; it's the complex structural interrelations that have to be altered wholesale, not piecemeal, if there are to be viable intermediate forms. Random firings of radioactive nuclei are no more likely to produce co-ordinated, wholesale biological changes with survival value, than they are to spell out "Bring home the laundry, Dear", or turn a chess-playing program into a spreadsheet program. If you think random changes have this power, the onus is on *you* to demonstrate it in the biological context. Tell me how a hippo was turned into a whale. Tell me how a marine worm became a lobster. Specify the genetic mechanisms employed at each step. Can you do this? Have you ever seen a book or article that has done this? T.Timaeus
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PST
Petruska if your are “presuming” “non-fatal change” will eventually become beneficial (i.e. will become functional information within a genome) there is no evidence to support that position that I know of.
I'm not sure what you are implying. Are you arguing that variation and diversity are unrelated to the ability of a species to survive change, or to extend its range? Are there no benefits in being larger or smaller, or having different fur patterns and densities, depending In the example of the cat family, are there no benefits to being a tiger rather than a lion, depending on the terrain and available prey? Or are you suggesting that cats are not related by descent? Or perhaps that the parent cat species had all the cat alleles, and that modern cats are just subdivisions of the parent genome? I'm not sure exactly what your position is, and how it comports with that of folks like Behe.Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PST
Mr Timaeus, You evaded my question about the radium. If the message indicated was found, and I told you that it was caused by a block of radium, would you accept this as the causal explanation for the message? We are dicussing the non-rationality of the Christian Darwinist. At the moment, I am not aware of being a Christian. Therefore my opinion is irrelevant. However, I assume you are a Christian, so please tell me if the Geiger counter next to the radium block started tapping out the Morse code for "What hath God wrought?", what would your reaction be? What should be, in your opinion, the reaction of any Christian physicist? Is it... surprise?Nakashima
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PST
Mr Timaeus, We know of no “large number” phenomena in nature capable of producing the sort of articulate changes required for macroevolutionary development. My apologies. I assumed that 'macroevolutionary development' meant the same thing as speciation, and that speciation meant different species, and that different species meant 'two populations that do not interbreed. Please point out to me where your definitions depart from these relatively common ones, and we can procedd.Nakashima
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PST
Petruska you state: "I’ve been arguing that non-fatal change occurs, and presumably accumulates." Petruska if your are "presuming" "non-fatal change" will eventually become beneficial (i.e. will become functional information within a genome) there is no evidence to support that position that I know of. If you know of any evidence please present it for review for you will then be the first commenter on UD to ever show what neo-Darwinism claims for all of life on earth is actually true. As for the ID position: 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 http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/agbornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PST
I haven't really been arguing for the generation of functional information. I've been arguing that non-fatal change occurs, and presumably accumulates. I've given the cat family as an example of accumulated change that hasn't involved degeneration. Even young earth creationists tend to believe that cats are related by descent. Dollo would seem to argue against the occurrence of any series of mutations that are specified in advance. (The obvious example would be a series of mutations occurring in reverse). I'm not aware that many evolutionary biologists try to argue that mutations occur because they are needed. I think the biologist would argue that many non-fatal mutations occur, and that they can accumulate. This offers no guarantee that a change necessary to prevent extinction will occur. It would seem that extinction is the most likely outcome in cases where sudden ecological change occurs.Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PST
Petruska, A sub-species will always,/strong> lose genetic information in a "beneficial" adaptation away from a parent species. Yes there is great potential for sub-speciation from a originally created parent "kind" as clearly seen in this study: The following article is important in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth (Note: Trilobites are one of the most prolific "kinds" found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the "simple" creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they were in the fossil record). The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html Evolution vs. Trilobites - Prof. Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032589 In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was so consistent that is was made into a scientific "law": Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html A general rule of thumb for the "Deterioration/Genetic Entropy" of Dollo's Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here: Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints; http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html Dollo's Law was further verified to the molecular level here: Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo's law: ,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, "The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future,". http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html This following piece of Genetic Entropy evidence came to me from Rude on the Uncommon Descent blog: At one of the few petrified forests that sports ginkgo wood, I was told by the naturalist that ginkgos are old in the fossil record—they date from the Permian back when trees were first “invented”. She said that there are many species of fossilized Ginkgoaceae, but Ginkgo biloba, is the only living species left. - Rude - Uncommon Descent Petruska, even the races of humans follow this pattern: Even in the differences of human races we find that the younger races (Chinese, Europeans, American Indians, etc.. etc..) are losing genetic information when compared to the original race of humans which is thought to have migrated out of east Africa some 50,000 years ago. "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- I wonder what Hitler would have thought of that study? This following study is interesting in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed for the estimated 60,000 year old anatomically modern humans found in Australia: Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans: John H. Relethford Excerpt: Adcock et al. clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years,,, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33358 The author of the preceding paper offered a evolutionary "just so story" for how this loss of genetic information occurred. Yet, the result clearly falls within what we would expect from a Genetic Entropy perspective and doesn't require any bending of evidence to fit the theory. Petruska, as you can see everything points to a loss of information. That is the problem for neo-Darwinism they have ZERO examples of the generation of functional information that would violate the principle of genetic Entropy. Do you care to provide an example?bornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST
I'm not quite sure how you can argue that advantageous mutations are rare. I was just thinking about dog breeds, and that led to thinking about lions and tigers. There are certainly quite a few anatomical and behavioral differences between lions and tigers, and yet they can mate and produce healthy, even fertile offspring. They might even have been part of a ring species in which the geographical barriers eventually resulted in complete separation. Many people, like Ken Ham, who don't accept evolution, seem willing to accept the likelihood that cats share a common ancestor. Some, if not most, of the differences between species of cats are going to be due to mutation (unless you would like to predict that cat species are the result of allele sorting, and all cats are really just one species). At what point would you argue that the accumulation of mutations can no longer occur?Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST
Petrushka states, "I don’t think biologists think of evolution that way, although pop science writers often do." You mean there actually is a difference between evolutionary biologists and pop science writers? LOLbornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PST
If, by Advantageous anatomical mutations, you mean easily observable structural differences that conveniently occur just when needed by a species, I'd probably agree with you. I don't think biologists think of evolution that way, although pop science writers often do.Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PST
How about us just finding a novel protein that would be "useful" Petruska: Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness - Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke – 2010 Excerpt: In experimental evolution, the best way to permit various evolutionary alternatives, and assess their relative likelihood, is to avoid conditions that rule them out. Our experiments, like others (e.g. [40]), used populations of cells growing slowly under limiting nutrient conditions, thereby allowing a number of paths to be taken to higher fitness. We engineered the cells to have a two-step adaptive path to high fitness, but they were not limited to that option. Cells could reduce expression of the non-functional trpAE49V,D60N allele in a variety of ways, or they could acquire a weakly functional tryptophan synthase subunit by a single site reversion to trpAD60N, bringing them within one step of full reversion (Figure 6). When all of these possibilities are left open by the experimental design, the populations consistently take paths that reduce expression of trpAE49V,D60N, making the path to new (restored) function virtually inaccessible. This demonstrates that the cost of expressing genes that provide weak new functions is a significant constraint on the emergence of new functions. In particular, populations with multiple adaptive paths open to them may be much less likely to take an adaptive path to high fitness if that path requires over-expression. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2/BIO-C.2010.2 “Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed - along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering) A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385 The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer"Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine “Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan)." Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bsbornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PST
I'm not sure what your point is. Most of the genes found in animals are ancient, not new inventions. At any rate, they are found in single celled organisms. This seems to have been used quit often on this site as an an argument for front loading. The odds against "finding" a "needed" mutation may be enormous, which may be why species confronted with a sudden shift in the ecosystem tend to go extinct. On the other hand, finding a mutation that isn't fatal seems to be rather common.Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PST
Petruska states" "At any rate, I think there is a reason why Behe has not based his criticism of evolution on the differences between animals, be they worms or cats. There are few “inventions” separating them." LOL... Why they (cats and worms) are almost in the same phylum Petruska,,, LOL "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/nature_paper_finally_reaches_t.html A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli - Michael Behe Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we've seen evolution do, then there's no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell. http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues: Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke Excerpt: 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.,,,The fact that very large population sizes—10^9 or greater—are required to build even a minimal [multi-residue] feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 10^8 generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2286568 Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ An Atheist Interviews Michael Behe About "The Edge Of Evolution" - video http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-bloggingheads-interview-with-michael-behe-4734623.htmlbornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PST
I find it interesting that gradual change resulting in reproductive isolation is now considered to be trivial. I suppose the definition of trivial evolves over time. At any rate, I think there is a reason why Behe has not based his criticism of evolution on the differences between animals, be they worms or cats. There are few "inventions" separating them. Mostly changes in regulatory genes, and the changes are nested.Petrushka
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST
1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11