Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Group selection is NOT the “scientific dust bunny” your prof told you?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Anelosimus spiders/Judy Gallagher

Remember when evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson was insulting pastors by writing them Dear Pastor letters (but he no longer believed in anything they did)?

Later, he started a huge row by turning his back on his big theory, group selection, insisting that Darwin’s natural selection could do it all (selfish gene style?) He had friends, too, once he repented of his sins against absolute Darwinism: “Group selection has become a scientific dust bunny, a hairy blob in which anything having to do with ‘groups’ clings to anything having to do with ‘selection,'” famed Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in a 2012 attack on group selection.”) So that settled it. Darwin’s heirs ruled.

Some now claim to have come up with evidence for group selection:

From ScienceDaily:

Along rivers in Tennessee and Georgia, scientists have been studying brownish-orange spiders, called Anelosimus studiosus, that make cobwebby nests “anywhere from the size of a golf ball to the size of a Volkswagen Beetle,” researcher Jonathan Pruitt says. The individual spiders are only the size of a pencil eraser, but they form organized groups that can catch prey ranging from fruit flies to small vertebrates. “We have found carcasses of rats and birds inside their colonies,” Pruitt says. Unlike most spiders, which are solitary, these social spiders work together in groups.

Now new research shows that they evolve together in groups, too.

Say “group selection” among some groups of evolutionary biologists and you won’t be invited back to the party. But Jonathan Pruitt, at the University of Pittsburgh, and Charles Goodnight, at the University of Vermont, have been studying generations of these Anelosimus spiders — and have gathered the first-ever experimental evidence that group selection can fundamentally shape collective traits in wild populations.

Their results are presented in the Oct. 1 online edition of the journal Nature.

“Biologists have never shown an adaptation in nature which is clearly attributable to group selection,” Goodnight said. “Our paper is that demonstration.”

What? “Say “group selection” among some groups of evolutionary biologists and you won’t be invited back to the party”?

Because those people care only about control, not about facts, as long as the rest of us fund their follies? Say “Darwin” and that figures.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Guillermoe, as to the observation that 'structural form' is not reducible to sequences of DNA, and therefore sequences cannot be used as proof for Darwinian claims for one creature, i.e. body plan transmutation into another creature, i.e. body plan, you state
This is nonsense. (B) is not a consequence of (A).
It certainly does follow. As Dr. Meyer stated,,,
'you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009) – video https://vimeo.com/91322260
You then state:
“all these examples are all examples of rapid adaptations” Yes, by means of biological evolution, that is a real process.
You cannot claim the sophisticated biological adaptations of what is currently happening as the means by which the sophisticated biological adaptations came about,,
An Evolutionist Just Admitted That the New Tennessee Law Does Not Introduce Creationism Into the Class Room - April 2012 Excerpt: When confronted they equivocate on evolution and redefine the idea as mere change over time. All of the many incredible examples of adaptation we observe in nature (where a population adapts to a new environmental challenge via super sophisticated biological mechanisms which evolution cannot even begin to explain) are suddenly proofs of evolution. The beaks of bird become a bit longer in response to changing conditions, and therefore all of biology must have spontaneously arose. So evolution is not only a religious theory, it also is a shell game. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolutionist-just-admitted-that-new.html
you then state:
“and do not support your blind watchmaker, i.e. Darwinian, thesis” Darwinism is obsolete. And I don’t have to support the lack of guidance. If you don’t prove guidance, I can reject it with Occam’s razor: what is claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
You concede that Darwinism can not do what is claimed of it in practically every high school classroom in America, but then you turn right around and defend the 'random' aspect of it.,,, I've already provided evidence that changes to DNA happen on a 'non-random' pattern to certain sections of the DNA, but here is a quote from Shapiro to re-emphasize the point,,
James A. Shapiro PhD. Genetics on Random Mutation: "What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html
You then state:
“Yes! I can point you to four decades worth of laboratory evolution experiments” I know those experiments, but they are not “unguided”.
UHHH??? Unguided, which you already admitted, is worse than guided as to producing a molecular machine since you have no examples! Thus why do you think this objection is reasonable other than you had nothing else to say since what I said was true !?! You then state:
“Guillermoe you then concede that, although you really don’t have any evidence that unguided processes can produce anything I would consider a molecular machine, intelligence can produce as such” No. I know examples of molecular machines obtained in semiguided experiments simulating evolution. I have examples of other features appearing in populations without any guidance.
Are you a lawyer now??? You just reworded what you orginally stated to make it appear to be not as bad as when you first wrote it. Moreover, as I have shown with James Tour, I have direct empirical evidence of intelligence producing a molecular machine. Where is you proof that unguided processes can do the same? Do you want his phone number? Your next statement makes no sense whatsoever, I suggest you re-write it with more clarity so as to help my poor 'reading comprehension'.bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Guillermoe @13 you state
“And exactly how is ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ experimental, i.e. ‘scientific’, proof that unguided evolution can changed one creature into another creature???” It’s not proof; it’s an explanation: there could be so many different species because some species turn into new ones. Do you know any other explanation?
Yes, 'top down' design of each kind of creature instead of 'bottom up' evolution.
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html
Dogs breeds, which Dawkins claims are proof of macro-evolution are actually an excellent case study of such 'top down' Design,,,
Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of Dogs - January 2014 Excerpt Discussion: We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 4–5, Table S10),, Our analysis suggests that none of the sampled wolf populations is more closely related to dogs than any of the others, and that dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other (Figures 5A, 5C). http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016 Caveman’s Best Friend, Evolution’s Newest Upset - October 2011 Excerpt: Our view of domestication as a process has also begun to change, with recent research showing that, in dogs, alterations in only a small number of genes can have large effects in terms of size, shape and behavior.,,, It should be noted that dogs and wolves can interbreed,,, http://crev.info/content/20111029-cavemans_best_friend Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record. http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00
Guillermoe you then claim,,,
“especially when the vast majority of changes to DNA are now known to be the result of cell mediated processes, not random accidents as is presupposed in unguided evolution’s theoretical core???” It’s still an unguided process. And Darwinism is obsolete.
No it is not an unguided process, but is a directed 'non-random' process,,
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations - Kevin Kelly - 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it. On the contrary, there's much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism's predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern. http://edge.org/response-detail/25264 Evolutionists Caught Again—But They Still Believe - Dr. Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: As a new paper now explains, under evolution we must believe that mutations rates have been “evolutionarily optimized.” That is, evolution is now so brilliant that it created the means to not only control, but to optimize the actual mutation rates.,,, (Here is how they put their findings) "Upon comparing 34 Escherichia coli genomes, we observe that the neutral mutation rate varies by more than an order of magnitude across 2,659 genes, with mutational hot and cold spots spanning several kilobases.,, Importantly, the variation is not random: we detect a lower rate in highly expressed genes and in those undergoing stronger purifying selection.,, Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations.,, Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved. ,, The findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution and the control of mutations.,," Dr. Hunter Comments: "These findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution? Well sure, if by that they mean how absurd are evolution truth claims." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-caught-againbut-they.html
and I am glad you agree that Darwinism is obsolete. Two questions for you, why are you defending Darwinian processes as proof for evolution if you truly believe Darwinism to be obsolete? and which altenative theory are you now favoring. i.e. Shapiro's 'natural' genetic engineering?? Kaufmann's self orginization??? etc.. etc..? You concede you have no evidence of one species transmutating into another,,,
“no, I don’t have evidence that evolution can turn a species into a dramatically different one”.
Thanks at least for a little honesty, now if you can add a little consistentcy to your honesty! You then defend your poverty of evidence for speciation with this,,,
But I know no other mechanism capable of producing new species. Do you?
Yes, Intelligence can accomplish exactly what unguided material processes have never been observed doing. Namely producing large amounts of functional information. i.e. The probability is 100% that Intelligence can produce functional information! In fact, every time you write a single sentence on this blog you are providing direct empirical evidence that Intelligence can and does produce information far beyond the capacity of the entire universe over the entire age of the universe:
Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Read the link. It says exactly the opposite of what the this post says. If you can defend the accuracy of two contradictory statements then... well.wd400
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
wd400, you can laugh all you want but pointing to a link is not an argument. Whatever is at the link is subject to interpretation. You must provide your argument with relevant quotes or facts. Otherwise you're a liar.Mapou
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
LOL, I'm not accusing anyone one of lying, just of being un-informed. This combination of comments made me laugh though. In the first I'm accused of making claims without evidence, in the second I provide the evidence as a link and am told " Don’t ask me to click on anything and do your job for you". How is one meant to support a claim if providing a link that backs it up is asking you to "do my work"?wd400
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
wd400 @17, you have said nothing that proves anything. You are accusing O'Leary of lying. Let's see some proof. Let's see the argument. Don't ask me to click on anything and do your job for you. I ain't your slave, man.Mapou
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Read the "turning his back" link, which says "Darwinists have been gunning for Wilson ever since, last year, he renounced the kin selection theory" Then confirm that kin selectoin is "selfish gene style" individual or gene-centred selection model.
By the way, your opinion matters to the rest of us because of what again?
Because I am right. If you've like UD to become even more of an echo chamber than it already is I guess you can try and get me banned?wd400
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
wd400 @15, it's neither staggering nor surprising at all that you would attack someone's character without providing any kind of evidence. It's expected of you. You need to change your moniker to "ad hominem Joe" or something. By the way, your opinion matters to the rest of us because of what again?Mapou
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Again, this whole block
Later, he started a huge row by turning his back on his big theory, group selection, insisting that Darwin’s natural selection could do it all (selfish gene style?) He had friends, too, once he repented of his sins against absolute Darwinism: ...
is precisely the opposite of what is true. It's kind of staggering to me that someone could cover this beat for so long and be so uninformed by it, but even more so that someone would take the moniker of "News" while apparently not caring about getting stuff right...wd400
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
"we have no scientific evidence that bacteria have ever changed into other bacteria" Yes we have, because when a THING changes, it changes into OTHER THING. You can't change into THE SAME. This is a very stupid point you are making.. "There simply isn’t any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells ever formed anything other than ‘simple aggregates’" Ok, let's see the evidence of the designer and the designing. Start explaining what they are like.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
bornagin77: "And exactly how is ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ experimental, i.e. ‘scientific’, proof that unguided evolution can changed one creature into another creature???" It's not proof; it's an explanation: there could be so many different species because some species turn into new ones. Do you know any other explanation? "especially when the vast majority of changes to DNA are now known to be the result of cell mediated processes, not random accidents as is presupposed in unguided evolution’s theoretical core???" It's still an unguided process. And Darwinism is obsolete. "Moreover, you simply have no evidence that ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ can change one creature into another creature" Yes and no. When something changes, it's not the same anymore, so it's ANOTHER thing. A moth is not the same as that moth resistant to pesticides. But, understanding that you meant dramatic change, I would say "no, I don't have evidence that evolution can turn a species into a dramatically different one". But I know no other mechanism capable of producing new species. Do you? "(A) Thus since the structural form of DNA and proteins is not reducible to the sequences on DNA or proteins, then (B) it simply is impossible that ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ can be claimed as scientific proof for the evolution of one creature into another creature much less is it proof that microbes can turn into man." This is nonsense. (B) is not a consequence of (A). "all these examples are all examples of rapid adaptations" Yes, by means of biological evolution, that is a real process. "and do not support your blind watchmaker, i.e. Darwinian, thesis" Darwinism is obsolete. And I don't have to support the lack of guidance. If you don't prove guidance, I can reject it with Occam's razor: what is claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence. "Yes! I can point you to four decades worth of laboratory evolution experiments" I know those experiments, but they are not "unguided". "Guillermoe you then concede that, although you really don’t have any evidence that unguided processes can produce anything I would consider a molecular machine, intelligence can produce as such" No. I know examples of molecular machines obtained in semiguided experiments simulating evolution. I have examples of other features appearing in populations without any guidance. And if you claim "intelligence can produce molecular machines we see in nature", I won't accept your claim until you explain the process and/or describe the intelligent agent and provide evidence of those two things. "and conceding my overall point that unguided processes have never been observed creating molecular machines" Those experiments simulated evolution. Populations of microorganisms were exposed to conditions that are known to trigger mutations and can be observed in nature. Those experiments are not guided in the sense that the resulting new features were stablished a priori. The new characteristics obtained were random. So, I am not even close of saying what you say I say. So, with your own policy, thanks for showing that you are a liar or that you have a poor reading comprehension. "No Guillermoe, it is not a argument from what we don’t know, but from what we do know. We ‘know’ of no instances of unguided processes producing a molecular machine!" Are you stupid? "I don't know of any martian alien" and "I know of no martian alien" MEAN THE SAME!!!! But you are right!! It's not an argument from ignorance, it's an argument from self knowing. It's a different kind of phallacy. "Actually, the claim is still true" In the universe I live in (maybe in your parallel universe it's different) there are published studies accounting for the evolution of many fundamental biochemical or cellular systems. So, YES,THERE ARE LOTS OF ACCOUNTS of this. And NO, Sahpiro's assertion is not true. "As to the supposed refutation of Dr. Behe’s claim that unguided processes cannot produce molecular machines, that refutation was found to be a fraudulent ‘literature bluff’" Are you talking about Thornton's study? "Do you think Franklin plagiarized Shapiro? That’s a serious charge!" No, I think someone's an dumbass who quotes the same phrase twice and thinks they are two different quotes. "I guess you mean God almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, with ‘The Intelligent Designer’ remark in your statement" No, I meant whatever you claim is the intelligent designer. Do you have evidence of it producing molecular machines? Do you have evidence of it existing? "I could flood you with evidence from quantum mechanics for ‘beyond space and time’, non-locality in biological molecules, and even molecular machines, actually I don’t have to do any of that." No, you couldn't. You could flood me with things you wrongfully interpret as evidence and are not. Give it a try. "ID’s claim in biology is minimal in that ID claims ‘intelligence’ can produce effects that unguided processes cannot produce" But has no evidence for this claim. Again, Occam's razor. "And since you have already conceded my main point that ‘guided’ processes can" I can't concede that because you have not describe your "guided processes", yet. I don't know what they are so I don't know what they can do. And I really think that you don't know what they are, either, so infact, you can't know what they are capable of doing.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Guillermoe, contrary to what you 'philosophically' want to believe to be true no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, we have no scientific evidence that bacteria have ever changed into other bacteria, much less do we have evidence that microbes can turn into man (or anything else)
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 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. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old - 11/11/13 Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages. http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-publications/insideodu/2013/11/11/topstory1 Collecting Census Data On Microbial Denizens of Hardened Rocks Dec. 9, 2013 Excerpt: What they're finding is that, even miles deep and halfway across the globe, many of these (microbial)communities are somehow quite similar.,,, "It's easy to understand how birds or fish might be similar oceans apart," Schrenk said. "But it challenges the imagination to think of nearly identical microbes 16,000 kilometers apart from each other in the cracks of hard rock at extreme depths, pressures and temperatures.",,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131209124115.htm The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) 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
There simply isn't any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells ever formed anything other than 'simple aggregates':
"We go from single cell protozoa. which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they're still individual cells that aggregate together. They don't seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don't really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don't have anything like that." - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this following video Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish Excerpt: “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm New Precambrian Fossils Are Not Cambrian Ancestors - October 2, 2014 Excerpt: From the headlines you might think that with the discovery of some new Chinese embryo fossils, the enigma of the Cambrian explosion has been solved. The announcement from Virginia Tech trumpets, "New evidence of ancient multicellular life sets evolutionary timeline back 60 million years." ,,, What's new about these fossils? Nothing. Similar embryos were found in the 1990s by J. Y. Chen and Paul Chien in the same Doushantuo formation, and reported in the peer-reviewed literature (Xiao et al. cite that paper in their references). The story is recounted in both Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt and in the Illustra film Darwin's Dilemma. The presence of embryos in the Precambrian didn't solve the Cambrian explosion problem then, and it doesn't now. In fact, they make the problem worse, because they show that the Precambrian strata were perfectly capable of preserving transitional forms, had they existed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/new_precambrian090171.html
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
"I’m not talking about antibiotic resistance or digestive changes, but some real macro morphological stuff: colonial aggregations with specialization such as little flippers, antennae, light-sensitive spots, circulatory systems, crawling out on land, and so on." Since it's a random process that might take some time. Anyway, new macro morphological features have been observed (not in bacteria, though). And, on the other side, what's the other explanation? Again, you argument is that if we don't produce something with evolution, evolution is impossible? First, evolution is a real biological process. Can evolution produced the complexity in biodiversity we see? We assume yes. And we don't have any other scientific explanation. "a ten year run, would be the equivalent of a billion years of human evolution" Yes, but bacteria are bacteria and humans are humans. Are you expecting bacteria to suffer human evolution? It took 1 billion years for multicellular organisms to appear on Earth? So, that's probably how much you should wait beside you bacterial colony to get the results you want.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Guillermoe you then concede that, although you really don't have any evidence that unguided processes can produce anything I would consider a molecular machine, intelligence can produce as such,,
I can tell you of changes that have arisen unguided, but I don’t know if you would consider them molecular machines, and I can tell you of experiments that show evolution of molecular machines but in experiments that are guided.
Thanks for at least that much honesty, and conceding my overall point that unguided processes have never been observed creating molecular machines. Guillermoe, in regards to nobody knowing of a single instance of unguided processes producing a molecular machine, you claim
“I don’t know of..” is argument from ignorance.
No Guillermoe, it is not a argument from what we don't know, but from what we do know. We 'know' of no instances of unguided processes producing a molecular machine! As to this quote,,,
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
,,,you claim,,,
It might have been true in 1996. It’s not true now.
Actually, the claim is still true, and Dr. Behe has only become more resolute, as the years have passed and more evidence has come in, in his claim that unguided perocesses cannot produce molecular machines,,,
Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe - 1997 Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,, In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. here were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm (Darwin's Black Box) Purposeful Design at the Foundation of Life - Michael Behe, PhD - video 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7pRD73PAaE Michael Behe's presentation was on Sunday, July 6, 2014. More Irreducible Complexity Is Found in Flagellar Assembly - September 24, 2013 Concluding Statement: Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It's a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives! - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/more_irreducibl077051.html “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology
As to the supposed refutation of Dr. Behe's claim that unguided processes cannot produce molecular machines, that refutation was found to be a fraudulent 'literature bluff',,,
Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
Guillermoe you then remark,,
Now, it’s quite suspicious that you atribute this quote to Shapiro in 1996 and to Franklin in 2001.
Do you think Franklin plagiarized Shapiro? That's a serious charge!,,, By the way, the similarity of the quotes was noted years ago by leading ID proponent William Dembski in his many talks he gave on the subject. Neither Shapiro nor Franklin, as far as I know, has admitted to plagiarism, nor have either of them accused each other of plagiarism. Guillermoe, you then again concede that you have no example of unguided processes creating a molecular machine,
If you mean building machines out of nothing, like forming celular structures in an organic media, I have no example.
Thanks again for your honesty. You then try to defend the sheer poverty of evidence by claiming,,
do you have evidence of these structures being built by The Intelligent Designer? I know you don’t. You shouldn’t (ask) for evidence when you can’t provide it.
I guess you mean God almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, with 'The Intelligent Designer' remark in your statement, and although I could flood you with evidence from quantum mechanics for 'beyond space and time', non-locality in biological molecules, and even molecular machines, actually I don't have to do any of that. You see Guillermoe, ID's claim in biology is minimal in that ID claims 'intelligence' can produce effects that unguided processes cannot produce. And since you have already conceded my main point that 'guided' processes can, and have, produce(d) molecular machines and unguided processes have not, then, as far as empirical science is concerned, my claim is subtantiated and your claim is not. Guillermoe you then concede,,
Darwinism is obsolete
Glad you agree.
Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin - April 22, 2014 Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said,,, “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.” http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/scientists_stunned_by_the_public_s_doubt_of_darwin The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene). Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong. - per Uncommon Descent Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Complex systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“ ,,, “As I myself had to experience [that] (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances?“ http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/wolf-ekkehard-lonnig-complex-systems-in-biology-overwhelmingly-point-to-an-intelligent-origin-of-living-beings/
Of supplemental note:
Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism - Stephen C. Meyer - April 25, 2014 Excerpt: in Chapters 15 and 16 of Darwin's Doubt, I addressed six new (that is, post neo-Darwinian) theories of evolution -- theories that proposed new mechanisms to either supplement or replace the reliance upon mutation and natural selection in neo-Darwinian theory.,, I show that, although several of these new evolutionary theories offer some intriguing advantages over the orthodox neo-Darwinian model, they too fail to offer adequate explanations for the origin of the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to account for new forms of animal life -- such as those that arise in the Cambrian period. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/lynn_margulis_e084871.html Darwin's Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem - video - The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin's Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to 'make up' for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iREO1h4h-GU&index=10&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Guillermoe you claim,,,
Biological evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population produced by some sort of selective pressure across generations.
And exactly how is 'change in the frequency of alleles' experimental, i.e. 'scientific', proof that unguided evolution can changed one creature into another creature???, especially when the vast majority of changes to DNA are now known to be the result of cell mediated processes, not random accidents as is presupposed in unguided evolution's theoretical core???
Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
Moreover, you simply have no evidence that 'change in the frequency of alleles' can change one creature into another creature,,,
Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html 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 Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
Moreover, we now have evidence that 'structural form' is not reducible to the sequences on DNA nor is it reducible even to the sequences on proteins,,
The Gene Myth, Part II – August 2010 Excerpt: “It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins, (intrinsically disoredered proteins), have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions. ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html podcast - Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution - September 17, 2014 "We are talking about 1/3 of the proteins in our body, (could be Intrinsically Disordered Proteins)" - Jonathan Wells http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2014/09/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/ On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) – Talbot – November 2010 Excerpt: The standard doctrine has it that functionally important sequences, precisely because they are important to the organism, will generally be conserved across considerable evolutionary distances. But the emerging point of view holds that architecture can matter as much as sequence. As bioinformatics researcher Elliott Margulies and his team at the National Human Genome Research Institute put it, “the molecular shape of DNA is under selection” — a shape that can be maintained in its decisive aspects despite changes in the underlying sequence. It’s not enough, they write, to analyze “the order of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s,” because “DNA is a molecule with a three-dimensional structure.”[14] Elementary as the point may seem, it’s leading to a considerable reallocation of investigative resources. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion Tissue-specific spatial organization of genomes – 2004 Excerpt: Using two-dimensional and three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization we have carried out a systematic analysis of the spatial positioning of a subset of mouse chromosomes in several tissues. We show that chromosomes exhibit tissue-specific organization. Chromosomes are distributed tissue-specifically with respect to their position relative to the center of the nucleus and also relative to each other. Subsets of chromosomes form distinct types of spatial clusters in different tissues and the relative distance between chromosome pairs varies among tissues. Consistent with the notion that nonrandom spatial proximity is functionally relevant in determining the outcome of chromosome translocation events, we find a correlation between tissue-specific spatial proximity and tissue-specific translocation prevalence. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific and point to a role for tissue-specific spatial genome organization in the formation of recurrent chromosome arrangements among tissues. http://genomebiology.com/content/5/7/R44
Thus since the structural form of DNA and proteins is not reducible to the sequences on DNA or proteins, then it simply is impossible that 'change in the frequency of alleles' can be claimed as scientific proof for the evolution of one creature into another creature much less is it proof that microbes can turn into man. Stephen Meyer comments on the failure of neo-Darwinism to explain ‘structural form’ here,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009) Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video https://vimeo.com/91322260
As to your examples, i.e. insects becoming resistant to pesticides, lizard cecal valves, and fish, who could already propel themselves across land, becoming stronger after being forced to 'walk' on land, all these examples are all examples of rapid adaptations within existing populations that point to sophisticated epigenetic modifications on organisms and do not support your blind watchmaker, i.e. Darwinian, thesis. Much less do your examples demonstrate that one creature can turn into another creature. Guillermoe, In regards to my request to you for a single example of Darwinian processes producing a molecular machine, you ask:
Can you tell me of any experiment searching for that?
Yes! I can point you to four decades worth of laboratory evolution experiments,,
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Yeah, I know. That's the story. Tell you what. Get some cultures of your favorite bacteria, subject them to various environmental stresses while being exposed to a significant amount of ionizing radiation. This should be adjusted to proportionally accelerate all of the components of Darwinistic evolution to let's say that of humans. it would probably have to be a similar fraction of the LD50/30 for each. After the scaled generational and radiometric equivalent of many millions of years, maybe you'll be able to amaze your friends and convert your skeptics with all sorts de novo features demonstrating evolution in action! I'm not talking about antibiotic resistance or digestive changes, but some real macro morphological stuff: colonial aggregations with specialization such as little flippers, antennae, light-sensitive spots, circulatory systems, crawling out on land, and so on. Let's assume that bacteria double every 20 minutes. Humans about every 60 years, which is very roughly a ratio of 100 million to one. So, a ten year run, would be the equivalent of a billion years of human evolution. Well, reproduction is faster for smaller organisms--dogs are bred about every two years--so let's say that this averages out to about 10-20% of the billion years or about 100-200 million years. This would start us at the end of the Jurassic and the beginning of the Cretaceous, and would give us a very rough idea of the magnitude of the evolutionary changes that we'd expect to see. This is not that farfetched. The University of California at Davis actually conducted such experiments many decades ago using mice. I guess they were more optimistic back then. You probably can anticipate what their results were. -QQuerius
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
bornagain: "does this mean that you know of evidence that has ‘confirmed’ evolution?" Yes. Biological evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population produced by some sort of selective pressure across generations. There are several examples of this happenning: insects becoming resistant to pesticides, there is the case of some lizzards introduce in the island of Pod Mrcaru 40 year ago, and there is a study were researchers created a selective pressure on a population of fish that naturally walk on land and this pressure produced change in their characteristics after several generations. So, the first step to the theory of evolution is that populations of living organisms change. And they do change, indeed. That's just a start. But, is there any other theory that could explain biodiversity that relays in a mechanism for which we have direct evidence? "For example, can you point us to a single instance where a molecular machine has arisen by unguided material processes???" It's a tricky question. Can you tell me of any experiment searching for that? Because I can tell you of changes that have arisen unguided, but I don't know if you would consider them molecular machines, and I can tell you of experiments that show evolution of molecular machines but in experiments that are guided. I don't think there's anybody trying to catch unguided changes in molecular machines because it's a lottery. It's like that guy that said that the proof abiogenesis is false is that new life never appeared in peanut butter. We never searched for new life in peanut butter, so it could have happenes and we missed it. "Even though the simplest of cells is chock full of thousands of molecular machines, I know of not one such example where unguided material processes have produced even one ‘simple’ molecular machine from scratch!" Well, two things. First, "I don't know of.." is argument from ignorance. Second, te thing about evolution is that it's GRADUAL. So, the first cell did not appear all of a sudden, probably. “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.” It might have been true in 1996. It's not true now. Now, it's quite suspicious that you atribute this quote to Shapiro in 1996 and to Franklin in 2001. "‘scientific’, evidence that unguided processes can accomplish what you, and other evolutionists, adamantly claim they can accomplish (namely, building molecular machines that, as far as engineering parameters are concerned, far outclass any machine man has ever built)" Is changing existing molecular machines into more complex ones ok? I know examples of that. If you mean building machines out of nothing, like forming celular structures in an organic media, I have no example. However, do you have evidence of these structures being built by The Intelligent Designer? I know you don't. You shouldn't for evidence when you can't provide it. "like wd400, think that I am just too dumb to understand that Darwinists don’t actually need an empirical demonstration of their claims?" Darwinism is obsolete. Anyway, we have empirical demonstration of the basic premise of evolution: populations of living organisms DO CHANGE in time. "Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.” What is a God? "On the one hand I have a rock solid empirical demonstration that ‘intellegence’ can and does build a molecular machines, but on the other hand, I have no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can build one." It's easy. When we build molecular machines we mimic nature. we do what we saw nature does. We have not evidence that nature does build mollecular machines (I am not sure about this) because we haven't observed it yet. ut, there were many things that had not been observed about evolution and in time we saw them. So, the real argument against evolution is this: identify a mechanism that explains what you say evolution doesn't explain adequately. You see, this is a blog about ID. I should not be explaining how evolution produced biodiversity. You should be explaining me how ID produce biodeversity.Guillermoe
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
OT: Regional Premieres of Privileged Species with Michael Denton Continue on Friday, October 10, in Charlotte, NC - October 2, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/regional_premie090181.htmlbornagain77
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Guillermoe you state,,,
,,, "You celebrate that another evolutive mechanism has been confirmed? Well, I am gald, indeed."
With such a brash statement, it seems you might know a bit about evolution. Perhaps you can help us 'understand evolution' since wd400 has failed in that endeavor. When you say, 'another evolutive mechanism has been confirmed', does this mean that you know of evidence that has 'confirmed' evolution?,,, I, as well as many others in the ID community, have been looking for the evidence for many years that would confirm the grand Darwiniam claims for complexity arising from simplicity, and we have yet to find any confirming evidence whatsoever.,,, For example, can you point us to a single instance where a molecular machine has arisen by unguided material processes??? Even though the simplest of cells is chock full of thousands of molecular machines, I know of not one such example where unguided material processes have produced even one 'simple' molecular machine from scratch!
Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum “the most efficient machine in the universe." Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video http://tl.cross.tv/61771 Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-20images/figure03.jpg
A few quotes of note:
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996
The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/
Now Guillermoe, I don't want a 'just so' story about how any particular molecular machine came to be in the remote past when no one was around to see it happen, but I want actual observational, i.e. 'scientific', evidence that unguided processes can accomplish what you, and other evolutionists, adamantly claim they can accomplish (namely, building molecular machines that, as far as engineering parameters are concerned, far outclass any machine man has ever built)
EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
Perhaps you, like wd400, think that I am just too dumb to understand that Darwinists don't actually need an empirical demonstration of their claims?,,, If so, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, and who is also a top ten cited chemist in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
“I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111 Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s
At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team
Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw
Hopefully you can see my dilemma Guillermoe?!? On the one hand I have a rock solid empirical demonstration that 'intellegence' can and does build a molecular machines, but on the other hand, I have no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can build one.bornagain77
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Later, he started a huge row by turning his back on his big theory, group selection.
Not for the first time, you have this precisely backwards. As your own link would've told you, had you read it.wd400
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Man, Darwin is obsolete. Stop criticizing Darwinism, we are in 2014, not in 1880. By the way, I don't get it. You celebrate that another evolutive mechanism has been confirmed? Well, I am gald, indeed.Guillermoe
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Group selection probably fits under the banner of epigenetics, IMO. It's just programmed adaptation. No need for any Darwinian RM-NS silliness.Mapou
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Spider Trivia
Butterfly Cities and Spider Optics - October 22, 2012 Excerpt: Skyscrapers of the future may shine in brilliant butterfly colors. Optical biosensors may be made from spider webs. These are just a few of the engineering marvels coming from biomimetics—the imitation of nature. http://crev.info/2012/10/butterfly-cities/ Tough, light and strong: Lessons from nature could lead to the creation of new materials - February 14, 2013 Excerpt: "Natural systems are built from so few elements, yet they use ingenious ways to assemble all these different materials to maximize their properties," ,,, For example, spider silk has both high tensile strength and extensibility. "It's stronger than almost any material," Meyers said. The silk is made of pleated sheets of nanocrystals connected by weak hydrogen bonds and embedded in protein strands. Under low stress, the protein strands uncoil and straighten, much like biopolymers. Under larger stress, the load gets transferred to the nanocrystals. If necessary, some of the hydrogen bonds slip, allowing the structure to stretch without breaking. Silk's reliance on hydrogen bonds for strength suggests that researchers may need to pursue new avenues to engineer stronger materials, Meyers said. Incidentally, similar structures can be found in bone, where sacrificial hydrogen bonds between mineralized collagen fibrils impart excellent fracture resistance. More complex strong structures can be found in everything from wool to whelk eggs. http://phys.org/news/2013-02-tough-strong-lessons-nature-creation.html Engineers have calculated that a woven cord of spider's silk as thick as a pencil could stop a jet in midair. From the book 'Weird Nature' By John Downer Spider Silk Is Stronger Than Steel Excerpt: * The silk thread spun by spiders, measuring just one-thousandth of a millimeter across, is five times stronger than steel of the same thickness. * It can stretch up to four times its own length. * It is also so light that enough thread to stretch clear around the planet would weigh only 320 grams. “On the human scale, a web resembling a fishing net could catch a passenger jet airplane.” Biomimicry- Spider Hair: The Perfect Water Repellant Surface - Feb 2010 Excerpt: “Engineering researchers have crafted a flat surface that refuses to get wet,” began a press release from University of Florida. “Water droplets skitter across it like ball bearings tossed on ice.,,, Because the trick is done with physics instead of chemistry, the hydrophobic surface manufactured to spider spec does not have to slough off any dangerous chemicals. Sigmund is now working on similar surface tricks that can repel oil. If engineers can figure out economical ways to manufacture these surfaces with enough durability for a range of temperatures, industry will beat a path,,,,. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100224b Researchers discussing spider’s web can’t stop using the forbidden word – 'design' - February 2012 https://uncommondescent.com/biomimicry/researchers-discussing-spiders-web-cant-stop-using-the-forbidden-word-design/ Spiders Have Eight (Well-Designed) Eyes - October 30, 2012 Excerpt: Look what researchers at the Optical Society of America are doing with spiders. Incredible as it sounds, they are taking spider silk and using it for fiber optics. Spider silk is already prized as an ideal material: it's strong, flexible, and biodegradable. Now, a team has found it can also transmit and guide light almost as well as glass fibers. One team is using it as a light guide in photonic chips, while another is trying to imitate the proteins in silk from spiders and silkworms to be able to manufacture it. This second team has already made a silk-based "plastic" that can be used for everything from biodegradable cups to implantable devices that dissolve in the body. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/halloween_creat065551.html A spider that builds elaborate, fake spiders and hangs them in its web has been discovered in the Peruvian Amazon. http://www.wired.com/2012/12/spider-building-spider/
Verse and Music
Proverbs 30:28 "The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces" - Spider Spinning Web to Music in Fast Motion (spider timelapse) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4LE_3duK4Y
bornagain77
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply