Intelligent Design

Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes

Spread the love

If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferred—a complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:  Read more

22 Replies to “Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    “If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box.”

    So true! But how could it be otherwise that Darwinism would fail to make accurate predictions? How is it possible for a materialistic theory (Darwinism) which denies the reality of ‘mind’ to have any real predictive power as a scientific theory in the first place since to make accurate predictions it takes a ‘mind’ to assess what the future may hold and predict what may take place in that future!

    Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) –
    “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosop.....cript.aspx

    Exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerating science program’
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

    Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos
    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56771.html

    Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.
    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Whereas, where Darwinists fail to accept any evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution, ID, on the other hand, does provide a fairly rigid framework for falsification:

    Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

    How many bits would that be:

    Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits

    Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
    Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a general overview of the falsification criteria for Intelligent Design:

    A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – March 2011 – several examples of cited research
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45311.html

    A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? – March 2010
    Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions:
    (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
    (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
    (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
    (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....rom_a.html

    On the Origin of Protein Folds – Jonathan M. – September 8, 2012
    Excerpt: A common objection to the theory of intelligent design is that it makes no testable predictions, and thus there is no basis for calling it science at all. While recognizing that testability may not be a sufficient or necessary resolution of the “Demarcation Problem,” my article, which I invite you to download, will consider one prediction made by ID and discuss how this prediction has been confirmed.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64081.html

  3. 3
    Granville Sewell says:

    This new research demonstrates yet again how evolutionary predictions about the species patterns don’t really matter. In particular, the evolutionary tree and common descent are not predictions that, when found to be false, falsify evolution. Instead, when found to be false those predictions, as with the many others, are simply forfeited. Therefore practically any pattern can be explained by evolutionary theory. And those that cannot are simply classified as research problems.

    David Berlinski, in “The Deniable Darwin”:

    Once asked, such questions tend to multiply like party guests. If evolutionary theory cannot answer them, what, then is its use? Why is the Pitcher plant carnivorous, but not the thorn bush, and why does the Pacific salmon require fresh water to spawn, but not the Chilean sea bass? Why has the British thrush learned to hammer snails upon rocks, but not the British blackbird, which often starves to death in the midst of plenty? Why did the firefly discover bioluminescense, but not the wasp or the warrior ant; why do the bees do their dance, but not the spider or the flies; and why are women, but not cats, born without the sleek tails that would make them even more alluring than they already are?

    Why? Yes, why? The question, simple, clear, intellectually respectable, was put to the Nobel laureate George Wald.. “Various organisms try various things,” he finally answered…

    But suppose the manifold of life were to be given a good solid yank, so that the Chilean sea bass but not the Pacific salmon required fresh water to spawn, or that ants but not fireflies flickered enticingly at twilight, or that women but not cats were born with lush tails. What then? An inversion of life’s fundamental facts would, I suspect, present evolutionary biologists with few difficulties. Various organisms try various things. This idea is adapted to any contingency whatsoever…

    A comparison with geology is instructive. No geological theory makes it possible to specify precisely a particular mountain’s shape; but the underlying process of upthrust and crumpling is well understood, and geologists can specify something like a mountain’s generic shape. This provides geological theory with a firm connection to reality…

    The theory of evolution, by contrast, is incapable of ruling anything out of court. That job must be done by Nature. But a theory that can confront any contingency with unflagging success cannot be falsified. Its control of the facts is an illusion.

  4. 4
    Michael Servetus says:

    Everything is certain and overwhelming and supported and not just a theory but a scientific theory up until it isn’t anymore, then science is provisional and ever learning. I notice a repeated pattern here from the very days of Darwin up until now, the very same thing over and over. From the beginning Darwin defenders evolution believers, worshipers of creation rather than the Creator, defended evolutionary theory with a almost blood-lust zeal which was amazing, as if it were a certain fact and a matter of science, not open to debate by non scientists.
    This is repeated over and over again. Everything is neat and in order and every part is defended with unbelievable hostile zeal and anger and then there are adjustments done in silence without ever a true acknowledgment of the shifting and the fact that what was just yesterday near dogma is completely expendable and changeable. So which part exactly is the solid part?
    I am no expert but I do see this pattern and the pattern is recognizable and can be classified.
    It is not something that can easily be covered over with the theories are provisional paintbrush, when the level of sensitivities and open hostilities betray something much more than neutral objective dispassionate provisional science. No the behavior is more common to ideologues who tend to make fools of themselves by defending so called provisional model(when in a humbled state) as absolute facts(when in the ideologue state)

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Save for the gratuitous nod to evolution at the beginning of the following video, I find that even the lowly dung beetles reflect Design to an extraordinary degree in the video:

    Marcus Byrne: The dance of the dung beetle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eosckjQ4mJ0

    Music:

    Help – The Beatles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8MeE8Ik4Y

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Thanks for admitting that it’s ‘big D’ Design.

  7. 7
    sterusjon says:

    Mung,

    I find your comment ambiguous. Do you mean ‘BIG D’ Design
    or something done by one of His not so ‘big’ underlings? 🙂

    Is that two liner?

  8. 8
    Axel says:

    ‘“If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box.”

    So true! But how could it be otherwise that Darwinism would fail to make accurate predictions? How is it possible for a materialistic theory (Darwinism) which denies the reality of ‘mind’ to have any real predictive power as a scientific theory in the first place since to make accurate predictions it takes a ‘mind’ to assess what the future may hold and predict what may take place in that future!’
    -Cornelius Hunter

    Evidently, those elementary, yet pivotal, questions are far too abstruse and subtle for those partisans of atheist Darwinian scientism, with their fabled ‘promissory note’, to even attempt to address – at least without sinking into greater ignominious confusion.

    They were, in fact, routed by the birth of the quantum paradigm, but they were and remain too dumb to realise it. Instead they circumvent the counter-rational nature of paradoxes, and claim that ‘intuition’ (and their imputation of counter-intuitiveness, rather than counter-rationality to paradoxes) is perfectly compatible with materialism, etc. Indeed, they have enforced that Orwellian definition on paradoxes, our dear, young friend, Wikipedia, in its relevant coverage, seemingly confusing oxymora, at least, in the modern usage of the term, with paradoxes.

    Yet the truly terrible aspect of all of this, is that it is a wilful cretinism (imbecility, in fact, seems beyond their reach). It was the wilful ignorance, albeit in their rejection of the truth of Christ’s spiritual teachings, backed up by his miracles, instead, preferring to cast him as a devil, that Christ called ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’, an eternal sin, for which there could be no forgiveness.

    I think this sin on the part of many of them, is more likely to incur punishment for them during this life. It puts me in mind of Harry Truman’s ‘bon mot’: ‘I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it’s hell.’ Except, that it will have been they who will have told the truth about themselves, to their enduring shame.

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    They simply cannot accept that, by definition, the mechanistic paradigm is the most advanced level on which materialism can effect any purchase, however notional.

  10. 10
    Axel says:

    However, they have had to make their living under the sovereignly explanatory quantum paradigm, hence the Newspeak.

    Evidently, Darwinism is one great cirumlocution, and, indeed, a never-ending ‘work in progress’, a cartoon-like counterfeit of science, itself. Oddly enough, I believe the Monthy Python team, in fact, did satirize scientism in all its risible duplicity.

    If this child had a premonition, they will tell us, no doubt, it’s all down to proteins, lightning and Heinz’s finest:

    http://www.spiritdaily.com/A13sandyhook.htm

  11. 11
    coyote says:

    And physicists once said that the Universe was constructed on Newtonian principles in a theory that was “solid and falsifiable.” Einstein falsified it and revolutionized all of science in the process. What is the point?

    You’ll have to do better than that. In a procedure common to Intelligent Design, you have selected a bit of information from evolutionary science and used it to set up a false position as a red herring, which then you shoot down allowing you to say that you have disproved evolution. If the arguments seem circular, it is because your falsified premises are circular. What you have disproved is your own falsification.

    Note that bacteria are prokaryotes, meaning they have no cell nucleus with a membrane to block transfer of information from the environment into the cell’s DNA or RNA. Nevertheless, just because information is moving horizontally between cells doesn’t mean we can’t identify where it has come from or how it has evolved, to the contrary. Evidence how scientists were able to identify the Haiti cholera as originating in Nepal by its genetic material. All this is well understood. If there are issues, they are much more interesting than the one you propose.

    While evolution of cells with nuclei about 1.5 to 2 billion years ago limited the transfer of information from the environment into the cell, it allowed a stability necessary for evolution of organisms more complex than one cell, whose specializations would engage organisms with their environment in far more complex ways than available to one-cell organisms without nuclei.

    Another example of an ID red herring is that female giraffes should have as long necks as males since long necks are supposed to be adaptive by allowing giraffes to reach high leaves. Because female necks are shorter is supposed to indicate some kind of outside intervention. There are several problems here. The first is that evolution always results in compromises. Due to their long necks giraffes experience the highest blood pressure of all mammals. Females which must undergo the additional stress of gestating and nursing the young do better with shorter necks. Males on the other hand, who fight with other males using their heads as bludgeons do better with a longer lever to propel their heads. This actually was probably the primary selective force in the evolution of giraffes’ necks. Without understanding the behavior of an organism you cannot understand the selective forces at work. There are many similar arguments in ID.

    A major problem with ID is that it offers no mechanism. If there was an intelligent force directing evolution, how would it go about doing so? How would it overcome the membrane barrier of nucleus in cells of higher organisms allowing only one-way transfer of information? ID’s explanations, if they have any, would require what Romans call ‘deus ex machina.” One complexity on top of another is needed to explain itself much in the manner that pre-Copernicus astronomers had to set up orbits within orbits to explain the movements of planets. Natural selection in contrast utilizes a few simple principles to explain immense complexity.

    There have been major roadblocks in its development, but these were moved aside by further experiment and understanding and modifications, not by discarding the theory. The primary one among these was an inability to explain how mutations could be passed to the next generation, but even at the time of Darwin, Gregor Mendol had already demonstrated the mechanism at work.

    When somebody has an agenda against somebody, it is better not to take their word for it but to go to that person and ask what is really going on. Similarly, when an organization has an agenda against a field of science, it is better to try to understand what that science is really about than allow yourself to be misled by red herrings. Also, look carefully at the other issues that organization may support, such as attack on the protected species laws and ask if they maybe they are not what they present themselves as.

    For those whose belief in God should be shaken by science, I say they have a problem with the conceptions implied in their belief, not with God. To say otherwise is to belittle God as something no larger than human imagination expressed in one culture among thousands, in one book among many millions, in one planet among billions, and in one galaxy among hundreds of billions.

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    coyote:

    A major problem with ID is that it offers no mechanism.

    So?

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    Dragonfly Designs Inspire Engineering – January 3, 2013
    Excerpt: Another paper on dragonflies shows that these marvels of the insect world are equipped with navigational equipment that can do vector calculus.,,,
    “Intercepting a moving object requires prediction of its future location. This complex task has been solved by dragonflies, who intercept their prey in midair with a 95% success rate. In this study, we show that a group of 16 neurons, called target-selective descending neurons (TSDNs), code a population vector that reflects the direction of the target with high accuracy and reliability across 360°. ”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67971.html

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Quote of note from preceding:

    “We weren’t expecting to find something so sophisticated in lowly insects from a group that’s been around for 325 million years….”

  15. 15
    Mung says:

    coyote:

    Note that bacteria are prokaryotes, meaning they have no cell nucleus with a membrane to block transfer of information from the environment into the cell’s DNA or RNA.

    But they still have a cell membrane.

    And if you believe the symbiotic theory, that’s what the membrane of the cell nucleus was, the membrane of a prokaryote.

    Note that bacteria are prokaryotes, meaning they have no cell nucleus with a membrane to block transfer of information from the environment into the cell’s DNA or RNA.

    I can’t make sense of that, could you please unpack it?

    coyote:

    While evolution of cells with nuclei about 1.5 to 2 billion years ago limited the transfer of information from the environment into the cell, it allowed a stability necessary for evolution of organisms more complex than one cell, whose specializations would engage organisms with their environment in far more complex ways than available to one-cell organisms without nuclei.

    But you just argued that transfer of information into the cell was not inhibited in prokaryotes. Did you mean to say into the DNA rather than into the cell?

    Why wasn’t all that transfer of information into the cell a good thing that allowed for more evolvability? How do you know that the advent of the nucleus is what was responsible for evolution of organisms more complex than one cell? Why is recombination good and HGT bad?

    coyote:

    How would it [design] overcome the membrane barrier of nucleus in cells of higher organisms allowing only one-way transfer of information? … Natural selection in contrast utilizes a few simple principles to explain immense complexity.

    Listen to yourself. You claim there’s no mechanism by which it could occur but then you turn right around and appeal to natural selection.

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    coyote:

    Another example of an ID red herring is that female giraffes should have as long necks as males since long necks are supposed to be adaptive by allowing giraffes to reach high leaves.

    Except ID doesn’t make any claims about female giraffe’s neck length.

    A major problem with ID is that it offers no mechanism.

    Design is a mechanism and a targeted search, ala “weasel”, is one specific design mechanism.

    If there was an intelligent force directing evolution, how would it go about doing so?

    “built-in responses to environmental cues” and other software.

    How would it overcome the membrane barrier of nucleus in cells of higher organisms allowing only one-way transfer of information?

    There isn’t a one-way transfer of information.

    Natural selection in contrast utilizes a few simple principles to explain immense complexity.

    Except natural selection doesn’t do (much of) anything. All natural selection is is differential reproduction DUE TO heritable, random (as in chance/ happenstance) variation. And one issue with that is you can have differential reproduction due to something other than heritable random variation.

    One thing natural selection can do is it can undo what artificial selection has wrought. However it cannot come close to producing what artificial selection can, and that is a problem for you and your ilk.

  17. 17
    Joe says:

    BTW coyote, Gregor Mendel was a Creationist.

    Go figure…

  18. 18
    alan says:

    Coyote – yes, listens to yourself “To say otherwise is to belittle God as something no larger than human imagination expressed in one culture among thousands, in one book among many millions, in one planet among billions, and in one galaxy among hundreds of billions.” WOW, you “know” a lot! – and your point regarding Newtonian Physics is somehow not as good a corollary as you take it to be – i.e 1. do you know who is going to be successful in revolutionizing all of science and 2. are you sure it is “all” of science. Your being quite gracious to yourself I think.

    Gotta love the “science” here guys!

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    coyote, as Mung has briefly alluded to, there are so many problems in your short post as to make it hard to know where to begin. It seems that you have taken the vast bulk of the ‘just so’ story you have just laid out on blind faith with no empirical evidence, which perhaps might have been excusable a few short decades ago, but now, due to the rapid pace to which modern science has advanced, we can address many of these ‘just so’ stories you have just laid out for Darwinism and find that there are, indeed, severe deficiencies in them. For instance you claim:

    Nevertheless, just because information is moving horizontally between cells doesn’t mean we can’t identify where it has come from or how it has evolved, to the contrary.

    Excuse me coyote but that is plain wrong! Darwinists have yet to explain where a single functional gene/protein has ‘come from’:

    Signature In The Cell – Review
    Excerpt: 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.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume.....k_726.html

    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

    “Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene— is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?”
    ~ Michael Denton

    And although bacteria do share a large number of genes through HGT, there is still a large percentage of genes that individual classes of bacteria possess that are not found in any other bacterial class:

    Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

    Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome – Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten – 2008
    Excerpt: We have found >139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
    http://www.paulyu.org/wp-conte.....genome.pdf

    coyote you also state:

    While evolution of cells with nuclei about 1.5 to 2 billion years ago,,

    And coyote, other than blind faith that evolution did it, you know this how exactly?

    Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? – Koonin
    Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus.
    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/.....27/17/3389

    Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
    Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,… Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea).
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....tml?page=1

    An enormous gap exists between prokaryote cells and eukaryote cells. A crucial difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the means they use to produce ATP (energy).
    http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp

    coyote, you also state:

    it (cells with a nucleus) allowed a stability necessary for evolution of organisms more complex than one cell,

    And once again coyote, other than your blind faith in Darwinism, you know this how exactly?

    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

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    coyote, Nor does the experimental evidence suggest that such a transition from single cell aggregates to multicellular organisms is possible. To highlight the monumental problem that Darwinian processes face in going from a single cell to a multicellular creature,,,

    “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square 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”)

    And yet, Dr. Behe, on the important Table 7.1 on page 143 of Edge Of Evolution, finds that a typical cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites. Whereas a conservative estimate for protein-protein binding sites in a multicellular creature is,,,

    Largest-Ever Map of Plant Protein Interactions – July 2011
    Excerpt: The new map of 6,205 protein partnerings represents only about two percent of the full protein- protein “interactome” for Arabidopsis, since the screening test covered only a third of all Arabidopsis proteins, and wasn’t sensitive enough to detect many weaker protein interactions. “There will be larger maps after this one,” says Ecker.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144936.htm

    So taking into account that they only covered 2%, of the full protein-protein “interactome”, then that gives us a number, for different protein-protein interactions, of 310,000. Thus, from my very rough ‘back of the envelope’ calculations, we find that this is at least 30 times higher than Dr. Behe’s estimate of 10,000 different protein-protein binding sites for a typical single cell (Page 143; Edge of Evolution; Behe). Therefore, at least at first glance from my rough calculations, it certainly appears to be a impossible step that evolution cannot make, by purely unguided processes, to go from a single cell to a multi-cellular creature.

    Further experimental work agrees with this conclusion:

    More Darwinian Degradation – M. Behe – January 2012
    Excerpt: Recently a paper appeared by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled “Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity” and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times.,,, It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....gradation/

    In fact Dr. Stephen Meyer’s, who wrote “Signature In The Cell”, next book is going to be on the sheer impossibility of neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origination of ‘Body-Plan information’ from single cells to multicellular organisms in the Cambrian Explosion:

    Here is a sneak peek at his forthcoming book:

    Dr. Stephen Meyer: Why Are We Still Debating Darwin? pt. 2 – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_22-07_00

    The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories – Stephen Meyer – 2004
    Excerpt: “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

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    Moreover there another whole level of information on a cell’s surface that is scarcely understood at all, much less understood to a reductive DNA, information theoretic, basis:

    Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules – A Whole New Level Of Scarcely Understood Information on The Surface of Cells
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bO5txsOPde3BEPjOqcUNjL0mllfEc894LkDY5YFpJCA/edit

    further problems with single cells turning into multicellular creatures:

    Ian Juby’s sex video – (Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve?) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM

    Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue – (July 7, 2011)
    Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU’s Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that’s not the case.,,,
    ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,,
    For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. “In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite,” said Heng.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161037.htm

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    coyote you also comment on female giraffes, and though I’ve never seen the ‘shorter neck’ argument that you are talking about, one thing I do know is that you cannot tell me exactly, with any certainty, where giraffes came from in the first place:

    The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) – What do we really know? – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
    http://www.weloennig.de/Giraff.....nglish.pdf

    Pt. 1: Another Evolutionary Icon: The Long-Necked Giraffe – Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....0_09-07_00

    coyote you also claim:

    A major problem with ID is that it offers no mechanism

    And yet, the ironic thing in all this, is that you yourself, by your own intelligence, just generated far more functional information in your post than has ever been witnessed, or reasonable expected, to be produced by the entire material processes of the universe over the entire history of the universe!

    coyote you then claim:

    Natural selection in contrast utilizes a few simple principles to explain immense complexity.

    Yet natural selection is hardly what you have conceptualized it to be:

    Major problems with the ‘mechanism’ of natural selection
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-441150

    coyote you then claim:

    There have been major roadblocks in its development, but these were moved aside by further experiment and understanding and modifications, not by discarding the theory. The primary one among these was an inability to explain how mutations could be passed to the next generation, but even at the time of Darwin, Gregor Mendol had already demonstrated the mechanism at work.

    Yet the modern synthesis (which sought to meld Genetics with Darwinian evolution) is now known to be ‘dead’:

    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/co.....03g3t7002/

    The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? – Koonin – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index....._synthesis

    coyote you also state:

    When somebody has an agenda against somebody, it is better not to take their word for it but to go to that person and ask what is really going on.

    Wise words indeed coyote!,,, So,, What’s really going on coyote???

    music and verse

    Starry Night | Chris August
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG3TijLA71s

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  22. 22
    Arthur Hunt says:

    We’ve known about horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes since, oh, the late 1970’s (at least).

    Welcome to the 1980’s, Cornelius. That was an exciting time to be a biologist, to be sure. It’ll be interesting to come along with you as you catch up with the rest of the scientific community.

Leave a Reply