'Junk DNA' Intelligent Design

Is it the “junk DNA” that makes us human?

Spread the love

Skin cells repurposed into brain cells were studied:

Our DNA is very similar to that of the chimpanzee, which in evolutionary terms is our closest living relative. Stem cell researchers at Lund University in Sweden have now found a previously overlooked part of our DNA, so-called non-coded DNA, that appears to contribute to a difference which, despite all our similarities, may explain why our brains work differently. The study is published in the journal Cell Stem Cell…

Using the stem cells, the researchers specifically grew brain cells from humans and chimpanzees and compared the two cell types. The researchers then found that humans and chimpanzees use a part of their DNA in different ways, which appears to play a considerable role in the development of our brains.

“The part of our DNA identified as different was unexpected. It was a so-called structural variant of DNA that were previously called “junk DNA,” a long repetitive DNA string which has long been deemed to have no function. Previously, researchers have looked for answers in the part of the DNA where the protein-producing genes are — which only makes up about two per cent of our entire DNA — and examined the proteins themselves to find examples of differences.”

The new findings thus indicate that the differences appear to lie outside the protein-coding genes in what has been labelled as “junk DNA,” which was thought to have no function and which constitutes the majority of our DNA.

“This suggests that the basis for the human brain’s evolution are genetic mechanisms that are probably a lot more complex than previously thought, as it was supposed that the answer was in those two per cent of the genetic DNA. Our results indicate that what has been significant for the brain’s development is instead perhaps hidden in the overlooked 98 per cent, which appears to be important. This is a surprising finding.”

Lund University, “What makes us human? The answer may be found in overlooked DNA” at ScienceDaily (October 8, 2021)

The question “What makes us human?” is problematic in principle. It seems as if researchers are looking for a switch: Click! Now it’s human. There’s a lot that that approach won’t account for.

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Term “junk DNA” critiqued at journal. But now remember the history! “The days of ‘junk DNA’ are over…”? So the house is clearly supporting this move away from the Darwinian position. Oh yes, let’s not forget that “junk DNA” was very much a Darwinian position. Most or all of the Darwinian Bigs signed onto junk DNA as part of their thesis about the unguided nature of life. The big question will doubtless be put off for now: Why does it only count if Darwinian predictions are right but never if they are wrong?

Casey Luskin reflects on the “official” demise of the term “junk DNA.” Luskin: “these authors remember a day when ‘the common doctrine was that the nonprotein coding part of eukaryotic genome’ consisted of ‘“useless sequences, often organized in repetitive elements.’” Good. Keep the history alive. It won’t be very long before Darwinians start claiming that they never thought it was junk. Then they will start insinuating that WE said it was junk. No, that doesn’t make any sense but if the history is forgotten, it doesn’t need to either.

and

And now … Transposable elements (junk DNA) shape the evolution of mammalian development. No wonder people are backing away from the Darwinian staple of junk DNA. We wonder, when will the pop science articles start to appear, claiming that junk DNA was never really an argument used by Darwinian evolutionists in support of their cause and that, in any event, they were right to use such an argument.

69 Replies to “Is it the “junk DNA” that makes us human?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    From an engineering viewpoint it wouldn’t take a lot of altered commands. The cortex is built from the brainstem by a set of instructions. The instructions tell the radial glia how to arrange themselves, and then the brainstem generates a few billion neurons and sends them out on the radial glia like settlers following railroad tracks into a new territory.

    The map for the railroads is probably built by a mapmaker, not directly from the genes.

    So a single instruction is really all you’d need.

    “Memo to railroad mapping service: Use map H instead of map C”.

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    The new findings thus indicate that the differences appear to lie outside the protein-coding genes in what has been labelled as “junk DNA,” which was thought to have no function and which constitutes the majority of our DNA.

    such an irony … not the coding-part of the genome (you know, the self-fish gene), but the ‘junk’ in our genome is what makes us the most sophisticated species able to send probes to Mars …

    PS: and, of course, here we go again: ” …. a lot more complex than previously thought….” or ” …This is a surprising finding…”

  3. 3
    Origenes says:

    Our results indicate that what has been significant for the brain’s development is instead perhaps hidden in the overlooked 98 per cent, which appears to be important. This is a surprising finding.”

    The “overlooked 98 per cent”?? I find it inconceivable, that serious scientists are capable of believing that the massive information necessary for building the human body can reside in just 2% of the DNA.

    But wait, that isn’t what they believe at all.
    Once I asked Larry Moran:

    If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?

    Larry Moran’s astonishing answer:

    (…) experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome (…)

    There is no need for the information to build brains and body? What are these people thinking?

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    I’m surprised at how soon we forget. Or maybe people want to forget David Wilcox. I believe he is a theistic evolutionist and now is very old. But he is one of the most knowledgeable persons in the world on human evolution. Or what makes humans different from all other species.

    Here is webpage and he hasn’t published in several years.

    https://www.eastern.edu/david-wilcox

    His articles are religious in focus but in them all the biological details are laid out in long articles. The last one of his list

    https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2016/PSCF3-16Wilcox.pdf

    I will leave the Junk DNA junkies to pour through it. I haven’t the time to do so. But one excerpt

    As for the genetic evidence, the unique character of the human mind is not due to a “magic genetic bullet.” There are not just a few major alterations, not just the injection of a “new” set of genes—although some new loci have been identified. Rather, based on differences with the chimpanzee genome, human neural development depends on the wholesale alteration of the control sequences of the majority of the genes acting in the brain. More than one hundred neural loci show signs of high selection, and most are upregulated and delayed in expression. Humans’ neural loci also have higher levels of alternate gene splicing (hence producing a more diverse array of proteins) and altered neural epigenetic markers. Most of these differences are in loci controlling neural development. Much of this variation has been generated by transposon-driven mutation (ALUs— or jumping genes). As to how this pattern evolved, it seems obvious to point to a selective regime favoring neural complexity. But that is an empty description. The real question for evolution would be, what circumstances would produce such a regime?

  5. 5
    ET says:

    DNA doesn’t make us human.

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    Origenes: There is no need for the information to build brains and body? What are these people thinking?

    Dr Dawkins did a pretty good job explaining that issue in The Greatest Show on Earth and Dr Neil Shubin also explains and updates that area in his book Some Assembly Required. The basic idea is that bits of the genome are activated based on exterior influences. Dr Dawkins metaphor is to think of a flock of birds: the whole flock ends up sometimes creating complicated aerial patterns even though each bird is only responding to its local input.

    So, the genome is not a blue-print, more like a cooking recipe: when this is true do this, etc.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    A more gene focused article by Wilcox

    Our Genetic Prehistory:
    Did Genes Make Us Human?

    https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2014/PSCF6-14Wilcox.pdf

    I would take his theology as his personal beliefs but the references to gene development and gene expression are what is interesting.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Neither Dawkins nor Shubin know what makes an organism what it is. They are just liars for evolutionism. They don’t have any idea how metazoans arose. They have nothing beyond a narrative based on their very biased, but untestable, ideas.

  9. 9
    Origenes says:

    @6 JVL:

    The basic idea is that bits of the genome are activated based on exterior influences.

    The information on how to build a brain must reside somewhere, right? And, obviously, you are not saying that it is stored in ‘exterior influences’.
    JVL:

    So, the genome is not a blue-print, more like a cooking recipe: when this is true do this, etc.

    This makes no difference to the problem. In the cooking recipe scenario, the information on how to build a brain is in the instructions [when this is true do this, etc].
    So my question remains essentially the same: given that 98% of our genome is junk, where is this “cooking recipe” information stored?

    p.s. And BTW how do we get the right ‘cooking-instructions’ to the right cells, at the right time?

  10. 10
    JVL says:

    ET: Neither Dawkins nor Shubin know what makes an organism what it is. They are just liars for evolutionism. They don’t have any idea how metazoans arose. They have nothing beyond a narrative based on their very biased, but untestable, ideas.

    You should read Dr Shubin’s book; I’m sure you could get it from your local library if you don’t want to put money in his pocket. He does address a lot of your concerns.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Origenes: The information on how to build a brain must reside somewhere, right? And, obviously, you are not saying that it is stored in ‘exterior influences’.

    No, but it’s not written down like a blueprint either. When cells reproduce certain genes are activated or inactivated which then dictates what kind of cell they turn out to be.

    This makes no difference to the problem. In the cooking recipe scenario, the information on how to build a brain is in the instructions [when this is true do this, etc].
    So my question remains essentially the same: given that 98% of our genome is junk, where is this “cooking recipe” information stored?

    All the genes (which create proteins) and the control genes (which activate genes) are in the DNA of course. But they get input from the environment.

    And BTW how do we get the right ‘cooking-instructions’ to the right cells, at the right time?

    It’s in the DNA so it’s in most body cells. If I remember correctly, red blood cells have no DNA.

  12. 12
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    When cells reproduce certain genes are activated or inactivated which then dictates what kind of cell they turn out to be.

    Where is the information stored which tells the cells which genes to activate or inactivate? You cannot leave those decisions to the individual genes.
    JVL:

    Origenes: So my question remains essentially the same: given that 98% of our genome is junk, where is this “cooking recipe” information stored?

    All the genes (which create proteins) and the control genes (which activate genes) are in the DNA of course. But they get input from the environment.

    Ok. So you say there are “control genes”, which activate the genes. And these control genes are getting clues from the environment you say. In a former post you wrote that the control genes contain instructions; “like a cooking recipe: when this is true do this, etc”, [when the environment is like that do this] to which my question was: “where is this “cooking recipe” information stored?”

    If a brain is built succesfully, massive information is needed. This information does not have to be in the form of blueprint, as you pointed out, it can be in the form of Instructions “a cooking recipe”. However, the amount of information, remains massive. A collection of [if this do that] instructions does not require less storage than a blueprint.
    So, my question remains the same:

    If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain?

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    Origenes: Where is the information stored which tells the cells which genes to activate or inactivate? You cannot leave those decisions to the individual genes.

    It’s all in the DNA.

    Ok. So you say there are “control genes”, which activate the genes. And these control genes are getting their (partial) instructions from the environment you say. In a former post you wrote that the control genes contain instructions; “like a cooking recipe: when this is true do this, etc”, to which my question was: “where is this “cooking recipe” information stored?”

    It’s best to think of the DNA in total as being more of a recipe than a blueprint. But it is just a metaphor so not completely ‘correct’.

    If a brain is built succesfully, massive information is needed. This information does not have to be in the form of blueprint, as you pointed out, it can be in the form of Instructions “a cooking recipe”. However, the amount of information, remains massive.

    I can’t remember the exact value but it’s estimated that there are something like 30,000 genes in the human genome. Apparently, that’s enough when the right ones are activated at the right time.

    You should read Dr Shubin’s book; it’s quite interesting.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You should read Dr Shubin’s book; I’m sure you could get it from your local library if you don’t want to put money in his pocket. He does address a lot of your concerns.

    I am sure that you think so. However peer review refutes your claim.

    I bet that you don’t even know what DNA does. DNA isn’t a recipe. At best it’s just a template for making copies of itself and different RNAs. With mRNA, DNA doesn’t even say how its processed. DNA doesn’t have a say in how proteins fold nor how they are configured into structures.

    You don’t know anything about biology and it shows.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    JVL:

    When cells reproduce certain genes are activated or inactivated which then dictates what kind of cell they turn out to be.

    There isn’t any evidence for that, just a need.

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    ET: I am sure that you think so. However peer review refutes your claim.

    It’s a book for general readers; it wasn’t peer reviewed.

    Look, if you don’t want to read it fine but if you don’t know what’s in the book then you can’t really comment about it.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    I will stay with actual science as opposed to the unscientific words of a very biased person. If Shubin says he knows how metazoans arose then he should have it in peer review. Yet he doesn’t publish that. So he writes a book for rubes, like you.

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    From: https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2020/03/some-assembly-required-by-neil-shubin-review.html

    It turns out that genes can be switched on and off depending on the environment that a cell finds itself in. In development, the switches are produced by genes which are themselves responsive to their environment, giving rise to complex causal networks. If that sounds complicated, that’s because it is. The molecular mechanisms of development, and how they themselves evolved, are among the most exciting areas of current research, and Shubin devotes considerable space to describing for us the current state of play.

    Some features turn out to be common across the entire animal kingdom. Worms have segments, insects and other arthropods have segments, and at a very fundamental level our backbone is a series of segments. The control genes in worms, crabs and insects are directly related to the Hox genes of vertebrates, including fish, and the same Hox genes that are active in the development of toes are also active in the development of the terminal ends of fishes’ fins. Everywhere, we see the redeployment of similar subroutines.

    Repurposing also takes place within the DNA itself, by means of duplication, as well as by transfer of genetic material between different species. The existence of two separate subunits within the haemoglobin molecule is the result of an ancient duplication. Vertebrates show a fourfold repetition of their Hox genes, as the result of two episodes in each of which the entire genome was duplicated. Colour vision is a much quoted example of the possibilities created by gene duplication. Old world monkeys and their close relatives (including us) have three-colour vision, unlike the two-colour vision of most mammals. This arose through duplication of the gene for green-sensitive visual pigment, allowing one copy, by a minor change in its protein sequence, to evolve sensitivity for red.

    We can understand major changes in body form, even such major changes as those between fish and land animal, or between running dinosaur and bird, in terms of a sequence of small interlocking adaptations. The appearance of a new kind of cell, such as bone cells, presents a much more difficult problem, since it entails an entire new suite of proteins, so that it looks as if many different things would have had to happen at once. One way in which this can occur is by the incorporation of multiple copies of a sequence at different sites, as sometimes happens with jumping DNA derived ultimately from a virus. This has happened in the cells responsible for forming the mammalian placenta.

  19. 19
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    Origenes: If a brain is built succesfully, massive information is needed. This information does not have to be in the form of blueprint, as you pointed out, it can be in the form of Instructions “a cooking recipe”. However, the amount of information, remains massive.

    It’s all in the DNA. (…)

    I can’t remember the exact value but it’s estimated that there are something like 30,000 genes in the human genome. Apparently, that’s enough when the right ones are activated at the right time.

    You do not seem to grasp the problem. Those 30.000 genes you are talking about code for proteins. They are already occupied by information about proteins. IOWs they are not a blank sheet, they are not (also) available as a basis for your “cooking instructions”.

    Do you now see the storage problem if the rest of DNA is junk?

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    Origenes: Do you now see the storage problem if the rest of DNA is junk?

    No because you do not need specific instructions like a blueprint for every minor structure.

    Again, I would highly recommend Dr Shubin’s book Some Assembly Required if you’re really interested in finding out some of the work being done in that area over the last century or more. It puts it into context and explains the reasoning and data and results.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Shubin is full of it. He doesn’t know what makes a fish a fish. He has no idea how animals evolved. He can’t even say how blind and mindless processes produced HOX genes. He has no idea how developmental biology evolved.

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    ET: Shubin is full of it. He doesn’t know what makes a fish a fish. He has no idea how animals evolved. He can’t even say how blind and mindless processes produced HOX genes. He has no idea how developmental biology evolved.

    His book Some Assembly Required is almost totally about work not his own. But, since you’ve already decided it’s rubbish and therefore you won’t read it you’ll never know that for yourself.

    I thought good scientists considered all the data. Here’s a good, well written book that addresses some of the questions you have and you won’t read it because you’ve prejudged it to be rubbish. Science knowledge is provisional based on our current best data. If you ignore some of the data then how do you know if your view is up-to-date?

  23. 23
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    No because you do not need specific instructions like a blueprint for every minor structure.

    General instructions are sufficient to build a brain or an eye? No need for precision?
    Ok. Whatever. And those general instructions are in the genes which also contain the code for proteins? Is that the great insight you obtained from Shubin’s book?

  24. 24
    ET says:

    JVL:

    His book Some Assembly Required is almost totally about work not his own. But, since you’ve already decided it’s rubbish and therefore you won’t read it you’ll never know that for yourself.

    I read it last year. It’s full of unscientific BS. He doesn’t address anything with actual science. That you are too dense to understand that says it all, really.

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    Origenes: General instructions are sufficient to build a brain or an eye? No need for precision?

    No. Look, I’ve suggestion a good, general book discussing how this all works. It’s recent, it’s not expensive and you can probably find it in your local library. IF you’re really interested.

    Ok. Whatever. And those general instructions are in the genes which also contain the code for proteins? Is that the great insight you obtained from Shubin’s book?

    Why don’t you read it and find out? Maybe I have misrepresented what it says. You can find out. IF you really want to.

    OR you can just prejudge something which might address your questions. Only one way to find out . . .

    If you don’t read it then you won’t know whether or not it explains the issues you’re bringing up. And you’ll be ignoring something that might be informative. And surely anyone who is interested in scientific truth would like to consider all the data.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    Shubin’s book is devoid of science. And it is refuted by actual science.

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    ET: I read it last year. It’s full of unscientific BS. He doesn’t address anything with actual science. That you are too dense to understand that says it all, really.

    What, specifically, does he relate that you think is BS? Which peer-review bit of work that he references do you think is rubbish?

    Shubin’s book is devoid of science. And it is refuted by actual science.

    Be specific, give an example of one bit of work he references that you think is rubbish.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    Shubin’s heavily biased books and unscientific views are NOT data.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Shubin didn’t reference any peer reviewed material that supports his claims. He doesn’t have any idea how developmental biology arose. He doesn’t have any idea how eukaryotes arose.

  30. 30
    Sandy says:

    @JVL
    The problem of coding-decoding of information is insuperable.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Be specific, give an example of one bit of work he references that you think is rubbish.

    It’s his take that is rubbish. There isn’t any peer review that shows blind and mindless processes can produce eukaryotes. The same goes for developmental biology. And our knowledge of DNA refutes his claims. As I said, get an education.

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    ET: It’s his take that is rubbish. There isn’t any peer review that shows blind and mindless processes can produce eukaryotes.

    Was that the point of his book? I don’t think so.

    The same goes for developmental biology. And our knowledge of DNA refutes his claims. As I said, get an education.

    So, you can’t point to a piece of peer-reviewed research that Dr Shubin references in his book that you think is rubbish.

    Fine.

  33. 33
    jerry says:

    It looks like we will have to read Shubin’s book to see what it says. My guess nothing relevant.

    Dawkins’ book, “The Greatest Show…” is about micro evolution. He punts when he gets near anything major.

    Wells’ thesis is that Darwin is about an argument without evidence to support it. So are all of Dawkins’ books and anyone else of Darwin’s disciples who have written anything. All they provide is speculation.

    Why is Shubin different? My guess, he isn’t.

    Aside: there will be a Nobel prize for anyone who can demonstrate an instance of macro evolution.

  34. 34
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    Why don’t you read it and find out? Maybe I have misrepresented what it says.

    It seems like you have indeed misrepresented Shubin. According to him, the proteins know how to build brain and bodies. They are directing and instructing the cells during development.
    Where these proteins got their insight into higher-level structures and patterns, which is obviously necessary for succesful building, Shubin does not say.

    Shubin:

    A special molecular machinery gives cells the ability to work together and make bodies. Different cells have to be able to stick together. It would be challenging to have a solid body in which the cells did not adhere to one another in very precise ways. Skin cells, for example, have special mechanical properties that allow them to attach to one another to make sheets of tissue. They make the collagens, keratins, and other proteins that give the tissue its characteristic feel.
    Finally, cells in bodies need ways to communicate with one another, to coordinate their reproduction, death, and gene activity. And again, proteins are the way this happens: different proteins convey messages to cells that tell them where and when to divide, die, or secrete more proteins. The genetic machinery that makes this possible is the gene families we discussed in Chapter 5. Each gene in the family makes a protein that is subtly different from its cousins. For example, one class of protein, cadherins, resides in one hundred different kinds of cells, each specific to a different kind of tissue—skin, nerve, bone, and so forth. These proteins both hold cells together, as in the skin, and serve as a way for cells to communicate chemically, telling one another when to divide, die, or make other proteins.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Was that the point of his book? I don’t think so.

    And yet if he can’t answer that then his book is just nonsense.

    So, you can’t point to a piece of peer-reviewed research that Dr Shubin references in his book that you think is rubbish.

    Learn how to read. It’s his take that is rubbish.

    There isn’t anything in peer review that says fish can evolve into tetrapods. There aren’t any experiments showing it is possible. There aren’t any known mechanisms capable of producing the transformations required.

    YOU can’t point to any of his references that demonstrate otherwise.

  36. 36
    Origenes says:

    Shubin:

    These proteins both hold cells together, as in the skin, and serve as a way for cells to communicate chemically, telling one another when to divide, die, or make other proteins.

    Cell A to cell B: “Go divide neighbour!”
    Cell B: “How do you know?”
    Cell A: “A protein told me that you need to divide”
    Cell B: “How does that protein know that I need to divide? Does it follow a body plan?”
    Cell A:” Of course not. Experts do not see a need for body plans.”

  37. 37
    jerry says:

    If you want to read an honest Darwinist, look at the brief description I posted on Wilcox. He tentatively accepts evolution through Darwin’s ideas.

    Much of this variation has been generated by transposon-driven mutation (ALUs— or jumping genes). As to how this pattern evolved, it seems obvious to point to a selective regime favoring neural complexity. But that is an empty description. The real question for evolution would be, what circumstances would produce such a regime?

    He is pointing to a micro evolutionary explanation for human brain development. Not to the creation of new proteins or organs. Where the real debate on evolution is.

  38. 38
    JVL says:

    Origenes: It seems like you have indeed misrepresented Shubin.

    Hard to say if you haven’t actually read the book.

    According to him, the proteins know how to build brain and bodies. They are directing and instructing the cells during development.

    Why don’t you actually read the full argument and explanation?

    Cell A to cell B: “Go divide neighbour!”
    Cell B: “How do you know?”
    Cell A: “A protein told me that you need to divide”
    Cell B: “How does that protein know that I need to divide? Does it follow a body plan?”
    Cell A:” Of course not. Experts do not see a need for body plans.”

    If you’re not going to even bother to read the background and justification then is there a point trying to have a discussion?

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    ET: And yet if he can’t answer that then his book is just nonsense.

    No, it’s not nonsense. He was spending a lot of time and effort to address some issues about how we know that certain evolutionary processes are valid.

    Learn how to read. It’s his take that is rubbish.

    Right. So you cannot point to a particular bit of research that you think was rubbish. Noted.

    There isn’t anything in peer review that says fish can evolve into tetrapods. There aren’t any experiments showing it is possible. There aren’t any known mechanisms capable of producing the transformations required.

    Get specific. Point to particular results you think are questionable. That’s how science works.

    YOU can’t point to any of his references that demonstrate otherwise.

    Can you find a result or research outcome that is wrong? CAN YOU?

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    At 19:

    Origenes: “If a brain is built succesfully, massive information is needed. This information does not have to be in the form of blueprint, as you pointed out, it can be in the form of Instructions “a cooking recipe”. However, the amount of information, remains massive.”

    JVL: “It’s all in the DNA. (…)
    I can’t remember the exact value but it’s estimated that there are something like 30,000 genes in the human genome. Apparently, that’s enough when the right ones are activated at the right time.”

    Origenes: “You do not seem to grasp the problem.”
    Origenes at 23: “General instructions are sufficient to build a brain or an eye? No need for precision?”

    Origenes statement, “You do not seem to grasp the problem”, is an understatement.

    Contrary to what JVL apparently believes, ‘general instructions’ are nowhere near sufficient to explain how any biological structure might achieve its form.

    No one in their right mind would ever claim that ‘general instructions’ are sufficient to build a computer. Yet, in terms of efficiency, we find that biological life dramatically outperforms our best computers by several orders of magnitude.

    Cell-inspired electronics – February 25, 2010
    Excerpt: “A single cell in the human body is approximately 10,000 times more energy-efficient than any nanoscale digital transistor, the fundamental building block of electronic chips. In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.”
    http://phys.org/news/2010-02-c.....onics.html

    The astonishing efficiency of life – November 17, 2017 by Jenna Marshall
    Excerpt: All life on earth performs computations – and all computations require energy. From single-celled amoeba to multicellular organisms like humans, one of the most basic biological computations common across life is translation: processing information from a genome and writing that into proteins.
    Translation, it turns out, is highly efficient.
    In a new paper published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI researchers explore the thermodynamic efficiency of translation.,,,
    To discover just how efficient translation is, the researchers started with Landauer’s Bound. This is a principle of thermodynamics establishing the minimum amount of energy that any physical process needs to perform a computation.
    “What we found is that biological translation is roughly 20 times less efficient than the absolute lower physical bound,” says lead author Christopher Kempes, an SFI Omidyar Fellow. “And that’s about 100,000 times more efficient than a computer.”
    https://phys.org/news/2017-11-astonishing-efficiency-life.html

    The thermodynamic efficiency of computations made in cells across the range of life. – 2017
    Excerpt: Here we show that the computational efficiency of translation, defined as free energy expended per amino acid operation, outperforms the best supercomputers by several orders of magnitude, and is only about an order of magnitude worse than the Landauer bound.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133443/

    This stunning level of thermodynamic efficiency is displayed at the macroscopic level of the human body as well.

    Specifically, “Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.”

    The Human Brain Is ‘Beyond Belief’ by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – 2017
    Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,,
    Optimal Energy Efficiency
    Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,,
    https://www.icr.org/article/10186

    To claim that such a stunning level of thermodynamic efficiency in life is achieved by ‘general instructions’ in DNA, as JVL implied, is beyond ludicrous and such a supposedly ‘scientific’ claim, in fact, borders on insanity.

    The fact of the matter is that in order to achieve such stunning thermodynamic efficiency an ‘Intelligent Designer’ would necessarily have to, basically, take the position of every atom of an organism into account when designing the organism in order to approach such stunning levels of thermodynamic efficiency.

    “General Instructions’ simply will get you nowhere near where you need to be in regards to achieving such stunning levels of thermodynamic efficiency.

    And indeed, when taking thermodynamic considerations into account, the information content of a ‘simple cell’, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order of 10^12 bits, which, needless to say, greatly outstrips the amount of “general’ information encoded on DNA.

    Molecular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit

    ,,, Of note: 10^12 bits is equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica (per Carl Sagan).

    Moreover, from a thermodynamic perspective, “the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.”

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    Which again, needless to say, greatly outstrips the amount of ‘general’ information encoded on DNA.

    As Dr. Doug Axe states in the following video at the 1 hour 16 minute mark, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”

    “There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”
    Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video
    https://youtu.be/lgs6J4LqeqI?t=4575

    Moreover, at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, information must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    To provide empirical evidence for the claim that this massive amount of information is coming into the developing embryo ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, it is first important to note that, via quantum non-locality, quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,,,

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    And these quantum correlations which somehow arise from outside spacetime, are now found in molecular biology on a massive scale. In every DNA and Protein molecule,,,

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    it is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.

    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have empirical evidence strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    Contrary to what JVL may be inclined to believe because of his Darwinian predispositions, finding quantum information to be ubiquitous within biological life, (besides falsifying the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution), is, arguably, the most important scientific discovery of the last century.

    In fact, I hold that this discovery of quantum information being ubiquitous within biological life, rivals even the discovery of the Big Bang in terms of Theological, even personal, significance. As Jesus once asked, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Thus in conclusion, JVL, because of his Darwinian presuppositions, may naively believe that ‘general instructions’ are all that you need in order to build a human, but the fact of the matter is that in order for biological organisms to achieve the stunning levels of thermodynamics efficiency that they do, then, basically, every atom of an organism must necessarily be taken into consideration in order to achieve the stunning levels of thermodynamics efficiency that they do.

    And Darwinists simply have no possible explanation how such ‘atom by atom’ construction of a human is even remotely possible, whereas Christians readily do have an explanation for how such a thing is possible. (And have been claiming just such an explanation for 2000 years now)

    Psalm 139:13-18
    For You formed my inward parts;
    You wove me in my mother’s womb.
    I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Wonderful are Your works,
    And my soul knows it very well.
    My frame was not hidden from You,
    When I was made in secret,
    And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
    Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
    And in Your book were all written
    The days that were ordained for me,
    When as yet there was not one of them.
    How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
    How vast is the sum of them!
    If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.
    When I awake, I am still with You.

  42. 42
    Origenes says:

    JVL: If you’re not going to even bother to read the background and justification then is there a point trying to have a discussion?

    Stop telling me to read the entire book. Do better. Please cite Shubin’s justification for his protein story, so we can have a discussion.

    Bornagain77, thanks for posting, that is very impressive.

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    Origenes: Stop telling me to read the entire book. Do better. Please cite Shubin’s justification for his protein story, so we can have a discussion.

    I’ll just leave it at that. If you’re not really interested in finding out what people who disagree with you are saying who am I to judge even though there are summaries and reviews you could easily access. Just remember though: any criticism or disagreement you proffer without actually having read the arguments do not have to be taken seriously or respected.

    Also, you failed to point to a single research result cited by Dr Shubin that you find fallacious or wrong. If you can’t do that then why should anyone take you seriously?

  44. 44
    jerry says:

    you failed to point to a single research result cited by Dr Shubin that you find relevant. If you can’t do that then why should anyone take you seriously?

    If Dr. Shubin has anything relevant, the person cited will win a Nobel prize.

    However, all these relevant references seemed to have escaped the reviewers. They describe him as a great storyteller.

    Robert Hazen, Sean Carroll, Nature and Science magazines missed these killer references. So I assume they don’t exist.

    The top reviewer said

    Unfortunately this book does not smooth out any of the evolutionary unknowns science continues to struggle with. Shubin paints our evolutionary history with broad strokes–and when one evaluates evolution from the eagle’s nest our understanding of its apparatus appears plausible and seamless. But therein lies the rub. There is much discussion about what DNA can do, but no discussion about how it came to be. There is much discussion about replication, but no discussion regarding the genesis of RNA. And how did those beautiful, all important proteins originate, and how could cellular machinery evolve to produce them? The book’s subtitle describes an attempt to decode 4 billion years of life. If that 4 billion years was represented by the alphabet then I would say this book touches a little bit on the letter C, catches some of M, and paints the beauty of Y and Z. If you are looking for a plausible, scientific conjecture of the origins of life, or a nuanced description evolutionary micro mechanisms that drive inexorable change, then this is not the book for you.

    It is an enjoyable read, and positive description of some of the pioneers of science. It does not fill in any gaps.

    In other words it’s a bust. An enjoyable read but nonsense.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Shubin, it is interesting to note that a few months ago Casey Luskin quoted Shubin himself in his rebuttal of Falk’s claim about fish fins being proof for Darwinian evolution:

    Revealing Darrel Falk’s Overstatements about Limb Bones in Fish Fins
    Casey Luskin – June 3, 2021
    Excerpt: Deep Homology or Deep Trouble for Neo-Darwinism?
    As noted above, the authors of the Cell paper (as well as Yano and Tamura, 2013) cite Shubin et al. (2009) to claim that the common developmental pathways that produce these mutant bones in fish fins and normal bones in tetrapod limbs show “deep homology.” But Shubin et al. reveal that the very concept of “deep homology” was born out of data that was unexpected under a neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm:

    “One of the most important, and entirely unanticipated, insights of the past 15 years was the recognition of an ancient similarity of patterning mechanisms in diverse organisms, often among structures not thought to be homologous on morphological or phylogenetic grounds. In 1997, prompted by the remarkable extent of similarities in genetic regulation between organs as different as fly wings and tetrapod limbs, we suggested the term ‘deep homology’ to describe the sharing of the genetic regulatory apparatus that is used to build morphologically and phylogenetically disparate animal features.”

    In other words, there are some structures — they give examples of bird wings vs. fly wings, insect legs vs. vertebrate legs, or insect eyes vs. jellyfish eyes vs. vertebrate eyes — that have no obvious homology but use similar genes for their construction. Neo-Darwinism did not predict this data, which is why Shubin et al. called this discovery “entirely unanticipated.” From a design standpoint, we might have expected this data under the idea of common design, where there is re-usage of common genetic programs in widely diverse organisms. Could the same thing be going on here, where similar genetic programs were intelligently designed in fish and tetrapods to control fin or limb growth, even though there is not necessarily an evolutionary link between these structures?

    “A Historical Continuity”?

    Shubin et al. (2009) say that deep homology “implies a historical continuity, but in this case the continuity may not be so evident in particular morphologies; it lies in the complex regulatory circuitry inherited from a common ancestor.” In other words, similar genes are being used to control and regulate the development of widely different structures — structures which otherwise have no obvious evolutionary relationship. They call these “cryptic classical homologies, when morphological data alone are inadequate to make the case for homology” — again, meaning that similar genes are being used to construct structures that are morphologically distinct. As they put it, “morphologically disparate organs whose formation (and evolution) depends on homologous genetic regulatory circuits.”

    This is the sort of “deep homology” that the authors of the Cell paper are talking about here. They aren’t saying that they’ve constructed bones found in vertebrate limbs. They’re saying that they’ve mutated genes to induce the creation of something that shares “deep homology” with unspecified bones in tetrapod limbs. But as the originators of the term “deep homology” point out, saying two structures have “deep homology” could be like saying they’re as different as a fly’s leg and a whale’s fin, but are nonetheless regulated by similar underlying genetic pathways. Citing “deep homology” does not mean you’ve actually accounted for the origin of a structure. It means that we’ve found that the same genes control the origin of very different structures — a reusage of genetic components “entirely unanticipated” under neo-Darwinism but unsurprising under ideas like common design.

    To appreciate how unexpected this kind of data is from an evolutionary perspective, consider what Shubin et al. (2009) say about the usage of similar genetic programs to control the development of eyes:

    “Are all eyes homologous in the classical sense of being diverse forms of the same structure? Have different eyes instead evolved entirely independently and just happened to use similar genetic components? Or have different eyes evolved in parallel as elaborations of structures and genetic regulatory mechanisms present in common ancestors? Weighing up these possibilities requires a deeper examination of eye development and a broader survey of taxa. It turns out that far more striking developmental similarities exist between diverse taxa than would ever have been expected.”

    This data thus shows “far more striking developmental similarities exist between diverse taxa than would ever have been expected” under their evolutionary view. Again, from a design standpoint, “deep homology” means common basic developmental programs being reused in different organisms, despite widespread morphological diversity.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/revealing-darrel-falks-overstatements-about-limb-bones-in-fish-fins/

    Seems that things are not nearly as rosy in Shubin’s version of “Darwinland” as JVL imagines it to be.

  46. 46
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    If you’re not really interested in finding out what people who disagree with you are saying (…. )

    I don’t think that you have understood my question to Larry Moran.

    Origenes: If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?

    Moreover, during our back and forth, you ‘ve changed your position multiple times.
    First the genome was like a cooking recipe, taking it cues from the environment
    And when I pointed out that such a cooking recipe constitutes a massive amount of information requiring a lot of storage, you claimed: “it’s all in the DNA” and in the “30,000 genes in the human genome.”
    But when I pointed out that these genes are not available for body plan information, but instead, are already occupied by information for proteins, you changed your position to: “you do not need specific instructions like a blueprint for every minor structure.”

    And now, your final position seems to be: “read Shubin’s book”.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    JVL:

    No, it’s not nonsense. He was spending a lot of time and effort to address some issues about how we know that certain evolutionary processes are valid.

    He just created a narrative based on his beliefs.

    So you cannot point to a particular bit of research that you think was rubbish.

    Are you daft? I never made any claim about any research other than there isn’t any that supports his claim that tetrapods evolved from fish, for example. There isn’t any research that shows that developmental biology arose spontaneously.

    Point to particular results you think are questionable.

    It is up to you to show there are results that support the claims being made. You can’t. Shubin didn’t. Dawkins never has.

    Can YOU point to a result or research outcome that shows tetrapods evolved from fish? What was the mechanism? Be specific.

  48. 48
    ET says:

    Shubin doesn’t know what determines that a fish will develop other than a fish develops after a successful mating of fish. He doesn’t know what determines biological form. He knows what can affect development. And just because development can be affected by changes to DNA he thinks that DNA contains some sort of magical recipe that determines biological form.

  49. 49
    JVL says:

    Origenes: And now, your final position seems to be: “read Shubin’s book”.

    Since I’m clearly not presenting the information clearly enough I’d recommend reading the book yourself. I doubt you will because I’m convinced you’re not really interested in finding out about some research which addresses some of your concerns. Oh well.

  50. 50
    JVL says:

    ET: He knows what can affect development. And just because development can be affected by changes to DNA he thinks that DNA contains some sort of magical recipe that determines biological form.

    Surely if DNA affects development then it helps determine biological form.

  51. 51
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    Surely if DNA affects development then it helps determine biological form.

    What does it mean to “help determine biological form”? Do bricks “help to determine” the shape of a house?

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides Darwinists such as JVL, Shubin, Dawkins, Coyne, and etc. etc. having no realistic clue within their reductive materialistic framework as to what it actually takes to physically build a human form, or to build any other biological form for that matter,

    On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina (2020)
    Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,,
    At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3

    ,,, Besides Darwinists having no realistic clue within their reductive materialistic framework as to what it actually takes to physically build a human form, or to build any other biological form for that matter, the reductive materialism of Darwinism actually “abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.”

    For Darwinists there is, and indeed there can be, “no immaterial, immutable (human) form”, “only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.”

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and thus with their implicit denial of the immaterial realm altogether, simply leave everything that is truly important about what it really means to be human on the cutting room floor.

    As Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin himself, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: ,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,,
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    Everything that is important, and that can be said to truly differentiate us from all the other creatures on earth, and that truly makes us human and not animals, is immaterial in its foundational essence, and character and therefore it is simply impossible for Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, to ever truly explain how humans came about.

    As Dr. Michael Egnor explains, “Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts.,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.
    We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.”

    The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals
    – Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015
    Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.
    Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,
    A human being is material and immaterial — a composite being. We have material bodies, and our perceptions and imaginations and appetites are material powers, instantiated in our brains. But our intellect — our ability to think abstractly — is a wholly immaterial power, and our will that acts in accordance with our intellect is an immaterial power. Our intellect and our will depend on matter for their ordinary function, in the sense that they depend upon perception and imagination and memory, but they are not themselves made of matter. It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.
    We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. It is obvious and manifest in our biological nature. We are rational animals, and our rationality is all the difference. Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man.
    The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/

    And as the co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Wallace himself, honestly admitted, “Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”

    “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
    Alfred Russel Wallace – via a 1910 interview previewing Wallace’s forthcoming book, The World of Life,

    Darwinian materialists are simply not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to explain humans in the first place.

    Moreover, as was pointed out in posts 40 and 41 of this very thread, it is not as if Christians don’t have any empirical evidence that man possesses an immaterial component, i.e. a ‘soul’, to his being. As I pointed out in those posts, especially in post 41, advances in quantum biology now give us empirical evidence “strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-it-the-junk-dna-that-makes-us-human/#comment-738901

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply did not even anticipate these ‘immaterial’ findings from quantum biology.

    As Jim Al-Khalili explains, “,, Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can’t build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn’t really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it.”

    Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states,
    “,, Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can’t build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn’t really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it.”
    At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state:
    “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”.
    Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q

    And it is for good reason that Darwinists did not, and indeed could not, anticipate these findings from quantum biology. Quantum mechanics is simply incompatible with materialism and in fact, quantum mechanics falsifies the entire reductive materialistic foundation that Darwin’s theory rests upon.

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

    So thus in conclusion, Darwinists such as JVL, Shubin, Dawkins, Coyne, and etc. etc. simply have no realistic clue within their reductive materialistic framework as to what it actually takes to physically build a human form, or to build any other biological form for that matter. Moreover, their reductive materialistic framework leaves everything that is ‘immaterial’ and truly important, about what it really means to be truly human, on the cutting room floor. And, on top of all that, advances in quantum biology have now falsified the Darwinian claim that we are purely material beings.

    In short, and as is usual, Darwin’s reductive materialistic theory is found to be grossly inadequate to explain how humans came about.

    Genesis 2:7
    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  53. 53
    Origenes says:

    Follow-up #51
    JVL:

    Surely if DNA affects development then it helps determine biological form.

    S.Meyer:

    At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood.
    Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and
    transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit (see Fig. 14.2).
    In a similar way, DNA does not by itself direct how individual proteins are assembled into these larger systems or structures—cell types, tissues, organs, and body plans—during animal development.13
    Instead, the three-dimensional structure or spatial architecture of embryonic cells plays important roles in determining body-plan formation during embryogenesis.
    Developmental biologists have identified several sources of epigenetic information in these cells.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Surely if DNA affects development then it helps determine biological form.

    Wow. Helping to determine biological form is NOT the same as actually determining biological form. The materials a lumber yard delivers helps determine what type of house can be built. But those materials do NOT determine what type of house will be built.

    There isn’t any need to read Shubin’s book. Genetics refutes him. Biology refutes him.

  55. 55
    JVL says:

    ET: The materials a lumber yard delivers helps determine what type of house can be built. But those materials do NOT determine what type of house will be built.

    Your statement could be phrased better I think. How about this:

    The materials a builder delivers narrow down the styles of houses that can be built but they do not completely determine why style of house will be built.

    I don’t think the analogy works though. The raw materials available in most mammalian bodies are quite similar so that it’s really the building instructions that determine the eventual form. Where are those instructions? In the DNA.

    We know that partly because we can correlate some functional and morphological differences to specific differences in DNA. Sometimes it’s even down to a single faulty gene. We can now look at individuals with common characteristics and see they have common DNA sequences.

    We know that partly because we are discovering how to transfer characteristics from one life form to another by moving pieces of DNA. Same basic building blocks are present but new instructions are introduced.

    The chemistry in cells is getting more and more known and understood. No hidden programming or directions are turning up. There’s just nothing other than epigenetics and genetics that explains morphology. And research is starting to shed light on how sometimes even small genetic changes can lead to strikingly different morphology, new body plans as it were. You don’t seem interested in finding out about that research.

    Oh well.

  56. 56
    Sandy says:

    There’s just nothing other than epigenetics and genetics that explains morphology.

    Epigenetic and genetic are the worse enemies of darwinism and any other (imaginable and imaginary)kind of materialistic theory of life. Epigenetic is 4D (and bigger ) in comparison with genetics as a 2D . Unfortunately darwinism can’t explain the simplest things related to information and then to coding-decoding that information .
    Think blank CD first – then CD written with info that is stored in a coded language on CD(movies,music, etc. on aluminium/ but movies,music are not aluminium itself ) -then CD player that decode that information. This is the simplest layer of information in genome but is already insuperable for darwinism.

  57. 57
    JVL says:

    Sandy: Think blank CD first – then CD written with info that is stored in a coded language on CD(movies,music, etc. on aluminium/ but movies,music are not aluminium itself ) -then CD player that decode that information. This is the simplest layer of information in genome but is already insuperable for darwinism.

    I assume you’re appealing to the code-like nature of the genetic ‘code’, i.e. that’s it’s abstract and purely arbitrary.

    Are you aware that there is some research which suggests it may be partially down to chemical affinities? Suggesting that it may not be a purely arbitrary code?

  58. 58
    JVL says:

    Sorry, I just have to say . . .

    This idea that biologists are wrong and lying EXCEPT when they said DNA was a code is too funny.

    I think scientific knowledge is provisional and must be updated with new data and results. It doesn’t matter what someone said 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, new data forces you to re-examine your beliefs.

    ID proponents seem to selectively doubt what biologist say. They’re wrong about evolution, they’re wrong about genetics, they’re wrong about this and that but they were right when they said DNA was an arbitrary code. Really? How can you pick and choose what to agree with? Should you hold all statements in the same, provisional, regard?

    ALL scientific knowledge is provisional. NONE of it is gospel. There is no gospel.

  59. 59
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    I couldn’t help but notice your statement at 58 could easily be turned around on itself and used against “mainstream” (dislike that term) science.

    I actually agree with you science should be provisional In it’s theory’s and open to amending or abandoning theory’s as new data and insights are gained. However, very rarely (if ever) does it actually happen.

    I can’t quite tell what your trying to get at with the genetic “Code”.
    Aside, do you believe it’s really a code?
    Or how would describe the “code” in living organisms?

    “Mainstream” (again dislike that term) also refer’s to the genetic “code” as an actual code, so again I’m unclear on why you have a problem with ID proponents acknowledging something that virtually everyone agree’s with.

  60. 60
    JVL says:

    Seekers: I can’t quite tell what your trying to get at with the genetic “Code”.
    Aside, do you believe it’s really a code?

    IF the genetic code is a code based on the strictest definition then it’s purely arbitrary, abstract, it could be something completely different.

    There is some, and I admit some, limited physical evidence that the genetic code is based on some level of chemical affinities. In other words, it’s not purely abstract or arbitrary. Then, strictly speaking, it’s not a ‘code’. It’s dependent on physical laws. That would mean it could have arisen naturally. Without guidance. NO design required.

  61. 61
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    “There is some, and I admit some, limited physical evidence that the genetic code is based on some level of chemical affinities. In other words, it’s not purely abstract or arbitrary. Then, strictly speaking, it’s not a ‘code’. It’s dependent on physical laws. That would mean it could have arisen naturally. Without guidance. NO design required“

    This seems to be a leap of faith here, from by your own admission of
    “limited physical evidence” to it all obviously happens, NO design required.
    Aren’t we then jumping to conclusions?
    IF the genetic “code” is really a code which required intelligence to get things going. Would you be open to that being the case?.

  62. 62
    JVL says:

    Seekers: This seems to be a leap of faith here, from by your own admission of
    “limited physical evidence” to it all obviously happens, NO design required.
    Aren’t we then jumping to conclusions?

    I think we shouldn’t finalise our opinions. I think we should be open to new data and new research. I’m not making a leap of faith, I’m merely acknowledging that we might have to change our paradigm.

    IF the genetic “code” is really a code which required intelligence to get things going. Would you be open to that being the case?.

    Let’s see what the evidence says and go with that.

  63. 63
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    “I think we shouldn’t finalise our opinions. I think we should be open to new data and new research”

    Can’t argue with you on this point.

    “ Let’s see what the evidence says and go with that.”

    A fair answer.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, the science of biology does not need the just-so stories of evolution Never has, never will.

    And evolutionists are the ones who are very selective about what evidence they will consider and what evidence they choose to completely ignore. i.e. The way Darwinists protect their theory from any and all falsifying evidence has basically rendered Darwinian evolution an unfalsifiable pseudoscience rather than a hard and testable science.

  65. 65
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    ET: The materials a lumber yard delivers helps determine what type of house can be built. But those materials do NOT determine what type of house will be built.

    Your statement could be phrased better I think. How about this:

    The materials a builder delivers narrow down the styles of houses that can be built but they do not completely determine why style of house will be built.

    Your rephrasement of ET’s perfectly clear statement into a meaningless mumbo jumbo is horrible.
    JVL:

    I don’t think the analogy works though. The raw materials available in most mammalian bodies are quite similar so that it’s really the building instructions that determine the eventual form. Where are those instructions? In the DNA.

    If 98% of DNA is junk and, the remaining 2% codes for proteins, where in the DNA is storage for building instructions?

  66. 66
    ET says:

    JVL:

    This idea that biologists are wrong and lying EXCEPT when they said DNA was a code is too funny.

    Clueless, as usual. First, DNA isn’t the code. In the current system DNA contains coded information. And what are we saying biologists are wrong about? There is a 2020 peer reviewed paper that says no one knows what determines biological form.

    Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti wrote a book on the subject of biological form. That was back in 2004.

    As I said you don’t have any idea. The DNA model with respect to universal common descent has been known to be junk for quite some time. There are those who just refuse to let it go.

    It is a fact that DNA is just a template to make copies of itself. DNA is also used as a template when RNAs are transcribed (from it). That’s it. Take a course. DNA doesn’t say how mRNA is processed. Chaperones determine how most polypeptides fold into functional proteins. Not DNA. The DNA model was based on the false idea that DNA was some sort of miracle molecule that controlled the cell. That has been shown to be false. Yet evos will continue to promote the lie.

  67. 67
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The raw materials available in most mammalian bodies are quite similar so that it’s really the building instructions that determine the eventual form. Where are those instructions? In the DNA.

    Nope. Again, DNA is basically inert. It would just fall apart if it wasn’t for an existing system containing specific proteins and structures.

    We know that partly because we can correlate some functional and morphological differences to specific differences in DNA. Sometimes it’s even down to a single faulty gene. We can now look at individuals with common characteristics and see they have common DNA sequences.

    We know that you are wrong because as I have said DNA doesn’t do anything. Changes to DNA can account for the variations within any given population. The DNA sequence that says I am related to my father says that neither of us are related to any chimp.

    We know that partly because we are discovering how to transfer characteristics from one life form to another by moving pieces of DNA. Same basic building blocks are present but new instructions are introduced.

    Variations within a population. And nothing that will ever change the body plan of the ancestors.

    The chemistry in cells is getting more and more known and understood. No hidden programming or directions are turning up. There’s just nothing other than epigenetics and genetics that explains morphology. And research is starting to shed light on how sometimes even small genetic changes can lead to strikingly different morphology, new body plans as it were. You don’t seem interested in finding out about that research.

    I have forgotten more about it than you know. There is a 2020 paper about biological form. If it was the DNA the paper would have said that.

    All DNA determines is whether or not the biological form will develop properly. And if you understood the basics of genetics you understand why.

  68. 68
    ET says:

    JVL:

    IF the genetic code is a code based on the strictest definition then it’s purely arbitrary, abstract, it could be something completely different.

    Your use of “abstract” proves that you are a strawman maker. And it is purely arbitrary. But it follows a very logical pattern.

    And that the code is carried out via chemical affinities doesn’t mean it is reducible to physics and chemistry. ID doesn’t say the codes are carried out via magic. Computer codes are impossible without electricity. They are not reducible to electricity.

  69. 69
    Sandy says:

    I assume you’re appealing to the code-like nature of the genetic ‘code’, i.e. that’s it’s abstract and purely arbitrary.

    Are you aware that there is some research which suggests it may be partially down to chemical affinities? Suggesting that it may not be a purely arbitrary code?

    Wow. You are clueless.
    Flash News : any code intelligently designed by humans is simpler than any biological code and you think biological code is not designed. I envy you for your powerful faith.
    Code designed by humans : all computers function on binary code (2 characters :0,1)
    Code designed by God: Glycome(60!!!characters)
    DNA (4 characters)

    Flash news :
    scientists focused(themselves and public attention) on study of DNA because was simpler (only quaternary code )and ignored Glycome code because is beyond human grasp (60 characters code ) and would have made scientists look very bad in public eyes .

Leave a Reply