From Kirk Durston,
Mounting evidence that the digital information that encodes all of life is steadily degrading, falsifies a key prediction of the theory of neo-Darwinian macroevolution and verifies a prediction of intelligent design science.
Longer:
I was struck, but not surprised, by a statement made a few days ago by Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics here in Waterloo, Ontario. Speaking of the apparent collapse of evidence for a critical component of the Big Bang theory, he responded, ‘even though hundreds or thousands of people are working on an idea, it may still be wrong.’
His statement is a harbinger of a much greater collapse looming on the scientific horizon, also involving thousands of scientists. There is mounting evidence that most, if not all the key predictions of the neo-Darwinian theory of macroevolution are being consistently falsified by advances in science, several of which I will discuss in later posts. Here, we look at a fundamental prediction Darwinism makes regarding the increase of genetic information.
Computer information is digitally encoded using just two symbols (‘1’ and ‘0’). We now know that the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA of all living things using a four-symbol alphabet. In more technical terms, this is referred to as functional information.
In the neo-Darwinian scenario for the origin and diversity of life, the digital functional information for life would have had to begin at zero, increase over time to eventually encode the first simple life form, and continue to increase via natural processes to encode the digital information for the full diversity of life.
An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.
Interestingly enough, a prediction of intelligent design science is quite the opposite. Since information always degrades over time for any storage media and replication system, intelligent design science postulates that the digital information of life was initially downloaded into the genomes of life. It predicts that, on average, genetic information is steadily being corrupted by natural processes. The beauty of these two mutually incompatible predictions in science is that the falsification of one entails verification of the other. So, which prediction does science falsify, and which one does science verify? More.
Actually, it no longer matters whether Darwinian evolution has any relationship to fact. Airheads believe it, judges enforce it, union teachers spout it, students know they had better absorb it—a combo like that doesn’t need facts or evidence, and is in fact hostile to them. They are unwelcome intruders into a System That Works for its proponents.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Durston writes:
Actually we do not know this.
Not only do we not know this, we actually have good reason to believe it is factually false.
And if this is not true, then it seems to me that Durston’s entire argument here fails due to it’s basis in a single faulty premise.
Mung @1, what are you, the infallible Pope of genetics? Provide evidence for your assertions. They look false from my vantage point.
For goodness sake Mapou, even the ID literate itself argues (contra Darwinism) that all the information isn’t in the DNA. You just don’t get to have it both ways.
Intelligent Design asserts that all the information is in the DNA. You’re willing to defend that claim?
If you absolutely insist I think I can come up with the requested evidence, and I may even spend the time doing so, because I absolutely detest claims made in the name of ID that are not claims entailed by ID.
Durston:
How so?
Mung,
Chill, dude. You are dismissing Durston’s argument on a minor technicality. His argument is that information degrades with time. Whether or not all the information that describes an organism is in its genes is really irrelevant. It’s a sure bet that almost all of it is, IMO. But, again, it is irrelevant to his argument that information always degrades over time, wherever it may be stored.
This being said, I think Durston is essentially correct in saying that the information responsible for the full diversity of life is encoded in DNA.
PS to News: That first link to Durston seems incorrect.
“They are unwelcome intruders into a System That Works for its proponents.”
Indeed, its “proponents” (pushers) being… the puppet Masters of this ‘God’ called: the STATE.
Have you ever submit an application (prayer) to it?
…ikr?
Mapou, I am pleased to see that you agree with me that Durston’s premise is false.
Your answer is that it doesn’t matter because we can replace it with a different premise, which I find rather odd.
I’ll await Durston’s modified argument.
Meanwhile, there is the still the question of whether the information in the DNA (or wherever else you imagine it exists) is complete or incomplete.
If organisms manage to develop in the absence of complete information specifying their development his argument is still in trouble.
The argument that information must degrade and that this is somehow relevant is based upon the unstated but assumed premise that the information is complete.
But again, we have little reason to believe this is true and good reason to believe that it is not.
Mung, stop being so anal retentive. It smacks of autism or something. Durston’s premise is that the information that describes an organism is encoded somewhere (almost all of it is in DNA but who cares?) and that it degrades over time. This is a fact. Darwinists insist that information increases over time and that this increase is reflected in the full diversity of the lifeforms that we observe, which is false. Durston is not making an argument that others have not made.
Mapou: Durston’s premise is that the information that describes an organism is encoded somewhere
We have good reason to believe that this is either false or untestable. Encoded in the mind of God? Then how could it degrade?
People make decisions all the time in the absence of complete information. Organisms cannot do this because they are machines? Walk me through the logic please.
Ok, so he’s not only ignored the effects of natural selection on a Malthusian population, he’s extrapolated from short term measurements on a handful of species over a few decades to a global long-term average for the entire flora and fauna of Earth over 4 billion years.
Not convincing.
The question is…
Given the ’empirical’ evidence, via the “scientific method” (something Darwinist wouldn’t, or couldn’t employ, to support their theories, and/or these “Billions” of years they keep pulling out of their asses), what is the overall accumulative effect of mutations to DNA, RNA or WEA (whatEver A?)’ to a living organism? Are they useful, or are they detrimental?
In my humble opinion? I think that this is a… No-brainer.
Of course, that’s if this technology doesn’t have the ability to self-correct over time. Which there is actually evidence for, BTW. Read this somewhere….on the internet! 😛
Roy, natural selection is a process of removal, elimination, culling. Wholesale removal of individuals and the information they contain. Not creating anything, eliminating things. Trivial, self evident and powerless. All observation shows corruption and degradation, not a few species. A process supposedly responsible for the entire biosphere, should be exploding with examples of increasing information and complexity. Not conjecture of a upward march through unobservable eons, but observation of the underlying mechanism – ‘genetics’. Yet mutations (information corruption) are overwhelmingly detrimental, and even when beneficial, involve loss.
Hello Mung,
There is functional information that is not in the coding regions of DNA. (Google up the ENCODE project.) There is probably functional information necessary for the development of life that does not not reside in DNA at all. The coding regions of DNA contain functional information that is essentially the digitally stored assembly instructions for the protein machines within the cell that enable metabolism and reproduction. Where the information resides that directs the construction of overall body plans hasn’t been nailed down yet as far as I know.
The “alphabet” is not the A,C,G and T values, one of which resides in each unit of DNA memory. It is an amino acid alphabet, each letter of which consists of a series of three values (a codon), each of which is either A,C,G or T. This is like computer memory where each letter of the English alphabet is represented (in ASCII) by a unique series of seven 0 and 1 memory unit values. DNA uses a twenty character amino acid alphabet.
Also, just as computer memory can contain representations of lots of things besides the tokens of which an alphabet consists, the non coding regions of DNA probably contain much functional information that we just have deciphered yet, but is probably just as organized and ordered as the regions of DNA memory that code for protein machines.
a few notes on information loss;
Michael Behe surveyed the last four decades of laboratory evolution experiments and found:
For you tech geeks, here is a more detailed analysis of Behe’s work:
Interestingly, the gain of function mutations listed by Behe in his paper all involve ‘compensatory mutations’ that are implemented by the programming in the cell.
Compensatory mutations are ‘directed’ mutations, as opposed to purely random mutations, which compensate for the deletion and/or loss of a gene and/or protein.
Yet, compensatory mutations have never been shown to surpass wild type bacteria in a fitness test.
Thus compensatory mutations are not evidence for a gain of functional information over and above what was already present in the cell and/or life.
In regards to the ‘fitness test’, the following is of related interest”
In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the ‘Fitness Test’ on the ancient bacteria that I had asked him about:
Dr. Cano stated:
Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria.
To continue on:
Moreover, beneficial, i.e. ‘information building’, mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of just how rare they are:
‘Kimura’s Distribution’ is used in the following video to illustrate just how rare ‘truly’ beneficial mutations are. i.e. ‘Truly’ beneficial mutations that build up functional information instead of degrading it in one way or the other to gain a short term fitness advantage:
Genetic deterioration is also well documented in humans in particular. The evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 150,000 mutational disorders in humans.
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
John Sanford comments on the reality of the situation here,,,
This following study found that the genetic deterioration of humans has happened fairly recently over the past 5,000 to 10,000 years:
Moreover, contrary to what Hitler thought, blond hair, blue eyes, and light skin are actually examples of ‘Devolution’ not ‘Evolution’:
Measurement for ‘genetic diversity’ also shows a loss of information:
The human fossil record agrees with the preceding genetic evidence:
of related note:
Moreover, Dog breeding is shown to be accomplished by the culling of information, not by the generation of new information as is held neo-Darwinists:
The overall fossil record supports genetic entropy. In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a ‘scientific law’:
A general rule of thumb for the ‘Deterioration/Genetic Entropy’ of Dollo’s Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:
The following article is important in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth (Note: Trilobites abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the ‘simple’ creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record).
The following study found, contrary to Darwinian thought, that diversity followed a ‘top down’ pattern of bigger fossils becoming more diverse over time,
As well, there are strong theoretical reasons for believing that information will be degraded:
There are many more studies that I could list supporting the overall pattern of deteriorating information that is outlined above, but the main point I want to emphasize is this; Dr. Durston is absolutely correct in his assessment that information degradation is a major failed prediction of Darwinian claims.
Verse:
There are prominent people in the evolutionary biology mainstream who say just the opposite of what Kirk Durston is saying. They point to new functional proteins/control sequences as the result of the ongoing process of cell division, mutations and recombination. Eventually some of the non coding regions get coded and become functional after substantial modification over time.
So we should look at how significant their claims are. By the way this is a different from the claim that the genome is deteriorating. This is a theory that says the functionality of a genome will deteriorate out of viability over time independent of whether some new functionality is produced.
All this is testable with today’s technology and will get easier as the expense of coding genomes gets cheaper. As Durston said, there are thousands working on it. It is just a matter of time before one side or the other is vindicated.
I suggest that Kirk Durston consult Jurgen Brossius or read what he has proposed and researched.
This is not true. If the information was downloaded so was the correction mechanism and all the machinery of transcription and translation. This machinery is also part of the ID hypothesis so increases or decreasses in information per se are irrelevant to the ID hypothesis.
The critical hypothesis is whether the increases in information are possible with this machinery. The evidence is that some but unlikely all the information increases are within the capabilities of these processes.
as to:
“They point to new functional proteins/control sequences as the result of the ongoing process of cell division, mutations and recombination. Eventually some of the non coding regions get coded and become functional after substantial modification over time.”
That is all ‘just so’ stories on the Darwinist’s part. They have NO empirical evidence that functional information can increase by unguided material processes.
Disagree? If so, then provide direct empirical evidence to back up their claims and not just sequence comparisons that assume the conclusion into the premise.
There is a drastic difference between a hypothetical theory as to how something could have possibly happened and established fact as to how it actually did happen!
Here are a few more notes that better clarify the ‘top down’ nature of the fossil record:
, as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.
Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
What should be needless to say, this is NOT what Darwin predicted:
Roy, Natural selection is eliminative- eliminating the less fit. It is impotent with respect to universal common descent.
I suggest you read Jurgen Brosius. He is very vehement on this topic. He is considered one of the top evolutionary biologists in the world.
My guess is that he overstates what has happened which is why I continually say the proof is in the pudding, that is in the genomes. But until then, both sides are just huffing and puffing.
By the way, the deterioration of the genome thesis is an YEC argument. Are you defending YEC? It is also an hypothesis that designer did not foresee this and deal with it. Or was the designer inept or wanted it?
Not even wrong. However seeing that is what evolutionism requires, perhaps Dr D is talking in that context.
jerry, the only huffing and puffing belongs, as usual, to the Darwinian position. Moreover, you did not, and cannot, cite any actual real time empirical evidence to back up your/their specific claim as to the generation of functional information by unguided material processes, whereas I can readily back up my claim that it cannot happen that way:
This following articles will give you a primer on how far off the mark Darwinists are from having any actual empirical support for their ‘ahem’ theory as to unguided material processes generating functional information:
What is the ID position on where the “instructions for the full diversity of life” reside?
REC:
The genome holds > 99% of the information an organism carry, IMO. But the environment and epigenetics will contribute information content that is not inherited. It is obvious that the genes do not code for the knowledge you acquire in life. Your knowledge of English, for example, is not in your genes but the ability to learn to speak a language is.
REC:
It isn’t the DNA.
What is the ID position on where the “instructions for the full diversity of life” reside?
Meyer indicates there may be a sophisticated information system in the cell wall of the egg and that there are other molecules outside the nucleus that control cell division. Somewhere along the line the cells acquire information that tells them what type of cell to become. Right now no one has a clue.
BA,
I suggest you look up Jurgen Brosius.
I am in a car on my iPhone and don’t have access to all the links. He is the most cocky one there is about this topic.
jerry, I’m more that willing to wait until you personally can back up your claims for unguided material processes generating functional information.
I’m certainly not going to go through hundreds of papers looking for one that you may or may not think makes your case for you!.
You find one real time experiment that you think best makes your case for an increase of functional information of a gene/protein by unguided material processes, cite it, and we’ll take it from there OK?
From my car in the rain:
Juergen Brosius.
http://zmbe.uni-muenster.de/in.....ain_de.htm
http://zmbe.uni-muenster.de/in.....AllPub.pdf
More later.
Jerry as to your claim that:
“which is why I continually say the proof is in the pudding, that is in the genomes.”
You might want to read my response to your falsification threshold that I posted yesterday.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-569958
Jerry, I don’t want you to crash your car, and I don’t want you to cite hundreds of papers like you just did and expect me to go through them all and find the experiment that you think makes your case for Darwinian evolution.
So when you get in a safe place. Find the best experimental evidence that you think shows functional information for a gene/protein being generated in real time by unguided material processes, and then cite it.
To start with, I think that using the word “information” as if it is describing a property of the genome could be misleading.
In popular usage, “information” refers to something like what we are exchanging through these comments. It is transferring meaningful data from the mind of one intelligent agent to another through the medium of a shared language, although the process of being informed occurs at the recipient’s end. I am informed if you tell me something I didn’t know before. You are not informed by telling me something you already knew.
This doesn’t mean you can’t use the word “information” to label what happens in the genome – you can use whatever word you like – but if you are going to call it “information” you have an obligation to provide the specialized definition you are using in this context to avoid any confusion. Because what happens in the genome is not what is happening here. As far as we can tell, there are no intelligent agents talking to each other using a language made up of four chemical bases, saying things like “This is an arm. Grow it here!”
As for the so-called degradation of genetic information, who gets to decide whether a mutation is detrimental or beneficial? In the classic illustration, a mutation which causes a brown bear to grow a white coat could put it at a disadvantage if it lived in a landscape that was mostly brown and green. The unfortunate individual could been seen more easily by prey compared with his brown fellows and would have a harder time surviving and raising offspring. A white coat in predominantly snow-covered terrain, on the other hand, could give him an advantage over other brown bears. Same mutation, in one situation detrimental, in another beneficial. The environment decides.
Current thinking holds that the majority of mutations are neutral or nearly neutral in effect. A smaller number are detrimental – there are more ways for something to go wrong than than go right – and a much smaller number still are beneficial.
So why don’t the greater number of harmful mutations simply swamp the good ones and cause species to go extinct?
Simple answer one, if they were to happen at such a rate that the species couldn’t cope with, then that’s exactly what would happen. There are no guarantees under evolution. We could go extinct just as easily as the next species if things went wrong.
Simple answer two, detrimental mutations are harmful, by definition, because they impair the capacity to survive in a given environment. Those so afflicted, in the words of the philosopher W V O Quine in another context, “ have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind”. In other words, natural selection tends to filter out the harmful mutations and only the beneficial are left. If you want to put it in information terms, harmful information has been lost and good information has replaced it. What’s the big deal about losing bad information?
Umm, Seversky, Crick is the one who discussed information with respect to biology.
So, Virgil Cain, where is the information that is responsible for the full diversity of life, if it’s not in DNA according to you? Enquiring minds and all that.
harry @12
Should have been
Seversky, I can’t really think of any good reason to think that humans are so utterly different from other living organisms that they are the only ones capable of storing, communicating and transferring information. Can you?
Oh, and the nucleic acids are symbols which just might give us pause and lead us to think there is language involved within the cell as well as outside.
Or are you a dualist?
Hi Mapou- Please check out the following from Dr Denton. Also read “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?” by geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti. And finally read what Dr Wells has to say about it.
First Dr Denton in his chapter from “Dissent from Darwin”:
Now a snippet from Sermonti,Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
Do computer application programs make the computer? Does the OS make the computer? Does the combination of all programs make the computer?
We can figure out where the software is by synthesizing an organism one piece at a time. Venter did the DNA so we can cross that off.
Virgil Cain, here are a few more notes to go with yours that show ‘form’ is not reducible to DNA:
Virgil Cain,
I read your reply and I still see no reason to believe that genes are not the primary cause of the full diversity of lifeforms on earth. Even if environmental pressure modifies an organism (adaptation via epigenetics) in a way that changes the form and fitness of its offsprings, the new information that is inherited by the offsprings is still in the genes.
Your software/hardware metaphor either went over my head or it’s inappropriate. The medium in which the information is stored and interpreted is irrelevant. What’s important if whether the information can be used by some “bootstrapping” mechanism to build, not only the organism, but a major portion of the mechanism itself.
One more thing, why is this issue important to IDists?
Building materials influence what type of building you can build. They do not determine the building.
Where is the information difference between human and chimp? Is it in the 1% difference in DNA?
SA, I am going to go with a no on that one. 🙂
Mapou, I personally don’t think this is an argument for intelligent design.
It might be an argument for young earth creationism, or what Salvador has taken to calling “young life.”
I have no idea though what Durston’s position is on the age of the earth.
Well, ladies and gentlemen. I’m not convinced at all by the arguments I have seen so far. I see no reason to change my mind that genes (DNA) are the primary determinants of the wide ranging diversity of life on earth.
One more thing. I put YEC in the same crap basket as Darwinism. I’m just voicing an opinion, BTW. So don’t get bent out of shape.
As I said earlier, Meyer thinks it is in the egg cell wall. See Ch 14 of his book, Darwin’s Doubt, especially the Sugar Code.
There is a lot more there on other epigenetic information.
Most of the difference are in control mechanisms that affect expression of proteins in the brain. See Wilcox
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetin.....Wilcox.pdf
for a discussion. From Wilcox
BA,
Here is a thread from last year which has information about Brosius, including more links to his ideas.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-in-rooms/
Here is a major review (just abstract and footnotes)
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/.....2.0.CO%3B2
I have the full pdf and this was a chapter in a book about macro evolution by Vrba which I also have. You might be able to get it from your library if they have JSTOR service.
You will notice that I do not believe he has really solved the problem but points to a few coding areas that have come into being through the exaptation of mutated DNA sequences. He is a major player and not a clown like Coyne or PZ Myers.
Brosius came up because of Allen MacNeil over 6 years ago. He pointed out Vrba’s book as a discussion of macro-evolution and Brosius was given the honor of authoring a long introduction in the book. He had been a co-author with Stephen Gould and his ideas provides some basis for punctuated equilibrium because they hypothesize a sudden appearance of genes.
jerry, please cite the specific experimental data requested of a single gene and/or protein being generated by unguided material processes in real time.
You made the claim. YOU need to support it with real time evidence! It is not up to me to dig through your myriad of links to try to find some evidence for a gene/protein being generated by unguided material processes when I KNOW for a fact that the evidence does not exist!
You are more than welcome to try to prove me, Durston, Behe, Meyer, Axe, Gauger, Luskin, Sanford, etc.. etc.. wrong.
I gave you a reference for a review article. In it he discusses his ideas and lists his research. Pick one. Several look good for what he says.
From the footnotes of his review
—————————
You completely misunderstand what is happening here. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I am saying that one of the most prestigious researchers today in evolutionary biology says that new information is no big deal. As such he carries a lot more weight with the scientific community than you and all the others combined. And because of this his ideas should be examined.
I have never endorsed Brosius, just the opposite. But he has never been dealt with.
Jerry, do you actually believe, in all the links you cited, that he has ANY real time experimental evidence showing unguided material processes generating a single gene/protein? If so, I have a bridge for you!
You asked me to pick one. OK how about the this one?:
All I see is one big romp through imagination, (i.e. just so stories), with no empirical support whatsoever.
Remember I said
Disagree? If so, then provide direct empirical evidence to back up their claims and not just sequence comparisons that assume the conclusion into the premise.
and then you said
“I suggest you read Jurgen Brosius.”
and, after you asked me to ‘pick one’ of his papers, I am still waiting for that real time empirical evidence that you insinuated existed in his writings.
i.e. The emperor Brosius has no clothes on!
Jerry @49,
I don’t get it. You are insinuating something that is simply not there. I don’t see any evidence where Meyer claims that the information that is responsible for the full diversity of life on earth is in the egg cell wall. You’re making this up, IMO.
In fact, it’s a good bet that the proteins that make up the cell wall are manufactured according to genetic information prescribed in the gene, just like every other protein.
New tools developed to unveil mystery of the ‘glycome’ – June 10, 2012
Excerpt: One of the Least Understood Domains of Biology: The “glycome”—the full set of sugar molecules in living things and even viruses—has been one of the least understood domains of biology. While the glycome encodes key information that regulates things such as cell trafficking events and cell signaling, this information has been relatively difficult to “decode.” Unlike proteins, which are relatively straightforward translations of genetic information, functional sugars have no clear counterparts or “templates” in the genome. Their building blocks are simple, diet-derived sugar molecules, and their builders are a set of about 250 enzymes known broadly as glycosyltransferases.,,,
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-t.....ycome.html
Glycans rival DNA and proteins in terms of complexity;
Glycans: What Makes Them So Special? – The Complexity Of Glycans – short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXez_OyNBQA
The Membrane Code: A Carrier of Essential Biological Information That Is Not Specified by DNA and Is Inherited Apart from It – Jonathan Wells – published online May 2013
Excerpt: ,,In 1985 Ronald Schnaar wrote, “There appears to be a code on the surface of each cell that specifies its function and directs its interactions with other cells, a code in some ways comparable to the genetic code carried on the DNA molecules inside each cell.” The “letters” of the cell surface code to which Schnaar was referring are sugar molecules. A few monosaccharide building blocks can produce the enormous diversity of “words” needed to identify the many different kinds of cells in a complex organism, Schnaar explained, because “each building block can assume several different positions. It is as if an A could serve as four different letters, depending on whether it was standing upright, turned upside down, or laid on either of its sides. In fact, seven simple sugars can be rearranged to form hundreds of thousands of unique words, most of which have no more than five letters. (This alphabet is even more efficient than the genetic code: the four nucleic acids that constitute DNA — guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine — can be connected only front to back, like roller coaster cars.) So, not only are sugars in the right place to serve as the alphabet for the cell-surface code, they have the requisite structural flexibility too.” Schnaar concluded, “It may be that as much control over the cell’s fate, and as much of the language of life’s unfolding, reside on the cell’s surface as in its nucleus” [63].,,
Membrane patterns in ciliates are known to be heritable independently of the information in DNA sequences, and there is evidence that some cytoskeletal and membrane patterns in the cells of multicellular organisms can also be inherited apart from the DNA. Taken together, the data suggest that embryo development is not controlled by DNA alone, and thus that DNA mutations are not sufficient to provide raw materials for evolution.
http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0021
Yet Glycans, despite their complexity and importance to cell function, are, like DNA and Proteins, now being found to be ‘rather uncooperative’ with neo-Darwinian evolution;
This Non Scientific Claim Regularly Appears in Evolutionary Peer Reviewed Papers – Cornelius Hunter – April 2012
Excerpt: Indeed these polysaccharides, or glycans, would become rather uncooperative with evolution. As one recent paper explained, glycans show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,” for they “occur in a discontinuous and puzzling distribution across evolutionary lineages.” This dizzying array of glycans can be (i) specific to a particular lineage, (i) similar in very distant lineages, (iii) and conspicuously absent from very restricted taxa only. In other words, the evidence is not what evolution expected.
Here is how another paper described early glycan findings:
There is also no clear explanation for the extreme complexity and diversity of glycans that can be found on a given glycoconjugate or cell type. Based on the limited information available about the scope and distribution of this diversity among taxonomic groups, it is difficult to see clear trends or patterns consistent with different evolutionary lineages. It appears that closely related species may not necessarily share close similarities in their glycan diversity, and that more derived species may have simpler as well as more complex structures. Intraspecies diversity can also be quite extensive, often without obvious functional relevance.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....larly.html
Did you read the full paper, or only the abstract?
Did you read the full paper, or only the abstract?
I read the paper a few times and parts of it additional times. I have the book in which it appeared as well as a pdf of the journal article. It was the lead article in a book that was a tribute to Stephen Gould.
I have commented on it several times here over the years. It was first recommended by Allen MacNeill over 6 years ago.
jerry,
“I read the paper a few times and parts of it additional times.”
And the real time experimental evidence of a gene/protein being generated by unguided material processes is where exactly?
That’s the whole thing jerry. Darwinists are notorious for making up elaborate far fetched just so stories based on little more than their unconstrained imagination, but when push comes to shove, they NEVER deliver on the real time empirical evidence that would give their just so story credibility.
Moreover, they consistently ignore insurmountable empirical difficulties with their theory.
Dr. Behe states:
“Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s
and
Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? – Michael Behe – March 10, 2015
Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke’s 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it’s terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That’s one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution — to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94271.html
Mapou:
When you find the evidence that supports that view please share it with us. Thank you.
BTW guys, it was Wells, not Meyer, who talked about information in the egg-cell wall and cytoskeleton. Wells is the developmental biologist, not Meyer.
Stephen Meyer on electromagnetic fields; “Darwin’s Doubt”, ch.14, ‘Epigenetic Revolution’, ‘Beyond Genes’, ‘Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields’.
Here an interesting article by Richard H. W. Funk.
Besides being a lead player in morphogenesis during embryological development, biophotons are also heavily involved in the cellular communication of an organism throughout an organism’s entire life.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-569470
If you want to split hairs, maybe. We learned about it from Meyer’s book and Meyer gives full credit to his introduction to the topic by Wells in Chapter 14 of his book. He includes a photograph of Wells at this point. See this in Meyer’s book
BA,
I have read everything I wrote on this page. I suggest you point out where you disagree with me. You may disagree with Juergen Brosius, and that is fine, because I do too and I say so more than once. But what did I say that was wrong?
jerry, when I asked if you Disagree with me on the state of empirical evidence you are the one who brought up Juergen Brosius as if he had some empirical evidence that would counter my claim that Darwinists have no real time empirical evidence to support their grandiose claims.
You have suggested I read him twice as a matter of fact. And sent a flurry of links insinuating that the evidence would be in those links.
You are the one insinuating that he had some actual real time evidence that counters my claim as to the state of empirical evidence.
Plain and simple, he does not.
Thus why did you bring him up in the first place?
The only person who went along with you was roy for crying out loud.
You told roy you read him. Twice in some places, and you also mentioned that you disagree with him, but commented no further as to the fact that he has no actual real time evidence to support his claims. Which is what you originally insinuated against my claim for the actual state of the empirical evidence.
I happen to be able to read myself
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-570052
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-570056
@ jerry:
I didn’t mean you.
@bornagain77:
Did you read the full paper?
Did I say anything that was wrong? That was the question I asked?
He certainly claims he does and he is a very respected researcher. Do you deny that he claims to have shown new informnation arising through genetic processes.
You have no way of knowing this unless you have read all of his research. Do you think that someone would have gotten where he has by making it up?
It is absurd to think that no new information will be created by these processes over billions of years. It is quite another thing to suggest that it explains the origin of all the information or even most of it.
But none?
I suggest you make Juergen Brosius your friend in your position by pointing out this is the best they have. This has been what I have done since first reading about him. I have been consistent about this for over six years since I first read his articles.
“You have no way of knowing this unless you have read all of his research. Do you think that someone would have gotten where he has by making it up”
Yes I do think he is making it all up. Apparently you don’t!
Fine, you read him, twice in some places, thus cite the actual experimental research that shows a gene/protein being generated in real time by unguided material processes.
The evidence simply does not exist. You are invited to try to prove Dr. Behe, for one, wrong:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/
Does he cite Lenski’s e-coli as a prime example of unguided material processes creating functional information as do other neo-Darwinists?
Hi jerry,
I’ve read the Brosius chapter in the Vrba book.
If you were to pick a paper in the list you provided that best addresses the topic raised in the OP could you link to that one paper? I’d like to read it.
Not being critical or implying it doesn’t exist, just asking. Truly curious. Thanks
A couple things. Notice Behe does not say no positive information was generated. He just says the great majority of mutations, not all. This has been my position from early on.
My first finding of the term “devolution” on this site was from 2006.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ment-23062
Here is my first usage of this concept 7 1/2 years ago in
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-155059
In it I describe what ID should be about. I have not changed much since then. I have learned a lot but it nearly all reinforced my position back then.
The full quote from 2007.
I am off for a couple hours, but will try to find you an article. He lists several. This sounds promising
Singer, S. S., D. N. Männel, T. Hehlgans, J. Brosius, and J. Schmitz. 2004. From “junk” to gene: curriculum vitae of a primate receptor isoform gene. Journal of Molecular Biology 341:883–886.
I will have to see if I can get a copy. My access to journals is sometimes spotty.
By the way one of the earliest uses of the term “devolution” on this site was by you.
jerry: By the way one of the earliest uses of the term “devolution” on this site was by you.
And? You think I was using it to argue for YEC?
I was likely using it to refer to evolution to a simpler more streamlined or more efficient state and not in any sense arguing that something or other was degrading, which means I was arguing the opposite of the view adopted by YECs.
Curious. I asked: “What is the ID position on where the “instructions for the full diversity of life” reside?”
Answers:
1) Durston: “We now know that the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA of all living things”
2) Virgil Cain: “It isn’t the DNA.”
3) Jerry: “Meyer indicates there may be a sophisticated information system in the cell wall of the egg ”
4) Mapou: “The genome holds > 99% of the information an organism carry, IMO. But the environment and epigenetics will contribute information content that is not inherited.”
Now, whatever I post, I’m sure I’ll be accused of not understanding, or misrepresenting the “ID position.”
Durston seems to suggest he’s inferring a general trend, but then provides us only specific examples of loss of DNA in parasites (which don’t need a full metabolic repertoire) or loss of non-functional DNA in Drosophila.
The point he misses is that genetic information is lost when it is not needed. When essential, it is maintained in populations. The articles he cites specifically state the relationship of the environment, selection and information.
He seems to suggest information was downloaded in early genomes, and retained without selection. Just waiting around, uncorrupted for billions of years. This is obviously internally contradictory.
None of your excerpts are the ID position. So feel free to use what you think makes sense and no one can accuse you or misrepresenting ID. However, Durston is wrong because his he is too narrow in his wording. All the building blocks are encoded there but not all the instructions on how they are used.
You tell us what you were arguing for. Even then your love for Salvador came through.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ment-43597
jerry @ 75:
“None of these are the ID position.”
I guess we have another vote, despite what I listed as answer 3 above quotes Jerry’s response to my query on the ID position.
Answers:
1) Durston: “We now know that the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA of all living things”
2) Virgil Cain: “It isn’t the DNA.”
3) Jerry: “Meyer indicates there may be a sophisticated information system in the cell wall of the egg ”
4) Mapou: “The genome holds > 99% of the information an organism carry, IMO. But the environment and epigenetics will contribute information content that is not inherited.”
5) Jerry: “None of these are the ID position.”
Interestingly, the gain of function mutations listed by Behe in his paper all involve ‘compensatory mutations’ that are implemented by the programming in the cell in response to a deletion/loss of a gene/protein.
i.e. Compensatory mutations are ‘directed’ mutations, as opposed to purely random mutations, which compensate for the deletion and/or loss of a gene and/or protein.
Yet, even these ‘directed’, i.e. ‘guided’, compensatory mutations have never been shown to surpass wild type bacteria in a fitness test.
Thus compensatory mutations are not evidence for a gain of functional information over and above what was already present in the cell and/or life.
In regards to the ‘fitness test’, the following is of related interest”
In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the ‘Fitness Test’ on the ancient bacteria that I had asked him about:
Dr. Cano stated:
Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria.
“Interestingly, the gain of function mutations listed by Behe in his paper all involve ‘compensatory mutations’ that are implemented by the programming in the cell.”
Which paper? This one:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/....._first.pdf
“Compensatory” doesn’t appear. How did you, or he, determine they are “implemented by the programming in the cell”?
Virgil Cain:
I will do no such thing. It’s a scientific fact that our genes dictate what we are. I’m not the one making an obviously absurd contrary claim. You, on the contrary must provide evidence to support your claim that something other than genes is the primary determinant of the wide ranging diversity of life on earth.
Jerry, please stop using quotes without mentioning their sources. It’s confusing and unfriendly.
And also, stop putting words in the mouths of prominent IDists. I’m still waiting for the evidence where Meyer (or anybody else) claims that the full diversity of life is the result of information not contained in the genes.
Mapou:
And yet scientists say otherwise. If it was a scientific fact then it should be found in some science journal and yet it isn’t.
Genes control traits. Being human is not a trait nor is it a collection of traits.
REC, that’s not the paper.
here it is, with a list of all the mutations:
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS, AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/
I believe the fact that purposeful deletions were implemented prior to gain of function mutations is mentioned in this following excellent interview of Dr. Behe
Michael Behe: Intelligent Design – interview on radio program – ‘The Mind Renewed’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SmPNQrQHE
Mapou:
Already provided and I didn’t even quote Wells yet.
ba77 @83
“REC, that’s not the paper.”
I suspect it is, but that you don’t know what your copy/pasting mess actually contains or references.
It could be this one:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/....._paper.pdf
…but it seems to challenge your own conclusion about it:
“these were determined to be generally beneficial
and not strictly compensatory for T3 RNAP.”
Anyway, since you’re referencing it, can you get me the link to the paper where Behe concludes gain of function mutations are only compensatory, and that they are “implemented by the programming in the cell”?
This thread has degenerated into crap. Durston’s original arguments are lost. I’m out of here.
If you’d bother to read the article you picked rather than simply pasting the abstract, you might not need to ask.
But that’s the ID position.
GThe designeroddid it, but we won’t say how because that’d give the game away, and science must be wrong, so there’s no need to look.REC: contrary to what you believe as a neo-Darwinist, mutations are now found to be not truly random, i.e. ‘unguided’, as was postulated within Darwinism’s core theoretical framework, but are found to be ‘directed’
Perhaps, since this undercuts a primary tenet of Darwinism, you can explain to me exactly why this does not falsify neo-Darwinism?
So Roy, perhaps you can point out the exact experimental evidence that I missed instead of just pronouncing that the pseudo-science of Darwinism is science and ID is not?
of note: You do realize that Darwinism undercuts scientific rationality in the first place don’t you?
i.e. Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism!
jerry: You tell us what you were arguing for. Even then your love for Salvador came through.
I already told you what was arguing for. And yes, hate the sin, love the sinner.
My record on YEC is well-documented here and elsewhere. And you might look into what I think of the “genetic entropy” argument. But really, you should just drop the whole line. It will not benefit you in the least and it seems rather pointless. But it is your time to do with as you wish.
REC, you’re misrepresenting ID or don’t understand the ID position, or something.
Jerry your statement on Neo-Darwinism just seems like an unnecessarily long self evident truth: Things change.
Mapau, I firmly believe we do not even know what we don’t know yet. So I don’t think pronouncements either way are warranted. DNA is looking more like a list of ingredients and not the recipe. There is, must be a level of control which we have not found yet.
Then it wasn’t on this site. Today maybe you are right. I hope so.
I agree that there must be even more levels of control which are not discovered yet. However we already found levels of control above and beyond DNA; see e.g. #42 and #60.
Mung,
Here are two
I found the pdf here:
http://www.researchgate.net/pu.....oform_gene
If you or anyone have an opinion on this, I would be curious.
And
I was able to get this through a college library and could not find a pdf on the internet.
Most of the rhetoric in this article implies these things are a done deal. They may not be which is why some high level talent above my pay grade has to decipher what is probably correct and what is speculative.
Why should I waste time providing another reference that you can dismiss unread?*
That may be the shortest example of double standards that I’ve ever seen.
On which topic it is discrediting that you of all people would be complaining about being offered a “myriad of links”
1) It doesn’t, and 2) that’s a blatant attempt to change the subject.
*Also, UD’s recent policy means there’s no point attempting anything unsuperficial here anyway
Roy, so you don’t provide any evidence for your position because you say it will be ignored? how convenient.
Actually, despite your denials to the contrary, neo-Darwinism, since it assumes naturalism as true and denies free will as being real, does undercut rationality.
Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html
(1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
(2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
(3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
(4) no effect can control its cause.
Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
per Box UD
Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.”
An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,,
In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.”
One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,,
When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis
within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html
Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
Conclusion: Atheism is false.
http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/
roy, a more direct example of how naturalism undercuts rationality is in the following example.
Anybody in their right mind would readily admit that the human brain was created by God:
Roy, IMHO, for you to insist that the human brain is the product of mindless undirected material processes is not only irrational but is sheer insanity.
jerry in your first example, that is NOT real time empirical evidence but is a just so story that was made up out of comparing sequences:
Many more examples of Darwinists doing the same type thing, with other sequence comparisons, are found here and are refuted:
Hopeless Matzke – David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton (Refutation of all popular examples purporting to show the origination of new information by Darwinian processes) – August 18, 2013
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html
The second paper you cited jerry looks to be in the same vein as the first paper.
Moreover, if they did demonstrate the feasibility of their scenario in the lab, (which I doubt they did), they almost certainly accomplished the transformation by purposely changing what they wanted to change and certainly did not sit around and wait for it to just accidentally happen!
I suggest you look more closely at Behe, Axe, and Gauger’s work so as to give you a bit more proper context as to how far off the base these Darwinian explanations are so that you won’t be so easily led astray in the future by these ‘just so’ stories of Darwinists:
Of note: although Dr. Behe had been mercilessly vilified by neo-Darwinists for daring to suggest that there could possibly be an ‘Edge’ to evolution (i.e. possibly be a limit to what Darwinian processes could be expected to accomplish), Dr. Behe’s was vindicated and his 10^20 number was recently verified in the lab.
My position here is that you rejected an article without reading it.
My evidence is that
1) You only pasted the freely available abstract, and nothing from the less-accessible the main text
2) Despite replying multiple times you have carefully avoided answering the direct question “Did you read the full paper?”
I did post earlier about Durston’s essay being an unwarranted extrapolation, but you don’t seem interested in that.
Everything else you have asked about is a diversion – a dishonest attempt to get me to defend claims I have not made.
Roy, your excuses are pitiful.
I never claimed to have read the paper in this thread, and certainly never gave the impression that I had read it. In fact, I have been pressing jerry for ANY substantiating real time evidence from that paper or any other paper he cited. No real time evidence came from that paper. In fact, jerry did not even try to cite from it. Moreover, the papers that jerry finally did end up citing to support his position were merely sequence comparisons, not real time demonstrations, just as I had originally assumed the papers would be!
Disingenuous sequence comparisons that assume the desired conclusion of Darwinists into the premises of their hypothetical reconstruction of a sequence, with never an actual demonstration of the feasibility of the mutational pathway by undirected material processes!
It is an absolutely dishonest way to try to establish the feasibility of a transformation that I hold, from a empirical basis (i.e. Behe, Axe, Gauger), to be impossible.
For you to even ask the question of if I had read the paper was completely pointless, since it was clear I had not. The only reason you would even ask such a stupid question is because you were trying to play rhetorical tricks instead of trying to find the actual truth of the matter.
Moreover, I rejected the article based on what I do know to be true already about reality.
Number one, the inherent capabilities of undirected material processes are to degrade functional complexity, (in fact I listed many, many, empirical evidences supporting this position, which is far more than I can say for Darwinists doing for their position)
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-570044
and, number two, I based my rejection on the fact that out of all the claims I’ve seen from Darwinists in the past, All the grand claims always have turned out to be based on unconstrained imagination, not on any substantiating empirical evidence that would support the grand claim.
If anyone has ever been guilty of the ‘unwarranted extrapolation’, as you accuse Durston of being guilty of, it would be Darwinists themselves.
It is pure intellectual hypocrisy on your part to accuse Durston of something, i.e. ‘unwarranted extrapolation’, that Darwinists are absolutely dependent on to try to make their case.
Every once in a while an evolutionist enters the debate claiming that there is evidence for his position—while we all know that there is none.
It’s like taking candy from a baby.
Are you capable of actually addressing what people say, or have you spent so long ducking, dodging and weaving that erecting scarecrows is first nature?
I didn’t say you gave the impression of having read that paper. I said you were giving the impression that you hadn’t. Which you have now confirmed. You have also confirmed that you rejected the paper unread.
So when I suggested that you had rejected that paper without bothering to read it I was 100% correct. Any claims you have made about the contents of that paper (or indeed any other paper) can be immediately rejected on the grounds that you literally do not know what you are talking about.
Perhaps in ID circles it is acceptable to comment on the contents of something one has not read, but in most endeavours it leads to complete loss of credibility and instant derision.
Roy, did it escape your notice that I was completely vindicated in my assessment of exactly what type of evidence that jerry must referring to? (i.e. referring to unsubstantiated sequence comparisons), Or does your fundamentalist atheism inflict such blindness on you that not even that development, which is there for all to read, is able to be fairly evaluated by you?
As well, I noticed that you conveniently, and completely, ignored these two posts which decimate your atheistic naturalism as being a, ‘ahem’, rational scientific worldview:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-570207
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-570208
Perhaps you should worry about the beam in your own eye before you worry about a splinter in mine?
I would not get too cocky. I spent a lot of this thread about a research program that thinks that naturalized evolution is a slam dunk and has a research trail that supposedly supports that position.
After Mung asked me about some articles, I found about 30 journal articles on how new coding regions arose in the past in various species. I have no way of assessing this research but someone who is knowledgeable in genetics/micro biology should review the research.
I was at Research Gate and many of the works of Juergen Brosius and his colleague Juergen Schmitz are available for download.
The article that started me looking, however, was not available there for download. In it Brosius is incredibly cocky and condescending to anyone who does not believe in naturalized evolution. He trashes Simon Conway Morris for suggesting there may be a God.
We have not addressed anything like them on this site nor does the average commenter here have the ability to do so. Maybe we could get gpuccio but he may not have the background to do so. Probablay Axe, Behe and Gauger could give it a go to say what is actually there.
My guess it is interesting but not enough to explain much. But they act as if it explains everything and is the basis for punctuated equilibrium.
Here is what Brosius said about Simon Conway Morris
jerry, you have yet to provide any real time empirical evidence for your position.
The two papers you said ‘look promising’ are a farce as far as empirical science is concerned.
They are sequence comparisons that assume the conclusion of Darwinian evolution into the reconstruction of a supposed mutational pathway with no real time empirical demonstration that the supposed transmutation is possible in reality.
Whereas I cited Behe, Axe, and Gauger’s actual empirical work that shows even exceedingly trivial transmutations are impossible for unguided material processes (over time frames that exceed hundreds of millions of years and even the age of the universe itself!).
You have, apparently, minus any actual empirical evidence, opted to believe neo-Darwinists must have some empirical evidence somewhere.
As I said earlier, the empirical evidence simply does not exist!
You apparently disagree with me (and mung, Behe, Axe and Gauger), but it is a disagreement based on a unfounded belief you have since you have, thus far, cited no actual experimental work showing that the unguided material processes of Darwinian evolution are capable of what you apparently believe they must be capable of.
jerry
RNA control mechanisms. As Wilcox states in the cited article:
So, not correct to state that the full diversity of life can be traced to DNA encoding.
And the follow-up question should be on the origin of those millions of unique RNA transcripts.
I would say that this is obvious. My guess is that Durston’s comment is about the available proteins for each species and he would not deny any form of epigenetics. What expresses the proteins is separate from the DNA itself and what constructs the body plans is also separate. The latter is almost unknown at present.
Yes, but my guess is that the number is overstated. But I am not one to judge at this moment. Maybe it is millions.
Are you sure you want to include Mung? Let him speak for himself. I am not sure that Behe, Axe and Gauger should be included also since they have not commented specifically on the research. When they do, I will look at it as quickly as I learn about it. What they say will be of great interest.
Please do not unleash another set of quotes. Let’s wait till someone deals with the specific research of Brosius and his colleagues. They are showing that new coding regions arise in various species over time. Most of it a long time ago. This was dealing with the premise of the OP which I believe is false. From what I read of Axe, he would not disagree either. I believe his work is on the origin of novelties, or completely new independent coding regions. Most of Brosius’ work, as best as I can see, is on the modification of coding regions with inputs from non-coding regions.
And I have said several times if not hundreds, that it may not be close enough to be meaningful. And that the process that generates the new coding regions is great design. And I maintain that this research process is what will falsify Darwinian evolution.
Disagree, fine. I have no problem with that. I believe my assessment is the most logical there is out there and nothing you have presented shows me otherwise.
“They are showing that new coding regions arise in various species over time.”
They are ‘showing’ nothing of the sort. They PRESUPPOSE it must have happened by unguided material processes and try to reconstruct a narrative that fits their presupposition.
i.e. They have ZERO actual empirical evidence!
“From what I read of Axe, he would not disagree either. I believe his work is on the origin of novelties, or completely new independent coding regions.”
Axe (and Gauger’s) most recent work, which I referenced and you apparently did not bother to read, deals with exceedingly trivial transmutation of a existing protein into a similar protein of a similar, but different, function. Unguided material processes were found to be grossly inadequate for the trivial transmutation by a factor of trillions of years!
“And that the process that generates the new coding regions is great design.”
So you cite no actual empirical evidence that transmutations are possible for unguided material processes, but that if they did happen by unguided material processes, which you apparently hold that it did, it would be great design?
Do I really have to point out the incoherence of your position?
Jerry on another thread you claimed that
“Darwinism can be falsified” by “an examination of genomes and a determination of what is different between two different populations and if there is similarity between non coding areas with coding areas”
It might interest you to know that your falsification threshold has been met and exceeded:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-569958
I think the answer to what distinguishes humans from non-human ancestors is unknown also. Things like levels of self-consciousness and the human mind which commands and controls it’s own mind, recognition of truth, goodness, moral awareness and growth, purpose and identity are irreducible to physical components alone. They cannot be explained even by RNA differences. The gap between human and chimp just in terms of rationality alone is infinite.
Obviously, the 1% difference in DNA explains almost nothing in that regard.
SA: The gap between human and chimp just in terms of rationality alone is infinite.
Else chimps would be known as the rational animal or we would be known as chimps.
OT:
That finding, gentlemen, has John 1:1-4 written all over it!
There is nothing incoherent in anything I have said. You constantly bring up irrelevant examples (enzyme origins which are interesting but not comparable to the example I point to), blithely say something is not true when it is (comparing coding and non-coding regions is not empirical evidence when it is a standard practice in genetic research) and misrepresent what I say.
Nothing I have said or have pointed to is a threat to or contradicts anything Axe, Gauger or Behe has said.
The discussion by Hunter is interesting (which is all about the comparison of coding with non coding regions or the lack of similar regions in other species) but it is only a small bit of what has to be done. So while of value it doesn’t come close to all that is necessary. But it is an example of what will eventually be evidence for how new species must have arisen. When this is eventually done, Darwinian evolution will be dead. But it is several years off.
I have been making my claim for quite awhile and have been on record on this site for about 9 years that the origin of new alleles is at the heart of the evolution debate. I have since expanded that to include the origin of control regions. And I have been asking for years about what causes the organism to unfold in such a way during gestation to provide the final form. It is now clear that no one knows the answers to any of these questions.
All very coherent questions based on an analysis of the data.
So just leave it and you can ignore my comments.
“So just leave it and you can ignore my comments.”
No thank you. Not as long as you try to defend the indefensible!:
“There is nothing incoherent in anything I have said.”
You position, contrary to how enamored you are with your own position, is incoherent.
You claimed that they have proven their point by merely comparing sequences and claim this comparing of sequences is real time ’empirical evidence’.
Excuse me, that is ‘not even wrong’:
per wiki
i.e. ‘Real time’ Empirical evidence, which is what I consistently asked you for, is going into the lab and performing experiments to prove your point.
They have done no such thing. Not even close!
They, in their ‘standard practice in genetic research’ have merely assumed Darwinian evolution as true at the outset and tried to reconstruct a narrative by comparing sequences to fit their desired conclusion. It is an absolutely horrid way to practice science and is certainly not ‘real time’ empirical science in any meaningful sense of the term!
This same disingenuous practice of science of assuming your conclusion into your starting assumptions, which you apparently agree 100% with as valid empirical science, was the same disingenuous method by which Darwinists tried to dismiss the real time empirical research of ENCODE which had found widespread functionality across the entire genome.
i.e. So according to these Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, which found widespread functionality for ‘junk’ DNA by direct experimental research, functionality does not determine if a sequence is actually functional, only ‘conservation of sequence’ determines what is functional?
So basically, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true at the outset will these Darwinists be willing to accept accept that a given sequence of ‘junk’ DNA may be functional!,,
That is called ‘assuming your conclusion into your premise’ and is absolutely horrible science!
So jerry, Do you agree with the 8% figure derived by comparing sequences or do you agree with the 80% figure derived by actual experimental work?
The only one who has cited any actual real time empirical evidence in our exchange thus far, jerry, to support their position, has been me when I cited Behe, Axe and Gauger, (whose work on enzymes you apparently blew off as irrelevant. of note: It is not irrelevant in that it directly addresses functional conversion instead of being merely hypothetical as your, ‘ahem’, empirical evidence is)
As well, apparently you did not read the entire link I provided on the falsification threshold of neo-Darwinism:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-569958
This is of particular interest to you:
also of note:
as to jerry at 116:
“Nothing I have said or have pointed to is a threat to or contradicts anything Axe, Gauger or Behe has said.”
Yet, jerry at 66 stated
“It is absurd to think that no new information will be created by these processes over billions of years.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-570135
of note:
“Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – January 1, 2015
Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92291.html
Stephen Meyer Critiques Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8
Jerry,
Part of the answer is: Embryonic Electric Fields; see #42, #60
– – –
I’m not worried at all. I’m sure that on closer inspection there is absolutely nothing there.
Motivated by envy, no doubt. Unlike evolution, there is actually strong evidence for the existence of God.
Guys like Brosius—who you yourself call a ‘low life’ back in 2009—excel at wishful thinking, being “cocky” and “condescending”.
Box,
I answered you on the other thread.
OT: Earth’s Biosphere Is Awash in Information – June 29, 2015
I think it’s all that junk DNA that is causing global warming!
I have been relaxing at a cabin in the northern Canadian wilderness where there was no cellphone or internet, so was unaware of this discussion until I got back into civilization today. I have skimmed all the comments and have a few short points to make by way of response.
1. ‘functional information’ as used in my post is mathematically defined in the paper I linked to in my post. (for all the links, see goo.gl/2ji22e )
2. A major point of discussion seems to centre around my statement that ‘… the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA of all living things …’. One must not forget that maternal effects such as the egg-cell wall may be encoded in the DNA of the mother. Thus we still are forced back to the DNA.
3. When I speak of the functional information required to build an organism, I am not just speaking of the coding regions as some have assumed. It is becoming more obvious that some non-coding regions can be important as well. Again, we are back to the DNA.
4. A point that seems to be missed in the ‘comments’ discussion is the distinction between the information required to build a system and information being fed into that system which the system processes and which affects the output. For example, the instructions required to build a fully functioning notebook computer should not be confused with the information that the fully functioning computer processes. Same goes for biological life. It may be the case that when an organism is being built that the exact outcome is influenced by non-maternal environmental input, but the instructions on how to modify the output given a range of inputs must already be encoded in the maternal DNA or the DNA of the progeny (i.e., the capability for variation is already encoded in the genomes of life, but which type or variety is ‘chosen’ may depend upon external inputs).
5. If one insists that at least some of the information that specifies a given life form is external to all DNA (including maternal), then the onus is on the believer to flesh this out without embracing vitalism. Some have been hammering this home, I see. Right on!
6. Even if we granted for the sake of argument that some of the functional information is encoded somewhere else, the fact still remains that the general trend in information duplication and storage in this universe, without exception, is error accumulation and deterioration whether we are speaking of DVD’s, flash drives, paper, magnetic tape, stone carvings or DNA. It takes a lot of work by intelligent data technicians to preserve data or at least slow down the information loss. Neo-darwinism makes the quite fantastic prediction, contra everything else we see in science, that this is not the case for biology, but all the experimental evidence we have seen thus far says otherwise (one commenter seems to have missed this point, as well as the paper discussing the deterioration of the human genome).
7. Natural selection will eliminate non-functional DNA, tending to leave the more genetically fit organisms alone, but our observations reveal that the remaining DNA still nudges steady deterioration. A lot of errors can occur before an area becomes non-functional and, by then, it may be too late to restore the lost information, especially since the rate of destruction exceeds the rate of repair for damaged genes, as my own work reveals (to be discussed in a future blog post).
8. Yes, there are repair mechanisms but it is obvious that in spite of those impressively designed little nano-machines, information degradation is still marching on. In this world, there is no such thing as a perpetually perfect replicating machine. Everything in the universe slowly runs down. Life is no exception.
9. Note in my article that I never said that novel information or functions cannot be obtained. It is just simply that the rate of degradation will exceed the rate of improvements on average over time. This is true in every area of information, and biology is no exception. The LTEE is an example of this. One cobbled together function so far, but during this experiment, I have heard that it has also lost about 8 percent of its DNA (I was told this by a biology professor, but do not have a reference, so I stand to be corrected).
10. I plan to do a special blog post on the Lenski experiment, showing that if we use published methods for determining the change in functional information, the gain in information was trivial, well within the realm of no statistical significance.
11. I plan to do a blog post on natural selection and what we can learn about it from the field of genetic algorithms. For those who cannot wait, natural selection works wonders for hill-climbing problems such as fine-tuning the fitness of existing organisms (microevolution), but it is utterly useless for needle-in-the-haystack problems such as searching sequence space for protein families with stable repeatable folds. All the sophisticated GA’s produced today are examples of intelligent design in action.
Bottom Line: nature is destroying biological life, not creating it.
I am on semi-vacation over the next month or so, so I will not likely be able to respond to new ideas in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the post being discussed here is only one in a series that I will be writing. Even if I cannot respond, I see the above ‘comments’ discussion as a healthy exchange of ideas.
as to:
The insurmountable problem of ‘form/shape’ for reductive materialistic explanations has now been demonstrated by a few different methods.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-570759
i.e., there simply is no materialistic explanation for ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement/information in DNA and proteins! A beyond space and time cause must be appealed to in order to explain the non-local effect!
Dr. Durston, I trust that being without access to the internet is exactly what you needed!
Thank you for clearing a few things up. I was accused of taking you too literally but you have confirmed that it is in fact your position that it all comes back to the DNA.
Frankly I don’t know why this even needs to be a premise of young earth creationism. But given that at the least it is a premise of your argument, then you just do not have the luxury of shifting the burden of proof on to those who do not accept the truth of the premise.
That said, all sorts of activities take place with incomplete information, and there’s no reason to think that this is not true at the cellular and developmental levels of organisms. Think about it, what would it take to specify, exactly, every single detail of a living organism in it’s DNA?
Bottom Line: nature is destroying biological life, not creating it.
Biological life is not separate from nature. You may as well argue that biological life is destroying biological life. Organisms are not passive systems who have no say in their survival or the survival of their species.
KD
Interesting comment. From my reading of it, ‘vitalism’ is the view that living organisms include some immaterial aspect that distinguish them from non-living. Modern science opposes that view with the idea that there is no such distinction between living and non-living things. In other words, living things are entirely reducible to matter. There is no ‘vital’ (immaterial) element.
The question regarding the statement: “the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA” seems to be focused on ‘encoding’, and thus all the information (instructions) for life are reducible to encoded information in DNA.
But as discussed, the similar DNA sequences produce vastly different results (chimp vs human) because of RNA controls. It might be true that the logic switches and control functions are not ‘encoded’, but they are instructions which produce the diversity of life. DNA alone cannot explain this.
Additionally, as BA77 has mentioned often, DNA sequences do not sufficiently explain information on protein folding (for example) which is the result of quantum entanglement — a non-sequential, non-linear process.
Again, this seems to be quite a large space for non-DNA information and again, we might also say non-coded information. (Informational instructions do not necessarily need to be encoded anywhere).
That’s where the comment regarding vitalism comes in. Is it possible that there is, indeed, an immaterial aspect to life that distinguishes it from non-life? That may, indeed, be ‘vitalism’, or perhaps something like ‘dualism’. Or at least, could biological information simply exist that is non-coded but still providing information for functions?
An example in computers might be something like volitile RAM – where data is not stored on a hard-drive but only exists electronically through high-speed transfers. Once the power is turned off, the information disappears.