On Occasion, the Science is Actually Settled

_{Gil Dodgen

May 29, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We often hear the phrase “the science is settled” from Darwinists who claim that the infinitely creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism (random errors filtered through natural selection) can explain everything.

This claim is simply absurd on its face. Anyone with any awareness of the evidence and a simple education in basic mathematical logic, who is not blinded by a precommitment to Darwinian ideology, could tell you that that the science really is settled: Darwinism is greatest con job in the history of junk pseudoscience.

The only evidence we have for the “creative” powers of the Darwinian mechanism is the selection of existing biological information for survival (nothing new is created; it’s just a mixing and matching of existing biological information) — and pathological instances of random errors providing a survival advantage in such cases as bacteria evolving resistance to an antibiotic, in which case the mutated bacterium is less survivable in the absence of the antibiotic.

The notion that the mechanisms mentioned above can be extrapolated to explain all of biology and life is simply preposterous on any reasonable scientific grounds.

In my view, the science is settled: The creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism are hopelessly inadequate to explain anything but the utterly trivial and insignificant in the history of life.

In addition, we have positive evidence that intelligent design would certainly have been required.

Comments

I’ll avoid the consciousness discussion if you don’t mind.
Nice pun. Was it intentional? :)Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

BA77: "Cabbage happens to be a excellent example of variation within kind:" I might agree with you if I knew what 'kind' specifically means! But new species were created, you agree? "Yet, the evidence of population genetics indicates the information for variation was already ‘programmed’ into the parent species’s genetic code, and the sub-species, or what is known as pure breed in animal husbandry, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species." Can you show that for the varieties of Brassica? "Yet despite the the awe that anyone should rightly feel towards the eye, and the fact that evolutionists cannot even explain the origination of a single useful protein, neo-Darwinists, having no mechanism to explain the eye in the first place, instead retreated to the theological style of argumentation that Darwin himself used in his book ‘Origin of Species’ and insist the human eye is ‘poorly designed’, as if they could design a better one than God, in spite of the fact that humans can’t even produce a single useful functional protein much less trillions of integrated proteins working in precise concert:" But isn't the point that other species have eyes with much greater acuity? And the question becomes: why are human eyes 'poorly designed' compared to other known eye configurations? And that question evolution can answer. The model of common descent with modification explains that situation nicely. I agree, the eye and the processing behind it are truly amazing. I'll avoid the consciousness discussion if you don't mind.ellazimm_{June 1, 2011
June
06
Jun
1
01
2011
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

This song seems very appropriate: "THERE WILL BE A DAY" (Official) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le-TG4sRRiQbornagain77_{May 31, 2011
May
05
May
31
31
2011
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth further note on 'the eye': What has always been a very interesting question for me is ‘what part of us is actually doing the ‘seeing’ in the brain since it it seems fairly ridiculous to believe that matter is self conscious of itself? That is why this next study, though surprising, makes sense, in a overall perspective, as to adequately explaining what is doing the ‘seeing’ in us: Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/ Coast to Coast – Blind since Birth – Vicki’s NDE – Part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y further note: It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), like Vicky’s in the preceding Coast to Coast interview is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel towards the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many NDEs: Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ further note: Quantum non-locality, a phenomena which is now shown to not be limited by time or space (A.Aspect), is now strongly implicated in vision,,, Myosin Coherence Excerpt: Quantum physics and molecular biology are two disciplines that have evolved relatively independently. However, recently a wealth of evidence has demonstrated the importance of quantum mechanics for biological systems and thus a new field of quantum biology is emerging. Living systems have mastered the making and breaking of chemical bonds, which are quantum mechanical phenomena. Absorbance of frequency specific radiation (e.g. photosynthesis and vision), conversion of chemical energy into mechanical motion (e.g. ATP cleavage) and single electron transfers through biological polymers (e.g. DNA or proteins) are all quantum mechanical effects. http://www.energetic-medicine.net/bioenergetic-articles/articles/63/1/Myosin-Coherence/Page1.html QUANTUM COHERENCE AND THE RETINA - April 2011 http://www.ghuth.com/2011/04/24/quantum-coherence-and-the-retina/bornagain77_{May 31, 2011
May
05
May
31
31
2011
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

ellazimm funny you should mention the human eye, for the main neo-Darwinian argument against the human eye clearly reveals the religious nature of neo-Darwinian style argumentation. ,,,, Darwin himself said that explaining the complexity of the human eye by evolutionary processes gave him a 'cold shudder' 'Darwin wrote to American botanist Asa Gray in 1860. - "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder," ,,,As well the human eye should give anyone a 'cold shudder',,, Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye - Molecular Animation - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4189562 Yet despite the the awe that anyone should rightly feel towards the eye, and the fact that evolutionists cannot even explain the origination of a single useful protein, neo-Darwinists, having no mechanism to explain the eye in the first place, instead retreated to the theological style of argumentation that Darwin himself used in his book 'Origin of Species' and insist the human eye is 'poorly designed', as if they could design a better one than God, in spite of the fact that humans can't even produce a single useful functional protein much less trillions of integrated proteins working in precise concert:,,, For years the main 'theological' (god would not have done it that way) argument against the eye was the 'inverted retina'. You see, neo-Darwinists, since they think they are smarter than God (and the rest of us), pronounce that God would not have put the retina in the back of the eye. Thus wa la, since the evolutionists, being smarter that God, cannot envision that perhaps God had a reason for the inverted retina, pronounce from a purely theological perspective, with no solid empirical support, that the eye therefore must have evolved. Yet, it turns out that God is not quite as dumb as the evolutionists perceive Him to be for; Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-ken-miller-is-right-about-our-backward-retina/#comment-354274 "Evolution" gave flawed eye better vision Excerpt: IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. ,,, Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages. At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and "noise" that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157 Evolution vs The Eye - Miracle Or Mistake? - article Excerpt: What astonishes me is that evolutionists are so easily led astray by the dubious bad design argument when the staggering level of complexity is so readily apparent: The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera. It can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages, contains over 2 million different working parts, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain. The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells, 130 million rods (allowing the eye to see in black and white), and 7 million cones (allowing the eye to see in full color). In an average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, using muscles that, milligram for milligram, are among the body’s strongest. The body would have to walk 50 miles to exercise the leg muscles an equal amount. The eye is self-cleaning. Lacrimal glands produce secretions (e.g., tears) to flush away dust and other foreign materials. Eyelids act as windshield washers. The blinking process (3-6 times a minute) keeps the sensitive cornea moist and clean. And, tears contain a potent microbe-killer (lysozyme) which guards the eyes against bacterial infection. During times of stress, one eye will “rest” while the other does 90% of the work; then the process is reversed, allowing both eyes equal amounts of rest. The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones. There are about seven-million shades of color the human eye can detect. It takes 200 million billionths of a second for the retina to create vision from light. The eye is so sensitive it can detect a candle one mile away. One type of light sensitive cell, the rod, can detect a single photon. For visible light the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye. There is a biological computer in the retina which processes and compresses the information from those millions of light sensitive cells before sending it to the visual cortex where the complex stream of information is then decompressed. While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second. The human is the only species known to shed tears when they are sad. In spite of this stunning evidence evolutionists use a very dubious and philosophically based "bad design" argument to try to undermine the obvious Theological implications. Something tells me evolutionists are not being fair with the evidence. And all this begs the question for the evolutionists; Can you go into your laboratory and design a better eye by random mutations? Optimized hardware compression, The eyes have it. - February 2011 Excerpt: the human visual processing system is “the best compression algorithm around”. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/optimised-hardware-compression-the-eyes-have-it/ http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMThmd25mdjRocQbornagain77_{May 31, 2011
May
05
May
31
31
2011
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

Cabbage happens to be a excellent example of variation within kind: Evolution? - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898 As is this an excellent example of variation within kind: Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852 further notes: Many times a materialist will parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species (Horse & Donkey; Various Insects; etc.. etc..) as proof for evolution. Yet, the evidence of population genetics indicates the information for variation was already 'programmed' into the parent species’s genetic code, and the sub-species, or what is known as pure breed in animal husbandry, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species. In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species: ,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box - Page 26 Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the position of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin - Historic Chicago 'Macroevolution' conference of 1980 Evolution - Tested And Falsified - Don Patton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036803 All examples of speciation put forth by materialists all turn out to be trivial examples of reproductive isolation: "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html Wired Science: One Long Bluff - Refuting a recent finch speciation claim - Jonathan Wells - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: "Does the report in Wired Science mean that “biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species (of Galapagos finch) splits in two?” Absolutely not." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff.htmlbornagain77_{May 31, 2011
May
05
May
31
31
2011
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

BA77: How about the creation of a wide variety of species of plants in the genus Brassica? http://gardenline.usask.ca/veg/cabbage.html It's a least a very clear case of observed speciation based on mutation and selection. I'd throw in dog breeds as well but there has yet to be speciation there although the only way some breeds could interbreed would be via artificial insemination.ellazimm_{May 31, 2011
May
05
May
31
31
2011
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

BA77: " . . . despite a thorough and exhaustive search, no one can ever seem to find a concrete example of increased functional complexity that would prove this foundational prediction of Darwin’s once and for all . . . " Okay, I'll have a think and a look. I'm assuming you will dispute the bacterial flagellum, the human eye and the human clotting cascade. :-) And I could ask what you would accept as evidence . . . But, just let me see what I can find first.ellazimm_{May 31, 2011
May
05
May
31
31
2011
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Darwin's PredictionsMung_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

OK ellazimm here is a failed prediction, Darwin predicted life to 'evolve' by purely material processes from simpler life to more complex life, yet, despite a thorough and exhaustive search, no one can ever seem to find a concrete example of increased functional complexity that would prove this foundational prediction of Darwin's once and for all, and silence his critics forevermore. Why is this ellazimm? notes: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed violation of genetic entropy: “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.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135: "Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s.html Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 Excerpt: Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, why not physics or the origin of life. It seems that you want to ignore the fact that you have no foundation in physics, nor do you have any hope for ever explaining the origin of life by natural means. To me anyone who refuses to address the fact that they have no foundation in science (especially physics) in the first place is not really interested in a honest talk, but is merely interested in trying to substantiate their personal world-view by whatever deceptive means possible. I've seen the same 'catch me if you can' game too many times by other neo-Darwinists, ellazimm!!!bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

BA77: Why don't you pick one failed prediction of neo-Darwinism and we can talk. And not something that is physics or regarding the origin of life. Let's just stick to common descent with modification. But if I don't respond quickly it's 'cause I've gone to sleep. Coming up on 11:30pm here . . .ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

sorry ellazimm, my bad, so I guess all the consistent failed predictions of neo-Darwinism mean absolutely nothing to you then???bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

BA77: "Unhelpfulness would be realized in the form of a prediction failure." That came from Abel's paper not from me. That whole paragraph was a quote. If you've got an argument about that then it is with Abel and not with me. I'm not good enough to claim or even work towards the prize. PIty.ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, there is a million dollar prize that is attached to the work of Abel; Care to collect??? "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s). http://lifeorigin.info/ ellazimm you also state: Unhelpfulness would be realized in the form of a prediction failure. But just how open are you to that criteria that you yourself have set as a benchmark for 'unhelpfulness' ??? For the predictions of neo-Darwinism how failed miserably time and time again!!! Darwin’s Predictions - Cornelious Hunter http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ Not to mention that the predictions of the materialistic philosophy iteself have failed miserably time and time again!!! Predictions - Materialism compared to Theism https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ubha8aFKlJiljnuCa98QqLihFWFwZ_nnUNhEC6m6Cys ellazimm something tells me that 'unhelpfulness' of failed predictions will suddenly lose appeal for you. Just a guess. :)bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

BA77: "As well, ellazimm, It is not my responsibility to establish your concrete proof for evolution, that is your responsibility!!!" Fortunately it's not my nor any other single person's responsibility. It's been a slow accumulation of data and evidence all falling into place to create an increasingly coherent picture. That Abel paper you are fond of citing . . . have you read any criticisms of it or checked to see how often it's been cited in other research? "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” Assuming this is interpreted to apply to common descent with modification, specifically natural selection then . . . who says natural selection is random? Many biologists are now thinking that natural selection may NOT be the most powerful selection mechanism. Gene drift exerts a huge influence on descent. That's not random. Is it by law? Maybe that needs to be addressed. Is it meant to apply to genetic mutations? Which kind? Gene duplication? Frame shifts? Point mutations? Are you very, very sure that Abel's paper is an accurate AND COMPLETE mathematical analysis of the biological systems? Sorry for the following lengthy quotation: '“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” How can such a bold, dogmatic prediction possibly be made by any reputable scientist? The answer lies first in the fact that it is just a null hypothesis designed for open-minded testing. The author of the hypothesis himself actively pursues falsification. Its deliberately absolutist tone begs falsification all the more in the challenging spirit of quality science. Second, the hypothesis itself arises from logical inference in addition to seemingly universal empirical observation. The statement is not just a product of inductive reasoning. The latter would be subject to overturning with minimal new data that could arise around the next blind empirical corner. The prediction is rather a logically valid inference enjoying deductive absoluteness within its own axiomatic system. Baring fallacious inference, the only possibility of falsehood would be that the logic flows from a faulty axiom. If a presupposition (pre-assumption about the nature of reality) is “out of touch with reality (ontologic, objective being)” then the prediction might not be ‘helpful.” Unhelpfulness would be realized in the form of a prediction failure. Since no axiom is ever proven, science tends to proceed by assuming an axiomatic system to be tentatively valid, and testing it from many different directions through time. In this sense, all laws of science are considered best-thus-far generalizations subject to continuing experiment falsification.' All knowledge is provisional. Suits me just fine.ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

BA77: " . . . and then do a ‘functional information’ calculation to show that it was well below the universal probability bound of Dembski . . " I'd love to see that calculation if you've still got it. " . . . thus I concluded that it indeed part of the inherent characteristic of the bacteria to ‘detoxify’ toxins from the environment . . . " I think we need to have clear definitions of toxins and detoxify. "Another factor is that, contrary to evolutionary thought of evolution being ‘historically contingent’, it is shown that this ‘evolved nylon’ ability is indeed rapid and more importantly consistently repeatable!" If it is you should be posting reference that uphold that fact. And it would be a good area of ID research. And . . . I'm sure you find trueorigins.org or AiG or Dr Behe to be convincing but it's not just you. Or me. Or the contributors to Uncommon Descent. There is so much research being done and so many results to synthesise that it's really important to let a consensus opinion arise. An opinion that is not on one extreme or the other but is the core and less disputed centre of the research. It's not exactly a democracy but it's egalitarian in a way. The ideas better adapted to the evidence survive. And the bad mutations . . . cold fusion, Piltdown Man, dowsing, homeopathy, perpetual motion . . . well, they don't always die out but they lose tractions. And they calcify and become marginalised. They have no explanatory power. They fail basic tests of efficacy. I started off believing in the Bermuda Triangle, ancient astronauts and pyramid power. I was wrong.ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

correction: 'there was discernible NEVER" ‘vertical evolution’ to draw my attention, As well, ellazimm, It is not my responsibility to establish your concrete proof for evolution, that is your responsibility!!! Thus whenever you get a violation of the fitness test or falsify Abel's null hypothesis, or even falsify Behe here, you come and let me know, and at least I will know you are trying to be intellectually honest! Here is the basic outline of the falsification criteria for Intelligent Design Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.htmlbornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Now ellazimm, I've seen a Medical Doctor, by the handle of gppucio, go through all this and dig the specific protein fold out of it, find the amino acid substitutions, and then do a 'functional information' calculation to show that it was well below the universal probability bound of Dembski. Now myself ellazimm, though I appreciated all that work gppucio did, for me the proof was much simpler to find, for all I had to note was that once the nylon was removed from the environment, the parent strain was always 'more fit' than the 'evolved nylon strain', thus conclusively demonstrating, at least to me, that the principle of genetic entropy had not been violated. i.e. there was discernible 'vertical evolution' to draw my attention, thus I concluded that it indeed part of the inherent characteristic of the bacteria to 'detoxify' toxins from the environment. ,,, Another factor is that, contrary to evolutionary thought of evolution being 'historically contingent', it is shown that this 'evolved nylon' ability is indeed rapid and more importantly consistently repeatable! ,,, Thus ellazimm, you can take this as proof of 'vertical' evolution, by as for myself, it is no more interesting than antibiotic resistant bacterium which have degraded molecular functionality in order to achieve resistance: List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore ============== The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed violation of genetic entropy: “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.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

BA77: Yes, I can read the citations but do the original papers actually support the views expressed in the AiG essay? Have you read them to make sure they say what the AiG authors claim? It's not a link-fest. The first reference, Biodegradation of nylon oligomers, may or may not support AiG's contentions. It's impossible to tell from the title. I had to look up oligomer. How about the next reference: Crystallization of X-ray diffraction analysis of 6-aminohexanoate-cyclic-dimer hydrolase from Arthrobacter . . . it's not even clear how that relates to the topic without first reading the paper. I know you think it's up to me to shoot down your arguments but I think you'd also be advised to be very, very sure that the things you're referencing support the views you're espousing.ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, if your really want the dirt, go to the AIG site and you find this: Negoro, S., 2000. Biodegradation of nylon oligomers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54:461–466. Back Yasuhira, et al., Ref. 80. Back (1) Back (2) Yasuhira, K., Y. Uedo, N. Shibata, S. Negoro, M. Takeo, and Y. Higuchi, 2006. Crystallization of X-ray diffraction analysis of 6-aminohexanoate-cyclic-dimer hydrolase from Arthrobacter sp. K172. Acta Crystallographic F62:1209–1211. Back Negoro, S., T. Ohki, N. Shibata, N. Mizuno, Y. Wakitani, J. Tsurukame, K. Matsumoto, I. Kawamoto, M. Takeo, and Y. Higuchi, 2005. X-ray cystallographic analysis of 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 280: 39644–39652. Back Ohki, T., Y. Wakitani, M. Takeo, K. Yasuhira, N. Shibatat, Y. Higuchi, and S. Negoro, 2006. Mutational analysis of 6- aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase: Relationship between nylon oligomer hydrolytic and esterolytic activities. FEBS Letters 580:5054–5058. Back Negoro, S., T. Ohki, N. Shibata, K. Sasa, H. Hayashi, H. Nakano, K. Yasuira, D. Kato, M. Takeo, and Y. Higuchi, 2007. Nylon-oligomer degrading enzyme/substrate complex: Catalytic mechanism of 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase. Journal of Molecular Biology 370:142–156. Back Fersht, A. R., 1985. Enzyme structure and mechanism. San Francisco, California: Freeman Press. Back Bone, R., J. L. Silen, and D. A. Agard, 1989. Structural plasticity broadens the specificity of an engineered protease. Nature 339:191–195. Back Negoro, Ref. 81. Back (1) Back (2) Gautam, R., A. S. Bassi, and E. K. Yanful, 2007. A review of biodegradation of synthetic plastic and foams. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 141:85–108.bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

BA77: Um . . . . AiG has an agenda, which is fine. But it doesn't mean their work is alined with much of the research. It's not just one person who's told me about the vestigal whale legs. I've also seen them for myself. And I agree that some, at least, serve a purpose in providing support for some muscle groups. You don't agree with my conclusions, obviously. But I think I have been critical of my sources. AND I think it's fair to ask you questions to find out what YOU think!! I don't want to misrepresent the Intelligent Design paradigm in my thoughts or actions and, to me, that means going to its proponents and asking questions. I would think you'd be pleased to find someone who is really trying to understand.ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

ellazimm you don't trust AIG, but you trust people who tell you of 'vestigial whale legs'?,,, And the discontinuity lies where???bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

mad doc: "It is impossible to know whether the “nylon eating bacteria” were present or not before the invention of nylon so your contention is unsupportable." Well, bacteria that relied on nylon for their sustenance would not have survived before the invention of nylon. BA77: Bacteria are pretty awesome, it's true! Do you have any links which support your view which are from peer-reviewed published research? I'm sorry but it's hard for me to take Answers in Genesis seriously as far as scientific inquiry is concerned.ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

ellazimm asks: 'What’s your view on the nylon eating bacteria which has arisen since the invention of nylon?' Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design - William Dembski Excerpt: "the nylonase enzyme seems “pre-designed” in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically adaptable to novel functions." https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/ Further notes on nylonase: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-the-demarcation-problem/#comment-362219 In fact ellazimm if it was not for this Designed attribute of bacteria to 'detoxify the earth' we would not be here! Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers Increases in Oxygen Prepare Earth for Complex Life Excerpt: We at RTB argue that any mechanism exhibiting complex, integrated actions that bring about a specified outcome is designed. Studies of Earth’s history reveal highly orchestrated interplay between astronomical, geological, biological, atmospheric, and chemical processes that transform the planet from an uninhabitable wasteland to a place teeming with advanced life. The implications of design are overwhelming. http://www.reasons.org/increases-oxygen-prepare-earth-complex-life Planet's Nitrogen Cycle Overturned - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: "Ammonia is a waste product that can be toxic to animals.,,, archaea can scavenge nitrogen-containing ammonia in the most barren environments of the deep sea, solving a long-running mystery of how the microorganisms can survive in that environment. Archaea therefore not only play a role, but are central to the planetary nitrogen cycles on which all life depends.,,,the organism can survive on a mere whiff of ammonia – 10 nanomolar concentration, equivalent to a teaspoon of ammonia salt in 10 million gallons of water." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930132656.htm Rich Ore Deposits Linked to Ancient Atmosphere - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: Much of our planet's mineral wealth was deposited billions of years ago when Earth's chemical cycles were different from today's. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091119193640.htm Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, and minerals, which would all be of benefit to modern man, 'sulfate-reducing' bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man, as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems: Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern.,, Recombinant DNA analysis has been applied to mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper resistance systems. The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation: Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals. http://www.goldschmidt2009.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/A1161.pdf ==================== The Creation of Minerals: Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization. "Today there are about 4,400 known minerals - more than two-thirds of which came into being only because of the way life changed the planet. Some of them were created exclusively by living organisms" - Bob Hazen - Smithsonian - Oct. 2010, pg. 54bornagain77_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

ellazim It is impossible to know whether the "nylon eating bacteria" were present or not before the invention of nylon so your contention is unsupportable.mad doc_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

Science is never settled! That's why its so much fun.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

I guess you would include nylon eating bacteria in your pathological category. Nevermind!ellazimm_{May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Gil: What's your view on the nylon eating bacteria which has arisen since the invention of nylon?ellazimm_{May 29, 2011
May
05
May
29
29
2011
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply