Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Once upon a time, before DNA or RNA, there was TNA … if it ever existed in life forms

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From “Simpler Times: Did an Earlier Genetic Molecule Predate DNA and RNA?” (ScienceDaily, Jan. 9, 2012), we learn,

According to Chaput, one interesting contender for the role of early genetic carrier is a molecule known as TNA, whose arrival on the primordial scene may have predated its more familiar kin. A nucleic acid similar in form to both DNA and RNA, TNA differs in the sugar component of its structure, using threose rather than deoxyribose (as in DNA) or ribose (as in RNA) to compose its backbone.

In an article released online January 9 in the journal Nature Chemistry, Chaput and his group describe the Darwinian evolution of functional TNA molecules from a large pool of random sequences. This is the first case where such methods have been applied to molecules other than DNA and RNA, or very close structural analogues thereof. Chaput says “the most important finding to come from this work is that TNA can fold into complex shapes that can bind to a desired target with high affinity and specificity.” This feature suggests that in the future it may be possible to evolve TNA enzymes with functions required to sustain early life forms.

… research has now shown that a single strand of TNA can indeed bind with both DNA and RNA by Watson-Crick base pairing — a fact of critical importance if TNA truly existed as a transitional molecule capable of sharing information with more familiar nucleic acids that would eventually come to dominate life.

In “Before DNA, before RNA: Life in the hodge-podge world”(New Scientist, 08 January 2012), Michael Marshall notes

That doesn’t mean TNA was the original genetic material, though. Chaput thinks it probably wasn’t, if only because the chemistry of early Earth was so messy that TNA would not have arisen on its own. Rather, many different kinds of genetic material probably formed in a genetic hodge-podge. “The most likely scenario is that nature sampled lots of different things,” says Chaput.

Hmmm. What is “nature” that it should be doing any sampling?

Also,

… there are problems with the hodge-podge world hypothesis. For one thing, there is no trace of TNA or its cousins in modern organisms. For another, although TNA looks simpler than RNA, we can’t be sure it was easier to make some 4 billion years ago because no one has actually made it in the conditions that existed on Earth before life began, says John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK.

TNA has also not been found in life forms today, which is why the media release reads “ if TNA truly existed as a transitional molecule capable of sharing information with more familiar nucleic acids that would eventually come to dominate life.” You be the judge.

Comments
Elizabeth, We will add nested hierarchies to the growing list of things you do not understand.Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, I made my argument. Obvioulsy you were too busy making up false accusations and couldn't be bothered to read what I actually posted. Then you say I am being rude when in fact it is YOUR rudeness that is displayed by not even addressing what I post. And now you are going to run away, again. Typical. Shubin said- SHUBIN SAID- he was looking where he did because he had data that put the transition from fish to tetrapods between 385- 365 million years ago.: Chapter 1 of “Your Inner Fish” tells us why:
Let’s return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the “Everythings” and the “Everythings with limbs”. Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10 (bold added because obvioulsy the meaning of that sentence eludes evos)
However new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning his data was out-dated and is wrong. And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species. And yes parent, transitional and child species can overlap- all transitionals can overlap. However any given transitional absolutely HAS to exist (or had to have existed) between the alleged parent and alleged child. Right now Shubin’s find shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapodes, whereas the theory requires fish-> fishapods-> tetrapods, not that Elizabeth can understand that… (and another prediction is fulfilled, thanks Lizzie)Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
So the nested hierarchy is not violated, even though both “your first and remote cousin share the blue-eyed gene, and you don’t have it.” so how can we falsify the nested hierarchy? give me an exmple
Well, I gave you an example - a gene that was common to chimps and chickens but not found in any other primate.
secondly, nested hierarchy doesnt prove evolution. cars models have nested hierarchy. but they dont have commondescent. even if they are self replicate.
No, nested hierarchy does not prove evolution, although it strongly suggests common ancestry, and without common ancestry, Darwinian evolution can only explain evolution within branches that do share ancestry. Cars, however, do not show nested hierarchy of features - they are full of violations, not surprisingly, as they are not generated by Darwinian processes (although the process has some things in common). Take, for instance, the adoption of an innovation such as ABS, or air conditioning in many lines simultaneously, not just the lineage in which it was first introduced. In other words we don't simply see HGT in cars we see Horizontal phenotypic feature transfer.
What would be more problematic for our current” understanding of evolution would be to find a functional sequence closely shared by chickens and chimps, but not by any other primate”
not realy. you always can say rhat the gene came from horizontal gene transfer, or was cut from the organism because mutation.
Well, that might be an explanation, although that would be difficult to sustain if it served a similar function in both species. And impossible to sustain if it was found in a related location.
It would not necessarily falsify the whole theory, but some” additional gene transfer mechanism, or gene convergence mechanism, would have to be proposed to explain it” so again, anything can happan.
Not sure what you mean. If data that cannot be explained by the current version of the theory are found, then the theory has to give. It does so all the time - that's why it now includes HGT and drift, and evo-devo, none of which were envisaged by Darwin, who didn't even know about genes. But certainly some hypothetical findings would be very difficult to reconcile with our current understanding, and might require wholesale readjustment of the theory. Hard to imagine just what, though. I guess finding the first chapter of genesis encoded in some highly conserved sequence might do it :)
and last thing, my native language is not english, so sorry if im not spell well some words.
No problem :)Elizabeth Liddle
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Prove it or shut up. I understand that transitional forms can exist after the transition has been made and that has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.
Good. So your argument is simply that he had the earlier window boundary a bit too late? How does that invalidate his prediction? Just meant he was aiming at a wider target than he thought.
And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species.
Well, not in the way that palaeontologists use the term. They aren't even looking for populations in direct line between two known populations, merely for ones that branched off between the two.
As I said you have reading comprehension issues.
Possibly. But not on the evidence you have supplied. From where I am standing it is you have misunderstood the nature of palaeontological research. You are a very rude man, Joe. I think I'll take another break. Perhaps in the mean while you can locate your manners.Elizabeth Liddle
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
So how many data points were used to make the age estimate? What do you think the error bars would look like? What percentage of the tetrapods that ever liived have been recovered as fossils?Petrushka
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Of related note: Lenski's work has also shown that 'convergent evolution' is impossible because his work has shown that evolution is 'historically contingent'. This following video and article make this point clear:
Lenski's Citrate E-Coli - Disproof of Convergent Evolution - Fazale Rana - video (the disproof of convergence starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 The Long Term Evolution Experiment - Analysis Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and varieity of all the forms of life on Earth. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm
The loss of 'convergent evolution', as a argument for molecular sequence similarity in widely divergent species, is a major blow to neo-Darwinian story telling:
Implications of Genetic Convergent Evolution for Common Descent - Casey Luskin - Sept. 2010 Excerpt: When building evolutionary trees, evolutionists assume that functional genetic similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. Except for when it isn't. And when the data doesn't fit their assumptions, evolutionists explain it away as the result of "convergence." Using this methodology, one can explain virtually any dataset. Is there a way to falsify common descent, even in the face of convergent genetic similarity? If convergent genetic evolution is common, how does one know if their tree is based upon homologous sequences or convergent ones? Critics like me see the logic underlying evolutionary trees to be methodologically inconsistent, unpersuasive, and ultimately arbitrary. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/implications_of_genetic_conver037841.html Origin of Hemoglobins: A Repeated Problem for Biological Evolution - 2010 Excerpt: When analyzed from an evolutionary perspective, it appears as if the hemoglobins originated independently in jawless vertebrates and jawed vertebrates.,,, This result fits awkwardly within the evolutionary framework. It also contradicts the results of the Long-term Experimental Evolution (LTEE; Lenski) study, which demonstrated that microevolutionary biochemical changes are historically contingent. http://www.reasons.org/origin-hemoglobins-repeated-problem-biological-evolution Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt: When critically assessed, the evolutionary paradigm is found to be woefully inadequate when accounting for all the facets of biological convergence. On the other hand, biological convergence is readily explained by an origins model that evokes a single Creator (reusing optimal designs). http://www.reasons.org/convergence-evidence-single-creator Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 2011 Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe (science) that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010 Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator. http://www.reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011 Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design - February 2011 - Podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-21T10_59_16-08_00
bornagain77
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
i forgot somthing "Why would that falsify ID? Why couldn’t the designer have designed the “ic” system step by step?" good question. the answer is because even intellegent design cant do that. think about car turn into airplan in functional way. its ipossible.mk
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
The War of 1812-> if I wanted to find evidence for the transition between peace and the war of 1812 do I look in documention for the year 1850 or do I look in documentation that pre-dates the war? If I wanted to study the transition between two US Presidents do I focus my study on the period two years after the election? If I wanted to study the transiton between caterpillars and butterflies, what am I doing wrong by studying what butterflies eat? ???Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
So the nested hierarchy is not violated, even though both "your first and remote cousin share the blue-eyed gene, and you don’t have it." so how can we falsify the nested hierarchy? give me an exmple secondly, nested hierarchy doesnt prove evolution. cars models have nested hierarchy. but they dont have commondescent. even if they are self replicate. What would be more problematic for our current" understanding of evolution would be to find a functional sequence closely shared by chickens and chimps, but not by any other primate" not realy. you always can say rhat the gene came from horizontal gene transfer, or was cut from the organism because mutation. It would not necessarily falsify the whole theory, but some" additional gene transfer mechanism, or gene convergence mechanism, would have to be proposed to explain it" so again, anything can happan. and last thing, my native language is not english, so sorry if im not spell well some words.mk
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
So where would you expect to find tetrapods with the fishiest characteristics?
You do it as Shubin said- first you find out when there were fish and no tetrapods, then you find out when there were fish and tetrapods and you search BETWEEN those two dates, duh. What the theory of evolution expects is fish-> fishapod-> tetrapod what we have right now thanks to Shubin is: fish-> tetrapod-> fishapodJoe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
As I said, Joe, you are making the “why are there still monkeys?” error.
Prove it or shut up. I understand that transitional forms can exist after the transition has been made and that has NOTHING to do with what I am saying. So read it AGAIN , for the FIRST time: Shubin said- SHUBIN SAID- he was looking where he did because he had data that put the transition from fish to tetrapods between 385- 365 million years ago.: Chapter 1 of “Your Inner Fish” tells us why:
Let’s return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the “Everythungs” and the “Everythings with limbs”. Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10
However new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning his data was out-dated and is wrong. And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species. And yes parent, transitional and child species can overlap- all transitionals can overlap. However any given transitional absolutely HAS to exist (or had to have existed) between the alleged parent and alleged child. Right now Shubin’s find shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapodes, whereas the theory requires fish-> fishapods-> tetrapods, not that Elizabeth can understand that… Shubin did NOT say he was looking for a " transitional fossil"- he clearly states he was looking for evidenec of the transition. As I said you have reading comprehension issues.Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
As I said, Joe, you are making the "why are there still monkeys?" error. You certainly don't go looking for a transition before you think it had occurred. You can look after it, for as long as you like, though (hence "living fossils"). That's because a "transitional fossil" is not an actual populatoin that is directly between some known ancestor and some known modern (or later) population, but which represents a population that branched off between the two and has intermediate characteristics. So where would you expect to find tetrapods with the fishiest characteristics? In litoral deposits dating from not too long (but it doesn't matter exactly how long) after the conjectured divergence. So they checked out where such litoral deposits would be at the earth's surface, dating from the right sort of date. And they found them. The fact that there are also other, earlier, ones (as we know from the trackways) is irrelevant. They used a hypothesis to predict where a population of fishy tetrapods would still be living and have left fossils close to surface. They got it right. Science +1. I'm not going to rudely accuse you of having "comprehension issues" as you do me, but I do suggest you actually read the primary literature. Also that you check out what is meant by a "transitional" fossil.Elizabeth Liddle
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that a designer is not required. That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics...Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
For Elizabeth: Shubin said- SHUBIN SAID- he was looking where he did because he had data that put the transition from fish to tetrapods between 385- 365 million years ago.: Chapter 1 of "Your Inner Fish" tells us why:
Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythungs" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10
However new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning his data was out-dated and is wrong. And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species. And yes parent, transitional and child species can overlap- all transitionals can overlap. However any given transitional absolutely HAS to exist (or had to have existed) between the alleged parent and alleged child. Right now Shubin's find shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapodes, whereas the theory requires fish-> fishapods-> tetrapods, not that Elizabeth can understand that...Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Wrong again, as usual, Elizabeth. I am just going by what Shubin said. Also logic says that you do not go looking for the transition AFTER it occrred as there isn't any reason that a transitional form should exist many millions of years AFTER the transition occurred. But all that is moot because obvioulsy you have reading comprehension issues.Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
And, weirdly, I explained why it was, but you didn't get it. You are making the "why are there still monkeys" error.Elizabeth Liddle
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
ok. the chicken have a gene called har1, that is more similar to the chimpanzee version than to the human version. the evolution is now false?
No. How would that falsify evolution? Let's say your first cousin and your very distant 60th cousin lots of times-removed both have blue eyes, but you have brown. Does that mean your first cousin is more closely related to your distant cousin than to you? Nope. So the nested hierarchy is not violated, even though both your first and remote cousin share the blue-eyed gene, and you don't have it. Same with this gene. If it was underwent some beneficial mutation in a descendent of the common ancestor between chimps and humans that was not an ancestor of chimps, then you would expect it to diverge rapidly from the version shared by chickens and chimps. So chickens and chimps will have similar sequences, and humans different ones. What would be more problematic for our current understanding of evolution would be to find a functional sequence closely shared by chickens and chimps, but not by any other primate. It would not necessarily falsify the whole theory, but some additional gene transfer mechanism, or gene convergence mechanism, would have to be proposed to explain it.
not realy. a falsification for the id theory will be if you find a step by step mechanisem to a ic system
Why would that falsify ID? Why couldn't the designer have designed the "ic" system step by step?Elizabeth Liddle
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Hey Petrushka, We design casinos without the use of evolution...Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
Weirdly, when we point to Tiktaalik (a stunningly successful prediction) you say it doesn’t count because, I dunno, they didn’t really predict it or something.
Weirdly I explained why Tiktaalik isn't a prediction and obvioulsy you have some mental issues and cannot grasp reality. Ya see Shubin said he was looking for evidence of the transition, which occurred BEFORE tetrapods lived. Tiktaalik was found AFTER tetrapods existed and therefor is the wrong speciman.Joe
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
elizabeth Well, the part of the theory that had to be modified was" falsified." ok. the chicken have a gene called har1, that is more similar to the chimpanzee version than to the human version. the evolution is now false? And no, I can’t give you an example of evidence that can’t" be explained by Intelligent Design. That’s why Intelligent Design has no explanatory power – a theory that can explain everything, explains nothing." not realy. a falsification for the id theory will be if you find a step by step mechanisem to a ic system if we have a ic system like abcd, you can find an ab system or abc system.mk
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
further note:
Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
Music and Verse:
Sara Groves - Miracle (Official Music Video) - Music Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FM1CEFNU 1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"--
bornagain77
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
I was expanding on the statement that you quoted:
Such work draws on the startling realization that fundamental Darwinian properties — self-replication, mutation and selection — can operate on non-living chemicals.
If "fundamental Darwinian properties" were at work on non-living chemicals -- in other words if non-living chemicals were "evolving", utilising the very mechanisms used by living organisms -- surely it should / could form part of the wider evolutionary synthesis?Stu7
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Here is how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:
More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again - Casey Luskin - November 5, 2011 Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that's the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html
Many more instances of Darwinism avoiding falsification from the empirical data, by ad hoc models, are found in this following site:
Darwin’s Predictions - Cornelius Hunter PhD. http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
Whereas in contrast to there being no identifiable falsification criteria for neo-Darwinism (at least no identifiable falsification criteria that neo-Darwinists will accept), here is a very rough outline of the basic falsification criteria for Intelligent Design:
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
Moreover here is the true principle governing all biological adaptations (a principle that is certainly very antagonistic to Darwinism, and very friendly to Intelligent Design)
“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/ Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
Here is a rough outline of future predictions for Intelligent Design:
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html
bornagain77
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Well, the part of the theory that had to be modified was falsified. That's why it had to be modified. "It" (the data) didn't "fit the theory". The theory had to be fitted to the data. That's what science does - fits models to data, not data to models. And no, I can't give you an example of evidence that can't be explained by Intelligent Design. That's why Intelligent Design has no explanatory power - a theory that can explain everything, explains nothing. The theory of evolution, conversely, cannot explain everything, and when it comes up against something it cannot explain, it has to be modified. That's the discipline of the scientific method - you fit models to data, and if the data doesn't fit, you modify the model. But if your model can, in principle, explain anything, then it is unfalsifiable, so not scientific.Elizabeth Liddle
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Of related note: Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’
"nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 'Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.' ? David Berlinski
In fact, by the criterion laid out by Lakatos in the following audio lecture, Darwinism is found, in reality, to be a ‘degenerate science program’, i.e. a ‘pseudoscience’;
Science and Pseudoscience - Lakatos - audio http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3
The following evidence shows Darwinism to be a ‘degenerate science program’ using Lakatos’s criteria
Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
Here is how neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from 'anomalous' genetic evidence:
A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009 Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. http://www.discovery.org/a/10651 How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract
Here is how neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the fossil record;
Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.html The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID - Casey Luskin - Audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-03-26T14_56_42-07_00
bornagain77
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
elizabeth You just gave an example. As a result, the theory had to be modified."- modified but not falsified if anything can fit to the theory, what will not fit? give an example Indeed it is so powerful, it is more a syllogism than a "theory – hard to see how it could not be true, and it has, of course, been directly observed, as most people here will agree."- there is no observation of a new protein or new system yet. its only a belife can you give an example of an evidence that cant be explain by intellegent design?mk
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
Yes, there are great many predictions that can falsify the theory. You just gave an example. As a result, the theory had to be modified. In other words, it was wrong. It wasn't very wrong, and now it's less wrong than it was. That's how theories are developed - they are constantly refined and modified. Occasionally a major plank of the theory has to be revised, but it is extremely rare for an entire theory to be abandoned, and so far, the fundamental Darwinian insight: that populations of self-replicators that replicate with heritable variance in reproductive success in the current environment will tend to adapt to that environment, remains extremely powerful. Indeed it is so powerful, it is more a syllogism than a theory - hard to see how it could not be true, and it has, of course, been directly observed, as most people here will agree. But the entire theory of evolution, with all its bits and pieces, from genetics to cladistics and all stations in between and beyond, is constantly subject to testing, falsification, and subsequent refinement.Elizabeth Liddle
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
elizabeth "No, that’s what I said. It had to be modified" so there is no prediction that can falsified the theory? where is the limit that there you will say that the theory is worng? if we find a gene that is similar to the same gene in monkey and dog insted of humans, what you will say in this case?mk
January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
I can comprehend how an intelligent origin of life can be falsified?by showing that natural laws and chemistry, in and of themselves, with no (observable) intelligent input, are capable of creating life from non-life. That's easy, at least theoretically. My question is: How can the belief that life was not intelligently designed be falsified in the laboratory? What finding(s) would disprove the notion of a design-free origin of life? I've seen answers along the lines of, "If we discovered a message encoded in our DNA that said, 'You are designed,' then I'd accept that life was designed, and my abiogenesis beliefs are wrong." But isn't this answer basically C.S.I., the very metric that design-deniers pretend is meaningless? Sure, the specification is (unreasonably) limited to previously existing human language, but it's the exact same concept, no? A complex and specific sequence of DNA denoting information. So, then, it would seem to me that the real issue isn't whether C.S.I. is an indicator of design?it clearly is. The real issue is just what it is that can be classified as C.S.I. Design-deniers would accept the discovery of an encoded message written in a human constructed-language as evidence of intelligent design, yet they wont accept the discovery of an entire, mind-blowingly brilliant language as evidence of intelligent design. Does that strike anyone else as being kind of, sort of, maybe a little bit irrational?Jammer
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
so the theory can accept anything?
No, that's what I said. It had to be modified. That's the thing about science - you fit models to data, not data to models. And in this case, the part of the model, the theory of evolution, that had to be modified, was the part that said that all genetic information is passed down from parent to offspring. In fact "genes" were originally defined that way - as the unit of longitudinal inheritance, the "gen..." root being the same as the gen in "generations". Then it was found that some genetic sequences just didn't fit a longitudinal pattern of transfer - that there was also "Horizontal" gene transfer, or HGT. That isn't a problem for the basic Darwinian algorithm - Darwin didn't even know about genes, or where heritable variance came from - but it did mean that the idea that all genetic novelty came from copying infidelities was challenged. Drift is another relatively new part of evolutionary theory, as is evo-devo, and population-level selection, and symbiosis. So evolutionary theory is constantly "evolving" - the "evolving synthesis" as someone dubbed it (can't remember who). As it should and must. Far from being "able to accept anything" it must be constantly modified to accommodate new data. And it canElizabeth Liddle
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply