Origin of Life Research Has Failed to Generate a Coherent and Persuasive Framework

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 14, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Because while Franklin Haroldwonders in 2014 if “we may still be missing some essential insight” (given that a century of origin of life research “has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation” and has “remarkably little to show for” for all the effort expended), it was, in fact, just over a century ago when evolution’s co-founder, the great Alfred Russel Wallace, provided exactly what Harold may be looking for, to wit Read more

Comments

bornagain77: To say evolution built a toolkit so as to enable evolution is to endow evolution with agency, even foresight. No. Each step in the evolution of the toolkit had to be advantageous for the organisms involved, including endoderm formation, anterior/posterior patterning, segmentation, and distal-less appendage formation.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Like the good troll you are, you are purposely missing the point with bacteria. So what if worms and humans eat bacteria? The point is that if evolution, red and tooth and claw, were actually the truth for how life came to be on this earth, then bacteria, since they far outclass metazoans in their ability to successfully reproduce, then we should not be around since they should have exploited us as a food source long ago! Yet, as you yourself pointed out, we can eat probiotics that are beneficial to us with impunity: Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.htmlbornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. But that is not what we find. Indeed, instead of eating us, time after time these different types of microbial life are found to be helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their individual ability to successfully reproduce,,,
Nice summary, BA. It remains unanswered.Silver Asiatic_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Zach, every toolkit was built by someone with intelligence. To say evolution built a toolkit so as to enable evolution is to endow evolution with agency, even foresight. Moreover, the illegitimate highjacking of words implying 'agency' by Darwinists is rampant: Stephen Talbott has clearly pointed out, a major problem with Darwinian explanations is how to describe the complexities of life without illegitimately using terminology that invokes agency,,,
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
This working biologist agrees completely with Talbott:
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011 Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
bornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: evolution evolved a toolkit so evolution could evolve? Evolution precedes the metazoan toolkit. Small changes in regulatory systems resulted in a network of adaptations, many of which predate metazoa. See Erwin, Early origin of the bilaterian developmental toolkit, Philosophical Transactions B 2009. bornagain77: heh, you forgot that successful reproduction is all that really matters for ‘selection’ to occur, In that regards bacteria outclass all other life forms combined and should have eaten everything Apparently not. Worms eat bacteria, for instance. ETA: For that matter, humans eat bacteria. http://kyleahealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Yogurt.jpgZachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

You have no evidence for unguided processes doing anything of interest especially when you subtract cell mediated processes from your just so story telling (J Shapiro). "Heh. You forgot that dog eats rabbit, and worm eats bacteria." heh, you forgot that successful reproduction is all that really matters for 'selection' to occur, In that regards bacteria outclass all other life forms combined and should have eaten everything, including atheistic trolls, long ago, but they did not. Darwinists have no reason why this should be so!bornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

evolution evolved a toolkit so evolution could evolve? Its almost as if evolution had foresight and agency!bornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: You have no evidence for unguided processes doing anything of interest. As Moose Dr pointed out, natural selection can work through existing variation quite quickly, which can " rebalance the available alleles". bornagain77: Selection as you are using it could just as well be stated, whatever survives, survives,, i.e. lucky us. Actually, what Grant & Grant showed was the relationship between adaptation and environmental conditions. bornagain77: Moreover, if evolution were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only ‘life’ that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the ‘fittest’ are allowed to survive. Heh. You forgot that dog eats rabbit, and worm eats bacteria.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record. http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00 The Dog Delusion - October 30, 2014 Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels. Michael Behe writes: "Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution -- the enormous variation in dogs -- actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?" The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig's prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.htmlbornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Moose Dr: I see no reason to doubt that selection (especially human guided selection) can rebalance the available alleles to produce very unique seeming organisms (tea cup dogs from wolf, for instance*) in very short order. *I am sure that a few mutations are required to get there from here, but mostly we’re seeing change in allele frequency. It certainly takes mutations to turn a wolf into a tea cup dog. However, you are correct that selection can quickly work through existing variations. Moose Dr: Do you really contend that there have been enough contextually beneficial mutations to account for the cambrian explosion? There was certainly much more than mutation involved, including genomic rearrangements. The evolution of the metazoan toolkit was probably the primary innovation. That was apparently developed largely before the Cambrian Explosion. There's another thread on the Avian Explosion. There was a similar pattern. Most of the adaptation were already in place in the theropod lineage before the Avian Explosion. As the saying goes, it took years to become an overnight success.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Zach as to: "We weren’t discussing evolution “creating anything”, but optimizing across a continuum." You have no evidence for unguided processes doing anything of interest. Especially when cell mediated changes to the genome are subtracted from your just so story telling. Whereas, we do have abundant evidence for unguided random material processes breaking things, i.e. compromising optimization! Selection as you are using it could just as well be stated, whatever survives, survives,, i.e. lucky us. Moreover, if evolution were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only 'life' that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the 'fittest' are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here: Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically 'selected' for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. But that is not what we find. Indeed, instead of eating us, time after time these different types of microbial life are found to be helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their individual ability to successfully reproduce,,, NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it's impacting us more than previously thought - February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing "germs" or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens." http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs Moreover, you forgot to mention that All the so called Darwin finches can inner breed. Doesn’t happen much but it does happen and they have viable offspring that reproduce. This is not what Darwinists were claiming in 2009: 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.html Thus once again Zach, you are found to be severely disingenuous as to honestly evaluating Darwinism. ,,, I believe Dr. Giem's analysis of you being a troll is spot on!bornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, "indeed, observed evolution is much much faster than anything in the historical record" I think that evolution needs to be divided between "change in allele frequency" (natural selection) and "new data" (mutations). I see no reason to doubt that selection (especially human guided selection) can rebalance the available alleles to produce very unique seeming organisms (tea cup dogs from wolf, for instance*) in very short order. The second thing that needs to be factored out is "neutral theory" class mutations. My view of "neutral theory" is that many mutations get a response of "don't care" from natural selection -- they are neither particularly beneficial nor particularly deleterious. Neutral theory, it seems to me, is pretty good at making new alleles for NS to work on. However, to create new forms we need mutations that are, at least within certain circumstances, beneficial -- not neutral. I know that the "neutral theory" proponents suggest that neutral theory alone is adequate to explain the number of mutations that separate humans from chimps. I don't buy their hypothesis because I think that there are lots of mutations that haven't been considered within that context, but hey. Do you really contend that there have been enough contextually beneficial mutations to account for the cambrian explosion? Do you have real data to confirm this? *I am sure that a few mutations are required to get there from here, but mostly we're seeing change in allele frequency.Moose Dr_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

tjguy: Stating it as if it is fact does not make it fact. No, but for it to be true, observed rates of evolution have to be at least as great as the faster inferred historical rate of evolution. And, indeed, observed evolution is much much faster than anything in the historical record, including during the Cambrian Explosion..Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @
The incremental changes observed in the lab are perfectly sufficient over vast periods of time.
Yes, we all know this is part of the evolutionary statement of faith. So lets be clear here. Regardless of how strongly you believe this, it is nothing more than your opinion. Stating it as if it is fact does not make it fact. I can also understand why you don't like the term Cambrian Explosion. But you know, I don't think there is anyone even just a little familiar with science who thinks it was a literal explosion. But the problem for evolutionists is that in the evolutionary framework of time, it looks like an explosion. Meyers has done a good job (IMO) of explaining why it was indeed an explosion and why it caused Darwin to doubt. This is indeed still a problem for neo-darwinism. Of course, since we are dealing with history here, we cannot run an experiment to show that the Cambrian Explosion is actually damning evidence against neo-darwinian evolution. But looking at the data, that is how we see it and again, Meyers has done a good job of explaining the reasoning behind that view. Your interpretation obviously will differ, but that is to be expected since you approach the data and interpret it through a different worldview and scientific framework than we do.tjguy_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: you have no evidence that Neo-Darwinian evolution can create anything We weren't discussing evolution "creating anything", but optimizing across a continuum. bornagain77: actually the changes in finch beaks are shown to be due to genetic and epigenetic factors. Without selection, they don't change. Selection is what determines which genetic factors predominate in the next generation. bornagain77: I cited a lecture by the Grants in 2009, so please see that lecture before you presume to reference me to a paper of theirs from 1988 that may contradict what they stated in that lecture. We watched the section you recommended. Grant says "Divergence in morphology through the tracking of environmental change by natural selection". She also discusses reproductive isolation, which is not complete, and the conditions under which to expect hybridization. That's standard standard evolutionary biology. It's so standard, you'll find it in Darwin 1859.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

The change in beak shapes in each generation are determined by natural selection.
Pure propaganda.Joe_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Zach, you have no evidence that Neo-Darwinian evolution can create anything. Whereas I have abundant evidence that neo-Darwinian processes are excellent at breaking things. actually the changes in finch beaks are shown to be due to genetic and epigenetic factors. For you to state that Natural selection 'determined' fink beak variation is to not understand, or to purposely obscure, the relationship between cause and effect. I cited a lecture by the Grants in 2009, so please see that lecture before you presume to reference me to a paper of theirs from 1988 that may contradict what they stated in that lecture. Developmental genes do not support Darwinism Zach, in fact they are powerful evidence against Darwinism. see the Meyer-Marshall debate on developmental gene regulatory networks. Once again, you have refused to acknowledge any of the substantive points raised against neo-Darwinism and restated already refuted points as if they were not already addressed. ,,, As even the ever patient Dr. Giem recently commented, you are troll with no intent on ever being honest to the evidence. That you could make even Dr. Giem caste your credibility into the dumpster as worthless should make you realize how you look to other people on UD. Hopefully someday you will become honest with yourself and others before you die and have to face the truth. Of note: Dr. Giem has a new video lecture up: Biological Information - Criticizing ENCODE 12-13-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlFJO1WqVkbornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

rvb8
After all, if it’s designed by humans we know all we need to know and there is no further motivation to question.
Have you ever been interested in art or music or poetry? If so, you'll know there's a lot to explore even though we know it was designed.
Being god would be so dull, I thank god everyday I’m not her. If you don't believe in God, then someone or something else will take the spot of your most loved, highest and supreme goal or entity.
Silver Asiatic_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

The quotes in our previous comment should have been attributed to bornagain77. bornagain77: you have no evidence that natural selection can choose optimal 4 dimensional power scaling We have evidence of natural selection, including direct observations. We can show that the power-law is consistent with selection for energy efficiency. bornagain77: Darwin’s Finches Show Rule-Constrained Variation in Beak Shape The change in beak shapes in each generation are determined by natural selection. See Grant & Grant, Natural Selection in a Population of Darwin's Finches, The American Naturalist 1988. bornagain77: A simple yet powerful mathematical rule controls beak development, Harvard scientists find The study found a relationship between the scale and shear of beaks, probably due to how developmental genes are expressed, but the beak which is found in each generation is still determined by natural selection. See Mallarino, Closely related bird species demonstrate flexibility between beak morphology and underlying developmental programs, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Zach, you have no evidence that natural selection can choose optimal 4 dimensional power scaling, you merely have a belief. I disagree with your belief and have evidence to back me up, whereas you do not! For instance, as to your example "the beaks of Darwin’s finches evolve in response to the local food supply" It might surprise trollish you to know that finch beak variation is evidence for design, not Darwinism: Darwin's Finches Show Rule-Constrained Variation in Beak Shape - June 10, 2014 Excerpt: A simple yet powerful mathematical rule controls beak development, Harvard scientists find, while simultaneously preventing beaks from evolving into something else.,,, We find in Darwin's finches (and all songbirds) an internal system, controlled by a non-random developmental process. It is flexible enough to allow for variation, but powerful enough to constrain the beak to its basic form (a conical shape modulated by scaling and shear) so that the rest of the bird's structures are not negatively affected. Beak development is controlled by a decay process that must operate at a particular rate. It's all very precise, so much so that it could be modeled mathematically.,,, The very birds that have long been used as iconic examples of natural selection become, on closer examination, paragons of intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/darwins_finches086581.html Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin’s Finches - 2014 Excerpt: The prevailing theory for the molecular basis of evolution (Neo-Darwinism) involves genetic mutations that ultimately generate the heritable phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts. However, epigenetic (Non-Darwinian) transgenerational inheritance of phenotypic variation may also play an important role in evolutionary change.,,, Genome-wide alterations in genetic mutations using copy number variation (CNV) were compared with epigenetic alterations associated with differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations). Epimutations were more common than genetic CNV mutations among the five species; furthermore, the number of epimutations increased monotonically with phylogenetic distance. Interestingly, the number of genetic CNV mutations did not consistently increase with phylogenetic distance.,,, http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/8/1972.full The Grants (who studied Darwin's finches) made a long presentation at Stanford in 2009 on their work. It is available for all to see on the internet. In it they give the game away. All the so called Darwin finches can inner breed. Doesn’t happen much but it does happen and they have viable offspring that reproduce. Here is the link: Darwin's Legacy | Lecture 5 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMcVY__T3Ho To save you some time. Start at about 109:00 and follow Rosemary for a few minutes till at least 112:00. Then go to 146:30 and listen to Peter. Before this is the inane prattle by two of Stanford’s finest who do not understand that the Grants are saying that the whole evolution thing is a crock. also of note: Darwin 'Wrong': Species Living Together Does Not Encourage Evolution - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution set out in the Origin of Species has been proven wrong by scientists studying ovenbirds. Researchers at Oxford University found that species living together do not evolve differently to avoid competing with one another for food and habitats – a theory put forward by Darwin 150 years ago. The ovenbird is one of the most diverse bird families in the world and researchers were looking to establish the processes causing them to evolve. Published in Nature, the research compared the beaks, legs and songs of 90% of ovenbird species. Findings showed that while the birds living together were consistently more different than those living apart, this was the result of age differences. Once the variation of age was accounted for, birds that live together were more similar than those living separately – directly contradicting Darwin's view. The species that lived together had beaks and legs no more different than those living apart,,, ,,,there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages. But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species.,,, He said that the reasons why birds living together appear to evolve less are "difficult to explain",,, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/darwin-wrong-species-living-together-does-not-encourage-evolution-1429927bornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: the quote stands as to its intent and integrity We assume, then, you will correct your quote-mine. Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini: “The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection. It’s inconceivable that so many different organisms, spanning different kingdoms and phyla, may have blindly ‘tried’ all sorts of power laws and that only those that have by chance ‘discovered’ the one-quarter power law reproduced and thrived.” The power-law is not a binary condition, but can vary continuously. As organisms evolve, they will tend towards the most energy efficient solutions. This results in a fourth-power law due to the fractal nature of distribution networks. fifthmonarchyman: You are hallucinating if you think random mutations breaking things, so as to confer a temporary benefit, is a ‘optimizing capability’ for natural selection. We can directly observe natural selection and its ability to move populations towards optimal solutions. For instance, the beaks of Darwin's finches evolve in response to the local food supply.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

although they did quote a researcher on 4-D power scaling in the first part of the quote, the quote stands as to its intent and integrity:
Physicists and biologists at Los Alamos, Santa Fe and Albuquerque institutes attribute the "fourth dimension" to the fractal-like architecture of the organisms' vascular networks. The guiding criteria, they found, was "the maximization of the inner and outer exchange surfaces, while minimizing distances of internal transport (thus maximizing the rates of transport)." They quote West et al. (1999), “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection." They comment, "In the words of these authors, natural selection has exploited variations on this fractal theme to produce the incredible variety of biological form and function', but there were severe geometric and physical constraints on metabolic processes.' "The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection. It's inconceivable that so many different organisms, spanning different kingdoms and phyla, may have blindly 'tried' all sorts of power laws and that only those that have by chance 'discovered' the one-quarter power law reproduced and thrived." Note 1: Quotations from Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79. http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-much-of-body-plans-of-organisms-can.html
Thanks for alerting me as to the context, I will now use the full context of the quote since it gets my point across much more effectively. You are hallucinating if you think random mutations breaking things, so as to confer a temporary benefit, is a 'optimizing capability' for natural selection. ,,, Can I come over to your house and demonstrate such 'optimizing capability' on your car and furniture??? :) I'm sure you would be none too impressed with my 'optimization' results once I was done!bornagain77_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Umm, natural selection doesn't optimize and doesn't have any "optimizing capability". Whatever is good enough to survive and reproduce does so. And no, there aren't any known microevolutionary events that can extrapolated into macroevolution. Not one.Joe_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: The types of mutations that natural selection is observed to fix in populations in the lab are not the types of mutations that neo-Darwinism needs to build the unfathomed integrated, and optimal, complexity we see in life As we said, the effects of natural selection are directly observable, in particular, its optimizing capability. By the way, your quote of Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini is mangled, and includes text from another author. Reading the original Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini provides a good example of why philosophers shouldn't think they can overturn well-established science with facile arguments.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

I think the idea is to strive to understand the 'incomprehensible', therefore making it comprehensible; that's what science does Mung. By saying we don't understand something means we humans with our selected for curiosity will go and try to understand it. I didn't invalidate science by saying many things are incomprehensible, it was a shout of joy. After all, if it's designed by humans we know all we need to know and there is no further motivation to question. Being god would be so dull, I thank god everyday I'm not her.rvb8_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

rvb8:
Actually BA, evolution (neo-Darwinism) doesn’t ‘need’ the vast changes you claim. The incremental changes observed in the lab are perfectly sufficient over vast periods of time.
bacteria remain bacteria, fruit flies remain fruit flies. No vast changes required when nothing changes. Who could disagree?
I’m always dissapointed when people use the phrase ‘Cambrian Explosion’, as if it happened in six days, rather than the incomprehensible (to our human brain of 70 years of existence) millions of years.
hilarious. simply hilarious. the entertainment here at UD never ends. it's absolutely worth the price of admission. How much of science did you just invalidate with our inability to grasp the incomprehensible?Mung_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Actually BA, evolution (neo-Darwinism) doesn't 'need' the vast changes you claim. The incremental changes observed in the lab are perfectly sufficient over vast periods of time. I'm always dissapointed when people use the phrase 'Cambrian Explosion', as if it happened in six days, rather than the incomprehensible (to our human brain of 70 years of existence) millions of years. Also I'm not sure you should ally yourself to Provine. He thinks we have no free will, there is no life after death, there is no absolute foundation for right and wrong and there is no ultimate meaning to life; much as I do. You have chosen a strange bedfellow.rvb8_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

as to this claim:
"The effects of natural selection are easily demonstrated. It can be measured in the lab,"
That claim, as is usual with claims from Zach, is false. The types of mutations that natural selection is observed to fix in populations in the lab are not the types of mutations that neo-Darwinism needs to build the unfathomed integrated, and optimal, complexity we see in life:
“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.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens." I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: Mutation total (as of 2014-05-02) - 148,413 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/ High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans ( Esther K. Davies, Andrew D. Peters, Peter D. Keightley) "In fitness assays, only about 4 percent of the deleterious mutations fixed in each line were detectable. The remaining 96 percent, though cryptic, are significant for mutation load...the presence of a large class of mildly deleterious mutations can never be ruled out." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5434/1748 Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Study demonstrates evolutionary ‘fitness’ not the most important determinant of success – February 7, 2014 – with illustration Excerpt: An illustration of the possible mutations available to an RNA molecule. The blue lines represent mutations that will not change its function (phenotype), the grey are mutations to an alternative phenotype with slightly higher fitness and the red are the ‘fittest’ mutations. As there are so few possible mutations resulting in the fittest phenotype in red, the odds of this mutation are a mere 0.15%. The odds for the slightly fitter mutation in grey are 6.7% and so this is far more likely to fix, and thus to be found and survive, even though it is much less fit than the red phenotype.,,, By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the ‘fitness’ of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-evolutionary-important-success.html
This following headline sums the preceding paper up very nicely:
Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014 http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-cant-survive-if-they-never-arrive/
bornagain77_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: contrary to whatever ‘just so story’ you may want to believe to be true for the creative power of natural selection, natural selection is not a ‘force’ that pushes, pulls, or creates, anything. The effects of natural selection are easily demonstrated. It can be measured in the lab, and directly observed in nature. Fodor & Piatelli-Palmarini's claim was that natural selection couldn't cause the fourth-power law because the third-power law should have been the intuitively optimal result. However, fractal geometry of distribution systems means that the fourth-power law is the optimal result, so it is consistent with selection for energy efficiency.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

OT: Dr. Giem has a new video lecture up: Biological Information - Criticizing ENCODE 12-13-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlFJO1WqVkbornagain77_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply