Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

Origin of life researcher on why evolution theory needs revision

Spread the love

Readers will recall that I (O’Leary for News) have been recommending Suzan Mazur’s recent book, The Origin of Life Circus, an indepth look at what is and isn’t working in origin of life research.

Suzan MazurMuch recommended is her interview with Paul Davies’ collaborator at Arizona State University, physicist Sara Walker, who emphasizes the need to address the information aspect of life. Walker politely dismisses claim that maybe life and non-life aren’t much different, and says,

Yes, I like to think about life in terms of information flows and how information is being processed. And because information is so widely distributed in biological systems, I think there’s merit to the idea of autocatalytic sets. Living systems are systems, and we really need to have a systems approach to the origin of life. You can’t just start with a single molecule. That’s why I like the metabolism-first viewpoint because it really is about how systems act and evolve collectively.

Walker has made this type of point before, and it is a welcome change from the usual: Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick?

She also takes the risk of siding with those (Carl Woese included) who are negative about the Darwinian interpretation of evolution. Woese, perhaps the greatest 20th century biologist, the one who first identified the Archaea, regretted not overthrowing Darwin.

Suzan Mazur: How do you define evolution? You say “the concept of evolution itself may be in need of revision” and cite Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld. What do you mean by evolution being in need of revision?

Sara Walker: I was thinking about Woese’s idea about early life being dominated by horizontal gene transfer, and that life was much more of a collective evolutionary process. It’s much harder, however, to get your head around the concept of a loose collection, a network evolving. Conceptually, the RNA world is much easier because we can keep imposing the idea of the Darwinian paradigm of an RNA replicator with vertical descent.

In short, RNA world was popular because it was Darwinian, not because it was well-founded.

Anyone familiar with pop science writing will recognize the phenomenon: Any given concept is invested with a certain sacred energy—for writers and readers— if Darwin either thought about it or could have imagined it or it fits in with something he thought.

This kind of thing would normally be thought of as religion but apparently the PR firm decided it was better marketed as science. Anyway…

Suzan Mazur: But you do think the concept of evolution is in need of revision.

Sara Walker: Yes. I think there are a lot of phenomena in evolution we haven’t investigated in as much depth as the standard genetic evolution paradigm.

It gets better. If you do not buy the book, you are missing the best parts.

Incidentally, science writer John Horgan’s recent defense of our right to disagree with experts nonetheless ruled out any serious criticism of the sort that Woese and Walker offer:

… he lists “evolution by natural selection” as one of the things that scientists have gotten “right, once and for all.”

This illustrates the seriousness of the problem. Horgan is reasonably skeptical—as all journalists should be—of establishment claims.

Except when it comes to Darwin.Then suddenly, the blinkers go on. The lights go out.

One must wish Walker well in her efforts to deal with this perennial thought blocker.

See also: Suzan Mazur interviews senior NASA origin of life scientist – It was stormy, and we aren’t talking weather here

and

RNA world would work if only life were simpler

Follow UD News at Twitter!

76 Replies to “Origin of life researcher on why evolution theory needs revision

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Walker doesn’t reject abiogenesis or evolution but because she is even slightly critical of what is thought of here as Darwinism, she is given a favorable hearing.

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

  2. 2
    Curly Howard says:

    Every biologist would say the current theory of evolution is in need of revision.
    It is constantly being revised by thousands of researchers every day.

    What isn’t in need of revision are the basic concepts of evolution and the fact that it has been occurring for billions of years, best explaining the diversity of life we see today.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Every biologist would say the current theory of evolution is in need of revision.
    It is constantly being revised by thousands of researchers every day.

    If the only thing that we ever have direct proof of evolving more complexity is the theory of evolution itself, that should tell you something.

    Question: Why are Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity never ‘revised’ but are only established to greater, and greater, levels of accuracy and Darwinism is constantly revised and never tested for accuracy?

    Perhaps a minor revision to neo-Darwinian thought could be to throw out the entire materialistic framework that undergirds neo-Darwinism since it has now been shown, by quantum mechanics, that materialism is false?

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.,,
    The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    Of related interest, we now have fairly good evidence for photosynthesis being on earth as long as it has been possible for photosynthetic life to be on earth:

    The Sudden Appearance Of Life On Earth (3.9 billion years ago) – video
    https://vimeo.com/92413648

    Iron in Primeval Seas Rusted by Bacteria – Apr. 23, 2013
    Excerpt: The oldest known iron ores were deposited in the Precambrian period and are up to four billion years old (the Earth itself is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old). ,,,
    This research not only provides the first clear evidence that microorganisms were directly involved in the deposition of Earth’s oldest iron formations; it also indicates that large populations of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria were at work in the shallow areas of the ancient oceans, while deeper water still reached by the light (the photic zone) tended to be populated by anoxyenic or micro-aerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria which formed the iron deposits.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....110750.htm

    Life’s history in iron – Nov. 7, 2014
    Excerpt: A new study examines how Earth’s oldest iron formations could have been formed before oxygenic photosynthesis played a role in oxidizing iron.,,,
    Microorganisms that photosynthesize in the absence of oxygen assimilate carbon by using iron oxide (Fe(II)) as an electron donor instead of water. While oxygenic photosynthesis produces oxygen in the atmosphere (in the form of dioxygen), anoxygenic photosynthesis adds an electron to Fe(II) to produce Fe(III).
    “In other words, they oxidize the iron,” explains Pecoits. “This finding is very important because it implies that this metabolism was already active back in the early Archean (ca. 3.8 Byr-ago).”
    http://phys.org/news/2014-11-l.....-iron.html

    Moreover, in what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life uses ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum mechanical principles to accomplish photosynthesis.

    At the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez explains why photosynthesis needs a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its effect:

    Nonlocality of Photosynthesis – Antoine Suarez – video – 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ge#t=1268s

    Quantum Mechanics Explains Efficiency of Photosynthesis – Jan. 9, 2014
    Excerpt: ,,,said Alexandra Olaya-Castro (UCL Physics & Astronomy), supervisor and co-author of the research. “We found that the properties of some of the chromophore vibrations that assist energy transfer during photosynthesis can never be described with classical laws, and moreover, this non-classical behaviour enhances the efficiency of the energy transfer.”,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....092008.htm

    Whereas materialists have no clue how to explain how non-local photosynthesis is possible, as a Theist, I have a non-local, beyond space and time, cause to appeal to to explain non-local photosynthesis:

    1 John 1:5
    This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

    Music:

    Toby Mac (In The Light) – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MpGRQRrP0

  4. 4
    Curly Howard says:

    Oh BA.
    Sorry but I don’t see any difference between being “revised” and being “established to a greater level of accuracy.”

    Evolution is “revised” in the same way that you say those physics topics are “further established.”

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    “Evolution is “revised” in the same way that you say those physics topics are “further established.”

    REALLY??? As Pauli would say, ‘you are ‘Not even wrong’!’

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble 07/09/2014
    Excerpt: Suzan Mazur: In recent years the modern synthesis has been declared extended by major evolutionary thinkers (e.g., “the Altenberg 16” and others), as well as dead by major evolutionary thinkers, the late Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala among them. Ditto for the public discourse on the Internet. My understanding is that you are now calling for the modern synthesis to be replaced.
    Denis Noble: I would say that it needs replacing. Yes.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....84211.html

    The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis – January 2012
    Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....03g3t7002/

  6. 6
    Curly Howard says:

    “Denis Noble: I would say that it needs replacing. Yes.”

    And what exactly does he say it should be replaced with?
    It isn’t creationism by any chance is it?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    And what do you find ‘scientifically’, not personally, distasteful with Intelligence creating life on earth? Even Dawkins, and Crick, two hard core atheists, admitted the possibility of life being ‘seeded’ by extra-terrestrial intelligence on earth:

    Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

    The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.
    Directed Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization,

    Or is all intelligence excluded a-priori by you, no matter what the evidence says, since it runs contrary to your atheistic philosophy?

    If so, that’s sad!

    Of related note:

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause,, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

  8. 8
    Curly Howard says:

    I’m just asking you, BA, what Denis Nobel said it should be replaced with.
    Was it creationism?

  9. 9
    HeKS says:

    @Curly Howard #8

    I’m not a Young Earth Creationist, but your question intrigues me.

    Suppose for a moment that Noble did think that the modern synthesis should be replaced with Creationism. That would imply he thought Creationism was true, making him a Creationist. Would you then think he was correct or dismiss him as being a Creationist? If the latter, what is the point of your question? If the former, why limit yourself to Denis Noble when there are other Creationists out there with credentials in Evolutionary Biology and relevant fields, some of whom started out as Atheist Evolutionists before being convinced by an examination of the evidence that the theory was irreparably broken and that Creationism (or something closer to it than to Evolutionary Theory) was right?

    As it happens, Noble is a committed Evolutionist. But as it also happens, his notions of evolution are highly consistent with what would be expected under an ID paradigm (see his lecture, “The Music of Life”). He just doesn’t go there with them.

  10. 10
    Paleysghost says:

    Ha, Heks!!

    Seems like you strung up “Curly” by his short Curlies! 😀

  11. 11
    Joe says:

    Curly Howard- Please link to this alleged theory of evolution so we can all read what it has to say.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    CH, I think that Nobel has, for the most part, hitched his wagon to Shapiro’s ‘Natural Genetic Engineering’

    http://www.thethirdwayofevolut.....-a-shapiro

    In fact, Nobel mentions Shaprio’s book, “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century” very favorably in this following video:

    Rocking the foundations of biology – video
    http://www.voicesfromoxford.or.....iology/184

    Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video
    https://vimeo.com/115822429

    The trouble with Shapiro’s term ‘Natural Genetic Engineering’ is obvious in the phrase ‘Natural Genetic Engineering’ itself. Namely, the word ‘natural’ and the word ‘engineering’ should not be uttered in the same breath together. Simply put, there is nothing ‘natural’ about ‘engineering’. Shapiro tries to get around the obvious discordance of his phrase ‘Natural Genetic Engineering’ by appealing to the highly complex regulatory processes of the cell and by invoking something else he terms ‘cell cognition’:

    Is James Shapiro a Darwinist After All? – William A. Dembski January 25, 2012
    Excerpt: Shapiro places at the heart of his third way “natural genetic engineering, horizontal DNA transfer, interspecific hybridization, genome doubling and symbiogenesis,” which he claims “provide solutions to problems recognized to be intractable under the limitations of conventional evolutionary thinking.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55551.html

    Shapiro on Cell cognition:
    “Recent postings have provoked numerous questions about my application of the term “cognitive” to cell regulatory processes. I base this usage on the notion that cognitive actions are knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information. It is common today for molecular, cell and developmental biologists to speak of cells “knowing” and “choosing” what to do under various conditions. While most scientists using these terms would insist they are just handy metaphors, I argue here that we should take these instinctive words more literally. Cell cognition may well prove itself a fruitful scientific concept.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....54889.html

    The illegitimate highjacking of agent causality with ‘cell cognition’ and applying agent causality to the cell should be obvious. Interestingly, Talbott, who also lists his name among those on the ‘The Third Way’, has complained about just this problem:

    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.....ell_23.htm

    But alas for “The Third Way’, to be able to ascribe agent causality to the cell and prove that it can be the source for ‘Natural Genetic Engineering’ one must prove that the cell has the capacity to generate functional information/complexity above and beyond what is already inherent in life.
    And in this regards, the people of ‘the Third Way’ are in the same boat as neo-Darwinists. Namely, the people of ‘The Third Way’ have no mechanism they can point to to generate functional information/complexity above and beyond what is already in life:

    On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro – Doug Axe – January 2012
    Excerpt: I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55471.html

    Also of note: Shapiro, tried to get ‘randomness’ into his bag of tricks by invoking something called ‘Exon Shuffling’. Exon Shuffling does not help ‘natural genetic engineering’:

    Exon Shuffling, and the Origins of Protein Folds – Jonathan M. – July 15, 2013
    Excerpt: A frequently made claim in the scientific literature is that protein domains can be readily recombined to form novel folds. In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer addresses this subject in detail (see Chapter 11).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74401.html

    Thus ‘The Third Way’ is an interesting assortment of people. They realize that neo-Darwinism is bankrupt. And they appeal, for the most part, to the stunning sophistication of regulatory processes in the cell to say life can ‘naturally engineer’ itself, and yet, at the end of the day, they end up exactly back where they started from, sitting with the neo-Darwinists, without a viable way to account for the origination of functional complexity/information.

  13. 13
    cantor says:

    8 Curly HowardMarch 23, 2015 at 9:30 pm

    I’m just asking you, BA, what Denis Nobel said it should be replaced with.
    Was it creationism?

    The fact that you have no idea who Denis Noble is (let alone don’t even know how to spell his name properly) speaks volumes about how closed is your circle of knowledge.

    Get outside your comfort zone and read some books.

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    Speak up, Curly. You’re mumbling..

  15. 15
    Curly Howard says:

    BA, so you quote Noble as saying things need to be replaced, but you have no idea what he thinks it should be replaced with? You only have speculation of what you “think” Noble’s opinion is.
    Interesting.
    That’s all I was looking for. Thank you.

    HeKS, if Noble thought creationism was the answer, I would want to know why. I would neither think he was correct nor dismiss him, until I understood his position and the evidence behind it.
    I was simply wondering if BA knew what Noble thought it should be replaced with. I was assuming BA was citing a known evolutionary biologist as saying the theory needed to be replaced, but I was afraid that what Noble thinks it should be replaced with, isn’t very different from the current theory. But BA seems to be only speculative at best of Noble’s ideas.

    Cantor, how come you don’t jump on BA’s back for spelling the name wrong multiple times in comment 12?
    The fact that you can come up with such an abrasive comment attacking someone for a simple spelling mistake “speaks volumes…”

    The rest of you don’t even warrant a response.

  16. 16
    cantor says:

    15 Curly Howard March 24, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    The fact that you can come up with such an abrasive comment attacking someone for a simple spelling mistake “speaks volumes…”

    You thought that was an “attack”? How thin is your skin anyway?

    If you want the low-down on Noble’s position, he has written a whole book about it. Take my constructive criticism and go read his book.

    Then we’ll talk.

  17. 17
    Curly Howard says:

    There was nothing constructive about your post, cantor.
    But apparently you take advantage of every chance you get to act like a child.

    Have you read nobles book?
    How far is his position from the current theory of evolution?
    How come you don’t jump on BA’s back for the same mistake I made?
    Are you that desperate for attention that you go looking for fights about spelling on the internet?

  18. 18
    cantor says:

    17 Curly Howard March 24, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    There was nothing constructive about your post, cantor.

    apparently you take advantage of every chance you get to act like a child.

    Apparently you consider reading a book to be unconstructive.

    I was wondering how you it would take for you to resort to name-calling. Predictable.

    Have you read nobles book?

    Of course I have. Duh.

    How far is his position from the current theory of evolution?

    Go read the book. I am not going to do your homework for you.

  19. 19
    Curly Howard says:

    Cantor:
    “Of course I read it, but I’m not going to tell you anything about it!”
    I didn’t realize we were having a contest to see who could act more like a child.
    You win I guess.

    Good talk.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Curly Howard, my answer was more than mere speculation. I’ve answered your question honestly that I think that Nobel thinks that neo-Darwinism should be replaced with something along the lines of ‘natural genetic engineering’. If it is not exactly ‘natural genetic engineering’ that he wants to replace neo-Darwinism with, then it is something very close to it. The reason why he wants to replace neo-Darwinism (i.e. the modern synthesis) with ‘natural genetic engineering’ or something very close to it, is because, as a Physiologist, he recognizes that the ‘bottom up’ mechanism of random mutations to DNA is grossly inadequate to explain the ‘directed’ changes in the genome that are now evident, and he now thus seeks some other ‘holistic/physiological’ level of causation. In fact he debated the following topic:

    video debate – Denis Noble and Sydney Brenner will propose and oppose respectively the motion that:
    “There is no privileged level of causation: an organism is not defined by its genome”
    http://www.virtual-liver.de/wo.....te-debate/

    In fact, on his site he states:

    “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
    – Denis Noble – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences
    http://musicoflife.co.uk/

    Moreover, in the video I cited, which you apparently did not bother to watch, he states:

    Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Noble – video
    https://vimeo.com/115822429
    ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
    Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.

    Thus, contrary to what you falsely stated, it is more than mere speculation on my part as to what Noble seeks to replace Darwinism with. He is seeking a more prominent role for physiology in evolutionary biology. A more ‘holistic’ level of causation if you will

    He has, for the most part, and as best as I can tell right now, hitched his wagon to Shapiro’s ‘Natural Genetic Engineering’. And as I outlined already in post 12, ‘natural genetic engineering’ suffers the same exact flaw as neo-Darwinism does in regards of not being able to account for the origination of functional complexity/information.

    That is NOT a minor failing for the ‘new’ theory that is going to replace neo-Darwinism to put it mildly

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-555720

    Moreover, although neo-Darwinists try to pretend as if Shapiro’s work is just a minor ‘revision’ to standard neo-Darwinian theory (as you are doing right now Curly), Shapiro’s work, in fact, directly contradicts the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism and in effect falsifies it. For instance, the belief that mutations are random, a staple of neo-Darwinian thought, is simply crushed within the ‘natural genetic engineering’ framework:

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigenetic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.

    Thus I’ve answered your question honestly Curly, now how about answering mine honestly?

    “what do you find ‘scientifically’, not personally, distasteful with Intelligence creating life on earth?”

  21. 21
    Curly Howard says:

    BA, do yourself a favor and just stop.
    Do you not read what you write?

    Do you see the phrase “I think that” in the second sentence of that last post?

    Sorry BA, but nobody cares what YOU think, on this topic.
    If I ever need a good quote from scripture or a hymn, then I know who to call.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Curly Howard, you are only trying to defend your atheistic position and are not addressing the issue honestly.

    Thanks anyway, for giving me the opportunity to clarify the issue more clearly for the unbiased readers

  23. 23
    Curly Howard says:

    I asked you what Noble says evolution should be replaced with.
    The correct answer was “I don’t know,” because…well…you don’t know.

    I’d be willing to bet that what Noble thinks evolution should be replaced with is not far from the current theory, making your quote from him “that it should be replaced,” pretty much pointless. The guy is a researcher it sounds like, of course he’s going to talk up his own ideas and work. UDers continually fails to recognize that scientists usually have to overstate their work in order to be recognized.

  24. 24
    cantor says:

    19 Curly Howard March 24, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Cantor:
    “Of course I read it, but I’m not going to tell you anything about it!”



    Lose the fraudulent quotes. I said read the book, then we’ll talk.


    BA already told you about it. If you want more detail than that, read the book.

    .

    I didn’t realize we were having a contest to see who could act more like a child.



    More name-calling. The only contest was a contest you were having with yourself. This is typical behavior for people like you.

    .

  25. 25
    cantor says:

    I don’t see any difference between being “revised” and being “established to a greater level of accuracy.”

    Evolution is “revised” in the same way that you say those physics topics are “further established.”



    Stooge sees no difference between a theory that makes incredibly bizarre, almost otherworldly predictions which, when we finally have the technology to test them, turn out to be true to 13 decimal places, on the one hand,

    and on the other hand a theory that has continually has to be band-aided as new facts are uncovered.

    To equate these two theories is beyond laughable.

    .

  26. 26
    Curly Howard says:

    Yeah I was only paraphrasing you, cantor, there shouldn’t have been quotations.
    But either way it is pretty much what you said.

    How is it name calling if the person is actually acting exactly like a child?

    We both know I can’t read the book and respond to you in a timely fashion, so why not just answer the question yourself….since you read the book.

    …you did read the book right?

    Or maybe you just really are desperate for attention.

  27. 27
    ppolish says:

    BA77, here is the complete lecture from Dr Noble from which you posted an excerpt. Great lecture, in China, where it is ok to criticize NeoDarwinism…
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QMVfafAYTMg

    Btw, Jerry did NOT like Dr Noble’s Lecture waa. He did a blog post…
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/famous-physiologist-embarrasses-himself-by-claiming-that-the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is-in-tatters/

    Dr Noble responds to Coyne
    http://starcourse.blogspot.com.....n.html?m=1

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks ppolish. OT: But this is a pretty significant milestone and is worth posting:

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (betond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    Wonder how long it will take for the Many Worlders to realize what hit them? 🙂

    Quantum mechanics
    Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....plications

  29. 29
    Box says:

    Denis [Noble] says “I have continued interaction — debate, planning — now with around 30 evolutionary biologists of various kinds, all interested in exploring where we go on from here.”
    [source]

    How about postulating that a library of all possible metabolisms, housed in a vast hypercube of 5,000-dimensional space, is accessible for organisms by some sort of “genotype network”?
    I mean, hey why not? Just to “establish a greater level of accuracy”.

  30. 30
    cantor says:

    27 Curly HowardMarch 24, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    Yeah I was only paraphrasing you, cantor, there shouldn’t have been quotations.

    But either way it is pretty much what you said.

    No, it was not.

    How is it name calling if the person is actually acting exactly like a child?

    How is calling you a moron name calling if you are actually acting like a moron?

    We both know I can’t read the book and respond to you in a timely fashion

    I never suggested you respond in a timely fashion. Take all the time you need.

    so why not just answer the question yourself

    I told you, I’m not going to do your homework for you. You need to learn to read books.

    …you did read the book right?

    So now you’re calling me a liar. More name-calling. Very childish.

    Or maybe you just really are desperate for attention.

    Maybe you are just a glutton for punishment.

  31. 31
    Curly Howard says:

    Yeah, ok cantor.
    You are an A+ troll. I’ll give you that.

    And I’ll assume, as would anyone else, that you didn’t actually read the book, seeing as you completely refuse to even briefly talk about some of the basic ideas in it. You’ve yet to even post anything above a middle school intelligence level, so I guess I should have expected as much.

  32. 32
    wallstreeter43 says:

    It seems like Curley follows the scientific consensus of the so called experts. I like that. Curley does that mean that you now believe in the soul and life after death ? Cause the majority of researchers who have actually done nde research belive this .

    Curley I’m glad to see that you believe in a soul and the afterlife . Your almost there man .

    High five buddy 😉

  33. 33
    Axel says:

    Cantor @#26

    ‘Stooge sees no difference between a theory that makes incredibly bizarre, almost otherworldly predictions which, when we finally have the technology to test them, turn out to be true to 13 decimal places, on the one hand,

    and on the other hand a theory that has continually has to be band-aided as new facts are uncovered.

    To equate these two theories is beyond laughable.’

    Don’t be mean and horrible, Cantor!

  34. 34
    Curly Howard says:

    Wallstreet, pretty much everything I’ve ever heard from “nde research” has seemed either biased or unscientific.
    Could you point me in the direction of the most convincing scientific paper that is the product of “nde research?”

  35. 35
    cantor says:

    35 Curly Howard March 25, 2015 at 7:36 am

    Wallstreet, pretty much everything I’ve ever heard from “nde research” has seemed either biased or unscientific.

    .

    No no no.

    The OP’s point was it’s a consensus, so you don’t get to judge its merits.

    Darwin’s dittoheads have no sense of humor.

    .

  36. 36
    Curly Howard says:

    Consensus among who, the genius scientific researchers here at UD?

    Sorry if I can’t pick up on the humor of others here at UD, it’s probably because everything you guys say is a joke.

  37. 37
    cantor says:

    37 Curly Howard March 25, 2015 at 8:01 am

    Consensus among who, the genius scientific researchers here at UD?

    .

    Now you’re being just plain silly.

    Or more likely, you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

    No wonder you don’t read books !

    .

  38. 38
    Curly Howard says:

    Have a nice life cantor.
    Goodluck in high school when you finally get there.

  39. 39
    cantor says:

    39 Curly Howard March 25, 2015 at 9:09 am

    Goodluck in high school when you finally get there.

    .

    How marvelously witty !

    But seriously, don’t quit your day job (like you even have one).

    .

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Curly Howard you claim

    “everything you guys say is a joke.”

    What is truly a joke is that you really believe it possible, without one shred of evidence that it is remotely possible, that the unfathomable complexity being found in life, which our best engineers and computer scientists can only dream of imitating, can be had by purely unguided material processes.

    Indeed, it is beyond a joke, it is an absurdity that fully qualifies the person believing it as to being committed to the insane asylum.

    But alas, it seems the patients have now taken over the hospital.

    Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Picture
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkR.....way-1b.png
    A map of the entire human metabolic pathway – interactive map (high resolution)
    http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~turk.....thways.png

    Systems biology: Untangling the protein web – July 2009
    Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. “Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured,” he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. “The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent,” he says. “The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....0415a.html

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 2012
    Excerpt: “This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.”,,,
    Even with shortcuts like averaging, “any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system,”,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    New book by Abel:

    Primordial Prescription: The Most Plaguing Problem of Life Origin Science – David L. Abel – book
    Excerpt Preface: Life pursues the goal of being and staying alive. Evolution has no goal, especially at the molecular/genetic/epigenetic programming level. Evolution is nothing more than the differential survival and reproduction of the fittest already-programmed, already-living organisms. Evolution only eliminates inferior phenotypic organisms. Evolution cannot prescribe or program.
    https://www.academia.edu/11382612/Primordial_Prescription_The_Most_Plaguing_Problem_of_Life_Origin_Science

  42. 42
    JimFit says:

    Curly Howard you believe that you are a random cosmic mistake that nothingness spewed without free will or purpose. Your belief is a joke.

  43. 43
    Curly Howard says:

    “Without one shred of evidence,” BA?
    Just because you choose to ignore the research, doesn’t mean it’s non-existent.
    But hey, we all know you refuse to leave cloud-9 so enjoy your stay.

  44. 44
    Joe says:

    Can’t ignore what doesn’t exist…

  45. 45
    Curly Howard says:

    Ah yes thank you for always weighing in on the subject, Joey.
    ….with your vast knowledge of biology and all.
    You and BA are probably neighbors up there on cloud-9.

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Curly Howard, here’s your chance to prove us wrong. I say that you do not have one shred of evidence that unguided material processes can produce non-trivial functional information/complexity, you say you do have evidence. Man up and produce it!

    Talking Back to Goliath: Some Advice for Students in the Evolutionary Biology Classroom – Paul Nelson – September 30, 2014
    Excerpt: (if neo-Darwinism) is true, we should be able to find in the scientific literature the detailed explanations for the origin of complex structures and behaviors, rendered strictly in terms of random variation plus natural selection.
    Guess what? Those explanations aren’t there; they don’t exist. If anyone doubts this, he should try looking for himself. Choose any complex structure or behavior, and look in the biological literature for the step-by-step causal account where the origin of that structure (that is, its coming-to-be where it did not exist before) is explained via random variation and natural selection.
    You’ll be looking a long time. The explanations just aren’t there, and this fact is well known to evolutionary biologists who have become disenchanted with received neo-Darwinian theory. When proponents of the received theory, such as Richard Dawkins, face the task of making random variation and natural selection work, they resort to fictional entities like Dawkins’s “biomorphs” — see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) — or flawed analogies such as the “methinks it is like a weasel” search algorithm scenario. No one would have to employ these toy stories, of course, if evidence were available showing the efficacy of random variation and selection to construct novel complexity.
    “Research on selection and adaptation,” notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a disenchanted evolutionary theorist, “may tell us why a trait persisted and spread, but it will not tell us where a trait came from….This transformational aspect of evolutionary change has been oddly neglected in modern evolutionary biology” (2003, p. 197).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90141.html

  47. 47
    Curly Howard says:

    The evolution of alpha-lactalbumin from lysozyme is a classic example, BA.

    “Pick any complex structure or behavior and notice how those pesky biologists haven’t come up with a detailed explanation for its evolution.”
    That’s your argument?
    You do realize that all your doing is picking on the gaps in knowledge, right? Molecular biology is barely out of its infancy and yet here you are complaining that we haven’t explained some of its most complex topics.
    Genius.

  48. 48
    Joe says:

    The evolution of alpha-lactalbumin from lysozyme is a classic example,

    Of what, equivocation?

    Ah yes thank you for always weighing in on the subject, Joey.
    ….with your vast knowledge of biology and all.

    I am not a bluffing equivocator, like you. At least I took the time to understand what is being debated. And my position on the subject has testable entailments whereas yours doesn’t.

  49. 49
    Curly Howard says:

    Joe, you are a perfect example of what happens when a lunatic gets a hold of a computer. That’s about it.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Curly Howard, you do understand what the difference between sequence comparisons and real time empirical evidence is don’t you?

    This is the real time empirical evidence for the last four decades:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    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.podom.....3_46-08_00

    Michael Behe: Intelligent Design – interview on radio program – ‘The Mind Renewed’
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SmPNQrQHE

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    Curly has a meltdown! Curly is a perfect example of what happens when ones bluff gets called and equivocation exposed.

    Pathetic little imp…

  52. 52
    Curly Howard says:

    It was a perfect example of how small changes in one protein can produce a protein with a completely different function.
    No bluffing required.

    Does Behe say that all mutations are deleterious? No. He doesn’t.
    Even he knows that some are beneficial and that is exactly what evolution claims.

    By the way I asked you guys a while back and never got an answer:
    We know that research fraud occurs in all scientific fields of inquiry, do you guys think that intelligent design is immune to this fact? (if it actually were a scientific field of inquiry of course)

  53. 53
    Joe says:

    It was a perfect example of how small changes in one protein can produce a protein with a completely different function.

    It wasn’t an example of unguided evolution. That is the bluff. Intelligent agencies modify structures that were designed for one function to provide another function.

    We know that research fraud occurs in all scientific fields of inquiry, do you guys think that intelligent design is immune to this fact?

    No. However anyone who sez that unguided evolution can produce complex protein machinery, is a fraud.

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    of note:

    Refined structure of baboon alpha-lactalbumin at 1.7 A resolution. Comparison with C-type lysozyme. – 1989
    Excerpt: . Because of the striking similarity between the structure of lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin, a more cautious molecular replacement approach was tried to refine the model.,,,
    The refinement was carried out using the human alpha-lactalbumin sequence and “omit maps” calculated during the course of refinement indicated eight possible sequence changes in the baboon alpha-lactalbumin X-ray sequence.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2769757

    small problem CH: a protein conversion requiring 8 amino acid substitutions ain’t gonna happen

    “Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – January 1, 2015
    Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92291.html

  55. 55
    Curly Howard says:

    And do these same “intelligent agencies” modify the proteins that cause a vast array of diseases in us as well, Joey?
    And how can we contact these “intelligent agencies” to thank them for causing all these wonderful diseases?

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    CH, you do realize that the ‘beneficial’ mutations, that were observed in Behe’s survey of 4 decades of lab work, either resulted in the loss of a preexisting function, modification of a preexisting function, or gain of a preexisting function that was artificially deleted beforehand? In other words, there was never a gain of functional complexity/information that was not already preexistent in the cell.

    As should be needless to say, this is NOT the real time evidence that you need, for supposed ‘beneficial’ mutations, to support your neo-Darwinian position. For you to pretend it does support your position is just plain dishonest!

  57. 57
    Curly Howard says:

    Why does it matter if the function was artificially deleted beforehand, BA? The cell isn’t capable of “remembering” that function and directly remaking it. Deleting a function and then looking to see if the organism could remake that function simply made the researchers lives much easier. It would be virtually impossible to look for evolution of a completely new and random function. What do you want them to do, test for every possible function?

    And once again, a Gauger paper is produced that makes unfounded assumptions such as: mutations only change one amino acid at a time, and that protein evolution occurs in leaps from one function to the next. These are both false and in the paper you cited they show that alpha-lactalbumin has retained some of lysozyme-related ancestor’s function that is also still seen in lysozyme. Not only is the sequence and structure of the two proteins very similar, but the organization of their genes are virtually identical. Does your designer like to copy/paste as much as you, or is it more likely that these two proteins evolved from a common ancestor?
    I’m gonna go with the second one.

  58. 58
    Andre says:

    Curly Howard

    And how can we contact these “intelligent agencies” to thank them for causing all these wonderful diseases?

    Right this quote above puts you straight into the buffoon category! Why?

    1.) Any complex system that is made up of multiple parts are prone to failure look up failure rates…..

    2.) This argument you just presented means you are one seriously dishonest human being because you just acknowledged design but complain about its reliability.

    3.) Your objection is nothing more than a religious one…….

  59. 59
    Curly Howard says:

    Don’t get your panties in a bunch, Andre.
    It was a joke.
    I was just trying to get little Joey here to look at both sides of the coin and see how idiotic his own “religious” ideas were.

    Maybe Joey was joking. Everything he says seems like a joke to me.

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    CH as to your claim:

    “The cell isn’t capable of “remembering” that function and directly remaking it.”

    And you know this how? Contrary to what you seem to believe, the evidence we have tells us that there is a tremendous amount of redundancy in the cell. That is why the first estimates for the ‘minimal genome’ were severe underestimates:

    Minimal genome should be twice the size – 2006
    Excerpt: “Previous attempts to work out the minimal genome have relied on deleting individual genes in order to infer which genes are essential for maintaining life,” said Professor Laurence Hurst from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath. “This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product. “When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene. “But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead. “Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments.
    http://www.news-medical.net/ne.....16976.aspx

    Genetic Redundancy is incompatible with Darwinism:

    The Problem Of Genetic Redundancy for Darwinism
    Excerpt: the very existence of genetic buffering, and the functional redundancies required for it, presents a paradox in light of the Darwinian (or: selectionist) concept. On one hand, for genetic buffering to take place there is a necessity for redundancies of gene function, on the other hand such redundancies are clearly unstable in face of natural selection and are therefore unlikely to be found in evolved genomes. Still, over 90% of the genes studies of model organisms were observed to be redundant [Conant GC et al, 2004; Kobayashi K et al, 2003; Baba T et al, 2006].
    http://archive.is/YxXhd

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    CH, you also ask:

    “What do you want them to do, test for every possible function?”

    How about just passing the ‘fitness test’ so as to demonstrate your fantastic claim for microbes ‘randomly’ turning into man is even remotely feasible?

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU

    Helping an Internet Debater Defend Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – May 3, 2014
    Excerpt: antibiotic resistance entails very small-scale degrees of biological change.,,,
    antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to “revert” to their prior forms after the antibacterial drug is removed. This is due to a “fitness cost,” which suggests that mutations that allow antibiotic resistance are breaking down the normal, efficient operations of a bacterial cell, and are less “advantageous.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85171.html

    Of note: Antibiotic resistance turns out to be ‘preexistent’ in the cell and is not proof of evolution as Darwinists had claimed it was for years:

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

    Of note:

    Your critique of Gauger and Axe’s works reveals even more ignorance on your part. If anyone makes unfounded assumptions, it is certainly the Darwinists when they say ancient enzymes were more plastic than present enzymes:

    “Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
    Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
    Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn’t test the right mutation(s), and that we didn’t use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF’s entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine.
    Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It’s because modern enzymes can’t be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don’t evolve!
    That is precisely the point we are making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91701.html

  62. 62
    Joe says:

    insipid troll:

    And do these same “intelligent agencies” modify the proteins that cause a vast array of diseases in us as well, Joey?

    Most likely by built-in responses or some sort of genetic engineering before the design was implemented.

    And how can we contact these “intelligent agencies” to thank them for causing all these wonderful diseases?

    Only a scientifically illiterate troll would require something like that.

    Why can’t YOU just step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes didit? Oh, that’s right, you can’t because you don’t even know where to start.

  63. 63
    Joe says:

    insipid troll:

    The cell isn’t capable of “remembering” that function and directly remaking it.

    Sure it is.

    Does your designer like to copy/paste as much as you, or is it more likely that these two proteins evolved from a common ancestor?

    An ancestral polypeptide that was intelligently designed and then used as a template to design others based on the original sequence.

    BTW, I don’t have any religious ideas. ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion, unless science is a religion. But then again you don’t seem to know anything about science nor religion.

  64. 64
    Joe says:

    An ancestral polypeptide that was intelligently designed and then used as a template to design others based on the original sequence and the required functions.

  65. 65
    Curly Howard says:

    How do you propose a cell would remake a function, BA?
    I think you have no idea what you are talking about when you say there’s a tremendous amount of redundancy in the cell.

    Fitness test? BA, did you even watch the BS video you linked to? The fitness test only looked at how the mutant species compared to wild type. There is nothing in that video about testing an increase in fitness from a random function.

    The stuff that comes out of the discovery institute is good for toilet paper, that’s about it.
    I tell you what’s wrong with the gauger paper and you respond with even more unfounded claims from the same paper. Nice.

    Joe, you don’t have ANY ideas.

  66. 66
    Joe says:

    How do you propose a cell would remake a function

    The same way metazoans remake some body parts.

    Joe, you don’t have ANY ideas.

    How would you know? You wouldn’t know an idea from Uranus.

  67. 67
    Curly Howard says:

    Joe, you should really stop trying to talk about biology.
    Metazoans are able to remake body parts because cells at the wound site dedifferentiate and then form the necessary tissue for the limb.
    We are talking about single cells remaking cellular function. They are two very different things.
    Please stop saying ridiculously stupid things, I almost start to feel bad.

  68. 68
    Joe says:

    Metazoans are able to remake body parts because cells at the wound site dedifferentiate and then form the necessary tissue for the limb.

    Right. That is at the macro-level. Inside the cell, when the cell is the organism, it is the same thing albeit on a smaller scale. At the wound site, ie the damaged or removed DNA sequence, there would be some repair mechanism akin to error correction that would right the ship.

    As I said, you wouldn’t know an idea from Uranus.

  69. 69
    Curly Howard says:

    No, Joe.
    It is not the same thing. Not even close.
    If you completely knockout a gene then that’s it. The cell cannot repair it. A huge amount of molecular biology has relied on this fact.
    As I said, please stop trying to talk about biology (even though it is providing a lot of laughs).

  70. 70
    Joe says:

    If you completely knockout a gene then that’s it.

    That’s your opinion. The cell may find some way to compensate or repair it. It may take several generations.

    A huge amount of molecular biology has relied on this fact.

    Such as?

    As I said, please stop trying to talk about biology

    I will when evos, like you, stop spewing their nonsensical BS. Until then I will keep exposing you as teh bluffing poseurs that you are.

  71. 71
    Joe says:

    So a cell can’t figure out how to re-evolve a missing part but it can figure out how to evolve totally new innovations it never had?

    Is this part of the theory of evolution that no one can reference?

  72. 72
    Curly Howard says:

    It’s not my opinion Joe, it’s a fact.
    Such as every mutant null mice line ever created, just to name a fraction of them.

    And as to your second post, that’s not even the argument.

    Goodbye Joe!

  73. 73
    Joe says:

    So mice are single-celled organisms? Or is Curly an imbecile?

    My second post is the argument. As I said you have no idea when it comes to ideas.

  74. 74
    Curly Howard says:

    I named an organism that molecular biology has consistently relied on gene knockouts in. The fact that it’s a eukaryotes, not to mention a mammal, only helps my case. Even in these complex organisms, the knockout of a single gene has been able to drive analysis of cellular function.

  75. 75
    Joe says:

    I don’t know what your case is but I was talking about single-celled organisms. Also with mice they would have to follow the generations to see what happens. If the gene isn’t required then there wouldn’t be any reason to bring it back.

  76. 76
    Curly Howard says:

    Of course you don’t know what I’m talking about. That’s ok.
    Obviously you don’t understand the fact that it doesn’t matter whether it’s singe cells organism or multicell. that we’re talking about. That’s ok.

    And yes, the gene is deleted and the result is studied I the next generation.

    The fact that I have to explain this to you means that this conversation is over.

Leave a Reply