Recently published statistics indicate that the odds are overwhelming that you do not in fact exist

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 22, 2011

Cosmology, Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, News

1}_{Categories
Cosmology
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design
News}

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

Quanrtum fuzziness explains why you believe you exist.

In “Are you totally improbable or totally inevitable?” (National Public Radio, November 21, 2011), Robert Krulwich offers,

Author and blogger Dr. Ali Binazir did the calculations last spring and decided that the chances of anyone existing are one in 10^2,685,000. In other words, as this infographic figures it, you are totally improbable:

Of course, there are poets who argue exactly the opposite: that each of us is fated to exist, that there is a plan, and that all of us are expected.

Actually, there is no reason each position can’t be partially true. One might have been intended by a power beyond the universe, yet be unique at the same time.

Even earthly powers are not required to make more than one of any work of art. (Indeed, they are generally discouraged from doing so.)

We now await the professor who looks at these odds, shakes his head, clears his throat, and says that the graphic merely demonstrates his thesis that you do not really exist.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Although I am fairly confident that the over 1000 ORFan genes, that were removed from the human gene count in the one study, is a fairly heavy underestimation for total number of unique ORFan genes in the human genome,,,
Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html
,,, even using the 1000 unique ORFan genes we can get a fairly rough outline of just how difficult it would be for neo-Darwiniam processes to account for the difference between chimps and humans.,,, In origin of life research we find that the 'hypothetical' first life requires somewhere around 'only' 250 different and unique proteins:
Signature in the Cell - Book Review - Ken Peterson Excerpt: If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power. http://www.spectrummagazine.org/reviews/book_reviews/2009/10/06/signature_cell
Yet the one in 10 to the 41,000th power 'problem' of originating 'just' those 250 unique proteins, by purely material processes for the first life, caused Lynn Margulis to quip:
Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011 Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis
as well it caused Robert Shapiro to quip:
The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011 Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)
Thus, contrary to what Margulis and Shapiro originally thought of the bridge from bacteria to man being much shorter than the bridge from non-life to life, I would hold that this finding of 1000 completely unique orphan genes in the human genome (being four times larger than the 250 proteins required for the origin of life itself) is AT LEAST as much of a problem, for purely material neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origination of, as it is for the purely material neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origin of life itself!
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.
Further notes on the 'tosh' fossil record of supposed human evolution:
“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a), Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - video http://vimeo.com/19080087 Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the supposed fossil evidence human evolution http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032597 When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. Richard Lewontin - Harvard Zoologist Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) "But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with." http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Mans_Earliest_Direct_Ancestors_Looked_More_Apelike_Than_Previously_Believed.asp A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/texas_hold_em_part_ii_calling_1.html#moreSee More ?"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001
etc.. etc.. etc.. Music and verse:
Johnny Diaz - More Beautiful You http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DPGYD7NX Genesis 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Although I am fairly confident that the over 1000 ORFan genes, that were removed from the human gene count in the one study, is a fairly heavy underestimation for total number of unique ORFan genes in the human genome,,,
Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html
,,, even using the 1000 unique ORFan genes we can get a fairly rough outline of just how difficult it would be for neo-Darwiniam processes to account for the difference between chimps and humans.,,, In origin of life research we find that the 'hypothetical' first life requires somewhere around 'only' 250 different and unique proteins:
Signature in the Cell - Book Review - Ken Peterson Excerpt: If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power. http://www.spectrummagazine.org/reviews/book_reviews/2009/10/06/signature_cell
Yet the one in 10 to the 41,000th power 'problem' of originating 'just' those 250 unique proteins, by purely material processes for the first life, caused Lynn Margulis to quip:
Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011 Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis
as well it caused Robert Shapiro to quip:
The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011 Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)
Thus, contrary to what Margulis and Shapiro originally thought of the bridge from bacteria to man being much shorter than the bridge from non-life to life, I would hold that this finding of 1000 completely unique orphan genes in the human genome (being four times larger than the 250 proteins required for the origin of life itself) is AT LEAST as much of a problem, for purely material neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origination of, as it is for the purely material neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origin of life itself!
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.
Further notes on the 'tosh' fossil record of supposed human evolution:
“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a), Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - video http://vimeo.com/19080087 Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the supposed fossil evidence human evolution http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032597 When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. Richard Lewontin - Harvard Zoologist Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) "But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with." http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Mans_Earliest_Direct_Ancestors_Looked_More_Apelike_Than_Previously_Believed.asp A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/texas_hold_em_part_ii_calling_1.html#moreSee More ?"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/...n6843/full/412131a0.html
etc.. etc.. etc.. Music and verse:
Johnny Diaz - More Beautiful You http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DPGYD7NX Genesis 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

@News The link is broken -- just remove the . at the end of the link you supplied.Stu7_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: For once, you are right. It's NoMolecularFossils 1.0. Pure fun! :)gpuccio_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

BA: Exactly!gpuccio_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, as to you mentioning ORFs in his human-chimp sequence comparison study, I guess it would be helpful to reveal just how deceptively biased neo-Darwinists can be in these types of sequence comparison studies by listing this study that you helped me with a while back: This following article shows that over 1000 'ORFan' genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, and that very well may directly code for proteins, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find any corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science!
Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm
The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true. If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique ORFan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off because they were not found in other supposedly related species, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that they may very well encode for biologically important proteins:
A survey of orphan enzyme activities Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244 Dr. Howard Ochman - Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona Excerpt of Proposal: The aims of this proposal are to investigate this enigmatic class of genes by elucidating the source and functions of “ORFans”, i.e., sequences within a genome that encode proteins having no homology (and often no structural similarity) to proteins in any other genome. Moreover, the uniqueness of ORFan genes prohibits use of any of homology-based methods that have traditionally been employed to establish gene function.,,, Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/comment-page-5/#comment-358868
In fact it turns out that the authors of the 'kick the ORFans out in the street' paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias: Here is a analysis by gpuccio: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/comment-page-6/#comment-358547 Moreover the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced:
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Genomes of similar species - Cornelius Hunter PhD. Excerpt: Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins. [8] Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. [11,12] ,,, etc.. etc… http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of
As alluded to above, and completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract
This following study, in which the functional role of ORFan genes was analyzed, the (Darwinian) researchers were 'very shocked' and 'taken aback' by what they found;
New Genes, New Brain - October 2011 Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,) http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/19/new-genes-new-brain/
I would like to point out that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes thus far found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome:
Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

DrREC, well you, as usual, are the one who is bluffing instead of presenting hard empirical evidence, for your atheistic position, that ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATES that purely unguided material processes can generate novel genes or proteins: Your first study (bluff) is a sequence comparison:
Excerpt: Cross-species analysis revealed interesting evolutionary paths of how this gene had originated from noncoding DNA sequences:
Geez DrREC, I was hoping after you were put on the spot to actually demonstrate the gain of a gene or protein, by purely material processes, you would come out swinging and ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE, scientifically, for all to see, the almighty power of evolution in action and show the actual origination of a novel gene or protein, by purely material processes, instead of just pointing to a sequence comparison that assumes its conclusion in the premise of its study. Oh well, let's see if you do any better on your second bluff (i mean study):
Descriptions of recently evolved genes suggest several mechanisms of origin including exon shuffling, gene fission/fusion, retrotransposition, duplication-divergence, and lateral gene transfer, all of which involve recruitment of preexisting genes or genetic elements into new function.
I can't seem to find random mutation or random variation specifically mentioned anywhere in that study of fruit flies and only secondarily alluded to in the duplicattion/divergence mechanism. (Isn't 'random mutation/variation' suppose to be the primary mechanism you are suppose to be trying to prove?), Moreover, Dr. Shapiro has pointed out this fact about the primary mechanisms your study does have listed:
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.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.
Moreover DrREC if we look specifically for Darwinian processes in Drosophila (fruit flies), we find once again that you are full of hot air:
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 ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells No matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo there are only three possible outcomes, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. What we never see is primary speciation much less macro-evolution - Jonathan Wells Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096
Your third gene duplication study gets a little closer to not being a bluff, but when we look closer at the last sentence in the abstract we find this peculiar statement:
Interestingly, in many cases the 'new' function of one copy is a secondary property that was always present, but that has been co-opted to a primary role after the duplication.
And when we look at another study we find this:
Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? - December 2010 - Excerpt: The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity, 2011 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract
Thus once again we find your atheistic case for neo-Darwinism severely wanting DrREC. You then go on to cite Dr. Behe's study. In fact you state:
As for Behe, why didn’t you include the functional-gain of information examples from his review? Oh right, that isn’t supposed to happen! OOPS.
But once again when we look at the details we find you are bluffing: Here are 3 'gain of function' mutations that you contend make your case for atheistic neo-Darwinism
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS, AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION” Michael J. Behe http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf Investigator action initiated at beginning of experiment 1. Deletion of 19 intercistronic nucleotides from RNA virus MS2 containing Shine-Dalgarno sequence and two hairpins 2. 4 nucleotide deletion in lysis gene of MS2 3. Separate viruses, f1 and IKe, engineered to carry distinct antibiotic resistance markers Underlying mutational response to investigator action; 1. One revertant deleted 6 nucleotides; another duplicated an adjoining 14- nucleotide sequence; missing functional coded elements substantially restored 2. Reading frame restored by deletions, insertions 3. In media containing both antibiotics, phages co-packaged into f1 protein coats; two-thirds of IKe genome deleted, second antibiotic gene captured by f1
Thus once again we find you to be extremely wanting for substantiating evidence. For you to cite as conclusive evidence, for neo-Darwinian evolution, a process that used the inherent programming of the cell to calculate 'compensatory mutations', which was arrived at after artificially induced deletion events and/or a manipulation by the investigators, is to be severely misleading, and maybe even downright deceptive if you have known these details I pointed out in advance! Here is a short video that briefly mentions the limits of 'compensatory mutations' in producing evidence for neo-Darwinism:
Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248
Perhaps you think all this bluster you put forth is all fine and well DrREC, but despite what you may think, neo-darwinism does not HAVE TO BE true as far as the scientific method is concerned. The scientific method could care less whether neo-Darwinism is true or not and only cares about what you can ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE to be true. Thus no matter how much you claim to the contrary, you have missed the mark of rigorous science by a huge margin, and have in fact revealed your severe philosophical bias of atheism. (And that is a observed fact!)bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

if you have a counter hypothesis that better fits the data, you are welcome to present it and the metrics backing it here.
Poof fits the data nicely. The game gpuccio plays is an updated version of no transitional fossils.Petrushka_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

DrREC: I can't see your point. That novel genes appear in species is a well known fact. Why should that support the neo darwinian model? And it is obvious that many of those novel genes will have high levels of dFSCI. Most proteins have. But take the paper about the human de novo gene, for instance. I belive I have already discussed it. In no way it supports a neo darwinian model. The gene, if it is really a gene, emerged form non coding DNSA, recent non coding DNA, and only in the end of its natural histopry itr became an ORF, so that it could be transcribed and translated. Therefore, NS cannot be invoked in the formation of the gene. It could have arisen by chance alone. But that is scarcely credible, because the protein is ling enough to have, almost certainly, huge amounts of dFSCI. You ask for a computation of dFSCI for that protein. I have already answered, some time ago. Being a new protein, we cannot apply the Durston method. And the protein, if it is confirmed, is really new: I have blasted the sequence, and it really seems to have absolutely no homologues. But that does not mean that we cannot make an attempt at computing, even if by approximation, its dFSCI. The other way to define the functional space of a protein os by means of studies about its sequence-structure-function relationship. That can be done, although it is much more difficult than the Durston method. Unfortunately, in this particular case, the protein has not been confirmed, its structure is unknown, its biochemical function is unknown. So, for the moment, neither you nor I can discuss any more about it. But maybe we will know more in some time. For the moment, I an very much reassured that a protein of almost 200 AAs, if it is really a new protein with a new fold and a new function, will certainly be shown to have a very high level of dFSCI (certainly more than the 150 bits I ususally consider a reasonable threshold for a biological system). If that is confirmed, an explanation based on pure chance will be untenable, and this will be a very good model of design detection.gpuccio_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

"DrREC, are you with the unsubstantiated sequence comparison studies again???" They are well substantiated, with excellent statistics and tests of multiple hypotheses to fit the data. The data is publicly available, and if you have a counter hypothesis that better fits the data, you are welcome to present it and the metrics backing it here. "Please do tell. Seems the last time I saw this type of bluff was by Nick Matzke." I think we've always provided references. I've posted this one maybe a dozen times here. No one has calculated the fsci for me yet. Wonder why. http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000734 or these: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/26/9935.full http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n12/abs/nrg2482.html Luskin's articles could be the weakest I've ever seen. He presents really nice data, I mean fine fine examples of novel gene formation or diversification after duplication. Again and again, he just handwaves that despite the observation, saying the finding is against the odds. What odds? Calculated how? Hey Joe, doesn't Newton's first rule tell us not to pile bs onto a natural explanation? Those interested can follow the links. Luskin does a nice job summarizing the data--but note the same weak attempt to explain the data away attached to each. As for Behe, why didn't you include the functional-gain of information examples from his review? Oh right, that isn't supposed to happen! OOPS.DrREC_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

DrREC, are you with the unsubstantiated sequence comparison studies again??? For you state:
I’ve provided a few examples of gradual formation of de novo genes, or gradual formation of new activities by gene duplication and divergence.
Please do tell. Seems the last time I saw this type of bluff was by Nick Matzke. And lo and behold,,,
Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information - September 2011 Excerpt: many papers which Nick (Matzke) would probably claim show the “origin of new genetic information” invoked natural selection, but then: did not identify a stepwise mutational pathway, did not identify what advantages might be gained at each step did not calculate the plausibility of this pathway evolving under known population sizes, mutation rates, and other relevant probabilistic resources, and in many cases DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE FUNCTION OF THE GENE, AND THUS HAD NO IDEA WHAT FUNCTION WAS BEING SELECTED FOR Is it persuasive to invoke natural selection as the cause of new genetic information when you don’t even know what function is being selected? This is why I said that in many cases, natural selection is used as a “magic wand.” It’s just asserted, even though no one really knows what was going on. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html#comment-11290411
Further notes on the deceptive tactics of atheistic neo-Darwinists for claiming new genes and proteins:
How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information - Casey Luskin - March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251 Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html
Funny DrREC, when push comes to shove you atheists are always full of hot air as far as putting any actual empirical evidence on the table!,,, I can't seem to find a single new gene are protein in Dr. Behe's survey of literature:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
bornagain77_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

"and not in gradual steps" I've provided a few examples of gradual formation of de novo genes, or gradual formation of new activities by gene duplication and divergence. No one can seem to calculate the change in fsci accurately for me. Pity. I'm beginning to think it is a made up, hand-waving metric. Maybe someone can prove me wrong? "But your demarcation between biology and other mediums is arbitrary and question-begging." Yeah, totally arbitrary to say the theory we apply to biology should be observed in biology! "It amounts to a proclamation that you’ll won’t believe something because you haven’t seen it" Umm....??? Or at least proof of it. Evidence for it. Something. Anything. Bueller? "so you’re going to believe in the other thing you’ve never seen." I've observed evolution in action, the power of selection acting on a random pool to create new information. "In the face of such evidence and so much more, that we’ve never seen one designed is paltry argument. It doesn’t tip the scales to make design any less than the best available explanation." Non-empirical science. This is new to me! What BS.DrREC_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

DrREC,
you can’t find an example in nature-of design exceeding the UPB arising at once.
Not at once, and not in gradual steps. But your demarcation between biology and other mediums is arbitrary and question-begging. It amounts to a proclamation that you'll won't believe something because you haven't seen it, so you're going to believe in the other thing you've never seen. The problem is not ignorantly disregarding evidence. Rather, you've composed your own arbitrary, inconsistently applied rule of logic that insulates you from even having to consider the evidence. Arguing that you've never seen such a thing designed doesn't magically stop it from being a vast network of self-replicating molecular machines that use sophisticated protocols to communicate both within themselves and between the specialized units they comprise. In the face of such evidence and so much more, that we've never seen one designed is paltry argument. It doesn't tip the scales to make design any less than the best available explanation.ScottAndrews2_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

DrREC,
So everyone here talks about first life and first genes, assumes they know something about that and its complexity, and infers a process never observed in nature occurred, rather than inferring the process we actually observe in the present occurred in the past.
You nailed it!ScottAndrews2_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Thank you DrREC and rhampton7 for honouring me with your responsesenglishmaninistanbul_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

One more time- The only process we observe constructing new, useful and functional multi-part systems is intentional design. Living organisms are full of functional multi-part systems. Therefor in accordance with uniformitarianism design is the inference- and it also follows Newton's first rule.Joseph_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Umm cars, computers and Stonehenge all exist in nature. And your strawman is still meaningless.Joseph_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Surely that’s the whole point of ID: the act of design/creation cannot be observed, therefore at best we can only talk about design inference. Are you saying there are no circumstances under which such an inference could be justified?
Not exactly. Certainly we can't observe events that happened in the past, and that's where inference comes in to play. However, as we see with many human-designed examples, often the artifact in question bears some evidence as to how it was manufactured. Furthermore, if non-human design was detected in the present, then it's certainly possible that the mechanism(s) would be observable. See ID Does Not Posit Supernatural Causesrhampton7_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

"the act of design/creation cannot be observed" Why not? In the thousands of sequenced genomes, with ability to infer phylogenetic relationships, no one can seem to point to a single emergence of fsci (not that anyone can or has actually calculated it). Instead, we observe the accumulation or loss of small amounts on information below the universal probability bound. So everyone here talks about first life and first genes, assumes they know something about that and its complexity, and infers a process never observed in nature occurred, rather than inferring the process we actually observe in the present occurred in the past. As JoeG about Newton's first law and which is more logical.DrREC_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Design beyond the universal probability bound has never been observed, merely assumed.
Sorry, a bit confused here. Surely that's the whole point of ID: the act of design/creation cannot be observed, therefore at best we can only talk about design inference. Are you saying there are no circumstances under which such an inference could be justified?englishmaninistanbul_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

One more line of evidence that impresses the 'miraculous' aspect is this;
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Plausible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
quote from preceding article:
'I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:' Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
Music:
Sara Groves - Precious Again (Exclusive Music Video Premiere!) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KYZZ7PNX
bornagain77_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

All human. Funny you can't find an example in nature-of design exceeding the UPB arising at once. I suspect you know what I meant.DrREC_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Computers, cars, Stonehenge,-> all beyond the UPB, all designed, all observed.Joseph_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Humans beget humans and bunnies beget bunnies- how does that help your positon?Joseph_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

The bottom of the visualization says:
Now go forth and feel and act like the miracle you are!
To which I would like to impress, a few more lines of evidence that each of us is 'miraculous':
In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
The following is far more visual in impressing the miraculous aspect of each of us:
Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Mathematician and medical image maker Alexander Tsiaras offers a stunning visualization of the process that in nine months takes an emerging human life from conception to birth. He speaks of "the marvel of this information," "the mathematical models of how these things are done are beyond human comprehension," "even though I look at this with the eyes of mathematician I look at this and marvel. How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?"
music
MercyMe - Beautiful http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
bornagain77_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Snark aside, not every human or bunny or bug that procreates is designing a genome from scratch, or adding information exceeding the universal probability bound.DrREC_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

"As I understand it the point of irreducible complexity is that we keep finding sets of coincidences that all have to happen at the same time. Where does coincidence end and suspicion begin? Enter the universal probability bound…" Exactly. Design beyond the universal probability bound has never been observed, merely assumed.DrREC_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

"Ya see officer I took Viagra before I went shopping, she bent over to pick something up and badda-bing, badda-boom, an accidental mating."Joseph_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

DrREC, the difference between the two seems as clear as day to me and I would like to try and explain why. I don't claim to be any kind of expert, so I hope you'll forgive my layman's ways and put me right if I'm wrong. Let's say I play host to you here in Istanbul, and take you to the Grand Bazaar where there are quite literally millions of trinkets and oddities up for sale. Of your own accord you suddenly decide to buy one as a souvenir. On our way home I muse to you, "Isn't it interesting how out of the millions of things you could have bought, you chose to buy that particular trinket." You might find this observation of passing interest, but not worthy of any real investigation. But now what if I tell you that before you came here to Istanbul, I went to one of the stalls in the bazaar, picked out one of the trinkets, wrote your name in an inconspicuous spot, and put it back. We get out the trinket you bought to check and, lo and behold, there is your name! What a coincidence! I'm sure you would immediately start to suspect that I'd written your name into the trinket after you'd bought it while you weren't looking, or somehow maneuvered you into buying it, or you would look for some other explanation. Either way, I'm quite sure you wouldn't believe it was a coincidence. OK my parents brought me into existence instead of countless others that might have been genetically possible. What a happy coincidence. But the human gene pool eventually producing me is a result of a series of unrelated coincidences, and are therefore just that, coincidences. As I understand it the point of irreducible complexity is that we keep finding sets of coincidences that all have to happen at the same time. Where does coincidence end and suspicion begin? Enter the universal probability bound... Strictly speaking, is it impossible that you just happened to buy the trinket I wrote your name in, by pure coincidence? No, of course not. So now we have to ask, which is the more reasonable conclusion? If I insist it was a coincidence, you'll just say I'm being unreasonable. Then I'll say you're imagining things. Then you'll say "But what are the odds?", and I'll say "But where's your proof?", and so on and so forth. Basically there is no scientifically airtight, undeniable way of defining "reasonable", or any that I know of, which I suppose is why we're all still here.englishmaninistanbul_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Oh my goodness, I accidentally mated... what the ???!?!John D_{November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply