Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reductionist Predictions Always Fail

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 Rod Dreher writes:

Time and time again, an experimental gadget gets introduced — it doesn’t matter if it’s a supercollider or a gene chip or an fMRI machine — and we’re told it will allow us to glimpse the underlying logic of everything. But the tool always disappoints, doesn’t it? We soon realize that those pretty pictures are incomplete and that we can’t reduce our complex subject to a few colorful spots. So here’s a pitch: Scientists should learn to expect this cycle — to anticipate that the universe is always more networked and complicated than reductionist approaches can reveal.

…Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, once divided the world into two categories: clocks and clouds. Clocks are neat, orderly systems that can be solved through reduction; clouds are an epistemic mess, “highly irregular, disorderly, and more or less unpredictable.” The mistake of modern science is to pretend that everything is a clock, which is why we get seduced again and again by the false promises of brain scanners and gene sequencers. We want to believe we will understand nature if we find the exact right tool to cut its joints. But that approach is doomed to failure. We live in a universe not of clocks but of clouds.

Comments
And exactly why would you believe a stable genome for over plus 30 million years would support evolution?bornagain77
July 2, 2010
July
07
Jul
2
02
2010
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
“I have emailed Dr. Cano and linked him to your post #90, asking him whether his work supports an argument against evolution.”
No response so far.Petrushka
July 2, 2010
July
07
Jul
2
02
2010
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Freelurker: Thank you for the clarification. I think we substantially agree. Engineers can be certainly left in peace, and no "engineering" tag is specially needed by ID.gpuccio
June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
@gpuccio Back to your comments:
To go back to my example of myoglobin, we have to know what myoglobin does, and how it does it. That is a task which has to be accomplished, and if you say that such a task is more specific of an engineer’s approach, that’s fine with me. But that task is a fundamental part of the ID discourse.
We are not way far apart on this. But I say let's "know them by their fruits" i.e., by the products they produce. Finding out what something does and how it does it is not an engineer's approach, it's an engineer's desired end result (in engineering analysis.) Yes, if an IDist is going to attribute intelligence to a pattern then they have to learn what the pattern is first. But the end result of ID is putting a tag on something, a tag that says "attributable to intelligent design," "attributable to regularity" or "attributable to chance." And, btw, learning about biological structures and functions is not a distinguishing feature of ID. It is also fundamental to what evolutionary biologists do.
Then there is the causal part. ID does not stop to “determining the design”. It says that the function, if present and complex, can be attributed to intelligent intervention. But what would an engineer say?
The engineer would say; "I can see that this attribution to intelligent intervention is very important to you; if fact, you appear to be totally consumed by it. But I'm an engineer. I enjoy inventing things and figuring out how things work. That's what they asked me to do and that's what I get paid for. I can't justify charging that kind of discussion on my timecard, especially since nobody knows what the intervention would have been. Let's get together on this again next Sunday."
So, I still don’t unbderstand where is the equivocation.
Based on your last comment, you do not appear to be one of those who outright conflates reverse engineering with design detection. You are not equivocating on the word "design."Freelurker_
June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
@gpuccio Thanks for your latest response. It was clear and it helped me understand where you, individually, are coming from.
Still I don’t understand the emphasis on engineering or not, but I will try just the same to answer, also to clarify further the terminology.
Yes, I should explain my emphasis on engineering. I'll do that in this comment, so not everything in this comment is directed at you. I'm an engineer who has a problem when IDists misrepresent my profession to further their social/religious movement. IDists often kid themselves and others that IDists take an engineering perspective. Dembski and Marks have even proclaimed that ID belongs to the engineering sciences. But the IDist perspective is that certain aspects of nature were engineered by an intelligence. No field of engineering assumes or concludes that at all. (This is not to say, however, that there is anything about engineering that is in opposition to that, as a general prospect.) Engineers, when they are doing engineering, take a materialistic and mechanistic view of nature. I came to this thread because it seemed to me that DATCG and johnnyb were conflating (1) the figuring out of how something worked or how it was put together (aka reverse engineering) with (2) attributing certain patterns to intelligence (aka design detection.) scordova helpfully provided a clear example of someone doing just that. I had seen this conflation before, and I had figured that the root cause of it was just equivocation on the word "design." As I explained above, Dembski's and Behe's use of the term "design" it is very different from the way it is used in engineering. But, it now seems to me that something is going on besides the equivocation. For some of you (johnnyb; maybe, scordova; definitely) the act of figuring out how something works is in and of itself "doing ID." If so, what do you ID guys stand for? At one point "doing ID" meant supporting the claim that certain aspects of nature were best explained by intelligence. Next it was just studying patterns that indicate intelligence. Now it's just figuring out how stuff works (?)Freelurker_
June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Mr Hayden, I loaded this video for in it Dr. Craig speaks of abstract numbers in comparison to "the first cause" The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Petrushka you state: "Quantum theory has been described as the most nearly prefect theory in science. Every experimental test has confirmed its predictions to the limits of instruments. And yet it is incomplete. It fails to account for gravity." Would you believe that a strong case can be made for Jesus "unifying" quantum field theory and General relativity? I find it extremely interesting 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 tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist? 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. This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time "unifying" mathematically into a "theory of everything".(Einstein, Penrose). The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Field theory), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology - in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality. http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf "There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen." - G J Chaitin http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/bookgoedel_6.pdf Yet, this "unification", into a "theory of everything", between what is in essence the "infinite world of Quantum Mechanics" and the "finite world of the space-time of General Relativity" seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/ The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine Thus, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth, and of humans, brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, the findings of modern science are very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth."bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Petrushka you state: And yet when you kick a really big rock really hard it hurts, regardless of axiomatic reasoning. But what are you actually stubbing your toe on Petrushka? Can you stub your toe on information? Yes! Excerpt: the most solid, unchanging, indestructible “things” in the atoms of a rock are the unchanging, universal, transcendent, information constants, that are holding the rock together, exercising overriding dominion of all quantum events. Transcendent information constants that have not varied one iota from the universes creation. ------ Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,, as well Petrushka photons reduce to "infinite transcendent information" Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nuclear-power-a-new-movement-you-won%E2%80%99t-believe/#comment-355516 Thus Petruska you have the foundational "material" entity of this universe, photons, made out of "infinite" transcendent information,, and these photons, of which all mass is made, are constrained in their actions by universal transcendent information constants. The whole universe is reducible to "The Word"!!!bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
I will return to this thread if and when I hear from Dr. Cano. I would expect something within a week, if he responds at all.Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
I have no problem accepting the never-ending incompleteness of science. And yet when you kick a really big rock really hard it hurts, regardless of axiomatic reasoning. Some statements about the physical world are more useful than others. The accumulation of useful statements is the business of science. Mainstream biology leads to the prediction of and finding of fossils like Lucy and Tiktaalik. Whether you find this kind of knowledge useful or important is a matter of your personal psychology. But the methods of mainstream science are the methods that advance this kind of knowledge. Occasionally they lead to a new technology or a new medicine, or even a new beer. When you assert that a large chunk of history is outside the purview of mainstream science, you assert that there is no point in going forward. Whatever the cause of historical events, they are not the result of regular processes. No more regularities can be found. Historically, this has not been a useful approach.Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Petrushka, You are confused.
“Information” is an abstraction, and abstractions, by definition, are simplifications of reality. If there is an apparent discrepancy between what is observed in biochemistry and the abstraction of it, the observations win.
All observations of our material world are abstractions of reality. All information of our material world is an abstraction of reality. All information about our material world came about by observation. Information does not exist as material particles among the other particles of matter in the universe, it requires observation (perhaps more aptly stated as perception) in order to exist at all. Perception creates a semiotic abstraction of reality to become instantiated within a medium, which may then be transfered to other mediums.Upright BiPed
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
Pure mathematics and formal logic are things unto themselves, but applied mathematics and mathematical descriptions of natural phenomena always seem to fall short.
Falling short is an abstraction.
Quantum theory has been described as the most nearly prefect theory in science. Every experimental test has confirmed its predictions to the limits of instruments.
Predictions are abstractions.
It is in that sense — incompleteness — that I assert that abstractions never completely describe reality.
"Incompleteness" and "never" are abstractions.
Reason proceeds from axioms, premises and assumptions, and there are no pure axiomatic truths about physical reality.
But there are about reason herself. If you deny this, you cannot go on reasoning at all.
Reasoning about approximations has certainly proved useful over the centuries, but it is not TRUTH.
All we can ever glean by descriptions of the natural world are only approximations. You're exactly right, we can never get to truth by studying the natural world.Clive Hayden
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Abstractions are reality to me, more so than material...
Pure mathematics and formal logic are things unto themselves, but applied mathematics and mathematical descriptions of natural phenomena always seem to fall short. Quantum theory has been described as the most nearly prefect theory in science. Every experimental test has confirmed its predictions to the limits of instruments. And yet it is incomplete. It fails to account for gravity. Mathematical descriptions of gravity are also incomplete. That's physics, our hardest and soundest science. It is in that sense -- incompleteness -- that I assert that abstractions never completely describe reality. Reason proceeds from axioms, premises and assumptions, and there are no pure axiomatic truths about physical reality. We obtain approximations through observation and research. Reasoning about approximations has certainly proved useful over the centuries, but it is not TRUTH.Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Very well said Mr. Hayden,, Petrushka you stated: “Information” is an abstraction, and abstractions, by definition, are simplifications of reality. No Petrushka, Information is reality! "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx As well, "pure transcendent information" is now shown to be "conserved". (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical events, past, present, and future, already must exist. This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of energy which cannot be created or destroyed by any "material" means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics) Conservation Of Transcendent Information - 2007 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995275 These following studies verified what I had suspected in the preceding video: How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706 Of note: conclusive evidence for the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics is firmly found in the preceding experiment when coupled with the complete displacement of the infinite transcendent information of "Photon c": http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzBmcjR0eG1neg In extension to the 2007 video, the following video and article shows quantum teleportation breakthroughs have actually shed a little light on exactly what, or more precisely on exactly Whom, has created this universe: Scientific Evidence For God (Logos) Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995300 etc... etc.. etc..bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
“Information” is an abstraction, and abstractions, by definition, are simplifications of reality.
That's quite an abstraction you have there then Petrushka, because that is certainly a simplification of reality. Abstractions, in reality, can be more complicated or less complicated than reality, it just depends on what you mean by simplifying and what you mean by reality. Abstractions are reality to me, more so than material, which, as veilsofmaya pointed out, isn't so solid anymore. But things like love and mercy, justice and dignity, mathematics and morality, are just as solid as they ever were, for we understand their makeup. We understand what makes them what they are, whereas we have no equivalent understanding of what makes up matter, or why two things connected physically should be connected philosophically. We know that the law of non-contradiction and 2+2=4 are necessities, true and solid, what the mental and philosophical necessity is behind why a bird that flies must also lay eggs, we cannot say. All we can say is that we've seen them together, but that is not to say that they must, by some hidden philosophical necessity, always fly and lay eggs together. We must not say that all apples should be golden, green or red, and that there is a mental necessity against their being blue. There is no such necessity that we can see. So the "reality" is the vision, the metaphysical understanding of things we can actually understand, which are metaphysical things. We can only describe the material world, and on the most basic levels cannot even describe it very well, we must come up with metaphysical metaphors like a dead or alive cat in a box to even attempt to describe it. But it must sink in that natural descriptions are not explanations. Natural descriptions do not add-up to reasonable proscriptions of nature, that is, proscription of nature understood by our reason.Clive Hayden
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
You seem to have quite the talent for completely failing to grasp the immensity of the universe wide chasm that separates purely material processes from functional information:
"Information" is an abstraction, and abstractions, by definition, are simplifications of reality. If there is an apparent discrepancy between what is observed in biochemistry and the abstraction of it, the observations win. Evolution is observed. The designer is neither ovserved nor described. ID has no description of the designer, no hypotheses concerning the nature of the designer, the times an places at which the designer may have acted, nor any description or hypothesis concerning the methods or motives of the designer. In short, we have a choice between evolution, which is an incomplete analysis, but which suggests lines of research, and ID which basically sits on the sidelines and points out gaps. ID rejects the mainstream history of life while proposing no alternative. Other than incredulity and irrelevant calculations of probability, ID has nothing to add to ongoing research. I suppose by harping on gaps, ID motivates some scientists to fill them, but they would be filled anyway. Much of science is driven by available technology. Some gaps are not amenable to research because they are beyond the reach of current technology. It's the weekend, so I expect no email response for a while, if ever.Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Petrushka, "I have emailed Dr. Cano and linked him to your post #90, asking him whether his work supports an argument against evolution." Seeing as Dr. Cano has navigated treacherous Darwinian waters for almost twenty years with this evidence for stability, it will be interesting to see his reply. I bet a large measured dose of diplomacy will be forthcoming. But my question to you Petrushka is why in the world does not all the other evidence that has been presented to you count against evolution? You seem to have quite the talent for completely failing to grasp the immensity of the universe wide chasm that separates purely material processes from functional information: Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html further notes: These following articles refute Lenski's supposed "evolution" of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli: Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli - Michael Behe Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we've seen evolution do, then there's no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell. http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O Lenski's e-coli - Analysis of Genetic Entropy Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteriabornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Phaedros,
I wonder if Clive has something against bornagain….
Not at all.Clive Hayden
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
I have emailed Dr. Cano and linked him to your post #90, asking him whether his work supports an argument against evolution.Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Petruska, to be as clear as possible on the yeast, the gain in ability to utilize a broader scope of sugars will be found to come at a cost of original "optimal" functionality of the yeast in the wild: The parallel test for bacteria is found in this test: Initially, it was difficult to demonstrate differences between wild-type and clinical strains in a rich media (Nutrient or Typticase-soy agar). There were no differences in growth rate or colony size. However, after switching to minimal media and observing hourly, the differences were readily observed. In order to confirm and extend the differences in growth rates between the sensitive BS303S strain (isolated from pond water) and the resistant WFR strain, a fitness/competition assay was performed. This assay sought to simulate famine conditions in the natural environment by utilizing minimal media and to evaluate the wild-type against ampicillin resistant, clinical strains exhibiting loss of prodigiosin production. Once subjected to conditions that were “harsh,” differences were seen in their performance (growth rate and robustness of colonies). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Petrushka, your yeast example is very much like Lenski's "cuddled" e-coli.bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Petrushka, your references are all dated to 2005 and earlier and are overturned by the 2009 study of 419 million year old extinct bacteria that confirmed Vreeland's methodology! You claim yeast has confirmed a gain in functional complexity by utilizing a broader scope of carbohydrates, but exactly what have you confirmed? are the modern strains more fit in the wild than the ancient strain is as I confirmed to a fitness test? Petruska you are imposing your interpretation on to the evidence: Since you can't believe Dr. Cano's word on there being 3 sources of independent verification I suggest you e-mail him for the proof. He is personable and should respond if you ask nicely. notes: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.aspbornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/1143 http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/1/e93.1 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/9/1637Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Petrushka, the bacteria are confirmed to be ancient by 3 outside sources, the DNA has been sequenced, and the small changes are confirmed to be due to Genetic Entropy not genetic drift...
Just give me a link to the three independent confirmations. That's all I ask. I've spent an hour googling and all I find are arguments that the "unchanged" DNA is contamination. As for genetic entropy, the scientist who is now in the beer business says the difference is that modern yeast can metabolize more kinds of carbohydrates. Is that consistent with entropy?Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Of note to the main topic of reductionism, I think this is very interesting: the complexity of computing the actions of even simple atoms quickly exceeds the capacity of our supercomputers of today: Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy - June 2010 Excerpt: Although they could confirm the effect qualitatively using complicated computations, they came up with a time offset of only five attoseconds. The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. "The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today's supercomputers," explains Yakovlev. http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.htmlbornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Petrushka, the bacteria are confirmed to be ancient by 3 outside sources, the DNA has been sequenced, and the small changes are confirmed to be due to Genetic Entropy not genetic drift, for you to just restate your position against what was established is personal incredulity on your part and is not science. For you to overturn the fact that was established you appealed to yeast, but have you, or any other "expert" witnessed yeast "evolving" past trivial variation within kind that stays within the principle of genetic entropy? Have you cited anything other than your personal belief? Of course not, for no such evidence exist or can exist since it would violate known principles of science!bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
MY expectations are clear. If the amber organisms are confirmed to be ancient, and if their DNA is sequenced, they will show a pattern of genetic drift consistent with our understanding of molecular clocks.
I think I mentioned this, but it's worth repeating: one of the claims made for beer made from the ancient organisms is that it is different because the yeast is different. Commercial product claims are not heavily regulated, so I wouldn't use this as scientific evidence. But it demonstrates that the scientist who found the ancient organism expects them to be genetically different from modern organisms.Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Petrushka, To further solidify my claim for Genetic Entropy explaining the small amount of change witnessed in the almost exact genetic sequences of the modern bacteria from the ancient bacteria: Raul Cano states in this article: "After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber. http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=388:raul-cano-career-profile&catid=75:career-profiles&Itemid=219 Commentary from another article: "Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms -- some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the "impossible" is true." http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=281961 Thus with outside verification from 3 sources,, this test,,,,,,,, In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the “Fitness Test” I had asked him about: Dr. Cano stated: “We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative “ancient” B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.”: Fitness test which compared the ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki ,,,,,,, is further solidified. Petrushka what you need to overturn this "fact" for Genetic entropy is solid empirical evidence and not just personal incredulity on your part or any other "experts" part that you may cite.bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
I don't see that you've walked me through anything. I ask for a clear and coherent statement of your point in your own words. My assertion was that genomes change over time. I made no reference to morphologies changing over time. The evidence you cited does not address the question of genomes changing over time. To the extent they discuss DNA, they are contradictory. One study shows no change, but hasn't been independently replicated. The other study shows either vast change, or degradation of the genome. All I am asking for is a clear statement of your expectations. Do genomes change over time, and what pattern would expect to find if the amber organism DNA is sequenced? MY expectations are clear. If the amber organisms are confirmed to be ancient, and if their DNA is sequenced, they will show a pattern of genetic drift consistent with our understanding of molecular clocks. If you are aware of any journal articles discussing the sequencing of amber organisms, I'd appreciate a link or a reference.Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Petrushka, I am not walking you through it again. I have made my point clearly and you have just stated nothing but blind faith save for the one article which I addressed but you did not heed.bornagain77
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Petrushka, the morphologies of ancient bacteria are surprisingly stable:
I haven't been discussing morphologies. I've asked several times, as plainly as I can, whether you are claiming that genomes don't change over time. I asked if any genomes from the amber organisms have been sequenced, and if so, are they the same or different from modern organisms. You've mentioned two examples of gene sequences. One was identical to modern organism and almost certainly the result of contamination. I don't see that those findings have been independently replicated. The other example involved DNA snippets that are entirely unlike any current living organism. So instead of referring me to YouTube videos, which I am unlikely to watch, how about explaining in your own words, exactly what your point is. You seem to be arguing that in some lineages, genomic change hasn't occurred, but your evidence doesn't address this. If there are lineages where genetic drift hasn't occurred, what would that say about genetic entropy?Petrushka
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply