Science and Freethinking

_{GilDodgen
September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

It’s perfectly true. Gene sequences are not determined in any way by chemistry. They are read and transcripted and translated by complex biological machines that work using also the laws of chemistry, but their capacity to do what they do depends on their structure and informational content, not on the laws of chemistry. The genetic code is not a law of chemistry. It is a symbolic coresponcence between codons of nucleotides and aminoacids. No laws of chemistry connect the two things.
So, by implication, you can change what a gene does without making any physical changes to the organism in any way If this isn't true then there HAS to be a connection between the two things that is based in MATTER! If it IS true then can you explain how I change the way genes work without changing any part of the organism?DrBot_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Now, as far as science is concerned, a common heuristic is to choose the simplest possible explanation. Darwinism offers much more complicated explanations compared to ID.
Which is simpler, e=mc2 or goddidit? In simplistic terms, goddidit is always a simpler explanation than any scientific theory because it explains everything by invoking an unknowable, all powerful entity. It also explains nothing for the same reasons.DrBot_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

24.1.1.1.3 Timbo, Philosophy: It is your right to choose suitable explanations about what you see. You may even wish to accept solipsism. The point I am making is that I am free to choose whatever explanation seems to make more sense to me. As simple as that. The "no purpose/no goal" argumenation makes no sense to me because I see things contrary to that every day of my life. Why should anyone want to choose anything making sense for an explanation if ultimately nothing makes sense? Design argumentation on the whole was not born yesterday and it has deep roots in scientific/philosophical thought. It appeals to me more than nihilistic Darwinism. Now, as far as science is concerned, a common heuristic is to choose the simplest possible explanation. Darwinism offers much more complicated explanations compared to ID.Eugene S_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

DrBot, Not convincing enough. Darwinism fails to account for so complex a machinery of life. I guess that's what GPuccio meant. This mechanism clearly could not have emerged spontaneously via natural selection over random change. That is simply operationally impossible! There is absolutely no evidence of anything remotely so complex emerging spontaneously.Eugene S_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

It sounds like magic? Yes, it does. But it is true.
LOL, no gpuccio it sounds like a MECHANISM based on physics and chemistry! Go back to school!DrBot_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

as to 'differential reproduction', that was mentioned previously in this thread, here is a interesting article that just came out on ENV that is somewhat directly related:
Inconsistent Nature: The Enigma of Life's Stupendous Prodigality - James Le Fanu Excerpt: Many species that might seem exceptionally well adapted for "the survival of the fittest" are surprisingly uncommon. The scarce African hunting dog has the highest kill rate of any predator on the savannah, while cheetahs may have no difficulty in feeding themselves thanks to their astonishing speediness -- but are a hundred times less common than lions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/inconsistent_nature051281.html
bornagain77_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

Steve, thank you. You are really very kind. Your feedback is sincerely appreciated.gpuccio_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

What I would really like to see from the ID community is an honest statement like, "We don't really understand how evolution works, so we keep quoting these preposterously huge numbers that only apply to the weird misunderstanding of evolution that we believe in." Some examples: Search spaces. A typical ID claim is that evolution has to search through the entire range of possible DNA patterns (for instance, 4^100 = 1.6^60 for a 100 base pair patch of DNA) to find the minute percentage of those patterns that are biologically usefull. I'd like to see a statement like, "We're sorry for stating that evolution has to search through 1.6^60 combinations to find one that works. To do that would require changing all 100 base pairs at once and evolution obviously doesn't do that. It actually changes one or two bases at once meaning it searches four or sixteen places that are very very near the known good position the parental organism occupies." Or how about this one: "We're very sorry that we said that information can't be created without intelligent intervention. It turns out that every mutation creates new information and natural selection then weeds out the bad information and saves the biologically useful information." Statements like these would go a long way towards - not exactly bringing credibility to ID, but at least reducing the jaw-droppingly dumb statements that automatically discredit it to anybody with some knowledge of evolution, informatics or biology.dmullenix_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

Chris Doyle at 3.2.1.2.: "Similarity is as much an indication of common design as it is common ancestry." Yeah, Daniel. Prove that all your fancy evidence showing familial similarities and common descent isn't just an Intelligent Designer making things LOOK like evolution did it! Did it ever occur to you that maybe The Designer WANTS the species to be descended from each other in a nested heirarchy, just like evolution would have done it if The Designer hadn't done it first? Thought not. Tattoo this on your chest, Darwin Boy: The Designer can design any way He wants. If He wants to make it look like mindless evolution did it, He can do so and there's no way you will ever be able to prove He didn't! So there!dmullenix_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, I have been reading UD for over two years now. I have to say your last two posts IMO are the best (straightforward,clear and concise)take down of a design denier's argument I have seen yet. Great stuff and I greatly appreciate the time you take to reply to and rebut darwinian arguments.Steve_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

DrBot: THE POINT is that the probability calculations you make are meaningless without this knowledge. Discovering a drastically simpler replicator, that is a viable FUCA, than the ones you make the calculation on would completely change the result of that calculation. Well, then discover it. Good luck. In the meantime, my calculations are for things that exist (genes, proteins), and that darwinists try to explain with stupid theories. Again, I am interested in science, not imagination. Imagination is good to defend blind religions like darwinism. Science is about facts and their explanation. If you know that it is possible for many of the required sub components to form naturally, just not all connected together in the right way, they your search should NOT assume that you start WITHOUT some of the components already present. You evade, again. My calculations are about basic protein domains, that are functional units. You speak of subcomponents that do not exist. Imagination, again. Blind faith, again. What about facts? So Lipid bilayers and amino acids form essential parts of a functioning replicator but contribute no functional information? They contribute no functional information to protein sequences. That's very obvious. I have never discussed lipid bilayers or the formation of aminoacids. I have given you all your lipid bilayers and all your amonacids for free, as a gift. What I want to know is how do you explain protein sequences, starting from your lipid bilayers and aminoacids, or whatever. Or are you saying that you know which components can form naturally, and have discounted them from the calculation – in which case show me the evidence to back up your assumptions! What assumptions? Again, I am just asking, how do you explain complex functional sequences, even if you already have the single aminaocids? How do you explain complex functional protein genes, even if you already have individual nucleotides? Is it so difficult to understand a simple question? How aminoacids or individual nuxcleotides were formed is irrelevant to that question. Let's say they are there. The question is about the functional information in the digital sequence, not about the generation of the raw components of the sequence. What has DNA got to do with it? I was, as you can see in what I wrote, referring to the chemical components that would be required for a minimal self replicator. If many of these components (Lipid bilayers and amino acids) are extant then they, in terms of the monkey methaphor, are words, not letters. Again, what replicator? How can we discuss something that dioes not exist? I am discussing genes and proteins. They exist. They must be explained. if you want to make a good argument about probabilities then you need to start by understanding what probabilities you are actually calculating! But I have always been very clear about the probabilityies I am discussing. I am discussing the probability of generating the complex functional information present in basci protein domains by darwinain evolution. That is clear, simple and explicit. What you are talkinf of is not: hypothetical replicators, lipid bilayers that have nothing to do with protien information, words or building blocks that you never define, a whole lot of imaginary concepts, without a single fact or argument. So gene sequences exist independently of chemistry! Glad you made that clear, now can you show me an example of a functioning gene sequence that is not based on chemistry? It's perfectly true. Gene sequences are not determined in any way by chemistry. They are read and transcripted and translated by complex biological machines that work using also the laws of chemistry, but their capacity to do what they do depends on their structure and informational content, not on the laws of chemistry. The genetic code is not a law of chemistry. It is a symbolic coresponcence between codons of nucleotides and aminoacids. No laws of chemistry connect the two things. It's strange that you choose to refute such elementary concepts.gpuccio_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

DrBot: Why? I’m an abiogenesis skeptic! You don't believe it happened? So you will only listen to my argument that the way these probabilities are calculated is wrong unless I demonstrate how complete abiogenesis works. No, but at least some tentative explanation of how your "contingencies" should generate complex functional information would be appreciated. Sounds like magic to me Got any science to back that up? Sure. It is common knowledge, but as it seems that you are not specially acquainted with biology (nothing bad in that), I will try to sunnarize it for you. You can check all that I say anywhere. The protein gene is a sequence of nucleotides. They can be interpreted as the sequence of a protein through a symbolic code, known as the genetic code. That is a code in base four (four nucleotides) and made of codons of three nucleotides. It is a redundant code (64 values for 20 aminoacids plus stop codons). DNA works as a mass memory. Ir is a rather inert molecule, very appropriate for storing information. The DNA molecule has absolutely no chemical connection to the proteins whose information it contains. The synthesis of the protein from the DNA gene is made possible by two fundamental mechanisms: transcription and translation. Let's skip transcriprion for the moment, and le't focus on translation. Translation is the final process that transforms the information in the nucleotide sequence in the DNA gene into the real protein with its sequence of aminoacids. Now, translation is made possible by a very complex apparatus, made essentially of three components: the transfer RNAs, the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, and the ribosome. Let's focus our attention on the synthetases. These are the pert of that complex machine which has the key to the translation. Indeed, they are 20 different proteins, very complex proteins, one for each aminoacid, divided in two classes. Each protein is made of hundreds of aminoacids, up to more than one thousand. It's those proteins that match the right aminoacid to the correct tRNA, bearing the corresponding anticodon, ensuring that the code is correctly translated. There is no physical connection between the amionoacid and the anticodon, indeed they are at the two extremes of the tRNA molecule. It is the specific protein that is designed so that it may connect the rught aminoacid to the right tRNA. And guess waht allows each specific protein to recognize the correct amioacid and to bind it to the correct tRNA? Obviously, its specific sequence of AAs, humdreds of them for each of the 20 proteins. And what codes for that sequences? The corresponding DNA genes, regularly translated by the same mechanism. It sounds like magic? Yes, it does. But it is true.gpuccio_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

The point you are commenting on as made by Chris is actually a really bad point. How does the evolution of humans indicate a purpose? I think your last sentence says it all.Timbo_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

DrBot,
So it is my responsibility to provide the calculations that show that your example has the ‘lots of info’ that you claim it has?
No, I'm not asking you to calculate the information required in my example. (I didn't give you nearly enough information.) But if you claim that the possible formation of what may or may not have been early cell components make the assembly of self-replicators plausible, you should already have considered those factors rather than optimistically ignoring them.
When it comes to the probabilities involved with OOL, the only people actually doing any real work that can narrow down exactly what the probabilities are, are the OOL researchers.
I don't see how an OOL researcher could narrow that down. How do you assess the information content of assembly instructions without knowing them? But I'd be curious to know what that estimate is. On the other hand, do you need to be an OOL researcher to guestimate that the assembly instructions for a self-replicator are upwards of 1,000 bits? Dead-on accuracy is not the issue here. I think most people will recognize how backwards it is that I am the one asked to estimate the amount of information required to assemble the components of a self-replicator. Isn't the answer at least as important as determining whether those components can be synthesized? Here's my generous estimate: More than 1000 bits. My basis? You can't assemble a home gym with 1000 bits of information. And that doesn't even include the tools which aren't a part of the finished product. Is that more or less than what OOL researchers have estimated?ScottAndrews_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

You don’t think it is a lot? You’re going to ignore it unless someone else counts it for you? How scientific is that?
So it is my responsibility to provide the calculations that show that your example has the 'lots of info' that you claim it has? well at least ID is consistent in what it demands ;) When it comes to the probabilities involved with OOL, the only people actually doing any real work that can narrow down exactly what the probabilities are, are the OOL researchers. ID is not actually doing any research in this area as far as I can see, they are just making claims about the probabilities of events that we know very little about. The actual scientists meanwhile are trying to increase our knowledge of these events.DrBot_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

You don't think it is a lot? You're going to ignore it unless someone else counts it for you? How scientific is that?ScottAndrews_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

How much information is that? It renders the presence of potentially functional parts irrelevant.
Thats the whole point - how much information is it? Just saying - well its lots - isn't very scientific.DrBot_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

DrBot,
So Lipid bilayers and amino acids form essential parts of a functioning replicator but contribute no functional information?
Suppose you take the parts for a home gym (I use this only because I know they are a pain to put together,) add random components from ten other home gyms and dump them all on the floor. True, some information is present in the form of completed parts which may fit together. But in what sense does it contribute to anything functional? It's not functional without the instructions that distinguish relevant parts from irrelevant parts, describe how to assemble them, and how the finished product will work. And you need someone to process and follow those instructions. How much information is that? It renders the presence of potentially functional parts irrelevant. That's why I find such speculation so curious. It leaps from the potential formation of components with potential functionality and imagines them all assembled and working together.ScottAndrews_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Please show, with some evidence, how your contingencies lead to biological replicators, to proteins, to DNA, and so on.
Why? I'm an abiogenesis skeptic!
Then I will listen to your “argument”. We must talk science, not phylosophy or myth or religion.
So you will only listen to my argument that the way these probabilities are calculated is wrong unless I demonstrate how complete abiogenesis works. Ok, but first please show in complete detail how the designer created life, what methods they used etc (apart from just !POOF! ) I won't listen to your arguments unless you tell me how goddidit!
No. The connection is purely symbolic and informational.
Sounds like magic to me ;) Got any science to back that up?
The simplest biological replicators we know are the simplest autonomous bacteria. Being an empirical person, I consider that my model of biological replicator. Show me something different, and we can discuss. Again, this is a place for science, not for imaginary hypothetical possibilities without any trace of evidence.
So your probability calculations could be deeply flawed - imagine doing this for something that can fly, I ask what is the minimum required for something to fly or glide, you point me to a 1920's aircraft, OK, well here is my paper aeroplane. If you REALLY want to calculate the probability of a self replicator forming via chemistry then you need to try and understand what the minimum requirements are for self replication - They could be drastically less than the simplest life we can see today, but they may not, and even if we can determine that minimum it is still not directly related to biology because we need to show that this replicator could have formed and then led to biology. This is, in part, what some in the OOL community are actually doing (you know, real research) THE POINT is that the probability calculations you make are meaningless without this knowledge. Discovering a drastically simpler replicator, that is a viable FUCA, than the ones you make the calculation on would completely change the result of that calculation.
bear in mind that one thing is that they can perhaps form naturally, another thing is that they really form naturally in natural comditions, and in quantities and concentrations useful to some purpose.
Yes, I understand the ID position that chemistry in the lab never happens in reality. It's not that I am arguing that it DID happen, just pointing out that it CAN, and if it can then that affects how you calculate probabilities.
If you want to compute the functional complexity of a functional sequence, you have to compute the probability of finding it by a random walk starting from a random, unrelated state. Not certainly starting from the almost complete thing. I believe that you should make some deeper reflection on the concept of functional complexity.
If you know that it is possible for many of the required sub components to form naturally, just not all connected together in the right way, they your search should NOT assume that you start WITHOUT some of the components already present. To use the computer code methphor, if I know that some functions can occur naturally then the random search does not have to find them. This affects the probability calculation of finding a working program.
Exactly my point. That’s what I do.
So Lipid bilayers and amino acids form essential parts of a functioning replicator but contribute no functional information? Or are you saying that you know which components can form naturally, and have discounted them from the calculation - in which case show me the evidence to back up your assumptions!
Nucleotides are letters, not words. The biological system has not words, only letters, as building blocks. Please, check your understanding of DNA and the DNA code.
What has DNA got to do with it? I was, as you can see in what I wrote, referring to the chemical components that would be required for a minimal self replicator. If many of these components (Lipid bilayers and amino acids) are extant then they, in terms of the monkey methaphor, are words, not letters.
And by the way, even if monkeys taped words, and not letters, the probabilities of outputting Hamlet would still be ridiculous. Do you want to try to compute them?
Why don't you have a go - then you may understand the point that the probabilities in that scenario are different than the random letter one - THAT IS MY POINT - if you want to make a good argument about probabilities then you need to start by understanding what probabilities you are actually calculating! That producing shakespeare is still unlikely even when whole words are available is actually irrelevant to my point. It is about how you calculate the probabilities, and from an ID perspective it is about doing the math and the science correctly. Probability calculations are meaningless unless your starting assumptions are actually realistic and reflect reality.
Chemistry has nothing to do with gene sequences, as I have said many times. Do you admit that
So gene sequences exist independently of chemistry! Glad you made that clear, now can you show me an example of a functioning gene sequence that is not based on chemistry?DrBot_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

DrBot: Why – given all the evidence for common descent? What do you mean? I do believe in common descent. Design is perfectly compatible with common descent. I know that many IDists don't accept common descent. I do. in a complex chemical environment some things naturally follow from others, and consequently lead to more, creating a string of events that are contingent on earlier events – this is what nested contingencies are. The probability of finding matter arranged in orderly layers is different if you are talking about a random search as opposed to a set of physical processes involving tidal forces, liquids and eroding solids. Please show, with some evidence, how your contingencies lead to biological replicators, to proteins, to DNA, and so on. Then I will listen to your "argument". We must talk science, not phylosophy or myth or religion. So there is absolutely no physical relationship between the format of a protein gene and the and the protein it produces? No. The connection is purely symbolic and informational. No. You are not actually addressing the point I am making. Yes, I am. I am saying that the symbolic, digital, comp'lex and functional information we find in protein genes has nothing to do with the order we find in crystals. Yes, so what is the simplest possible replicator? The simplest biological replicators we know are the simplest autonomous bacteria. Being an empirical person, I consider that my model of biological replicator. Show me something different, and we can discuss. Again, this is a place for science, not for imaginary hypothetical possibilities without any trace of evidence. Nope, I am saying that Lipid bilayers can form naturally. OK. That's good news for lipid bilayers, not for biological replicators. I think you have misunderstood the concept of functional information. We are talking about a minimal self replicator (one that cannot be any simpler) Function is defined as the ability to self replicate, if it does not self replicate then it does not function. If you remove one bit it will not function (because it cannot be any simpler) so removing one bit leaves you with something that is not a self replicator and by definition has zero functional bits. No. If I am writing a complex computer program of one gygabyte, and when it is ready and functional I take away one bit and make it crash, I still have the almost complete program, which has been designed with labor and patience and intelligence. It will be enough to correct one bit to have the whole thing. I think I understand very well the concept of functional complexity. I have been discussing it in dpth here for years. If you want to compute the functional complexity of a functional sequence, you have to compute the probability of finding it by a random walk starting from a random, unrelated state. Not certainly starting from the almost complete thing. I believe that you should make some deeper reflection on the concept of functional complexity. Here are a couple of examples of cellular components that can form naturally: Lipid bilayers, amino acids OK, and so? And please, bear in mind that one thing is that they can perhaps form naturally, another thing is that they really form naturally in natural comditions, and in quantities and concentrations useful to some purpose. Now IF these components form part of a functioning replicator then how many bits of functional information does each of these components contribute to the replicator?</cite When I compute the functional information of a protein gene or a protein sequence, I concede as granted that aminoac ids are already present in the system. The only functional information that I am computing is that necessary to get the right functional sequence of the aminoacids. And that calculation is only for one single protein. So, in this context, the already existing aminoacids are not adding any bit of functional information to the computation if the functional information in the functional sequence. Is that clear? If these ‘building blocks’ occur naturally then calculating the probability of the functional bits that they would contribute to a replicator as part of a random search makes no sense – they already exist! – you need to base the probability calculation on the likelihood of these bits coming together, not all being created at once. Exactly my point. That's what I do. I’ll try the monkey typewriter metaphor – When the monkeys bash away at the keyboard they produce random strings of characters and you can work out some probability of them tying recognisable words, and then phrases. But if the keyboard has keys that produce whole words then the probability of them producing recognisable sentences changes. Nucleotides are letters, not words. The biological system has not words, only letters, as building blocks. Please, check your understanding of DNA and the DNA code. And by the way, even if monkeys taped words, and not letters, the probabilities of outputting Hamlet would still be ridiculous. Do you want to try to compute them? This is why probability calculations that assumes every bit of functional information has to form all at once is wrong, the calculation should be based on the likelihood of extant building blocks forming the right structure, not on all the building blocks forming all at once in the correct structure at the same time. Do you understand the difference? NO. What are your "building blocks"? I am speaking of the probabilities of nucleotides, which are all present in the medium and have the same probability to be part of a DNA molecule, to arrange in a functional sequence. Or just to change an existing sequemce into a completely new one through random variation. Each nucleotide is a building block. There are four of them. To have a new functional protein of 100 AAs, you have to arrange 300 nucleotides in the right sequence. That's all. Again, chemistry is not a random walk. Some ‘configuration bits’ can be extant, the bits required to describe Lipid bilayers already exist if it has occurred naturally, they do not require selection pressures to exist or to persist, just the right chemical conditions. Chemistry has nothing to do with gene sequences, as I have said many times. Do you admit that, for a biological replicator to exist, gene sequences had to appear at some time? Well, chemistry cannot do that. I can't see why you cannot accept that simple concept.gpuccio_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Petrushka;
Extinction figures, by definition, would not include transitionals.
But are not all species merely transitional in the overall neo-Darwinian framework??? Just who made neo-Darwinists the judges of what is to be considered transitional and what is not to be when the theory itself dictates that all life is as such??? Oh that's right, I almost forgot, neo-Darwinism is molded to fit whatever the evidence says instead of actually predicting what the discovered evidence will say!!! As well I seem to recall a bit of a HUGE problem for neo-Darwinists even proving that major morphological transitions are even possible, by their genetic reductionism model, since mutations to DNA never produce morphological novelty!!!
Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine “Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan)." Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent ...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 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134
As Stephen Meyer states at the end of this following video, 'You can mutate DNA till the cows come home and it will not effect Body Plan morphogenesis!" (paraphrase)
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism (Genetic Reductionism) Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/
Evidence for speciation??? neo-Darwinian reductive aterialists do not seem to notice that their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be undeniably clear evidence for a genetically, and morphologically, unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be numerous unambiguous examples they could produce to silence their many critics.
"Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)
In fact, instead of any origination of any new species on the earth, what we see now is massive extinction of species:
The current rate of extinction is from 100 to 10,000 species a year. This is between 100 and 1000 times faster than our best estimate of historical rates. (of note: it is thought that the "impact of man" is accelerating the extinction rate). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990804073106.htm
Moreover, a neo-Darwinian reductive materialist will try to assert evolution of species is happening all the time, all over the place. Yet, once again the hard evidence betrays the materialist in his attempts to validate his atheistic evolutionary scenario.
The Mirage of "Evolution Before Our Eyes" - August 2011 Excerpt:,,,the important implication of the massive study by Oregon State University zoologist Josef C. Uyeda and his colleagues. They write in PNAS: "Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 [million years], the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/no_evolution_before_our_eyes049911.html “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-evolutionary-tree-continues-to-fall-falsified-predictions-backpedaling-hgts-and-serendipity-squared/#comment-392638 New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011 Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
bornagain77_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Neutral theory is well established. It is fairly easy to demonstrate in software. It is fairly easy to demonstrate in living things by tracing the lineage of neutral or neutral alleles. I am in no way denying that neutral mutations occur. They do occur. And they are very useful to trace the connections between species and their history. My simple point, stated many times as clearly as possible I suppose, is that neutral mutations do not add anything to the analysis of the random system, whether they randomly expand by genetic drift or not. They are simply irrelevant to the subject of functional information. They are only one form of RV, and nothing more.gpuccio_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, Your point about targets and goals is taken. The typical illustration is monkeys typing Shakespeare, but that is too specific a target. A more fitting illustration would be monkeys creating pages of coherent writing in any language using any means available, not limited to English or typewriters or Shakespeare. They could make their own language and/or alphabet. It doesn't even have to be witty or insightful. Do you see how removing the goals or targets does not make the scenario more plausible? A specific target, be it a type of life or a species, it not the problem. The problem is that any type of function whatsoever is a tiny target compared to non-function. Probabilistic resources would take an eternity to produce what intelligence can do in seconds.ScottAndrews_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Natural selection does not reach targets or goals. Indeed. Nor does it reach any complex functional result.gpuccio_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

DrBot, You're falling back to rather neutral statements that nearly everyone agrees on. I suppose that's a good thing. A single variation may or may not convey a benefit, and if the environment changes, the criteria that determine whether a variation is beneficial also changes. The question (unless I've completely lost track of it between the threads) is how that relates to what we commonly call evolution. Variation may explain difference in color, digestion, or resistance to a disease. It does not explain spiderwebs, wings, or carnivorous plants. That is the relevance of the domino illustration. It appears that you extrapolate the causes of such notable variations between species from the small variations within species. It's unfounded, like extrapolating that I can balance 1,000 dominoes because I can balance ten. It sounds reasonable until you try it. You haven't explicitly stated that extrapolation, but you have said that differential variation leads to evolution. It sounds like the same thing. Am I misunderstanding? How does differential variation lead to evolution?ScottAndrews_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Chris, Good point. Taken to its extreme, the TOE maintains that humans have appeared here by fluke and that religion is a mental virus. Sometimes I think that perhaps it is just the TOE that is a mental virus. Personally, I prefer something that does have a purpose to something that does not.Eugene S_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

"Natural selection does not reach targets or goals" but it does turn microbes into humans. What's the difference?Chris Doyle_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Isn't this a theological objection (and a poor one, at that), rather than a scientific one, Petrushka? If not, then please explain which particular observations or experiments lead you to conclude that extinction is incompatible with Intelligent Design theory?Chris Doyle_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

You darwinists shoud make up your minds. If we kindly point out that a random system can generate practically nothing useful, immediately you start adoring the powers of non random natural selection.
Neutral theory is well established. It is fairly easy to demonstrate in software. It is fairly easy to demonstrate in living things by tracing the lineage of neutral or neutral alleles. I find it interesting that when "intelligent" selection is demonstrated in the laboratory, you say it can accomplish anything, but "natural" selection can accomplish nothing. I suppose if you cannot get past the concept of targets and goals, you would have a point. Natural selection does not reach targets or goals.Petrushka_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

The extinction figures will necessarily include families and orders that no longer exist. Extinction figures, by definition, would not include transitionals. Just in the human lineage, we have numerous species that have no living descendants.Petrushka_{September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply