Science Deprived Whackaloon Creationist Writings From Down Under

_{February 9, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

The article I link to below was written by a creationist and published on a creationist website. The abysmal lack of knowledge about molecular biology is exposed in it. I present it for entertainment purposes only…

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism

by Alex Williams
JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(3) 2007

Comments

Mats - 16 I liked LGF also until CJ went on his pro-Darwin crusade, lumping together creationism and ID.Davem_{February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PST}

I got the worms wrong. It was sandwiched in between a discussion of plate tectonics and climate and a summation of a lecture. But it is equally interesting. They did not affect plate tectonics but atmospheric temperature. The worms may have (and I use the word "may" to indicate this is speculation) have churned up marine sediment thus releasing methane and other gasses into the atmosphere. Essentially they were creating a greenhouse effect and causing temperature changes and effecting the ice on the planet. Before this, the oceans were frozen over much of the time. The thing about the worms was a small part of a long set of lectures on climate in a Teaching Company course called "How the Earth Works." The lectures on glaciers, ice ages and different climates in general is quite complicated and I am having to watch each lecture on climate 2-3 times to pick up everything. I usually do it while on a treadmill so I often am not paying full attention. It is very interesting and so far nothing to do with humans but that is coming. Climate is quite cyclical and the current warming period we have had for the last 10,000 years is infrequent. Most of the time it is much colder. The references for the lectures that included this small segment on worms is "The Two-Mile Time Machine:Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future" by Richard B. Alley and "SNOWBALL EARTH" in Scientific American Jan 2000, vol 282-1 page 68. The Scientific American article did not contain anything about the worms so I assume it is in the Alley book One of the reasons I said this is speculative is because there is little fossil evidence there was other multi-cellular life for them to churn up in the pre Cambrian. But it makes fascinating stories.jerry_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST}

Upright I believe Williams is implying these are codes that have yet to be deciphered. I just did a quick check on the first one and he's not making up terms that aren't used in the trade rags.
Cellular memory and the histone code. Turner BM. Chromatin and Gene Expression Group, Anatomy Department, University of Birmingham Medical School, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom. The histone tails on the nucleosome surface are subject to enzyme-catalyzed modifications that may, singly or in combination, form a code specifying patterns of gene expression. Recent papers provide insights into how a combinatorial code might be set and read. They show how modification of one residue can influence that of another, even when they are located on different histones, and how modifications at specific genomic locations might be perpetuated on newly assembled chromatin.
DaveScot_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PST}

Dave #57 I follow completely, which was the point of my post. The nucleic code is a code, is a code. Passing data from one object to another through a channel (transcription/translation). However, this paper suggest as many as four additional "codes" (cell memory code, differentiation code, etc) that I do not see reaching that bar. Complex? yes. Unfathomable? yes. Code? not so much.Upright BiPed_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PST}

Jerry Sanford acknowledges that most mutations are near neutral. What if they're not just random copy errors but are actually some kind of purposeful change? As astonishingly complex as this is turning out to be I'd be astonished if the code isn't self-modifying. I said I didn't necessarily agree with Williams' conclusions. What impressed me was the tour-de-force presentation of all the recently discovered complexity that makes the old gene centric theory so woefully inadequate in complex metazoans. Gene centric theory is probably most of the story for prokaryotes and maybe even simple single celled eukaryotes but it's not even the tip of the iceberg for things like mammals. DaveScot_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST}

Hi jerry,
There is a theory that earth worms were needed in the pre Cambrian to churn up the rocks so that the rocks would behave differently to tectonic pressures.
Could you point me to a link or journal reference for this theory? Thanks.Dave Wisker_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST}

Or perhaps the original genome design was the equivalent of a brand spankin new car, and has seen some wear over the years which brings us to the present. Just because it's possible to perceive our current modern day design as flawed (Which means you would have to take the still intact incredibly complex aspects of that design and utterly dismiss them), doesn't mean it wasn't pristine in the past. Making statements congruent with uniformitarianism will get us nowhere when we see such great evidence of a gradually deteriorating genome. I mean just humor me for a minute and imagine that cars could have offspring. Imagine that a miniscule portion of the bits of rust and wear that the car has seen over the years would carry over to the next generation. Without regular maintenance during the lifespan of each generation, you'd have such an accumulation of defects that various functions of the car would be hindered (a real life example of this would be certain fish losing the ability to see). There are obvious limitations to my analogy, seeing as cars don't have complex mechanisms in place to carry out maintenance and repairs autonomously like our body and cells do. But just the fact that our body and cells DO have these mechanisms signifies a once perfect system in my mind, which has itself been subject to deteriorating factors over many generations, hence why some mutations and defects fly under the radar of said reparation system. As far as natural selection goes, I do agree with Williams on this, it does often times seem that the only defects that can be selected for or against are those that have a make-or-break effect on survival and replication. I say this because you see examples such as an entire tribe in Africa (known as the "Ostrich People") that only have two toes as a result of a long history of inbreeding. The effect of the accumulative negative mutations are significant but have not completely broken their capability to survive and reproduce, obviously. I hope no one here thinks I'm a whackaloon for agreeing with Williams, but it's what I see as the best possible explanation (albeit not the only possible one).PaulN_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PST}

Rock-churning earthworms?damitall_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PST}

Here is another concept that gets very little discussion here. The objectives of the designer may be much more insightful than anything we could come up with. For example, the designer might not want each organism to live forever so there must be some defect/design in the genome to ensure this. The designer might want new organisms to have the capability to adapt to new situations. So one way that could happen is to make the genome somehow malleable to new situations which may mean that it has to change over time. So the designer might design the genome to change over time. We have a name for that and it is called evolution. Maybe one of the ways the designer wants the genome to change over time are the 47 engines of variation that Allen MacNeill has developed. Maybe the structure and error correction of the genome is designed to let a small number of changes happen and is a design feature and not a bug. In other words evolution or change over time is a built in objective. The designer might want an organism to exist with different types of other organisms because an organism may need to metabolize the other organism or the organisms are needed to change an environment to meet the need of the organism in question. There is a science which studies this and is called ecology. So every organism must be designed with the ecology in mind. This means putting limitations on each organism so that it doesn't change/evolve too much so that it dominates and ecology and may actually destroy the ecology and itself by being "all that it can be." So there are probably limits on evolution built into each organism. And there may be timings for certain types of organisms. The earth has changed dramatically since its inception and not all organisms could survive till it changed considerably. So maybe there is a timing in the introduction of species. There is a theory that earth worms were needed in the pre Cambrian to churn up the rocks so that the rocks would behave differently to tectonic pressures. We know little about timing but it is being studied more and more. And who knows it might also reveal the designer. And there may be other good reasons for so called sub optimal design in an organism. Those whose only defense against ID is poor design may not be able to see the forrest for the trees and the so called poor design is just a level of design which we cannot fathom.jerry_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PST}

*EDIT*
I was trying to counter the two ideas that a) the genome is so finely-tuned that it could not handle any damage done to it and b) the genome obviously can take a lot of damage so therefore must not be mostly junk and/or not designed.
I accidently put a "not" in the above paragraph, giving the wrong impression. It should read: I was trying to counter the two ideas that a) the genome is so finely-tuned that it could not handle any damage done to it and b) the genome obviously can take a lot of damage so therefore must be mostly junk and/or not designed.Domoman_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PST}

Uoflcard,
I was talking about this statement of yours: If an intelligence is intelligent enough to make the genome, I see no reason that it would also not be intelligent enough to make it damage resistant. Perhaps I took it the wrong way (or maybe I got it right; you tell me). It seemed to me you were saying that because the genome is not damage resistant, and an entity that was intelligent enough to create a complex, functional genome would probably also be intelligent enough to make it damage resistant, then that proves an intelligence was not involved in the creation of the genome. Perhaps this last assumption of mine was not warranted. If so, forgive me. It reminded me of a frequent, clueless anti-ID argument by naturalists that goes something like these: “Why would your ‘good’ god create immune systems?” “You say the flagellum is evidence of ID. But most viruses use flagella to move and survive. So you’re saying your ‘good’ god create the mechanism to kill billions of people pointlessly, including infant children.” …basically, completely theological arguments that have nothing to do with science, biology, evolution, ID, darwinism, etc.
Oh, wow, I didn't realize you misunderstood me like that. I'm completely in support of ID. I was saying that: If an intelliegent being was intelligent enough to create the genome, then I'm pretty sure it would also make it damage-resistant. I was trying to counter the two ideas that a) the genome is so finely-tuned that it could not handle any damage done to it and b) the genome obviously can take a lot of damage so therefore must not be mostly junk and/or not designed. I was suggesting that, like any person who designs a finely-tuned and integrated system that it is often times damage-resistant as well. I was suggesting that the genome while obviously fine-tuned and designed, is not so complex that if it was damaged it would be destroyed. Basically, to put it clearly: whoever/whatever designed the genome , while making it very sophisticated and complex, also made it damage resistant (to mutations and any other damaging causes). Hopefully that's more clearly stated. :)Domoman_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PST}

Dave, My question about Williams is how much of what he says is accurate and how much is speculation. Since he invokes Kirschner and Sanford at the end I started to doubt the rest of the presentation. I know some of the beginning is standard biology but how much of that afterwards is an accurate portrayal or some stretching of what has been found. For example, he says "The problem of using the same code to produce many different functional transcripts means that DNA cannot be endlessly mutable, as neo-Darwinists assume. Most mutations are deleterious, so mutations in such a complex structure would quickly destroy many functions at once." But then he invokes Sanford to say the genome is riddled with mutations. Which is it? Since I happen to think Sanford is nonsense, I will go with his earlier assessment but that does not mean that both could be wrong. It is interesting stuff and not something I totally understand. And it probably won't be in any textbook for quite awhile. Maybe some readers may have thoughts about what is accurate or not. The new commenter, eintown, had an interesting comment. All it takes is variation in one gene to initiate potential selection. So 5% of the genome is a whole lot of material to be subject to selection. So while selection may be an absurd reason for the origin of the complexity in the genome, it does not mean that other parts of it are not subject to selection. By the way Kirschner's ideas while purporting to be totally naturalistic and anti ID, sounds a little bit like front loading. I have not yet seen a clear write up of it but it sounds like he is hypothesizing that a lot of the genome consists of lego like units that are waiting for the right cues to rearrange themselves into a different body plan or systems. Like all naturalistic scenarios, empirical data seems to be rare or totally absent.jerry_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PST}

Upright Codes are abstractions used to pass information from transmitters to receivers. Both transmitter and receiver must "know" the code in order to encapsulate for transmission and unencapsulate the information for subsequent use. The only known instances of codes are those invented by humans, like the morse code (which btw is quite similar to the genetic code) and those codes that are employed inside living things. Nothing else in nature employs codes which makes the machinery of life essentially different from other mechanistic processes that move matter and energy around in predictable ways.DaveScot_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PST}

Just an FYI - I don't necessarily agree with Williams' conclusions about the age of the earth or special creation but the collection and description of the various codes and mechanisms purposely swirling in and around the metazoan DNA molecule was the best I've read in the way of giving a clear idea of the astonishing complexity therein. The gene centric theory likely accounts for a good portion of the workings of prokaryotes but it's just a pimple on an elephant's ass when it comes to accounting for the workings of more complex organisms. I think there's a lot more going on than Sanford et al believe too. Special creation in the recent geologic past just doesn't square with observations of non-biological processes that have been going on far longer everywhere from sedimentation and erosion to the life cycles of stars and the motions of galaxies. Far too many observations fit neatly together for life, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and the universe itself being billions of years old. The contrivations required to cast any doubt on these ages collectively become ludicrous. The contrivations required to dispute common descent run a close second place in the lack of credibility department. Clearly though the big accident theory of creation doesn't pass the giggle test anymore either. Methodological naturalism giveth and methodological naturalism taketh away. It took away our simple creation stories that have endured for thousands of years but at the same time it gave us confirmation that purposeful creation did indeed happen. The universe and our presence in it is clearly by design. If we are true to our nature as rational beings we must go where the evidence leads even when it leads us away from where we desire and that applies to theists and atheists alike.DaveScot_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PST}

SteveO [50] - nice reference uoflcard [51] "it just bypasses denial and goes straight to cold-blooded lying" Where in the post does the author say something that is not true?Mark Frank_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PST}

Domoman:
Actually my statements could be suggested even without invoking theology. If a certain organism could not have evolved from a lower organism, and is degrading, it follows logically that it was created, initially, in a better, less degenerated (perhaps even perfect), state of existence. I do admit that my thoughts on this were brought up based on theology, but they do not solely rely on theology, and such a conclusion can be arrived at simply using science and logic.
I was talking about this statement of yours:
If an intelligence is intelligent enough to make the genome, I see no reason that it would also not be intelligent enough to make it damage resistant.
Perhaps I took it the wrong way (or maybe I got it right; you tell me). It seemed to me you were saying that because the genome is not damage resistant, and an entity that was intelligent enough to create a complex, functional genome would probably also be intelligent enough to make it damage resistant, then that proves an intelligence was not involved in the creation of the genome. Perhaps this last assumption of mine was not warranted. If so, forgive me. It reminded me of a frequent, clueless anti-ID argument by naturalists that goes something like these: "Why would your 'good' god create immune systems?" "You say the flagellum is evidence of ID. But most viruses use flagella to move and survive. So you're saying your 'good' god create the mechanism to kill billions of people pointlessly, including infant children." ...basically, completely theological arguments that have nothing to do with science, biology, evolution, ID, darwinism, etc.uoflcard_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PST}

btw, here is a blog post and subsequent set of comments on pandas thumb a year and 1/2 ago on this very subject. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/junk-to-the-sec.html#comment-panels Basically the response is "not only is the apparent 'usefulness' of 'junk' DNA false, it actually even junkier than we though! junk creating more junk!" It's really a brilliant strategy...it just bypasses denial and goes straight to cold-blooded lying. That keeps the focus on merky arguments about what is transcibed and why that "might" be so, and ignores the more intriguing part of all of the discoveries from ENCODE, like the duplicate (several times over) use of parts of DNA, or the concept of meta-information in the human genome. In the comments, one Darwinist-doubter posts rebuttal, and the majority of the responses are "ignore him and he'll go away", "don't ignore him that makes us look bad", "another creationist meme", etc.uoflcard_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PST}

Meanwhile, from the hollow world of Darwinism, more shrill echoes:
Evolutionary theory has been dramatically validated by molecular biology. It is important that the general public, and in particular pupils, hear and understand this message (see www.nature.com/evolutiongems for a sample of scientific papers that illustrate and buttress evolutionary theory). Redressing the current imbalance between increasingly well organized and vociferous religious fundamentalists peddling creationism,and scientists, who all too often disregard the need for further publicity and support for what is, after all, the best supported theory in biology, should be high on the agenda of every scientist and science teacher. Why not make this a New Year’s resolution for 2009, Darwin’s year.
Editorial quote from Nature Cell Biology, Feb 09 steveO_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PST}

DaveScot, There's a fine-tuned property of the universe (might even be what you're talking about) that if it were moved one inch to the left or the right (in comparison to a ruler that stretched across the entire known universe) life could not exist. Pretty cool, huh? Another one, the "original-phase space" property, has been suggested to be as fine-tuned as 1 in 10,000,000,000^123 (yes, that is ten billion to the 123rd power or 10^10^123). That's so incomprehensibly huge as to be unfathomable!Domoman_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PST}

YEC could be off on certain things, but at least they're better on biology when it comes to some aspects. For instance, genetic entropy supports YEC and ID while suggesting neo-Darwinism is false. Whether or not their off on suggesting the Earth is so young may be another thing, although I'm willing to suggest they could be onto something. I'm not necessarily persuaded either way, but I do lean, at least for the sake of argument, towards an old Earth. (After all, if it turns out the Earth is less than a million years old than evolution is essentially screwed anyway. Better to prove neo-Darwinism wrong using their own assumptions.) uoflcard,
To #31, #32 (Domoman) and #34 (PaulN) - You are speaking on strictly theological grounds. Just be aware of that. As a Christian, a brilliantly complex but degenerative genome fits precisely with Scripture. God created a perfect world, man sinned and fell, as did our perfection. On the other hand, a brilliantly complex genome (degenerative or not) is definitely not compatible with neo-Darwinism
Actually my statements could be suggested even without invoking theology. If a certain organism could not have evolved from a lower organism, and is degrading, it follows logically that it was created, initially, in a better, less degenerated (perhaps even perfect), state of existence. I do admit that my thoughts on this were brought up based on theology, but they do not solely rely on theology, and such a conclusion can be arrived at simply using science and logic.Domoman_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PST}

null Here's the critical reference - the fine tuning of the cosmological constant is one part in 10^59. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm
Thus the density 1 ns after the Big Bang was set to an accuracy of better than 1 part in 447 sextillion. Even earlier it was set to an accuracy better than 1 part in 10^59!
I couldn't quickly find a non-subscription reference to the total number of baryons in the universe but it's calculable and conserved at roughly 10^80. There are approximately 10^21 baryons in a grain of sand although this is going to vary by a couple orders of magnitude as sand comes in varying grades from coarse to fine but that's close enough to make the point nonetheless. So the mass of the universe can be fairly said to be the same as 10^59 grains of sand, give or take. So the critical mass of the universe is set at plus or minus one grain of sand. Incomprehensibly finely tuned. And that's just one of the finely tuned constants. It's the most finely tuned but there's a score of them that have to be within 1 part in 10^20 otherwise the universe would not exist in a state that could support organic life. DaveScot_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PST}

Kirschner was one of the Altenberg 16. Does anyone know what came of that conference?jerry_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PST}

The paper by Williams is a YEC paper so I would take some the claims with a grain of salt. I would like to know which are supported some place else. Some are very interesting. He has written another later paper where he takes a concept developed by Kirschner and Gerhart called "facilitated variation" and discusses it. Since we do not have access to this paper, maybe we can eventually see what he says there. For example, is he using Kirschner and Gerhart's idea of facilitated evolution to explain the swift divergence of species at some recent time in the past? Kirschner and Gerhart I believe, hypothesize that the genome consists of a set of modules like lego blocks just waiting to be assembled when the proper time comes along and this is how new complex capabilities are introduced into a species. We should discuss Kirschner and Gerhart's theory some day since they claim their ideas obviate ID where traditional Darwinian ideas do not.jerry_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PST}

Dave et al, I have read the paper and looked elsewhere for supporting information. I am unsure about the use of the word "code" in this paper. Loosely, a code is meaning that is passed between discreet objects by means of a channel. Does that apply to these findings?Upright BiPed_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PST}

A couple of comments seem to trash Sanford's genetic entropy conclusions but his conclusions are still right imo. If he's any where near the "ball park" the human race is indeed doomed as are all other species - sooner or later doesn't change that and if he's right about entropy it will indeed be sooner than later. When I first looked at this article I thought Dave had flipped his wig or else I'm a lot more ignorant of the science involved than I thought. Phew. Interestingly, the Hebrew of Genesis can be rendered "dying you will die" - apply that to the race and that's genetic entropy in a tiny nutshell.Borne_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PST}

Seriously, does someone have a link to a Darwinian response to any of the ENCODE project's findings? I have a feeling the typical response will be what is discussed in the CommonDreams.org posted earlier by William Dembski. That is, as much as they rant and rave about "real science" and "falsifiability" and "lab results", and also madly promote anything they could even remotely spin as evidence for their theory, they will just ignore anything that conflicts w/ it, even if it is a multi-billion dollar, decade-long study, arguably one of the most important in the history of biologyuoflcard_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PST}

To #31, #32 (Domoman) and #34 (PaulN) - You are speaking on strictly theological grounds. Just be aware of that. As a Christian, a brilliantly complex but degenerative genome fits precisely with Scripture. God created a perfect world, man sinned and fell, as did our perfection. On the other hand, a brilliantly complex genome (degenerative or not) is definitely not compatible with neo-Darwinismuoflcard_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PST}

This guy also invokes "facilitated variation" which has some high powered people behind it from Harvard and Berkeley. Have we ever discussed it?jerry_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST}

I meant "to handle the new environment."jerry_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PST}

Davescot, Do you have a reference for the 'grain of sand' thing? I don't doubt you, but I've heard this before and want to read more about it. Also, I'd agree with you on the 'beyond absurdly lucky' thing. So often I hear people talk about how if there were no designer, evolution is exactly what we'd expect. My response is always, no - evolution and what we see in natural history is what we'd see if there was a designer in play. With no designer, it's far more reasonable that there'd be nada. No OoL, no simple life, no simple life developing into more complex life, no prospects for any of these things.nullasalus_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply