Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Surprisingly high degree of organization of prokaryotic genomes

William Dembski
February 1, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“This high degree of organization of prokaryotic [organisms that lack nuclei] genomes is a complete surprise, and this finding carried many implications that biologists might not have considered before,” said Bernhard Palsson, a professor of bioengineering at UCSD’s Jacobs School of Engineering and adjunct professor of medicine and co-author of the analysis.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060130154134.htm

Ask yourself why, if evolution is all it’s cracked up to be, biology keeps encountering “complete surprises” like this. Ask yourself, as well, why a professor of bioengineering rather than a straight biologist is finding these complete surprises. Could it be that engineering (the field that studies design) offers better insights than a materialist, reductionist biology that attributes the emergence of biological complexity to blind material forces?

Comments
In terms of the article cited, and the new evidence they report, we find, once again, order--surprising order--in DNA coding. How can this order be explained? What gave rise to it? Can the random mutation of codons bring about a positional heirarchy? The handwriting on the wall is glaringly bright!PaV
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
It may not be an accident that Schindewolf means "wolfskinner" because Otto did a wonderful job of skinning that Big Bad toothless, cowardly, rabid Darwinian wolf. That is why that ultraDarwinian arrogant, ill educated, homozygous atheist mystic Stephen Jay Gould found it necessary to describe the views of undoubtedly the greatest paleontologist of all time as "spectacularly flawed." I will never forget the look that passed over David Gurgen's face when Gould claimed, with much hand waving and what seemed to me to be nose picking, that intelligence was an evolutionary accident. How does that grab the crowd over at Esley Welsberry's Alamo? Don't just sit there and take this abuse. Say something - anything will do. If you have the guts that is. War, God help me, I love it so! Me too George baby. Let's get it on!John Davison
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Pav I think it was Dobzhansky that said that. If he had remained in Russia with his mentor, Leo Berg, it is very possible that today we would be talking about Bergian not Darwinian evolution. Dobzhansky was so enthralled with the New World, that he lost all objectivity and joined the Darwinian herd. He even remained a Darwinian after he, more than anyone else, had experimentally proved it was a myth. Here is the reward he gave his former mentor when he wrote the Foreword to the 1969 paper back edition of Nomogenesis. "A majority of evolutionists at present, including the author of this Preface, consider L. S. Berg's theory of nomogenesis erroneous." A couple of pages later, in what was titled as an Introduction, Darcy Wentworth Thompson, not to be out done, added his sentiments: I need go no further, nor say one word more, to show that Profesor Berg holds views of his own, with many of which many of us are little likely to agree." Is it any wonder that Nomogenesis has been conveniently ignored by the establishment? I was especially disappointed by Thompson as I had been, as a graduate student, strongly influenced by his great book "On Growth and Form." I even named three successive Wire-haired Terriers after him because of his beard. That was before I read Nomogenesis. I have since switched to Dachshunds, my current one named Otto after Otto Schinbdewolf. If I manage to outlive Otto, which is extremely unlikely as he is only two, I intend to get a Russian Wolfhound and name him Lev, the Russian equivalent of Leo. That way I will be honoring both SchindeWOLF and Leo Berg. "He that I am reading seems always to have the most force." Montaigne "I read as little of Richard Dawkins as possible" Cyrus Noe How do you Darwinian Neanderthals over at Elsberry's Alamo like them rusty spits upon which you are cordially invited to slowly turn? It smarts doesn't it?John Davison
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
"Now don’t ever again honor Darwinism by maintaining that it isn’t dead yet." Yeah, but they've got electrodes and a defibrilator and they keep zapping the thing. We are waiting for somebody to "call the code" (when the doctor decides further efforts at resuscitation are useless and everyone should give up).avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
"If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!" Agreed. The existence of a biotic protocol is proof of intelligent causation. A protocol arises by prespecified convention and is a product of a mind.anteater
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Wasn't it Mayr who said that all of biology cannot be understood except in the light of evolution. If that is so, then maybe all these 'surprises' are simply an indication that evolution is a rather dull source of light.PaV
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
DaveScot All them California housewives know a design when they see one too. The Darwimps are not only blind as bats but stone deaf as well to what Einstein called the "music of the spheres," something ever real scientist has heard several times in his career. I know I have. They are congenitally sensorally deprived. About all they can do is massage one another until they relieve one another somehow. Aren't they disgusting? War, God help me, I love it so! So do I George. Let's get it on. I'm bored.John Davison
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Forget prokaryotic genomes. The most impressively organized genomes in the world belong to the trypanosomes, a few protozoan species. Their genes are all lined up in order on the chromosomes, rather than the usual mishmash found in other eukaryotes. Amazingly, there are only 3 transcription start sites on chromosome 3 of L. major, even though the chromosome contains about 100 genes. No where else is this arrangement of genetic information found! The trypanosome genomes are the best evidence of intelligent design to date.argy stokes
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Darwinism died in 1871 when St George Jackson Mivart asked how Natural Selection could possibly affect a structure which has not yet appeared. What he should have asked was how could Natural Selection have affected a structure which had not yet appeared. There has not been a new biological structure in millions of years. "Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed." Thomas Henry Huxley That 8 word comment is the only frontispiece to Leo Berg's "Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Law," in my opinion the greatest single volume on evolution every published. Now don't ever again honor Darwinism by maintaining that it isn't dead yet. It makes me irritable. Got that? Write that down.John Davison
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
And while we're discussing signal processing (like the kind in the article), one thing that is emerging is the attempt to apply signal processing across species genomes. Signal processing is what allows cell phones, modems, tv's to work. When a message is sent through a communication channel it is coded (modulated) into a form that looks to the un-initiated like something random and non-sensical, but it is a highly architeched collection of CSI. It is then decoded (demodulated) at the other end into something that recognizable. Such is the chain of events when one has a cell phone conversation.... With the emergence of bio-informatics, there are hints the genomes are architected to be optimized to help humans understand biology. Recall I said, the engineered signal look random and non-sensical to the un-initiated. The view of evolution has been to look at the genomes and molecular evolution with a prejudice to interpreting it full of "random noise". A modem signal will sound like random noise to the un-initiated, but it is anything but that. A similar analogy applies to biology.... The internet is architected to have packets of information travel many routes to reach the final destination. It's like have your piece of mail cut up when you send it from san franciso. One piece of the mail is sent to seatle, another to atlanta, then finally the mail is re-assembled and delivered to you in washington. The puzzle comes together as one coherent picture. One of ID's greatest contribuitions awaits. If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the "internet protocol" of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever! Salvadorscordova
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
" the team led by Palsson to use signal-processing methods to identify long-range spatial patterns " And such concepts are so way over they head of your typical Darwin-Only-Darwin-Only phylogenists. They are so quick to label something they don't understand as "pitiful design". "Distinguished" Professor Michael Lynch remarked to me that if one wanted to see a case of pitiful design, to look at the organization of a genome. His determination to view biology as undesigned prejudices inquiry. Frankly, that attitude from a scientific perspective absolutely stinks. It discourages the exploration of design in biology. I should note, if one listens to a modem signal, it sounds like absolute noise. Statistically the bitstreams obeys a nearly random distribution, that's why when you hear a Fax Machine signal over a phone line it sounds like a hiss (white noise), when in fact it is a carefuly designed signal. In fact, the appearance of the signal being merely noise is also by design, as that is the most optimal for data compression! Interestingly, the article mentions that the organization is related to the compression of information into DNA. It does not surprise me that something on the order of a digital signal processor was needed to identify the design (specified complexity) in the cellular architecture. They essentially had to do a partial demodulaiton (like what a Modem would do) to uncover nature's secrets. A design perspective will be inclined to search for intricate and ingenious design in biology, a Darwin-Only-Darwin-Only perspective, will be prejudiced to see biology as pitifully designed.scordova
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
From the article "“These findings show that evolution of prokaryotes is constrained not just by variations in the content of genes, but also by the intricate ways in which those genes are arranged on chromosomes.”" Wow!Renier
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Bill suggested: "Could it be that engineering (the field that studies design) offers better insights than a materialist, reductionist biology that attributes the emergence of biological complexity to blind material forces?" DANG RIGHT! And this critical cultural shift will continue in the biological sciences with an invasion of engineers into biology for the very reason they have the necessary perspective, namely, design rather than Darwinism. And well, there was one comment by someone who was an expert witness in McLean vs Arkansas, 1982 by the name of George Marsden. His words should give Darwinists something to worry about. Back then, the defenders of design in biology were mostly creationists, but I suspect his words would also apply to IDists of today: "folk epistemology is close to that which works best for engineers, starightforward, consistent, factual, with no nonsense. In fact, there are an unusual number of engineers in the creation science movement. George M. Marsden "scordova
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Professor Davison, I know you've discussed the importance of position effect with chromosomes at some length. The article Bill mentions talks about position effect of genes on chromosomes. What are your thoughts on that kind of position effect? Is it the same thing or something different? Thanks for the hat tip to engineers too. A majority of the authors here now are engineers. We know a design when we see one.DaveScot
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Fifty five years ago design was not yet a dirty word. DaveScot recently inserted here the figure from Schindewolf that is in the published version of my Prescribed Evolution paper. Comparing the similarities between the skulls of marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats Schindewolf wrote: "The similarities in form are present even in such details as the structure of the large flange on the lower jaw, DESIGNED to guide and protect the upper canines." (my emphasis) I recommend you return to my paper where you will be able to read everything Schindewolf had to say in the caption of that figure. This is the same Schindewolf that Stephen Gould extolled as a great paleontologist when he wrote the Foreward to the English translation of Schindewolf's book. Having done so, Gould found it then necessary to dispense with Schindewolf with the arrogant comment that his evolutionary views were "spectacularly flawed." That is one of the cheapest shots in all of the evolutionary literature and I enjoy reminding the establishment of it from time to time. It is even worse than the disgusting negativity expressed by both Theodosius Dobzhnasky and Darcy Wentworth Thompson when they wrote their introductions to another great book - "Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law" by Leo Berg. Naturally both authors were long dead when these cowardly tactics were employed. I reviewed those comments in detail on my blog. Peruse and enjoy as I did when I presented them. My "prescribed" Providence if I may call it that, and I just did, is to remind the whole world of the depths to which the atheist dominated evolutionary establishment finds it necessary to descend to preserve and perpetuate the most failed, the most discredited, the most infantile, the most idiotic, clinically pathological hypothesis in the history of science. There now. I feel much better. I hope this gives the cowardly Darwimpian mystics gas. What a bunch of losers. Are you listening Wesley Elsberry, Scott L. Page, Alan Fox and the rest of the crew over at Panda's Pathetic Pollex? If you are, mention it at least so we know that I have "reached out and touched someone." "War, God help me, I love it so." General George S. Patton So do I George and for the same reason. We were "born that way." Let's get it on!John Davison
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
The answer to Bill's terminal question is yes.John Davison
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
Nice application of wavelets.anteater
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply