Intelligent Design

The Blind leading the Blind.

Spread the love

When you have made a bad call, hold on to it with all your might.  From NEW SCIENTIST.

The eye was evolution’s great invention  06 May 2010 

“Creationists have used the eye to make the “argument from design”. Evolutionary biologists say that the “inside out” vertebrate retina – leaves us with a blind spot – one of evolution’s “greatest mistakes”. Creationists have argue that the backwards retina has no problems providing excellent vision – and its structure enhances vision.

A study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that. Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.

Findings that coincide with the claims of creationists do not mean they have a point. It still creates a blind spot. It would make much more sense to put Müller-like cells in front of the sensors, with the wiring behind.

Rather than provide evidence in support of intelligent design, the new work is actually yet another example of evolution’s extraordinary ability to create workaround solutions to problems arising from earlier iterations. Kenneth Miller calls the Müller cells “a retrofit: a successful and highly functional adaptation made necessary by the original architecture of the retina, but a retrofit”. The eye’s structure, and the blind spot in particular, bears the unmistakable fingerprints of Darwinian evolution.”

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision    06 May 2010

IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. Certain cells act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye’s peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp.

Although rods and cones are responsible for capturing light, they are in a curious position. Hidden at the base of the retina, they are covered by several layers of cells as well as the bed of nerves that carries visual information to the brain. One result is a blind spot in our visual field, leading the vertebrate retina to be listed among evolution’s biggest “mistakes”.

In 2007 researchers reported that the glial cells act as optical fibres for the rods and cones. New findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells act as light filters, keeping images clearnd that the intrinsic optical properties of Müller cells seemed to be tuned to visible light. The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Müller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus.

However, Kenneth Miller, cautions that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see.”

46 Replies to “The Blind leading the Blind.

  1. 1
    Polanyi says:

    Evolutionists did the same with embryology, vestigial organs, gaps in the fossil record, they will twist whatever they can and declare it as evidence for evolution, without blinking, with no shame.

    Evolutionists are like sales men stuck with a lot of bad stock because head office made some bad choices. Now it’s up to the sales men to get rid of this stock.It’s the evolutionist’s job to sell evolution.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Great, I have referenced this and eagerly await the next time I am told the eye is a piece of junk by a darwinist:

    This post I just posted on another thread somewhat relates to this topic:

    riddick does “true sight” reside within the spirit or within the body?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-354133

  3. 3
    CannuckianYankee says:

    “Retrofit” sounds a lot like something purposeful.

  4. 4
    IRQ Conflict says:

    Nope, nothing to see here. Keep moving.

    /Dawinist

  5. 5
    SCheesman says:

    I am still astonished that the blind spot is considered an enormous flaw; if that’s a flaw, what about the fact that eyes can’t see anything BEHIND them? People who write these things have obviously never had to design something in real life, and never had to optimize a process.

    Just because the “backwards” wiring of the eye is beginning to be recognized as the “smart” way to do things, doesn’t mean that they’ve learned any lessons, though, with statements like this:

    It would make much more sense to put Müller-like cells in front of the sensors, with the wiring behind.

    Lets just repeat the same error, with a new subject. More sense to whom? On what grounds? The lack of humility, and the propensity of the ignorant to judge and rate a design which exceeds by orders of magnitude their own creative abilities is stunning. We’ve just discovered an extraordinary new thing, but already we know enough to judge it unworthy.

    But still, they are amazed by the powers of evolution to have come up with these solutions. As they should be. Because it couldn’t have done so. Their blind faith is astounding.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    As for myself, I consider the fact that we even see at all to be an audacious miracle and pray that I should never become so callous, as seems to be rampant with Darwinists, as to “lose sight” of my child-like wonder of beholding the miracle that seeing truly is;

    Sarah McLachlan-Ordinary Miracle – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urv7tyeJ7qE

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    That the vertebrate eye works well has never been in question. What is at issue is, if the eye was designed, it was by a being at least more advanced than we are and possibly an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God. If we can see how the eye could be improved, why couldn’t the designer? Why not get it right first time?

    Why have a blind spot on a ‘device’ for seeing if it doesn’t need to be there? Why design something with a flaw that needs these Müller cells to correct which sound so much like the corrective optics retrofitted to the Hubble Space Telescope. Hubble’s problems were caused by a flaw in the manufacturing process, something you’d expect from fallible and limited creatures like ourselves but not from more advanced aliens and certainly not from a perfect deity.

    So you either have to square a flawed design with a highly-advanced or even perfect designer or accept that it is more likely to have been the product of an evolutionary process.

  8. 8
    Phaedros says:

    Seversky-

    The day that you create a working eye and then integrate that into a conscious organism will be the day that your argument has any merit aside from being an exhibition of sheer arrogance and hubris.

  9. 9
    PaV says:

    Here’s the formula:

    If it isn’t good, then it is proof of Darwinian evolution by refutation of a Designer. If it is good, then it’s proof of Darwinian evolution because it was ‘selected for’.

    Heard of: “Heads, I win; tails, you lose!”?

  10. 10
    PaV says:

    Here’s a UD thread from almost exactly three years ago.

    Here’s what I said back then:

    Just a few thoughts. It seems that the “optical fibers” are flared open at the unattached end. Is this so that the optical fiber can accept longer wavelengths of light? In the case of the octupus, I imagine that the kind of light it “sees” is confined to a much more limited range of wavelengths than in the case of mammals. Is this then the reason for mammals having—as someone nicely put it—”living optical fibers”? From a “design theorist” POV, these seem like questions that deserve some research. Or, should we (as the Darwinists do) just call this “bad design” and move on to other things?

    If so, then perhaps the “inversion” of the retina is for the very precise reason that these “living optical fibers” need to be properly localized; i.e., you don’t want the flared end pointing in any old direction. Do the various neural and circulatory structures that are present in front of the retina, then, serve as a kind of matrix within which these “fibers” are fixed?

    Here’s what the scientists said above:

    “The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Müller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus.”

    From the structure of the Muller cells, I inferred function. I predicted this function based on the presence of design. Where were the Darwinists three years ago?

    Oh. I forgot. The “inverted retina” is a ‘bad design’—-hence, Darwinism is the only explanation: that is, only a random, non-directed process can explain this ‘bad design.’

    Also notice that these light fibers produce sharp vision—something that the octupi and squids don’t need. The upshot of the octupi and squid not needing sharp vision is that it would mean that their retinas don’t need to be ‘inverted’.

  11. 11
    Upright BiPed says:

    PAV,

    !!

  12. 12
    cirus says:

    The “backwards wiring” is not a flaw. From Boron & Boulpaep (2003), Medical Physiology, p. 334 (emphasis added):The retina is a highly laminated structure. Through a quirk of evolution, the photoreceptors of the vertebrate eye are on the outer surface of the retina, that is, the side facing away from the vitreous humor and incoming light. Thus, to reach the transducing cells, light has to first pass through all the retinal neurons. This path causes only minor distortion of image quality because of the thinness and transparency of the neural layers. This seemingly inverted arrangement may actually be an advantage for housekeeping of the eye.Photoreceptors undergo a continuous process of renewal, sloughin off membrane from their outer segments and rebuilding them. They also demand a relatively high energy supply. Because they face the back of the eye, photoreceptors are close to the pigment epithelium, which aids the renewal process, and to the blood vessels that supply the retina. These poorly transparent structures (i.e., the pigment epithelium and blood vessels) are thus isolated from the light path. In fact, the pigment epithelium also absorbs photons that are not first captured by photoreceptors, before they can be reflected and degrade the visual image.One thing that Boron and Boulpaep do not mention is that the choroid plexus (i.e. the network of blood vessels that supports the retina) also acts as a heat sink for the photoreceptors.

  13. 13
    cirus says:

    Sorry, some minor formatting issues in that post.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    PaV re 10:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-354157

    PaV:
    “Just a few thoughts. It seems that the “optical fibers” are flared open at the unattached end. Is this so that the optical fiber can accept longer wavelengths of light?”

    Here’s what the scientists said above:

    “The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Müller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus.”

    But PaV you just did the impossible. Every Darwinists KNOWS that Intelligent Design is not science because it does not ever make any correct predictions.

  15. 15
    mullerpr says:

    This morning I had a discussion about unbridled arrogance being at the heart of greed and the downfall of modern financial systems. Looking at Darwinist claims like these and many other modern scientific claims the same level of arrogance are exposed. Darwinian scientists’ behaviour are therefore consistent with the common human condition. Claiming otherwise becomes a very tough sell if you want to fit Darwinism with the data. What you need is a proven moral system that successfully counteracts the evils of human nature. Something truly exceptional is required.

    Thing is… In Nietzsche’s world he had some of the basics very wrong. The few “Super men” is not super in any meaningful or useful way and instead of being lifted up by the masses they are consumed in an immoral fight to maintain their make-belief-position. Face it, arrogance is a tough master to serve.

  16. 16
    idnet.com.au says:

    Blind spots are never detected unless one eye is blacked out and even then the blind spot is “filled in” by the brain’s software.

    The blind spot is not in the macula (the high visual acuity part of the retina) so where one is actually looking at something, there is no blind spot.

    The only blind spot here is in the eyes of the Darwinists who keep insisting that they were right when they made claims based on their own flawed common sense. When they are proven wrong, they still refuse to see design in the eye.

    Claiming that they could design the eye better, without backing it up experimentally, makes them look even more lame and pathetic.

  17. 17
    Joseph says:

    Seversky:

    If we can see how the eye could be improved, why couldn’t the designer?

    Two things wrong with that:

    1- No one knows if they can improve our vision system

    2- The vision systems we observe today are not the vision systems that were designed. The vision systems of today are the result of many, many generations of reproduction and error introduction.

    IOW, as usual, Seversky doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a fairly good video on sight:

    Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye – Molecular Animation
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4189562

  19. 19
    SCheesman says:

    Seversky:

    If we can see how the eye could be improved, why couldn’t the designer? Why not get it right first time?

    The answer is simple. You can’t see how it could be improved, and the designer did get it right the first time. You are proposing the modifcation of a single factor in isolation, as if an improvement in that one factor is equivalent to an improvement in the whole eye, as if nothing is inter-related.

    In the universe of all possible eye-designs, there are ones with blind spots and ones without. Next consider a long list of requirements for a working eye in a living organism, and rank each possible design based on each requirement. Pick the solution that is optimal.

    Of course, only God could do this perfectly. We would propose that God has in fact picked the best of all possible solutions, and it does contain a blind spot. There’s no way to prove that.

    However, we are learning all the time what the requirements are, and how they are related, and nothing so far has indicated that any improvement at all could be obtained by eliminating the blind spot, nor has it ever been demontrated, even to the tiniest degree, that a blind spot, in isolation of its affect on other parameters, impairs the survival potential of a creature, and even if it was shown, the previous argument still stands, and I would assert eliminating the blind spot would impose a raft of conditions that would definitely impair performance. You might see as well as a squid, in other words.

  20. 20
    Barb says:

    SCheesman wrote, “The lack of humility, and the propensity of the ignorant to judge and rate a design which exceeds by orders of magnitude their own creative abilities is stunning.”

    I completely agree. When God does something, it’s obviously wrong and “stupidly designed”. When evolution does something, it’s brilliant on all counts.

    Seversky wrote, “That the vertebrate eye works well has never been in question. What is at issue is, if the eye was designed, it was by a being at least more advanced than we are and possibly an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God. If we can see how the eye could be improved, why couldn’t the designer? Why not get it right first time?”

    He did get it right the first time. Any theist will refer you to Romans 5:12. We are imperfect. God’s initial creation was not.

    “Why have a blind spot on a ‘device’ for seeing if it doesn’t need to be there? Why design something with a flaw that needs these Müller cells to correct which sound so much like the corrective optics retrofitted to the Hubble Space Telescope. Hubble’s problems were caused by a flaw in the manufacturing process, something you’d expect from fallible and limited creatures like ourselves but not from more advanced aliens and certainly not from a perfect deity.”

    See above.

    “So you either have to square a flawed design with a highly-advanced or even perfect designer or accept that it is more likely to have been the product of an evolutionary process.”

    Or you’re completely misunderstanding a basic point of theology.

  21. 21
    pelagius says:

    Barb,

    Please explain how the Fall created a blind spot in all vertebrate eyes.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    semi-off topic:

    Isn’t it ironic that Darwinists are so sure that the eye is a piece of junk when they can’t even account for the origination of just one protein fold:

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_03-07_00

    Description:
    On this episode of ID the Future, CSC Research Director Jay Richards interviews protein scientist Doug Axe on his critical review paper published in the new journal, BIO-Complexity.

    Dr. Axe’s new paper rigorously assesses the Darwinian mechanism to create new protein folds and is the featured article at BIO-Complexity, a new, open-access journal embracing the scientific controversy over origins and intelligent design.
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/

    Article:
    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.1

    ——————

    Celtic Woman – Amazing Grace
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCp5LG_zNE

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Barb et al:

    Actually, the real design issue starts long before we get to the eye.

    In every cell we have a complex, functional code based digital information system, and this is locked into the requisites of having a self-replicating entity.

    And, those who deistractively focus on imaginary defects in designs they could not implement much less improve, have not got the slightest clue as to how to get to such on chance plus blind necessity. But, algorithmically functional complex digital information is routinely produced by intelligences.

    So, while discussions on the eye etc are interesting let us put it in perspective, as a secondary level question.

    GEM of TKI

  24. 24
    Alex73 says:

    Seversky @7:

    That the vertebrate eye works well has never been in question. What is at issue is, if the eye was designed, it was by a being at least more advanced than we are and possibly an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God.

    I.e. The purpose of Darwinism is to prove the non-existence of the God of the Bible. Any other designer is an accepted explanation.

    Hmmm….

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    off topic new music video:

    Skillet – Awake and Alive
    http://vimeo.com/groups/4945/videos/10737906

  26. 26
    Ilion says:

    Idnet:Blind spots are never detected unless one eye is blacked out and even then the blind spot is “filled in” by the brain’s software.
    The blind spot is not in the macula (the high visual acuity part of the retina) so where one is actually looking at something, there is no blind spot.
    The only blind spot here is in the eyes of the Darwinists …

    Indeed. It is as though one were to point to the fact that if one were to cut off a man’s right arm, he can no longer write a letter (at any rate, not until he develops fine motor control over his left hand), or that if one cuts off a man’s leg, he can no longer run a race, as evidence of “bad design.”

  27. 27
    Ilion says:

    Just in case the reader is interested in considering it, I’ve expanded upon my post at #26 here

  28. 28
    Oramus says:

    Seversky wrote: If we can see how the eye could be improved, why couldn’t the designer? Why not get it right first time?

    Frankly, it seems you are misled by the notion that a blind spot is somehow a defect. Out of curiosity, have you had any trouble today because of your eyes’ blind spot?

    To think of it, has anyone commenting or lurking here had any issues with the eye’s blindspot?

  29. 29
    Mats says:

    I wonder how an eye made by an evolutionist would look like.

  30. 30
    AlexM8 says:

    I’d like to point out a few common tactics: deny, confuse, point out a hypothetical that doesn’t exist. Rinse. Repeat.

    I’ve grown a little tired over watching the obvious power struggle and the nonsense that eyes just assemble themselves given enough time.

  31. 31
    Ilion says:

    I wonder how an eye made by an evolutionist would look like.

    Some years ago, one of the popular magazines evangelizing for Science! (that is, for scientism) offered an article about redesigning the human body to “fix” the “flaws” “evolution” had “designed” into it. The result was not at all pretty — such a race would have died out from sheer embarrassment, it nothing else.

  32. 32
    tgpeeler says:

    ba77 @ 25 – nice, I’d sure like to be able to play the bass!!!

    To Seversky, I don’t think we ever finished on language. Let me pose this issue in a different way. Imagine on the left side that we have a periodic table of the elements. Imagine on the right side that we have a string of DNA.

    1. Is not the enterprise (as articulated by GEM of TKI) to figure out HOW we get from the periodic table to DNA? Isn’t that the real problem to be solved? And doesn’t the issue of language fit neatly in between those two mental images? After all, one must have a genetic language to have the information encoded in a strand of DNA. Mustn’t one???

    2. So propose to me just one thing about the evolutionary story that even begins to get us from the periodic table to DNA. Rather than endlessly argue with you about why I am not wrong, why don’t you take the stage and tell me/us why you are right?? How do you get from the one to the other?? Inquiring minds want to know. And so do I.

  33. 33
    Seversky says:

    Oramus @ 28

    Frankly, it seems you are misled by the notion that a blind spot is somehow a defect. Out of curiosity, have you had any trouble today because of your eyes’ blind spot?

    In spite of the what has been alleged by some other contributors, no one on this side of the debate has claimed the eye is a “bad design” or a “piece of junk”. We all recognize that the human visual system works very well indeed.

    Whether or not the blind spot or inverted retina are “defects” is a question of semantics. Clearly, the ‘workarounds’ and patches do a good job of compensating for any problems they cause. But why design something that way in the first place?

    When the Hubble Space Telescope was first launched, it worked, just not as well as it could have done. The corrective optics cured the problem but the cost of designing, building, launching and fitting them was enormous. It would also have been unnecessary had the makers got it right the first time. Unfortunately, human designers and engineers, being human, make mistakes sometimes. Some much more advanced alien intelligence would be less likely to and a perfect god wouldn’t do it at all. Human designers and engineers usually also recognize and admit that they make mistakes. They don’t usually try and justify them by saying something like “Oh, that blurred image from the telescope is not really a defect. It’s part of a secret long-term plan we have. Don’t worry about it.”

    Evolution, on the other hand, is just the sort of messy process you might expect to produce adequate but less-than-ideal solutions.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states:

    “Evolution, on the other hand, is just the sort of messy process you might expect to produce adequate but less-than-ideal solutions.”

    Excuse me seversky but evolution has shown no capacity to “find” any solutions whatsoever, save for breaking stuff and burning bridges as Michael Behe has said.

    Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
    “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.”

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).

    The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134

    Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact.

    An Atheist Interviews Michael Behe About “The Edge Of Evolution” – video
    http://www.in.com/videos/watch.....34623.html

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – “The Fitness Test” – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

    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/2.....s_wro.html

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems.

    This following recent study solidly confirms the severe limit for evolution found by Dr Behe:

    Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness – May 2010
    Excerpt: Despite the theoretical existence of this short adaptive path to high fitness, multiple independent lines grown in tryptophan-limiting liquid culture failed to take it. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the double-mutant trpA gene. Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.2

    Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute’s Ann Gauger – audio
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201.....lab_w.html

  35. 35
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 34

    Excuse me seversky but evolution has shown no capacity to “find” any solutions whatsoever, save for breaking stuff and burning bridges as Michael Behe has said.

    Remind me. Intelligent Design has been studying evolution for how long? Come to think of it, human science has been studying evolution for how long? Isn’t it a just a little premature to be declaring it a failure?

    The nylon-eating strain of Flavobacterium is a good example of the evolution of new function but there are others. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that forbids new functions evolving at the expense of other functions or capacities. If the cost is too high, the animal will die, if not it will survive.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky 35:

    And within all your conceit, do you not know that bacteria have been detoxifying toxins off the earth for billions of years?

    Some materialists believe they have conclusive proof for evolution because bacteria can quickly adapt to detoxify new man-made materials, such as nylon, even though it is, once again, just a minor variation within kind, i.e. though the bacteria adapt they still do not demonstrate a gain in fitness over the parent strain once the nylon is consumed (Genetic Entropy). I’m not nearly as impressed with their “stunning” proof as they think I should be. In fact recent research has shown the correct explanation for the nylon-eating enzyme, produced on the plasmids, seems to be a special mechanism which recombines parts of the genes in the plasmids in a way that is non-random. This is shown by the absence of stop codons, which would be generated if the variation were truly random. The non-randomness and “clockwork” repeatability of the adaptation clearly indicates a designed mechanism that fits perfectly within the limited “variation within kind” model of Theism, and stays well within the principle of Genetic Entropy since the parent strain is still more fit for survival once the nylon is consumed from the environment. (Answers In Genesis)

    Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

    Revisiting The Central Dogma (Of Evolution) In The 21st Century – James Shapiro – 2008
    Excerpt: Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome (not replication errors). (of interest – 12 methods of information transfer in the cell are noted in the paper) http://www.uncommondescent.com.....revisited/

    Scientists Discover What Makes The Same Type Of Cells Different – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: Until now, cell variability was simply called “noise”, implying statistical random distribution. However, the results of the study now show that the different reactions are not random, but that certain causes (environmental clues) lead to predictable distribution patterns,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....204217.htm

    Bacteria ‘Invest’ (Designed) Wisely to Survive Uncertain Times, Scientists Report – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: Essentially, variability of bacterial cells appears to match the variability in the environment, thereby increasing the chances of bacterial survival,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112102.htm

    Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, and minerals, which would all be of benefit to modern man, “sulfate-reducing” bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man, as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms.

    Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems:
    Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....04577v8t3/
    http://www.int-res.com/article.....26p203.pdf

    The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation:
    Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals. http://www.goldschmidt2009.org...../A1161.pdf

    The Creation of Minerals:
    Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization. http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals

    You know seversky all you have to do to show a gain in functional information is pass the fitness test, but alas even your nylonase fails this test once the nylon is removed from the environment.

  37. 37
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 36

    And within all your conceit, do you not know that bacteria have been detoxifying toxins off the earth for billions of years?

    And within all your conceit about your knowledge of quantum mechanics or, in this case, evolutionary biology, do you not know that you are wrong?

    Bacteria are very adaptable creatures who can rapidly develop the ability to exploit substances in their environment as nutrition. But the fact that some of those substances happen to be toxic to other organisms is purely incidental. There is no reason to think that their purpose is to detoxify the environment for the rest of us, even if they have occasionally proven to be very useful at doing it.

    You know seversky all you have to do to show a gain in functional information is pass the fitness test, but alas even your nylonase fails this test once the nylon is removed from the environment.

    You seem to suffer from the same misapprehension about adaptive fitness as kairosfocus.

    Once again, Flavobacterium evolved a function which allowed it to digest nylon. Whether or not such an mutation is beneficial, detrimental or neutral depends entirely on the environmental context. An increase in fitness does not necessarily mean some sort of general-purpose improvement. It can be quite specific. In a nylon-rich environment, it has proven to be an increase in fitness for this bacterium compared with those who lack that mutation and are unable to digest the polymer. That is all that is required, so the bacterium passes the test.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky you state:

    And within all your conceit about your knowledge of quantum mechanics or, in this case, evolutionary biology, do you not know that you are wrong? Bacteria are very adaptable creatures who can rapidly develop the ability to exploit substances in their environment as nutrition. But the fact that some of those substances happen to be toxic to other organisms is purely incidental.

    fine seversky I’m the conceited one though you refuted none of my citations, but only purely by the faith of your belief that you stating somehow justifies your claim ,,, excuse me for thinking we were in the bounds of science.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky
    for you to try to divorce the fitness test of increased functionality, as a measure of increased functional information in the nylon example, really deserves no comment as to the sheer deception inherent within the ploy, and in reality shows how disingenuous you personally are to finding the truth. Why is this seversky? Do you think that by repeating a lie over and over again will somehow make it true?

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky here is another piece of evidence for you to pretend does not matter:

    The following video is good for seeing just how far back the red banded iron formations really go (3.8 billion years ago). But be warned, Dr. Newman operates from a materialistic worldview and makes many unwarranted allusions of the “magical” power of evolution to produce photosynthetic bacteria. Although to be fair, she does readily acknowledge the staggering level of complexity being dealt with in photosynthesis, as well as admitting that no one really knows how photosynthesis “evolved”.

    Exploring the deep connection between bacteria and rocks – Dianne Newman – MIT lecture video
    http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/496

    Banded Rocks Reveal Early Earth Conditions, Changes
    Excerpt: Called banded iron formations or BIFs, these ancient rocks formed between 3.8 and 1.7 billion years ago at what was then the bottom of the ocean. The stripes represent alternating layers of silica-rich chert and iron-rich minerals like hematite and magnetite. First mined as a major iron source for modern industrialization, BIFs are also a rich source of information about the geochemical conditions that existed on Earth when the rocks were made. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....184428.htm

    Engineering and Science Magazine – Caltech – March 2010
    Excerpt: “Without these microbes, the planet would run out of biologically available nitrogen in less than a month,” Realizations like this are stimulating a flourishing field of “geobiology” – the study of relationships between life and the earth. One member of the Caltech team commented, “If all bacteria and archaea just stopped functioning, life on Earth would come to an abrupt halt.” Microbes are key players in earth’s nutrient cycles. Dr. Orphan added, “…every fifth breath you take, thank a microbe.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100316a

    Planet’s Nitrogen Cycle Overturned – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: “Ammonia is a waste product that can be toxic to animals.,,, archaea can scavenge nitrogen-containing ammonia in the most barren environments of the deep sea, solving a long-running mystery of how the microorganisms can survive in that environment. Archaea therefore not only play a role, but are central to the planetary nitrogen cycles on which all life depends.,,,the organism can survive on a mere whiff of ammonia – 10 nanomolar concentration, equivalent to a teaspoon of ammonia salt in 10 million gallons of water.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132656.htm

    Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. – Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers
    http://www.bioinf.uni-leipzig......g_2008.pdf

    etc etc…

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    this following piece of evidence is very interesting seversky:

    Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    and this:

    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber
    Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution’s “genetic drift” theory requires.)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5213/1060

    30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....gewanted=2

    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 30 million year old ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki

    Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria.

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – “Fitness Test” – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

    According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there “HAS” to be “significant genetic/mutational drift” to the DNA of bacteria within 250 million years, even though the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. I find it interesting that the materialistic theory of evolution expects there to be a significant amount of mutational drift from the DNA of ancient bacteria to its modern descendants, while the morphology can be allowed to remain exactly the same with its descendants. Alas for the materialist once again, the hard evidence of ancient DNA has fell in line with the anthropic hypothesis.

    Many times a materialist will offer what he considers conclusive proof for evolution by showing bacteria that have become resistant to a certain antibiotic such as penicillin. Yet upon close inspection this “conclusive proof” dissolves away. All observed instances of “beneficial” adaptations of bacteria to new antibiotics have been shown to be the result of degradation of preexisting molecular abilities.

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

  42. 42
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 39

    Seversky
    for you to try to divorce the fitness test of increased functionality, as a measure of increased functional information in the nylon example, really deserves no comment as to the sheer deception inherent within the ploy, and in reality shows how disingenuous you personally are to finding the truth. Why is this seversky? Do you think that by repeating a lie over and over again will somehow make it true?

    Do you think calling me a liar will obscure the fact that you do not understand the concept of fitness?

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    seversky, but of course you would say as such. May I recommend this song from personal experience of my life:

    Johnny Cash – God’s Gonna Cut You Down
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJlN9jdQFSc

  44. 44
    tgpeeler says:

    ba77. I just scrolled through your blog. Wow. What a great resource. Many thanks.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    tgpeeler, thanks, I don’t know how much credit I can take for the blog as all I really did was collect tidbits here and there from you guys through the last few years. (and pray)

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    Off topic new song:

    Born Again – Newsboys
    http://vimeo.com/8891858

    old song:

    Dc Talk – Jesus Freak
    http://video.google.com/videop.....938726637#

Leave a Reply