The Origin of the DNA Code: Did Evolution Occur Between Neighbors?

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 3, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

The DNA code is both nearly universal and nearly optimal. With the exception of minor deviations occasionally discovered, the same DNA code is found in all species. And that code is so efficient it is sometimes labeled as “optimal.” This is yet another simple example revealing the absurdity of evolutionary theory. Let’s see why. Read more

Comments

DATCG, #11
Big Bang Explosion of Information by Eugene Koonin He has admitted the data does not match the Darwin TOL.
And yet he agrees that there is still a TOL.
Here, I argue for a fundamentally different solution, i.e., that a single, uninterrupted TOL does not exist, although the evolution of large divisions of life for extended time intervals can be adequately described by trees.
Sounds more like he's comparing the TOL to a Banyan tree when Darwin compared it to an Oak. Darwin's theories are no more dead than Newton's are.camanintx_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

CY and DATCG,
I’ve always wondered about HGT myself. I’m not a scientist, but it doesn’t really seem as if it fits with a Darwinian perspective – unless of course it’s some sort of magic process that we don’t yet have an explanation for (but will) -then yes, it fits.
Can you describe exactly how HGT is a problem for evolution, or how it helps ID? I don't see how. Of course Charles Darwin didn't know about HGT, but he died 127 years ago. According to wikipedia, the first instance of HGT was observed "just" 50 years ago.yakky d_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

This is the problem of writing without much attention. Corrections to my comment at 18: - Take away the "1)". - Evidences do not "opens". They open :-)Edson_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Hi, Gaz(6). As DATCG said in 13, ID is not theology. Many proponents of ID surely reinforced their religious beliefs because the specific evidences in science which we are knowing better opens the scenario for wondering who the designer was and what were (and maybe what are) his purposes. Some people still face it as being the contrary, as something like "Our beliefs cannot be wrong. Let's just make the evidence be what we want". 1) This statement could well characterize atheistic darwinism and six-day-creationism. ID defenders are showing to have their feet well on earth, some of them making concessions for common descent, for example. The main point is that evidences is really leading us to infer design. It's not like imagining dog forms in the clouds. I don't see much sense in the feeling that scientists need to keep ID alive, as if it needed their thoughts to exists and as if it was threatened by new discoveries and fighting against them, for they could beat it and prove it wrong. For these reasons, it's not logical to think ID as a dead-end. It have made correct predictions, many of which weakened the case for pure materialism, and will surely continue to firm itself by new predictions it will make right. And, again, it's not a matter of choosing what to believe in, but rather, finding the truth.Edson_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter: These fact-free assertions are what evolution is all about. In evolutionary thought, science has become a mechanism for story-telling." Eventually they will be able to refine the fable so that it joins harmoniously with the multitude of other fables that make up the Darwinian paradigm...er myth, catching unawares the unquestioning hoards. It's kind of like a Star Trek mythology, where they try to make it fit as authentically as possible with the rest of the myth, so that the causal viewer will only notice what fits. Problem is, just as there are holes in the Star Trek myth, there are holes in the Darwinian myth that people notice if they are keen enough. Joseph, "As far as I can tell the only thing tat needs to develop is to allow the design inference." I fully agree. But reality is not allowed in the Star Trek myth. It's not authentic enough. A design inference is too conventional. They don't want convention, but spooky. Evolution is spooky. "Allen MacNeil from Cornell University, an avowed unguided evolutionist that has posted here many times admitted Darwin is dead and Modern Synthesis is superceeded." With all the exchanges I (the least among many others) have had with Allen here, I was not aware that he made this admission. When and where? DATCG,"Well, that is wonderful. You found HGT. You realize HGT undercuts everything Darwinist have believed in, worhipped for the last 150yrs, but now you have to deal with it. So you roll out a 'scenario' whereby a non-Darwinian processes enabled complexity prior to the assumed 'Darwinian Transition' phase." I've always wondered about HGT myself. I'm not a scientist, but it doesn't really seem as if it fits with a Darwinian perspective - unless of course it's some sort of magic process that we don't yet have an explanation for (but will) -then yes, it fits.CannuckianYankee_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

They do not address Darwinism...
"A Darwinian transition corresponds to a state of affairs when sufficient complexity has arisen that the state is incapable of tolerating ambiguity, and so there is a distinct change in the nature of the evolutionary dynamics—to vertical descent." This is not a fact. It is merely their token comment on Darwinism. "We envision that such Darwinian transitions occurred in each of the three major lineages. The present work does not address the Darwinian transition itself, but explains how the communal state could have arisen in the first place: in our scenario, it is the inevitable by-product of the establishment of an innovation-sharing protocol—the genetic code—leading to the explosive growth of complexity."
Well, that is wonderful. You found HGT. You realize HGT undercuts everything Darwinist have believed in, worhipped for the last 150yrs, but now you have to deal with it. So you roll out a "scenario" whereby a non-Darwinian processes enabled complexity prior to the assumed "Darwinian Transition" phase. Kudos for recognizing non-Darwinian processes exist. Thats a first step. There will be more in the future as Darwinist wake up from their denial of Design.DATCG_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

On a more serious note. Congrats to these scientist for recognizing the failures of Darwinism in light of HGT. But as Koonin, Baptiste, et al, and many biologist understand today, they are cornered. They have no where to go and realize as much. But this is a big admission. Lets read on...
Our framework fits naturally the recently proposed picture that early evolution was dominated by horizontal gene transfer, as evidenced by detailed phylogenetic[15], biochemical[16] and structural[17] analyses of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases." Gosh, has HGT stopped today? They're saying it was much more robust in the past due to their phylogenetic studies? Hmmmm... frankly I do not give to much weight to phylogenetic interpretations these days. "The broader implication of this scenario is that innovation sharing led to the emergence of modern cell designs [18] from a communal state - not a unique, shared ancestor." Or, Design allowed for shared material that supported rapid adaptation, not "gradual" processes over long periods of time. "Such a communal state existed prior to the point of emergence of vertical evolution, which has been termed the Darwinian transition[18]." Chuckles... obligatory Darwin statement. This is to funny. OK, we give up on Darwin prior to this specific point due to the obvious non-Darwinian nature of nature. But hey, then this magical mystery transition takes place... and poof! Darwin! yada, yada. "The defining property of the communal state was that it was capable of tolerating and utilizing ambiguity, as reflected in the pervasive role of horizontal gene transfer."
We get it. Stuck with HGT, Darwin is dead.DATCG_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Cabal, You say the paper is meaningless to Darwinism. The papers fourth reason... "Finally, the evolutionary dynamic that gave rise to translation is undoubtedly non-Darwinian, to most an unthinkable notion that we now need to entertain seriously. Gee, seems they're talking about Cabal's "unthinkable notion." Yes, they need to review the "undoubtedly non-Darwinian" processes within translation, transcription, editing, error-correction, alarms, alerts, etc., within the cell. Along with dynamic communications across all levels of cells and tissue types, nerves, brain cells, etc. "These four considerations structure the approach we take in this paper." Gee, one of the four considerations is non-Darwinian. Go figure, more...
"If Darwin had been a microbiologist, he surely would not have pictured a “struggle” for existence as “red in tooth and claw”." chuckles, surely not, but he'd still predict bear to whale. "Our view of competition in a communal world as a dynamical process is very different from the widely-understood notion of Darwinian evolution. Wait, wait, wait! Huh? Different from "widely-understood notion of Darwinian evolution?" Well gee, seeing how Darwinian definitions changes over time, thats a logical outcome. So, they differ from the current notion of Darwinian evolution. "“Survival of the fittest” literally implies that there can only be one winner from the forces of selection, whereas in a communal world, the entire distributed community benefits and its structure becomes modified by the forces of a selection that is an inherently biocomplex phenomenon involving the dynamics between the community elements and the interaction with the environment." Gee, anyone feel a Margolis community organizer event on the horizon? "The most general sense in which we mean competition in this article is the complex dynamical rearrangement of the community structure." Bingo! Now, who is the community organizer?
LOL... this is fun reading. Essentially, Darwinian notions do not work at this level or in time before the grand magical mystery tour of "Emergence" miracles.DATCG_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Gaz, "Additionally, inferring design is a dead end." No, that is a lie, a mantra that you have heard repeated ad naseum by Darwinist and atheist. No truth at all to this statement. If it were true, all great scientific Christians in the past would have stopped doing science. But they did not, did they? Isaac Newton? Pasteur? Thomas Bayes? And the list goes on and on from long ago to the many scientist today that contribute to great discoveries and inventions like Geneticist John Sanford at Cornell University. Please do not buy into a bunch of lies distributed by propagandist. "What research can be done after that? You can’t (according to ID theology)..." Oh really, now you are showing your colors Gaz. ID is not theology. It is a science of Design Detection. Now you are making your own theological arguments here which is a waste of time. If you want to argue theology of who the Designer is, maybe drift over to a theology web site. "... infer who the designer is, or when they did the design, or pretty much anything at all. It’s a dead end." Actually, it appears you are unfamiliar with ID. It does not attempt to identify who the Designer is and as to "when" that is not ID either. You are confusing different fields of science. "That still doesn’t stop anyone from inferring it if they want to. However, it doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to them." Why should anyone listen to your misreprensentations and misinformation about ID? This is truly sad.DATCG_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Cabal, Do you read at all? Insults are grand aren't they?DATCG_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Big Bang Explosion of Information by Eugene Koonin He has admitted the data does not match the Darwin TOL. This is just one example. There are more that have been posted and "read" here in the past.DATCG_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Looking at the comments so far, I wonder: Do people read the paper CH built his case on:
Our framework fits naturally the recently proposed picture that early evolution was dominated by horizontal gene transfer, as evidenced by detailed phylogenetic[15], biochemical[16] and structural[17] analyses of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.
Universal common descent still going strong, where's the beef?Cabal_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Cabal, People reference scientific papers here almost daily. It would do you well to read up on TOL failures and the failure of Darwins original theory, thus Modern Synthesis. Now even MS has failed admittedly by evolutionist. This is why they are turning to Margolis. Allen MacNeil from Cornell University, an avowed unguided evolutionist that has posted here many times admitted Darwin is dead and Modern Synthesis is superceeded. But hey, u are the great "Cabal" Lol.... If even the strongest supporters are admitting failures in all of these areas, why should we listen to you? Darwinian evolution is a failed theory in multiple ways. 1) fossil records 2) gradualism 3) macro evolution 4) vestigial organs 5) Bears swimming to Whale theory At best random mutation and natural selection are weak forces and cannot account for macro-evolution theories. Your trivial snide remarks are all that is left of Darwinism. You are evidently to blind a follower to see this, or to deaf to hear.DATCG_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
Scientific paper on the origin of the genetic code via non-telic processes? Please provide the reference.
You know that the paper CH built his case on is an analysis of (as far as I understand) pathways of evolution in the transition from prebiotic life to the root proper of the Darwinian tree of evolution. I don't see what difference CH thinks the paper makes. Darwinian evolution is still going strong. In the meantime I am waiting for more peer-reviewed papers on teleology.Cabal_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

As far as I can tell the only thing tat needs to develop is to allow the design inference. We don’t need any new methodologies.
I absolutely disagree. What Intelligent Design theory needs most right now is a solid methodology for using the design inference to make new discoveries. The big question, of course, is whether the design inference can be useful in modern science. Darwinists obviously think it is not, perhaps out of some paranoid fear that Intelligent Design theory means replacing all of modern biology with the three words "God Did It" -- a ridiculously oversimplified delusion in my opinion. But let's not be distracted by concepts of what is "allowed" by the current scientific paradigm. The only potential obstacle I see standing in the way of ID's own program of empirical research -- an ongoing and unambiguous demonstration that the design inference is a useful tool in modern science -- is the issue of funding, which is why I mentioned volunteers and donations.Daisy_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Joseph (5), You miss the point. Anyone is entitled to infer intelligent design if they want to, the reason most scientists don't is that when you dig into the evidence there really isn't any solid evidence for it. Additionally, inferring design is a dead end. What research can be done after that? You can't (according to ID theology) infer who the designer is, or when they did the design, or pretty much anything at all. It's a dead end. That still doesn't stop anyone from inferring it if they want to. However, it doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to them.Gaz_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

"It would be too unlikely (even for evolutionists) for the identical unique code to have evolved independently in the different evolutionary branches..." Too unlikely? For evolutionists? You mean like, 'we came from nothing'! That kind of 'unlikely'? :)IRQ Conflict_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Daisy, As far as I can tell the only thing tat needs to develop is to allow the design inference. We don't need any new methodologies. All we need is for scientists, conducting scientific research, to be allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data leads to.Joseph_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Yet another solid and convincing argument for why Evolutionism fails. Unfortunately, this is only the first step. Too many ID proponents have been lulled into thinking that if only their arguments and logic and reason against Darwinism are sound enough, evolutionists will eventually see the light. Instead, those evolutionists sit back and sneer, "Well, maybe our theory has problems, but yours is no better." As I've said before in a previous thread, the most critical thing for the ID movement to be doing right now is developing its own intricacies and methodologies, designing and supporting a much more intense program for conducting new empirical research -- funding this through our own donations and volunteers if necessary. Ten years from now, if we're still talking about whether or not evolutionism is true, the movement will have been an utter failure. Instead, the topic by then needs to be why scientists working under the paradigm of Intelligent Design theory are producing new and valuable discoveries, while scientists working under the paradigm of Evolution theory are stagnating under the weight of their own assumptions.Daisy_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Scientific paper on the origin of the genetic code via non-telic processes? Please provide the reference.Joseph_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

To make the story complete, for those that don’t bother to read scientific papers,
We have argued that there are three distinct stages of evolution, which we might classify as: (I) Weak communal evolution, which gave way via development of an innovation-sharing protocol and the emergence of a universal genetic code to (II) Strong communal evolution, which developed exponential complexity of genes, finally leading via the Darwinian transition to (III) Individual evolution—vertical and so, Darwinian.
Cabal_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply