Over at the Biologic Institute blog, Douglas Axe responds to Larry Moran’s response to his work on the prohibitive difficulty of enzyme conversion. Dr. Axe notes,
If it can be shown that natural selection actually has (present tense) the creative capacity attributed to it, then I will certainly join those who are calling everyone to accept this. But if the facts go the other way, as it seems they have, then perhaps the reality check should likewise go the other way.
So now we are at a point where our critics are attempting to escape falsification by saying that evolutionary processes have simply slowed down?
Well, looks like we’re making some progress after all. I listed these on ENV but I think the kind of escape hatch Moran is using fits under the 3rd way of escaping falsification…
1. We didn’t use the right microbial strain.
2. Different test conditions would’ve produced better results.
3. The experiment just needs a little more time.
4. Evolution never had a “goal” of producing new information, but it could.
5. There must be some kind of multiverse to give enough trials.
…and so on.
I read and enjoyed the Axe/Gauger paper, but Dr. Moran’s article still has me wondering. Take this simple ascii art:
. . KBL
. ./
. /
?
. \
. .\
. . BioF
The direct path from KBL to BioF+ is a prohibitive expanse. But how do we know there’s not some ancestral protein off to the side that could serve as an intermediate? I don’t think the experiment of trying to convert KBL to BioF would uncover one if it exists?
Of note: the reductive materialism of neo-Darwinism is not even the right presupposition to explain what is found in proteins in the first place!
Verse and music:
Supplemental note:
In support of the contention that the ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum properties found in biological molecules may translate from the micro-scale of protein folding (and the helical structure of DNA) to the macro-scale of the overall physiology of the entire organism, I offer this following recent meta-analysis:
supplemental note, many times this consistent physiological effect translates to precognitive thoughts:
Bump.
In case anyone wants to tackle my question from comment 2.
@Joe Coder
Joe, you asked
Answer: Perhaps we don’t know, but you are not suggesting that all along the way there just happened to be a whole line of just right intermediate ancestral proteins off to the side that enabled the first molecule to change into a man over time are you?
Why don’t we start with what we do know and go from there.
We do know from every day experience that life always comes from life, that information always originates with a Sender, that design indicates purpose and the existence of a Designer, that software implies a Programmer, that machines point to purposeful engineering by an Inventor, that all things that have a beginning have a sufficient cause, etc.
These are things we all observe and experience firsthand in life. That should count for something I would think.
Do you know of any exceptions to these rules/principles of life?
So now we come to the genome where there is a prohibitive expanse. Why place all your marbles on the possible yet very unlikely (in my opinion) existence of a line of just right ancestral proteins all the way along to enable evolution to occur instead of on what we actually do know and can verify?
Why would BioF+ even turn into KBL if there is a closer intermediate from which it could evolve? It seems BioF+ is an unnecessary part of the equation. Even if some such ancestral protein did exist, how do we know that KBL evolved from BioF+ and not simply from that intermediate protein?
But instead of taking a position based on what we do know, you choose to go against all these rules of life and hope for the existence of some such ancestral protein that could help with the prohibitive expanse problem.
But this just puts the problem back one step doesn’t it?
I mean, now you have two proteins to explain. Where did this ancestral protein come from?
How is it that it was just the right intermediate for this transition to occur?
How often did chance come up with just the right transitional ancestral protein to help cover these innumerable prohibitive expanses?
At some point evolution has to account for novel genes, proteins, organs, and information. You can’t keep on appealing to something that may or may not have already existed as evidence to support your theory.
Obviously, the more ad hoc explanations like this that you use to prop up your theory, the weaker your theory is. At what point does it finally crumble?
In the end, we don’t know that this protein does not exist, but that certainly is not enough evidence to build a theory on.
Isn’t it better, even more scientific, to start with what we do know as I referenced above and then modify the theory as evidence arises that necessitates a change?
To clarify, I’m very much in the ID camp and have been for about 12 years now; I even reject common descent. But I like to ask these difficult questions to make sure we’re fully considering them. Since I agree with everything else you posted, let’s talk specifically on KBL to BioF+.
Take these two sentences:
1. Wolves eat chickens.
2. Rabbits eat carrots.
You can’t convert one to the other by changing only one word at a time and still keeping them logically true.
But suppose a third ancestral sentence:
3. Humans eat chickens.
Now it’s possible to convert this sentence to either sentence 1 or 2 by only substituting one word at a time, and keeping it logically true.
Could this be the case with KBL and BioF? I understand that protein space is very sparse and mutations often cause proteins to lose their structural integrity before taking on a new form. But does the research by Axe and Gauger rule out the possibility of a third protein that doesn’t lie between the structure of KBL and BioF? I don’t think it does. In order to do this, wouldn’t they have to find the distance to the nearest structurally viable proteins in every direction, not just the path between KBL and BioF?
This may be a bad example, since you can if you get creative enough. But I think my point still holds.
Sorry Joe. I must have gotten you mixed up with another Joe. I read the site a lot, but get confused with names sometimes. I didn’t double check. Thanks for your gracious response.
No worries. I’m also guilty of running in guns-ablazin’ sometimes and am trying to get better about it. Asking questions like this is actually part of my attempt.
I think the KBL/BioF+ study is an excellent example of the difficulties of protein evolution. But I worry some in the ID camp are taking this study to mean these proteins could not have evolved from a common ancestor at all. This very well may be the case, but I don’t see how the experiment proves this.
@JoeCoder
That’s a pretty good point regarding protein sequence intermediates. I guess the easiest route to go would be to establish an “edge” for what Darwinian processes are capable of in terms of crossing non-functional or harmful sequence space. From there we would just have to search for the nearest functional sequence and see how isolated it is from the nearest functional protein.
I know those supporting a Darwinian view will try to escape falsification by suggesting there may have been intermediates that don’t exist anymore, but looking into how isolated proteins are from each other should be useful enough to draw some conclusions.
I’m sick and tired of Larry Moran and his team of ignorant and blind disciples calling creationists IDiots…
I usually enjoy just reading posts on both sides, but I have grown weary of his verbal abuse and name calling…
Who does he think he is? I’m not a creationist, but hate when people abuse verbally others just because they believe in something they don’t, or they don’t agree with them…
I’ve had enough!!!
Thanks