Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Horizontal gene transfer discovered from bacteria to insects

Categories
horizontal gene transfer
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

(“several species of ticks and mites”)

From Washington University :

It’s a dog eat dog world, and bacteria have been living in it for a long time. It’s of no surprise that bacteria have a sophisticated arsenal to compete with each other for valuable resources in the environment. In 2010, work led by University of Washington Department of Microbiology Associate Professor Joseph Mougous uncovered a weaponry system used in this warfare between bacteria. The combatants inject deadly toxins into rival cells.

Now, in a surprising twist, Mougous and colleagues have found that many animals have taken a page from the bacterial playbook. They steal these toxins to fight unwanted microbes growing in or on them. The researchers describe their findings in a report to be published online Nov. 24 in the journal Nature.

“When we started digging into genome databases, we were surprised to find that toxin genes we thought were present only in bacteria were also in several animals,” explained co-author Matt Daugherty, a postdoctoral fellow in the Malik lab. “We immediately started wondering why they were there.”

While such transfer events are common between microbes, very few genes have been reported to jump from bacteria to more complex organisms.

Best guess: There’ll be more.

One problem this creates for Darwinian evolution is this: Determining when a change actually happened in a Darwinian way (natural selection acting on random mutation) as opposed to horizontal gene transfer is now a matter for research, not dogma.

Abstract

Horizontal gene transfer allows organisms to rapidly acquire adaptive traits1. Although documented instances of horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to eukaryotes remain rare, bacteria represent a rich source of new functions potentially available for co-option2. One benefit that genes of bacterial origin could provide to eukaryotes is the capacity to produce antibacterials, which have evolved in prokaryotes as the result of eons of interbacterial competition. The type VI secretion amidase effector (Tae) proteins are potent bacteriocidal enzymes that degrade the cell wall when delivered into competing bacterial cells by the type VI secretion system3. Here we show that tae genes have been transferred to eukaryotes on at least six occasions, and that the resulting domesticated amidase effector (dae) genes have been preserved for hundreds of millions of years through purifying selection. We show that the dae genes acquired eukaryotic secretion signals, are expressed within recipient organisms, and encode active antibacterial toxins that possess substrate specificity matching extant Tae proteins of the same lineage. Finally, we show that a dae gene in the deer tick Ixodes scapularis limits proliferation of Borrelia burgdorferi, the aetiologic agent of Lyme disease. Our work demonstrates that a family of horizontally acquired toxins honed to mediate interbacterial antagonism confers previously undescribed antibacterial capacity to eukaryotes. We speculate that the selective pressure imposed by competition between bacteria has produced a reservoir of genes encoding diverse antimicrobial functions that are tailored for co-option by eukaryotic innate immune systems. (You have to pay to read the article.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
LoL! @ Zachriel:
The Theory of Evolution has many facets, some of which have a mathematical basis, such as population genetics, and others which are qualitative. The Theory also includes historical components which are often subject to change.
Please link to this alleged theory if evolution so we can all see what it really says.
The most direct falsification would be to show an organism precedes any plausible ancestor.
Unguided evolution evolution is stuck at prokaryotes...Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Hey Zachriel, I think you mean to be addressing bornagain77 instead of little ole me peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
bornagain77: Darwinism is not a science but a pseudo-science. Darwinism has several meanings. The most common is evolution by natural selection. You probably mean the Theory of Evolution. bornagain77: Then provide the rigid mathematical falsification criteria that we can test against and so as to potentially falsify Darwinism with! The Theory of Evolution has many facets, some of which have a mathematical basis, such as population genetics, and others which are qualitative. The Theory also includes historical components which are often subject to change. The most direct falsification would be to show an organism precedes any plausible ancestor. bornagain77: The fossil(s) did not ‘fit a prediction’. Of course it did. It's right in your video. The speaker is making fun of the notion of a hypothesis from the 1970s, then you immediately afterwards post the fossil findings from 2011. You have to really try to avoid the implications of what you yourself posted. -- ETA: fixed attributionZachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Darwinism is not a science but a pseudo-science. Disagree? Then provide the rigid mathematical falsification criteria that we can test against and so as to potentially falsify Darwinism with! Calling words that Darwinists use 'scientific definitions' makes as much sense as calling the terms alchemists used 'scientific definitions'. The fossil(s) did not 'fit a prediction'. It was shoe horned into your imagination: http://creation.com/mammal-ear-evolution Moreover, I have more than enough reason to request observational evidence for your claim that such transitions are possible since the fossil record is not one of transitions, as Darwin predicted, but is a record of sudden appearance and overall stasis: Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their intermediate ancestors are absent in the earlier geologic strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution? Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 14 - Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." Robert L Carroll (born 1938) - vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50 (January 1979): 23, 22-29. "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Tom S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999), 246. - Curator of Zoological Collections "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.” Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould "The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34. "Species [in the strata of the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming] that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95. "The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 40. "No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links . . . There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed." Niles Eldredge, quoted in George Alexander, “Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978. "Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks." Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24. "Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
bornagain77: I disagree that the fossils are transitional, I disagree that the characteristics are ‘primitive’ and ‘derived’. These terms have specific scientific definitions. bornagain77: I disagree that the fossils were ‘predicted’. YOU provided the evidence. First, you linked to a video which had a diagram from the 1970s with the predicted fossil forms. Then you linked to a recent find of fossils that fit those predictions.Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
I disagree that the fossils are transitional, I disagree that the characteristics are 'primitive' and 'derived'. I disagree that the fossils were 'predicted'. I hold that the fossils were force-fit into an imaginary sequence and that the only thing really connecting the fossils are the imaginary lines evolutionists have drawn on paper. ‘Transitional form’ in mammal ear evolution—more cacophony http://creation.com/mammal-ear-evolution Moreover, I also note that you failed (once again) to provide any direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence to substantiate your claim that such transitions are possible. (this is because you have no evidence!) ,,, Observational evidence so as substantiate your 'just so' story as to how my exquisitely designed hearing ear got here,,, Of note: There are about.... Ten-trillion levels of intensity to human hearing (from threshold to pain, 0 to 130 decibels). This makes the sense of hearing the widest ranging of all senses. The ear is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than two-ten-thousandths-of-a-millionth of barometric pressure. This moves the eardrum about one-hundreth-millionth of an inch. This threshold of hearing corresponds to a vibration width of only one-hundreth of an hydrogen atom’s diameter. (Hydrogen is the smallest atom.) Under favourable conditions a normal person may actually perceive sound waves with the power of only 10-16 (1/10,000,000, 000,000,000) of a watt. Golden Ratio in The Ear The ear reflects the Fibonacci spiral. The Fibonacci spiral stars out with a perfect golden rectangle. The you follow the Fibonacci pattern and create smaller and smaller golden rectangles. From this, a spiral can be drawn, where the radius of the spiral, at any given point, is the length of the corresponding square to a golden rectangle. Golden Ratio In the Cochlea It is also in the cochlea inside the ear. The cochlea is a small organ inside the ear which helps you hear. It has a spiral shape although it is not a prefect spiral. http://goldenratioiseverywhere.weebly.com/face.html How the ear works - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgdqp-oPb1Qbornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
bornagain77: I disagree that the fossils are transitional. The fossils show the primitive and derivde structure that were predicted to exist. Of course, each new transitional makes two new gaps! Did ID predict the existence of these fossils?Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
I disagree that the fossils are transitional. And I disagree that lining various fossils up in a row to give the illusion of a transition qualifies as rigid science. I call it more akin to seeing faces in the clouds. And with the Cambrian explosion and the sudden appearance and stasis throughout the fossil record noted by Gould and others, I have more than sufficient reason to be skeptical of your 'just so' story as to how my hearing ear got here. Thus I ask you for direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence that what you claim to be possible for unguided material processes is actually possible for unguided material processes,,,, Surely after 150 plus years you should have countless examples you can point to?!? Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany. Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 1 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-09T17_31_28-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 2" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-11T15_59_50-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt.3" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-13T16_47_09-08_00 Mutation + Selection = Stasis - October 8th, 2014 Excerpt: As a trained physicist, Desai applied a statistical perspective using robots to precisely manipulate hundreds of lines of yeast to perform large scale evolutionary experiments. Scientists have long studied genetic evolution of microbes, but until now, only a few strains at a time. Robotically managing 640 lines of yeast from a single parent cell, Desai’s team was efficiently tooled to statistically analyze evolution at this level for the first time. In an interview with Singer, Joshua Plotkin, an evolutionary scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “This is the physicist’s approach to evolution, stripping down everything to the simplest possible conditions… They could partition how much of evolution is attributable to chance, how much to the starting point, and how much to measurement noise.”,,, While early mutations in the experiment initially variably influenced fitness, fitness in the final generations was the same. “Scientists,” Singer noted, “don’t know why all genetic roads in yeast seem to arrive at the same endpoint”.,,,, “I think many people think about one gene for one trait, a deterministic way of evolution solving problems,” David Reznick, a biologist at the University of California-Riverside, told Singer. “This says that’s not true.” Unexpectantly, Desai’s team discovered genetic mutations plus selection yields stasis in the microbe model– not evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2014/10/mutation-selection-stasis/ Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here, and no evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution surfaces: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper in this following podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
I disagree that the fossils are transitional. And I disagree that lining various fossils up in a row to give the illusion of a transition qualifies as rigid science.bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
bornagain77: what part of ‘assuming your conclusion’ do you not understand It's not assuming a conclusion to posit the existence of a transitional, then to find empirical evidence of the transitional. What's interesting is that it was your own citation! bornagain77 (quoting): “Finally, in the absence of a viable materialistic mechanism to account for the transition in question, the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular” No. That's not what is meant by circular reasoning. If you posit a transitional and find a transitional, it lends support to the hypothesis. It's called the scientific method.Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Zach what part of 'assuming your conclusion' do you not understand "Finally, in the absence of a viable materialistic mechanism to account for the transition in question, the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular" Jonatham Mbornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
PaV @ 5 -
IOW, there are lots of possibilities, ones more probable than simply HGT in the direction of ‘bacteria’ to ‘animal,’ and yet, our Darwinist brethren simply go into their Darwinian toolhouse, pick out a few little tools that give some kind of plausible explanation, and then off they go.
I don't know if you've read the paper, but the phylogeny in Fig. 1b suggests two HGT events from bacteria to eukaryotes: one in Daphnia, and one in mites. If the HGT had been the other way around, one would expect the bacteria to be placed within a small number of lineages within the tree, as each clade would represent one HGT event.Bob O'H
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
bornagain77: as to middle ear evolution, like everything else, that supposed evidence for evolution falls apart on scrutiny First, you post a video using a forty year old diagram showing a posited transitional. Then you quote-mine a paper which provides the fossil evidence of the transition. From Meng et al., "Here we report the first unambiguous ectotympanic (angular), malleus (articular and prearticular) and incus (quadrate) of an Early Cretaceous eutriconodont mammal... This transitional mammalian middle ear narrows the morphological gap between the mandibular middle ear in basal mammaliaforms and the definitive mammalian middle ear (DMME) of extant mammals; it reveals complex changes contributing to the detachment of ear ossicles during mammalian evolution."Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Box:
A prerequisite of an hierarchic classification system, is the absence of any overlapping classes. However, due to this absence of any overlapping classes, a hierarchic classification system is – by definition – the wrong tool to show evolution; overlap by gradual change via branching descent.
That is correct. The following may help- summary of the principles of hierarchy theoryJoe
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
sparc, I don't have the link. Moreover, beneficial mutations that gain a fitness advantage by breaking something are a dime a dozen and greatly out numbered beneficial mutations that are on their way to building some supposed new molecular machine (Behe's First Rule). That by itself renders Darwinian explanations untenable. As to the specifics of the Gauger experiment, and whether it produced new functional complexity/information above Behe's 2 protein-protein binding site limit, I don't have any details. It is interesting that Darwinists, instead of producing any observational evidence of unguided Darwinian processes producing functional information, would have to rely on this murky episode from a speech given years ago by Dr. Gauger. Perhaps you would like to clarify how many binding sites were produced and how much functional information was generated in the Gauger experiment so as to 'clear the fog' as it were and forever vindicate Darwinism as being a science instead of a unsubstantiated pseudo-science?bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
BA77
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
There have been reports that during Wistar II DI's and Biological Institute's own Dr. Gauger reported such findings in E. coli:
The next presentation in this session was by Ann Gauger, a microbiologist and employee of the Biologic Institute, whose presentation was entitled, “Assessing the difficulty of pathway evolution: an experimental test.” Her presentation was remarkable in part because she performed experiments and reported original data. She began with the repetitive attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, stating that the current complexity of metabolic pathways within cells could not have been created by gene duplication or gene recruitment (another name for co-option), and therefore they were designed. She suggested that contemporary evolutionists believe if there is not a payoff in terms of adaptive value within a few generations, any duplicated gene will be lost, and that for recruitment/co-option to work, function must change within a very few mutations. It is factually untrue that these assertions are an essential part of Darwinian theory. At most, they were initial starting points for investigations into protein evolution long ago, but today’s evolutionary biology does not adhere to any of them. Gene duplication is considered an integral part of evolutionary dynamics and one major source of the co-option that is so ubiquitous in evolution. She suggested that when similar proteins are “arranged by hierarchy,” the evidence suggests they arose from a common ancestor that predates the eukaryote/prokaryote split and perhaps even the Archaea. Gauger thus, like Behe, accepted not only a phylogeny of life but an ancient singular origin of life. Then she embarked on a series of experiments designed to emulate 2 billion years of microbial evolution in Petri dishes over a few bacterial generations. Specifically, she wanted to see if either of two forms of a protein would mutate directly into the other under those experimental conditions. They did not. Gunther Wagner congratulated Dr. Gauger on doing some great experimental work, but noted some logical inconsistencies in inference. The first is a phylogenetic comparative issue; it is necessary to know the ancestral state of the two proteins. If you are dealing with two proteins each derived separately from a common ancestor, then the experiment involves a minimum of two steps, backwards to the ancestral condition and then forwards to the alternative derived condition. It seems unlikely that you would be able to do that experimentally, especially if you have no idea of the environmental conditions under which the evolutionary diversification took place, and no idea if there were any intermediate forms that no longer survive. In response, Gauger admitted that the two proteins she studied are quite old and that studies of enzymes that are more recently diverged from each other report a lot of functional co-option, but only on a small scale. She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.
I would appreciate if you could help with a video link to said conference.sparc
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Joe, Would you care to answer my question on ONH here?Box
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Yes, the nested hierarchy is an entailment of the Theory of Evolution. See Darwin 1859.
That is a lie. First there isn't a theory of evolution and second Darwin said that given the number of transitionals we shouldn't be able to form a nested hierarchy.Joe
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
as to middle ear evolution, like everything else, that supposed evidence for evolution falls apart on scrutiny,, Neo-Darwinists have a fictitious fossil series leading from jaw bones to inner ear bones. That particular Darwinian fairy tale is addressed at the 31:49 minute mark of this following video (you have to skip over 31:49 minutes of a ‘brief’ description of the stunning engineering and design found in the ear to get to the ludicrous, and laughable, Darwinian explanation proffered by evolutionists for this amazing sophistication we find in the ear). The Hearing Ear by Dr. David Menton - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPiXlJ3eIwo On the Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear - Jonathan M. - July 25, 2012 Excerpt: Moreover, Meng et al. (2011) report that Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon.",,, In general, what have been interpreted as ear ossicles in Yanoconodon differ significantly from the middle ear elements of Liaoconodon.,,, Finally, in the absence of a viable materialistic mechanism to account for the transition in question, the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular -- it assumes that these structures are connected by descent. When one's entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset, it is no wonder that any and every observation is taken as supportive of that paradigm. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/on_the_evolutio062511.htmlbornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
gain, you might want to consider the evidence for the evolution of the mammalian middle ear.
There isn't any such evidence. No one knows how many mutations were involved nor what genes were involved. It is not scienceJoe
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Zach, I ask for a mathematical proof for Darwinism and you refer to cladistics? I hate to have to tell you this, but cladistics is far from a rigid mathematical proof for Darwinism! In fact, like embryo comparisons, cladistics is, as was made abundantly clear by Matzke's reply to Meyer's Darwin's Doubt, more than ripe for abuse by Darwinists: A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin's theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. "Phylogenetic systematics," the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, "relies on the theory of evolution." To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air. Tight fit, major fail.7 No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that "phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever."8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer's Argument for Intelligent Design Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4 Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k Stephen Meyer explains why the use of cladistic analysis -- stem groups, crown groups, cladograms, ghost lineages -- fails to satisfy. "In order to compensate for missing fossils, we have to postulate more missing fossils. So I don't think that this really solves the problem of the missing fossils. I think it actually accentuates it." Stephen Meyerbornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Zach, since you have no OBSERVATIONAL evidence, you accuse me of refusing to look at the evidence of ‘embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence’ that you imagine supports Darwinism. Contrary to what you believe, I have looked at the evidence from each field and found it severely wanting. In fact, just on this thread, in post 11, I have listed much evidence that refutes your claim that molecular and fossil evidence supports Darwinism (and also shows you to be dishonest (surprise!) in your claim that I refuse to look at the evidence): https://uncommondescent.com/news/horizontal-gene-transfer-discovered-from-bacteria-to-insects/#comment-533102 as to embryos, neither do they, in the least, support your claims for Darwinism. In fact, Haeckel's embryos are known to be one of the biggest perpetuated frauds in science: One of the most blatant examples of a known falsehood being taught as proof of evolution is Haeckel's Embryo drawings. Though the drawings have been known to be fraudulent for over 100 years; Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Casey Luskin - October 11, 2012 Excerpt: embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again." Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." ,,, So if you're a Darwin lobbyist defending a textbook that uses Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, be forewarned: neither Bob Richards nor any other credible authorities I'm aware of endorse the unqualified and uncritical use of Haeckel's original inaccurate drawings in biology textbooks today. You're on your own. per ENV Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's (Bogus) Embryos - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Haeckels-Embryos-Cropped-II.jpg Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997 Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154 Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution - June 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/current_textbooks_misuse_embry035751.html etc.. etc.. A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Still Awaiting Engagement: A Reply to Robert Bishop on Darwin's Doubt - Paul Nelson - September 8, 2014 Excerpt: "Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan." Eric Davidson - 2011 ,, it is difficult to miss Davidson's thrust. As far as the origin of animal body plans is concerned, neo-Darwinism isn't incomplete or insufficient. It is dead wrong.,,,bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Zach, since you have no OBSERVATIONAL evidence, you accuse me of refusing to look at the evidence of ‘embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence’ that you imagine supports Darwinism. Contrary to what you believe, I have looked at the evidence from each field and found it severely wanting. In fact, just on this thread, in post 11, I have listed much evidence that refutes your claim that molecular and fossil evidence supports Darwinism (and also shows you to be dishonest (surprise!) in your claim that I refuse to look at the evidence): https://uncommondescent.com/news/horizontal-gene-transfer-discovered-from-bacteria-to-insects/#comment-533102 as to embryos, neither do they, in the least, support your claims for Darwinism. In fact, Haecel's embryos are known to be one of the biggest perpetuated frauds in science: One of the most blatant examples of a known falsehood being taught as proof of evolution is Haeckel's Embryo drawings. Though the drawings have been known to be fraudulent for over 100 years; Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Casey Luskin - October 11, 2012 Excerpt: embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again." Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." ,,, So if you're a Darwin lobbyist defending a textbook that uses Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, be forewarned: neither Bob Richards nor any other credible authorities I'm aware of endorse the unqualified and uncritical use of Haeckel's original inaccurate drawings in biology textbooks today. You're on your own. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1065151.html Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's (Bogus) Embryos - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Haeckels-Embryos-Cropped-II.jpg Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997 Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154 Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution - June 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/current_textbooks_misuse_embry035751.html etc.. etc.. A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Still Awaiting Engagement: A Reply to Robert Bishop on Darwin's Doubt - Paul Nelson - September 8, 2014 Excerpt: "Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan." Eric Davidson - 2011 ,, it is difficult to miss Davidson's thrust. As far as the origin of animal body plans is concerned, neo-Darwinism isn't incomplete or insufficient. It is dead wrong.,,,bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
bornagain77: where is the unlimited plasticity instead of just variation within kind? The definition of "kind" seems to vary considerably. Sometimes all vertebrates are the same kind. Now cats and dogs different kinds.Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
We offered to discuss specifics of reproductive isolation, and to discuss the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. This is your answer. bornagain77: {piles of citations} bornagain77: "You instead have a literature bluff" bornagain77: perhaps you can show us the rigid mathematical basis that will allow Darwinism to potentially be falsified as other overarching theories of science are potentially falsifiable? "Darwinism" is rather vague. If you mean the Theory of Evolution, you start with branching descent, which provides the historical framework for understanding the mechanisms involved in shaping the tree. There are entire scientific journals dedicated to cladistics.Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
as to,,, "Other mechanisms include changes to behavior, coloration, song, sexual organs, none of which requires a loss of genetic information." Methinks you are much too easily hoodwinked! How about changing a dog into a cat? i.e. where is the unlimited plasticity instead of just variation within kind?bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
as to polyploidy,,, John Sanford, a leading expert in plant genetics, examines Polyploidy (Gene/Chromosome Duplication) fallacies in Appendix 4 of his book "Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Genome". "What about polyploidy plants? It has been claimed that since some plants are polyploidy (having double the normal chromosome numbers), this proves that duplication must be beneficial and must increase information. Polyploidy was my special area of study during my Ph.D. thesis. Interestingly, it makes a great deal of difference how a polyploid arises. If somatic (body) cells are treated with the chemical called colchicine, cell division is disrupted , resulting in chromosome doubling - but no new information arises. The plants that result are almost always very stunted, morphologically distorted, and generally sterile. The reason for this should be obvious - the plants must waste twice as much energy to make twice as much DNA, but with no new genetic information! The nucleus is also roughly twice as large, disrupting proper cell shape and cell size. In fact, the plants actually have less information than before, because a great deal of the information which controls gene regulation depends on gene dosage (copy number). Loss of regulatory control is loss of information. This is really the same reason why an extra chromosome causes Down's Syndrome. Thousands of genes become improperly improperly regulated, because of extra genic copies. If somatic polyploidization is consistently deleterious, why are there any polyploidy plants at all - such as potatoes? The reason is that polyploidy can arise by a different process - which is called sexual polyploidization.This happens when a unreduced sperm unites with a unreduced egg. In this special case, all of the information within the two parents is combined into the offspring, and there can be a net gain of information within that single individual. But there is no more total information within the population. the information within the two parents was simply pooled. In such a case we are seeing pooling of information, but not any new information.",,, "in some special cases, the extra level of gene backup within a polyploidy can outweigh the problems of disrupted gene regulation and reduced fertility - and so can result in a type of "net gain". But such a "net gain" is more accurately described as a net reduction in the rate of degeneration." John Sanford - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome - pages 191-192 - Dr. John Sanford has been a Cornell University Professor for more that 25 years (being semi-retired since 1998). He received his Ph. D. from the University of Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics.,,, His most significant scientific contributions involved three inventions - the biolistic ("gene gun") process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. (Due to such a stellar record in plant genetics, I take Dr. Sanford's unmatched experimental experience of plants, strictly obeying the principle of Genetic Entropy, with never a violation, to be 'state of the art' for what we can expect for the polyploidy of plants). Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
As to falsifying Darwinism, perhaps you can show us the rigid mathematical basis that will allow Darwinism to potentially be falsified as other overarching theories of science are potentially falsifiable? “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Chaitin is quoted at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600 HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanfordbornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
bornagain77: reproductive isolation through loss of genetic information (i.e. sub-speciation) is not what you need to prove Darwinism true and ID false One means of reproductive isolation is polyploidy, which increases genetic information. Another is chromosome rearrangement, which does not result in the loss of genetic information. Other mechanisms include changes to behavior, coloration, song, sexual organs, none of which requires a loss of genetic information.Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Zach, reproductive isolation through loss of genetic information (i.e. sub-speciation) is not what you need to prove Darwinism true and ID false: A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012 - article http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin's speciation FAQ as a 'literature bluff' Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply