This is the kind of headline I’d expect to see from the Onion. If only it were so…
Comments
CharlieD as to "This is a simple idea of population genetics and inheritance"
Funny, it's the 'simple ideas' from population genetics that also falsify neo-Darwinism:
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008
Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf
Supplemental notes:
How the Junk DNA prediction of neo-Darwinists was born out of the mathematics of population genetics
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011
Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
In this example, the simpler system is less efficient at performing its function, therefore if it had come from a population of organisms all still exhibiting the superior system, the organism would have been out-competed and driven to extinction. This is a simple idea of population genetics and inheritance. That is my understanding at least.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
CharlieD you state:
"Also, slightly simpler systems do exist still today"
So, since Darwinian processes have an overwhelming tendency to degrade things,,
“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/
,, then why not assume that the simpler system came from the more complex system instead of insisting, against what we consistently observe in our evidence, that it was the other way around???
Presenting the Positive Case for Design - Casey Luskin - February 14, 2012
Excerpt: If you think of the flagellum like an outboard motor, and the T3SS like a squirt gun, the parts they share are the ones that allow them to be mounted on the bracket of a boat. But the parts that give them their distinct functions -- propulsion or injection -- are not shared. I said that thinking you can explain the flagellum simply by referring me to the T3SS is like saying if you can account for the origin of the mounting-bracket on the back of you boat, then you've explained the origin of the motor too -- which obviously makes no sense.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/at_north_dakota056351.html
"One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. ‘The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later,"
Howard Ochman - Biochemist - New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008)
The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems - September 2012 - Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002983
Supplemental note:
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
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Also, slightly simpler systems do exist still today, such as bacteria that do not have specific tRNA synthases for some amino acids. They rely on other mechanisms to supply amino acids.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Im not talking about "unguided" evolution. Evolution is guided by what is beneficial to the organism under specific circumstances, whether that is at the molecular level or at the species morphology level.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Mr CharlieD:
Mr. Joe, continuing with Upright’s conversation, a testable hypothesis would be that since tRNA synthases are so important to complex life, that they must have supposedly evolved early in the course of life’s history and be conserved in different forms of life. This is testable by looking at the amino acid sequence of Upright’s aars, and it turns out that the human form shares 41% of its sequence with the ecoli protein.
Interesting, however that doesn't have anything to do with unguided evolution.
As for your response to Upright Biped, well it would be up to someone to demonstrate a simpler system can exist.Joe
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
I saw that Mr. Biped, and I also noticed that your argument was based on the idea that "Without one arrangement the other is useless." How on earth can you be so sure of that? Who's to say there are not simpler molecules of tRna synthases or simpler systems than what we have supposedly evolved to have.
Also, Mr. Eric I have read that basic proteins can form on their own, with simple catalytic sites. Are you aware of the catalyst zeolite? This porous mineral is used as a catalyst of chemical reaction in the petrochemical industry, and it functions simply because it has small spaces between its pores. Catalysts, whether protein or not can be of very simple structure.
Mr. Joe, continuing with Upright's conversation, a testable hypothesis would be that since tRNA synthases are so important to complex life, that they must have supposedly evolved early in the course of life's history and be conserved in different forms of life. This is testable by looking at the amino acid sequence of Upright's aars, and it turns out that the human form shares 41% of its sequence with the ecoli protein.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
CharlieD-
Our argument against evolutionism/ unguided evolution, is that it cannot be tested. It doesn't produce any predictions nor a testable hypothesis.
So if Joeatle actually produced a testable hypothesis or predictions borne from unguided evolution, we may have listed to him.Joe
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
CharlieD:
The word [information] has numerous variations of definitions.
And what are those various definitions that you have in mind?
-----
joealtle:
. . . basic proteins can form on their own.
LOL! The gift that keeps on giving. :)
From this point it only requires different variations of protein/RNA to increase the diversity of functions in both information storage/inheritance and metabolism.
Gee, see how easy it all is!? We just need some variations and, presto, we get function, information storage, metabolism.Eric Anderson
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
I assure you that I did.
UB: To continue with your example, when the mRNA is delivered to the ribosome for translation it comes into proximity to tRNA molecules which have been previously charged (by the aaRS) with the correct amino acids (following the genetic code) and the forces of pair bonding between codon and anti-codon will physically order the tRNA to reflect the sequence that was present in the original DNA. As a matter of direct observation, the DNA provides information (i.e. the form of the resulting protein) to a system which is physically capable of producing that physical effect. Do you agree with all that?
joeeltle: Sure
As I previously said, the material evidence hardly ever comes into question, given that it is based on the foundational research in the domain. Do you have some misgivings about the material evidence you'd like to share?Upright BiPed
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
You should have used your supposed scientific evidence from all those scientists when conversing with Mr. Atle. Im not sure why that thought never crossed your mind.CharlieD
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
Hi CharlieD,
Thanks for the comment. I wasn't making an argument against the evolution of a biological system. My argument assumes evolution instead. It also assumes that the basis of heredity (i.e. information) is a thing that any definiton of the word "information" would describe as a real thing, and therefore it must have material consequences and be identifiable. Knowing what is physically required to transfer form through a material medium is a reasonable goal in trying to understand it. If it turns out that some observers may have to adjust their thoughts to accomodate verifiable results, then it is to be expected that they do so.
As far as basing my argument on science, my arguement is generally based on the science of Francis Crick and James Watson, plus the May 1961 results from Marshal Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei, as well as research by Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik on tRNA, plus the keen observations of a number of others (Polanyi, Pattee, von Neumann, Barbieri, Denton, Abel, Behe, etc) that I've had the good fortune to read.
You might also like to know that the material facts are hardly ever even brought up in relation to my argument. That should indicate the gist of the debate, and the level to which the material facts are in dispute. What should be expected from opponents who cannot dispute the observations of material evidence?
You are however quite right about the importance of definitons though. I do not believe I am required to use my opponents definitons (after all they may be incomplete or equivocating, which would retard progress), only that I am prepared to coherently give mine, and be consistent in my usage. I am just a layman commentor here, and I am prepared to adjust my language if shown that it is factually incorrect. I have certainly done so before. It goes with the territory. :)Upright BiPed
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
It’s interesting that you base your argument against the evolution of a biological system on your own definition of the word “information.” The word has numerous variations of definitions.
Don’t you think it would be a better idea to base your argument against the evolution of a biological system on evidence from scientific research anyways?CharlieD
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Genotype vs phenotype is nucleotide vs protein issue.
The genotype is the information and the phenotype is the end product of that information. When you put forward the RNA World hypothesis, you are claiming that RNA is both the information and the product of that information. The genotype-phenmotype distinction only becomes an issue in real world chemistry. As I said earlier, pushing the issue into the darkness of the RNA World does nothing to alter reality.
And you are taking for granted the very thing that must be explained. At some point the RNA must build something other than itself. To do that will require recorded information using a code; after all, proteins aren’t made of nucleotides. You’ll need a mechanism to establish that code, and you’ll need it prior to the onset of information-based organization. And since that system contains an irreducibly complex core, you’ll need that mechanism to simulaneously establish a physicochemically-arbitrary relationship between two discrete material objects.
The system won’t function without it. Its a physical fact.
RNA can both contain info and catalyze reactions and basic proteins can form on their own.
The code you need isn’t established by RNA, it’s established by protein. So prior to the onset of ‘organization based on recorded information’, you’ll need protein to establish the code. If you have even a single scrap of empirical evidence of an RNA establishing a code, then I’d be more than happy to review it. (btw, it’s not there, I’ve looked)
From this point it only requires different variations of protein/RNA to increase the diversity of functions in both information storage/inheritance and metabolism.
This is a completely and utterly false statement. Firstly, you must establish a code if nucleotides are to instruct the production of proteins, and secondly you must have an energy-independent coding structure unless you don’t expect to contain anything but the most trivial amounts of information, and thirdly, you have to have a translation apparatus that can produce effects based on the code found in the medium.
In other words Joealtle, you haven’t even begun to begin, and quite frankly I don’t think you have even the slightest understanding of this. You have a wholly underdeveloped understanding of what information is, and what it does, and how it does what it does, and why it does it that way.
As I said at the top, you need to get an education on these issues if you want to have any hope of debating in earnest.
cheers…Upright BiPed
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Genotype vs phenotype is nucleotide vs protein issue.
Self-replication can be achieved without any heritable information actually. RNA can both contain info and catalyze reactions and basic proteins can form on their own. From this point it only requires different variations of protein/RNA to increase the diversity of functions in both information storage/inheritance and metabolism.Joealtle
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
RNA strands alone can serve the purpose of both information storage and function of that information
This is not an RNA vs protein issue. And pushing the material requirements back into an unknown/untested "RNA world" does nothing whatsoever to change the requirements of the system. In order to achieve self-replicating biological organization, i.e. heritible recorded information operating in a system capable of producing a physical effect, including the necessary production and distribution of usable energy, respiration of waste, cross contamination control, etc etc etc - you still need still need an arrangement of matter serving as a medium to contain recorded information, as well as a second arrangement of matter to establish what the effect of that information will be. To say otherwise is to say that a single RNA script can not only contain the information required to replicate itself, but surprisingly also contains the information required for a system of recorded heritable information processing (using a semiotic code) within a homeostatic metabolizing entity prior to any "genotype-phenotype" (information --> effect). This is not a theory on the cusp of confirmation by evidence, despite what you wish to believe. Pushing the genotype-phenotype distinction into an RNA world doesn't alter reality; at some point the RNA has to build something besides itself. This is the materialist theory of poof.
So now when you come here to do your culture warring in the name of empiricism and material evidence, you know which material facts to ignore. An irreducibly complex system is required prior to onset organization based on recorded information.Upright BiPed
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
And as I already said, RNA strands alone can serve the purpose of both information storage and function of that information. That is a part of abiogenesis, RNA can serve the purpose of both the phenotype and genotype in early cells. Eventually proteins took over and this can be observed in the structure and function of the ribosome, it has both protein parts and also RNA parts that carry out steps in information transfer, and as we know, RNA is a form of information storage.Joealtle
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
try making your point soon
Sure.
My point is that you just agreed to the material conditions that are required to transfer any instance of recorded information into a physical effect - without exception. And those material conditions include an arrangment of matter to evoke an effect within a system, and an arrangement of matter to physically establish what that effect will be. Without one arrangment the other is useless. Without both, there cannot be a tranfer of information into a physical effect. In other words, there is no genotype and phenotype distinction (which btw, the process of Darwinian evolution requires in order to exist).
You've agreed to the irreducibly complex system underlying biological organization, whose existence is not only a universal observation, but also a logical necessity.
I'll offer you the argument in a single paragraph, then you can go back to assuming your conclusions.
In a material universe, it is not possible to transfer any form of recorded information into a material effect without using an arrangement of matter (or energy) as an information-bearing medium. If that is true, then other material necessities must logically follow. Firstly, such a medium must operate to evoke a material effect within a system capable of producing that effect. Universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. Secondly, if a medium contains information as a consequence of its arrangement, then that arrangement must be materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. And thirdly, if an arrangement of matter requires a system to produce an effect that it is materially arbitrary to, then that system must contain a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the medium and its effect. Once again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. If each of these things are true, then in order to transfer any form of recorded information, the process fundamentally requires two arrangements of matter, each with a materially arbitrary quality, operating as an irreducible core within a system. And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of the system. Given these observations, a mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state is necessary prior to the onset of information-based organization, as well as Darwinian evolution.
Upright BiPed
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Sure, try making your point soon because I wont be on here much longer, this was only a weekend thing.Joealtle
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
to pass information, you need an actual physical thing in which the information is described
Agreed. And like any other form of information when that genetic information is passed it must be translated in order to produce a physical effect from it. To continue with your example, when the mRNA is delivered to the ribosome for translation it comes into proximity to tRNA molecules which have been previously charged (by the aaRS) with the correct amino acids (following the genetic code) and the forces of pair bonding between codon and anti-codon will physically order the tRNA to reflect the sequence that was present in the original DNA. As a matter of direct observation, the DNA provides information (i.e. the form of the resulting protein) to a system which is physically capable of producing that physical effect. Do you agree with all that?Upright BiPed
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
I see, well I was referring to DNA/RNA/protein with DNA as the recorded info, RNA as the transfer medium, and protein as the translated info. And my example of when info storage and transfer medium are one in the same is when RNA is used as info storage and translated directly into protein.
But I see what you are saying; that to pass information, you need an actual physical thing in which the information is described. And I agree with that.
Im not sure what your point is though.Joealtle
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
if the recorded information also serves as the transfer medium
Then we have misunderstood each other.
My position is that recorded information must be recorded in the arrangement of a material medium. I am capable of presenting a great deal of evidence from nature which demonstrates this to be true - information must be recorded in the arrangement of a material medium in order to be transferred into a physical effect. Not only is this a universal observation in nature, but it is also a logical necessity (after all, what else would it be recorded in). Perhaps you agree with me on this, and we have simply been talking past each other.
If I am not correct on that, then in order for me to understand your position, can you please give me an example of recorded information that does not serve as the medium its transferred in? I am interested to know how it was recorded, if not in a medium.Upright BiPed
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
No, sorry, Im saying that if the recorded information also serves as the transfer medium, then yes its possible to not need a separate transfer medium.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
do you think it is possible to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using an arrangement of matter/energy as a medium?
Hmm, well if the recorded information is the medium that transfers the info then yes.
Your answer is a little unclear, it seems you first agree with the statement, but then contradict it when you say "yes". I'm sure that's just a simple mistake, so I am assuming you agree that the transfer of recorded information requires an arrangement of matter or energy as a medium. Is that correct?Upright BiPed
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Hmm, well if the recorded information is the medium that transfers the info then yes.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
Sure.
So I can also assume that you understand that Darwinian evolution operates by (and is dependent upon) that genotype-phenotype distinction - that it is, in fact, the information recorded in the nucleic medium (the gene in the genotype) that evolves over time.
Allow me to ask a question, do you think it is possible to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using an arrangement of matter/energy as a medium?Upright BiPed
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Sure.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
Joealte,
Id is based on an absence of facts, “science doesnt know how it came about, therefore it must have been designed,” is an argument from ignorance.
Again, you assume your conclusion, but we can set that aside for now.
You are familiar with the reigning biological concept - that of the genotype and the phenotype - with the genotype being information recorded in nucleic sequences to be translated into a physical effect, and the phenotype being the resulting product of that information after being translated, yes?Upright BiPed
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Why is it not in the ballpark of reason? Because I dont have on hand the death toll caused by religion? The fact is that religion has an extremely bloody history, theres no getting around that. Im not atheist, by the way.
Religion and atheism can be equally harmful, the only thing that combats both is reason.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Joealtle comparing the unmittigated horror done in the name of Atheism to the atrocities done in the name of Christianity is not even in the ballpark of reason. You have just revealed yourself as a atheistic dogmatist who could care less what the evidence actually says and is determined to believe a lie not matter what you have to say. Good day sir, I'm done!.bornagain77
