Video: Biologist Douglas Axe on challenges to Darwinian evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 25, 2013

News}

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

Comments

BillMazz, It seems illogical to contemplate the possibility that regulatory genes can explain much, because they cannot account for / regulate the epigenome. It cannot be that newly introduced genes regulate themselves by creating a fitting epigenome. DNA is not regulating the epigenome; it's the other way around. If it's both ways I'm not sure what we are talking about.Box_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Box, Your point is a good one. Among the modern genes that had to mutate there may very well have been regulatory genes, I don't know. Also we don't know which parts of the ancient gene were different from the modern one. It may be that the regulatory segments were retained.billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Billmaz & Bornagain77 Isn't the successful introduction of new (or ancient) genes a mystery? How is it that the cell can regulate this? There is no corresponding epigenome in place. How can the cell organize itself given the 'intruders'? Why don't things just fall apart?
‘The essence of cellular life is regulation: The cell controls how much and what kinds of chemicals it makes; when it loses control, it dies’
, Michael Behe, Darwin’s black box, p.191. The fact that the cell can cope with these 'new genes' (or mutated genes) is actually proof of something else: the cell as a whole regulates its parts from above.Box_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

"This evidence clearly is evidence of Genetic Entropy (deterioration) of the genes of modern bacteria since the modern strains of bacteria only ‘regained’ fitness once ‘non-deteriorated’ ancient genetic information was added to the genome of the bacteria." I don't see why you jump to that conclusion. Nowhere does it say that the ancient gene had some superior ability which was lost or "deteriorated." It was just different, adapted to the environment that existed at the ancient time. Another explanation for the findings may be that it was "easier" for evolution to mutate the modern genes to adapt to the ancient one than the other way around. The point is that they did mutate in a different pathway and that there are many different paths for evolution to take. ID doesn't satisfactorily explain why there are so many paths that can lead to similar levels of adaptability. Evolution does. In terms of a self-organizing universe, I don't think there is any doubt that that is what we're living in. The question is how much and in what way does it apply to biology and evolution.billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Bateman @3: Well said. ----- Billmaz @11: Sounds like an interesting case. So it sounds like the loss of the ancestral gene had initially resulted in a reduction in fitness, which was then perhaps to some level regained when the ancestral gene was reintroduced? That sounds somewhat similar to the kinds of changes that occur with insecticide and bacterial resistance when the surviving population is re-exposed to the ancestral population. Often the populations that survive a particular abrupt insecticide or anti-bacterial event (and therefore are allegedly "fitter" as a result of their survival) are in fact less fit than the ancestral population when the particular stressor is removed and the population is re-exposed to the broader environment.Eric Anderson_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

After only 500 generations, they mapped their genome and found that the ancestral gene had not mutated, but the “modern” genes that interact with the ancestral gene had mutated in order to adapt to the introduction of the ancestral gene and make the e.coli multiply even faster and be healthier than the pure modern e.coli. In other words, evolution had found a new pathway.
That's pretty cool, billmaz, but call us when the e. coli becomes something other than e. coliRexTugwell_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Well billmaz, so you are saying Darwinism isn't random? If so what do you propose in its place, self organization or Intelligence. That's basically all you got to choose from: i.e. chance, necessity, and/or Intelligence.,,, Good luck with that whole self organization thing, I think Kantian Naturalists can give you some notes on that whole futile line of thought. :) Moreover, finding a ancestral gene to be more robust than a derived gene is not at all unexpected in a genetic entropy view of things, but is unexpected from a 'vertical evolution' view of things, where things supposedly get better and better. Notes to that effect: The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Dr. Cano's work, which preceded Dr. Vreeland's work, on ancient bacteria came in for intense scrutiny since it did not conform to Darwinian predictions, and since people found it hard to believe you could revive something that was millions of years old. Yet Dr. Cano has been vindicated: “After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reductionist-predictions-always-fail/comment-page-3/#comment-357693 In reply to a personal e-mail from myself asking about genetic entropy, Dr. Cano commented on the 'Fitness Test' I had asked him about: Dr. Cano stated: "We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative "ancient" B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.": Fitness test which compared ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria. This following experiment is very interesting in how it confirmed the preceding observation of genetic entropy for modern bacteria: Giving Ancient Life Another Chance to Evolve: Scientists Place 500-Million-Year-Old Gene in Modern Organism - July 11, 2012 Excerpt: After achieving the difficult task of placing the ancient gene in the correct chromosomal order and position in place of the modern gene within E. coli, Kaçar produced eight identical bacterial strains and allowed "ancient life" to re-evolve. This chimeric bacteria composed of both modern and ancient genes survived, but grew about two times slower than its counterpart composed of only modern genes. "The altered organism wasn't as healthy or fit as its modern-day version, at least initially," said Gaucher, "and this created a perfect scenario that would allow the altered organism to adapt and become more fit as it accumulated mutations with each passing day." The growth rate eventually increased and, after the first 500 generations, the scientists sequenced the genomes of all eight lineages to determine how the bacteria adapted. Not only did the fitness levels increase to nearly modern-day levels, but also some of the altered lineages actually became healthier than their modern counterpart. When the researchers looked closer, they noticed that every EF-Tu gene did not accumulate mutations. Instead, the modern proteins that interact with the ancient EF-Tu inside of the bacteria had mutated and these mutations were responsible for the rapid adaptation that increased the bacteria's fitness. In short, the ancient gene has not yet mutated to become more similar to its modern form, but rather, the bacteria found a new evolutionary trajectory to adapt. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120711100726.htm Now the burning question that Darwinists will never ask is, of course, why are the modern genes adjusting to the information that the ancient 500 million year old gene had provided to the bacteria, to increase the fitness of the bacteria, instead of the other way around??? This evidence clearly is evidence of Genetic Entropy (deterioration) of the genes of modern bacteria since the modern strains of bacteria only 'regained' fitness once 'non-deteriorated' ancient genetic information was added to the genome of the bacteria.bornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

In other words, evolution had found a new pathway.
Intelligent Design Evolution or blind watchmaker evolution?Joe_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

First of all, my dear Bornagain, just because pure randomness is not the driving force is not an argument either against evolution or for ID. I have already mentioned to you papers discussing other physical forces for directed mutations, including possibly quantum mechanics (remember the Inverse Quantum Zeno Effect?) Secondly, here Bill Maz: The Chaotic Paths of Evolution I discuss a paper in which an ancestral e.coli gene was created and placed in a "modern" e.coli. After only 500 generations, they mapped their genome and found that the ancestral gene had not mutated, but the "modern" genes that interact with the ancestral gene had mutated in order to adapt to the introduction of the ancestral gene and make the e.coli multiply even faster and be healthier than the pure modern e.coli. In other words, evolution had found a new pathway. The other papers in the blog also show how evolution is fractal and one-directional, in that once a path is taken other mutations 'burn bridges' so that you can't go backwards, nor, sometimes, can you find a direct lineage. The evidence is burned.billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Well billmaz,,,
I don’t buy Behe’s math.
,,,That's a peculiar thing to say seeing as Darwinists, though claiming to the contrary, actually have no rigid mathematical basis:
The equations of evolution - March 24, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-equations-of-evolution/
Moreover, as to your appeal to mechanisms besides 'pure randomness':
Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html Again I would like to emphasize, I’m not arguing Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems, the data on malaria, and the other examples, are a observation that it does not. In science observation beats theory all the time. So Professor (Richard) Dawkins can speculate about what he thinks Darwinian processes could do, but in nature Darwinian processes have not been shown to do anything in particular. Michael Behe - 46 minute mark of video lecture on 'The Edge of Evolution' for C-SPAN https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-lecture-recommend/comment-page-1/#comment-361037
But is you 'don't like Dr. Behe's math', perhaps this math will be more pleasing:
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html
or perhaps if that math does not please you either, perhaps this empirical evidence will:
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdf
But if you insist that 'directed mutations' can surpass all these severe limits, then that obviously begs the question as to what the ultimate source of guidance is. i.e. if Darwinists give up 'pure randomness' as the ultimate source of creativity in the Darwinian scheme of things the the game is over for them!bornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Bornagain, Your paper also suggests that an alternative reading frame of existing genes could have easily given rise to new genes. There is no reason why all of these mechanisms and more can't be happening at the same time. If anything, taking together all of these mechanisms of gene evolution is an argument FOR evolution, in that it increases the possibilities of new genes being formed at all levels. I don't buy Behe's math. With the advent of new evidence of directed mutations you can't just look at pure randomness and take it at face value.billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

billmaz, perhaps the researchers of your cited reference,,,
(Oct. 2012) Our results support the duplication-divergence model of evolution and indicate fractality and multiplicative growth as general properties of the PPI network structure and dynamics. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058134
,,, should get together with the researchers of this cited reference,,,
Phylogenetic patterns of emergence of new genes support a model of frequent de novo evolution - 21 February 2013 CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the overall trends of gene emergence are more compatible with a de novo evolution model for orphan genes than a general duplication-divergence model. Hence de novo evolution of genes appears to have occurred continuously throughout evolutionary time and should therefore be considered as a general mechanism for the emergence of new gene functions. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/14/117/abstract
,,and work out a evolutionary 'just so' story that will be pleasing to both camps??? note as to what the empirical evidence (not a model) actually says about this:
"The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")
bornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

If they evolved via gene duplication then they evolved by design.Joe_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Bornagain Please comment on the paper below, just published, which confirms the previous conclusions that most protein networks evolved through gene duplication and fractility. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058134billmaz_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Of note to post #2: Fossil Finds Show Cambrian Explosion Getting More Explosive - May 2010 Excerpt: Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/fossil_finds_show_cambrian_exp.htmlbornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Axe mentioned how people tend to simply accept their education without critique. Being a social scientist, I can only look at this debate on chemistry and biology from a layman's point if view. What I can comment on is the danger of "democratic science." What made me a skeptic of the Darwinian account (and others matters of pop science) to begin with is the vehement nature of Darwinist and the blind acceptance by laypeople. This debate has all the hallmarks of a political campaign, with all the vitriol (mainly one-sided) and mudslinging. Note to Darwinist (and some ID folk): when you resort to political tactics instead of sticking to the "hard" sciences, your stance is immediately diminished. You may win the uninformed to your side, but that's about it.Bateman_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Axe mentioned how people tend to simply accept their education without critique. Being a social scientist, I can only look at this debate on chemistry and biology from a layman's point if view. What I can comment on is the danger of "democratic science." What made me a skeptic of the Darwinian account (and others matters of pop science) to begin with is the vehement nature of Darwinist and the blind acceptance by laypeople. This debate has all the hallmarks of a political campaign, with all the vitriol (mainly one-sided) and mudslinging. Note to Darwinist (and some ID folk): when you resort to political tactics instead of sticking to the "hard" sciences, your stance is immediately diminished.Bateman_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

OT: PZ Myers favorite evolutionary mascot turns around and betrays him: Giant Squid (caught on camera): Mighty to Resist Speciation - March 26, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/giant_squid_mig070391.htmlbornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD.
Here is the entire video with Dr. Axe:
Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
bornagain77_{March 26, 2013
March
03
Mar
26
26
2013
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply