If you don’t believe that all complex life on earth depends on a single, freakish accidental event …

#77 Q You may check this out: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/off-topic/ba77s-off-topic-thread-volume-5-aerobatic-ballet-what-id-has-done-for-me-cid-charisse-tango-jealousy-butterfly/#comment-514336 :) Dionisio

#77 Q Yes, amazing. :) Soli Deo Gloria. Thank you for referring to those timely verses. I believe the restoration will be done by the One Who created all (John 1:3; Hebrews 10:14; Philippians 1:6), Who uniquely claimed to be "VIA, VERITAS, VITA" (John 14:6). We shall enjoy His glorious presence all eternity. But while we're still here, in this age of grace, we want to proclaim His good news, so all His sheep hear His voice and turn to Him for salvation. 1 Thessalonians 5:22-24. Rejoice! :) Dionisio

Which fits together nicely with

Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. 2 Thess. 2:8-12 (NASB)

And also in Romans 8 . . .

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

and while we suffer, all of nature is suffering as well!

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Amazing. I expect that the genomic deterioration we currently observe in nature will be fully repaired. Who knows, maybe we'll be doing the repairing! Wouldn't that be fabulous! :-) -Q Querius

#74 Querius What is Truth?

Then Pilate said to Him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” John 18:37-38 (ESV)

What is truth. Truth does not matter to those who, like Pilate, are motivated by expediency. Likewise, truth does not matter to skeptics who have despaired of knowing it. [Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]

Dionisio

#74 Querius Yes, yikes! Thank you for quoting that powerful reminder here. No one else could have said it better than the Prince of peace, Light of the world, Giver of Life, Lord of lords, King of kings. Still as valid today as it was in the first century of this age of grace. Rev. 22:21 to you. :) Dionisio

Dionisio, Yes, I'm also glad for gpuccio's ability to explain things and patience in consideration for the casual reader. I keep getting a picture in my mind of some of the things that Jesus had to say to the religious leaders of his day. For example in John 8:42-47 (NIV), we read:

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

Yikes! -Q Querius

Sorry Mung, maybe you should read along. I clearly stated that the real probability of BA77 existing was 1. The example I provided was intentionally absurd (which I also mentioned several times) to demonstrate that probability is often used improperly, sometimes innocently, sometimes intentionally. Acartia_bogart

Arcatia_bogart:

But I did notice that, rather than answer my question, or seriously critique my probability estimates that BA77 exists (other than to say that I was wrong because I said 10^17 rather than 10^-17, even though this was a convention used by The Great Behe)...

Was it Behe who pointed out that people who didn't understand probability arguments should not be critiquing them? For example: P(A) where A means "BA77 exists." All probabilities are CONDITIONAL. Yet it's not always the case that the condition is explicitly stated, but it's UNDERSTOOD to be there. So to continue: P(A|A) where A means "BA77 exists" and the conditional is "BA77 exists." Probability = 1. P(A|!A) where A means "BA77 exists" and the conditional is that BA77 does not exist. Probability = 0. Why do my numbers differ so much from those given by A_b? Mung

#70 Querius I have noticed that gpuccio has a special gift to explain complex things very patiently and in a very clear manner. Definitely I lack such ability. I have learned quite a bit by reading his posts. Perhaps it's sad that some folks don't take advantage of such an opportunity. But that's out of your and my control, hence there's nothing we can do to correct that situation, except pray. :( However, I'm glad gpuccio keeps posting his insightful comments, despite the reaction of his interlocutors, because the rest of us, including the lurkers (anonymous visitors), benefit. Dionisio

gpuccio, I made one last attempt to appeal to reason with Acartia_bogart with similar results to what you've received. I regret the complete waste of time this has turned out to be. Personally, I don't think A_B has anything higher than a HS diploma and access to the internet. Feel free to continue, but I'd say you're also wasting your time. -Q Querius

Acartia_bogart: I am afraid that you still miss the point: a) If I define a result as "any number from 1 to 10000 which, if pre-specified, would have a 1:10000 probability of being extracted", then the probability is 1. Any number is part of the defined set. b) If I define a result by pre-specifying one number, like 3256, that number jas a 1:10000 probability of being extracted (in one attempt). c) If I define a functional subset of the search space, like: "any number from 1 to 10000 which is part of the Fibonacci sequence", that subset has a probability of 19:10000 of being extracted in one attempt, and that simple fact does not change, either I pre-define or post-define. The functional specification remains alaways valid, because it depends on an objective property, and it is not a list of the individual results. d) If I define the result as the exact sequence of the 20 Fibonacci numbers, extracted in 20 attempts in the right order, then that result has a probability of 1e-80 of being found in 20 consecutive extractions. So, as I have said in my post, if I observed that result I would seriously consider some non random explanation, and that is completely independent from the fact that I may have defined the result before or after observing it. This is the simple point about ID, and Behe, that you seem not to understand. As I have said, you are simply recycling the old "deck of cards" argument, which is false and silly. In practice, it just states that what happens in a) (a result of probability 1) is a very improbable result. That is not true, and it is a complete distortion of probability. gpuccio

gpuccio #36 - thanks for that explanation. My math is a little rusty. That was helpful. Silver Asiatic

Acartia_bogart: The difference between the numbers provided by Beje is that he is assuming no intelegent actor is involved and numbers you provided on the chances of our indvidual existence is that an inteligence IS involved. alan777

A_B: and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of any complexity is also wrong. Joe: No one does that.

Sorry Joe. I meant to say "and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of the natural evolution of complexity is also wrong". Acartia_bogart

Acartia_bogart:

This is the same reason why the fine tuning of the universe argument is wrong,

The two- your attempt at an analogy and fine-tuning- have nothing in common.

and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of any complexity is also wrong.

No one does that. Joe

Gpuccio

If you define a partition after the event, simply by describing the result, the event has obviously already taken place. The probability has meaning only as the probability of getting that same result again.

That is why I used that absurd example. This is the same reason why the fine tuning of the universe argument is wrong, and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe's chloroquine resistance to the improbability of any complexity is also wrong. Obviously, I wasn't seriously trying to prove that BA77 can't exist. You are absolutely correct, my back of the napkin was just the probability of a person identical to BA77 occurring again. And, in reality, the probability is much much lower than I indicated. Acartia_bogart

Querius,

Credentials: a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something : recruitment is based mainly on academic credentials.

Which is exactly what I have. My credentials in biology are the ones that are on diplomas. My credentials in statistics were obtained by experience gained through over 30 years of use as part of my education and work experience. My current job has to do with applying statistical procedures to large and small laboratory data sets compiled from over 300 laboratories throughout the world. These are my credentials. But I did notice that, rather than answer my question, or seriously critique my probability estimates that BA77 exists (other than to say that I was wrong because I said 10^17 rather than 10^-17, even though this was a convention used by The Great Behe), you jump all over an inconsistency in how I used the word credentials in two different comments, separated by over one month. I have been told by Barry that people who falsely accuse someone of being a liar are banned from posting on UD. Yet, you continue to call me a liar for claiming that I am a biologist and a statistician, all based on a typo. And then every time I comment, you keep bringing this point up. I know that Barry would never ban you from posting on UD because you are a staunch supporter of creationism, but that just demonstrates that his criteria for banning have nothing to do with falsely calling someone a liar. But getting back to my previous request. I have laid my education and experience on the table for everyone to review. This will allow people to place any of my comments in better context and call me on any that they feel are beyond my knowledge level. Why are you afraid to do the same? If you are going to call me a liar on my stated credentials it only seems fair that I be given the same opportunity. Acartia_bogart

Acartia_bogart: Sorry to repeat myself, but... What about my posts #32 and 36? gpuccio

Acartia_bogart, When you responded to the topic, “Why do we need to make a decision about common descent anyway?” in comment 43, posted on August 5, 2014 at 9:59 pm, you wrote the following:

Jerry, actually A_B is a biologist and a statistician, but what are a couple credentials between friends?

Let that sink in. This is in direct and obvious conflict with what you wrote in comment 55 above:

I have not hidden my expertise (only you said ‘credentials’, I never did), but I have never heard what yours are.

and then later in the same post you continued:

. . .with a smattering of statistics (no degree as you keep stating).

But you just stated that you had a couple of credentials! You said that you are a statistician, which implies more than a smattering in the mind of any reasonable person! Ouch. Ok, you obviously wrote your post with a sense of frustration, and you may well have the degrees and experience you claim, but I can't believe you and I don't believe you. There are three reasons why. 1. Most of your posts here are condescending, disparaging, and lacking any support for your statements. For example, in that same post 43, you wrote the following:

The difference between the statistics behind evolutionary theory, and Behe’s voodoo magic pseudostatistics is that one is defensible and testable. And the other one is creationism.

You never supported your accusation, even when asked, which should be easy for anyone claiming to be a “statistician.” 2. I tested you with a simple probability problem and you got it wrong in two ways: the answer, which you claim was a typo (yeah, try that excuse on a midterm), and your fundamental misconception of calculating the probability of simultaneous versus sequential events. Granted some probability calculations can be pretty tricky, but this was not one of those. 3. A lack of any technical detail in your objections and explanations—at least the ones that I read. If you're passionate about tintinnids, great! I'd expect to occasionally run across something about them, or some other aspect of marine biology that you studied. Information like that would enrich the dialog here, and I'm sure it would be appreciated. For what it's worth, I actually purchased a Zeiss stereo zoom microscope when I absolutely could not afford one primarily to go “small game hunting” for what used to be called protozoa, to key small flowers and insects, and occasionally to remove splinters. What can I say? Without any rancor intended, I confess that I feel sorry for you. If you relaxed from your tense, combative style, I think you'd have a more pleasant, enlightening dialog with people that you fundamentally disagree with, and it would be ok. If you can't let yourself relax, then go ahead and plaster me with ad hominems. But at least consider what I said. -Q Querius

A_B:

That is not what I am saying. I used that absurd example that the probability of BA77 existing is effectively zero (it is actually 1 because he exists)...

I think I see the problem. Phinehas

If this story is true, and there are still those who doubt it, then all eukaryotes—every flower and fungus, spider and sparrow, man and woman—descended from a sudden and breathtakingly improbable merger between two microbes.

Is it unreasonable to find this breathtakingly improbable merger breathtakingly improbable? Is it more or less unreasonable to find it otherwise? Phinehas

wd400:

Others here (and Behe elsewhere in his book) try to extrapolate that fact to conclude increases in complexity or adaptation are always improbable.

Reference please. I know we do ask for and never receive any evidence that unguided evolution can produce complex protein machinery. Why is that? Joe

Acartia_bogart: What about my posts #32 and 36? gpuccio

wd400 at #46: So, just to understand, could you please show how ATP synthase arose without any "ultra-specified outcome"? Thank you. gpuccio

Querius: "So Acartia_bogart’s figure of 10^19 (which, apparently due to another “typo,” should be 1/10^19 or 10^-19" Nope. No typo. But just basic shorthand. If you actually knew anything about statistics and probability, you would know this. " is actually ten times greater than Mike Behe’s calculation for the probability of the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria!" A great example of quote mining out of context. Even ignoring the odds of two people hooking up in a moderate sized city (which I mentioned but agreed to ignore) Querius completely ignores the increasing improbabilities with ever generation that you go back in time. Which completely dwarfs the improbability provided by Behe. Since you are quick to call someone a liar (which, apparently is grounds for being banned from UD, unless, of course, you are an ID supporter), I would like to give Barry another chance to show that he is not a hypocrit I have not hidden my expertise (only you said 'credentials', I never did), but I have never heard what yours are. Care to share? I will expand on mine if you would like. Two degrees in marine biology (hence the passion for tintinnids), with a smattering of statistics (no degree as you keep stating). Twenty years in environmental chemistry (there were no jobs in marine biology, who'd a thunk), and the last 15 years in statistics and chemistry, including, currently, part of an ISO working group drafting an international standard on statistics (ISO 13528, part of TC69, if you would like to investigate). So, what are your credentials? Or are you afraid to mention them in fear that someone may call you on them based on a typo? Cheers. Acartia_bogart

Folks, please notice these two statements by Acartia_bogart: @17

>Given that Querius knows so much more about probability than I do, I will let him tell us what the probability is. But I am pretty sure that it makes Behe’s 10^20 seem like a certainty.

and @37

And just to keep Querius happy, 1) Probability of BA77?s parents hooking up 1/3,000,000,000 x 1/3,000,000,000 ~10^19. But, obviously, the odds of them hooking up are not random events. Not all of the female population is available to all of the male population.

So Acartia_bogart's figure of 10^19 (which, apparently due to another "typo," should be 1/10^19 or 10^-19) is actually ten times greater than Mike Behe's calculation for the probability of the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria! It certainly doesn't make "Behe’s 10^20 seem like a certainty." And the math is the same "voodoo" as Behe used! Querius is a pretty craft fellow, no? ;-) The result also underscores just how improbable that the evolution of major structures were due to random changes. -Q Querius

Joe:

And exactly what type of math does evolutionism use?

Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ Mung

Jehu, It's a vey off teh cuff estimate in a single paper. Getting an accurate esimate would be quite hard. But, we can ignore the precise estimate and agree any specific change that requires two mutations in a specific order, with the first being deleterious, is quite improbable. Something require two of those scenarios much more so. Others here (and Behe elsewhere in his book) try to extrapolate that fact to conclude increases in complexity or adaptation are always improbable. To do that you'd have to prove that complexity can only increase through such pathways. wd400

wd2000 Behe's 10^20 figure is the number of reproductive events for a novel instance of chloroquine resistance becoming fixed in a population This number was established through observation and Behe works backwards from there to arrive at why it is so rare. The answer, as established in Summers, is primarily because it takes two mutations before any selective advantage occurs. Wishing there was an easier route doesn't make it so. Jehu

A-b #13 “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),.... 'I was wondering when someone would bring Behe’s voodoo statistics into the discussion. But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis?' ---------------------- You omitted the ROFL part: '.... 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.” ---------------- 'But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis?' Did I say it had anything to do with 'endosymbiosis'? Or, indeed, the price of fish and chips? I think not. Axel

wd400- The problem is evolutionary biologists don't have anything to offer that we can actually test pertaining to the evolution of complex protein machinery via differing accumulations of genetic accidents. And any time you would like to present the evidence that any ole collection of mutations can produce complex protein machinery we would love to see it. Joe

MooseDr:

However, all probabilities in the ID world involve two simultaneous events happening.

Except ID has a different definition of simultaneous than the rest of the world. Acartia_bogart

Oh goody, now wd400 is going to help AB straighten us out on the math.,,, grab some popcorn this ought to be good entertainment,,, bornagain77

You guys all seem to be making A_B's point for him. If you make ultra-specific requirements you get low probabilties. Behe's math is based on the probability of two specific mutations mutations becoming fixed in a population when the first one is somewhat deleterious. Even if you accept the 10^20 number (which is not an empirical fact or the product of a calculation, just an aside in a paper), do say that it's relavent to all the ways in which complexity can rise you would have to show that complexity can only arise through such pathways and such ultra-specified outcomes. Otherwise you are playing the same game AB is making fun of. wd400

A_B, you play an uninformed probability game. The probability of any particular event happening -- pretty much zero. It is always easy to find a gazillion considerations that would lead to a different result. However, all probabilities in the ID world involve two simultaneous events happening. Most usually they are the probability of some particular pattern of mutations occurring paired with the ability to perform some meaningful function. You busily calculate the probability of a bunch of junk sitting in a junk-yard in the particular configuration in which it happens to sit. But when that junk proves to be the proverbial 747, a working 747 the calculation must differ radically. Moose Dr

Eric- I don't see why bacteria can't be derived from eukaryotes- can evolution make things less complex?- In the word of Rocky, absolutely.

Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand. Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise. “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

Joe

Acartia_bogart:

The voodoo math comes into play when he tries to extrapolate to the evolution of complex traits.

1- It's the evolution of complex traits via blind watchmaker processes such as natural selection, drift and neutral substitutions 2- Seeing that there isn't A) any evidence for it and B) no way to model it, probabilities are all we have and more than you deserve. Meaning the voodoo is on you Joe

It is extremely strange that Darwinists feel expertly qualified to lecture ID proponents on the math of Darwinism when the fact of the matter is that there is no rigid mathematical foundation to Darwinism in the first place.

Here’s That Monumental Evolution Blunder About Probability Again - March 2012 Excerpt: Laplace didn’t rebuke this argument two centuries ago for no good reason—the fallacy has been around forever and evolutionists continue to employ it.,,, It is truly incredible to see evolutionists work their chicanery so they can uphold complete nonsense as the truth. So the evolutionists would credulously accept all manner of bizarre events. If all their roulette wheel bets turned out winners, if their poker hands always gave a royal flush, if random Scrabble letters spelled out CONSTANTINOPLE, it all would be just another small probability event from which nothing can be concluded. This monumental blunder leads them into all kinds of ridiculous conclusions: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/heres-that-monumental-evolution-blunder.html Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012 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.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html “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. Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 quote from preceding video: “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!,,,There is a consistent group of people, among mathematicians, among physicists, among some very good speculative biologists, who simply don’t accept it (Darwin’s theory). (They) don’t even regard it as a scientific theory in any reasonable sense.” Dr. David Berlinski "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) "For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works." Gregory Chaitin - Proving Darwin 2012 - Highly Respected Mathematician 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. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4

Of related note: Researchers have finally developed a mathematical model for molecular biology that has actual predictive power by ignoring the Darwinian ‘historical accidents’ presupposition and using a ‘top down’ physiological perspective instead:

Simple Math Sheds New Light On a Long-Studied Biological Process - Aug. 7, 2013 Excerpt: Hwa and his team arrived at their surprising finding by employing a new approach called "quantitative biology," in which scientists quantify biological data and discover mathematical patterns, which in turn guide them to develop predictive models of the underlying processes. "This mode of research, an iterative dialogue between data quantitation and model building, has driven the progress of physics for the past several centuries, starting with Kepler's discovery of the law of planetary motion," explains Hwa. "However, it was long thought that biology is so laden with historical accidents which render the application of quantitative deduction intractable.",,, "When we plotted our results, our jaws dropped," recalls Hwa. "The levels of the sugar uptake and utilization enzymes lined up remarkably into two crossing lines when plotted with the corresponding growth rates, with the enzyme level increasing upon carbon limitation and decreasing upon nitrogen and sulfur limitation. The enzyme levels followed the simple mathematical rules like a machine." ,, Hwa points out that the physiological insights derived from simple mathematical relations guided them to figuring out both the strategy and molecular mechanisms their bacteria employ to coordinate carbon metabolism with those of other elements.,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807155154.htm Of related note as to getting biology out of the Darwinian mire,,, How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - David Snoke - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3

bornagain77

Joe:

Acartia_bogart- Dr Behe got his “10^20? from a peer-reviewed article. And it appears that other evolutionists have confirmed it.

Nobody is contesting this. And I am even on record that I commended Behe on much of what he did with this. The voodoo math comes into play when he tries to extrapolate to the evolution of complex traits. Acartia_bogart

The idea that a bacterium got ingested and turned into a mitochondrion is pretty funny. At least if we assume this occurred as a result of the typical RM+NS, bumbling, trial-and-error process that supposedly drives evolution. Could it happen via a carefully-orchestrated, highly-specific, tightly-controlled, forward-looking process? Perhaps. But not by Darwinian evolution. Eric Anderson

AB writes . . .

(it) cannot be extrapolated to argue that this did not occur with eukaryotes, or that Behe’s 10^20 chloroquine resistance cannot be extrapolated to conclude that complexity can’t evolve.

I disagree. Although in a sense you are absolutely correct, the endosymbionts previously mentioned are unlike eukaryotes and thus a strict, numerical extrapolation is unwarranted. However, inferences to the best explanation can be drawn using "Behe's" math. (Why is it called "Behe's 10^20" now that it is peer-reviewed? Let's just call it the data.) On the other hand, following Behe, why can't we draw the scientific inference that for chloroquine resistance, a more complex "answer" has not been, and will not be, found in p falciparum as evidence that complexity doesn't evolve. In the absence of any other scientific example of complexity forming, why the resistance to drawing a conclusion? I find the evidence presented in Edge of Evolution to be scientifically compelling, don't you, AB? I am not asking you to "conclude". Just to "get started". Tim

Acartia_bogart- Dr Behe got his "10^20" from a peer-reviewed article. And it appears that other evolutionists have confirmed it. Joe

Tim:

No good? So, now in hoping for those lucky eukaryotes, you insist that since nothing happening now because of such long odds is absurd, it is necessary that everything happens by chance?

That is not what I am saying. I used that absurd example that the probability of BA77 existing is effectively zero (it is actually 1 because he exists) to show that the low rarity of endosymbionts (which really are not all that rare) cannot be extrapolated to argue that this did not occur with eukaryotes, or that Behe's 10^20 chloroquine resistance cannot be extrapolated to conclude that complexity can't evolve. And just to keep Querius happy, 1) Probability of BA77's parents hooking up 1/3,000,000,000 x 1/3,000,000,000 ~10^19. But, obviously, the odds of them hooking up are not random events. Not all of the female population is available to all of the male population. 2) So let's make it more reasonable. Let's assume that he comes from a city of one million. The the probability would be 1/500000 x 1/500000 ~10^12. It would actually be significantly less than this because the circle of acquaintances that each parent would have would not be 499,999, unless they were each the most popular kids in class. 3) So, to make the math simpler, and to give BA77 a better chance of existence, let's assume that the probability of his parents hooking up is actually 1. After all, weren't they destined to meet and fall in love? So, let's limit it to the probability of the specific sperm and the specific ovum that resulted in our favourite link-blaster. Human female is born with approximately 400000 follicles, each with the potential to produce a viable ovum. But since it takes four follicles to produce a single ovum, let's call it 1/100,000. Now, the human male produces approximately 1500 sperm cells per second. To keep the numbers, let's assume that BA77's father's prime reproductive years lasted 20 years. If I did my math right, that is ~10^12. So the probability of both getting together is ~10^17. 4) And that is just for the current generation. Keep going back generations and the numbers become staggering. Here is another calculation, just looking at the fathers' line. His assumptions are as equally absurd as mine, but it gives you the idea. http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_of_you_existing.htm Of course, these are all absurd examples. But that was the point that I was trying to make. Acartia_bogart

Silver Asiatic: "Yes, if you extracted 3458 again, it was one in 10000 – but I think only because it didn’t match a pre-determined pattern, right?" Yes, right. The outcome of extracting any number with the same general properties of 3458, that is one of the set: “any generic number from 1 to 10000 whose individual probability of being randomly extracted would be 1:10000? has probability 1 in one single extraction (it must necessarily happen). It's the same as saying that if you shuffle your cards, one deck of cards will come out. The probability of that specific deck of cards is extremely low, but the probability of a generic deck of cards with individual low probability is 1. That's why the infamous deck of cards argument is nonsense. On the contrary, of you specify in advance a specific deck of cards, you will never obtain it in a random attempt. In that case, you have specified a target space which is too small to be empirically found. "If you wanted 3458 to be extracted in two consecutive events, the probability would be different." The probability of a de novo extraction of that pre-specified number twice in two attempts would be 1e-08. "If you had a pool of 100 numbers, each of these would be 1 in 100: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 But the odds of that sequence would be 1 in 10^11." The probability of a specific series of 11 values out of 100, like the one you suggest, would correspond to 1 : the number of dispositions with repetition (n^k), that is, if I am not wrong, 1e-22. gpuccio

gpuccio Side topic for more understanding on basic probabilities ...

So, if I have already extracted 3458, the probability of extracting it again is still one in 10000, and the simple fact that it has been extracted does not change that fact.

I find this one of the more non-intuitive concepts in probability - thus the gambler's fallacy. Yes, if you extracted 3458 again, it was one in 10000 - but I think only because it didn't match a pre-determined pattern, right? If you wanted 3458 to be extracted in two consecutive events, the probability would be different. If you had a pool of 100 numbers, each of these would be 1 in 100: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 But the odds of that sequence would be 1 in 10^11. Silver Asiatic

Acartia_bogart- The math that Behe used is the same math that population genetics uses. Are you saying that population genetics is vodoo? And exactly what type of math does evolutionism use? Joe

The ONLY evidence that chloroplasts were once free-living prokaryotes is that they "look like" they coulda been prokaryotes if you look at them just right. Unfortunately that ain't science. Joe

Acartia_bogart at #17: Here you are practically rephrasing the infamous "deck of cards" argument. Frankly, I expected more from your intelligence. Do you still believe in what you are saying? Because that argument is one of the most stupid reasonings I ever witnessed. I suppose you should understand the difference between different definitions of partitions in a set, and the computation of the relative probabilities. So, do you think there is no difference, if I extract a number out of 10000, between the following definitions? a) The probability of extracting an even number b) The probability of extracting 3458 c) The probability of extracting a number which is part of the Fibonacci sequence The idea is, according to how we define the partition, the probability of a positive result is completely different. If you define a partition after the event, simply by describing the result, the event has obviously already taken place. The probability has meaning only as the probability of getting that same result again. So, if I have already extracted 3458, the probability of extracting it again is still one in 10000, and the simple fact that it has been extracted does not change that fact. On the other hand, the probability of extracting "any undefined number whose individual probability would be 1:10000" in one attempt is exactly 1. So, there is nothing strange in extracting 3458 or 25 or 1862 or any other number from 1 to 10000. But if I extract the exact sequence of Fibonacci numbers, I would think there is something strange happening. Let's say I extract 20 successive numbers, and they are: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765 Now, the probability of getting the exact Fibonacci sequence in 20 extractions is about 1e-80. I would seriously consider some non random explanation if I observed that result. I hope that's clear. gpuccio

wd400

Evidently there are so many examples WP decided to multiply my post 4x..

true enough! add kappa particles in paramecium. franklin

AB at 17, you borrowed it and brought it up. Furthermore, you have the background in statistics. You explain it. Right now, though, those of us with even a rudimentary understanding of probability, understand your story telling to be what it is -- a red herring. Really, that specific ovum and that specific sperm, spare us your borrowings if you insist on borrowing such tripe. Or shall we extend it? Ok, here we go. By your reckoning, it is impossible for anything here today to happen. No meetings, marriages, babies, etc . . . all events count on so much in the past that none of them could have happened just by chance. Is that your position? That nothing can happen? Certainly your proof of the non-existence of poor ol' BA77 (sorry, BA) extends to us all. No good? So, now in hoping for those lucky eukaryotes, you insist that since nothing happening now because of such long odds is absurd, it is necessary that everything happens by chance? ((By the way, here I am using the idea of chance in its broadest form including physical laws in all their perceived uniformity.)) But if everything happens by chance, why argue about it? Folks, if ever there was a larger example of the fallacy of the excluded middle, I can't think of it. In claiming chance only, AB has overlooked the fact that "making a claim", such a peculiarly human endeavor, has little to do with chance at all. Finally, I will allow that AB has not actually come out and made the argument that chance answers all. But that really is the problem, isn't it? AB doesn't clearly state what was voodoo in Behe's math, he just tells other stories . . . I'm with Q at 24. I expect to hear nothing from AB on either account. Tim

Evidently there are so many examples WP decided to multiply my post 4x.. wd400

Moose Dr, There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont. wd400

Moose Dr, There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont. wd400

Moose Dr, There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont. wd400

Moose Dr, There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont. wd400

bornagain77, Don't forget that A-B claims his credentials are in in biology and statistics! So, here's A-B's chance. A_B, what's a reasonable estimate for the odds that bornagain77 exists, given your parameters in 17? Oh, and show your work. "Typos" are no excuse. Betcha A_B refuses to answer the question! LOL -Q Querius

BA77, what does a programming language have to do with god? Acartia_bogart

moose dr

You are correct that symbiosis exists all over the living world. However, please give me evidence of an example of intra-cellular symbiosis other than the proposed event being discussed.

There are numerous examples of intra-cellular symbiosis and have been recognized from at least 1944 onward. For example intracellular yeast and insect cells where the yeast symbiont provides essential vitamins for the insect. Here's another one: Metabolic Interdependence of Obligate Intracellular Bacteria and Their Insect Hosts† Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. December 2004 vol. 68 no. 4 745-770 franklin

You are already playing poker AB, you are constantly bluffing! :) and bluffing is all you will ever have! Too bad the stakes are far higher than you can imagine,,, That's what makes sad! The Argument from Pascal's Wager Excerpt: Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, "This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most skeptical philosophers who ever wrote. Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to? http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm Blaise Pascal was a devout Christian and very influential French mathematician and philosopher who contributed to many areas of mathematics. He worked on conic sections and projective geometry and in correspondence with Fermat he laid the foundations for the theory of probability as well as laid the foundation for the science of hydraulics. bornagain77

MD: "You are correct that symbiosis exists all over the living world. However, please give me evidence of an example of intra-cellular symbiosis other than the proposed event being discussed." I already did. Chloroplasts. Acartia_bogart

"Want to play poker AB? " Nah. Since you don't exist, that would be virtual poker. Acartia_bogart

Want to play poker AB? :) bornagain77

BA77: "Acartia_bogart, it is interesting to note in Dr. Behe’s recent vindication of his ‘voodoo statistic’ by empirical research,,," It is interesting to note that I can prove that the probability of you being born is effectively zero using the same voodoo math that Mr. Behe has used to prove that complexity is effectively impossible. And I must admit, I am borrowing the concept from someone else. Six billion people in the world. The odds of both of your parents meeting up on the specific day that they met? Effectively zero. And the odds that the specific ovum from your mother (1 of 400,000 potential follicles) and one specific sperm cell from your father (I don't even know how many hundreds of millions that your father produced, and wasted before that lucky one), would get together are, again, effectively zero. So, the probability of an organism as complex as BA77 is, well, let's call it zero. I think that I will call this the one BA77CC. Given that Querius knows so much more about probability than I do, I will let him tell us what the probability is. But I am pretty sure that it makes Behe's 10^20 seem like a certainty. Acartia_bogart

A_B: "No, symbiosis, absolutely frequently occurred. Termites can’t digest wood without them. We can’t digest our food without our gut bacteria. Legumes cannot fix nitrogen without them. Many corals cannot survive without them." You are correct that symbiosis exists all over the living world. However, please give me evidence of an example of intra-cellular symbiosis other than the proposed event being discussed. Moose Dr

So much for materialists looking down on Christians for having faith! tjguy

Acartia_bogart, it is interesting to note in Dr. Behe's recent vindication of his 'voodoo statistic' by empirical research,,,

Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite’s chloroquine resistance transporter - Robert L. Summers - March 17, 2014 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/10/1322965111 A Key Inference of The Edge of Evolution Has Now Been Experimentally Confirmed - Michael Behe - July 14, 2014 (first of a three part essay) Excerpt: However, at the time the book's chief, concrete example,,, was an inference, not yet an experimentally confirmed fact.,, the deduction hadn't yet been nailed down in the lab. Now it has, thanks to Summers et al. 2014. It took them years to get their results because they had to painstakingly develop a suitable test system where the malarial protein could be both effectively deployed and closely monitored for its relevant activity,,, Using clever experimental techniques they artificially mutated the protein in all the ways that nature has, plus in ways that produced previously unseen intermediates. One of their conclusions is that a minimum of two specific mutations are indeed required for the protein to be able to transport chloroquine.,,, The need for multiple mutations neatly accounts for why the development of spontaneous resistance to chloroquine is an event of extremely low probability -- approximately one in a hundred billion billion (1 in 10^20) malarial cell replications -- as the distinguished Oxford University malariologist Nicholas White deduced years ago. The bottom line is that the need for an organism to acquire multiple mutations in some situations before a relevant selectable function appears is now an established experimental fact. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/a_key_inference087761.html

,,,It is interesting to note that Darwinists, instead of citing any empirical evidence of their own to refute Dr. Behe, tried to find fault in the mathematics, whilst Dr. Behe focused on the empirical evidence. Regardless of this gross deficiency in empirical evidence for Darwinists, and their empirically disconnected single minded focus on 'mathematical fantasy', Darwinists soon learned not to ever gamble with Dr. Behe:

How Many Ways Are There to Win at Sandwalk? – Michael Behe – August 15, 2014 Excerpt: At University of Toronto professor Laurence Moran’s blog Sandwalk, named for Darwin’s famous “thinking path,” I’ve followed a discussion of the evolution of de novo chloroquine resistance by malaria (which I wrote about here). The exchange has touched on a few issues that seem to confuse people easily. One is how we should view the probability of winning something. In questioning my malaria numbers, a commenter remarked that it’s misleading to focus retrospectively on a single event, such as winning a familiar game of cards, to calculate the odds of that exact arrangement of cards and declare it to be the likelihood of winning at the game. After all, there may be very many other ways to win, too. In order to correctly calculate the odds, he explained, one would have to take into account all of the ways to win, not just a single hand. I agree completely. Fortunately, in the huge number of malaria cells exposed to chloroquine, all the proverbial hands have already been dealt many times over, so we can confidently calculate the odds from the statistics.,,, The bottom line for all of them is that the acquisition of chloroquine resistance is an event of statistical probability 1 in 10^20.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/how_many_ways_a088981.html

Thus AB, you are in the very unfavorable position of, without experimental support, claiming that a 1 in 10^20 statistic derived directly from experimental work, is a 'voodoo statistic'. In what should be needless to say, if sneering at a direct empirical result is the best you can do to refute it, and you have no experimental work of you own by which to refute the empirical result that Dr. Behe cited, then this is extremely bad news for Darwinists to put it mildly! Since, as far as the science itself is concerned, to quote Feynman,,,

The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

AB you also ask,,

"what does it, (the extreme rarity of protein binding sites), have to do with endosymbiosis?

And what would nails, bolts, nuts, and fasteners, have to do with building houses, cars, airplanes and computers? of supplemental note: It is interesting to note that Chloroquine Resistance, as hard as it is for Darwinian processes to account for, is not even a gain in functional complexity for the malaria parasite in the first place but is a loss of functional complexity for the parasite.

Metabolic QTL Analysis Links Chloroquine Resistance in Plasmodium falciparum to Impaired Hemoglobin Catabolism - January, 2014 Summary: Chloroquine was formerly a front line drug in the treatment of malaria. However, drug resistant strains of the malaria parasite have made this drug ineffective in many malaria endemic regions. Surprisingly, the discontinuation of chloroquine therapy has led to the reappearance of drug-sensitive parasites. In this study, we use metabolite quantitative trait locus analysis, parasite genetics, and peptidomics to demonstrate that chloroquine resistance is inherently linked to a defect in the parasite's ability to digest hemoglobin, which is an essential metabolic activity for malaria parasites. This metabolic impairment makes it harder for the drug-resistant parasites to reproduce than genetically-equivalent drug-sensitive parasites, and thus favors selection for drug-sensitive lines when parasites are in direct competition. Given these results, we attribute the re-emergence of chloroquine sensitive parasites in the wild to more efficient hemoglobin digestion. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004085

Verse and Music:

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Redeemed - Big Daddy Weave http://myktis.com/songs/redeemed/

bornagain77

Axel: "“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)..." I was wondering when someone would bring The Behe's voodoo statistics into the discussion. But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis? Acartia_bogart

Nothing builds itself, unless you are a Darwinist. Darwinists believe in dirt because, you see, dirt did it. Dirt can do anything. It can even create itself out of nothing. This is why we are dirt worshipers. We are made of the dust of the stars. We are star dust. We should be proud to be just dust, mother Earth and all that jazz. Mapou

Did the Nautilus writer forget that other "freakish" idea -- that the first living organism accidently came into existence with every machine needed to metabolize, transport nutrients, sense the environment variously, move, replicate, find energy, expel wastes, avoid destruction, repair damage, transport oxidant, avoid harmful molecular uptake, support internal communication, process energy, avoid damage and conserve all such functions post-replication. Actually a holy idea for the materialist. For them, A Monster Event at the most significant point in time and space, very humbling but humility not in the cards with them. groovamos

"It tells of a prokaryote that somehow found its way inside another, and formed a lasting partnership with its host." lol. ok, can someone please explain to me what happened at the first cell division? Mung

It tells of a prokaryote that somehow found its way inside another, and formed a lasting partnership with its host.

It should have said: “ ... and somehow formed a lasting partnership with its host.”, because the heritability of this 'freakish accidental event' is in IMHO the utterly improbable part. Box

“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”) Is that not one of the comical passages you've ever read in your life? Axel

Semi related:

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.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/still_awaiting_089641.html

bornagain77

Further notes on problems with endosymbiosis:

On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story Jonathan M. - January 10, 2012 Excerpt: While we find examples of similarity between eukaryotic mitochondria and bacterial cells, other cases also reveal stark differences. In addition, the sheer lack of a mechanistic basis for mitochondrial endosymbiotic assimilation ought to -- at the very least -- give us reason for caution and the expectation of some fairly spectacular evidence for the claim being made. At present, however, such evidence does not exist -- and justifiably gives one cause for skepticism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_the_origin_o054891.html Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors - July 2010 Excerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.... There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100712b Bacterial Protein Acetylation: The Dawning of a New Age - July 2012 Excerpt: Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes. Obviously, this misperception must be modified. From the presence of a cytoskeleton to the packaging of DNA to the existence of multiple post-translational modifications, bacteria clearly implement highly sophisticated mechanisms to regulate diverse cellular processes precisely. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/bacterial-protein-acetylation-dawning.html

Even more problematic for evolutionists, than the unexplained gap between prokaryote and eukaryote cells, is that even within the 'bacterial world' there are found to be enormous unexplained gaps of completely unique genes within each different type of bacteria which has had its DNA sequenced:

ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

and since unguided Darwinian processes are found to be grossly insufficient to account for the orgination of even a single protein (or gene),,,

Evolution vs. Functional Proteins ("Mount Improbable") - Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer – Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8 Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html

and since unguided Darwinian processes are also grossly insufficient to account for the orgination of protein binding sites,,

"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")

Then it is easy to see why people doubt that endosymbiosis ever occurred. Shoot, it is easy to see why people doubt that unguided Darwinian evolution ever did anything at all besides degrade pre-existing information! Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that it is possible for unguided processes to produce even trivial levels of the unfathomed complety we find in life. bornagain77

A few notes on endosymbiosis:

Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? – Koonin Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/17/3389 An enormous gap exists between prokaryote cells and eukaryote cells. - Jerry Bergman Excerpt: A crucial difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the means they use to produce ATP. All life produces ATP by three basic chemical methods only: oxidative phosphorylation, photophosphorylation, and substrate-level phosphorylation (Lim, 1998, p. 149). In prokaryotes ATP is produced both in the cell wall and in the cytosol by glycolysis. In eukaryotes most ATP is produced in chloroplasts (for plants), or in mitochondria (for both plants and animals). No means of producing ATP exists that is intermediate between these four basic methods and no transitional forms have ever been found that bridge the gap between these four different forms of ATP production. The machinery required to manufacture ATP is so intricate that viruses are not able to make their own ATP. They require cells to manufacture it and viruses have no source of energy apart from cells. http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp ATP Synthase: The power plant of the cell - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY Mitochondria - Molecular Machine - Powerhouse Of The Cell – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2uROUjK4

Of related interest, is the highly sophisticated, extremely precise, organization of ATP production in mitochondria:

Your Rotary Engines Are Arranged in Factories - August 2011 Excerpt: As if ATP synthase was not amazing enough, a team of scientists in Germany now tells us they are arranged in rows with other equipment to optimize performance. From electron micrographs of intact mitochondria, they were able to detect the rotary engines of ATP synthase and other parts of the respiratory chain. Their diagram in an open-source paper in PNAS looks for all the world like a factory.,,, “We propose that the supramolecular organization of respiratory chain complexes as proton sources and ATP synthase rows as proton sinks in the mitochondrial cristae ensures optimal conditions for efficient ATP synthesis.” The authors had virtually nothing to say about how this might have evolved, noting only that the structure is “conserved during evolution” in every sample they examined (3 species of fungi including yeast, potato, and mammal). What this means is a lack of evolution over nearly two billion years, in the standard evolutionary timeline. http://crev.info/content/110817-your_rotary_engines_are_arranged_in_factories These Molecular Sorting Machines Cooperate With Each Other in a “Complex Topology” - 2012 Excerpt: Even minute errors in the composition of the inner mitochondrial membrane can lead to severe metabolic derangements, which can have an especially negative impact on the energy-hungry muscle and nerve cells. In order to function, the cellular generators depend on the support of numerous highly specialized membrane proteins in the inner mitochondrial membrane. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/these-molecular-sorting-machines.html

Of related interest to 'factories' in the cell:

Endoplasmic Reticulum: Scientists Image 'Parking Garage' Helix Structure in Protein-Making Factory - July 2013 Excerpt: The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the protein-making factory within (eukaryotic) cells consisting of tightly stacked sheets of membrane studded with the molecules that make proteins. In a study published July 18th by Cell Press in the journal Cell, researchers have refined a new microscopy imaging method to visualize exactly how the ER sheets are stacked, revealing that the 3D structure of the sheets resembles a parking garage with helical ramps connecting the different levels. This structure allows for the dense packing of ER sheets, maximizing the amount of space available for protein synthesis within the small confines of a cell. "The geometry of the ER is so complex that its details have never been fully described, even now, 60 years after its discovery," says study author Mark Terasaki of the University of Connecticut Health Center. "Our findings are likely to lead to new insights into the functioning of this important organelle.",,, ,, this "parking garage" structure optimizes the dense packing of ER sheets and thus maximizes the number of protein-synthesizing molecules called ribosomes within the restricted space of a cell. When a cell needs to secrete more proteins, it can reduce the distances between sheets to pack even more membrane into the same space. Think of it as a parking garage that can add more levels as it gets full.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718130617.htm

bornagain77

Acartia_bogart: I can well accept the endosymbiontic theory for mitochondria and chloroplasts. But certainly it does not explain the emergence of eukaryotes. The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is almost as big and unexplained as the transition from non living matter to prokaryotes. In terms of functional information and, probably, in terms of everything else. gpuccio

I have to say that endosymbiosis is one of the less objectionable scenerios in the materialist mythos. However to suggest only one freakish event is required in the materialist origins myth is misleading; literally billions upon billions are required. For example, the ribosome somehow has to happen. Jehu

Acartia_bogart:

The idea that mitochondria and chloroplasts are the result of symbiotic bacteria is not new.

It is not a testable concept. Not yet anyway. Also endosymbiosis doesn't account for the nucleus. And without that you don't have eukaryotes. Joe

Of course, symbiosis probably sometimes occurred.

No, symbiosis, absolutely frequently occurred. Termites can't digest wood without them. We can't digest our food without our gut bacteria. Legumes cannot fix nitrogen without them. Many corals cannot survive without them. The idea that mitochondria and chloroplasts are the result of symbiotic bacteria is not new. In both cases they have DNA that is different than the host cell, suggesting a different ancestry than the host. As well, their DNA is circular, reminiscent of prokaryotic DNA. Acartia_bogart