Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another windy day in the junkyard …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Jason Palmer at BBC News (19 May 2011), we learn, “Protein flaws responsible for complex life, study says.” This time mistakes produce more functional proteins:

Tiny structural errors in proteins may have been responsible for changes that sparked complex life, researchers say.A comparison of proteins across 36 modern species suggests that protein flaws called “dehydrons” may have made proteins less stable in water.

This would have made them more adhesive and more likely to end up working together, building up complex function.

Remarkably, we read,

Natural selection is a theory with no equal in terms of its power to explain how organisms and populations survive through the ages; random mutations that are helpful to an organism are maintained while harmful ones are bred out.But the study provides evidence that the “adaptive” nature of the changes it wreaks may not be the only way that complexity grew.

Natural selection is a theory with no equal – in terms of much belief and little evidence. But it can be supplemented by tiny structural errors that somehow produce co-operation.

The authors suggest then that other adaptations occur that “undo” the deleterious effects of the sticky proteins.

Convenient, that.

Fred Hoyle, wherever you are, check your mail: Your Boeing 747 is ready.

Isn’t this the sort of mess that Steve Fuller says “floored astrology”?

Comments
Mung @ 101: sorry about the incomplete thought - the other part was supposed to be self-replicating polymers. And specific mechanisms are postulated, and have been produced in the lab. I'll try to dig out the paper I'm thinking of (though the Szostak lab page has some details of the program). Will be a bit busy for the next few days but will try to drop by. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 7, 2011
June
06
Jun
7
07
2011
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
Mung, I don't assume other people are "too stupid to spot" my errors, and I certainly do not deliberately make errors on the foolish assumption that I won't be called on them. If I make an error I'm delighted to be called on it. I certainly make errors, and I'd far rather they were corrected than not. And if I express something badly, I'm always pleased to clarify. I am not actually sure, now you mention it,what the current average number of offspring (we need to count fertile adult offspring) per couple is - and it occurs to me that it might have finally dropped to two, and that the ongoing population increase is just the bulge going through (the human population is certainly still rapidly increasing) so I'll try and check. So, I'll modify my claim at least until I've done so: the evidence that the human genome has not been deterioriating for many generations, as Sanford claims, is that the human population has been growing for many generations.Elizabeth Liddle
June 7, 2011
June
06
Jun
7
07
2011
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle @73:
...the evidence that the human genome is not deteriorating is the simple evidence that the human population is rapidly increasing!
This is just silly. Do you really believe this argument or do you think we're just too stupid to spot it and call you on it? What is the rate of increase. To put it another way, what is the current average number of offspring per couple.Mung
June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle @69:
The most promising approaches as far as I can see right now posit both a “self-replicating” spherical membrane (which is relatively easy to do, given the properties of lipids and their hydrophilic/hydrophobic poles) within a marine environment that is rich in polymers and other compounds.
I'm trying to parse this. You said BOTH a "self-replicating" sperical membrane... But never seemed to complete the thought. BOTH ... AND ... what? Also, how do you know that these membranes are "self-replicationg" and how do you know it's an easy thing to do? What is the need for a marine environment that is rich in polymers and other compounds?
...self-replicating polymers trapped within lipid vesicles might differentially affect the rate of subdivision of the vesicle, leading to “selection” (i.e. greater prevalence) of those vesicles that “inherited” a particular configuration of polymer.
So is this a different hypothesis from the one expressed in the first quote? Is this different from self-replicating membranes? So what is the wall of the "lipid vesicle" composed of? That's pretty vague. So this vesicale somehow divides, with no known mechanism? And the rate of division is affected by some unknown mechanism? And these self-replicating polymers which are trapped within these membranes obtain energy through some as yet unknown mechanism? And these self-replicating polymers which are trapped within these membranes obtain the material needed for additional copies of themselves also through some as yet unknown mechanism?Mung
June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
However, as you say, the research I cited does not address the whole issue of how multicellular organisms came into being (in a Darwinian framework), although there is research that does (or at least looks promising).
I never asked how multi-cellular organisms came into being. I'm happy to grant you a multi-cellular organism.
I guess I was taking an example of a genetic account of a fairly radical change in body plan (and that research does contribute a response to a fairly frequently made challenge that Darwinian evolution can’t account for major new features, which is the point I thought you were making).
You still don't seem to understand the point. Here's what you should have written: I guess I was taking an example of a genetic account of a fairly radical change in AN EXISTING BODY PLAN (and that research does contribute a response to a fairly frequently made challenge that Darwinian evolution can’t account for MAJOR NEW BODY PLANS, which is the point I thought you were making). You don't see the difference between changing something that already exists and claiming this shows how things like that come into being in the first place. I claim there is a difference and that the former does not explain the latter. You apparently thought I was saying little changes cannot not have a large effect. But that's an absurd thing for anyone to believe. How you came away with that from what I have written is a bit of a mystery to me.Mung
June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
anyway back to Szostak: The entire episode of Szostak’s failed attempt to establish the legitimacy of the 1 in 10^12 functional protein number from a randomly generated library of proteins can be read here:: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/comment-page-2/#comment-358394 This following paper was the paper that put the final nail in the coffin for Szostak's work: A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385 How Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010 Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.htmlbornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Jack Szostak and abiogenesis??? Let's check out his 'forefront research' on the probability of functional proteins being generated randomly.,,, Since nature does not form proteins naturally, and indeed has a severe aversion for generating proteins 'naturally',,,, ,,,,water is considered a 'universal solvent' which is a very thermodynamic obeying and thus origin of life defying fact. Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis - Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (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, 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, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean. http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith "Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess of water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all text-books of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenesis ... Has materialistic Neo-Darwinian philosophy overwhelmed us to such an extent that we forget or overlook the well-known facts of science and of chemistry in order to support this philosophy? ... Without exception all Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions." http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php Sea Salt only adds to this thermodynamic problem: ...even at concentrations seven times weaker than in today’s oceans. The ingredients of sea salt are very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers). Creation Evolution News - Sept. 2002 The following article and videos have a fairly good overview of the major problems facing any naturalistic Origin Of Life scenario: On the Origin of Life - The Insurmountable Problems Of Chemistry - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ye3oDDAxeE Also of interest is that even though water is a very thermodynamic obeying medium that prevents bio-molecules from forming in the first place, there is a seeming 'miraculous' transformation that takes place in water once proteins are constructed by the ribosome,,,, Protein Folding: One Picture Per Millisecond Illuminates The Process - 2008 Excerpt: The RUB-chemists initiated the folding process and then monitored the course of events. It turned out that within less than ten milliseconds, the motions of the water network were altered as well as the protein itself being restructured. “These two processes practically take place simultaneously“, Prof. Havenith-Newen states, “they are strongly correlated.“ These observations support the yet controversial suggestion that water plays a fundamental role in protein folding, and thus in protein function, and does not stay passive. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080805075610.htm Water Is 'Designer Fluid' That Helps Proteins Change Shape - 2008 Excerpt: "When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806113314.htm indeed water is 'full to the brim' (pun intended) of seemingly miraculous attributes: Water's remarkable capabilities - December 2010 - Peer Reviewed Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. ... Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/pro-intelligent_design_peer_re042211.html Anomalous life enabling properties of water http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.htmlbornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, you state; ‘I have a fundamental issue with the validity of that fitness test in the first place!’ You have a fundamental issue with anything that so clearly points out the bankruptcy of neo-Darwinism. Why, because atheism has become your religion!!!
No, that simply isn't the case, bornagain77. It really is not.Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Just as a matter of interest, though, why do you think that the senior author of the PNAS paper cited in your second video, Jack Szostak (sorry I called him Joe, earlier) is at the forefront of abiogenesis research, if the evidence in his paper indicates that it is impossible? Does not that, at the very least, indicate that the evidence of that paper can be interpreted as supporting evolutionary theory? And is interpreted so by the actual authors?Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, you state; 'I have a fundamental issue with the validity of that fitness test in the first place!' You have a fundamental issue with anything that so clearly points out the bankruptcy of neo-Darwinism. Why, because atheism has become your religion!!!bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Well, the thing is, ba77, I have a fundamental issue with the validity of that fitness test in the first place! And this is the problem really. Still, maybe a break will clarify things a little. See you soon :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, and the fitness test will be waiting for you when you return!!!bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Goodness me, bornagain77, I haven't accused you of anything, let alone falsely! We do seem to be having trouble communicating! Maybe we should take a break. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, though you have falsely accused me of doing exactly what you are doing, ignoring 'real world' evidence, here is the gold standard of a empirical test for you to pass; Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 pass that test, then calculate the gain in functional information for the bacteria; Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors - 2007 Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,, http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life? K.D. Kalinsky - Pg. 10 - 11 Case Three: an average 300 amino acid protein: Excerpt: It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate the functional information required for the average 300 amino acid protein to be around 700 bits of information. I(Ex) > Inat and ID (Intelligent Design) is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein. http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20Web%20Article.pdf And see if you have exceeded what is plausible for 'material' processes; The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,, c?u = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 c?g = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 c?s = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 c?e = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27 New Peer-Reviewed Paper Demolishes Fallacious Objection: “Aren’t There Vast Eons of Time for Evolution?” - Dec. 2009 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/new_peerreviewed_paper_demolis.html i.e Elizabeth, The fitness test must be passed by the sub-species against the parent species. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it has gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits)(Of note: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that purely material processes can exceed the much more constrained '2 protein-protein binding site limit', for functional information/complexity generation, found by Michael Behe in his book "The Edge Of Evolution"). further note: Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.” There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).) Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For the Intelligent Design Inference - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Well, it's a review of a large number of empirical studies. But no, the authors cited didn't "‘empirically’ evolve anything in the lab." They did, however, empirically test predictive hypotheses derived from their theories, which is how science works. There are vast domains of science where we can't actually replicate what we infer must have happened. That doesn't mean we can make no inferences about what did.
They just studied genetic similarity and inferred relationship. How special!!!
Well, not especially special, it's just how science works. Often a research program starts with the kind of theoretical mathematical studies of the kind you cited by Axe and Bozorghmeyer, then, from that, testable predictions are made, and new data is collected and analysed for consistency with the predictions. It seems odd to me that you can cite (as Sanford does) theoretical computational models quite happily, yet reject evidence derived from actual data. Not that there is anything wrong with theoretical models - they are important (though sometimes they contain simple errors). It's just that you seem to have what strike me as odd criteria for evaluating what is valid evidence for what. And I'd still like to know what "materialism" is :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Elizabeth you state; 'In contrast, the Nature paper cites actual empirical findings.' And yet the abstract states: 'The study of ancient genes has highlighted the antiquity and general importance of some mechanisms of gene origination, and recent observations of young genes at early stages in their evolution have unveiled unexpected molecular and evolutionary processes.' So they did not actually 'empirically' evolve anything in the lab. They just studied genetic similarity and inferred relationship. How special!!! Not that I doubt your unbiased 'interpretation', but what does the largest real world 'empirical' test, that can be performed on the claims of neo-Darwinism, show us??? Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. 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 further note: This following paper clearly reveals that there is a 'cost' to duplicate genes that further precludes the scenario from being plausible: Experimental Evolution of Gene Duplicates in a Bacterial Plasmid Model Excerpt: In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence. http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp471464014664w8/ This recent paper also found the gene duplication scenario to be highly implausible: The Extinction Dynamics of Bacterial Pseudogenes - Kuo and Ochman - August 2010 Excerpt: "Because all bacterial groups, as well as those Archaea examined, display a mutational pattern that is biased towards deletions and their haploid genomes would be more susceptible to dominant-negative effects that pseudogenes might impart, it is likely that the process of adaptive removal of pseudogenes is pervasive among prokaryotes." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/on_reductive_evolution_and_the037581.html A Fishy Story About AntiFreeze Gene Evolution - Casey Luskin - January 2011 Excerpt: In his 2005 textbook Evolution, Douglas Futuyma states that a high estimate of the gene duplication rate is "about 0.01 duplication per gene per million years." (p. 470) A given gene will thus be duplicated about once every 100 million years. The present paper speculates that the antifreeze gene evolved in response to cooling temperatures in the Antarctic deep ocean water over the past 50 million years. What are we to make, then, of the fact that Antarctic eelpouts have over 30 AFPIII genes, all of which are said to have resulted from a duplication of a single AFPIII gene which evolved at some point in the past 50 million years in response to changing ocean temperatures? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/a_fishy_story_about_antifreeze043141.htmlbornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Well, again, I have to dispute your sources. There's a nice review of the origins of new genes here: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n11/abs/nrg1204.html Unfortunately, being Nature, the full paper is behind a paywall. Turning to your own citations: only two are to scientific journals, and I know both those papers. Both are theoretical papers, and the Axe paper is inconclusive. The Bozorghmeyer paper simply concludes (IIRC) that there can be positive selection for intact duplicates (in other words there is fitness benefit to having two copies, even if the individual only benefits from one). This does not preclude evolution of a secondary function for the duplicate, and IMO it would be a stretch to say that loss of the original potential function of the duplicate is a "loss of function" since the duplicate has no actual function in the individual. In contrast, the Nature paper cites actual empirical findings.Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Elizabeth you ask; 'What about instances of mutations with new functions in duplicate genes?' Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified - December 2010 Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110103a Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? - December 2010 - Excerpt: The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity, 2011 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations Douglas D. Axe* Excerpt: In particular, I use an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, to examine the limits on complex adaptations during the evolution of paralogous genes—genes related by duplication of an ancestral gene. Although substantial functional innovation is thought to be possible within paralogous families, the tight limits on the value of d found here (d ? 2 for the maladaptive case, and d ? 6 for the neutral case) mean that the mutational jumps in this process cannot have been very large. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4 An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution - Gene Duplication - And Minor Transformation of Protein Function - May 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-05-16T17_01_43-07_00bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
So, do I take it that by "genetic entropy" you mean that any new function always destroys an old one? What about instances of mutations with new functions in duplicate genes?Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
That doesn't really help, ba77. Can you be more precise?Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, if you are an Atheist, you are a materialist.bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Elizabeth,,,, and all you got to do, to support your position, is show 'evolution'; The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed violation of genetic entropy: “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.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
ba77: what do you mean by "materialism"? I've asked this on another thread, but I still don't know the answer. So I don't even know whether I'm a "materialist" or not!Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
ba77:
Well Elizabeth, since Sanford actually provides solid empirical support for his position, and you have merely ‘disagreed’ with his ‘interpretation, exactly whose opinion do you think I should pay heed to??? And whose opinion should I regard as merely a philosophical presupposition trumping science???
No, in fact, he doesn't provide "solid empirical support" for his position. Three of his main references are to the work of Crow, Kondrashov and Kimura, all of whom are population geneticists working with theoretical models. Indeed, Kondrashov's paper (the one you cited) actually asks, in effect: this is what the theory shows, and it is at odds with the data, so what is wrong with the theory? ("Why have we not died 100 times over?") There is certainly empirical data showing that in small populations "genetic meltdown" is a problem. There is also empirical data showing that many populations cycle between periods of relaxed selection, in which potentially deleterous mutations accumulate, followed by more stringent selection, in which those mutations are purged. Sanford also makes a few actual errors,though I'd have to go back to my notes to see what they were - one was to do with his extrapolation from a graph derived from Kimura, IIRC. I'm not asking you to regard me as authority, of course, ba77, so of course you are entitled to reference people who view Sanford's work differently, but I would certainly strongly dispute the claim that Sanford's work has empirical support.Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Elizabeth you state; 'I don’t actually accept that “materialism [has been] shown to be false by science”!' Of COURSE YOU DON"T!!! ,,,Transcendent origin of universe, No Prob,,, Infinite multiverse,,,, Quantum wave collapse, No Prob,,,, Infinite parallel universes,,, Quantum teleportation of atoms, No prob,,, let me get back to you on that,, :) Yes indeed a materialistic funhouse of where Alice in wonderland rules the day!!!bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
ba77:
Elizabeth, your ‘empirical’ proof for neo-Darwinism is that human populations are increasing??? Shoot by your standards I’ve just proved Theism as true!!!!
No, ba77, I didn't offer it as "proof" of anything, and certainly not as "proof for neo-Darwinism" whatever that is. I offered it as evidence that the Genome is not Deterioriating. Which it is, as long as we consider "deterioriating" as meaning "rendering successful reproduction less likely. On other definitions it may well be deteriorating, but on those definitions we wouldn't be heading for extinction, as Sanford claims.Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Well Elizabeth, since Sanford actually provides solid empirical support for his position, and you have merely 'disagreed' with his 'interpretation, exactly whose opinion do you think I should pay heed to??? And whose opinion should I regard as merely a philosophical presupposition trumping science???bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Bornagain77:
Elizabeth you stated: ‘Obviously our starting points are very different, so I do understand that it must be difficult to see my position as anything other than “suspect”.’ Elizabeth, besides materialism being shown to be false by science, you can’t even justify doing science, in the first place, with your materialistic ‘starting point’, so why in blue blazes should I see your ‘starting point’ as anything other than ‘suspect’???
The thing is, ba77, I don't actually accept that "materialism [has been] shown to be false by science"! At least, I'm not persuaded that it has, but then I don't exactly know what you are referring to as "materialism" nor in what sense it has been "shown to be false". So it's difficult for me to even evaluate your links to see whether they do show materialism to be false, because I'm not at all sure what showing materialism to be false would even look like. Perhaps you could explain what you think my "materialistic starting" point is? And why it means that I can't "justify doing science"?Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, your 'empirical' proof for neo-Darwinism is that human populations are increasing??? Shoot by your standards I've just proved Theism as true!!!! Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” ,,,Shoot Elizabeth, using your standard of human populations increasing as solid proof for my worldview, I can even prove that Christian Theism is true: Sometimes it is honestly asked, "Why did God wait so many billions of years to send Jesus to this earth to reconcile God with man?" Yet from the perspective of human race itself it is found: What happened 5000 years ago? - Dinesh D'Souza Excerpt: The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born before Christ came to earth. "So in a sense," Kreps notes, "God's timing couldn't have been more perfect. If He'd come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world's population, so even though 98 percent of humanity's timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption." http://www.estatevaults.com/bol/archives/2008/07/14/what_happened_5.html World Population Growth Through History - Graph http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/worldpopulat.gif Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,bornagain77
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Oh, and yes, I do know the literature cited by Sanford. As I think I said elsewhere, I read his book extremely thoroughly, and also read most of the papers he cited. I don't agree with the inferences he draws from them. The papers themselves are good.Elizabeth Liddle
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply