Home » Biology » Modularity and Design

Modularity and Design

The road to modularity Günter P. Wagner, Mihaela Pavlicev and James M. Cheverud Nature Reviews Genetics Volume 8 Dec 2007 

“From our reading of the literature, origin of modularity research is still mostly based on model analysis rather than data. It is likely that we have not yet fully explored the range of theoretical possibilities to explain modularity, and more theoretical work will still be valuable. The models reviewed here, however, suggest an emerging theme. It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favours the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias.”

Hot off the press and freely available, this EvoDevo paper admits that we need a loaded mutational dice to achieve the results that we see in biology. A loaded dice always points to design.

http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/hhc30TXgoO0Hjc0Bg7i0Ea

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

93 Responses to Modularity and Design

  1. Sorry for barging in and going a bit off-topic,

    A new Canadian study suggests Darwins theory is proven “right”:

    [quote]
    Evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin had it right when he said different species could develop in the same place, a new Canadian-led study suggests.

    CBC News

    Darwin’s theory of sympatric speciation – distinct species evolving from a single parent species within a geographic area – first appeared in his 1859 book The Origin of Species. He was not able to prove it, and the dominant theory since has been allopatric speciation – that a barrier, such as a mountain, glacier or ocean, is required to produce separate species.

    Now, 148 years later, research led by Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., may prove the existence of sympatric speciation. The international research team found that this type of evolution could occur by “allochronic isolation,” or separation by breeding times.

    Prior to the study, released this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, there were only two documented cases of species evolving in the same place and no clear evidence as to how it would occur in nature.

    The research team studied a species of tropical seabird known as the Madeiran or the band-rumped storm petrel, which populate archipelagos in the tropic and sub-tropic, and have different breeding seasons. Some colonies have a single breeding season, others prolonged seasons, and in five locations, there are two distinct breeding seasons. The research focused on the latter five areas.

    Researcher Andrea Smith told CBC News the team was interested in whether the difference in breeding periods “was a barrier to drive them to become separate species.”

    By analyzing genetic variation in the species, they found the petrel populations differed genetically in all five locations and had ceased to exchange genes in two.

    “The seasonal populations from four of the locations are more closely related to each other than populations from the same breeding seasons elsewhere,” said Smith, suggesting that “one arose from the other just out of the separation of breeding.”

    The study says this finding suggests that “seasonal populations appear to have arisen sympatrically at least four times.” Additionally, they found that the species had not interbred for between 1,000 to 180,000 years.

    “I think it’s exciting for a number of reasons,” said Smith. “One is that it’s challenging the idea that you need a geographic barrier for species to arrive.”

    She said the findings also suggest that this mode of speciation might be more common than researchers had previously thought.

    Smith said their discovery could lead to changes in species protection.

    “In finding that there are actually populations that are considered separate species, it indicates that we need to be looking into conservation for these species, because a lot of them are represented only by a couple hundred birds,” she explained. “We don’t want to lose that biodiversity that we’ve documented.”[/quote]

    Heres the link:

    http://technology.sympatico.ms.....38;date=Fa

  2. godslanguage,

    I have an good idea what the genetic data looks like without even looking knowing exactly what it is. I’ll tell you what godslanguage, you go look the genetic data up, and tell me if I’m accurate, OK?

    1. The parent species will be found to be genetically similar to all the sub-species.

    2. The genetic variability of the population of parent species will slightly exceed the entire genetic variability of the entire spectrum of sub species.

    3. Each sub-species will be found to have a very narrow range of genetic variability when compared to the genetic variability of the parent species.

    4. Each sub-species will be found to have a marked increase in problems with inbreeding, the narrower their genetic variability is, when compared to the parent species.

    5. If the parent species is close enough to the “original” parent species, in which the CSI was implemented, then the parent species will demonstrate such a resistance to inbreeding problems (when one male is forced to start a “new” population with one female) that evolutionists will be surprised that their requirement of “genetic drift” has not occurred. i.e. they will quickly reestablish large genetic variability in their “offshoot” population.

    That is the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del…Please get back to me and tell me just how accurate the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del is, will you?

  3. Placing hope in “modularity” to get around the transparent inadequacies of random events filtered by selection (natural or otherwise) is a fool’s errand when it comes to biological complexity, machinery, information, and information processing.

    Computer programs use modules (e.g., that do sorting, parsing, mathematical operations, etc.), and these can be used in a variety of ways to modify programs (with much understanding about the nature of the modules and the goal in mind). However, modules taken from a chess-playing program can’t be used to produce a graphics-manipulation program, or a word-processing program.

    The notion that “modularity” is the magic key to unlocking the mystery of how stupid stuff (actually, not stupid stuff, but comatose stuff) created intelligent stuff, is stupid.

    Innovation requires intelligence, design, and foresight. This is not hard to figure out. The Evo-Devo guys can try, but they’re on a fool’s mission, trying to find a way to convert lead into gold through chemistry.

  4. ” . . . this EvoDevo paper admits that we need a loaded mutational dice to achieve the results that we see in biology. A loaded dice always points to design.”

    I can see the heads nodding in agreement all around UD. What I cannot see is how you arrive at this conclusion from the cited research.

    Can you please elaborate a little? What are loaded mutational dice? OK, I know a metaphor when I see one, but to work, this one is going to have to include some explanation for how special mutational conditions are required for modularity, and why that’s relevant to ID. “Special” in this context — even if you cast the description as an admission — does not necessarily mean design.

  5. MacT,
    On this thread you called one of my assertions utter nonsense:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com...../#comments

    Thus, I went to the original source and dug out the original comment to defend my assertion.

    You will find my responses to you on 169 and 171 of the thread. Since this is an area you are very familiar with, I took great care to revise my study notes to reflect the severe problems with physical recovery that you pointed out to me. But at the same time I maintain my primary assertion that previous memory and personality is intact from before the operation is indeed valid, although the ability to communicate and form new memories (as well as other physically based problems) is severely affected. The other lines of evidence, in conjunction with this one, I present clearly compel this “spiritual” point of view for information over the materialistic point of view that information is basically an illusion.

  6. This comment is interesting to the topic of this thread:

    “Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, consists of artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction and a capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours” Geneticist Michael Denton PhD.

  7. MacT:
    I’m not the author of the post. However, I will like to respond to your questions & comments.

    I can see the heads nodding in agreement all around UD. What I cannot see is how you arrive at this conclusion from the cited research.

    Of course one would assume IDist may be in agreement on the posts comment, but why would this group of people (IDist) “see” something so in sync that others don’t?

    Can you please elaborate a little? What are loaded mutational dice? OK, I know a metaphor when I see one, but to work, this one is going to have to include some explanation for how special mutational conditions are required for modularity, and why that’s relevant to ID.

    I don’t think you need to ask the poster of this article how special mutaton conditions be required, when the article he quoted states plainly “It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favours the origin of modularity”. That is a special mutational process, unless you think mutations are not normally random! And a favouring of modularity is the loaded aspect of the dice. Loaded dice “favour” a certain outcome.

    “Special” in this context — even if you cast the description as an admission — does not necessarily mean design.

    I can see all the evolutionists nodding their heads in agreement with you, but I can not understand how you think that a bias towards an intelligent design principle (modularity), vice a purely random mutational process, is not indicative of design. Do you think then, that modularity requires no more intelligence be applied than that to form an ice crystal?

  8. “Favors the origin of” does not mean what you think it means.

  9. BA you are right on the money with those predictions. in fact you will never see darwinists or materalists trying to test those predictions because they know this is what is propping up their religion and they can’t expose it.

    i’ve been thinking a lot lately about the fact that information is always lost during this sort of thing and it made me feel very humble. think about how much information all the animals in the garden of eden had!!! Wow! especially the beetles. they must have been virtual libraries of information! we can never know how much information the things that God created were carrying around, but I am certain that each and every bit spoke volumes about the love that the creator has for his creation.

  10. (apologies for continuing the thread derailment, but the science is also jolly interesting for me)

    To answer BA77:

    1. The parent species will be found to be genetically similar to all the sub-species.

    There is no one “parent species”. There is an ancestral population (well, if you believe in these things there is :-)), but they estimate that as having lived 350 000 years ago, so getting samples will be tricky.

    2. The genetic variability of the population of parent species will slightly exceed the entire genetic variability of the entire spectrum of sub species.

    See point 1.

    3. Each sub-species will be found to have a very narrow range of genetic variability when compared to the genetic variability of the parent species.

    See point 1.

    4. Each sub-species will be found to have a marked increase in problems with inbreeding, the narrower their genetic variability is, when compared to the parent species.

    See point 1, but also note that there is no evidence of inbreeding (they didn’t find any deviations from Hardy-Weinberg)

    5. If the parent species is close enough to the “original” parent species, in which the CSI was implemented, then the parent species will demonstrate such a resistance to inbreeding problems (when one male is forced to start a “new” population with one female) that evolutionists will be surprised that their requirement of “genetic drift” has not occurred. i.e. they will quickly reestablish large genetic variability in their “offshoot” population.

    This is all irrelevant. The authors are discussing symaptric speciation brought about by selection for differing breeding times (“allochrony”), so there is no need to invoke drift.

    They do, however, write

    High levels of genetic diversity in all O. castro populations (SI Tables 6 and 7) suggest that the origins of seasonal populations were not associated with severe genetic bottlenecks [thus, not founder-induced divergence (reviewed in ref. 1)].

    They also discuss evidence that suggests retained ancestral polymorphism, which would mean that the populations would have been large when they diverged.

    Bob

  11. Bob I am not impressed with all those big tough words. Evolutionists make many assumptions that are unfounded and one of those is that all those words actually mean something in the real world. I think, and bornagain please correct me if i am wrong, that the ID prediction here is that different breeding times warrants a design inference. it wouldn’t do much good for a species to breed at a time that others are breeding or else they might end up mating with the wrong kind of bird. since mating seasons are discrete and irreducibly complex, we are warranted in inferring that they are the product of design. since we know from other sources that the designer is benevolent and omniscient, we are warranted in inferring that this system is working within the intended parameters it was designed for.

  12. Solon – The paper is suggesting that speciation was caused by separation of breeding seasons – i.e. they started as one species with one breeding season, and diverged (or are diverging, depending on the populations) to have separate breeding seasons.

    Bob

  13. Since I see absolutely nothing solid, in any mutational studies I’ve seen, to suggest that any of the sub-species will be gaining any meaningful genetic information any time soon, I stand by my assertion that loss of genetic diversity will be discernible for any population that becomes “specialized” and separated from a “ancestral” population.

    I can’t open the study, So if you can open the study and find the percent number for genetic diversity of most specialized group (Those that breed only at a certain time) and the percent number for genetic diversity of the most flexible group (perhaps able to breed in both seasons) . I believe they will differ and fall in line with the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del. (more genetic diversity for flexible and older: less for genetic diversity for specialized and younger)

    Bob you stated this:
    High levels of genetic diversity in all O. castro populations (SI Tables 6 and 7) suggest that the origins of seasonal populations were not associated with severe genetic bottlenecks. (So apparently the numbers for genetic diversity are available in the study)

    Each population having “high levels of diversity” is not surprising since it was selection for only one trait (The timing of breeding) that separated the sub-species from the parent species. But the truth will be found in the details of this case, so I maintain the sub-speciation event came at a loss of information and thus at a loss of genetic diversity and thus is discernible, if only in very minor degree in the study, IF they have the hard numbers. (hopefully the load of negative mutations has not built up to skew the numbers)

    The main point of the whole issue is that no new traits are appearing but only a refining of preexisting traits that can be found in the “ancestral population. This fact in and of itself weighs heavily for the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del.

    Now if a totally novel trait appeared, now that would be something evolutionists could get really excited about (say an eye in the back of the birds head, LOL).

    But as it stands, IMHO, they are only gathering further evidence for the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del.

    I really wish I could open this study, because I would love to see how the more ancestral populations of sub-species look in comparison to the newer sub-species. Something tells me it will tell us something about the rate at which the negative mutational load builds up.

  14. That’s some fine analysis, BA. I don’t know why they haven’t given you full posting privaliges yet.

  15. Bornagain what do you think about how much information the first created organisms had? I am guessing that it is much more than we could ever imgaine or estimate. if we only knew then we could perhaps estimate when all of the information will be gone due to the second law of thermodynamics and perhpas that will give us a maximum estimate of the date of the return of Jesus. Although i believe he will come much sooner than that by the look of things in america and the middle east. sometimes i wonder why i want to fight the liberal materialists and athiests here since I don’t think our Lord will hold out much longer. also with global warming paranoia, I know I am saved so I guess at the end of the day I can’t worry about it too much, it’s in His Hands.

    Grace and Peace

  16. Solon,
    I’m not sure of the actual “hard number” for the information content of the “simplest” photosynthetic bacteria on earth is (but I’m very confident it is very impressive when compared to man-made stuff!), but I’m sure one of the engineers around this site could probably give you a ballpark figure fairly quickly for the content.

    As far as the Genetic Entropy of “simple” bacteria is concerned, that is not as simple as you would think at first glance, for the bacteria have a tremendous ability to resist Genetic Entropy, due to their large population size and the relatively low rate of deleterious mutations to occur in the overall bacteria populations. In fact from the best ancient DNA studies available:

    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; (The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes)

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    and this:

    30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive

    By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
    Published: May 19, 1995

    But Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart. The small genetic differences could be explained as the result of evolutionary change over 30 million years, during which modern Bacillus sphaericus diverged from its ancient form, he said.

    Skeptics point out, however, that the slight genetic difference might also be explained in terms of normal variation between individual bacteria. Biologists are likely to argue over this point for some time.

    s.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD61439F93AA25756C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

    So Solon, the genetic change is much less than is expected by evolutionary theory but would fit in real well with the ID/genetic entropy theory.

    As well, it appears that the Genetic Entropy that has occurred from the 30 million year old bacteria in the modern is negligible. (they are trying to say its within the range of modern variation)

    Needless to say all this evidence is very interesting to the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del!

    It really would be neat if they could do a complete robustness/functionality test between the ancient and modern bacteria to get another piece of hard evidence for Genetic Entropy being obeyed in deep time to the molecular level.

    Instead of just the morphological level:

    The following article is unique in that is shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the Trilobites, over the 250 million year fossil history of their life on earth (Note: the Trilobites appeared suddenly at the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the “simple” creatures that preceded them).
    http://www.terradaily.com/repo.....s_999.html

    So, as you can see from just this evidence, the science is lining up very well for the ID camp.

  17. ahh i have read about the trilobites before. i am not so familiar with the genetic entropy mod^el but i would read. do you have a good source? the trilobites i have heard about because the materialist Halldane had attempted to explain the racial senescence theory in purely darwinist terms instead of the loss of information that we know for a fact occurs due to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Of course he was unwilling to consider the irrefutable evidence behind the Genesis story and so clung to the evolutionist story so that he would not have to be responsible to a Creator.

    Bacteria are weird!!! I have never even seen one. I was wondering however, if invisible things are so complex and carry so much information, imagine how much information the flowers in the garden of eden were carrying!!! Especially potatoes! I have heard darwinists talk about blue and red potatoes and all of these subspecies in South America and how this was proof of evolution but of course they refused to consider that our potato is not a new species but just a degraded form that has lost most of it’s information. Hello, potato blight!!! Sometimes the answers are so plainly obvious that I just have to laugh at the darwinists who are busy denying God instead of surveying his wondrous creation!

  18. If you don’t believe the media are liberal darwinists, take a look at this!!!!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200.....g_flood_dc

    Proof of Noahs Flood, just like biblical ID predicts! yet these peoples hearts are so hardened to the good news that they attempt to change the date (to keep it from matching the Biblical record) and they change the subject to the topic of agriculture. Sorry, darwinists, we see through this. Perhaps this will change hearts and minds in those who are struggling with doubts.

  19. I can’t open the study, So if you can open the study and find the percent number for genetic diversity of most specialized group…

    I have no idea what you mean by “percent number for genetic diversity”. Please explain.

    I really wish I could open this study, because I would love to see how the more ancestral populations of sub-species look in comparison to the newer sub-species.

    I guess you missed the part in my comment where I wrote “There is no one “parent species”. There is an ancestral population (well, if you believe in these things there is :-)), but they estimate that as having lived 350 000 years ago, so getting samples will be tricky.”

    This does raise one important question which the many engineers in ID might like to help with. Would a time machine be irreducibly complex?

    Bob

  20. Hello, Bob. I think you are missing BA’s pt. He no longer wants the original ancestral species, but the comparison of % genetic diversity between subspecies that is believed to have diverged first and the other 4(?)subspecies that are believed to have diverged later from that subspecies, all of which are currently alive.
    I too am curious. In dog evolution, many unique breed characteristics came as a resul of mutations scrambling some information, and as a result of genetic reshuffling (drift I believe it’s called) Both are examples of info loss, which is easy for random mutation/natural or artificial selction to do.

  21. For MacT.

    From the last sentence in the summary of the paper “the main open problem is the question of whether modules arise through the action of natural selection or because of biased mutational mechanisms.”

    I would add “or because of Intelligent Design and the other two working together.”

  22. Solon,
    The book “Genetic Entropy” by Dr. J.C. Sanford will give you a lot of information on the principle.

  23. Solon,
    Though I can’t currently give you an accurate information content measure for a single bacterium, I can give you a fairly hard number on the information content of the Big Bang.

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert N. Lewis (October 23, 1875 – March 23, 1946) was a famous American physical chemist.

    http://lcni.uoregon.edu/~mark/.....ation.html

    It is generally accepted that for our universe to have the extremely low entropy it now has required as the “starting point” at the big bang the selection of a virtually infinitesimally tiny volume of the total phase space of all possible universes (phase space is a complete mathematical description of any physical system).

    To be more exact, the universe we live in apparently began at a point constituting approximately 1 part in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power of the entire phase space volume of all possible universes! This is a deceptively large number, which in fact cannot be written out! If you tried to write it out by writing the number “1″ on a piece of paper, you would have to write a 0 on every single atom in the universe just to approach the number of zeros that follow the one, even then you would not be close to writing out the entire number. This amazing requirement for the initial condition at creation suggests that the odds are no better than 1 in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power that the universe in which we live was created by random chance. If the math holds true, and this interpretation is as logical as it seems, it may mean that the chance that the universe was created at random is about as close to impossible as one can get! (see the Penrose calculations, taken from the Emperors’ New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 copyright 1989, Penguin Books:

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/.....php?t=1030

    Thus since,
    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert N. Lewis

    Then this means that the information content (low entropy) of the universe at the Big Bang was about as close to infinite (zero) as we can possibly imagine and still make sense of it all..

    And of course, the parallel of high information content (low entropy) that is found in the big bang to this particular scripture, is very curious and compelling to our particular Theistic position, to say the least.

    John 1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

  24. Thanks for the book reference. May I find it at my local bookstore? LIberals have been rearranging the books in the science and religion sections, my neighbor works at Borders and said that they caught someone doing it!!! He was in college and said that he got the idea from an evolutionist web page. i’m not sure if they are prosectuing or not but they should. it should be against the law to mess with Gods word or Gods people.

    I am afraid BA that it doesn’t make sense of it all to me when i consider information content being greates when near zero. I was never really good at all the math and chemistry stuff but I was really good with plants. That’s what got me thinking about say Oak trees. There are hundreds of what the evolutionists call species but you and me would probably call kinds like the bible says to call them. Imagine how much information that would be all added up and then take into account all the information that has been lost due to the corrosive actions of Sin in our world and also time which is part of sin. oh and the flood, that surely destroyed lots of information.

  25. Solon,
    You can buy the book here with a gift card from your bank or just a regular credit card:

    http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-.....1599190028

    Since you love plants, you will be pleased to know that Dr. Sanford, who is a Christian, is/was a leading researcher in plant Genetics and that he spearheaded the development of the biolistic “Gene Gun” process which is used around the world today:

    http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/.....negun.html

    of special note:

    GENEVA, NY: The development of the gene gun in the early 1980’s revolutionized the science of genetic engineering and ushered in the age of genetic transformation in the United States and the world. This pioneering advance was developed by Cornell University plant scientists at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva, N.Y., and researchers and engineers at the Cornell Nanofabrication Facility (CNF).

    Horticultural scientists John Sanford and Theodore Klein at the Geneva Station sought the assistance of the Nanofabrication Facility in developing a device that could streamline traditional plant breeding practices by injecting genes directly into plant nuclei and tissues. What was needed was a means by which genetic material carrying desirable characteristics, such as drought or pest resistance in plants, could be coated onto microparticles and then accurately “shot” into living cells and tissues, thereby altering their genetic makeup. What was eventually fashioned and refined by Sanford with the help of CNF experts Edward Wolf and Nelson Allen was the Biolistic Particle Delivery System–or so-called “gene gun.

    Thus, as you can see Solon, Dr. Sanford is more than well qualified to tell us exactly what is possible in genetics and what is not!

    The book is written in easy to understand fashion that is accessible to the lay reader, but is technical enough to challenge most experts in the field.

  26. Anna – I don’t know if that’s what Bornagain wants, but it is still difficult to understand what you mean. Genetic diversity isn’t measured as a percentage. Also the pattern of divergence is more complex than you describe, with geographic separation of populations, and sympatric divergence only coming later.

  27. For idnet.com.au:

    [From the last sentence in the summary of the paper “the main open problem is the question of whether modules arise through the action of natural selection or because of biased mutational mechanisms.”

    I would add “or because of Intelligent Design and the other two working together.”]

    I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of “mutational bias.” I’ve read the paper you cite in detail. Mutational bias does not refer to front-loading. Rather, it is the suggested mechanism by which modularity in structure and/or function could be selected for. It is an alternative to random mutation, although these are not mutually exclusive forces.

    Modularity is a concept that is also not easy to understand. In my own field, it is an extremely important concept that helps to explain a lot about things like how children acquire syntactic knowledge of their language despite an evident paucity of input. In that particular example, biases are thought to be an important developmental force (though diachronic of course, not synchronic) that leads children to “choose” groupings of syntactic features that tend to cluster together.

    The article you cite does not provide evidence in favor of intelligent design in nature; in fact, the contrary is true. Unless we only want to preach to a lay choir, we’re going to have to offer better examples from research to support the ID proposal.

  28. Bob O’H, how come you are always so difficult with me?

    To give you an idea what I am looking for as far as genetic diversity is concerned:

    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....073157.htm

    and this:

    In this study for ancient Austrailian DNA we have clear evidence of Genetic Entropy (loss of information) being obeyed!:

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....rtid=33358

    Of special note:
    Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years, the ancient mtDNA clearly does not, providing an excellent example of why the history of any particular locus or DNA sequence does not necessarily represent the history of a population (LOL). Adcock et al.’s (7

    And this analysis of the preceding study

    http://www.godandscience.org/e.....ional.html

    Here is a Paper that has confirmation of dogs and grey wolves staying within principle of Genetic Entropy.

    http://jhered.oxfordjournals.o.....0/1/71.pdf

    of special note:
    Some sequences found in dogs were identical to those in wolves…
    The sequence divergence within (breeds of) dogs was surprisingly large: the mean sequence divergence in dogs 2.06 + or – 0.07% was almost identical to the 2.10 + or – 0.04% (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (notice that sequence divergence is slightly smaller for dogs than for wolves)

    Coupled with the diverse morphology of domesticated dogs and known hazards of dog breeding, this evidence strongly indicates “front loaded adaptations” at a loss of information from parent species. Thus, this is genetic confirmation of the principle of Genetic Entropy for dogs from wolves!

    As well morphology can be used to infer Genetic Entropy:

    It is fairly easy to see Africans have more information for skin color.

    There are two options for the way you can set up a computer program for separating colors. One is to set up the program as if all the information is in the white color (as with light). The method of dealing with colors is called additive color mixing.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g…..ol.html#c1

    The other way is to set up the program as if all the information is in the black color (as with material). This method of dealing with colors is called subtractive color mixing.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g…..ol.html#c1

    Thus, my assertion that the African Race has more information in its genome for skin color stands upon the scientific principle of subtractive color mixing!

    Well what do we find in the genetics of skin color, Skin color is controlled by melanin.
    Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (dark brown to nearly black). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete dom^ina^nce. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from the father and one from the mother. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in a great variety of different skin tones.

    As well I find interesting evidence for ID/Genetic Entropy here;

    Maize molecular diversity is roughly 2- to 5-fold higher than that of other domesticated grass crops (1). Tenaillon et al. (2) reported that in 25 maize individuals, one nucleotide every 28 base pairs is polymorphic, and overall nucleotide diversity is almost 1.3%. That study, the largest examination of random maize loci, found almost no evidence of selection in 21 genes along chromosome 1. Maize’s closest wild relative, Z. mays ssp. parviglumis (a teosinte), often has levels of nucleotide diversity that surpass 2% (3–6). The tremendous diversity of maize and teosinte has been the raw genetic material for the radical transformation of maize into the world’s highest yielding grain crop. (notice 1.3% to 2%)
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....tid=130568

    and here is a study linking up to the Parent Species prediction of ID/Genetic Entropy:

    Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon (parent species of sheep) population, bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.
    This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time.

    “What is amazing is that s of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we’ve found that it has been maintained,” said Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....103157.htm

    And here are papers showing “sub-species of sheep having problems with inbreeding:

    Genetic Diversity in Algerian Sheep Breeds, Using Microsatellite Markers
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....5547xr75m/

    Heredity – Diversity and evolution of the Mhc-DRB1 gene in the two …
    Low levels of genetic variation were detected in both subspecies, ….. Is the decline of desert bighorn sheep from infectious disease the result of low MHC …
    http://www.nature.com/hdy/jour.....1016a.html

    Bob, This evidence clearly needs a lot of refining to get to the detailed truth of the matter, but I believe you can clearly see the point I’m driving at as far as ID/Genetic Entropy is concerned from this preliminary evidence I have presented you.

  29. bornagain77:
    “Why have not the near-de^ath experiences of people like Pam Reynolds made an impression on you?
    For crying out loud MacT, She was proven to have no electrical activity in her brain whatsoever, yet at the same time she was scientifically proven to be de^ad, she gave an accurate description of the scene in the operation room. And this is just one of thousands of testemonies for near-de-ath experiences found in Judeo-Christian cultures.

    Taking into consideration your profession it is hard for to see how this escaped your attention.

    Do you have a naturalistic explanation for the event?”

    NDE has never been scientifically substantiated. That does not mean it cannot happen, of course. There are some phenomena that are currently outside the reach of science, and maybe NDE is one that will remain so forever.

    One reason for this is that it is very difficult to study experimentally. The only evidence we do have is from case studies, which are difficult to generalize from. Also, case studies of this type provide evidence that is anecdotal in nature. While such evidence may reflect actual experience, we cannot carry out the systematic studies to validate our interpretations, so in the end, your guess is good as mine.

    Do I have a naturalistic explanation for such experiences? No. Well, at least not one that is complete in any scientific sense. However, there are some plausible conjectures that do not invoke non-material sources.

    M. Persinger (Laurentian University) has shown that localized TMS can induce a sensation that religious individuals interpret as a “holy presence” (and non-religious individuals interpret as a “sensed presence” but without religious significance). The sensation lasts as long as the TMS stimulation of a particular region of the temporal lobe continues.
    A good summary of this work is here: http://neuro.psychiatryonline......l/13/4/515

    Also, VS Ramachandran, in the 2003 Reith Lectures, discussed the neurophysiology and psychology of NDE and related experiences in depth. You can listen to these lectures here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/

    Also, I’m sorry if I sounded harsh in an earlier reply to you. I was responding to a specific point you made about TMS and memory. Nothing you have posted — and no evidence anywhere that I am aware of — points to any factual basis for the claim that memory is anything other than a brain-based process. Penfield’s (quite dated) studies were ground-breaking but simply point to the fact that memory is distributed in the brain, not located in one area. There is no mystery about this. Memory can be selectively impaired by a variety of pathologies of the brain. One of the better predictors of likelihood of experiencing an NDE in von Lommel’s work was short-term memory efficiency (also reflected in the age factor, where younger patients were more likely to report NDE than older ones).

    Very few scientific pictures are complete, and the NDE phenomenon is one of the least studied of all. There are several aspects of the Reynolds case that, if substantiated (hey, I’m a skeptic, show me the case records), are still mysterious. I’m comfortable with saying I don’t know the answer yet, and maybe never will. Where clinical issues are at stake, I’m not comfortable crediting the explanation to non-natural causes that we cannot evaluate, let alone base clinical decisions on.

  30. Solon,
    I found this quote on the information in a bacterium.

    The manuals needed for building the entire space shuttle and all its components and all its support systems would be truly enormous! Yet the specified complexity (information) of even the simplest form of life – a bacterium – is arguably as great as that of the space shuttle! (Dr. J.C. Sanford)

    Using this example, you can easily see why even the modular system evolutionists are trying to use is ludicrous in the highest order.

    Bob O’H,

    I mean percent genetic diversity as measured by percent sequence divergence as done in this study;

    Some sequences found in dogs were identical to those in wolves…
    The sequence divergence within (breeds of) dogs was surprisingly large: the mean sequence divergence in dogs 2.06 + or – 0.07% was almost identical to the 2.10 + or – 0.04% (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (notice that sequence divergence is slightly smaller for dogs than for wolves)
    Coupled with the diverse morphology of domesticated dogs and known hazards of dog breeding, this evidence strongly indicates “front loaded adaptations” at a loss of information from parent species. Thus, this is genetic confirmation of the principle of Genetic Entropy for dogs from wolves!

    Note; the percent sequence divergence (genetic diversity) of breeds of dogs is found to be narrow.

  31. This should read:
    Note; the percent sequence divergence (genetic diversity) of specific breeds of dogs is found to be narrow.

  32. Solon: “LIberals have been rearranging the books in the science and religion sections, my neighbor works at Borders and said that they caught someone doing it!!!”

    I recently noticed this sort of aggravating propagandaistic tactic at my local Borders, where somebody had prominently displayed mainly anti-ID books by Dawkins and others face-forward. Of course there were hardly any pro-ID books in the science life sciences section at all.

  33. The Borders I used to go to (in Fredericksburg, VA) carried Behe and Wells in the biology section, and though it carried most of Dawkins’ books in the biology section as well, they put The God Delusion in the “atheism” sub-category in the Religion section. Would that be objectionable to anyone here?

  34. they put The God Delusion in the “atheism” sub-category in the Religion section. Would that be objectionable to anyone here?

    Only that Borders shouldn’t have an atheism section out where children could see it. I bet most parents don’t know that filth is out on display in their local “friendly” bookstore.

  35. (31) I’m stunned speechless. I don’t know what to say. Are you being serious?

  36. Carl Sachs:

    I think thats a great place for it.

    However, at my local B&N there seems to be an abundancy of “religious” books in the science section. I use religious loosely to include atheism.

    Now, I enjoy my science, and I enjoy the religion debate- but I’d rather they move all those books out of the science section. Maybe a science/faith section far away from the science section? I am sure christians and atheists alike get sick of seeing the stuff constantly.

  37. (31) Poachy, how is withholding books from the public going to help things? I am sure there are some atheists who would rather have the christian/jewish/etc sections hid away.

    As for parents not knowing, that is the parents’ fault. The remedy should be parental guidance- not a big brother policy.

    If you hid the books away, you are only give kids the impression that there is something you fear.

  38. (33) That atheistic filth is shocking, I agree. For goodness sake, the next generation is at stake. I don’t know who is more to blame, the parents who don’t know, or the careless (or evil?) shop assistants at Borders.

  39. Books o’ Books

    Books o’ books upon the shelf;
    revealing deep wisdom once hidden by stealth;
    bestow us a new secret;
    bestow us a new wealth;
    make known as is daylight to eyes in good health!

    Books o’ books, full of virtues so fine;
    make the tyrant destroyed for all time;
    destroyed of its power;
    destroyed of its hell;
    YES!, Tell us this secret;
    Do tell and Tell well!

    But alas, books o’ books;
    no life of yourself;
    why beg of you from life’s priceless wealth;
    be it real plain and too easy to see;
    of that which is ;
    only God can set free!

    Acts 26:8
    “Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the ?”

  40. Sorry baby sitter ate this:

    make de^ath the tyrant destroyed for all time,

  41. Redo:

    Books o’ Books

    Books o’ books upon the shelf;
    revealing deep wisdom once hidden by stealth;
    bestow us a new secret;
    bestow us a new wealth;
    make known as is daylight to eyes in good health!

    Books o’ books, full of virtues so fine;
    make de^ath the tyrant destroyed for all time;
    destroyed of its power;
    destroyed of its hell;
    YES!, Tell us this secret;
    Do tell and Tell well!

    But alas, books o’ books;
    no life of yourself;
    why beg of you from life’s priceless wealth;
    be it real plain and too easy to see;
    of that which is de^ad;
    only God can set free!

    Acts 26:8
    “Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the de^ad ?”

  42. BA77, I think you mean

    “Books, O books” etc, not “o’books.” The “o” with an apostrophe is either used in Irish names, as in “Frank O’Connor,” or as a short version of “of,” as in “I’ll have me a bottle o’ tequila and a bucket o’ limes, my good man.”

  43. If atheist books are wrapped in brown or black bags and put high up on the shelf, it’ll only make them seem more enticing.

    On the other hand, maybe it’ll be a disappointment when they finally are allowed to buy atheist literature once they turn 18.

    “What? I bet those aren’t even her real arguments!”

  44. 44

    BA77 . . . regarding #30 . . . I recently delved into sequence divergences within pigs. It also supports your claim. I came across this because I have a brother who works with genetics at the University of Utah. I love math and helped him with the equations. The evidence clearly indicates frontloading.

    DNA markers are commonly used for large-scale evaluation of genetic diversity in farm animals (just like dogs). AFLP (a type of genetic marker) are useful for such studies as they can be generated relatively simply. In a study of 59 pig breeds. The average proportion of monomorphic populations was 63% (range across loci: 3%–98%). The variance of sequence divergences across pigs also significantly exceeded the variance expected under the hypothesis of evolutionary relationships alone.

  45. BA77, don’t take offense at my minor suggestion or the loopy way it was offered. I’m a big fan of poetry: there should be more of it on UD.

  46. MacT,
    It is amazing that two people can view the same evidence and come away with totally different explanations.

    To me, given informations transcendent nature,(i.e. physical mediums can change drastically, but the meaning of the information always remains constant) It is not surprising, in the least, for me to find that a specific memory cannot be localized to a specific spot in the brain. Whereas materialists were extremely surprised by this.

    Is information dirt? Is information energy?
    No of course not, but at the Big Bang we find that transcendent information is encoded onto the energy and matter in the form of unchanging universal constants! And please remember the fact that the universal constants are proven to be unchanging is drastically different from what materialists expected and predicted in the first place! (Do you remember that material has primary authority in materialism ?)

    Shoot MacT, Quantum Non-locality proves that information can travel instantaneously (faster than the speed of light) anywhere in the universe. That in itself should give you a clue of its uniqueness!

    Forgive me MacT, but I believe you have some severe materialistic blinders on that are preventing you from discerning the “spiritual” attributes that a higher dimension (Being) has placed on this universe.

  47. “It is not surprising, in the least, for me to find that a specific memory cannot be localized to a specific spot in the brain. Whereas materialists were extremely surprised by this.”

    What scientists are surprised by this? Name one, please. Certainly not me, and none that I know of. Most neuroscientists that I know, who know the basics of cognitive neuropsychology, and brain organization, know that distributed networks are the norm, not the exception.

    I can live with your frustration that I don’t accept your pseudo-scientific ramblings on topics that you are not an expert in. Now, I don’t know what “transcendent information” might be. And I admit to knowing next to nothing about quantum non-locality, so I can’t comment on that.

  48. IrishFather,
    Seeing as I’m trying real hard to see how all this fits together in the ID?Genetic Entropy framework, I would absolutely love to see the study, you worked on, once it is available, If that is ok with you?

  49. 49

    MacT
    [quote]
    Mutational bias does not refer to front-loading.
    [/quote]

    Within this context it is referring to the speculated mechanisms by which apparently frontloaded sections of the genome came to being.

    “It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favors the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias.”

    [quote]
    Rather, it is the suggested mechanism by which modularity in structure and/or function could be selected for.
    [/quote]

    It is their speculated mechanism.

    [quote]
    In that particular example, biases are thought to be an important developmental force (though diachronic of course, not synchronic) that leads children to ?choose? groupings of syntactic features that tend to cluster together.
    [/quote]

    Or perhaps these biases were designed to occur or perhaps children were designed to make such associations.

    [quote]
    It is an alternative to random mutation, although these are not mutually exclusive forces.
    [/quote]

    The point is that they’re trying to say that there is some kind of predisposition for random mutation to favor apparently frontloaded sequences of DNA. Of course, this is speculation, no one has ever observed random mutation form any such thing. They are admitting that specific a specific sequence of mutations plus a specific sequence of selection pressures are required to form such apparently frontloaded sequences of DNA. ID proponents are arguing that such a highly specific sequence of events is most likely the product of intelligent design (since random mutation nor natural selection nor natural processes care to produce such a thing and the likelihood of them doing so is very small).

    [quote]
    The article you cite does not provide evidence in favor of intelligent design in nature; in fact, the contrary is true.
    [/quote]

    The above article does provide evidence for intelligent design (for reasons already stated) despite the extreme secular bias towards not funding and towards censoring anything that opposes their naturalistic presuppositions (while trying to only fund researchers that are committed to naturalism from a scientific perspective with tax dollars that don’t belong to them).

    “Until this week I worked at the National Center for Science Education, where we oppose the ID/creationists and develop a finely-tuned sense of the sorts of things they will pluck from the literature and desperately portray as evidence that they aren’t completely nuts.”

    http://www.biology-direct.com/.....1/comments

    IE: the only thing they don’t oppose is that which is consistent with their naturalistic presuppositions, anything else gets opposed (and hence censored).

  50. In re: (38). I have a friend who is a shop assistant at a Barnes and Noble in Manhattan. According to an informal poll she conducted, 5 of the shop assistants, including herself, admitted to being evil, but insisted that the “atheist filth” nothing to do with it. 4 were careless, and one insisted that he was actually care-less.

    Let’s here it for science!

  51. Bob O’H, how come you are always so difficult with me?

    I guess the root cause is that you know very little about evolutionary biology. Now, I don’t mind that – there’s a lot I don’t know about as well. I don’t mind helping, but I need to make sure I understand what you’re asking about.

    To whit:

    I mean percent genetic diversity as measured by percent sequence divergence as done in this study;

    OK, now I see what you want. The problem is that Diversity!=divergence.

    OK, the authors give estimates of pairwise FST and delta in SI table 5, online. I’m not sure if delta is percent sequence divergence – I doubt it, but it might be similar (I don’t do phylogenetics, and the authors don’t give a reference).

    I don’t see where all these things are taking you. We know that diversity can be lost through bottlenecks, and we don’t need any “genetic entropy” explanations. I also don’t see how Dave Coltman’s mouflon help you. Surely genetic entropy means that they should be loosing genetic diversity!

    Bob

  52. Bob you stated;

    I don’t see where all these things are taking you. We know that diversity can be lost through bottlenecks, and we don’t need any “genetic entropy” explanations. I also don’t see how Dave Coltman’s mouflon help you. Surely genetic entropy means that they should be loosing genetic diversity!

    The ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del is robust in that the many surprises that surprise unfalsifiable “evolutionary biology” all find a place in the Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del.

    The Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del holds that Intelligence is implemented into a single male and female parent species. The information in the genome of the parent species is robust and complete in that all future information is “front-loaded” for a radiation of sub-species to come from the parent species. Whereas the Genetic Entropy portion of the model will hold that all sub-speciation events to occur from the original parent species will always come at a cost of functional information in the genome of the sub-species from the parent species, much as we are finding in our preliminary studies of Humans, dogs, and sheep (and pigs according to Irish Father).

    The mouflon is interesting in that the Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del would predict the lack of “genetic bottleneck problems” for a parent species that has not been sub-speciated away from yet. Whereas the materialistic evolutionary theory has no explanation for this anomaly in evidence.

    There are many questions that need to be answered, Such as “How much sub-speciation is possible from a parent species? ‘What is the normal rate of “negative mutational load” built up in each class of higher organisms? How much negative mutational load (genetic entropy) can a species withstand before genetic meltdown?

    This ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del,
    is falsifiable by showing an increase in genetic information of a sub-species over what was present in the genome of the parent species.

    Though this following study is not a genetic study, it does clearly highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both the evolutionary and the ID/Genetic Entropy theories.

    http://www.terradaily.com/repo.....s_999.html

    of special note:

    Webster has hunted trilobites from the northwest highlands of Scotland to the deserts of the American Southwest. He specializes in the olenellids, the oldest, most primitive trilobite group ever to evolve. The olenellids also show a great deal of variation within species.

    “That led me into thinking there’s something weird about these very primitive Cambrian trilobites that you don’t see in other ones,” he said.

    The only way to verify his hunch was to conduct an analysis that combined the data compiled in previously published reports. “It’s too much for one person to look at a thousand trilobite species,” Webster said.

    So for his Science study, Webster combed through 68 previously published studies of trilobites, searching for descriptions of evolving characteristics that could be incorporated into his analysis. After eliminating studies that were inappropriate for inclusion, 49 still remained.

    He focused on actively evolving characteristics. The trilobite head alone, for example, displays many such characteristics. These include differences in ornamentation, number and placement of spines, and the shape of head segments. His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.

    “There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.”

    ////

    Now by all rights Bob, evolution theory should at least be severely questioned, if not outright falsified, with this study and the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del should find strong support for its basic premises (especially given mutational studies that show a vast rarity of beneficial mutations to genomes!). Hopefully I have made the mo^del clear for you.

  53. Bettawrekonize

    “ID proponents are arguing that such a highly specific sequence of events is most likely the product of intelligent design”

    What would be a sequence of events that could not be the result of intelligent design?

    “The point is that they’re trying to say that there is some kind of predisposition for random mutation to favor apparently frontloaded sequences of DNA”

    No. Read the article thoroughly. They do not mention frontloading. Their speculative proposal concerns the role of modularity in biasing selection. This is a natural process.

    “The above article does provide evidence for intelligent design (for reasons already stated) despite the extreme secular bias towards not funding and towards censoring anything that opposes their naturalistic presuppositions (while trying to only fund researchers that are committed to naturalism from a scientific perspective with tax dollars that don’t belong to them).”

    I sit on various grant review committees, for both government and charity bodies, that make recommendations regarding funding of scientific research proposals. There is undoubtedly a bias toward work that implicitly adheres to naturalistic explanations. But that is certainly not the result of some anti-materialist conspiracy to spend your tax money. Science isn’t equipped to deal with non-materialistic questions. If we did spend your tax money on non-science issues, we’d be wasting your money, our time, and possibly missing out on truly important new developments in science and technology.

  54. bornagain77:
    I’ve replied to several of your comments separately, but my replies appear to be getting hung up in the moderation queue for many hours or even days. Nothing personal!

  55. The mouflon is interesting in that the Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del would predict the lack of “genetic bottleneck problems” for a parent species that has not been sub-speciated away from yet. Whereas the materialistic evolutionary theory has no explanation for this anomaly in evidence.

    What about a rapidly expanding population?

    I’m curious – how do you know that the new mouflon population isn’t a new sub-species?

    This ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del,
    is falsifiable by showing an increase in genetic information of a sub-species over what was present in the genome of the parent species.

    Would that include a sub-species gaining a trait or a function, for example?

    Bob

  56. Bob you asked three questions:

    What about a rapidly expanding population?

    I don’t understand where the question addresses the ID/Genetic Entropy model specifically.

    I’m curious – how do you know that the new mouflon population isn’t a new sub-species?

    I don’t. Which is why I said, in my entry, that many questions need to be answered such as “How much sub-speciation is possible from (front-loaded into) the parent species?”

    Would that include a sub-species gaining a trait or a function, for example?

    For completely novel traits and completely novel functions I would like to think this positively true because of the mutational studies I’ve seen, and the law of conservation of information. Yet again, not knowing exactly how much functional genetic information is “front-loaded” in the parent species hampers me from saying this is absolutely 100% true.

    I believe the trilobite study I cited is an excellent starting point to begin discerning stuff like this.
    If we take a closer look at Webster’s work in the article I cited:

    He specializes in the olenellids, the oldest, most primitive trilobite group ever to evolve (suddenly appear in the fossil record). The olenellids also show a great deal of variation within species.

    Since it is only a article, We have many questions unanswered that are probably answered in his formal paper.

    How quick is radiation of sub-species trilobites from parent species trilobites (olenellids) in deep time?

    Are all basic traits and functions present in olenellids or do some totally novel traits and functions make an appearance upon sub-speciation of olenellids?

    What is the average rate for disappearance of traits and functions (Genetic Entropy) from sub-species of olenellids in deep time?

    What is the, best guess, average rate of extinction from Genetic Entropy for all species of trilobites in deep time?

    etc…etc…etc…

    So as you can see Bob there is much work to be done, Yet from what I’ve seen so far, the mo^del is a very promising line of research with much explanatory power. Far more explanatory power than I’ve seen for the Darwinian theory.

  57. What about a rapidly expanding population?

    I don’t understand where the question addresses the ID/Genetic Entropy model specifically.

    It was addressing your claim that evolutionary theory has no explanation. It is one possible explanation.

    I’m curious – how do you know that the new mouflon population isn’t a new sub-species?

    I don’t. Which is why I said, in my entry, that many questions need to be answered such as “How much sub-speciation is possible from (front-loaded into) the parent species?”

    My point is that if it is a new sub-species, then surely it would have lost genetic diversity, which would then be a simple falsification of your thesis. In the absence of a way of deciding this, you can’t really claim the evidence as supporting your view – it might do totally the opposite.

    Would that include a sub-species gaining a trait or a function, for example?

    For completely novel traits and completely novel functions I would like to think this positively true because of the mutational studies I’ve seen, and the law of conservation of information. Yet again, not knowing exactly how much functional genetic information is “front-loaded” in the parent species hampers me from saying this is absolutely 100% true.

    So, if I could point to a species that is definitely a sub-species (we know the parent species it came from), and could show that it had evolved a new function (i.e. it isn’t in the parental species), would that be a falsification?

  58. Bob it sure would but I don’t think you can provide such an example, because we know that information is always lost or dissipated. Also how do we know that we cannot make a Design Inference if there was such a case, i.e. perhaps this would be evidence of recent Design and as such would be predicted by ID.

  59. Bob,

    I know how adept/crafty evolutionists are at going into the dark corners of science and finding some weird piece of evidence, that is not fully understood yet, and then twisting the weird evidence around a axis, distorting it, and then claiming proof of principle when they have done no such thing, except obfuscate the evidence.

    So if you got any clear cut evidence go ahead and present it.

    But I maintain the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del will hold consistent for all unambiguous evidence you can present!

    I am confident for this prediction because the mo^del is true to the foundational principles of the second law of thermodynamics and to the law of conservation of information. Whereas evolution has to severely pollute the simplicity and beauty of those foundational laws to be considered valid.

    As well all the evidence from the fossil record backs this up prediction for the ID/Genetic Entropy :

    “As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould pointed out almost three decades ago, the general (consistent) pattern for the evolution of diversity (as shown by the fossil record) follows precisely this pattern: a burst of rapid diversity following a major ecological change, and then a gradual decline in diversity over relatively long periods of time.” Allen MacNeill PhD.; Teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

    So the general pattern of the fossil record fits the mo^del already and falsifies evolution!

    So bring on your weird evidence.

  60. MacT you stated:

    I can live with your frustration that I don’t accept your pseudo-scientific ramblings on topics that you are not an expert in. Now, I don’t know what “transcendent information” might be. And I admit to knowing next to nothing about quantum non-locality, so I can’t comment on that.

    I admit I am by no means an expert in brain injuries or anything else for that matter (in fact I’m nothing and nobody but a recovering homeless drunk, i guess that only makes me an expert on how NOT to live your life), but I would like to think I have a basic level of common sense in this (information) matter. You are supporting the materialistic philosophy in your assertion that all there is, is brain and no mind/soul whatsoever, I’m supporting the Theistic philosophy that there is a brain which houses/supports a “primary mind/soul. Thus, since I support the Theistic point of view my observations automatically become psuedo-scientific ramblings to you as well as with most other mainstream scientists.

    So let’s break the list out again and see how materialism has done so far, as far as materialism of science is concerned when compared to Theism.

    Theistic Philosophy Compared to the
    Materialistic Philosophy of Science;

    1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.

    2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.

    3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

    4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.

    5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.

    6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.

    7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.

    8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.

    9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.

    10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

    11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.

    12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record.

    So MacT, If you were a betting man how much would you bet against the Theistic philosophy that your materialistic assertion of “only” a brain is true?

    From the track record I, myself, sure wouldn’t bet that much if I were you.

    Now back to information;

    Here is a paper to help you understand quantum non-locality,

    Quantum Nonlocality and the Possibility of Superluminal Effects,

    Published in the Proceedings of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop, Cleveland, OH, August 12-14, 1997

    http://www.npl.washington.edu/.....qm_nl.html

    Though the paper is very interesting and investigates some very interesting possibilities, The important thing is that they are wrestling with the “established fact” that information is not bound by the “speed of light” laws imposed on “material” energy (and even gravity) for entangled wave/particles.

    How does all this relate to Theism and materialism?

    Well in materialism they have no valid explanation for information traveling faster than light. It is totally unexpected and gave Einstein fits. In fact quantum non-locality is a severe and crushing enigma for materialism (but HEY they are working on finding a solution so don’t you doubt materialism!)

    Whereas in Theism the evidence of information being transcendent of any physical laws finds a comfortable fit fairly quickly in the hypothesis, for Theism postulates that God is omniscient (God is infinite in knowledge/information; i.e God is perfect in knowledge/information)
    Quantum non-locality provides solid proof for this postulation of Theism for information. It provides a “mechanism” for the postulation if you will. (As well it provides compelling evidence for the omnipotent postulation.)

    But the main point being, is that you have absolutely no hard proof that information is a constant physical quantity, as is required by materialism (remember memory is not localized in the brain nor does information have any other constant physical basis) and I have rock hard solid proof in quantum non-locality that information is indeed transcendent of any physical “materialistic” laws!

    I could probably go into this in much more detail but I think I have made my point very clearly.

  61. Bob here is Webster’s trilobite study:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....37/499.pdf

    The closer I look at the study the more solid the evidence becomes for the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del:

    Bob, the only “major” deviation away from the predicted decline of the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del , that I could see, was from two new orders being established: (Is parent species to be considered orders?)

    specifically this:

    “then rises to 40% in the Early Ordovician (coincident with the first sampling of the diverse phacopid and proetid orders)”

    I believe Dr. Behe predicted the “Edge of Evolution” to be somewhere between species and orders. I believe this evidence in the fossil record falls in line with what he found at the molecular level.

    I would also like to point out Bob, that at no time in 270 million years did any order of trilobite start to become anything other than a trilobite (no trilobites turning into shrimp, fish or anything else, but in much shorter time mammals are “proven” (LOL) to have arisen from reptiles).

    Going backwards in “within species diversity” is not good news for you Bob. No not good news for you at all!

  62. MacT
    [quote]
    “ID proponents are arguing that such a highly specific sequence of events is most likely the product of intelligent design”
    [/quote]

    ID does not try to detect everything an intelligent agent can do, it tries to detect things that only an intelligent agent can do. Your question is not relevant, we are not trying to determine everything an intelligent agent can do, we are trying to determine which patterns are most likely the product of an intelligent agent.

    [quote]
    No. Read the article thoroughly. They do not mention frontloading. Their speculative proposal concerns the role of modularity in biasing selection. This is a natural process.
    [/quote]

    Read this sentence

    “It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favors the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias.”

    The sentence speaks for itself, it’s not a matter of whether or not they explicitely mention frontloading. They do not refer to it as frontloading but they are speculating that these apparently frontloaded sections of DNA came to be because there is some sort of chemical/physical bias to produce them.

    “Science isn’t equipped to deal with non-materialistic questions.”

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t make it any less scientific. Science != naturalism. What you are describing is naturalism, not science. The purpose of science is to find the best explanation given a phenomena or set of evidence. To do so we apply reason and logic. If the purpose of science is anything but to find the best / most reasonable explanation for a given phenomena or set of evidence, then science is not well suited for finding best explanations and what you have is nonsense. This isn’t an issue of how you choose to define “science” for science must be reasonable / logical, it’s very purpose must be to find best explanations for it to be well suited to do so. It’s purpose is not to find, “best naturalistic explanations that don’t include ID” for that would undermine the purpose of science and make it not well suited for finding best explanations. If the evidence points to intelligent design or creationism and science is unable to determine this then science is not well suited for finding best explanations and you are wasting our tax dollars (money that doesn’t belong to you).

  63. My first quote in my last post should have read

    MacT
    [quote]
    What would be a sequence of events that could not be the result of intelligent design?
    [/quote]

  64. MacT

    Mutational bias does not refer to front-loading.

    You’re right, but since you mentioned frontloading, I thought that modules referred to sections of the genome that appeared to be front loaded. After skimming through the PDF file (which defines what was meant by modularity) I quickly found out I was mistaken. My mistake, I should have read the article first before making assumptions based on what you said. Post 21 (idnet.com.au) did not mention frontloading and neither did the original topic, I think you misunderstood what was meant by a, “loaded dice” and your confusion confused me on the issue as well. I’ll try to be more careful next time. However, this is still evidence for ID for reasons already stated (by me and others) and you still haven’t addressed post 21 (though it’s not really an argument to begin with).

  65. I wish there was a way to edit posts!!!!!!

  66. 66

    bornagain77
    [quote]
    Theistic Philosophy Compared to the
    Materialistic Philosophy of Science;
    [/quote]

    You left something out.

    [quote]
    As a matter of fact, 24 years before Darwin’s Origin, a scientist named Edward Blyth published the concept of natural selection in the Biblical context of corrupted creation.
    [/quote]

    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....ection.asp

    So lets see: Materialism, acquired traits / Lamarckism. Creationism, Natural selection (Darwin stole it).

  67. Bettawrekonize

    You are correct, I did not address (21).
    ——
    From the last sentence in the summary of the paper “the main open problem is the question of whether modules arise through the action of natural selection or because of biased mutational mechanisms.”

    I would add “or because of Intelligent Design and the other two working together.”
    ————

    OK, we have an observed phenomenon. We also have two distinct predictions for mechanisms of change. Now let’s do the science. Can you suggest the experiment that would let us determine which is the better account?

    Before we continue, I also would like to point out what seems to be a persistent misunderstanding of a basic concept. Mutational bias in the context of modularity is a proposed mechanism that could account for the greater likelihood of certain types of outcomes over others. It does not represent loading the dice, or frontloading, or presuppose design, as the original post suggested. The rhetorical opposition between natural selection and mutational bias in the quoted passage does not imply that mutational bias is not natural; that would be an understandable but incorrect reading.

  68. MacT,

    Here is a site you may find interesting:

    Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum Mechanics Can

    http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au.....stapp.html

    ABSTRACT: It is argued on the basis of certain mathematical characteristics that classical mechanics is not constitutionally suited to accommodate consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics is. These mathematical characteristics pertain to the nature of the information represented in the state of the brain, and the way this information enters into the dynamics.

    I thought the following was interesting for it seems to suggest there may be some experimental evidence that counciosness exist in the quantum “wave” part of reality i.e. the command to actualize a event occurs in the “non-material” part of quantum reality first and foremost:

    “A.8. THOUGHTS: The occurrence of the Heisenberg event at this high level, rather than at some lower level (e.g., when some individual neuron fires) is in line with Wigner’s suggestion that the reduction of the wave packet occurs in the brain only at the highest level of processing, where conscious thoughts enter. The state of the brain collapses to a classically describable branch that records, in the form of a facilitated template for action, the template that was just actualized. It is postulated that this actualizing event at the level of the wave function is associated with a conscious event that is the experiential feel of the act of initiating the action initiated by the neural template: the experiential and physical events are concordant. The physical and mental events can be regarded as two aspects of the same event-like reality. The physical event is the image in the physicist’s representation of reality of some reality that has also an experiential ‘feel’.

    MacT, I would have to dig deeper to see what experiment they used to make this “spiritual” inference for thought.

    As Well, MacT I was trying to find a paper I remember reading that said something to the effect that the information we receive in our lives vastly exceeds what we are capable of storing in our brains, but found this instead;

    ]How big is human memory, or on being just useful enough[

    and I also found this tidbit that I thought you may find interesting:

    The Organization

    It has been generally believed that memories are localized in the brain. The research conducted by Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield in the 1920s had offered convincing evidence that specific memories did have specific locations in the brain. In his book, The Mystery of the Mind, published just before his death, he concluded that everything we have ever experienced is recorded in our brain, a sequential record of consciousness that was spatially recorded.1

    However, Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist at Stanford University and author of the classic neuropsychological textbook Languages of the Brain, became convinced that this model was inadequate because of the failure of standard theories of the brain to explain various neurophysiological puzzles.

    He discovered that removal of parts of the brain didn’t eradicate memories. He came to believe that memories were not localized at specific brain sites, but were somehow spread out or distributed throughout the brain as a whole.

    Indiana University biologist Paul Pietsch set out to disprove Pribram’s theories. In a series of over 700 operations on salamanders, however, he discovered that their learned behavior was not affected by repositioning, reversing, or even shuffling the brain. After recovering from the operation, their behavior returned to normal.2

    http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/229/

    MacT, hopefully I can find the experiment, he was using, of a quantum wave collapse initiating action on a particle in the brain, to conclusively prove that consciousness/memory is not based in matter/particles as you falsely believe.

  69. Mutational bias in the context of modularity is a proposed mechanism that could account for the greater likelihood of certain types of outcomes over others. It does not represent loading the dice, or frontloading, or presuppose design, as the original post suggested. The rhetorical opposition between natural selection and mutational bias in the quoted passage does not imply that mutational bias is not natural; that would be an understandable but incorrect reading.

    I think it’s completely understood that the original paper is attempting to interpret the evidence in a Darwinian fashion. The mechanism behind the “mutational bias” described in the paper would of course be natural given the starting assumptions. The real question is whether there are ID-based interpretations that provide a better explanation of the evidence.

    I do not have access to the full paper so by what mechanism is this mutational bias supposed to occur? After all, this “mutational bias” is not a mechanism in itself but an outcome I would think. At least that is the impression I get by reading this:

    “It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favors the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias.”

    So what is the mutational process exactly? What environment or combination of factors would provide these selection pressures? Or do the authors not know and they are merely pointing out the problem for future research? I think the way they describe this problem is interesting. It reminds me of Dembski’s recent papers and his talks of the need for “active information” in order for such processes to find their target in the search space.

    Also, I think in general many ID proponents are too overzealous to knock down any proposed natural mechanism or process. A smart designer would take into account that the environment is not static and that the designed objects would have a need to modify and adapt to changing circumstances. There is no reason to suppose that a smart designer could not design a system that can use a combination of natural and intelligent mechanisms.

  70. bornagain77:
    “Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum Mechanics Can”

    Stapp’s suggestions did not gain much attention because his characterization of cognitive processes was simplistic, even in 1995, rendering his meanderings more quaint than interesting to neuroscientists. We’ve known, for example, that memory is not a unitary phenomenon for many years. There are distinct forms of memory: episodic, semantic, working, motor, and others. These all have different cortical distributions (none are in “one place” in the brain). This knowledge has had some practical consequences: the detailed elucidation of different memory types led to a much better understanding of different types of dementia, where we have seen the differentiation of the clinical categories of semantic dementia, Alzheimer’s disease (initially affecting mainly episodic memory), frontotemporal dementia, and others. That in turn has led to the development of drug treatments tailored to specific disorders (watch this space, some dramatic new developments are pending). So far, I am not aware of any scientific or clinical advances that have come out of ideas about quantum processes, but who knows, we may yet see a paradigm shift.

    You seem to think that I think I know some definitive truth based on a materialistic worldview. That is wrong. My beliefs about how memory is instantiated in the brain are irrelevant. I have to work with the data we have, not the data that might someday exist. Are there gaps in our understanding? Sure. If I were smarter, maybe I could figure out how a quantum wave collapse could be built into a medical device that I could wave over the head of a dementia sufferer and cure him.

    I’m not convinced by the argument that information moves faster than light. In a distributed network, like those we find in the human brain, some information is represented in more than one place. It doesn’t have to move from one area to another; it’s already there. The speed of processing doesn’t depend on distance. Rather, in the case of accessing a memory, it probably depends on electrophysiological binding, driven by temporary synchronization of electrical fields generated by groups of neurons firing together. We know a fair bit about the biochemistry behind these processes, but by no means everything.

  71. Patrick: “So what is the mutational process exactly? What environment or combination of factors would provide these selection pressures? Or do the authors not know and they are merely pointing out the problem for future research?”

    The proposed mutational process is an inference based on considerations of how modularity could arise. The authors state that there are now several models that are consistent with this account, and suggest how empirical data could help decide.

  72. Yes, but what is this “proposed mutational process” and what are the “several models that are consistent with this account”? Obviously you cannot copy and paste the entire paper but some specifics (or external references) would be nice.

  73. MacT,
    Can you tell me which of the two following paragraphs is correct, there seem to be some discrepancies between them:

    The human brain is heralded for its staggering complexity and processing capacity. Its hundred-billion neurons and several-hundred-trillion synaptic connections can process and exchange large amounts of information over a distributed network of brain tissue in a matter of milliseconds. Such massive parallel-processing capacity permits our brains to analyze complex images in one-tenth of a second, allowing us to visually experience the richness of the world. Likewise, the storage capacity of the human brain is nearly infinite. During our life-time, our brain will have amassed 10^sup 9^ to 10^sup 20^ bits of information, which is more than fifty-thousand times the amount of text contained in the U.S. Library of Congress, or more than five times the amount of the total printed material in the world!

    this is the other one:

    There are about One-quadrillion “connections” (synapses) between the one-hundred-billion cells (neurons) of an brain. The brain’s one hundred billion neurons match the number of stars in the Milky Way, and the number of connections active in the brain’s functioning verge on the number of stars in the entire known universe. To fill the capacity of all those synapses, a person would have to learn a one-billion volume encyclopedia (a million “letters” per encyclopedia). That’s enough to fill a bookshelf 10,000 miles long. In contrast, the Library of Congress (The largest library in the world) only has 17 million volumes. The brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, far surpassing, by many orders of magnitude, the most advanced supercomputers. One human brain generates more electrical impulses in a single day than all of the world’s telephones put together. This is all done with the power equivalent of a single flashlight, 12 Watts. All of our senses (sight, smell, hearing, taste, feeling) are transformed to electrical impulses which are sent to general regions of synapses in the brain where we, after complex transformations, finally become conscious of it. To accomplish all this thinking, the brain uses 20 to 25% of the body’s oxygen and 20% of its sugar, even though it is only 2% (3 pounds) of the body’s weight.

    Both are interesting quotes but I don’t want to use something that will come back to me as false later.

    As well you stated:

    I’m not convinced by the argument that information moves faster than light.

    Well MacT, whether you believe me or not, quantum non-locality is a well established fact of science (after many decades of severe debate and rigorous testing for quantum non-locality).

    Information, in its purest form, is not bound by any known “materialistic” laws of this universe. That is a fact you can take to the bank.

    So with great confidence I maintain that information “in its purest and truest form” is indeed a “spiritual” phenomena which has dom^in^ion over the physical realm.

  74. 74

    MacT
    [quote]

    I’m not convinced by the argument that information moves faster than light. In a distributed network, like those we find in the human brain, some information is represented in more than one place. It doesn’t have to move from one area to another; it’s already there.
    [/quote]

    This is not what we’re referring to. Also, whether or not you’re convinced is irrelevant. There is much experimental evidence supporting Quantum nonlocality whether you’re convinced of it or not.

    [quote]
    Because the spin of a particle does not exist until a measurement is made, the act of making the measurement and determining the axis of spin of particle 1, will also determine the spin of particle 2, no matter how far apart it is from particle 1. Particle 2 will instantly respond to the state of particle 1, even if it is on the other side of the universe.
    [/quote]

    http://www.braungardt.com/Phys.....cality.htm

  75. 75

    To continue where post 72 left off, has anyone demonstrated that this mutational bias has ever been able to produce modularity, or are these models simply unsubstantiated speculation (like usual)? Actually, all my previous posts on this are still valid, simply replace front-loading/front loaded (or whatever) with modularity. They are admitting that a specific sequence of mutations and selection pressures would be required to produce modularity (a characteristic of design) yet mutational bias has never been shown to produce such a sequence. This is evidence for ID.

  76. MacT you stated,

    In a distributed network, like those we find in the human brain, some information is represented in more than one place. It doesn’t have to move from one area to another; it’s already there.

    It is hard to tell if you are saying that information is a actual physical quantity of the brain here, but if you are saying that information is actually physically, and materially present/stored, in the brain, I beg to differ with you on this very subtle but important point.

    I maintain that information, in and of itself, is not actually physically stored in the brain. I maintain that the synapses, and their supporting structures, that form as our brain grows, are built specifically to be receivers, of specific types of information, and to be transmitters, of specific types of information. Information, in and of itself, in its purest form, is never reducible to a purely material basis, and is proven, by the rigorous hard science of quantum non-locality, to be a thoroughly “spiritual” phenomena that is indeed independent of any permanent material basis and, in fact, is proven to actually have dominion over the appropriate specific physical material that is related to its reality of being specified information.

    Off topic sort of:

    Here is something neat that just came out:

    http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/raskin/14652

    Eye-Fi: First Wireless Memory Card for Digital Cameras

    of special note:

    Now here’s a great idea. Take a normal-looking 2GB SD card. Add a wireless chip to it. Stick the whole thing into your camera, and before you know it you’ve got a wireless camera. Now add a dose of software smarts onto the SD card to manage the whole thing and what do you get? You get a quick wireless ticket straight from your camera to any one of 17 different social networks or photo-sharing sites including Facebook, blogging sites like TypePad, photo-sharing sites like Flickr and Snapfish, or your PC or Mac.

  77. Bornagain77 –

    I know how adept/crafty evolutionists are at going into the dark corners of science and finding some weird piece of evidence, that is not fully understood yet, and then twisting the weird evidence around a axis, distorting it, and then claiming proof of principle when they have done no such thing, except obfuscate the evidence.

    So if you got any clear cut evidence go ahead and present it.

    Well, the “dark corner of science” is Michael Behe’s blog. Read into that what you will. :-)

    To back up. This is where we were with your claims:

    Would that include a sub-species gaining a trait or a function, for example?

    For completely novel traits and completely novel functions I would like to think this positively true because of the mutational studies I’ve seen, and the law of conservation of information.

    OK, we know that HIV-1 came from Chimpanzee SIV. We also know that the Vpu gene is only found in the Chimpanzee SIV group (i.e. including HIV-1). SO, I could straightaway claim victory by pointing to a whole new gene appearing in an SIV subspecies.

    But I want to go further. Because HIV-1 is a sub-species of SIV, and it has gained a function. As Michael Behe has acknowledged:

    And now let’s talk about Dr. Musgrave’s “core argument,” that subsequent to the virus leaping to humans from chimps Vpu developed the ability to act as a viroporin, allowing the leakage of cations which helps release the virus from the cell membrane. Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV.

    How does this fit in with genetic entropy?

    Bob

  78. Bob,

    In Dr. Musgrave’s attempt to get around Dr. Behe’s hard number of 10^10 for HIV he tries to use the smoke and mirrors of effective population size used in population Genetics. Yet I looked at Behe’ sources in His book and they do in fact take into account the effective population size that is used in population genetics to arrive at there number. So Behe’s number is thoroughly thought out and firm as a rock.

    Here are Dr. Behe’s sources on page 290 of EDge of Evolution”

    15. Geritti, A.M.2006. HIV-1 sub-types: epidemiology and significance for HIV management.

    http://www.co-infectiousdiseas.....29!8091!-1

    Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 19:1-7. Rodrigo, A. G. 1999. HIV evolutionary genetics. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:10559-61. Total body burden of the number of copies of HIV RNA is estimated to be much higher, about 10^11 (Haase, A. T., Henry, K., Zupancic, M., Sedgewick, G., Faust, R. A., Melroe, H., Cavert, W., Gebhard, K., Staskus, K., Zhang, Z. O., Dailey, P. J., Balfour, H. H. Jr., Erice, A., and Perelson, A. As. 1996. Quantitative image analysis of HIV-1 infection in lymphoid tissue. Science 274:985-89).

    The effective population size is estimated at 500 to 10^5 (Althaus, C.L., and Bonhoeffer, S. 2005. Stochastic interplay between mutation and recombination during the acquisition of resistance mutations in human immunodeficiency virus type 1.J. Virol. 79:13572-78).

    http://www-binf.bio.uu.nl/alth.....jvirol.pdf

    16 Rodrigo, A. G., Shpaer, E. G., Delwart, E. L., Iverson, A.K., Gallo, M.V., Brojatsch, J., Hirsch, M. S., Walker, B. D., and Mullins, J. I. 1999. Coalescent estimates of HIV-1 generation time in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2187-91.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/5/2187

    You may want to take a real close look at this study Bob:

    One of the major problems facing HIV molecular evolutionary biologists is sampling: with 10^10 virions produced daily in an infected individual, and 10^6-10^7 infected cells present,

    Thus, since each virus is considered a actual chance for evolution to strut its almighty stuff the 10^10 replication number stands solid!

    17. Coffin, J. M. 1995. HIV population dynamics in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2187-91.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....7/5197/483

    another special note:

    These results lead to a simple steady-state in which infection, cell , and cell replacement are in balance, and imply that the unique feature of HIV is the extraordinarily large number of replication cycles that occur during infection of a single individual.

    I just don’t understand Dr. Musgrave’s logic. His argument for limit to population size has no merit, whatsoever, since the entire HIV population of 10^10 is being replaced every day or two and each virus replication is in fact a search of variation for HIV. So the search area and population size of the HIV stands firm and is not limited as you are vainly trying to do.
    In my opinion this was a desperate attempt at distortion on his part and he should be ashamed to call himself a scientist, since apparently finding the truth has no meaning for him.

    Dr. Musgrave crowed that He had defeated Dr. Behe, Yet I don’t see his logic. First his population distortion is a blatant attempt to get around the 10^10 HIV replications per day. Thus, he is whistling in the dark to avoid facing the hard reality on that matter since 10^10 HIV replications per day, is in fact 10^10 chances per day for evolution to strut its almighty stuff in HIV.

    Since Dr. Musgrave was so blatant on this distortion, I looked at what Dr. Behe said about this binding site that Dr. Musgrave is so impressed with.

    “One should, however, also make some distinctions with this example. First, although there apparently are five or so copies of Vpu in the viroporin complex, that does not mean that five binding sites developed. Only one new binding site need develop for one area of a protein which binds to a different area of the same protein, to form a homogeneous complex with, say, C5 symmetry. That is all that is required for a circularly symmetric structure to form. Second, the viroporin is not some new molecular machine. There is no evidence that it exerts its effect in, say, an ATP- or energy-dependent manner. Rather, similar to other viroporins, the protein simply forms a passive leaky pore or weak channel. (4,5) This situation is probably best viewed as a foreign protein degrading the integrity of a membrane, rather than performing some positive function. And third, I explicitly pointed out in Chapter 8 of The Edge of Evolution that HIV had undergone enough mutating in past decades to form all possible viral-viral binding sites, but commented that apparently none of them had been helpful (now I know that one of them helped). This I discussed as the “principle of restricted choice”:

    Me again:
    From my limited knowledge of the subject, it seems the protein/protein binding site he is so excited about, is actually a additional “refining” protein binding site of the one that actually allowed the HIV to gain access to humans in the first place.

    Yet even conceding this point Dr. Behe comments: “So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.”

    Thus Dr. Musgrave must conclusively prove the “observed” development of two more protien/protein binding sites to defeat Dr. Behe’s estimate of a limit of two.

    But to me this is all besides the point and the whole debate is laughable , because the conservative estimate of number of protein/protein binding sites in a cell in Dr. Behe’ book is 10,000.
    Yet in a number of replication events for HIV that far, far exceeds the replication events that happened since the proposed mammals split from reptiles (which requires far, far more than a paltry few binding sites to develop), we see this quibbling over whether zero, one, or even a few, protein/protein binding sites developed.

    It does not follow logic at all for evolutionists to claim proof of principle when they have done no such thing at all.

    Until evolutionists can come up with far better proof than what they are currently crowing about (one (or even a few) overlooked binding site), they are merely stating a conjecture of their imagination with no solid foundation in reality.

    Now Bob, I think you can clearly see how this ties in with the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del.

  79. Now Bob,
    Lets take a look at what we know about things that are actually alive (life-forms which are far more complex than any “de^ad” viruses are, and replicate far more slowly than any viruses can) and see if we can find you some “new” functions to help you out there.

    ” Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.”

    Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

    “It is entirely in line with the al nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes ally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA)

    “But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)

    “The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information” Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology)

    “Evolution through random duplications”… While it sounds quite sophisticated and respectable, it does not withstand honest and critical assessment” John C. Sanford (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! Holds over 25 patents!)

    The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses in complexity any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (Trifonov, 1989)! No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). Further evidence for the inherent complexity of the DNA is found in a another study. In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. This “complex interwoven network” throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005; page 141). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code. Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was. Since evolution was forced, by the established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes that can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit, this “complex interwoven network” finding is extremely bad news, if not absolutely crushing, for the population genetics scenario of evolution developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005)!

    Bob every beneficial mutation study I’ve ever looked at for “higher life-forms” always were beneficial in a narrow sense and always involved some loss that was detrimental when taken in total context.

    As esteemed French scientist Pierre P. Grasse has stated “What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria… are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”

    This is the brass tax of the whole situation Bob. In all honesty evolution is required to demonstrate a fairly good percentage of beneficial mutations out of total mutations, and I grant that in HIV with its tremendous population size might have been very lucky a few times, But the evidence provided by HIV itself indicates that this is an exceedingly rare occurrence for HIV and cannot be extrapolated to vastly slower mutating “life-forms” which have far more interrelated complexity to deal with in their genomes. It does not follow logic—Non sequitur

  80. BA great post.

    Do you think that doctors could get together and figure out how many of these deleterious mutations that cause diseases occur each year? i guess what i am getting at is this rate would prove that the earth is young. i am not very comfortable with using an evidence like this since it is material and we don’t want to try to use the darwinists toolbox (we have it on BETTER authority than any old mutations that the earth is not as old as the materialists say it is).

    But I suppose I might be convinced it was a good idea if it would bring some souls to Christ by showing them that the bible predicted this!!!

  81. Solon,
    I’m sorry but I am not a young earth creationist and I feel that young earth creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

    A great help for me to reconcile science and the “six days of creation” was Dr. Hugh Ross’s book “A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy”

    Also this following book is a deeply penetrating book reconciling scripture and science, Dr. Gerald Schroeder in “The Hidden Face of God” demonstrates the harmony between Bible and Science and shows how science reveals the ultimate truth.

  82. BA I must disagree with you. Ross may have convinced himself that he is staying true to the bible but he has expressly turned his back on God’s Word and substituted the word of Man instead.

    The supposed harmony between scripture and science is completely irrelevant. IT DOESNT MATTER whether or not science can support scripture. Scripture trumps the word of man every time. Who cares if the whole world thinks we are fools, as long as we know we are right and God knows we are right.

    But just for the sake of the discussion, BA, what if the rates of mutation and disease DID show a young age for the earth? Do you think that ID would support you? I am beginning to get the feeling that there is no room for the bible in Intelligent Design, just from my few days or a week of commenting here. I read articles here a long time and always thought that this site was populated by christians who were true to the bible. But today I have been attacked for standing up for Jesus and it makes me wonder just what side ID is on. If ID is just science then it will fail miserably because science cannot tell us anything that is worth knowing. The cross fills the void.

  83. Solon,
    On what day of creation did God create the sun?

    Day 3 was it not?

    So if there was no sun, how in the world could there be an evening and a morning and a 24 hour day?

    The scripture is clearly talking of some different (heavenly?) time base than we are use to.

    Does it not also say in scripture;

    But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Which clearly indicates that God exist in a totally different time frame than we are use to.

    As well it is fitting that we should study nature using the tools of science that God has given us to use:

    Romans 1:20

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;….

    You see Solon, the scripture is very, very deep and very meaningful and takes proper study (and a proper heart) to discern and listen to the depths of its living truths.

    I’ve heard old men say that they learn something new from a particular scripture every time they read a particular scripture even though they have read the particular scripture many times before.

    Because you see Solon:

    Hebrew 4:12-13
    For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

    No Solon, the Bible is much deeper than you have given it credit for being and will grow deeper in your heart as you grow in God’s grace.

  84. BA as much as I respect and appreciate much of what you say I must disagree here. You are attempting to fit God into a manmade box of your own contrivance. You are saying, well, if god didn’t make the sun how is there a morning and evening and I am saying THIS IS GOD THE CREATOR OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. There is no limitation on God. I am afraid that this is the fruit of trying to debate liberal athiests and darwinists on their own terms. It can’t work. They have man made facts from things they measure and their little theories, but these are not tied to the bible or any Truth, just the norms of the day. Idea du jour if you will. So how can we say that God could not make morning and evening before he made a sun? He can do whatever he wants, he is omnipotent and we know that because he said so. Let’s not forget that.

    I agree, I am 47 years old and I learn more about the bible every time i read it. but i have never learned anything that was contrary to anything else I have learned. and just because a thousand years is like a day to god doesn’t mean that a googolples years is not like a day to god too. Because god’s days are his and there is no way that we can try to understand god’s days unless we go to heaven and we can talk it all over with him.

    And won’t that be great!!! I can’t wait to hear the story of how it all happened. I can’t wait to go to heaven, Lord take me tonight!! I’ve been ready for 37 years. But I can promise you this, the story that God tells us in heaven is going to have nothing to do with these pathetic material detials about what african had immoral sinful relations with what chimp and how that caused some other material virus or whatever you call it to do something that then made homosexuals get AIDS. because that is what Satan has done and it’s not part of the Truth.

    We should stop getting bogged down in all this trivial foolishness and focus on the big picture: If ID doesn’t save souls, it is not worth the chaff in the wind. If you are counting on ‘Intelligent Design’ to give you an alternate Just So Story about where we came from, you are sinning, because the Bible tells us all we need to know about that. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. B I B L E

  85. Well Solon I really don’t know what to tell you, since you have already decided exactly what all scientific evidence must say prior to investigation. (not a good starting position for a science debate to say the least)

    You see Solon, This is first and foremost a science site that is engaged in debating the ID/evolution controversy in all its gory scientific detail. This is not a religious site, though personal beliefs do come out from time to time. Not to be rude, or anything like that, but maybe you would be more comfortable on a more religious site.

    I love science, grew up in awe of science with the Apollo moon landings and all, and am very proud of America’s accomplishments in science! And am upset with what I see to be a corruption of science.
    So I come on this site first and foremost to debate science and in particular to try to defend the Theistic position of science.
    It is tricky to debate as such, for in a science debate you must rely solely on what evidence you can muster to counter your opponents evidence and can never say stuff like “Well, The Bible says this happened!”
    It really is very interesting to debate as such, I enjoy it very much and I learn many wonderful things.

  86. BA I haven’t decided anything. God has and it is already written in the Book. That may not be good ‘science’ but as i have tried to point out, science can’t tell us anything worth knowing. since science is a materialist exercise then I dont’ understand how you can disagree with this.

    I am not ‘comfortable’ anywhere in this world, because I belong in the next. I don’t know if there is a single good thing that has come out of men supposedly walking on the moon. So what? They probably did, but I will never know for sure. And i know that it is irrelevant to the one true question we face here on earth: Are you saved?

    If you believe in a Theistic entity, surely it is the God of the Bible, no? If so, why are you hiding behind materialist science BA? Why do you believe the Bible is not evidence on it’s own but must be bolstered by the misguided and fallen attempts of man to add wisdom to the Word? There is nothing in the bible not fit for knowing, and nothing not fit for knowing that is in the Bible. the success of Intelligent Design will be directly a consequence of it’s adherence to the word of God. If ID turns its back on the Word, the Word will turn its back on ID.

    and that will severely set us back in the mission to destroy the liberal materialist darwinism that is poisoning the minds of not only our childrens but also the believers in our churches. Did you know that we have some people even in my little church that think there was no Flood of Noah? If Jesus mentioned the Flood, then it happened (actually, we know it happened since the Old Testament references it many times) how do people call themselves christians when they don’t believe the bible? CINO is what we call them. I pray that ID is not just a CINO exercise itself.

  87. Now Bob, I think you can clearly see how this ties in with the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del.

    No. We have a new function appearing in a sub-species. You claimed it shouldn’t happen. So, is genetic entropy wrong?

    In all honesty evolution is required to demonstrate a fairly good percentage of beneficial mutations out of total mutations,…

    Oh, we’ve done that.

    Bob

  88. Bob,

    your study states:

    “advantageous mutations are rare”

    I bet the study fails completely when species are tested for complete robustness to parent species. What I believe is termed clonal interference, is usually how they introduce ambiguity into these studies to get a skewed “rare” advantageous mutation reading .

    Come on buddy, quit hiding in dark corners with your evidence, why don’t you just mutate any bacteria into any other new type of bacteria and show the awesome power of evolution for all the world to see?

    Man I really want to see me some of that awesome evolution stuff in action!!!! It would be kind of like watching God Almighty in action don’t you think Bob? I mean just look at the world around you Bob!!! That some pretty awesome power that evolution stuff has got there!!!

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    of special note:

    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; (The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes)

    Kind of “surprises” me that evolution is so bashful with its almighty power there Bob!.

  89. Bob you asked:

    No. We have a new function appearing in a sub-species (virus). You claimed it shouldn’t happen. So, is genetic entropy wrong?

    Is the overall principle of entropy wrong when rocks pile up at a bottom of a mountain?

    No, of course not, The entropy was payed for by the rocks that disintegrated from the mountain side.

    Thus, for a starting position in defense of Genetic Entropy, I maintain that the integrated complexity of life, when viewed as a whole symbiotic entity, gives Genetic Entropy its foundational validity. Thus I maintain that the “trivial” gain in complexity of the “non-living” virus (which is another subject altogether (CSI)) will come at a cost of complexity to the “higher living organism” it attacks”.

    That is to say more complexity was lost from a living organism than was gained by the non-living virus.

  90. I bet the study fails completely when species are tested for complete robustness to parent species.

    I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here. Sorry.

  91. Bob,

    to clear things up,

    As esteemed French scientist Pierre P. Grasse has stated “What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria… are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” Needless to say, this limit to the variability of bacteria is extremely bad news for you Bob.

    So your guys are able to deduce rare advantageous mutations in their study, But when you look at the overall picture of the bacteria in the integrated complexity of symbiotic life, they have somehow missed something very important, for the bacteria will, when put in the wild, always be out competed by the original bacteria thus failing the test for overall robustness.
    Thus any supposed gain in complexity was superficial and did not “stick” in the long run as far as “proving Darwinism is concerned.

  92. bob, I think it a wee bit odd for you to make such an argument when you yourself agreed in an earlier discussion that high replicators like bacteria should avoid genetic entropy. Never mind that this is a virus we’re talking about (not higher creatures which is the focus of genetic entropy in the first place) which is an order of magnitude more so a “high replicator” and that UD has featured whole articles on the subject.

    You previously stated:

    So perhaps genetic entropy isn’t much of an issue with high replicators such as bacteria.?

    That’s my understanding – IIRC Mike Lynch showed that the rate of mutational meltdown depends on population size.

    Also, I think it interesting you argue that “it has gained a function” and then selectively cite Behe without including this:

    Second, the viroporin is not some new molecular machine. There is no evidence that it exerts its effect in, say, an ATP- or energy-dependent manner. Rather, similar to other viroporins, the protein simply forms a passive leaky pore or weak channel. (4,5) This situation is probably best viewed as a foreign protein degrading the integrity of a membrane, rather than performing some positive function.

  93. [...] I previously made the following prediction: But let’s say we did find such foresighted mechanisms. Darwinists might argue that such mechanisms would be selected for without intelligence being involved. After all, being foresighted would allow proactive responses to a changing environment and thus increase survivability. It’s kind of like how they create a story for modularity. [...]

Leave a Reply