Ann Gauger on watching Ayala’s no Adam or Eve analysis crumble …
| August 5, 2012 | Posted by News under Darwinism, Genomics, News |
… in light of later research.
In “On Population Genetics Estimates” (Biologic Institute, August 3, 2012),Ann Gauger explains,
In his review of our book Science and Human Origins, Paul McBride wonders why I have not engaged the broader population genetics literature on human origins, but instead chose to focus on a single paper from 1995 by Francisco Ayala.
As I stated in the book, I chose that paper because in my opinion it presented the most difficult challenge to a very small bottleneck in our history as a species. If Ayala was right, and we shared thirty-two allelic lineages with chimps, then there was no way for a bottleneck as small as two individuals to have occurred. That kind of evidence, if substantiated, would have been conclusive. That’s why I found it so fascinating as I watched his analysis crumble in the light of later research.
I was very aware that others beside Ayala have investigated human origins, using other methods and data. I chose not to address those studies directly in the book because I wanted to focus on the intriguing problem of HLA-DRB1’s patchwork phylogenetic history. I did allude to them in discussing problems with retrospective analyses, however. The fact that I had not addressed those alternate estimates is one reason why I never claimed to have proved the existence of a two-person bottleneck, but rather questioned the rush to judgment against such a bottleneck on the part of others.
So now, let’s consider how much these other methods add to the discussion.
See also: Ann Gauger sets record straight on Wistar II
New York Times report on human evolution controversy vindicates book Science and Human Origins
60 Responses to Ann Gauger on watching Ayala’s no Adam or Eve analysis crumble …
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
God that’s stupid.
Why doesn’t Gauger run some simulations of a population expanding from Ne = 2 to Ne =10 000 in ~10 000 years and see what level of polymorphism you’d expect to see in the resulting population given the observed mutation rate?
Poor McBride, outclassed and out gunned. Give it up son, you’re not doing yourself or science any favours.
I’m not sure Gauger is doing herself any favours. First she publishes a book where she criticises a 15 year old paper, and ignores the more recent literature. Then, when this is pointed out to her she’s reduced to arm waving:
Yes, of course population genetic models are simplifications, so yes they might be wrong. But if Gauger’s attempts at criticism are to carry any weight, she should do the work to show that what she has identified as problems actually make a difference.
Coresa
I’m sorry, perhaps you can elaborate. What part of this do you think is so particularly devastating?
As to Identifying problems in neo-Darwinian population genetics models:
Here’s one problem that is ignored:
Notes from John Sanford’s preceding video:
It is also extremely interesting to note that the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation:
Here is a short sweet overview of Mendel’s Accountant:
Here is a nice simple overview of the mutation ‘problem’
Interestingly, besides such a unacceptably high mutation rate, several other insurmountable ‘problems’ from population genetics have actually been known about for quite a while now.
At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument, that is still used by Darwinists, is traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno’s work, in the 1950′s, 60′s and 70′s, in population genetics:
Further criticism of the ‘neutral theory’:
Further notes:
Further notes on the ‘problems’ with population genetics:
Here is a paper which, though technical, shows that the modern population genetic evidence we now have actually supports Adam and Eve. Moreover, the evidence it presents from the latest genetic research is completely inexplicable to neo-Darwinism, i.e. neo-Darwinism, once again, completely falls apart upon rigid scrutiny; (and although I don’t agree with the extreme 6000 year Young Earth model used as a starting presumption in the paper for deriving the graphs, the model, none-the-less, can be amended quite comfortably to a longer time period. (In fact the longer to model to more acute the ‘problem’ becomes for neo-Darwinism and which I, personally, think provides a much more ‘comfortable’ fit to the overall body of evidence)
CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of population genetics much easier to understand;
Is it reasonable to assume that they do not make a difference? I’m the layman’s layman, but it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to me, in view of the extant farcical, evolutionary paradigm, i.e. simply on the basis of Gauger’s first sentence you quote above.
And combined with that modelling problem, which looks like the animist ‘scientists” equivalent of the extraordinarily defective ‘modelling’ of the economists, asking her to ‘do the math’, so to speak, seems insulting. What she has identified as problems sound very much as if they are empirical givens, rather than the anecdotal givens of evolutionists.
The animists need to get back to science, properly so-called, i.e ID.
OK – I have made a brief response to Ann Gauger’s post.
bornagain77,
you certainly person of lengthy study speaking for subjects religion, science, filosofia, mathematicas, music, video. member for religion order like priest, monk, or scientist, professor of university, maybe of Academia Pontificia de Ciencias? however, very generous of sharing knowledge. thank you.
sergio
paulmc can you please address why the fatal detrimental mutation problem is not a problem for neo-Darwinism?
The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the conclusion that genetic entropy (as cited previously) is a insurmountabler problem for neo-Darwinism:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net ‘fitness gain’ within a ‘stressed’ environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more ‘fit’)
http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_46-08_00
Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
Moreover, Genetic Entropy is in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, whereas, despite what Darwinist vehemently protest to the contrary, entropy is in severe disharmony with the primary claim of neo-Darwinism that purely material processes can generate highly integrated functional complexity that man can only dream of imitating in computer programs:
Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? – Granville Sewell (2nd Law) – video
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56711.html
Here is a defence of Dr. Sewell’s 2nd Law argument:
Physicist Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Sal Cordova vs. Granville Sewell on 2nd Law Thermo – July 2012
Excerpt: The Equivalence: Boltzmann’s famous equation (and engraved on his tombstone) S = k ln W, merely is an exchange rate conversion. If W is lira, and S is dollars, then k ln() is the conversion of the one to the other, which is empirically determined. Boltzmann’s constant “k” is a semi-empirical conversion number that made Gibbs “stat mech” definition work with the earlier “thermo” definition of Lord Kelvin and co.
Despite this being something as simple as a conversion factor, you must realize how important it was to connect these two. When Einstein connected mass to energy with E = (c2) m, we can now talk about mass-energy conservation, atom bombs and baby universes, whereas before Einstein they were totally different quantities.
Likewise, by connecting the two things, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, then the hard rules derived from thermo can now be applied to statistics of counting permutations.
This is where Granville derives the potency of his argument, since a living organism certainly shows unusual permutations of the atoms, and thus has stat mech entropy that via Boltzmann, must obey the 2nd law. If life violates this, then it must not be lawfully possible for evolution to happen (without an input of work or information.)
The one remaining problem, is how to calculate it precisely (how to calculate the entropy precisely).
note: (And because it is extremely difficult to calculate entropy precisely for living cells, this is exactly where Darwinists try to claim evolution does not violate the second law. Yet regardless of the games Darwinists play because of this lack of mathematical precision, for all intents and purposes as far as we can ascertain, for evolution to occur would indeed violate the ‘iron clad’ second law of thermodynamics!)
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....aw-thermo/
BA77 – purifying selection usually does the trick. And indeed we expect things to evolve to extinction when their populations are sufficiently marginal (low effective population size) that purifying selection is very weak.
paulmc,
The problem with invoking selection is that the ‘slightly’ detrimental mutations are far below the power of selection to see before they accumulate. Selection is simply completely blind at that level so as to have the power to select away the ‘slightly’ detrimental mutations that accumulate in genomes before the damage is already done.
Here is a nice simple overview that the slightly detrimental mutation ‘problem’ presents for population genetics that selection simply cannot overcome:
Moreover paulmc, you don’t even have evidence that any rare beneficial mutations, when added together, can overcome negative epistasis:
Moreover paulmc, you can’t even empirically demonstrate the fixation of a single beneficial mutation in a multicellular creature:
paulmc, despite what you may prefer to think, this problem simply can’t be ‘selectively swept under the rug’. The ‘problem’ runs much deeper than selection can handle!
Further note:
Gauger hasn’t even shown there is a problem – she’s claiming that population genetic models are wrong, but doesn’t show that this makes a difference. Indeed she doesn’t even say what is wrong.
What’s so insulting about asking her to do the maths? She’s criticising mathematical models, so what’s so bad about asking her to back her criticisms up? it’s what we animists do – we find evidence for our positions. Why is it insulting to ask her to be held to the same standard when discussing science?
BA77 – most of the mutations that occur in humans are selectively neutral – this is why mutational load has not caused our extinction.
paulmc you state,
selectively neutral? yes! (selection certainly can’t see them!), slightly detrimentally neutral? no! (functionally they do indeed, the vast majority of times, have a negative impact on the information content inherent in the genome). i.e. If nature is allowed to run her full course, without outside intervention, humans, as well as all other life on earth, is headed for extinction! The evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
The primary reason why mutations are, for the vast majority of times, slightly detrimental, is that the human genome is severely “polyconstrained” to changes by undirected ‘random’ mutations by what is termed ‘polyfunctionality’:
paulmc, you simply are not even in the right ballpark of reason in trying to explain such massively integrated complexity found in life in a ‘bottom up’, chance and necessity (RM & NS), fashion!
As well paulmc, there are now found to be higher levels of information in life, above the ‘simple’ sequences in DNA, that it is simply impossible for neo-Darwinism (RM & NS) to explain:
Hopefully you can now see that the problem is far greater than you at first realized paulmc!
Music:
Nope, there is no evidence that the majority of mutations are slightly deleterious. A point mutation to most intron and intergenic sequences will not have fitness effects. That you’re trying to link this to gene interactions shows you don’t understand the evidence.
You are simply firing random information from the famous BA77 blunderbuss.
paulmc you claim without citation
I’ve already cited the mutation database that lists over 100,000 different disease causing mutations that are identified to date in Homo-sapiens, where you just dogmatically claim that there are no slightly deleterious effects to mutations. Well regardless of what you wish to be true for your preferred hypothesis of neo-Darwinism, the fact is that there is much evidence to support the position that the vast majority of mutations in coding AND in non-coding regions are slightly deleterious:
The information in DNA is simply beyond anything man has ever seen or built:
Moreover the complexity and fidelity of DNA replication is beyond human capacity, and almost beyond human comprehension in its complexity:
Moreover, there are multiple layers of error correction to DNA:
Although evolution depends on ‘mutations/errors’ to DNA to make evolution plausible, there are multiple layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any “random changes” to DNA from happening in the first place:
Thus paulmc, you claim that most purely random mutations are not slightly deleterious yet we have several lines of very suggestive evidence indicating functionality for the entire genome and on top of that we have multiple layers of error correction preventing purely random mutations from ever happening in the first place. This position that you are holding that a very large portion of mutations are not slightly deleterious, is not a realistic position for you to hold, nor is your position realistic that a large portion of the genome is junk.
Moreover, I remind you that Behe’s paper on reductive evolution shows that the overwhelming tendency of evolutionary processes is ‘reductive evolution’, meaning, among other things, that evolutionary processes will always tend to discard ‘dead weight’ (such as junk DNA), or break something, in order to confer a survival advantage well before they can ever reasonable be expected to build any functional complexity.
Moreover, thermodynamics gives us another very strong reason to believe that ‘functional, i.e. useful, information’ is required for EVERY molecule of the cell to stay so as far out of thermodynamic equilibrium as it is:,,
of note: The 10^12 bits of information number for a bacterium is derived from entropic considerations, which is, due to the tightly integrated relationship between information and entropy, considered the most accurate measure of the transcendent quantum information/entanglement constraining a ‘simple’ life form to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.
For calculations, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:
In fact it is now shown that it is ‘information’ that is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium:
etc.. etc..
paulmc you simply have no basis in reality for your belief that undirected random mutations are not ‘slightly’ harmful!
Yeah. The existence of genetic diseases does not prove that all mutations are slightly deleterious.
If you read what I wrote above, I am well aware that there are slightly deleterious mutations, and that inefficient selection does result in some accumulating and can result in species extinction. However, the *majority* of mutations that occur are neutral. We know this because we exist. If there was an unbearable mutational load we would be extinct.
paulmc, you state:
That is called ‘begging the question’ paulmc.
notes:
Music and Verse:
bornagain77,
you resemble intellect prizefighter/matador with jabs sharp, footing like butterfly, same time guiding Darwin bull for final estocada.
sergio
Sure. Begging the question. To clarify, you think that we sustain 100-odd slightly deleterious mutations in each individual, because you assume each nucleotide is functional, something you imagine is possible because you don’t believe in evolutionary timescales. Perhaps you can clarify how a point mutation in a broken transposon affects fitness? How about a deletion in the middle of an intron? Compensatory back mutations?
p.s. don’t try and cite Austin Hughes to support your case – that looks silly. The guy is a neutralist.
In his book Sanford argues that mutational load means that YECs are right, so you are making assumptions that aren’t accepted by everyone here.
paulmc you think:
No paulmc, I KNOW ‘we sustain
10060-odd slightly deleterious mutations in each individual’ because this has been directly measured not because of any false imagination I may have had beforehand. i.e. I believe this because of what the evidence says not in spite of what the evidence says as neo-Darwinists seem to always do with their unfounded a-priori belief in huge amounts of junk DNA:Further notes:
As well, the slow accumulation of ‘slightly detrimental mutations’ in humans, that is ‘slightly detrimental mutations’ which are far below the power of natural selection to remove from our genomes, is revealed by this following clear example:
BA77,
Those studies don’t show that the ~60 mutations are deleterious. The Lynch paper actually describes studies on the likely mutation spectrum. But note that paper is entirely about the potential results of relaxed selection in modern societies…
BA77:
You know nothing of the sort. Obviously the mutations occur, but you know nothing of their fitness consequences.
Again:
Perhaps you can clarify how a point mutation in a broken transposon affects fitness? How about a deletion in the middle of an intron? Compensatory back mutations?
paulmc you falsely believe:
No, I believe in a approx. 14 byo universe. Moreover, despite what evolutionists may imagine to be true with their magic wand of long periods of time, the fact is that the passing of ‘temporal’ time is fundamentally connected to the second law of thermodynamics. i.e. if you saw a film of a cup of coffee spontaneously reassembling itself from thousands of shattered pieces on a floor you would automatically believe that the film was running backwards instead of ever believing that ‘temporal’ time had seemingly reversed and the second law, entropy, had been broken (although there is nothing strictly within the second law that would prevent cups from reassembling themselves).
Notes:
Further notes:
somewhat related notes:
Atheistic neo-Darwinists claim that given enough time the improbable becomes probable. i.e. Evolution, no matter how improbable, becomes certain if you allow enough time according to their reasoning. Thus to counter such simplistic reasoning in the power of time to work miracles, here are a few notes to the contrary of what the neo-Darwinists take on blind faith in the power of time;
Not only do we not have enough time for Darwinian evolution, we don’t, as massive as it is, even have a big enough universe for Darwinian evolution:
Music:
The Rolling Stones – Time Is On My Side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIE2GAqnFGw
For a third time:
Perhaps you can clarify how a point mutation in a broken transposon affects fitness? How about a deletion in the middle of an intron? Compensatory back mutations?
paulmc, you mention several mutation scenarios to DNA, to ‘presupposed’ completely functionless sequences, yet it interesting to note that ‘simple’ sequences to DNA are in many respects now found to be the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ in the information hierarchy of the cell. A ‘scratch the surface’ overview of the information hierarchy is here:
But perhaps of more interest, at least for me, is that energy itself is now found to be communicating information in the cell
The reason why it is very interesting for me to learn that energy itself, instead of just molecules, are communicating massive amounts of information in the cell is that energy, per Einstein, has shown itself to be of a ‘higher dimensional’ nature than mass itself is:
i.e. time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
As well, please note the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
Moreover, there is even a higher quality of information found in the cell than even that of the ‘higher dimensionality’ of energy is:
AS to how this relates to the hierarchy of information in the cell:
Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found by science to be as follows:
paulmc:
Well, paul, there’s np evidence that any amount of genetic change can transform a knuckle-walker/ quadraped into an upright biped.
So the question would be why do you ignore that? THAT says that YOU do NOT understand the evidence.
Where are all the transforming mutations, paul? The safe money says they do not exist and never have.
God that is retarded. If Gauger is right then the observed mutation rates do not apply as what we observe now is not what was originally designed, duh.
But yes I am sure someone could write a genetic algorithm that could easily produce the diversity observed in a few thousand generations.
A Gene:
Yet no one has ever done any work to demonstrate that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to transform a knuckle-walker/ quadraped into an upright biped. As a matter of fact the “theory” of evolution is void of work.
No Matter What Type Of Selection, Mutations Deteriorate Genetic Information – article and video
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ns-weasel/
Joe, if Gauger wants to, for no reason other than protecting her pet hypothesis, invoke large changes in mutation rate over time she’s welcome to. Run the simulation with different values of ? – see how big it has to be to get to observed levels of polymorphism.
She won’t, of course…
BA,
Some mutations must fall in, say, broken transposons. How are they likely to “deterioate genetic information”. In fact, if a mutation A -> G deteriorates genetic information then, obviously, the mutation G -> A resotres it right? So some mutations create genetic information?
random mutations A -> G (of whatever ‘random’ change) ALWAYS deteriorates information, whereas DNA repair mechanisms to correct those ‘random’ changes, compensatory (calculated) changes to alleles, and/or epigentic regulatory actions on DNA sequences (Shapiro) etc.. etc.. are NOT truly random mutations as is required per your theoretical basis in materialistic neo-Darwinism!
Notes on the fruitless search for the all so elusive random mutation that actually would be beneficial as to building complex functional information:
Joe,
“genetic algorithm” = ??. something obtained in computer science, yes?
sergio
bornagain77,
how stay focus in differrent statements of others to respond to one person? me too distract, loss of ink for pen twice for notes!
sergio
BA,
Are you actually saying all random mutations destroy information? And that, say, once and A -> G mutation has occured the back mutation G -> A either (a) couldn’t happen by random mutation or (b) would also decrease information?
In either case, I should like an explanation (ideally with blockquotes…) as to why you think this.
…that should read “without blockquotes” – just an explanation for why you believe this to be true, thanks.
Because, as pointed out yesterday, completely random changes to the genetic text written in the DNA are, for one thing, random changes to the lowest level of information in the the information hierarchy of the cell:
On top of that amazing fact, as Dr. Bohlin pointed out in his talk, unlike the ‘one dimensional’ computer code written in our computers, in which we certainly wouldn’t expect unguided random changes to confer any benefit, we are dealing with ‘one dimensional’ coding that is ‘overlapping’ which makes the problem much more severe for the ‘bottom up’ neo-Darwinists who are dogmatically committed to their materialistic worldview:
John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, co-inventor of ‘the gene-gun’, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity found in the genome here:
The reason why this introduces ‘polyconstraint’ is that if we were to actually get a beneficial effect from a ‘random mutation’ in a overlapping ‘polyfunctional’ genome then we would actually be encountering something akin to this illustration found on page 141 of the book Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.
Which is translated ;
THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.
This ancient puzzle, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center spot).
This is what is meant when Dr. Sanford says a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. The evidence clearly indicates ‘top-down’ design. And it, severe polyfunctionality of the genome, is certainly not a situation in which we should expect random changes/mutations to confer benefit, which is certainly what is found after exhaustive search:
Neo-Darwinists, with the requirement of ‘bottom up’ random mutations, are simply not even in the right conceptual field to begin with in order to try to understand this astonishing level of interweaved complexity:
Also of interest, besides overlapping coding, is that the integrated coding between the DNA, RNA and Proteins of the cell apparently seems to be ingeniously programmed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle for ‘reversible computation’ in order to achieve such amazing energy efficiency. The amazing energy efficiency possible with ‘reversible computation’ has been known about since Rolf Landauer laid out the principles for such programming decades ago, but as far as I know, due to the extreme level of complexity involved in achieving such ingenious ‘reversible coding’, has yet to be accomplish in any meaningful way for our computer programs even to this day:
Perhaps computer programmers should study this more closely so as to learn how to ‘design’ better programs? Oh wait, that is already being done, at least by one group funded by Bill Gates. Bill Gates, in recognizing this ‘far more superior’ coding, has now funded research into this area:
No. I asked a very simply question, and you please answer it without the spam?
wd400, well regardless of what you think of the ‘spam’ I linked, the ‘spam’ I linked is precisely the reason why I think ‘random’, bottom up, unguided, mutations are wholly inadequate for creating new complex functional information in the genome and why I believe they, truly random mutations, will ALWAYS tend to degrade the complex functional information that is already in the genome. Of course if you disagree that chance and necessity processes of nature are not up to the task, which is your right to disagree since we do still live in America where that right is guaranteed, then you can easily prove your point by generating functional information above that which is already present in the genome:
wd400:
Well heck your position invokes magical mystery muations, for no other reason then to protect your worthless position.
And perhaps she doesn’t need to adjust the mutation rates, just the mutational target, as we appear to get more than enough mutations per birth.
Joe – what on earth are you talking about?
Here is an excellent article, just up on ENV, that is related to the overarching topic at hand:
“Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 2012
Excerpt: In a recent Perspective piece called “Modular Biological Complexity” in Science, Christof Koch (Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle; Division of Biology, Caltech) explained why we won’t be simulating brains on computers any time soon:
Physicists can use statistics to describe a homogeneous system like an ideal gas, because one can assume all the member particles interact the same. Not so with life. When describing heterogeneous systems each with a myriad of possible interactions, the number of discrete interactions grows faster than exponentially. Koch showed how Bell’s number (the number of ways a system can be partitioned) requires a comparable number of measurements to exhaustively describe a system. Even if human computational ability were to rise exponentially into the future (somewhat like Moore’s law for computers), there is no hope for describing the human “interactome” — the set of all interactions in life.
Even with shortcuts like averaging, “any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system,” Koch said. “It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner.” He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:
Why can’t we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are “purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number.” The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. “None of this is true for nervous systems.”,,,
to read more click here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html
wd400- I was responding to your post. Apparently you can’t follow along
No, really, what are you talking about? What’s a “mutational target”? What does it have to do with mutations per generation? Where have I invoked “mystery” mutations?
A mutational target would be the genes in which the polymorphs are found- IOW mutations are not random, they would have had specific targets.
And the entire theory of evolution invokes magical mystery mutations-
Anyone involved in a debate about evolution has come to realize that the theory of evolution and universal common descent rely heavily on magical mystery mutations.
I say that because those mutations can change an invertebrate to a vertebrate and no one knows how or why. Those mutations can change a fish into a land animal and then a land animal into an aquatic one- again without anyone knowing how or why.
These magical mystery mutations operate when/ where no one can observe them. They cannot be studied which means no testing and no verification.
We are told we just have to accept the “fact” that universal common descent occured even though the same data for UCD can be used for alternative scenarios, such as a common design or convergence.
By relying on these magical mystery mutations evolutionitwits are admitting their scenario is a fairy tale and doesn’t belong in a science classroom.
Yeah, so none of that has anything to do with what I’m talking about.
Why do you think Gauger hasn’t just run the sims to see what sort of mutation rate you’d need to explain observed amount of polymorphism?
“observed amount of polymorphism”
can you please point to an example of ‘observed amount of polymorphism’ from random mutations that needs to be explained?
i.e. what you imagine to have happened in the past does not count as ‘observed’ within empirical science:
of note:
wd400- why don’t YOU run a simulation that would support your position? I know why, because everyone would then see what a fraud your position is.
What sort of mutation rate do you think is necessary to get the observed polymorphs starting with a founding population of 2? Please show your work.
-> HapMap
-> 1000 genomes
Anna Guager mentions both in her blogpost that this post is the subject of.
A Gene- no one has observed any amount of polymorphs via random mutations. No one knows if they have observed any random mutations.
A Gene: observe is not the same word as infer. After all, I can infer the moon is made out of green cheese all day long from cherry picking select evidence that supports my position and ignoring all disconfirming evidence that points to a contrary conclusion. But that is the beauty of empirical science. You must actually produce repeatable, observational, evidence in order to support your claim that you have observed body-plan morphogenesis. And that, sir, you simply do not have:
In fact Dr. Stephen Meyer’s next book is going to be on the sheer impossibility of neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origination of ‘Body-Plan information’:
Here is a sneak peek at his forthcoming book:
Dr. Stephen Meyer: Why Are We Still Debating Darwin? pt. 2 – podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_22-07_00
Of related interest, there is a whole other level of information on a cell’s surface that is scarcely even beginning to be understood (which would seem to be important if one were to claim that he understood body-plan morphogenesis:
Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules – A Whole New Level Of Scarcely Understood Information on The Surface of Cells
Glycan carbohydrate molecules are very complex molecules found primarily on a cell’s surface and are found to be very important for cell surface functions, such as immunity responses, and are found to show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,”;
Glycans rival DNA and proteins in terms of complexity;
Yet Glycans, despite their complexity and importance to cell function, are found, like DNA and Proteins, to be ‘rather uncooperative’ with neo-Darwinian evolution;
As well, It seems clear that Glycans, being on the cell’s surface, would, besides immunity responses, be very important for explaining the exact positioning of cells in a multicellular organism (body-plan morphogenesis). In fact, experiments have been done rearranging parts of a cell’s surface in which the ‘rearrangement’ on the cell’s surface carried forward even though the DNA sequence had remained exactly the same:
So it seems clear that this ‘cell surface information’ represents another whole new level of information that is not reducible to DNA (central dogma (modern synthesis) of neo-Darwinism) and yet this is clearly very important information to understand if one were to try to explain body-plan morphogenesis coherently.
I never made that claim anyway. It’s not even a straw man.
“No. I asked a very simply question, and you please answer it without the spam?” – WD400
Hilarious! I was just going to say, ‘Steady, there, bornagain. You know that when you blind them with REAL science from that encyclopaedic brain of yours, they bawl out that you’re just spamming!!!’
‘What’s he saying, Mummy? I can’t understand ‘im. It’s just nonsense!’