Here’s more, from the literature, on those 760 million year old fossil sponges

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 7, 2012

Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

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

Robert W. Gess: The oldest animal fossils

South African Journal of Science, 2012; 108(1/2), Art. #1064, 2 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v108i1/2.1064

The description by Brain et al. in this issue, of sponge-like organisms from Namibian rocks ranging in age between 760 Ma and 550 Ma, is extremely significant as these organisms represent the earliest record of metazoan life. This discovery places the origin of animals 100 million years to 150 million years earlier than has previously been accepted. That these organisms arose prior to the ‘snowball earth’2 and survived its extremes, presents a challenge to contemporary scientific thought.

[ … ]

By contrast, the fossils newly reported by Brain et al. demonstrate a complex rigid structure consistent with requirements for the feeding mechanism of sponges, suggesting the presence of animals of a high level of organisation. The rocks of southern Africa have yet again yielded up key evidence regarding the history of life.

Paper:

The first animals: ca. 760-million-year-old sponge-like fossils from Namibia.

C. K. ‘Bob’ Brain, Anthony R. Prave, Karl-Heinz Hoffmann, Anthony E. Fallick, Andre Botha, Donald A. Herd, Craig Sturrock, Iain Young, Daniel J. Condon, Stuart G. Allison

South African Journal of Science, 2012; 108(1/2), Art. #658, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v108i1/2.658

One of the most profound events in biospheric evolution was the emergence of animals, which is thought to have occurred some 600-650 Ma. Here we report on the discovery of phosphatised body fossils that we interpret as ancient sponge-like fossils and term them Otavia antiqua gen. et sp. nov. The fossils are found in Namibia in rocks that range in age between about 760 Ma and 550 Ma. This age places the advent of animals some 100 to 150 million years earlier than proposed, and prior to the extreme climatic changes and postulated stepwise increases in oxygen levels of Ediacaran time. These findings support the predictions based on genetic sequencing and inferences drawn from biomarkers that the first animals were sponges. Further, the deposition and burial of Otavia as sedimentary particles may have driven the large positive C-isotopic excursions and increases in oxygen levels that have been inferred for Neoproterozoic time.

Comments

Pet said: "I’m certainly not an expert, but this discovery seems to push the fossil evidence for the divergence back quite a ways." I'm not an expert either, but this is the constant pattern that we find. Everything keeps getting pushed back. At what point does this become a problem for evolutionists? I mean, it seems the available time for the first life to evolve is getting smaller and smaller. It seems that the available time for animal life to evolve from that point is getting shorter and shorter. Time is the great friend of evolution we are told. Time makes the impossible possible it has been said. The idea of vast amounts of time has been used by evolutionists to try and get people to swallow the evolutionary story. But what do we do when the available amount of time keeps shrinking? Do we just ramp up the level of our faith and keep on believing or is there a point where we really need to rethink what is possible and what is not possible? Time is becoming less and less a friend of evolutionists, but it is a problem that most people don't realize. Many people still think there are vast amounts of time available for evolution to work its magic. Embarrassingly, time has become an enemy to the whale evolutionary story and it is fast coming to a head in other areas as well. Of course, no one knows how soon the first life evolved, but what is thought to be the earliest possible time that could have happened? I'm sure someone here must have an idea of that. Best case scenario which almost certainly could not have occurred would be what? Just curious.tjguy_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

It appears that this paper may not have been "peer-reviewed", and at least one scientist thinks its conclusions are wrong.PaV_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: I imagine (infer) that an undiscovered planet is perturbing the orbits of known planets. I search for the unknown planet. You seem to suggest that Darwinism is just like gravity. But gravity works a little differently.
In 1846, the planet Neptune was discovered after its existence was predicted because of discrepancies between calculations and data for the planet Uranus.
There were facts in hand that led scientists to propose this scenario. They didn't "imagine" it; they deduced it. And they discovered they were correct. Darwin "imagined" that there were just as many extant forms of life prior to the Cambrian as those that followed the Cambrian, except that they were less diversified. It's right there in the OofS. So, unlike gravity, where a prediction based on logical deductions was verified, Darwinian imaginations, the fruit of inductive logic, and inductive logic alone, has not been verified. Further, what phyla, other than Chordata, exhibits dramatic changes in morphology over time? I'm no expert, but I'm fairly confident that other than insects, we don't see many. And, again, where are the intermediates to Archeopteryx? If you come up with some single "intermediate", this is hardly persuasive evidence of the Darwinian model.PaV_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

You might better have asked why there are still bacteria. Even more interesting, why are bacteria the dominant life forms in numbers and in biomass.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Is this not a question better posed to evolutionists? If evolution is all about change through random changes to DNA sequence, which then supposedly leads to macroevolution, why indeed do we still have bacteria? Design explains it quite easily. Biological entities are "closed systems". They are restricted by their body plan to allow only a limited amount of mutation before it conflicts with the overarching body plan. Hence bacteria will always remain bacteria, and so to mammals remain mammals. How does neo-Darwinism explain such extensive stasis? You might argue that bacteria have found their "niche" within the ecosystem; that the product of natural selection is solely to survive -- but that begs the question as to why we have such a diverse, colourful and intricate array of life on the planet. If the mutation / selection mechanism selects for survival, then what better method for survival than prokaryotic fission. And why would this method seemingly continually select across the entire spectrum of mammals for a lifespan of 100 years or less if survival is the end-product. And if you argue that selecting for a prolonged life would put a strain on resources; well that is besides the point, as mutation / selection cannot "see" beyond what works well for that organism in the moment.Stu7_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, your response is lackadaisical to put it mildly. You cannot simply declare that functional information, proteins/genes, may someday be generated by neo-Darwinian processes and presuppose that we will take your word on it (especially your word on it!). It is pie in the sky 'promissory materialism' that you advocate, and it is this unrestrained imaginary fantasy of yours, and other neo-Darwinists, that is always off in the future, over the rainbow, somewhere. Whereas here in the real world, from the best scientific evidence we have right now, we already have evidence which falsifies neo-Darwinism!!! But what is completely ludicrous in your response is that you try to claim that Thornton's work supports your completely unsubstantiated view that microbes are not really 'devolving' in their 'beneficial' adaptations, as I hold, and are thus not severely constrained in the amount of 'upward evolvability', as all evidence indicates. Yet, (in the real world) Thornton's own work testifies that you are living in a fantasy land and could care less about all the consistent experimental results that, without fail, go against your dogmatic atheistic beliefs!!! Here is Dr. Behe's analysis of Thornton's exceedingly meager results, which you have placed all your faith in as to demonstrating the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution for all the rest of us to see. Drum roll please,,,
A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Michael Behe January 11, 2012 Excerpt: What's more, unlike Lenski's results, the mutated system of Thornton and colleagues is not even advantageous; it is neutral, according to the authors. Perhaps sensing the disappointment for Darwinism in the results, the title of the paper and news reports emphasize that the "complexity" of the system has increased. But increased complexity by itself is no help to life -- rather, life requires functional complexity. One can say, if one wishes, that a congenitally blind man teaming up with a congenitally legless man to safely move around the environment is an increase in "complexity" over a sighted, ambulatory person. But it certainly is no improvement, nor does it give the slightest clue how vision and locomotion arose. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/a_blind_man_car055021.html
Thus Pet, it seems, as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned, evidence that you yourself cite, that you are no better than the mad Drunkard in the street, who has delusions of grandeur,,, of being ruler of the world, but in reality the mad Drunkard is but a mad Drunkard and must beg for others for scraps of charity so that he can even afford his next drink. notes:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
bornagain77_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

And yet Beheld is simply wrong. Genomes are not constrained as tightly as your puzzle, and multi-step inventions do occur. It will be fun to watch as more young researchers take Thornton's approach. I've been following this debate since 1956, and it's been entertaining watching the goalposts move.Petrushka_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Petrushka imagines, in mythical molecular reductionism fashion, that;
Usefulness of an allele is defined by differential reproductive success.
Yet the real world evidence states:
“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. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
i.e.,,, 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', as with antibiotic bacteria:
Antibiotic resistance is ancient - September 2011 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110922 List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Yet when we look for mutations in a 'non-stressed' environment, i.e. in a 'normal environment' that does not have antagonistic factors like antibiotics, mutations that may 'build upon one another', build upon one another in a 'neo-Darwinian quest' to build useful functional information, we find that,,,
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives - November 2010 Excerpt:,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
so even though, in a stressed environment, neo-Darwinists may imagine that they have found useful mutations, the fact is that these supposed useful mutations of neo-Darwinists are nothing of the sort when considering the functional information of the cell. i.e. The mutations refuse to 'cooperate with each other' in the endeavor of building useful, novel, genes and proteins:
Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009 Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own. http://www.discovery.org/a/9951 Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
One of the primary reasons why random mutations (or even 'genetically engineered mutations') cannot build functional information is as follows:
Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism, or even Theistic Evolutionists is this: To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study, and further studies, has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle: If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford. S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Which is translated ; THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS. This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 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. This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order! As to Theistic Evolutionists, who believe God guides evolution incrementally, all I ask you to consider is do you think that it would be easier for God to incrementally change the polyfunctional genome of a organism, maintaining functionality all the time, in a bottom up manner or do you think it would be easier for Him to design each kind of organism in a top down manner? The evidence clearly indicates 'top-down' design. The Complexity of Gene Expression, Protein Interaction, and Cell Differentiation - Jill Adams, Ph.D. - 2008 Excerpt: it seems that a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions,,, In a commentary that accompanied Stumpf's article, Luis Nunes Amaral (2008) wrote, "These numbers provide a sobering view of where we stand in our cataloging of the human interactome. At present, we have identified 0.3% of all estimated interactions among human proteins. We are indeed at the dawn of systems biology." http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-complexity-of-gene-expression-protein-interaction-34575 Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.” R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Werner Gitt, “In the Beginning was Information”, 1997, p. 106. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology) His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.
Verse and Music:
Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk
bornagain77_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

Environmental conditions? We have soft bodied critters today. How do they survive without protection?
You miss the point somewhat. Animals that do employ a hard outer covering could not have evolved sans this protection. Naturally animals that do not use such a tool, and have no use for it and can survive without the protection.
Chen: "Animals such as brachiopods and most echinoderms and mollusks cannot exist without a mineralized skeleton. Arthropods bear jointed appendages and likewise require a hard, organic or mineralized outer covering. Therefore the existence of these organisms in the distant past should be recorded either by fossil tracks and trails or remains of skeletons. The observation that such fossils are absent in Precambrian strata proves that these phyla arose in the Cambrian.
Stu7_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

Usefulness of an allele is defined by differential reproductive success.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, so what you are really saying is that you don't care that the mutations (new alleles) are detrimental and don't build functional information, novel genes or proteins, but all you care about is that you can still believe in your unrestrained imagination no matter what equivocation and deception you have to use!!! Well Petrushka, that's up to you, but I certainly ain't going to live in your self made fantasy land of nihilistic atheism!!!bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

New alleles would be what is meant by new information. As opposed to recombinations of existing alleles. Which would still fit the ordinary definition of evolution.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, new alleles??? What are you talking about???,, sure detrimental mutations arise all the time (new alleles), in fact each human has approximately 60 to 100 new detrimental mutations (new alleles) every time a new human is born:
Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009 Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations") http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html This more recent study found a slightly lower figure: We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us - June 2011 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm
The problem for you Petrushka, is not finding detrimental mutations (new alleles), we are literally swimming in detrimental mutations, the problems for you is to find beneficial mutations that will work together in coordinated fashion so as to bring about new genes and proteins i.e. new genetic information!
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

So are you willing to state, at peril of violating the commandment against lying, that there are no new alleles in dogs that are not found in wolves?Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, I stated, as a 'fact', that the entire spectrum of dogs has less genetic diversity than wolves! I even cited a paper to that effect, that showed the 'sub-speciation' of dogs from wolves was due to loss of genetic information. That's pretty good evidence from where I sit. It seems to me that the burden is clearly on you to show the origination of your imagined novel genetic information (ORFan genes), in teacup poodles, to prove what imagine to be true is actually true instead of just imagining that new genetic information has arisen. i.e. You imagine that novel genes/proteins can arise by random material processes in '50 generations'??? Good, since we are dealing with science and not with your unrestrained imagination, PROVE IT!!!
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html Signature In The Cell - Review Excerpt: Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")
bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

You might better have asked why there are still bacteria. Even more interesting, why are bacteria the dominant life forms in numbers and in biomass. I've seen it seriously suggested that, by weight, there are more bacteria and viruses in the human body than human cells.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

What specifically is strange? What do you think evolution is?Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

But you haven't addressed my point. Tremendous variation in physical form can occur with very few new genes. The difference is in regulation. In fact there are very few new genes in the entire vertebrate line. Mutations in regulatory genes are much less likely to be fatal than those in protein coding genes. So evolution in body shape can occur much more rapidly. But I'm sure you wouldn't make a statement that isn't true and that you know to be a fact. If I ask, you could name the genes and the alleles involved in transforming a wolf into a teacup poodle. Since you stated it as a fact, I expect that you can do this.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Robert, 'Primitive' in biology doesn't mean 'inferior':
primitive 2 b : closely approximating an early ancestral type : little evolved
champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

This YEC suggests that the whole concept that evolution is somewhat balanced on is that SPONGES etc are more primitive then cats. A creator would not make inferior or superior biological entities and so its to be proven a sponge is more primitive then anything else. Whats primitive about these fantastic things! No reason to see primitive to better by these creatures. Thats species-ism.Robert Byers_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Petrushka you state:
It takes roughly 50 generations to turn a population of foxes into dog-like household pets.
Yet contrary to your imagination that thinks this is a stunning example of Darwinian evolution the simple 'real world' fact is that this is accomplished by the culling of information that was already preexistent in the foxes.
,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED No Beneficial Mutations - Not By Chance - Evolution: Theory In Crisis - Lee Spetner - Michael Denton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816 Evolution? - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898/
bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Pet asks:
What can happen in 200,000 generations?
Not nearly as much as your unrestrained imagination imagines: Let's just see what we can find after 50,000 generations of Lenski's e-coli, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???
Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011 Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html
Now that just can’t be right Petrushka!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!!
Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
Now something is going terribly wrong here Petrushka!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror at the awesome power of unguided Darwinian processes (BWU HA HA HA,,,, evil laugh,,, BWU HA HA HA)!!!
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html
Now, there is something terribly wrong here Petrushka! We can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!! Further notes:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ Tell you what Pet, instead of believing in unsubstantiated imagination, which repeatedly leads us down fruitless blind alleys, why don't we purpose it in our hearts to worship the One who really did speak reality into being and who really did create all life on the Earth? Seems to be a much more worthwhile endeavor to me! :)
Music and Verse
Michael W. Smith - Agnus Dei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPBmFwBSGb0 Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Casey Luskin is now an expert on evo-devo? What can happen in 200,000 generations? It takes roughly 50 generations to turn a population of foxes into dog-like household pets. You like to talk about evidence as opposed to imagination. What is your evidence that 200,000 generations is not enough? I bet you aren't willing to post links to pictures. The one supposedly fully aquatic still has the head and neck of a land animal. It is more seal looking than whale looking.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

So again the link is missing. Very strange behavior for a chemical molecule, from the common ancestor we got in one side sponges and only sponges since 750 Mya, and in the other branch all the living animals.Blas_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Petrushka protests (too much)
I’m curious: The argument for ID in the Cambrian boils down to the lack of fossils? That’s the argument?
No, the point of 'boiling it down' was to show you that the only place transitional fossils exist is in your, and other neo-Darwinists, unrestrained imagination! On the other hand, The argument for ID is this:
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video http://vimeo.com/32148403 The materialistic argument essentially appears to be like this: Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.” There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).) Stephen C. Meyer – What is the origin of the digital information found in DNA? – August 2010 - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/stephen_meyer_on_intelligent_d037271.html
bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Pet admits:
I imagine an unknown intermediate existed between whales and land animals. I search for fossils having intermediate characteristics.
yet the real world evidence states:
Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify. The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form. Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm As for 'vestigial legs'; It turns out the 'vestigial legs' are really very functional pelvic bones instead: An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known. In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus. The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion. http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm The time for the supposed transition of whales, from some four legged creature, has now been dramatically shortened; A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011 Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/ Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2011 Excerpt: In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html
bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Please answer the question: how do you test products of your imagination? How is this done, exactly?
I imagine (infer) that an undiscovered planet is perturbing the orbits of known planets. I search for the unknown planet. I imagine an unknown intermediate existed between whales and land animals. I search for fossils having intermediate characteristics. I imagine that reptiles were ancestral to birds. I look for fossils having mixed characteristics.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Pet, why should you try to dodge the evidence by becoming a critic of grammar? Is this best you can do? criticize grammar? Have you no integrity man??? Why don't you honestly address the evidence, instead of playing silly games and finally admit that you are living in a fantasy land with your dogmatic belief in neo-Darwinism??? ,,, Moreover, science, when allowed to work properly is suppose to eliminate such unrestrained imagination, which we find rampant within neo-Darwinism (and materialism in general) yet as noted in this page:
Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos – exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos’s rigid criteria for falsification https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
,,,neo-Darwinism, and atheistic materialism in particular, has apparently retarded the proper use of science to the point where imagination, no matter how wild, is given serious consideration as a valid hypothesis! Moreover, I'm positive the Judeo-Christian founders of science would be sickened as to how atheists have polluted modern science with their materialistic dogma!bornagain77_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Please provide an example relevant to the topic of this thread. You're asking me to provide examples of imaginary products? Please answer the question: how do you test products of your imagination? How is this done, exactly?PaV_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

I'm curious: The argument for ID in the Cambrian boils down to the lack of fossils? That's the argument? So did passenger pigeons exist? Am I missing something? Is there some actual content to this argument, or just an appeal to ignorance?Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

How do you test products of your imagination if they don’t exist?
Please provide an example relevant to the topic of this thread.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply