Home » Evolution » The End of Evolution — A Prophetic Picture

The End of Evolution — A Prophetic Picture

Forget the end of religion

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

32 Responses to The End of Evolution — A Prophetic Picture

  1. Yes, but does it mean a literal ’7 DAYS’ ?

  2. Boy, I can hardly wait.

  3. And in seven days no less! The irony is palpable.

  4. 4

    I wonder what they’ll put in its place?

  5. Business eh. Always knew it wasn’t science.

  6. After I was done LMAO at GilDodgen’s comment (#2) I had a thought (it happens from time to time).

    Just above the “7 Days” in the picture is the word “open” in all caps. You can’t really see it. If it wasn’t for the context, I wouldn’t be as sure about it. It really is unreadable, but not undecipherable.

    The “going out of business” banner represents a high degree of noise or corruption. Obviously language can tolerate a certain degree of this, or I would be unable to ascertain that the word is “open.”

    voluton s goig ot of bisns

    my dg hs thre lgs

    My assumption is that I’m behind the curve here — that this has already been realized and discussed; but from a design standpoint it seems to me, that one might make the prediction that mutations in genes, rather than being the driving force behind evolution, may actually be predicted corruptions that the cell’s information processing systems are designed to overcome. Is there any evidence of this so far? Does biology work in spite of mutations, instead of because of them?

    If an engineer predicts a potential problem that might arise with their system, features can be designed which overcome these potential problems. Could mutations be potential problems that biology has been designed to overcome?

    On a slightly different note: might our ability to decipher language despite a moderate or high degree of noise or corruption be evidence for design?

  7. Are they having a half off sale? I want the Professor Steve Steve plush toy as a remembrance.

  8. Apollos,

    Sorry. I don’t know if your questions have already been discussed but I do think they are excellent questions.

    I think we, and other living things, certainly have redundant systems that make continuing life possible, in some little niche or other, if mutations damage the usual, more efficient, metabolic pathways but aren’t actually fatal. This is from a very old memory (since I don’t work in the field any more and haven’t bothered trying to keep up) but I seem to recall that multi-resistant Staph aureus are resistant to some antibiotics, at least in part, because a metabolic pathway (the one the antibiotic(s) attack) doesn’t work in them, or doesn’t work properly. So in the presence of certain antibiotics MRSA are unaffected and they can continue to survive in the meagre way they do. But absent the antibiotics they cannot compete with normal, more efficient, Staph and so are swamped.

    I have a rather rare neurological condition that comes and goes. (The rareness could be because it’s not a terrible thing to have so doesn’t get complained about much. For any doctors – a purely sensory mononeuritis multiplex.) It’s a nuisance more than anything else, though at times it can be rather painful. But the thing is that mostly, even if slowly, the affected part gets completely better, completely without treatment. That just amazes me. Here am I, demyelinating in patches all over the place, (including in the CNS at C2 during the last episode) and I’m not dead yet and have never spent time on a ventilator or in a wheelchair. My mother and brother have the same problem so it has to be due to a mutation somewhere. But obviously there is also a repair system for it. (Yay!) How can that be explained naturalistically?

    Myelin is myelin. There may be some undiscovered reason why it matters whether the myelin sheaths motor or sensory fibres. But why should there be any repair system at all? I can’t help thinking that mine could be a predicted, but viable, corruption whose ill effects the repair system was designed to remove so that, by the grace of God, life can go on, plus or minus minor disabilities.

  9. How many contracts and jobs will be lost when evolution goes out of business?

  10. Russ,

    Probably not many since what they do does not really depend on naturalistic evolution anyway.

    Actually, there may be an increase in jobs since there will be new areas to research that are closed out under the current paradigm.

  11. Boy, I can hardly wait.

    Jared, my friend. I am in total agreement.

    If I am reading what this conference is about correctly. Then the death of Darwinian evolution may be closer than we think! Have you guys seen this?

    https://events.uchicago.edu/bsdevents/eventdetail.phtml?eventid=44626

    Have a Happy Easter everyone.

  12. When evolution is finally discredited oh what a happy day that will be.

  13. Janice, thanks for your comments.

    You said:

    But obviously there is also a repair system for it. (Yay!) How can that be explained naturalistically?

    I think a convincing naturalistic explanation is unlikely; although it would be interesting to see if the genetic defense/repair mechanism predates the condition’s legacy.

  14. Along these same lines I expect that ID, if it’s not doing it already, will eventually be able to show that a genome’s coping mechanisms for many conditions and defects were there all along, or at least anticipatory.

    My assumption is based on nothing more than my confidence that ID has more explanatory power than NDE, as well as my confidence that ID objectively resembles the real story behind biological systems. If they were designed, then they will exhibit anticipatory mechanisms that deal with data corruption.

  15. Is this book something to be excited about? Any Tipler fans here?

    http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/

  16. I guess evolution was just not well adapted to its environment. Poor despite a lot of people working on it.

  17. I predict we will find the source of stasis, perhaps the basic blueprint of the archetype encoded and passed on unchanged from generation to generation and that variations in the DNA will turn out to function merely for diversity and adaptation.

    Although I suspect I will be totally wrong.

  18. “If they were designed, then they will exhibit anticipatory mechanisms that deal with data corruption.” –Appolos

    At the risk of beating a dead horse, how do you account for the fact that data corruption nevertheless ensues. There is an entire field, medical genetics, that is dedicated to tracking down where and how the data was corrupted. And, to a large extent, cancer is also a manifestation of data corruption at the genetic level. Only it is largely a somatic cell corruption issue. So if the system was designed to avoid these problems, it has serious limitations. And for some reasons these limitations become more significant once organisms are beyond reproductive age. Something to ponder.

  19. great_ape said:

    how do you account for the fact that data corruption nevertheless ensues.

    This seems like a theological question rephrased: “How could a perfect god design an imperfect creature?” Definitely a valid question, but one of another order.

    The fact that a system might exhibit imperfect behavior or apparently imperfect coping mechanisms does not preclude the observation of anticipatory mechanisms from strongly suggesting design.

    Human designed machines age, rust, wear out, become obsolete, and exhibit design flaws. None of these would prevent a rational inference to design.

    Designed systems exhibit trade-offs, compromises, strengths and weaknesses, and optimizations appropriate to their application.

    The possibility that God could or would create a flawed system, or why it might appear so, is more of a philosophical or theological matter, IMO.

  20. This Great Ape guy is a trouble maker.
    How come he hasn’t been prohibited from commenting yet? He provides nothing constructive.

  21. DN, as far as I am conserned this site is rather thirsty for the great_ape types. A little dissent is a valuable thing.

  22. GA is actually an ideal evolutionist poster here. He’s non-abrasive and respectful. Treasure your soft-spoken trolls, for the world is in short supply of them.

    No offense, GA.

  23. What?? great_ape certainly provides constructive comments. Merely disagreeing doesn’t constitute being a troublemaker.

    But to put GA’s comment into perspective…information storage using DNA could allow for an estimated information density of perhaps 1 bit per cubic Nanometer, while existing storage media isn’t even close to approaching that. Computing using DNA the number of operations per second could be up to 1.2×10^18. The energy efficiency of a DNA computer could be 2×10^19 operations per Joule. The error detection/correction is incredibly well designed or “near optimal” as many papers phrase it. The synthesis of proteins from amino acids by ribosomes has an error rate of only one residue per 2,000 (error rate ~5×10^4) largely due to mistaken tRNA recognition, which means that the majority of synthesized proteins (which average fewer than 1000 residues per protein) may include not a single error. DNA replication relies on extensive error detection and correction; presynthetic and proofreading error-correcting polymerases, thymine dimer bypass, base excision repair, base-pair mismatch correction systems along with built-in redundancy (the two complementary strands) to achieve a net error rate of only one base per billion (~10^9) when replicating itself. I’ve read about some estimates putting the error rate closer to one base in 10 billion (~10^10), which is similar to that of some high-tech communications systems. I tried looking up the acceptable/average error rates for today’s hard drives but couldn’t find any solid numbers…although I do know that the unrecoverable error rates advertised by manufacturers are usually between 10^12 to 10^18.

    So while the system isn’t “perfect” it certainly is well-designed.

  24. I wish we had 10 more great_apes here. I learn more from him than any other visitor to this site and there isn’t anyone more polite here.

    One of the theories about learning is that someone learns more from others who have weak ties with your group. Those with strong ties will essentially think the same way you do and just reinforce your own point of view and not provide new insights.

  25. re: #24

    “Yes men” will let you hang yourself. Antagonists prevent you from getting anything done. Big Science is plagued with the former, ID with the latter.

  26. Many thanks for the supportive comments. As most of you know, I try to remain very respectful here, even when disagreeing. In return, I have an opportunity to examine and further clarify my own thoughts. Personally, I have little interest in having these sorts of discussions with people who think as I do, and that is why I infrequently post at pro-evolution sites. As several of you indicated, it is beneficial to have your ideas challenged. You either strengthen their foundations by defending them, or, ultimately, abandon them for superior ideas.

  27. Antagonists keep you on your feet.

    They, with their resistance, are like exercise, sparring partners or trials and sufferings: a necessary part of becoming mature and efficient in a dangerous environment.

    But it’s easy to see that Apollos already has GA’s objections not only well analyzed but well covered.

    Evos and atheists are always giving themselves away as to what their “bad or corruptible design = no design” objections to ID really are – objections against suffering and imperfection in the world – and ultimately against God (whether mentioned or not!). ie The ages old questions on The Problem of Pain hiding beneath coated terms.

    But as Apollos notes, these are philosophical or theological questions – not quite scientific ones.

    GA says, “So if the system was designed to avoid these problems, it has serious limitations.”

    A theist would immediately respond that the system suffered a cataclysmic collapse with the introduction of corruption by man.

    Christian theists could cite Rom 8:20 “For the Creation fell into subjection to failure and unreality (not of its own choice, but by the will of Him who so subjected it). Yet there was always the hope that at last the Creation itself would also be set free from the thralldom of decay… ”

    IOW, the bible describes how the whole of creation has been subjected to decay (2nd law of td) so that corruption and ultimately death wins out over our will to live in the end.

    Materialists never take this kind of thing into account in biological orders because they are ignorant of it or don’t wish to believe it.

    That’s yet another reason they can’t deal with what they think is “bad design” – Actually incredible, ingenious design that’s been subjected to the law of decay.

    “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free” – so let ‘em keep asking questions and posing objections. Sooner or later the truth will get through if they want it to – like Trinity explains to Neo in the Matrix.

  28. “The possibility that God could or would create a flawed system, or why it might appear so, is more of a philosophical or theological matter, IMO.” –Apollos

    Agreed, limitations of design only present a challenge to a design inference if the designer was God (omnipotent/omniscient), and then only if we assume we know God’s intentions. (We could no doubt quibble about just what omnipotence and omniscience entails about engineering abilities, but that is most certainly theology.) I mainly just wanted to provide a counterpoint to the idea that it is a flawless system. Many people hold this view. A good friend of mine holds this view, in sort of a Christian/New-Age fashion, and thinks that with the right attitude her body would always heal itself b/c it is, by nature, perfect.

    But when you work in a medical center and see little kids come in with all manner of genetic ailments, including cancer, it is difficult to maintain the notion of a perfect biological machine. It’s limitations are all-too-apparent, and it is something to factor in when pondering biological realities.

  29. “IOW, the bible describes how the whole of creation has been subjected to decay (2nd law of td) so that corruption and ultimately death wins out over our will to live in the end.” –Borne

    Just for the record, I am familiar with the concepts of the fall, original sin, etc. Yet as I believe firmly in common descent based on molecular archeology, I think there is strong evidence that mutations were around long before man had the opportunity to introduce corruption and decay into the system. Thus the notion of the Fall as an explanation for genetic errors in biology appears untenable to me. That reasoning, of course, is based on several premises which many if not most of you do not share, so I don’t expect it to be terribly convincing to anyone.

  30. great_ape,

    We are bordering on some theological and philosophical issues and not biology or evolution with your comment about children with cancer.

    What is perfect design? We certainly do not know because we do not know the standard to apply it against.

    I will bring up two of my favorite topics. The first is ecology and the second is the relative way we look at life.

    For an ecology to work, it is necessary that all elements in it be limited in some way or else those which are not, would probably take over the ecology and thus destroy what is necessary for its survival. No organism knows its purpose so if it was perfectly designed for its own success, it may actually eliminate itself as it destroyed other elements in the ecology on which it depends. This is what we see. Organisms are flexibly designed but limited in how “perfect” they can become. So what is perfect, an inferiorly designed organism that is limited or one that can be all it can be and eventually destroy the ecology on which it depends. This is just my speculation but if I was a designer, I would have to limit every organism in the ecology somehow. And if the consequences were cancer in some of its young, then that may be a necessary evil. Heartless? Maybe but what is necessary for the entire ecology.

    Second, issue. Suppose, I as a designer eliminate cancer and all other genetic disease and susceptibility to disease from the genome what would be the consequence for the ecology? I haven’t a clue but it may not work. It is an interesting hypothesis that could be studied over the years because it would probably take decades if not centuries to answer it.

    Related to this if we eliminate cancer and ever other deadly or debilitating disease, what would be the consequence. Would we be happier? A lot more people would live longer more productive lives and that sounds really good. But would we be happier or would we then be focused on the horrors of having a pimple on our face, or that we are less good looking than another or that we are not as smart as the rest or that freckles is an unbelievable horrid condition. Whatever is eliminated as a set of evils will be replaced by a new set of evils in our relative way of thinking. And when we live to be a 150 years old we will be cursing that we are limited in the amount of time we are alive and not thanking science or modern medicine for its blessings.

    I have older relatives who were brought up during the depresion and look at modern people as incredibly ungrateful for the abundance they have. As we get even richer and live longer lives, today’s generation will probably say the same about those yet unborn. It is all relative. We will never truly be happy. Human beings are a unique species that way but that is how we were designed.

  31. GA said:

    I mainly just wanted to provide a counterpoint to the idea that it is a flawless system. Many people hold this view. A good friend of mine holds this view, in sort of a Christian/New-Age fashion, and thinks that with the right attitude her body would always heal itself b/c it is, by nature, perfect.

    I too have heard this espoused. It’s the idea that God’s intention for us all is to have perfect health, while, as Borne mentions, creation is “subject to decay.” This view’s implication is that bad health is always our own fault somehow, directly. Personally I don’t subscribe to this.

    But when you work in a medical center and see little kids come in with all manner of genetic ailments, including cancer, it is difficult to maintain the notion of a perfect biological machine. It’s limitations are all-too-apparent, and it is something to factor in when pondering biological realities.

    This is indeed a big issue for science as well as theology. As a Christian I have my hope tethered to the idea that our “bondage to decay” is transitory, even ephemeral, considering all of eternity. And while I hold to the view that the creative efforts of God — relative to our universe — ended at some point, I wouldn’t expect that He is the only one able to monkey with the machinery.

    So, strange as it may sound, sabotage, not just imperfection, is a possible explanation for disease and genetic imperfections, when spiritual and theological issues are broached. But I’ll refrain from delving any further into this, to the relief of many here, I’m sure. =D

  32. Since the conversation has shifted to the idea of what a perfect specimen would look like, I’ll throw in my two cents: There is no such thing in a static sense. I say this as a theist (Christian in fact.) But I believe, even come resurrection, we will never ‘be’ perfect because there is no perfect for us to be.

    Instead, we get something else: The eternal ascent. Humans are capable of improving themselves, and adapting without having to do so through our death and successive generations. I see no reason to suspect or desire that this would end in the case of a deity’s plan for us.

    In other words, the perfect being would be the one capable of forever improving itself through a variety of ways, faced with a variety of challenges. We’re not as bad as people would like us to believe, faults and all.

Leave a Reply