Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Biologos, Venema and the Scientific Imagination

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Denis Venema wants to explain evolution to evangelical Christians because he doesn’t think it is understand sufficiently. But he asks us to use our imagination and avoids a carefully modelled defence of evolution. If that is the best Darwinists can do then is it any wonder that many of us reject it? See:
Venema Understanding Evolution: An Introduction to Populations and Speciation

Firstly, Venema follows the common evolutionary practice of presenting evidence for evolution by focussing upon the micro changes and then extrapolating without evidence to the macro evolutionary scale by assuming it happens by similar means. But the micro changes, such as that of his exampled stickleback fish, are simply uncontested even by young earth creationists, but what is contested is the belief that we can move from the small to the big without developing and modelling a credible pathway. Time and again evolutionists fail to deal with the problems, but simply make the switch from small to big thinking the flaws in their reasoning will not be noticed.

Venema though asks us to use our imagination to understand evolution. I find that wholly inadequate scientifically, especially when we can model such claims mathematically. And I wonder why such imaginary thinking has a right to be called science. He does though present claims that can be questioned scientifically; for instance believing that humanity evolved within a population size of roughly 10,000 people. So how should we model these claims?

Assuming 20 years for a generation and 6 million years from an ape-like ancestor to mankind would give 300,000 generations to achieve an evolutionary progression from an ape-like ancestor to man. As an aside, in that time only 3 billion individuals would have lived and died, a smaller number than the present human population alive today. Does he really expect us to believe that man could have arisen in so small a number of ancestors? Presumably we can look at the incidence of beneficial mutations in the present human population and ask whether sufficient beneficial mutations would have arisen and be compounded through 300,000 generations. I am afraid it doesn’t look good for evolution.

So down to modelling; we are led to believe that there is 1 percent difference between ape and man in the 3 billion base pairs of DNA, and if we use unrealistic assumptions then we might assume only 10 percent of DNA is coded with the rest considered ‘junk.’ But even 1 percent of 300 million is 3 million nucleotide differences between ape and man.

So we have to find 3 million base-pair beneficial mutational changes in 300,000 generations, or 10 per generation, both found and fixed in the population per generation. Is that possible? I challenge anyone to tell me it is adequate from what we know about the way the present day human population finds and fixes beneficial mutations, even for instance on a small island community of 10,000 people. It comes up against a number of problems.

Problem1. Haldane’s dilemma as discussed by ReMines in The Biotic Message and Sandford in Genetic Entropy (Refs below) (One might have thought these books would be at the top of Venema’s reading list considering his position). Anyway, as a simple overview of the claims of these books, in order for beneficial mutations to be fixed in the population we would need to pay a cost in terms of survivability of the mutated offspring against the un-mutated ones. Haldane thought it as high as 30 to 1, and higher vertebrates cannot hope to pay that cost. Haldane thought a cost of 0.1 per generation might be affordable and that it would take 300 generations to fix 1 beneficial mutation in a population. Venema’s population might then fix 1000 beneficial mutations in 6 million years; a little short of the 3 million required. 

Problem 2. We may also ask whether beneficial mutations actually provide any selective advantage to an organism. Sandford for instance has pointed out that beneficial mutations, when they rarely occur, are virtually invisible at the level of the phenotype anyway and so even Haldane’s 0.1 per generation looks unlikely.           

Problem 3. Harmful mutations are far more common than beneficial ones, perhaps as high as 1000 to 1. In order to weed out the harmful mutations evolution would have to proceed at a very slow rate indeed so that error catastrophe doesn’t occur in the population; a problem known today where small inbreeding populations are often on the verge of extinction. Furthermore, small populations do not have sufficient resources to find the necessary beneficial mutations, even though it makes it easier to spread the mutations that do occur through a population. A large population is more likely to find beneficial mutations, but work against their spread through the population due to the size.   

 So in summary, I would challenge Venema to respond seriously to the questions raised by Sandford and ReMine.

Sources: Walter ReMine’s The Biotic Message, St Paul, Minnesota: St Paul’s Science, pp. 208-236. Sanford, J (2005) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, New York: Elim Publ, especially pp.159-160, Haldane JBS (1957) ‘The Cost of Natural Selection,’ J. Genetics 55:511-24.

Comments
And yet, in the course of ten years, a tiny population of bacteria evolved a new protein function requiring three independent mutations.Petrushka
September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
“PROGRAMMING DrREC- gene duplications are directed by the internal programming of the organism/ cell.” DrREC:
Really?
Yes, the alternative of stuff just happens cannot be tested and therefor is unscientific.
1) Where does the ‘internal programming’ to determine what gene to duplicate and the mechanism to do that exist? Which genes are involved?
Internal means inside of the organism. cell, just as I stated.
2) If this is part of the cell’s programming, why isn’t it deterministic? Why doesn’t the whole population execute the program at once? Can you present evidence for such? I’ve never heard of such an observation.
Why would it be deterministic? Why would the whole population execute the same program at once? Haven't you ever heard of different people searching for a different solution to the same problem? The evidence for programming is in the way the cells transcribe, translate- well just about everything they do. Again what is the alternative besides "it just does" these things?
3) How are unused ‘programs’ to emerge later maintained in the face of genetic entropy? Without purifying selection, information is lost.
Who said they are maintained?Joseph
September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
DrREC, it certainly is not 'the very same' methodology, since sequence comparisons of proteins of different functions are not a actual demonstration that a functional protein can evolve into another functional protein!!! Exactly how does you just SAYING sequence A evolved into sequence B help you overcome the EXPERIMENTAL evidence that finds severe thermodynamic stability for any given functional protein, plus experimental evidence for extreme rarity for 'islands of functionality' of functional proteins, and the obvious observation that this calls into question the very claim you are making??? i.e. You have no experimental support for your position but merely the assertion that it is so!!! This 'sequence comparison' of yours is not even close to satisfying the demands of empirical science DrREC!!! Whereas the observation of rarity of functional proteins comes directly from what the empirical science is telling us, not from what we 'wish' the rarity, or non-rarity, to be!!!
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Moreover, your cited 'designed' experiment, which developed several 'strategies' for overcoming the many 'dead ends' of protein evolution, that they themselves readily acknowledge to be prevalent, is a complete joke for you to use as proof of the ability of proteins to 'naturally evolve' as far as empirical science is concerned, for it is precisely those many 'naturally occurring' dead ends for protein evolution, that they readily acknowledge and are clearly 'designing strategies' to overcome, that is the very question under debate!!! i.e. Can neo-Darwinism, and only neo-Darwinism, traverse the chasms of non-functionality between proteins??? further notes: Quantum Entanglement falsified the reductive materialistic framework upon which neo-Darwinism happens to be built;
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Reductive Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
And yet quantum entanglement, which falsified the reductive materialistic framework upon which neo-Darwinism is built, is found to be within molecular biology, on a massive scale, especially including proteins.
Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini & Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies: The essence of life? - STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign. http://www.tony5m17h.net/SHJTQprotein.pdf
Moreover, quantum information is found to be 'conserved':
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
So basically DrREC, for you to cling to neo-Darwinism, in spite of what the empirical science is telling us, you end up being completely detached from how reality is actually constructed;
Tori Amos - Cornflake Girl [UK Version] (HD Official Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oWSGcRrauA
bornagain77
September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
DrREC, you cite gene duplication in bacteria as 'proof' for neo-Darwinism, well let's see what the real world empirical science says about the gene duplication scenario in bacteria and not what your imagination is saying is happening: This following paper clearly reveals that there is a 'cost' to duplicate genes that further precludes the scenario from being plausible:
Experimental Evolution of Gene Duplicates in a Bacterial Plasmid Model Excerpt: In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence. http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp471464014664w8/
This recent paper also found the gene duplication scenario to be highly implausible:
The Extinction Dynamics of Bacterial Pseudogenes - Kuo and Ochman - August 2010 Excerpt: "Because all bacterial groups, as well as those Archaea examined, display a mutational pattern that is biased towards deletions and their haploid genomes would be more susceptible to dominant-negative effects that pseudogenes might impart, it is likely that the process of adaptive removal of pseudogenes is pervasive among prokaryotes." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/on_reductive_evolution_and_the037581.html
Thus once again the 'real' evidence argues forcefully against what you imagine to be possible. Moreover Lenski's Long Term e-coli shows that even 'simple' point mutations interfere with each other, preventing the 'building' of functional complexity/information. ,,, Perhaps if you click your heals three times you shall wake up DrREC??? :)bornagain77
September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
BA, You ask for evidence which I provide. You accuse it of just being inference from sequence alignments and designed experiments. I point out the hypocrisy of you citing data using that very same methodology. To refute this point, you list articles that use the same methodology! Unbelievable.DrREC
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
"PROGRAMMING DrREC- gene duplications are directed by the internal programming of the organism/ cell." Really? In a simple cell like E. coli, known to have gene duplications- 1) Where does the 'internal programming' to determine what gene to duplicate and the mechanism to do that exist? Which genes are involved? 2) If this is part of the cell's programming, why isn't it deterministic? Why doesn't the whole population execute the program at once? Can you present evidence for such? I've never heard of such an observation. 3) How are unused 'programs' to emerge later maintained in the face of genetic entropy? Without purifying selection, information is lost.DrREC
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
“you don’t have any evidence taht gene duplication and recombination are blind, undirected chemical processes” DrREC:
I don’t know what you mean by this. We can perform several types of recombination in a test tube, with purified components, like any other chemical reaction. Gene duplication has understood physical mechanisms accounting for it. Do you not know how these processes work, or are you saying there is a chance a designer is pulling the strings?
Computers run via understood physical mechanisms, as do automobiles. And no need for the designers to pull the strings in either case. PROGRAMMING DrREC- gene duplications are directed by the internal programming of the organism/ cell.Joseph
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
DrREC:
You two have a special hypocrisy in your use of evidence.
Nice false accusation.
Designed experiments are out, oh, except when they are done by your side.
I never said nor implied such a thing. However your position doesn't have any experiments that support its grand claims.Joseph
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
DrREC, this following evidence is actual empirical evidence from the lab, and the best models we have, not sequence comparison from the imagination of neo-Darwinists as your evidence is:
Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution – Michael Behe – Oct 2009 Excerpt: Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution.,,, A time-symmetric Dollo’s law turns the notion of “pre-adaptation” on its head. The law instead predicts something like “pre-sequestration”, where proteins that are currently being used for one complex purpose are very unlikely to be available for either reversion to past functions or future alternative uses. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html Severe Limits to Darwinian Evolution: – Michael Behe – Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The immediate, obvious implication is that the 2009 results render problematic even pretty small changes in structure/function for all proteins — not just the ones he worked on.,,,Thanks to Thornton’s impressive work, we can now see that the limits to Darwinian evolution are more severe than even I had supposed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/severe_limits_to_darwinian_evo.html#more Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009 Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975 The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway – Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe – April 2011 Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1 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/ “Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering) “A problem with the evolution of proteins having new shapes is that proteins are highly constrained, and producing a functional protein from a functional protein having a significantly different shape would typically require many mutations of the gene producing the protein. All the proteins produced during this transition would not be functional, that is, they would not be beneficial to the organism, or possibly they would still have their original function but not confer any advantage to the organism. It turns out that this scenario has severe mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into question. Unless these problems can be overcome, the theory of evolution is in trouble.” Problems in Protein Evolution: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors – Doug Axe Excerpt: Contrary to the prevalent view, then, enzyme function places severe constraints on residue identities at positions showing evolutionary variability, and at exterior non-active-site positions, in particular. http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/AxeProteinEvolution.pdf Darwin’s God: Post Synaptic Proteins Intolerant of Change – December 2010 Excerpt: Not only is there scant evidence of intermediate designs leading to the known proteins, but the evidence we do have is that these proteins do not tolerate change. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/post-synaptic-proteins-intolerant-of.html
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Fatty acid and DNA analyses of Permian bacteria isolated from ancient salt crystals reveal differences with their modern relatives. Vreeland RH, Rosenzweig WD, Lowenstein T, Satterfield C, Ventosa A. Source Department of Biology, West Chester University, West Chester, PA 19383, USA. rvreeland@wcupa.edu Abstract The isolation of living microorganisms from primary 250-million-year-old (MYA) salt crystals has been questioned by several researchers. The most intense discussion has arisen from questions about the texture and age of the crystals used, the ability of organisms to survive 250 million years when exposed to environmental factors such as radiation and the close similarity between 16S rRNA sequences in the Permian and modern microbes. The data in this manuscript are not meant to provide support for the antiquity of the isolated bacterial strains. Rather, the data presents several comparisons between the Permian microbes and other isolates to which they appear related. The analyses include whole cell fatty acid profiling, DNA-DNA hybridizations, ribotyping, and random amplified polymorphic DNA amplification (RAPD). These data show that the Permian strains, studied here, differ significantly from their more modern relatives. These differences are accumulating in both phenotypic and molecular areas of the cells. At the fatty acid level the differences are approaching but have not reached separate species status. At the molecular level the variation appears to be distributed across the genome and within the gene regions flanking the highly conserved 16S rRNA itself. The data show that these bacteria are not identical and help to rule out questions of contamination by putatively modern strains.
Petrushka
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Well, that was some non-answer. Are experimental evolution approaches valid, or do you want to write a letter to Bio-complexity? Are sequence comparisons valid, or do you disavow the original post and Behe's analyses contributing to the edge of evolution, etc.? You can't reject the evidence I provided, and accept those.DrREC
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
DrREC, gene duplication suffers from the same lack of empirical support as you claim for protein evolution does:
Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? - December 2010 - Excerpt: The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity, 2011 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified - December 2010 Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110103a The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations Douglas D. Axe* Excerpt: In particular, I use an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, to examine the limits on complex adaptations during the evolution of paralogous genes—genes related by duplication of an ancestral gene. Although substantial functional innovation is thought to be possible within paralogous families, the tight limits on the value of d found here (d ? 2 for the maladaptive case, and d ? 6 for the neutral case) mean that the mutational jumps in this process cannot have been very large. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4 An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution - Gene Duplication - And Minor Transformation of Protein Function - May 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-05-16T17_01_43-07_00 Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum! Excerpt: Douglas Axe of the Biologic Institute showed in one recent paper in the journal Bio-complexity that the model of gene duplication and recruitment only works if very few changes are required to acquire novel selectable utility or neo-functionalization. If a duplicated gene is neutral (in terms of its cost to the organism), then the maximum number of mutations that a novel innovation in a bacterial population can require is up to six. If the duplicated gene has a slightly negative fitness cost, the maximum number drops to two or fewer (not inclusive of the duplication itself). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle.html Genome truncation vs mutational opportunity: can new genes arise via gene duplication?—Part 1 - Royal Truman and Peter Borger Conclusions: Various evolutionary scenarios were examined by varying parameters such as prokaryote population size, mutational rate, generation times, proportion of population with additional genes, number of duplicate genes and selectivity coefficient favouring genome truncation. Assuming mutations on a duplicate are harmless would permit these to accumulate, but in reality natural selection would systematically remove the descendents of duplication events, drastically limiting both the total number and variety of mutants. Duplicate genes would be created, accumulate at most a very small number of mutations, and then go extinct, again and again. The number of distinct mutational variants generated would be far too small to explain the origin of novel cellular functions. All scenarios using prokaryote populations failed to generate enough mutation to produce novel genes. The most promising approach assumes huge populations would be involved, although subsequently surviving and fixing would now become exceedingly unlikely. Preventing novel gene families from developing denies nature the necessary infrastructure to produce complex new features. This finding contradicts what is being claimed by evolutionary biologists, which therefore invites other explanations as to the source of genetic complexity to be considered. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_1/j22_1_99-110.pdf
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
DrREC, despite what you may think of my 'hypocritical' standard for science, the standard for empirical science is brutally unchanging in its threshold of satisfaction and requires nothing less than a actual empirical DEMONSTRATION for what you are claiming, and in such resolute firmness empirical science is the very antithesis of hypocrisy!!!. You claim that sequence comparisons prove protein evolution from one remote island of functionality to the next remote island of functionality is true for neo-darwinian evolution. Yet, when I point out that you have not actually changed any functional protein to any other functional protein, by Darwinian means (Lenski, Behe, Axe) you claim that you don't need to demonstrate as such and that sequence comparisons are all fine and well. Well, I'm sorry to hurt your feelings DrREC, but it is not me that requires that this extremely trivial threshold to be met (actually you would have to actually demonstrate Body Plan morphogenesis as well, to satisfy empirical science, but that is digressing), it is empirical science itself that demands you actually demonstrate what you say can be done, by neo-Darwinian means, to actually BE DONE by neo-Darwinian means. And as previously referenced here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/biologos-venema-and-the-scientific-imagination/comment-page-1/#comment-399693 There is actual, and ample, DEMONSTRATED empirical evidence that severely questions the legitimacy of your claims!!!bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Joseph, "you don’t have any evidence taht gene duplication and recombination are blind, undirected chemical processes" I don't know what you mean by this. We can perform several types of recombination in a test tube, with purified components, like any other chemical reaction. Gene duplication has understood physical mechanisms accounting for it. Do you not know how these processes work, or are you saying there is a chance a designer is pulling the strings?DrREC
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
BA77 and Joseph, You two have a special hypocrisy in your use of evidence. Designed experiments are out, oh, except when they are done by your side. For example, how many time have you cited Gauger's Biocomplexity paper? Maybe you should write her, and tell her a directed evolution (however poorly designed) experiment has no bearing on evolution. Oh, and 'sequence comparisons' mean nothing, except say, in the original post, or when Behe uses them to estimate the rate of evolution,for example, in Malarial resistance. He not only uses them, and must presume methodological naturalism. Suppose a designer continually reverted the mutations, meaning the rate of evolution was much greater but washed out by design. Behe has to assume that didn't happen. You see the issue. You try to dispense with evolutionary lab experiments and sequence comparison then in the very next breath, cite ID evidence that uses these very methods. Problem?DrREC
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle (16.1.2.1.2): You wrote: "Well, Sermonti has ignored drift." Anything is possible. But here is some biographical background on Sermonti: "Born in Rome, graduated in agriculture and genetics, he entered the Superior Institute of Health in 1950, founding a department of Microbiological Genetics. He became professor of genetics at the University of Camerino, then at the University of Palermo in 1965, and finally moved to the University of Perugia in 1970, where he is presently emeritus professor and where he manages the Genetics Institute of the University from 1974. From 1970-1971 he presided over the Associazione Genetica Italiana.[1] He is the discoverer of the genetic parasexual recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces. He was vice-president of the XIV International Congress of Genetics held in Moscow and he was appointed as president of the International Committee of the Working Group on Genetics of Industrial Microorganisms." It would appear to me that Sermonti's background in genetics is extensive, and likely more extensive than your own. How probable is it that he has "ignored drift"? Isn't it more likely that he is well aware of drift, but does not believe that it can accomplish what it is said to accomplish in standard neo-Darwinism? And if someone with this level of expertise in a field which is not your own holds an opinion different from your own, wouldn't it make more sense for you to inquire into the basis of his judgment than to dismiss his view with a comment that implies that he is either (a) ignorant of the basic facts in his field or (b) unusually careless in his reasoning?Timaeus
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
whoops wrong spot: Whereas, quantum information is strongly implicated in human consciousness here:
Quantum Coherence and Consciousness – Scientific Proof of ‘Mind’ – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6266865/
Particular quote of note from preceding video;
“Wolf Singer Director of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research (Frankfurt) has found evidence of simultaneous oscillations in separate areas of the cortex, accurately synchronized in phase as well as frequency. He suggests that the oscillations are synchronized from some common source, but the actual source has never been located.” James J. Hurtak, Ph.D.
Corroborating experimental evidence here:
Brain ‘entanglement’ could explain memories – January 2010 Excerpt: In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later. They were also much more complicated than the simple phase-locked oscillations and always matched each other in amplitude as well as in frequency. (Perfect clones) “The precision with which these new sites pick up on the activity of the initiating group is quite astounding – they are perfect clones,” says Plen https://uncommondescent.com/mind/mind-quantum-mechanics-provides-clues-to-human-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-399098
And quantum information is conclusively shown to be transcendent of any material basis here:
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html This following study adds to Alain Aspect’s work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the ‘hidden variable’ argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous ‘spooky action at a distance’ found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
This following video reveals just how downright 'spooky' (to use Einstein's description) quantum entanglement is:
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182
And quantum information is shown to be ‘conserved’ here;
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Of related note; I really enjoyed Michael Egnor’s essay on how consciousness is not reducible to matter;
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html
more notes of interest:
Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner – Wikipedia “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. Can a Computer Think? – Michael Egnor Excerpt: The Turing test isn’t a test of a computer. Computers can’t take tests, because computers can’t think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer “passes” it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls. Breathtaking Performance Of Agnus Dei From Child Singer - Music Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=K7WZYPNX
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Whereas, quantum information is strongly implicated in human consciousness here:
Quantum Coherence and Consciousness – Scientific Proof of ‘Mind’ – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6266865/
Particular quote of note from preceding video;
“Wolf Singer Director of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research (Frankfurt) has found evidence of simultaneous oscillations in separate areas of the cortex, accurately synchronized in phase as well as frequency. He suggests that the oscillations are synchronized from some common source, but the actual source has never been located.” James J. Hurtak, Ph.D.
Corroborating experimental evidence here:
Brain ‘entanglement’ could explain memories – January 2010 Excerpt: In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later. They were also much more complicated than the simple phase-locked oscillations and always matched each other in amplitude as well as in frequency. (Perfect clones) “The precision with which these new sites pick up on the activity of the initiating group is quite astounding – they are perfect clones,” says Plen https://uncommondescent.com/mind/mind-quantum-mechanics-provides-clues-to-human-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-399098
And quantum information is conclusively shown to be transcendent of any material basis here:
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html This following study adds to Alain Aspect’s work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the ‘hidden variable’ argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous ‘spooky action at a distance’ found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
This following video reveals just how downright 'spooky' (to use Einstein's description) quantum entanglement is:
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182
And quantum information is shown to be ‘conserved’ here;
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Of related note; I really enjoyed Michael Egnor’s essay on how consciousness is not reducible to matter;
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html
more notes of interest:
Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner – Wikipedia “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. Can a Computer Think? – Michael Egnor Excerpt: The Turing test isn’t a test of a computer. Computers can’t take tests, because computers can’t think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer “passes” it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls. Breathtaking Performance Of Agnus Dei From Child Singer - Music Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=K7WZYPNX
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Whereas, quantum information is strongly implicated in human consciousness here:
Quantum Coherence and Consciousness – Scientific Proof of ‘Mind’ – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6266865/
Particular quote of note from preceding video;
“Wolf Singer Director of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research (Frankfurt) has found evidence of simultaneous oscillations in separate areas of the cortex, accurately synchronized in phase as well as frequency. He suggests that the oscillations are synchronized from some common source, but the actual source has never been located.” James J. Hurtak, Ph.D.
Corroborating experimental evidence here:
Brain ‘entanglement’ could explain memories – January 2010 Excerpt: In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later. They were also much more complicated than the simple phase-locked oscillations and always matched each other in amplitude as well as in frequency. (Perfect clones) “The precision with which these new sites pick up on the activity of the initiating group is quite astounding – they are perfect clones,” says Plen https://uncommondescent.com/mind/mind-quantum-mechanics-provides-clues-to-human-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-399098
And quantum information is conclusively shown to be transcendent of any material basis here:
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html This following study adds to Alain Aspect’s work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the ‘hidden variable’ argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous ‘spooky action at a distance’ found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
This following video reveals just how downright 'spooky' (to use Einstein's description) quantum entanglement is:
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182
And quantum information is shown to be ‘conserved’ here;
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Of related note; I really enjoyed Michael Egnor’s essay on how consciousness is not reducible to matter;
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html
more notes of interest:
Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner – Wikipedia “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings Can a Computer Think? – Michael Egnor Excerpt: The Turing test isn’t a test of a computer. Computers can’t take tests, because computers can’t think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer “passes” it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls. Breathtaking Performance Of Agnus Dei From Child Singer - Music Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=K7WZYPNX
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Well Elizabeth since you claim you are NOT ignoring reality, let's just conduct a little experiment and observe, once again, just a little bit about how reality is actually constructed, and how it relates to life, and how it falsifies the materialistic framework of neo-Darwinism, and see if you will ignore how reality is constructed, once again, just so as to preserve your blind faith in your atheistic form of neo-Darwinism; i.e. your chosen religion! First, as to ‘spatial relations’ of reality, I noticed that in this following video, on the optical effects for a observer approaching the speed of light, that the 3- Spatial Dimensions, we currently live in, ‘folded and collapsed’ into a tunnel shape, around the direction of travel, as the observer approached the constant of the speed of light.,,,
Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Here is the interactive website, put together by two Australian University Physics professors, which is directly related to the preceding video, which has a link to the relativistic math on it at the bottom of the page;
Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
Please note the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, at the 3:22 minute mark of the preceding video, which uncannily matches very many of the Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience testimonies of western cultures;
The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video http://www.vimeo.com/29021432 Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/
Also of related note to how the 3-Dimension world folds and collapses into a tunnel shape, as the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light is approached, is the ‘eternality of time’ revealed by the time dilation of special relativity.
“I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.
Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation
But since the material particles, of the person’s body who is having a Near Death Experience, are clearly ‘staying behind’ as the person is having the Near Death Experience, then, of course, the consciousness of the person must be based on something other than the material particles of the body. Something that must be transcendent of the material realm. (Also of interest to this, as the Cern Particle Accelerator readily testifies, it is not ‘natural’ for material particles to approach the speed of light and, indeed, takes a massive amount of energy for even sub-atomic particles to closely approach the speed of light.) This transcendent something, on which human consciousness must actually be based, instead of 'emerging' from the material particles, is found to be 'quantum information'. Transcendent Quantum Information is now shown, empirically, to be foundational to the human body here:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini & Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies: The essence of life? – STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign. http://www.tony5m17h.net/SHJTQprotein.pdf Myosin Coherence Excerpt: Quantum physics and molecular biology are two disciplines that have evolved relatively independently. However, recently a wealth of evidence has demonstrated the importance of quantum mechanics for biological systems and thus a new field of quantum biology is emerging. Living systems have mastered the making and breaking of chemical bonds, which are quantum mechanical phenomena. Absorbance of frequency specific radiation (e.g. photosynthesis and vision), conversion of chemical energy into mechanical motion (e.g. ATP cleavage) and single electron transfers through biological polymers (e.g. DNA or proteins) are all quantum mechanical effects. http://www.energetic-medicine.net/bioenergetic-articles/articles/63/1/Myosin-Coherence/Page1.html
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
To which I could observe: nope, Joseph and ba77 are ignoring reality. But it wouldn't get us very far, would it? I suggest both of you read a little more widely on the population genetics of sexually reproducing populations.Elizabeth Liddle
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
as to:
Well, Sermonti has ignored drift.
to which it can only be observed
Well, Elizabeth has ignored reality.
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Well, Sermonti has ignored drift.Elizabeth Liddle
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Sexual reproduction will only slow the rate, if not kill it.Joseph
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Semi OT; Casey Luskin's excellent follow up article debunking Australopithecus sediba's exalted status, in mainstream media, as a missing link;
Australopithecus sediba: The Hype-Cycle Starts Again - Casey Luskin - September 2011 Excerpt: So leading paleoanthropologists like Bernard Wood, Donald Johanson, Fred Spoor, Ian Tattersal, and Tim White aren't convinced that Au. sediba was a human ancestor, but the media believes it's perfectly acceptable to promote the opposite view to the public. A final problem with the claims being made about Au. sediba is related the paleoanthropologist who found the fossils himself. Science reports that he formerly had a career as a TV news producer and has a tendency to overstate his findings:,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/australopithecus_sediba_the_hy050831.html
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Yes, it does. Ya see with sexual reproduction even the most beneficial mutation may not even make it to the next generation as only 1/2 of each parent's genome makes it. And it doesn't have to be the 1/2 with the beneficial mutation. As geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti said:
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.
Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.
It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.
Joseph
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
I'm interested in how the slow change in some bacteria comports with ba77's views on genetic entropy. Does the designer arbitrarily prevent prevent change, or does he only do this for spore-forming bacteria?Petrushka
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Elizabeth you also state:
I suggest you find out a bit more about how alleles propagate through sexually reproducing populations before you generalise findings from bacterial studies to humans, or even to fruitflies,
Well Elizabeth since you seem to think you have population genetics all figured out, I suggest you apply for the job at Oxford University to straighten the problems of population genetics out;
Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html
as to
how alleles propagate through sexually reproducing populations
It seems even population geneticists themselves admit to the severe deficiency of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to account for such:
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
But alas Elizabeth, this is merely mathematical models, so let's look at the 'real' world, at the experiments on fruit flies (something you accused me of ignorance on), and see if we can find evidence for 'alleles propagating';
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
But hey Elizabeth, you say that sexual reproduction solves all this, whereas I, nor apparently population geneticists or experimental biologists, can find any evidence that it does anything of the sort. But just curious Elizabeth, can you please tell me, in purely neo-Darwinian terms, how sexual reproduction came to be in the first place???
The machinery for recombination is part of the chromosome structure Excerpt: "The more we learn about meiosis, the more mysterious it becomes", says Franz Klein from the Department for Chromosome Biology of the University of Vienna. "It is surprising that maternal and paternal chromosomes find each other at all. Because at the time of interaction all chromosomes have generated a sister and are tightly connected with her like a Siamese twin. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-machinery-recombination-chromosome.html
Shoot Elizabeth, can you please give me a clear neo-Darwiniam pathway as to how self-replication started in the first place???
Astonishing Molecular Machines – Drew Berry http://www.metacafe.com/w/6861283 Dividing Cells 'Feel' Their Way Out Of Warp "What we found is an exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system that keeps the cells shipshape so they can divide properly," - Douglas N. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910142402.htm
Shoot Elizabeth, can you give me a clear neo-Darwian pathway as to how ANY molecular machine whatsoever came to be???
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,, ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,, Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,, ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Molecular Biology Animations - Demo Reel http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/
Thus apparently Elizabeth, neo-Darwinists have ZERO evidence for the claims you are making. The sheer poverty of evidence for such sweeping claims as to how life came to be on Earth, should stop neo-darwinism dead in its tracks, but alas, as Dr. Hunter says, its not about the science, it's about Religion;
Religion drives science and it matters!
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
So I take it you are going to find out why sexual reproduction makes a difference to the rate of adaptation in terms of generations?Elizabeth Liddle
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Elizabeth you state:
certainly before you accuse the people who take issue with your conclusions of “blindness”.
You are right, it is a extremely bad insult to people who are actually blind to compare them to the dogmatic neo-Darwinists whose 'blindness' is, as far as I can tell, a matter of personal religious preference rather something beyond their control, thus my apologies to all actually blind people reading this! :) Of note:
Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/ Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/ The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffery Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627 coast to coast – Blind since birth – Vicki’s NDE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y
bornagain77
September 17, 2011
September
09
Sep
17
17
2011
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply