Home » Intelligent Design » Ethics and the Evolution of the Synapse

Ethics and the Evolution of the Synapse

Scientific mistakes are no sin, but it would be a mistake to think there is no ethical dimension to the theory of evolution. The ethical aspects of evolution are most obvious in its misrepresentation of science. Even evolutionists agree scientists are responsible for the accurate transmission of scientific knowledge to the public. And yet evolutionists consistently misrepresent science, claiming evolution is an undeniable fact. It would be irrational, they say, to think otherwise. What is striking is the degree of this misrepresentation. We’re not talking about a minor mistake or two that led to an error in the third decimal point. We’re not talking about a subtle blunder that could easily go undetected. Consider, for example, the evolution of the synapse.  Read more

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

10 Responses to Ethics and the Evolution of the Synapse

  1. Materialist have invoked the “argument from incredulity” so often in their war on design, I think they’ve become facinated with what they are willing to believe, or capable of imagining.

  2. Seeing that the complexity of one human Brain easily exceeds that of all the computers put together on earth, and seeing that evolution strains mightily to demonstrate the generation of ANY functional complexity above that which was already present, The conclusion for design is absurdly overwhelming!,,,

    Human Brain Has More Switches Than All Computers on Earth
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5516446/

    ,,, exactly why are evolutionists so enamored to deny the glory that belongs to God alone for such a obscene level of craftsmanship that is sitting within their very own brains???

    MercyMe- “You Reign” Music Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-bxXEqGFqg

  3. I’d be interested in knowing how much of the complexity of the human synapse is found in the synapses of other animals. Presuming, for the sake of the argument, that Darwinism is true, anything universal to a given taxon would need to have been present in that taxon’s putated common ancestor.

    This would then establish a latest possible date for the feature to have evolved, and perhaps an earliest possible time as well.

  4. Being a layman, I may have used taxon in the above statement when clade should have been a better term.

  5. Evilsnack you state:

    This would then establish a latest possible date for the feature to have evolved, and perhaps an earliest possible time as well.

    Evilsnack,,, exactly how much more time is required for what is known to be impossible to become possible? Will throwing a few million years around here or there really make any difference to what is known to be impossible from foundational principles of science?

    Don Patton – Entropy, Information, and The ‘Deteriorating’ Fossil Record – video
    http://www.vimeo.com/17050184

  6. Wet electricity.

    Whereas the electricity that powers our computers comes from the flow of electrons through a conductor and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to help convey differing messages to our command center.

    In this environment mere electrons are of little use because they would be easily dispersed. What is needed is something bigger. And as I eluded to in my opening an ion or ions will fit the bill. Well there just happen to be two atoms well suited for ionization- two atoms with 1 outer valence electron.

    If we take a look at the Periodic Table, and also a look at the electron shell arrangement (note the sodium diagram on the right and also thepotassium arrangement, we see these atoms are perfect fits for the job of positive ions (as both have only one outer valence electron).

    Now we have the ions but we need a way for them to get into and out of the cell-> Ion Channels

    Ion channels are proteins that line holes in the plasma membrane. They can open on demand to let ions in and out of the cell. They allow nerve impulses to travel, cause your heart to beat, and allow your muscles to contract. In many cells, channels and another kind of protein called a pump together maintain a relatively constant negative charge within your cells. This net negative charge, or membrane potential, affects the entry and exit of a variety of materials. page 15 of Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture

    10 million to 100 million per second!

    The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- Ibid page 19

    However even these, in comparison to electrons, huge ions also get lost in the wet environment. So what is needed are pumps along the way to pump ions in and also out. In the case of our nerve cells, ions go in to start the signal and are pumped out to reset that part of the system so it is ready for the next (or continuing) sensation. See nerve cell.

    (Some venoms and poisons effect these pumps (stop them from working) thereby shutting down the nervous system of the inflicted- ie paralysis sets in.)

    However our nerves to not touch each other as wires do in an electrical system to make a circuit. Neurons have functional connections called synapses. These can connect neuron to neuron or other types of cells (for example muscle). Between the synapse and the next cell is a gap- the synaptic cleft.

    This gap is too large for even ions to traverse. So to make the connection- to send the signal from one cell to the next, neurotransmitters is sent. These flow in one direction. And once the neurotransmitters reach their destination, that cell responds accordingly, and all the neurotransmitters are dismantled and shuttled back to the transmitting site to be refabbed and ready for the next signal. (some do linger a bit longer and then disperse)

    This is key because if the neurotransmitters stay docked the receiving cell would remain locked in that sensation. And if any unused neurotransmitters- the synaptic cleft is basically flooded to ensure signal transmission- remain they will just fill in the docking site when the first arrivals are gone. IOW the receiving cell will be locked in that past sensation.

    And there are different types of neurotransmitters for different sensations and purposes.

    How is this evidence for ID?

    The nervous system exhibits planning- it takes planning to get the right ions, ion channels, pumps and neurotransmitters.

  7. bornagain77,

    Who said that I was claiming this to be possible?

    The requested data puts upon proponents of Darwinism the burden, not of proving that a given feature of the synapse evolved sometime during the past billion years, but of proving that it evolved during a smaller frame of time.

    Or to phrase it from another angle: Let us say that there are X differences between the synapse of H. Sapiens and P. troglodytes, caused by Y differences between their respective genomes. If Darwinism is true, then these Y differences arose during the time since the last common ancestor of the two species. This means that the mutations must have happened and then become universal (or nearly so) in the now-diverged breeding populations, as a result of a survivable mutation rate.

    If the required mutation rate is not possible (perhaps it would bring about the certain extinction of the breeding population), then Darwinism is disproven.

    The point is to minimize the available wiggle-room for Darwinian hand-waving.

  8. Evilsnack, though I know you are looking for specifics of unique Brain structure and function, I can’t help you there, but I can give you a ballpark figure for unique ORFANS in humans:

    This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 ‘ORFan’ genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, and that very well may directly code for proteins, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science!

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

    The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true.

    This following site has a brief discussion on the biased methodology of the preceding study:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358505

    If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique ORFan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off because they were not found in in other supposedly related species, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that they may very well encode for biologically important proteins:

    A survey of orphan enzyme activities
    Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles.
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244

    Dr. Howard Ochman – Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona
    Excerpt of Proposal: Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358868

    In fact it turns out that the authors of the ‘kick the ORFans out in the street’ paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358547

    I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot even account for the origination of just one unique gene or protein, much less over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes:

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    “our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

    “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: – Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”
    http://www.mendeley.com/resear.....yme-folds/

    further note:

    Evolutionists were recently completely surprised by this genetic study of kangaroos:

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    I’m just left wondering exactly where evolutionists should place the kangaroos on their cartoon drawings that show man evolving from apes.

  9. OT: our own beloved Paul Nelson has a video up on the NWCreation website:

    Whatever Happened To Darwin’s Tree Of Life?
    http://www.nwcreation.net/

  10. Eugene Koonin has a new paper out:

    The common ancestry of life – Eugene V Koonin – Wolf
    Excerpt: A remarkable recent study claims to provide a formal, homology independent test of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis by comparing the ability of a common-ancestry model and a multiple-ancestry model to predict sequences of universally conserved proteins.
    Results

    We devised a computational experiment on a concatenated alignment of universally conserved proteins which shows that the purported demonstration of the universal common ancestry is a trivial consequence of significant sequence similarity between the analyzed proteins. The nature and origin of this similarity are irrelevant for the prediction of “common ancestry” of by the model-comparison approach. Thus, homology (common origin) of the compared proteins remains an inference from sequence similarity rather than an independent property demonstrated by the likelihood analysis.
    http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/64

Leave a Reply