Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francisco Ayala: “You’re a heretic and blasphemer, but don’t ask me what I am.”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Darwin's Gift to Science and ReligionFrancisco Ayala has taken an aggressive theological stance against intelligent design, even using words like “blasphemy” and “atrocity” to characterize it (go here). But if Ayala feels entitled to make such strong accusations against ID, one might wonder what Ayala’s own theological views are. I therefore emailed him and copied Michael Ruse:

Dear Prof. Ayala,

I’m writing to inquire whether in any of your writings you lay out your present religious faith (and, if so, where?). I’m copying my friend Michael Ruse because I find his criticisms of ID parallel your own, and yet he makes clear that he himself is an atheist. You, on the other hand, regularly cite your background in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest. Yet you left the priesthood and it’s not clear what aspects of the Christian faith you retain. Do you, for instance, believe in a personal God who created the world? Do you believe that humans experience continued conscious existence after they die? Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate? I would appreciate any clarifications you can provide. Thank you.

Blessings,
Bill Dembski

Ruse got back to me first and suggested that Ayala would not be forthcoming about his religious views, whereupon Ayala got back to me, agreeing with Ruse: “What Michael Ruse told you about my not asserting publicly my religious convictions is correct. I have stated that on numerous occasions, quoted in all sorts of publications from The New York Times and Scientific American to religious journals and periodicals.”

Interesting that Ayala is willing publicly to acknowledge his former theological views as a Roman Catholic priest (presumably he embraced RCC dogma). And yet his present theological views are off limits. Perhaps when Dover II rolls around, Ayala will be an expert witness and under deposition be required to state his theological views. In the mean time, Ayala’s reticence about his present religious faith (or lack thereof) is at best a convenient ploy.

Comments
@bornagain + everyone else: -"My first question to you is can you name even one species that has originated since man has appeared? Shoot can you name even one protein that has originated? as well, do you ever provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims besides bald face assertions? " I actually went on a biology forum recently and asked a similar question. Specifically I asked if we have any documented cases for macroevolution. The two main answers I got were chichlid fish and was given the link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18912-fat-lips-evolve-at-record-speed.html I was also referred to: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html for instances of speciation. I wanted to hear people's opinions in regards to how valid these examples are in providing support for macroevolution. In addition to the opinion for the above examples I also wanted to pose the following question: Is speciation alone evidence to support macroevolution? It seems to me that in the case of the chichlid fish the main differentiator is the inability to interbreed as explain by on poster. Is that alone evidence enough to extrapolate the notion of going from cow to whale for example?above
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Petrushka,
No on has seriously suggested that whales evolved from cows or that they could.
If not a cow, then something like a cow, a four-legged land-dwelling creature, has most certainly been seriously suggested, and not just suggested, but outright asserted.Clive Hayden
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Petruska, Believe what you want you will anyway. You have clearly been shown that you have no mechanism to generate functional algorithmic information by material processes, especially by kairosfocus, and you have not countered this evidence with any evidence at all, save for what you have imagined should be true. Yet just by you posting you have demonstrated, repeatedly, that intelligence can and does generate functional information. It is clear as day that this is as reality is constructed and yet you refuse to see the futility of your position. Thus since it is pointless to debate with someone who refuses to reason within the bounds of scientific inquiry, I will resign from trying any longer. http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjg1c253dDRkMw&hl=en Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651bornagain77
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
I suppose it's worth mention that evolution is not regarded as a process that exists "in order to" produce new species. Evolution is a term denoting the observed phenomenon, descent with modification. This occurs even if there is no easily observed change in the appearance of species. It occurs even if there is no visible branching.Petrushka
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
My first question to you is can you name even one species that has originated since man has appeared?
I haven't made any claims along those lines. You have made claims, and I asked you to support them. Out of all the species that have gone extinct in human history, can you name one that did so because of reduced fertility, rather than because of predation or loss of habitat? How about a species that is declining due to genetic entropy and loss of fertility? ID supporters seem to like engineering metaphors. Have you ever heard of negative feedback used to reduce distortion in amplifiers? It reduces amplification, but keeps the signal pure. Most species have far more offspring than survive to reproduce. Selection reduces the number of offspring, but also reduces the distortion of mutation. If it does not change, it guarantees compensating changes. Simple engineering.Petrushka
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Petruska you state: "Science has a long and productive history based on seeking regularity and consistency in phenomena. I see no reason to abandon the search for regularity. I do not wish to posit miracles beyond necessity." The fact is that there is a regularity, or order, imposed on creation which is a miracle in and of itself. And is what drove the Christian Theistic founders of modern science in that they were convinced that there was a rational "regularity of the universe" to be discovered that had been placed there by the "rational" mind of God. Whereas atheist, who are notoriously absent from the hall of fame for the founders of science, presuppose that at the basis of reality is merely chaos and chance with no mind to order it. Please tell me which group is more apt to make discoveries into the hidden order of things petruska? Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein “… if nature is really structured with a mathematical language and mathematics invented by man can manage to understand it, this demonstrates something extraordinary. The objective structure of the universe and the intellectual structure of the human being coincide.” – Pope Benedict XVIbornagain77
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
petruska you state: "I assume this means that despite numerous extinctions in historical times caused by human activities, you can’t name a species that went extinct due to infertility. Perhaps you could name a species whose population is declining due to infertility." PROS AND CONS OF INBREEDING Excerpt: Another animal suffering from the effects of inbreeding is the Giant Panda. As with the wolf, this has led to poor fertility among Pandas and high infant mortality rates. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm 90% of Cheetahs born die with in the first 3 months, 50% of which are destroyed by predators. The other 40% fall victim to lack of genetic diversity. This is the second reason for their inability to survive. This genetic peril is responsible for weak and underdeveloped immune systems. Disease and illness attack a weak immune system, which in turn causes death. Most cubs do not even make it past 1 month old when this is the case. http://www.bigcatrescue.org/cats/wild/cheetah.htm My first question to you is can you name even one species that has originated since man has appeared? Shoot can you name even one protein that has originated? as well, do you ever provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims besides bald face assertions? You never address the evidence presented. The fact of the matter is that you have no scientific foundation in which to make any claims whatsoever for Darwinism yet you act as if all is well in Darwinland and continue to make outlandish claims. Darwinism’s Last Stand? - Jonathan Wells Excerpt: Despite the hype from Darwin’s followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best. Natural selection - like artificial selection - can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_darwinisms_last_stand.html#more "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html The problem for you petruska is you have no source for novel functional algorithmic information: Mutation Studies, Videos, And Quotes http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjZjZnM5M21mZg The foundational rule of Genetic Entropy for biology, which can draw its foundation in science from the twin pillars of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and from the Law of Conservation of Information (Dembski, Marks), can be stated something like this: "All beneficial adaptations away from a parent species for a sub-species, which increase fitness to a particular environment, will always come at a loss of the optimal functional information that was originally created in the parent species genome." You got a huge problem petruska, natural selection reduces genetic information and you have no source to replace it! you also state this petruska: I take your question regarding materialism to be a subtle form of name calling. If I disagreed with Isaac Newton in arguing that the planets do not require constant supernatural corrections to remain in stable orbits, would that make me a philosophical materialist? Since you disagree with Newton, arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived, Do you care to provide a materialistic solution for Gravity? The Mathematical Anomaly Of Dark Matter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133609 Dark matter halo Excerpt: The dark matter halo is the single largest part of the Milky Way Galaxy as it covers the space between 100,000 light-years to 300,000 light-years from the galactic center. It is also the most mysterious part of the Galaxy. It is now believed that about 95% of the Galaxy is composed of dark matter, a type of matter that does not seem to interact with the rest of the Galaxy's matter and energy in any way except through gravity. The dark matter halo is the location of nearly all of the Milky Way Galaxy's dark matter, which is more than ten times as much mass as all of the visible stars, gas, and dust in the rest of the Galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133618 The Elusive "non-Material" Foundation For Gravity: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_38d7zmrn9vbornagain77
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Petruska for you to say that bacteria are limited in their ability to evolve because of a prolonged arms race (survival of the fittest) is a pathetic excuse not a scientific reason and in fact according to you reasoning, increased selection pressure should drive bacteria to greater heights of complexity. Thus again I ask, why do you act like you are being reasonable when you clearly are not?
Everything we know about evolution indicates that radiation and diversification is most common after a mass extinction. Dinosaurs and many reptilians after the Permian extinction; birds and Mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Could be predation, could be competition for food. At any rate, specialized organisms are better competitors. That's pretty much what we mean by specialized.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Actually petruska Genetic entropy is the primary candidate to explain the mysterious “background extinction rate”;
I assume this means that despite numerous extinctions in historical times caused by human activities, you can't name a species that went extinct due to infertility. Perhaps you could name a species whose population is declining due to infertility. I'm aware that some species have gone extinct after their populations were severely reduced. That can happen due to lots of different causes. I'm interested in cases where extinction happened in a stable ecosystem, due to genetic entropy. I take your question regarding materialism to be a subtle form of name calling. If I disagreed with Isaac Newton in arguing that the planets do not require constant supernatural corrections to remain in stable orbits, would that make me a philosophical materialist? Science has a long and productive history based on seeking regularity and consistency in phenomena. I see no reason to abandon the search for regularity. I do not wish to posit miracles beyond necessity.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Petrushka: I have trouble understind why that would be considered funny. Belrinski is funny. Intelligent amd funny. If we don't agree on that, there is no hope! Only an ecosystem full of predators that have been engaging in an arms race for hundreds of millions of years. Do I understand you well? Predators are preventing bacteria from evolving into metazoa? Could you elaborate on that, please? Are they eaten each time evolution makes a step in that sense?gpuccio
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Petruska, please provide evidence that your philosophical basis (materialism) is true.bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Petruska asks: Hundreds of notable species have gone extinct in historical times. Can you name one that went extinct due to infertility? Actually petruska Genetic entropy is the primary candidate to explain the mysterious "background extinction rate"; The Current Mass Extinction Excerpt:The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone. The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html And Yes the species have a overall stable fossil record for as long as they persist in the fossil record before they go extinct: Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don't Want You To See - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzFPhRzhMGs THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient "living" fossils that have not changed in millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 as well petruska accelerated mutation rates were used here to push viruses "over the brink": GM Crops May Face Genetic Meltdown Excerpt: Error catastrophe occurs when high mutation rates give rise to so many deleterious mutations that they make the population go extinct. For example, foot and mouth disease virus treated with mutagens (base analogues fluorouracil and azacytidine) eventually become extinct [1]. Polio virus treated with the mutagenic drug ribavirin similarly went extinct [2]. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php Petruska for you to say that bacteria are limited in their ability to evolve because of a prolonged arms race (survival of the fittest) is a pathetic excuse not a scientific reason and in fact according to you reasoning, increased selection pressure should drive bacteria to greater heights of complexity. Thus again I ask, why do you act like you are being reasonable when you clearly are not?bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Have bacteria, or any other microorganisms, hit a brick wall that prevents them from becoming metazoans?
Only an ecosystem full of predators that have been engaging in an arms race for hundreds of millions of years.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Actually mutilations are easy to come by just ask the 3% of human babies born with birth defects caused by the onslaught of Genetic Entropy:
Or the 10 to 50 percent of fetuses that miscarry (depending on the age of the mother). Or the hundreds of millions of sperm that are visibly malformed, and the vast majority of apparently healthy sperm that never fertilize an egg. Despite all this wastage, the population grows. Hundreds of notable species have gone extinct in historical times. Can you name one that went extinct due to infertility?Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Petruska you state: "but this time around it doesn’t support the claim that the organisms are unchanged." (I never said completely unchanged, I said the bacteria change in accordance with Genetic Entropy, which means a loss of molecular complexity) Actually Petruska if you want to get into details it does support unchanged in the context of Genetic Entropy for it proves their methodology is correct and renders the contamination objection moot. The fact is that the ancient bacteria they tested are no longer found in modern environments. Haloarchaeal diversity in 23, 121 and 419 MYA salts Older crystals contained unclassified groups and Halobacterium.,, The DNA demonstrates that unknown haloarchaea and the Halobacterium were key components in ancient hypersaline environments.,,, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122659280/abstract Thus you have loss of a lineage(s) of bacteria that dated to 419 mya as well as corroborating confirmation that the 250 mya and 45 mya and 30 mya test are correct. Either way you want to take it Petruska you lose!bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Petruska you state: "It’s been tens of millions of years since the last mass extinction. I’d expect dramatically beneficial mutilations to be hard to come by." Actually mutilations are easy to come by just ask the 3% of human babies born with birth defects caused by the onslaught of Genetic Entropy: Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 "Most babies are born healthy. In fact, 96 to 97 out of every 100 babies born are born healthy. About three or four out of every 100 babies born, however, have some type of birth defect." http://genetics.emory.edu/docs/Emory_Human_Genetics_General_Population_Risk_for_Birth_Defects.PDF the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Humans." I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.biobase-international.com/pages/index.php?id=hgmddatabase I really question their use of the word "celebrating". (Of Note: The number for Mendelian Genetic Disorders is quoted to be over 6000 by geneticist John Sanford in 2010) "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. (this 3500 figure is cited from the late 1980's) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp Human Evolution or Human Genetic Entropy? - Dr. John Sanford - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4585582 This following study confirmed the "detrimental" mutation rate for humans per generation, of 100 to 300, estimated by John Sanford in his book "Genetic Entropy" in 2005: Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009 Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations") http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html This mutation rate of 100 to 200 is far greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism: Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm What is funny Petruska is if you actually meant mutations instead of mutilations, then you are proposing that nothing we can find is demonstrating evolution right now because evolution has "topped out". which is simply ludicrous to say!!! Have bacteria, or any other microorganisms, hit a brick wall that prevents them from becoming metazoans? Of course not!!! For you to suggest that they have just because you can present ZERO evidence for evolution is an shallow excuse not a solid reason. My question is "Why do you do this?" I surely don't think You are that dumb as to actually believe the lies you spout, so why the grand facade? Of What possible payoff is it for you to fight against the God who created you?bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around.
Interesting development, but this time around it doesn't support the claim that the organisms are unchanged. But it's interesting.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Belinski explains in that funny video, obtaining a whale from a cow could not be that simple.
I have trouble understind why that would be considered funny. No on has seriously suggested that whales evolved from cows or that they could. It's likely that even if you started with an ancestor of whales you would not see it evolve into a whale. Too many contingencies. But stepwise modification of things like bone length is common. Many morphological features are like that.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
I agree that DNA can affect morphology,, but all affects are found to be negative and none are found to be truly novel nor beneficial
It's been tens of millions of years since the last mass extinction. I'd expect dramatically beneficial mutilations to be hard to come by. If you artificially jigger the selection criteria, you can get changes. Their benefit, however, is determined by those making the selection.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Petrushka: Far from agreeing with you, I can't even understand you any more! I didn’t see that in the article. We have zero information protein evolution in the first three billion years. Maybe I am tired, but can't see what you mean here. And due to horizontal gene transfer, we are unlikely to be able to reconstruct it in any detail. So, due to HGT, all evolutionary biology is useless. That's sad news for neo-darwinists... At an rate, my point was that the invention (or creation, if you insist) of proteins and metabolic machinery is far more difficult and fundamental than gradual modifications of body plans, once metazoans exist. Why creation? Invention is fine for me, and I have never insisted otherwise. Design is a fine word too, if you don't insist... I don't agree that the invention (or design) of proteins and metabolic machines is "far more difficult and fundamental than" anything which comes later. Fundamental it is, because it is the first level of design, and the following levels have to be based on that first level. So, it's literally a "foundation". But regarding the difficulty, I would not say that. We certainly know the difficulty of designing proteins (so much so, that we are still unable to do that). But as for designing body plans, not only we have no idea of how to do that, we also have no idea of how it is controlled or realized in what we observe in nature. Nothwithstanding all the evo-devo stuff, we really don't know what generates, implements and controls body plans. And why do you speak of "gradual modifications of body plans, once metazoans exist". First of all, as Belinski explains in that funny video, obtaining a whale from a cow could not be that simple. But my point is: don't you want to consider how metazoan came to exist? After all, the cambrian explosion is not OOL. Darwin did not refuse to take that into consideration. Do you think that the ediacara and cambrian explosion are good examples of "gradual modifications of body plans"? In the end, while it is perfectly possible that I agree with you on something, please be more specific on that kind of statements, so that I can in case confirm or dissent.gpuccio
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
you know that whole horizontal gene transfer (HGT) thing Petruska? Could you please point to the literature demonstrating how the Bacteriophage, which is a major mechanism for what you are suggesting for massive HGT across kingdoms, originated? The Bacteriophage Virus - Assembly Of A Molecular (Lunar landing) Machine - Intelligent Design http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023122 The Bacteriophage Virus - A Molecular Lunar Landing Machine http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4205494bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Perhaps you have not read carefully the data I quoted. The statement in the paper was that hals of the domain information was present in LUCA, at the first node in evolution. Your 3 billion years came after that time, and nrought about a lower number of new domains.
I didn't see that in the article. We have zero information protein evolution in the first three billion years. And due to horizontal gene transfer, we are unlikely to be able to reconstruct it in any detail. At an rate, my point was that the invention (or creation, if you insist) of proteins and metabolic machinery is far more difficult and fundamental than gradual modifications of body plans, once metazoans exist. You seem to be agreeing with me.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
petruska incredulously states: "As for DNA not affecting not affecting morphology, that’s just silly." I agree that DNA can affect morphology,, but all affects are found to be negative and none are found to be truly novel nor beneficial,,, the most popular example given by evolutionists, of a "beneficial" morphological change is the 4 winged fruit fly,,, yet when we look closer,,,, …Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection.” – Jonathan Wells Care to cite another example Petruska?bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
petruska appeals to contamination,,, yet the evidence says: World's Oldest Known DNA Discovered Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. Their work appears in the December issue of the journal Geobiology. "We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had," Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. "These six pieces were unique,,, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-dna-bacteria-discovered.html Thanks again gpuccio.bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Petrushka: There would be three billion years or so between OOL and the rise of metazoans. Is there some doubt about this? Perhaps you have not read carefully the data I quoted. The statement in the paper was that hals of the domain information was present in LUCA, at the first node in evolution. Your 3 billion years came after that time, and nrought about a lower number of new domains. So, as LUCA is believed to have lived 3.5 - 3.8 billion years ago (according to wikipedia), and the age of the earth is estimated at 4.54 billion years (always according to wikipedia), and as there is general consensus that the first few hundred million years of the planet were not compatible with the start of life, that leave only a window pf about 100 - 300 My to generate the protein information of LUCA. After that, in the following 3 billion years, it seems that bacteria, for instance, "discovered" only 467 new protein domains. Don't you think there is something to be explained here?gpuccio
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
bornagain77 #187: I have partially answered in #186. Moreover, those numbers of minimal protein repertoire (382, 482 etc) are referring to a reductionist calculation. Many of the simpler organisms are saprophytic, and would not represent well what LUCA was. Even so, considering a minimal number of 500 proteins in a very simple organism, and considering the mean of 2.33 domains per protein in the most ancient protein repertoire, we have anyway an higher theshold estimate of about 1200 domains, which is not so far from the estimate given by the other method. Obviously, LUCA was probably more complex than the simplest bacteria we observe now, because many bacterial species may have lost genetic information, instead of acquiring it. So, again I believe that data show that the original protein repertoire in the first living being was rich and complex.gpuccio
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
I think I already pointed out that claims of DNA surviving more than a million years are regarded as due to contamination. As for DNA not affecting not affecting morphology, that's just silly.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Petruska you ask: "do you have some additional facts and evidence?" Let's see, extensive mutation studies to the DNA of micro-organisms and fruit flies that show ZERO ability to effect morphogenesis, and in the field studies of Malaria and HIV that also show ZERO ability to generate even trivial algorithmic functional complexity in population sizes that easily exceed all the populations of all mammals that have ever lived on earth, is as the evidence currently sits on this post. and You have presented zero evidence that neo-Darwinian evolution can produce even one protein, but instead of noticing this glaring defect in your evidential basis you want "more evidence" from me as if you have presented anything worth considering. Well OK petruska let's pretend that you have a rational basis to work from and let's go back as far in time and see what we can: Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth's Oldest Fossils - May 2010 Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats' metabolic period -- and is also seen in ancient rocks -- shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517152520.htm AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Bacteria: Fossil Record - Ancient Compared to Modern - Picture http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 and this: Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution's "genetic drift" theory requires.) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/5213/1060 30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD61439F93AA25756C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the "Fitness Test" I had asked him about: Dr. Cano stated: "We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative "ancient" B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.": Fitness test which compared the 30 million year old ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria. Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "Fitness Test" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there "HAS" to be “significant genetic/mutational drift” to the DNA of bacteria within 250 million years, even though the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. I find it interesting that the materialistic theory of evolution expects there to be a significant amount of mutational drift from the DNA of ancient bacteria to its modern descendants, while the morphology can be allowed to remain exactly the same with its descendants. Alas for the materialist once again, the hard evidence of ancient DNA has fell in line with the anthropic hypothesis. Petruska, we can also find that the ancient bacteria were not sitting around doing nothing for 3 billion years before the rise of metazoans, They were "terra-forming" the earth from a toxic wasteland into a place fit for habitation by higher lifeforms.bornagain77
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
The only doubt Petruska is in neo-Darwinians to account for the origination of even one protein domain.
I can't do that, but it appears the argument has moved from the discussion of whether mammals are related by descent, back to origin of life issues. My original argument, the one that seems to have started down this path, was that compared to these early metabolic inventions, metazoans have been relatively uncreative. I believe my phrase was that microbes have done most of the evolutionary heavy lifting. Consistent with their numbers, their rate of reproduction, and their additional billions of years. As for the first replicator, I have no information. I would guess, however, that we will continue to synthesize and study very simple replicators.Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Petruska, neither you nor anyone else has a firm clue where the information for body plan morphogenesis resides. For you to pretend it resides in genes and leave it at that as if you have established your point and ignore the evidence I presented shows that you do not really want to know what the truth is.
Aside from what is coming out of ongoing evo-devo research, do you have some additional facts and evidence? (sorry about my formatting. I have mistyped the blockquote tag on a couple of posts.)Petrushka
June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 11

Leave a Reply