Junk DNA: The Real Story

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 25, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

By now you have probably heard about so-called junk DNA. In recent decades the genomes of a growing number of species have been mapped out. Not surprisingly, scientists did not understand how many of these DNA sequences worked. For instance, repetitive sequences are common, but what do they do? As these data accumulated evolutionists increasingly viewed such sequences as useless junk. Then, years later, various functions began to emerge as our knowledge grew. This junk DNA story is the latest version of what seems like a repeating bad dream that goes like this. Scientists discover something new in biology but don’t understand it. Evolutionists, unaware that they are staring at a design whose complexity dwarfs their puny understanding, decide it is a useless evolutionary leftover. Such a useless design is pressed into service as an evolution apologetic. Later, when the function is eventually uncovered, evolutionists automatically claim the design as an evolutionary achievement. The structure goes from junk to treasure without a second thought. Read more

Comments

Muramasa, I found the reference: Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1 A few more interesting probability numbers from the site for you math hounds: In the book I wrote with Fuz Rana, Origins of Life, we describe a calculation performed by biophysicist Harold Morowitz in which he showed that if one were to break all the chemical bonds in an E. coli bacterium, the probability that it would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (in which no foreign elements or chemicals would invade and in which none of the necessary elements or chemicals would leave) would be no greater than 10-100,000,000,000. In another book I wrote with Fuz, Who Was Adam?, we describe calculations done by evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala and by astrophysicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler for the probability that a bacterium would evolve under ideal natural conditions—given the presumption that the mechanisms for natural biological evolution are both effective and rapid. They determine that probability to be no more than 10-24,000,000. The bottom line is that rather than the probability for extraterrestrial intelligent life being 1 as Aczel claims, very conservatively from a naturalistic perspective it is much less than 10500 + 22 -1054 -100,000,000,000 -24,000,000. That is, it is less than 10-100,024,000,532. In longhand notation it would be 0.00 … 001 with 100,024,000,531 zeros between the decimal point and the 1. That longhand notation of the probability would fill over 20,000 complete Bibles. In other words, the probability is as close to zero as any scientifically determined probability has ever been.bornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Muramas, I just remebered that this "terraforming" of the earth to make it fit for humans is an area that Dr. Hugh Ross has done fairly extensive work. Probability For Life On Earth - List of Parameters, References, and Math - Hugh Ross http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004 http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC2W0304RFT.pdf In this latest video of Dr. Ross he references far more parameters, necessary for human life, than what is listed in the references I cited, I believe he and his team have the probability up over 1 in 10^1000 now: Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 I will dig around a little and see if I can find a updated list.bornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Hmm, now I feel ignored by bornagain77. Is that how you treat all your assertions. Once they get actually challenged, you go and simply ignore the challenges-- so presumably you can continue making the very same assertions? Well, that is one I will have to add to the standard playbook. The result, is however the same. Assert something without support. Get called out. Either waffle or ignore, but never admit that the original assertion was just that (without factual support). It is the perfect way how you can maintain your worldview so that it jibes with what you believe and to prevent that pesky facts get in the way.hrun0815_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Muramasa, well, surprisingly, there actually is evidence for terraforming in the some of the oldest sedimentary rocks on earth: The following video is good for seeing just how far back the red banded iron formations really go (3.8 billion years ago). But be warned, Dr. Newman operates from a materialistic worldview and makes many unwarranted allusions of the "magical" power of evolution to produce photosynthetic bacteria. Although to be fair, she does readily acknowledge the staggering level of complexity being dealt with in photosynthesis, as well as admitting that no one really knows how photosynthesis "evolved". Exploring the deep connection between bacteria and rocks - Dianne Newman - MIT lecture video http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/496 These following articles explore some of the other complex geochemical processes that are also involved in the forming of the red banded iron, and other precious ore, formations. Banded Rocks Reveal Early Earth Conditions, Changes Excerpt: Called banded iron formations or BIFs, these ancient rocks formed between 3.8 and 1.7 billion years ago at what was then the bottom of the ocean. The stripes represent alternating layers of silica-rich chert and iron-rich minerals like hematite and magnetite. First mined as a major iron source for modern industrialization, BIFs are also a rich source of information about the geochemical conditions that existed on Earth when the rocks were made. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091011184428.htm Rich Ore Deposits Linked to Ancient Atmosphere - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: Much of our planet's mineral wealth was deposited billions of years ago when Earth's chemical cycles were different from today's. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091119193640.htm as well there is somewhat of a connecting line with oxygen that we can make to terraforming: New Wrinkle In Ancient Ocean Chemistry - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: "Our data point to oxygen-producing photosynthesis long before concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere were even a tiny fraction of what they are today, suggesting that oxygen-consuming chemical reactions were offsetting much of the production," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029141217.htm The Life and Death of Oxygen - 2008 Excerpt: “The balance between burial of organic matter and its oxidation appears to have been tightly controlled over the past 500 million years.” “The presence of O2 in the atmosphere requires an imbalance between oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic respiration on time scales of millions of years hence, to generate an oxidized atmosphere, more organic matter must be buried (by tectonic activity) than respired.” - Paul Falkowski http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200810.htm#20081024a The Story of O2 - Falkowski - 2008 How did biological, geochemical, and geophysical processes produce an atmosphere that allowed complex animal life; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/322/5901/540 The geologic record shows a 10% oxygen level at the time of the Cambrian explosion of higher life-forms in the fossil record some 540 million years ago. The geologic record also shows a strange and very quick rise from the 17% oxygen level, of 50 million years ago, to a 23% oxygen level 40 million years ago (Falkowski 2005, 2008). This strange rise in oxygen levels corresponds exactly to the abrupt appearance of large mammals in the fossil record who depend on those high oxygen levels. Interestingly, for the last 10 million years the oxygen percentage has been holding steady around 21%. 21% happens to be a "very comfortable" percentage for humans to exist. If the oxygen level was only a few percentage lower, large mammals would become severely hampered in their ability to metabolize energy; if only a few percentage higher, there would be uncontrollable outbreaks of fire across the land (Denton; Nature's Destiny). I believe this area is a rich area of "ID" research that has just barely been started to be explored.bornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 75: "To put it mildly, this minimization of poisonous elements, and “explosion” of useful minerals, is strong evidence for Intelligently Designed terra-forming of the earth that “just so happens” to be of great benefit to modern man." It sounds like you are suggesting that the Intelligent Designer used bacteria to "terraform" the earth in preparation for/the benefit of human life. Would you care to speculate on how long this process took?Muramasa_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, I trust that you are working on applying the definition of functional information by Szostak to the Nylonase example. Alternatively, I trust that you are crafting a post apologizing and finally retraction your baseless assertions. Once this assertion is FINALLY dealt with, we could move on to your next, if you like. I simply would like to make this as obvious as possible to anybody following this thread.hrun0815_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Re #80: You quoted Szostak as saying that "we define ‘functional information,’ I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex." How in the world do you believe that you actually applied the Szostak definition to Nylonase? What is I(Ex) of the Nylonase system? What if F(Ex) of the Nylonase system? It is clear to everybody (except for maybe you) that you have not applied the definition you provided. It is simply another attempt to weasel out of the challenge. Just admit that you are unable to apply the Szostak definition to the system of Nylonase. You indeed look like you pretended to address the challenge. But you failed. You have in fact NOT utilized the definition given by Szostak. Instead, you simply made yet another definition up out of thin air and that way attempted to weasel out of the challenge. Here, I make it real simple for you: According to Szostak the definition of 'functional information' for an experimental system is 'I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex' Apply this definition you claim is the one you use to the Nylonase system. In other words: What is F(Nylonase) and what is I(Nylonase)?hrun0815_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

hrun you state; Prove to me and everybody around by applying Szostak’s definition to the Nylonase example that in this particular case no new information was added. simple, when the nylon is removed from the environment the parent strain will be more fit, thus more functional, than the Nylon strain. Thus you have not demonstrate a gain of functional complexity that was not already present, (i.e. the bacteria are engineered to automatically detoxify the environment of toxins hrun) I resent you claiming I have not been clear in this matter and regard your method of twisting the facts to suit your own purpose to be absurd. My patience is gone with you so go ahead and thump your chest that you have "demonstrated evolution" in the next few threads but I will not waste my time with such insanity with you any more.bornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Yes, again, now you are talking about FUNCTIONAL information. And you did not define information in the first place. You simply quoted a paper that had a definition of information. It is not at all apparent, that that was specifically what you were talking about. By the way, you also said that in this case you were using 'genetic entropy' as a measure to see if information was generated. We can now safely throw that statement out on the trash heap? In either case, can you convincingly show that application of Szostak's definition of functional information to the Nylonase example leads to no functional information being generated. NO! Of course you can't! If you could you would have already done so AND it is clear that the definition by Szostak actually vehemently disagrees with your assertion. But, as always, this type of tactic employed by you is par for the course. Here is my challenge: You claim that in the case of Nylonase no functional information was added. In addition, you base your claim on Szostak's usage of the term. Prove to me and everybody around by applying Szostak's definition to the Nylonase example that in this particular case no new information was added. My first prediction is: You would fail if you were to attempt to address the challenge. My second prediction is: You will not even attempt to take up the challenge. My third prediction is: You will attempt to weasel out of taking up the challenge (probably by yet again by moving the goal posts, attempting to redefine the terms used in your previous posts and finally by quoting a whole lot of stuff that only has tangential meaning to this post).hrun0815_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

hrun, you accused me of providing no definition of information again even though I provided it? If you don't like the rigorous definition of information I supplied I suggest you take it up with Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak who co-authored the paper: Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236
Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: "Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define ‘functional information,’ I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions."
further note: Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html It should be noted that evolutionists like to play head games with Claude Shannon's broad definition of information since "non-functional" information bits may be considered information in his broad definition, yet when looked at carefully, Shannon's work actually fully supports Intelligent Design as is illustrated in the following video and article: DNA and The Genetic Code Pt 3 - Perry Marshall - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtMQUFOwEFo Skeptic's Objection to Information Theory #1: "DNA is Not a Code" http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htmbornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Shifting the goalpost??? now that is funny that you would accuse me of that when in fact, Isn't the number "goal" of evolution to conclusively and scientifically demonstrate a gain in functional complexity? And you do indeed claim to have evolved complexity with nylonase (as in you mean the gaining of greater complexity than the complexity that was present before) yet when I clearly lay out the evidence (fitness test and definition of functional information threshold) of why your example falls short of such a conclusive demonstration of "evolution", you tell me I am the one shifting goalpost! hrun I NEVER ONCE claimed that variation within a kind was impossible! In fact I expect there to be limited variations within "kinds", I only claimed that all such variations within a "kind" will be found to fall under the principle of Genetic Entropy, and will thus be found to stay within the firmly established overriding principles of science found in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Sewelle) and Conservation Of Information (COI) as elucidated by Dembski and Marks i.e. hrun please tell me exactly why the nylonase failing the fitness test should be considered anything other that a very interesting variation within a "kind" that stays well within those known overriding principles of science. Evolution's great claims of mud turning into men demands rigorous proof. Why do you not demand such proof yourself?bornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

one, I asked for a demonstration of generation of functional information, you did not provide one.
Again, this is the perfect example of how people like you argue. What you actually said was: "falsification boils down to no demonstration of any information generation from material processes whatsoever". Nowhere do you talk about 'functional' information. Yet again you shifted the goalposts to weasel out. In addition, clearly the enzyme of Nylonase is functional. Since neither the enzyme nor the DNA to encode the enzyme was there before, the mutation producing both is a mutation that increases functional information. Yet again, you will attempt to weasel out of that as well (while yet again failing to provide any usable definition of information).hrun0815_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

further notes hrun: Man has only recently caught on to harnessing the ancient detoxification ability of bacteria to cleanup his accidental toxic spills, as well as his toxic waste, from industry: What is Bioremediation? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSpjRPWYJPg Clearly many, if not all, of these metal ores and minerals laid down by these sulfate-reducing bacteria, as well as laid down by the biogeochemistry of more complex life, as well as laid down by finely-tuned geological conditions throughout the early history of the earth, have many unique properties which are crucial for technologically advanced life, and are thus indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to the advanced "space-age" technology of modern civilization. Metallurgy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy Inventions: Elements and Compounds - video http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/20809-invention-elements-and-compounds-video.htm Bombardment Makes Civilization Possible What is the common thread among the following items: pacemakers, spark plugs, fountain pens and compass bearings? Give up? All of them currently use (or used in early versions) the two densest elements, osmium and iridium. These two elements play important roles in technological advancements. However, if certain special events hadn't occurred early in Earth's history, no osmium or iridium would exist near the planet's surface. http://www.reasons.org/BombardmentMakesCivilizationPossible further note: Engineering and Science Magazine - Caltech - March 2010 Excerpt: “Without these microbes, the planet would run out of biologically available nitrogen in less than a month,” Realizations like this are stimulating a flourishing field of “geobiology” – the study of relationships between life and the earth. One member of the Caltech team commented, “If all bacteria and archaea just stopped functioning, life on Earth would come to an abrupt halt.” Microbes are key players in earth’s nutrient cycles. Dr. Orphan added, “...every fifth breath you take, thank a microbe.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm#20100316abornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

one, I asked for a demonstration of generation of functional information, you did not provide one. two I never agreed that nylonase generated is a demonstration of the generation of functional information over and above what was already present. three I gave you Szostak's paper on the definition of functional information. four you cannot extrapolate that the bacteria "invented" the ability to digest nylon without demonstrating a gain of functional information by passing the fitness test over the parent strain. I couldn't agree with your concluding comment more. In further note it should be clearly pointed out that bacteria have been "detoxifying" the earth of toxic materials for billions of years. This terra-forming ability of bacteria is a very ID friendly fact and is very antagonistic to your atheism. further notes: Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, and minerals, which would all be of benefit to modern man, "sulfate-reducing" bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man, as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. These following studies show this "latent" ability of SRB's to detoxify the earth of poisonous levels of heavy metals: Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems: Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u1t281704577v8t3/ http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/26/m026p203.pdf The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation: Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals. http://www.goldschmidt2009.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/A1161.pdf Transitional Metals And Cytochrome C oxidase - Michael Denton - Nature's Destiny http://books.google.com/books?id=CdYpDRY0Z6oC&pg=PA203&lpg As well, geological processes helped detoxify the earth of dangerous levels of metal: The Concentration of Metals for Humanity's Benefit: Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth's crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth's crust strongly suggests supernatural design. http://www.reasons.org/TheConcentrationofMetalsforHumanitysBenefit And on top of the fact that poisonous heavy metals on the primordial earth were brought into "life-enabling" balance by complex biogeochemical processes, there was also an explosion of minerals on earth which were a result of that first life, as well as being a result of each subsequent "Big Bang" of life there afterwards. The Creation of Minerals: Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization. http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals To put it mildly, this minimization of poisonous elements, and "explosion" of useful minerals, is strong evidence for Intelligently Designed terra-forming of the earth that "just so happens" to be of great benefit to modern man.bornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

one, I asked for a demonstration of generation of functional information, you did not provide one. two I never agreed that nylonase generated is a demonstration of the generation of functional information over and above what was already present. three I gave you Szostak's paper on the definition of functional information. four you cannot extrapolate that the bacteria "invented" the ability to digest nylon without demonstrating a gain of functional information by passing the fitness test over the parent strain. I couldn't agree with your concluding comment more. In further note it should be clearly pointed out that bacteria have been "detoxifying" the earth of toxic materials for billions of years. This terra-forming ability of bacteria is a very ID friendly fact and is very antagonistic to your atheism. further notes: Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, and minerals, which would all be of benefit to modern man, "sulfate-reducing" bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man, as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. These following studies show this "latent" ability of SRB's to detoxify the earth of poisonous levels of heavy metals: Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems: Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u1t281704577v8t3/ http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/26/m026p203.pdf The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation: Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals. http://www.goldschmidt2009.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/A1161.pdf Transitional Metals And Cytochrome C oxidase - Michael Denton - Nature's Destiny http://books.google.com/books?id=CdYpDRY0Z6oC&pg=PA203&lpg As well, geological processes helped detoxify the earth of dangerous levels of metal: The Concentration of Metals for Humanity's Benefit: Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth's crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth's crust strongly suggests supernatural design. http://www.reasons.org/TheConcentrationofMetalsforHumanitysBenefit And on top of the fact that poisonous heavy metals on the primordial earth were brought into "life-enabling" balance by complex biogeochemical processes, there was also an explosion of minerals on earth which were a result of that first life, as well as being a result of each subsequent "Big Bang" of life there afterwards. The Creation of Minerals: Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization. http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals To put it mildly, this minimization of poisonous elements, and "explosion" of useful minerals, is strong evidence for Intelligently Designed terra-forming of the earth that "just so happens" to be of great benefit to modern man. Man has only recently caught on to harnessing the ancient detoxification ability of bacteria to cleanup his accidental toxic spills, as well as his toxic waste, from industry: What is Bioremediation? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSpjRPWYJPg Clearly many, if not all, of these metal ores and minerals laid down by these sulfate-reducing bacteria, as well as laid down by the biogeochemistry of more complex life, as well as laid down by finely-tuned geological conditions throughout the early history of the earth, have many unique properties which are crucial for technologically advanced life, and are thus indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to the advanced "space-age" technology of modern civilization. Metallurgy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy Inventions: Elements and Compounds - video http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/20809-invention-elements-and-compounds-video.htm Bombardment Makes Civilization Possible What is the common thread among the following items: pacemakers, spark plugs, fountain pens and compass bearings? Give up? All of them currently use (or used in early versions) the two densest elements, osmium and iridium. These two elements play important roles in technological advancements. However, if certain special events hadn't occurred early in Earth's history, no osmium or iridium would exist near the planet's surface. http://www.reasons.org/BombardmentMakesCivilizationPossible further note: Engineering and Science Magazine - Caltech - March 2010 Excerpt: “Without these microbes, the planet would run out of biologically available nitrogen in less than a month,” Realizations like this are stimulating a flourishing field of “geobiology” – the study of relationships between life and the earth. One member of the Caltech team commented, “If all bacteria and archaea just stopped functioning, life on Earth would come to an abrupt halt.” Microbes are key players in earth’s nutrient cycles. Dr. Orphan added, “...every fifth breath you take, thank a microbe.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm#20100316abornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

hrun0815, you must prove that information is generated by purely natural processes; you cannot use the degradation of preexisting information that was already in the genome as proof of the generation of new information.
First of all, we have yet another case of changing goalposts. If you read your previous post you will see that you agree that this is a purely natural process. You only complain about the amount of information generated. Second, in your previous post you also agree with the fact that information is generated in the Nylonase case. There is no mention of 'degradation of preexisting information'. Third, I specifically asked for a definition of information, so you can't hide behind the 'degradation of preexisting information'. Fourth, it is clear to everybody that this is NOT a case of information degradation. Neither Nylon nor Nylonase existed earlier: both are recent inventions, so the creation of Nylonase can not ce degradation of preexisting information. I find this exchange (while tedious for me) highly informative for everybody around. It very well exemplifies one of the most common discussion techniques used here and elsewhere.hrun0815_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

hrun0815, you must prove that information is generated by purely natural processes; you cannot use the degradation of preexisting information that was already in the genome as proof of the generation of new information. That is why I specifically cited this test: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – “The Fitness Test” – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 as well as citing this article: Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria You see hrun, once you remove the nylon from the environment the "parent" bacteria will ALWAYS be more fit for survival and the "improved" nylon bacteria will ALWAYS eventually die away. Why is this always the case? If functionality (i.e. functional information) "was generated" by purely material processes, then why have you not cited thousands of articles demonstrating the generation of such functional complexity/information. Can you not provide even one example of increased functionality that will pass the fitness test? Since not (and it is NOT), Why don't you find it even a little suspect that bacteria are suppose to turn into elephants, aardvarks and penguins. Please tell me why. further notes: 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 Boruckibornagain77_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

hrun I couldn’t help notice that you tacked evolutionary onto scientists in your reference to the discovery of the nylonase adaptation.
I was echoing YOUR charge, namely that universities and thus science are FULL of people who believe evolution to be true-- thus the evolutionary. You can remove it if you like.hrun0815_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Just to illustrate to everybody the type of reasoning you use: First you write:
evolution is completely false from first principles of science, [...] demonstration of any information generation from material processes whatsoever
I show that in fact there is empirical evidence to show that information can be generated by material processes. As an example, take Nylonase. Since I am aware of your type of reasoning I write the following:
you will simply claim that either no REAL information was created or the only a SMALL amount of information was created
Then, predictably, you write:
Some materialists believe they have conclusive proof for evolution because bacteria can quickly adapt to detoxify new man-made materials, such as nylon, even though it is, once again, just a minor variation within kind.
To summarize the exchange: You claim there is no evidence of information being produced. I show there is just that type of evidence. You claim, oh no, that's not what I meant. I meant MORE information than that. (then you go on to tack on many quotations yet again that are absolutely not pertinent to anything)hrun0815_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

hrun I couldn't help notice that you tacked evolutionary onto scientists in your reference to the discovery of the nylonase adaptation. Are they scientists first or are they evolutionists first? Since I can't separate your rhetoric from rational thought, would you please provide their diplomas in molecular biology and point out where it says "evolutionary" on then. i.e. "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. Philip S. Skell - Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2816 Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096/science_owes_nothing_to_darwinian_evolution_jonathan_wells/bornagain77_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Nylonase is your "evidence hrun? Some materialists believe they have conclusive proof for evolution because bacteria can quickly adapt to detoxify new man-made materials, such as nylon, even though it is, once again, just a minor variation within kind, i.e. though the bacteria adapt they still do not demonstrate a gain in fitness over the parent strain once the nylon is consumed (Genetic Entropy). I’m not nearly as impressed with their "stunning" proof as they think I should be. In fact recent research has shown the correct explanation for the nylon-eating enzyme, produced on the plasmids, seems to be a special mechanism which recombines parts of the genes in the plasmids in a way that is non-random. This is shown by the absence of stop codons, which would be generated if the variation were truly random. The non-randomness and "clockwork" repeatability of the adaptation clearly indicates a designed mechanism that fits perfectly within the limited "variation within kind" model of Theism, and stays well within the principle of Genetic Entropy since the parent strain is still more fit for survival once the nylon is consumed from the environment. (Answers In Genesis) Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design - William Dembski Excerpt: "the nylonase enzyme seems “pre-designed” in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically adaptable to novel functions." https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/bornagain77_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

hrun, since you will allude to the complexity found in life processes instead of purely material processes, here is what you need to falsify to prove evolution correct: Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html The "fitness test" must be passed by the sub-species against the parent species. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits)(Of note: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that purely material processes can exceed the much more constrained "2 protein-protein binding site" limit, for functional information generation, found by Michael Behe in his book "The Edge Of Evolution"). This fitness test, and calculation, must be done to rigorously establish that the principle of Conservation of Information has been violated. Is that clear enough for you hrun? further note: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/agbornagain77_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

since it is a established fact that evolution is completely false from first principles of science
I guess that says it all. Taking that into account, everything you say makes perfect sense.
a fact which you will vehemently attack but alas you cannot produce any empirical evidence to the contrary
You define information, I will provide empirical evidence. It's as simple as that. However, without that you will simply claim that either no REAL information was created or the only a SMALL amount of information was created (and neither should count).
and yet in spite of this glaring lack of evidence and the apparent
What lack of evidence? There is plenty of evidence for novel mutations creating novel functions.
Furthermore leading evolutionists such as Ayala, even as of last week, continue to insist that vast swaths of the DNA is functionless junk.
Of course. They are right. Vast swaths of DNA most likely is functionless junk. Have you forgotten the example about the three types of onion again?
Yet you, in your smug defiance of reason and common sense, insist that this is insistence is somehow not a science stopper, and to make it all the more ludicrous you ask for peer review, instead of opinions, that says it is a science stopper.
Yes, it is me who defies both reason and common sense. And I am smug to boot. Yet, you have failed to support your assertion that evolution is a science stopper. The data: science goes on all the time, science is done by evolutionists, science occurs in those indoctrination palaces of evolution, science gets published in evolution journals, and so forth. So, sadly, against all evidence, you have failed to give any positive evidence of your assertion.
plus you twist the last line of the ENCODE study to say that it did not directly state to take a neutral view of Junk DNA.
How exactly did I twist the words of ENCODE? Did ENCODE actually claim that it runs counter to the belief that evolution is true? Of course not. You simply made that up and then posted it as fact.
Please tell me Hrun why leading evolutionists payed no attention to the premier study on the function DNA and that they continue to insist that the majority of DNA is junk?
Which leading evoluionists payed no attention to the premier study on the function of DNA. Yet another assertion without proof. And, quite possibly, the reason why they do assert that lots of DNA doesn't have a function is because it doesn't? Remember the three onions again.
Have they lost their minds? I can think of no other reason!
They have not lost their minds. That you can't think of another reason is no surprise to anybody.
It would be absolutely funny for me save for the fact that you guys actually think you are the “rational” ones, as well as the mortifying fact that you “scientists” are feeding this relentless stream of garbage to our children in public schools.
You forget that it is also the 'scientists' that find functional gems in areas of mainly functionless DNA. For example, check out the Nylonase. Perfect example. And so pertinent to ID as well. Oddly enough... found by evolutionists. They just continue doing science and finding new functions, no matter what you assert.
I have a surprise for you hrun,,, Here is a peer review paper that shows Junk DNA to be a science stopper, but alas, you will ignore it as you do everything else:
Where does it show that there is any stopping of science. I just don't see the supporting data to your claim. Yes, if you take the term 'junk DNA' and say that it is all functionless, then indeed, nobody should look at it. Gladly, only people like you claim that to be the case. It might be educational for you to actually attend a bio course.hrun0815_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

hrun, since it is a established fact that evolution is completely false from first principles of science, (Dembski, Marks, Abel, Behe, Sanford, Second Law) i.e. basically falsification boils down to no demonstration of any information generation from material processes whatsoever, (a fact which you will vehemently attack but alas you cannot produce any empirical evidence to the contrary), and yet in spite of this glaring lack of evidence and the apparent "information complexity in DNA that dwarfs our puny understanding",, leading evolutionists continue to refuse to admit to any such weaknesses whatsoever. Furthermore leading evolutionists such as Ayala, even as of last week, continue to insist that vast swaths of the DNA is functionless junk. Yet you, in your smug defiance of reason and common sense, insist that this is insistence is somehow not a science stopper, and to make it all the more ludicrous you ask for peer review, instead of opinions, that says it is a science stopper. plus you twist the last line of the ENCODE study to say that it did not directly state to take a neutral view of Junk DNA. Please tell me Hrun why leading evolutionists payed no attention to the premier study on the function DNA and that they continue to insist that the majority of DNA is junk? Have they lost their minds? I can think of no other reason! It would be absolutely funny for me save for the fact that you guys actually think you are the "rational" ones, as well as the mortifying fact that you "scientists" are feeding this relentless stream of garbage to our children in public schools.,,, I have a surprise for you hrun,,, Here is a peer review paper that shows Junk DNA to be a science stopper, but alas, you will ignore it as you do everything else: On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. Richard Sternberg Excerpt: the case is made for viewing REs as integrally functional components of chromosomes, genomes, and cells. It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian "narratives" have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679 here is a cool article detailing how Francis Collins is leading biological science down the wrong track: Weird Science - Casey Luskin Excerpt: Sternberg strikingly concluded that “the selfish DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other ‘icons’ of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature.” Sternberg, along with leading geneticist James Shapiro, elsewhere predicted that “one day, we will think of what used to be called ‘junk DNA’ as a critical component of truly ‘expert’ cellular control regimes.”,,,, Time and again, ID proponents have discovered that what Darwinists dismiss as defective actually has purpose and function, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo6/6luskin.phpbornagain77_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Mr Mad doc, Nakashima et al. It is amusing to see your arguments re BODY plans involve CELLS and not BODIES. Well, that is what bodies are made out of! ;)Nakashima_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Far from it. In fact, if we broaden our perspective it is hard to think of any improvement in our understanding of the world or any refinement or new development in our technology which is not founded on methodologically natural, materialistic science. Restrictive or not, it works.Seversky_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

[...]hence the fruit of that conclusion is [that Neo Darwinist paradigrms are (sic)] a SCIENCE STOPPER.
Ah... another clear statement. Yet, the evidence actually runs counter to this claim. ID proponents continually purport that Neo Darwinist paradigms are domninant in universtiy research, yet, it is just that (being indoctrinated with Neo Darwinist paradigms) that continued to do science on 'junk DNA' and found some function. Research (under the indoctrination of Neo Darwinist paradigms) continues. So your assertions is clearly false. Science was not stopped.hrun0815_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

re#18: Allen_MacNeill has actually answered most of these points. But in order to be specific. You have failed to provide specific support: - for research that was actually hindered - for evolutions insistence to mislead researchers - for evolution to have totally unwarranted conjectures - for evolution to belittle a genome of function - for ENCODE to run counter to empirical evidence You have, yet again, posted a lot of opinion (from you and other folks). But alas, no evidence. In fact, there might actually be evidence, but nobody would know about it, since nobody seems to be willing to post it.hrun0815_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Dang it Nak the parental corn lineage (teosinte) ain't gone to help me overcome those dang nagging doubts about functional proteins I was asking acispenser about. To top it all off Nak shoot now you done gone and opened up my doubts about the ability of evolution to account for novel Body Plans all over again, since I know there is a fairly large amount of variation in the parental stock of many "kinds" of plants: Evolution? - Mustard Plant - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898 “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) The reduced genetic variability brought about by "natural selection" in major food crops, such as corn, is a major concern facing scientists today since the much larger genetic variability, which is found in the parent species of corn, maize, gives greater protection from a disease wiping out the entire crop of corn. Genetic diversity and selection in the maize starch pathway: The tremendous diversity of maize and teosinte has been the raw genetic material for the radical transformation of maize into the world's highest yielding grain crop. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=130568 "Supergerms are not supergerms any more than hybrid corn is supercorn—today’s hybrid corns are so delicate that they can’t even sprout unless they are planted underground. They can’t even grow effectively unless the ground is weeded. They can’t even reproduce unless technicians at seed-houses mate them artificially and with great effort." http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/supergerms.asp Geez Nak why did you have to go and bring that up,,, Now that whole Genetic Entropy thing is also crushing my new found heathen faith, besides the extreme rarity of functional proteins. You really ain't helping acispenser convert me to a chance worshipping, mud puddle wallowing, heathen are you. You best just let him talk me through this shaky period of my conversion process til I can stand on my own two hairless ape atheistic legs and shake my fist at the sky at the deity I no longer believe in.bornagain77_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Nakashima et al. It is amusing to see your arguments re BODY plans involve CELLS and not BODIES. Methinks you protest too much.mad doc_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply