Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Origin of Life Research Has Failed to Generate a Coherent and Persuasive Framework

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Because while Franklin Haroldwonders in 2014 if “we may still be missing some essential insight” (given that a century of origin of life research “has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation” and has “remarkably little to show for” for all the effort expended), it was, in fact, just over a century ago when evolution’s co-founder, the great Alfred Russel Wallace, provided exactly what Harold may be looking for, to wit  Read more

Comments
http://creation.com/abiogenesis An excerpt from this article:
But is it possible for biologic life, intelligent or rudimentary, to spontaneously arise over time from material precursors as the advocates of abiogenesis maintain? Well, no, it’s not, for a host of reasons. Life runs on coded messages, some of the most complicated messages known to humans. And we haven’t gotten anywhere near the bottom of the complexity of it all. Multiple codes, messages running in different directions with the information multi-layered on the genetic material, self-correction, vast storage mechanisms, postal systems to deliver the messages thither and yon … The list of wonders goes on and on, with more being discovered on a regular basis. In all human experience, messages and minds are tied irrevocably together, so that where we find a message we know it is the product of a mind, of an intelligent source. We know that ‘Bobby loves Bindy’ written in sand on a beach, is not and can never be the result of water or wind rearranging grains of sand. This absolute message/mind connection is at the very heart of the SETI program, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. What it’s hoped the radio telescopes utilised in this program will find are coded messages of some sort. If such were found the joy of the SETI crowd would be unbounded. Proof positive of alien intelligence would have been found. But these people have an enormous blind spot. Switch from radio telescopes to electron microscopes and redirect your gaze from the skies to the innermost recesses of any living cell, and what do you find? Messages, piled on top of messages, of the most astounding sort known. And not just an isolated one here or there, (though one would be enough) but messages by the trillions. Thus, proof positive is there for all the world to see, that biological life comes from an intelligent source. It did not spontaneously arise but is originally the product of thought, planning, and design.
Everyone has heard of the chicken/egg conundrum; which came first? There are many chicken/egg relationships required for life to exist. Take ATP4 for example. ATP is the energy currency of life. Every biologic function is powered by ATP. Stop ATP production and you’re dead, instantly. That’s why cyanide is so lethal, it stops ATP production. ATP is produced by the molecular rotary motor ATP Synthase, which spins at around 7000 revs a minute with every turn spitting out three ATP molecules.5 Around 50kg of ATP is produced in our bodies daily by the over 10 quadrillion ATP Synthase rotary motors in our bodies converting ADP6 to ATP; less when resting, more when working hard. But … ATP Synthase is coded for on the DNA. So to get ATP Synthase you have to have the DNA coding for it. But to get the DNA code for ATP Synthase transcribed so as to get ATP Synthase, you need ATP to drive the transcription process. However, to get ATP to drive transcription, you need ATP Synthase to produce it. No ATP Synthase = no ATP = no transcription of DNA coding for ATP Synthase = no ATP Synthase = no ATP… To make the issue explicit: The whole interrelated, irreducibly complex DNA/ATP Synthase system has to be fully intact and functional for it to work. Without it life is not possible, thus it had to come into existence as a going concern from the very first moment of life’s existence.
This information is nothing new, but it again highlights the absurd faith of the Materialist!
Multiple codes, messages running in different directions with the information multi-layered on the genetic material, self-correction, vast storage mechanisms, postal systems to deliver the messages thither and yon …
IMO, only a dedicated Materialist could look at the data and actually conclude that unintelligent random forces are a reasonable/rational explanation for Life. The more discoveries that are made, the more their faith needs to be ratcheted up! It is getting harder and harder to maintain one's faith and to convince others that "No Intelligence is Necessary!" MY PREDICTION is that things will not get any easier for believers who are pushing the doctrine of abiogenesis, but rather that their task of evangelization for their cause will become more difficult as we learn more about the amazing wonders and design of life and the cell.tjguy
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
DATCG: Is the Environment responsible for the Selection of beak size according to your response? It's the relationship between the environment and the fitness of beak variants. Roughly, the environment selects among the available variants. As the environment changes, natural selection predicts that this will bring about a directional change in the distribution of traits associated with fitness. Additional observations have confirmed this relationship.Zachriel
December 19, 2014
December
12
Dec
19
19
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
DavidD, Thanks for the link. Always interested in interviews of scientific community on this subject done by Mazur. Looks like interesting read to save.DATCG
December 19, 2014
December
12
Dec
19
19
2014
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
Zachriel, thanks, apologies for late response, long day. You quoted work done in 1989...
See Grant & Grant, Natural Selection in a Population of Darwin’s Finches, The American Naturalist 1989. The Grants cataloged finches on Isla Genovesa Galápagos over a period of years. There was a climatic event that caused a significant change in the environment, specifically a change in food resources. They showed that “different beak shapes, which influence the birds’ abilities to forage on certain food items, could directly affect the health of the survivors at the end of a dry season, which in turn would influence their ability to compete for territories, to gain mates, and to reproduce at the onset of rains.” They then showed that the beak morphology of the population changed as the environment changed according to the identified fitness advantage. Continued observations have confirmed their initial findings.
While these are I'm sure meticulous observations on part of the Grants, they are rather vague as to what is doing the Selection. Is the Environment responsible for the Selection of beak size according to your response?DATCG
December 19, 2014
December
12
Dec
19
19
2014
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Natural selection refers to heritable characteristics that provide an advantage or disadvantage in reproduction.
That is incorrect. For it to be natural selection the heritable characteristics have to be accidental, ie not planned, nor directed.Joe
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
There isn't any evidence that natural selection produced the variety of finches. There is evidence that the variety of finches is due to built-in responses to environmental cues. See "The Evolution Revolution"- for example back in 1967 the US released 100 finches- all exactly the same- on a Pacific atoll. Those finches soon spread to other local islands. 17 years later it was observed that the parent population had already diverged and there were several different finches on the islands- 17 years, and it most likely occurred more rapidly than that.Joe
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
DATCG: Can you more elaborately define “Selection” in this particular example of beak finch sizes and/or “species?” See Grant & Grant, Natural Selection in a Population of Darwin's Finches, The American Naturalist 1989. The Grants cataloged finches on Isla Genovesa Galápagos over a period of years. There was a climatic event that caused a significant change in the environment, specifically a change in food resources. They showed that "different beak shapes, which influence the birds' abilities to forage on certain food items, could directly affect the health of the survivors at the end of a dry season, which in turn would influence their ability to compete for territories, to gain mates, and to reproduce at the onset of rains." They then showed that the beak morphology of the population changed as the environment changed according to the identified fitness advantage. Continued observations have confirmed their initial findings. DavidD (citing Denis Noble): In principle, Darwin didn't refer to any mechanisms. That is incorrect. He seems to be referring to mechanisms of variation, which Darwin observed, but didn't explain. DavidD (citing Denis Noble): If there can be selection on variants, then some will survive and some won't. In some sense this is a necessary truth, isn't it? That's not natural selection. There are many reasons an organism may survive or die. Natural selection refers to heritable characteristics that provide an advantage or disadvantage in reproduction. ETA: The quoted statements was off-hand. The context indicates he does accept natural selection.Zachriel
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
DATCG "Zachriel, please bare with me. Can you more elaborately define “Selection” in this particular example of beak finch sizes and/or “species?” What specifically is doing the actual “selection?” I’ll check back later today and respond." ------ Well, don't hold your breathe and expect a factual or truthful answer minus all the personal bias and cute game playing already being done in this OP thread. Here is a link from earlier this year which provides the best answer I can think of. It comes from Huffington Post and a conversation interview between Susan Mazur and Denis Noble on Natural Selection: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html Suzan Mazur: "There's also natural selection, which became a catch-all term. As Richard Lewontin has pointed out, it was intended as a metaphor not to be taken literally by generations of scientists. The range of views about what natural selection is is staggering -- a brand, a political term, a political and scientific term, failure to reach biotic potential, physicists are seeing it as part of a larger process now, etc. etc. Things are being majorly redefined." Denis Noble: "You're putting your finger on a very important point here. And what I just said about the definition of a gene is only one example where I think some philosophical clarity is needed." Suzan Mazur: "Is it the case that there are all sorts of mechanisms at play, some of which have now been identified, that have been previously considered part of natural selection? It seems natural selection is used as a catch-all for a failure to identify what the mechanisms are." _____ The last sentence really says it all. "It seems natural selection is used as a catch-all for a failure to identify what the mechanisms are."DavidD
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
bornagain77: actually the changes in finch beaks are shown to be due to genetic and epigenetic factors. (Zachriel responds) Without selection, they don’t change. Selection is what determines which genetic factors predominate in the next generation.
Zachriel, please bare with me. Can you more elaborately define "Selection" in this particular example of beak finch sizes and/or "species?" What specifically is doing the actual "selection?" I'll check back later today and respond.DATCG
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
http://crev.info/2014/12/astrobiology-has-no-bio/ This is a great review of current astrobiology. The title is provocative: "Astrobiology has no 'bio'" The article begins like this:
When you take the “bio” out of astrobiology, what do you get? Is it still a science?
and concludes like this:
Take the “bio” out of astrobiology, and what do you get? Astrology—a method of divination. Look at these news articles above and explain if you see any real philosophical difference.
Anyone up for the challenge? Look at the articles reviewed and see if there is a difference between astrobiology and astrology. At least 7 articles are highlighted. All promise possible future progress - which is a common theme of articles related to astrobiology. Everything is maybe, could have, might have, is thought to have, perhaps, etc. But statements like that have nothing to do with science if they cannot be tested. It's no different than believing in a God you can't see. At least there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for alien life when you consider the complexity, the information, inter lapping error correcting codes, nano machinery, software of the cell, fine tuning of the universe, etc. it seems to me that believers in a Creator have more justification for their faith than believers in aliens do. Sure, there are still many things scientists are exploring in this area, but there will always be things left to explore. It is very possible that science will never solve this problem simply because life does not have a natural origin. So again, all hypotheses should be allowed on the table including the idea of a divine origin for life. There's just no way to rule it out & it could be argued that there is data to support it as stated above, so why rule it out?tjguy
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Zacky:
Unbiased readers can see that we made substantive replies.
What's with the "we" crap? You can't speak for yourself?Mapou
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Educated readers can see that Zachriel hasn't said anything substantive.Joe
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Unbiased readers can see that we made substantive replies.Zachriel
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Zach, I'm satisfied that unbiased readers who support ID can now see that you are just chasing your tail in a circle trying to make whatever excuses for Darwinism that you can, and see that you have no interest in being honest to the evidence (i.e. see that you are a troll). Thus, I'll rest my case, since I have better things to do today that point out the fact that your arguments are all circular.bornagain77
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
bornagain77: to postulate natural selection as the cause for an after the fact observation of an effect, (i.e. such as a change in proportions of a population), is to illegitimately switch the whole cause and effect relationship in science. In direct observations of natural selection, we have multiple changes in environmental conditions leading to a non-trivial correlation between the environmental conditions and reproductive success. This is not "after the fact", but a direct observation. In addition, we can support this with studies of artificial selection, where we can directly cause changes in the environment and see changes in reproductive success. bornagain77: Natural Selection, as it is used by Darwinists, is a superflous narrative gloss that is added on after an observation is made and tells us nothing as to the actual cause for how the change in a populations actually occurred That is incorrect. We can directly observe reproductive success, which determines the composition of the next generation population. That's called natural selection. bornagain77: In contrast, traditional Darwinian evolution alleges that random changes in the DNA itself generate new and useful variants that are then selected by the environment. Darwin didn't know anything about DNA. The observation of natural selection in Darwin's finches is not directly related to the source of genetic variation. Rather, it is the observation that changes in the environment cause changes in reproductive success leading to changes in the population. bornagain77 (quoting): In this current effort, the researchers studied two different factors in the genome. From the study: "Since environmental factors are known to result in heritable changes in the epigenome, it is possible that epigenetic changes contribute to the molecular basis of the evolution of Darwin's finches.' In other words, epigenetics doesn't impact the observation of natural selection. It's a source of phenotypic variation. bornagain77: your other responces in your post to lignin and mutually beneficial relations are ‘hand waving’ How so? You claimed that lignin degradation is not a benefit to the organism. We pointed out that it allows for digestion of cellulose. This is no different in principle than an organism expending energy to open a mussel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXKyTWMvpMZachriel
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Zach as you have been told before, to postulate natural selection as the cause for an after the fact observation of an effect, (i.e. such as a change in proportions of a population), is to illegitimately switch the whole cause and effect relationship in science. Natural Selection, as it is used by Darwinists, is a superflous narrative gloss that is added on after an observation has been made and tells us nothing as to the actual cause for how the change in a populations actually occurred (which in the case of finches is found to be 'designed' epigenetic factors not natural selection!).
Darwin's Finches: Answers From Epigenetics by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. - August 29. 2014 Excerpt: Just one year prior to this 2014 study,1 the epigenetic basis of speciation was demonstrated in birds in which the progressive geographical spread and ecological patterns of adaptation for a newly introduced songbird species were characterized by differences in DNA methylation patterns, not variation in the actual DNA sequence.2 In contrast, traditional Darwinian evolution alleges that random changes in the DNA itself generate new and useful variants that are then selected by the environment. In reality, researchers are now discovering that organisms can robustly adapt to different ecological niches without major changes in their DNA sequence.,,, What underlies this variation in finch beaks? In studies attempting to determine the molecular basis for beak variability in finches, researchers have found that very similar developmental genetic pathways among species can produce markedly different beak shapes.5 So if the genes are essentially the same, then what seems to be the major source of variation? In this current effort, the researchers studied two different factors in the genome. The first were short sections of non-coding DNA sequence that varied in the number of copies—repeated units—called copy number variants or CNVs. In humans, differences in CNVs form the basis for studying forensics and paternity testing. The second factor studied was epigenetically-based, using an analysis of DNA methylation patterns around the genome. From these analyses, the researchers found that epigenetics correlated well with increased diversity among species while CNVs, based on actual DNA sequences, did not. In addition, they also undertook a more focused study of the epigenetic profiles of specific genes involved in the morphogenesis of beak shape, immune-system responses, and coloring of the birds. Once again, the epigenetic profiles of the different bird species for all of these gene groups were different while the DNA sequences were nearly identical. http://www.icr.org/article/8338/
Invoking Natural Selection as a cause to an effect is useless, even misleading, as a heuristic in science, since Natural Selection falsely claims to supply a valid explanation as to the actual cause for an effect when it has in fact done no such thing, but was only brought in after the effect was observed as a 'narrative gloss':
Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology - Philip S. Skell -The Scientist - August 29, 2005 Excerpt: I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.,,, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
your other responces in your post to lignin and mutually beneficial relations are 'hand waving' these insurmountable problems for Darwinism away, and certainly do not address the merits of the arguments against Darwinism. i.e. Your failure to honestly address the evidence is not a concise rebuttal of the argument!bornagain77
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
bornagain77 (quoting Mapou): We can directly observe natural selection and its ability to move populations towards optimal solutions. We provided a citation to direct observations of natural selection. The researchers recorded every individual and mating event, and those finches which had best access to food resources tended to produce more offspring. However, we'd be happy to look at a study which indicates otherwise. bornagain77: The fact that Lignin is not exploited as a food source by bacteria, but is digested at a cost of energy is proof for elegant design for the overall ecology of the earth and is certainly not what would be expected on Darwinism. Fungi. Fungi break down the lignin to expose the cellulose to digestion. There's nothing any more unusual about this than a simian expending energy to break open a clam. http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/439240440_640.jpg bornagain77: Mutually beneficial relationships are unexpected on Darwinism That's a very odd statement to make as Darwin certainly posited symbiotic relationships, such as his prediction of what we call the Darwin moth. See Darwin, On the various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised by insects, 1862. Could it be you misunderstand your own citation?Zachriel
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
You provided no evidence for natural selection pushing are pulling, much less optimizing, or creating anything, as Mapou pointed out,,,
We can directly observe natural selection and its ability to move populations towards optimal solutions. For instance, the beaks of Darwin’s finches evolve in response to the local food supply. "This is a blatant lie and a stupid one at that. The adaptive changes observed in finches are due to epigenetics, a genetically pre-programmed (i.e., designed) mechanism that changes a miniscule percentage of the organism’s genes in response to certain environmental changes. Natural selection has nothing to do with it."
For you to pretend that you did provide evidence for natural selection doing anything is yet more evidence of your dishonest and trollish nature. The fact that Lignin is not exploited as a food source by bacteria, but is digested at a cost of energy is proof for elegant design for the overall ecology of the earth and is certainly not what would be expected on Darwinism. Mutually beneficial relationships are unexpected on Darwinism: Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory,,, “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale,,,, “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.htmlbornagain77
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
bornagain77: refuses to address the merits of the argument Our discussion started with a claim you made concerning natural selection; "natural selection is not a ‘force’ that pushes, pulls, or creates, anything." We provided evidence, including direct observation, that natural selection can sort through variations to optimize a function. We responded to your points about how developmental genes control beak morphology. Then you pivoted to whether natural selection was a creative force, abandoning your defense of whether it is a force that pushes or pulls. You suggested we watch a portion of Rosemary Grant's lecture, which you falsely assured us she had said the whole evolution thing is a crock. You then misstated the results of Grant & Grant, saying it was whatever survived survived, when they actually demonstrated a direct relationship between the environment and the balance of traits in the population. They did this by close observation of every individual and mating in the population. bornagain77 (quoting Gauger): Fungi accomplish the biodegradation, and the surprising fact that it costs them energy to do so keeps the process gradual. The primary benefit of lignin degradation is exposing the cellulose to digestion. bornagain77: Vascular plants provide sites all along their root systems where colonies of AMF can assemble and feed on the nutrients supplied by the plants. In return, the AMF supply phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon in molecular forms that the vascular plants can readily assimilate. The (overwhelming) challenge for evolutionary models is how to explain by natural means the simultaneous appearance of both vascular plants and AMF. Not sure why you consider that a problem. However, the actual history is interesting. Fungi are believed to have invaded the land first, utilizing inorganic nutrients and forming a symbiotic relationship with algae. Land plants used the released nutrients, so it became advantageous to harbor the fungi.Zachriel
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Zachriel thinks that prokayotes aren't organisms!:
Organisms form an objective nested hierarchy,
Prokaryotes do not form an objective nested hierarchy.
If there are a lot of bacteria, then eating bacteria becomes a viable niche.
Bacteria can eat bacteria. No need for anything else.Joe
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Zachriel, you once again are a shining example of a 'troll' who refuses to honestly address the merits of the argument and tries to push his agenda by any deceptive means possible!. The argument is clear,,, Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers There simply is no coherent explanation from Darwinists for why this should be so! As to lignin: The Lignin Enigma By Ann Gauger - July 2012 Excerpt: Why should such an abundant resource go unexploited? Darwinian evolution has apparently failed to evolve “a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin”—over 400 million years, even though many other spectacular innovations—nodulation (a symbiotic relationship between plants and bacteria that permits the fixation of nitrogen), symbiotic pollination systems (between plants, hummingbirds, and bees), and the appearance of carnivorous plants—all appeared during the same time period, and complex biochemical pathways such as C4 photosynthesis have apparently evolved independently many times. How can one mechanism [Darwinism] have been at the same time so effective and so ineffective? That tension vanishes completely when the design perspective is adopted. Terrestrial animal life is crucially dependent on terrestrial plant life, which is crucially dependent on soil, which is crucially dependent on the gradual photo- and biodegradation of lignin. Fungi accomplish the biodegradation, and the surprising fact that it costs them energy to do so keeps the process gradual. The peculiar properties of lignin therefore make perfect sense when seen as part of a coherent design for the entire ecosystem. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/26379997641/the-lignin-enigma moreover,, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Design Excerpt: The mutual relationship between vascular plants (flowering plants) and arbuscular mycorrihizal fungi (AMF) is the most prevalent known plant symbiosis. Vascular plants provide sites all along their root systems where colonies of AMF can assemble and feed on the nutrients supplied by the plants. In return, the AMF supply phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon in molecular forms that the vascular plants can readily assimilate. The (overwhelming) challenge for evolutionary models is how to explain by natural means the simultaneous appearance of both vascular plants and AMF. http://www.reasons.org/ArbuscularMycorrhizalFungiDesign2 of related note to bacteria not seeing humans as 150 pounds of prime rib waiting to be devoured,,, chemistry is specifically found to be 'fine-tuned' for life like human life, not just any type of life: The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013 Summary (page 11) Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive. It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1 Privileged Species - How the cosmos is designed for human life - website http://privilegedspecies.com/bornagain77
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
bornagain77: you claim to believe that unguided material processes, unguided processes that are empirically shown to consistently break things, created the unfathomed functional integrated complexity in life. Whenever you don't have an answer you wave your hands and try to change the subject. The question concerned why more complex organisms can exist when bacteria are the most efficient replicators. If there are a lot of bacteria, then eating bacteria becomes a viable niche. Bacterivores may reproduce more slowly, but that doesn't matter, as long as they can survive and reproduce. It's like saying you can't have foxes because rabbits reproduce more quickly. Moose Dr: I have reason to question the “before the cambrian there was a bunch of lost details” hypothesis. Organisms form an objective nested hierarchy, which, along with the fossil succession, provides historical ordering of events. If we then look at colonial unicellular organisms and primitive metazoans, this can provide us a glimpse of when the toolkit evolved. If the genes are shared in choanoflagellate, then they likely developed before metazoa. See Erwin, Early origin of the bilaterian developmental toolkit, Philosophical Transactions B 2009. Moose Dr: However, I understand that there are some well preserved very early cambrian fossil records, storing extensive soft tissue details. These fossil finds show sponges, and no other animal life. Complex multicellular organisms appeared in the Ediacara preceding the Cambrian, including Kimberella, a genus bilateria. Moose Dr: In what kind of organism(s) are you proposing that this “metazoan toolkit” was housed? In colonial unicellular organisms, including signaling pathways. bornagain77: Darwinian evolution is somehow too dumb to figure out the much easier biosynthetic pathway of how to tap lignin as an energy source? Huh? Lignin is used as an energy source by fungi, including in the guts of wood-eating beetles. Mapou: The adaptive changes observed in finches are due to epigenetics, a genetically pre-programmed (i.e., designed) mechanism that changes a miniscule percentage of the organism’s genes in response to certain environmental changes. Apparently not, based on close observations of Darwin's finches. The changes in beak size are shown to be due to reproductive advantages from generation to generation, and can be traced to specific genes, such as bmp4.Zachriel
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Zacky:
We can directly observe natural selection and its ability to move populations towards optimal solutions. For instance, the beaks of Darwin’s finches evolve in response to the local food supply.
This is a blatant lie and a stupid one at that. The adaptive changes observed in finches are due to epigenetics, a genetically pre-programmed (i.e., designed) mechanism that changes a miniscule percentage of the organism's genes in response to certain environmental changes. Natural selection has nothing to do with it.Mapou
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
BA77, "Darwinian evolution is somehow too dumb to figure out the much easier biosynthetic pathway of how to tap lignin as an energy source?" Yes, I have encountered the lignin theory before. Highly interesting. It is the ultimate example of a Darwinian impossibility -- true altruism. I will sacrifice my own short term benefit for the long term benefit of others. While we are talking about the long term benefit of my own species, the length of the term is far too far away for natural selection to analyze. Why would an organism give up such a mighty food source, when it could probably run a few million years before producing radical ecological damage by consuming it?Moose Dr
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
Zachriel, "That was apparently developed largely before the Cambrian Explosion." I have reason to question the "before the cambrian there was a bunch of lost details" hypothesis. This, of course, was Darwin's hypothesis as well. However, I understand that there are some well preserved very early cambrian fossil records, storing extensive soft tissue details. These fossil finds show sponges, and no other animal life. I guess it was possible that the particular finds were in regions that showed painful subsets of the variety that was available a the time. However, fossil beds in the late precambrian seem to show no animal life at all. In what kind of organism(s) are you proposing that this "metazoan toolkit" was housed?Moose Dr
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
Actually, what is beyond silly, indeed what borders on mental illness, is that you claim to believe that unguided material processes, unguided processes that are empirically shown to consistently break things, created the unfathomed functional integrated complexity in life. A level of integrated functional complexity that our best computer programmers and engineers can only dream of accurately modelling!
"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html
Moreover, Why in blue blazes should the evolution of bacteria care one iota if higher organisms exist? Random mutations and high reproductive rates could care less if some slower reproducing metazoan with a lower mutation rate got steamrolled in the process of the evolution of bacteria exploiting some new food source. But that is not what we see. For instance,
Doug Axe: Lignin & the Coherent Design of the Ecosystem - podcast Excerpt: Lignin provides a paradoxical case for the Darwinian method of evolution, but fits perfectly into a design oriented scientific paradigm. Thirty percent of non-fossil organic carbon on the planet is lignin, so in a Darwinian world, something should have developed the ability to consume lignin--but it hasn't. Lignin binds together and protects plant cellulose, which is vital to all types of large plant life; "The peculiar properties of lignin therefore make perfect sense when seen as part of a coherent design for the entire ecosystem of our planet." http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/08/doug_axe_lignin_the_coherent_d.html Lignin breakthroughs serve as GPS for plant research - March 11, 2014 Excerpt: Lignin, an important and complex polymer responsible for plant growth and development, provides mechanical strength and water transport that enables some trees to grow 100 meters tall.,,, This work in the new area of plant systems biology, integrating biology, chemistry and engineering, sets a new standard for understanding any complex biological feature in the future.,,, Over many years of intensive research, the interdisciplinary team led by Chiang purified 21 pathway enzymes and analyzed 189 different parameters related to lignin formation. With help from engineering colleagues Cranos Williams and Joel Ducoste, the team developed models that predict how pathway enzymes affect lignin content and composition. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-lignin-breakthroughs-gps.html
Yet, despite the fact that Darwinian evolution was somehow super genius enough to construct a biosynthetic pathway for lignin, that took years of intensive research by a interdisciplinary team to get a basic understanding of, Darwinian evolution is somehow too dumb to figure out the much easier biosynthetic pathway of how to tap lignin as an energy source??? And if you believe that I got some ocean front property for you in Arizona! Supplemental note on the extreme fine tuning of microbial life for metazoans:
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#20100316a
Verse and Music:
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Do You Hear What I Hear? - Carrie Underwood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad7KU9bCTAM
bornagain77
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
bornagain77: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. Of course. Animals, in particular, are dependent on other organisms for nutrition. That doesn't support your claim that evolution would predict nothing besides bacteria. Frankly, the claim is just silly as the theory was proposed to explain diversity.Zachriel
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Zach, you have no evidence of Darwinian evolution, especially when the 'genetic toolkits' (cell mediated processes) are removed from your just so story telling, ever producing anything of interest. Whereas we have abundant evidence that unguided processes are excellent at breaking things!bornagain77
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Zach, there is EVERYTHING contradictory about it! The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles - Falkowski 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists - April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory,,, "It was completely unexpected," says Bradley Cardinale,,,, "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?" The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. "We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists," Cardinale says. "When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled.",,, Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.,,, Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong." http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.htmlbornagain77
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
bornagain77: So what if worms and humans eat bacteria? The point is that if evolution, red and tooth and claw, were actually the truth for how life came to be on this earth, then bacteria, since they far outclass metazoans in their ability to successfully reproduce, then we should not be around: Successful reproduction depends on access to resources. Bacteria are extraordinarily successful, but this means they become a resource for other organisms. Bacterivores evolved to take advantage of this resource. There's nothing contradictory about that.Zachriel
December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply