Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uh Oh! Is He Going To Get Gould-ed?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The word “borked” has entered our lexicon as a result of the treatment Judge Robert Bork received during Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Justice of the U.S. To put it mildly, he was not treated very well. When Stephen J. Gould came out with his theory of Punctuated Equilibria, he, too, was not treated well by the Darwinian establishment until such time as he made clear that his theory was firmly a part of Darwinian thought.

Now another geologist, Michael Rampino, has just set himself up for equal treatment. In a PhysOrg entry, Rampino points out what has been so obvious for so long a time: evolution is NOT gradual! It is episodic. He also seeks to go further back in time to Patrick Matthew, who predates Darwin and his notion of NS by thirty years or so. I think Michael has been reading far too much here at UD for his own good health (academic, anyway). It’ll be interesting to see how quickly he is gobbled up by the Darwinian thought police.

Comments
BA: I have read the linked "paper", and I believe it is a sequence of serious errors and misunderstandings. Unfortunately, I have not at hand my copy of TEOE, so I cannot comment with precision about Behe's words. I will anyway point shortly to some obvious and serious errors in the "arguments". 1) Behe's point in TEOE is mainly to establish by empirical arguments an edge to what random variation can accomplish. His argument about the rarity of two aminocid coordinated mutations is derived from observations of data about the malaria parasite, and in no way from "statistical calculation". Behe just states the the observed data are in good accord with what statistical calculations would expect. The empirical result is that, in the malaria antibiotic resistance model, single mutations are frequent, double mutations are exceedingly rare. This is an empirical jugdement. I don't understand why many darwinists, including the student who wrote that paper, can't apparently understand this simple fact. 2) The other important error is again a veru common mistake darwinists make. I quote: Another of Behe’s central claims is that mutations cannot occur one by one over a long period of time, but rather must all take place at once. This idea is founded on an incomplete understanding of how random mutation and natural selection actually function. As long as each genetic mutation confers some type of survival or reproductive advantage, or at least causes no harm to the cell, changes can occur one at a time and gradually produce a significant alteration. The mutations do not have to occur simultaneously. In fact, isolated mutations occur on a relatively regular basis. Here the author is really confused. Moreover, he is conflating two very different "arguments" (both of them wrong). The first is the usual confusion about coordinated mutations. Darwinists seem completely unable to get this simple point. To be more clear, I will give here an explicit definition of what I call "coordinated mutation": "A mutation of two or more AAs is coordinated if all of the aminoacids have to change to a new specific value for a new function to emerge". IOWs, if I say that a new function requires a coordinated mutation of two aminoacids, that means that both specific mutations must be present for the new function to emerge. In no way that means that the two mutations must happen "at the same time". But they must be present "at the same time" for the function to be there. So, there is no difference if first mutation occurred one million years ago, and the second happens now. Or if the two mutations happen in the same day. If both mutations are not individually functional (IOWs, if they are at nest "neutral"), the probabilities are the same. We have to multiply the individual probabilities for each mutation. Obviously, if any of the individual mutations is "negative", the situation is even worse. And here we come to the second aspect of this point. The author first states that Behe would say that mutations "must all take place at once" (which is wrong). Then makes things worse by adding that the reason for that is that Behe does not understand how natural selection works (which is even more wrong). But the problem is not that "Behe does not understand". The problem is that Behe is searching the edge of what RV and NS can really do. So, the concept that functions which require "two coordinated mutations" are exceedingly rare, as proven by the malaria model, is obviously true for functions where the "intermediates" are at best neutral, and cannot be selected (which, by the way, is absolutely the general case). Let's take for instance Behe's example of antibiotic resistance in the malaria parasite. In most cases, a single mutation confers resistance, and is selected. That is well understood by Behe, who indeed discusses those cases in detail. But for cloroquine resistance, the situation is different: two mutations are required, at least, and none of them is individually selectable. That's why the emergence of that resistance is exceedingly rare, when compared the other drugs. The author seems to completely ignore or misunderstand this argument, which is the most important in Behe's book. 3) Finally, another important and common error. It is certainly true that, if mutations happen in a duplicated gene, which is not functional, we can bypass the effect of negative selection on negative mutations. That is certainly a point. But, as you cannot have it both ways, not even if you are a darwinist, it is equally true that a duplicate, non functional gene cannot even benefit of positive selection (at least until the new functional configuration is attained, and the gene is supposed to gloriously reenter the transcribed state, and integrate itself magically in the pre-existing environment). So, no selection in duplicated non functional genes: neither negative, nor positive. I don't believe that's good news for darwinists. That simply means that any complex functional variation will never happen, that functional intermediates are not possible, and that all the scenario is a silly myth.gpuccio
November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
Mark: (2): Your scenario would be more or less as follows: In the beginning, we have species "a" with protein "A". A first mutation occurs and transforms "A" into "A1", the first functional intermediate. However, the species is still the same ("a" will survive to our times), but for some reason the clone with the selective advantage ("a1") becomes isolated, and expands to a fairly big population without mixing with "a". In this new "semi-big" population (smaller than "a", I suppose, as it should exist in some special "niche"), a second useful mutation can occur, bringing to "a2". This time, not only "a2" does not become isolated from "a1", but indeed in time it completely expands, eliminating "a1" (while "a" continues to thrive, beyond the providential barriers). The next 18 transitions behave all like the last, with complete erasing of the previous population and no mixing with the original population. Finally, whem "b" is achieved, the barriers go down, and "a" and "b" can mix: but "b" is now another species, so they can go on their separate way up to the present time. Is that correct? Well, have you ever heard of "ad hoc" interpretations? However, let's say that such a scenario happened. The little problem is that it did not happen once. It happened in every single case where a new protein superfamily, IOWs a new basic functional island, appeared in natural history. That is no more "ad hoc interpretation". That is pure folly!gpuccio
November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
Mark: Indeed, there is no need to know a lot of biology to discuss this subject. Regarding your points: (1) A single mutation will never lead from one protein superfamily to another. Protein superfamilies as defined in SCOP are clearly isolated at the primary sequence level (they have completely different primary sequences, with no detectable significant homology). Therefore, a big change is necessary to go from one to another one. A transition which, according to Durston's data, is in most cases beyond my personal threshold for dFSCI (150 bits). IOWs, a transition which cannot occur randomly. Let's go to the possibility that one single variation event (inversion, frameshift mutation, or similar) may change completely one sequence into a different one. That is certainly possible. Frameshift mutations are perhaps the best example. In a frameshift mutation, a single aminoacid variation is the cause of a completely different reading of the existing information. The whole sequence changes. And so? From a probabilistic point of view, nothing changes. This is a simple point that darwinists have difficulties to understand. Let's be more clear. You start from protein A and the final result is protein B. Both are functional, but they belong to different superfamilies, and are therefore unrelated at primary sequence level. That means that, to get B, most of the aminoacids in A must change. Let's say that at least 50 aminoacids have to change exactly, which means a transition of 216 bits. As A is unrelated to B, any change can be considered as a random attempt at finding B. IOWs, the transition from A to B is a random walk. There is no significant difference if you change one AA at a time, or if you just "try" a completely different sequence. The probabilities of success remain practically non existent. The proff of that is that no frameshift mutation is known which has generated a new functional protein. As you may know, darwinists have blindly believed for years that such an example existed: Ohno's theory about the emergence of nylonase. But obviously, serious research has clearly shown that such a theory was wrong. So, a sudden transition has no possibility to find a new isolated island of function, because it does not allow even the theoretical possibility that functional intermediates may make the transition possible. Next point in next post.gpuccio
November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
gpuccio, this might interest you. A student is critiquing Dr. Behe's 'edge of evolution' at BioLogos: A Student’s Review of Behe’s “Two Binding Site Rule” http://biologos.org/blog/a-students-review-of-behes-two-binding-site-rule/ I would be interested in your thoughts on her paper.bornagain77
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Gpuccio #25 and #26 I am not the best person to answer this as I don't know enough about the underlying biology. But here a couple of thoughts - both should be preceded by "As I understand it" to reflect my limited knowledge. (1) At the molecular level a very large change may be the result of a single mutation or recombination e.g. an inversion or the insertion of a piece of viral DNA. If this has limited affect on the phenotype then there will be no intermediate but the two viable variations with very different protein structures. (2) Suppose mutation takes place in an isolated population culminating in something that gives a significant advantage in that environment. This will eliminate the intermediate forms through competition in the isolated population. Meanwhile the original population will probably have mutated in a different way - probably improving its fitness for a different environment and eliminating intermediate forms through competition. If the barrier is later removed the so the original population ovelaps the isolated population and there are niches for both - then there will be two very different molecular forms and no intermediates. I believe this is how speciation is reckoned to happen.markf
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
mark: An important point I forgot to mention. In a designed transition, the intermediates need not be selectable. They don't even need to be functional. For instance, the intermediates could be gradually built on a duplicated gene which is not even translated (a non functional duplicate), until in time the new funtional protein is achieved, and can be integrated in a new context. If the variations are selected artificially, there is no special need for expansion. That can explain why eventual intermediates are not kept. But with the darwinist scenario, all that is not possible.gpuccio
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
mark: a very interesting post from you. Let's see. While I suppose that both 1) and 2) are possible scenarios, and that only facts will help us choose between them, I must confess that at present I would favour something more similar to 2). "1)" is made difficult by both the complete absence of molecular intermediates and the "punctuated" nature of the fossil record. "2)" could come in different variants. You must remember that, in my scenario, variations are designed, and they could really be actuated in a "niche" (a natural "lab"?), possibly building up a new population in a "short" time (which as far as we know could well be of a few millions of yeras, but even of a few days), and in a protected condition. That's what design allows you to realize. It's true that, as you say: "In all the millions of reproductions that humanity has witnessed we have no reliable reports of anything other than gradual change." But it is equally true that we have no reliable report of any macroevolutionary event, too. Finally, your considerations, although interesting, are maybe more appropriate to an argument based on fossils. But my argument was molecular. That makes some difference. I will be more clear. In my (very theoretical) example, only when you reach "B" you have a new species. The idea is that the 20 intermediates from "A" (A1, A2 etc.), are only different forms of protein "A" in the species "a", only they give a selectable advantage to the species. So, species "a1" will be the same species as "a", but the descendants with the molecular form "A1" will have expanded ro a very large part of the population, so that they can beget the new variation to protein "A2", and so on. Finally, protein B2, when reached, changes dramatically (or non dramatically) the species in a way that is not only molecular, but morphological too. So, I repeat my question: if in the present world we still have species "a" and species "b", and if in species "a" we can find only the starting protein "A", where did all the 20 intermediates which brought molecularly from "A" to "B" go? Why cannot we find any trace of them in the present proteome? As you can see, reasoning in terms of molecular variation (which is obviously the real stuff) changes things a lot. We observe completely isolated protein superfamilies in the proteome. Darwinists state that the newer ones came from the older ones through more functional molecular intermediates which were selected and expanded. So, why cannot we find any trace of those molecular intermediates in the proteome? I believe that this is a very simple and good question, and I would appreciate if you tried to answer it.gpuccio
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Ah....got it. It is a beautiful statement of non-falsifiability.Upright BiPed
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: I suppose they are, but indeed I took them from tgpeeler's post #18 here.gpuccio
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
GP, your Dawkins quotes....are they from River Out of Eden?Upright BiPed
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
#20 gpuccio Let's think about this. You believe in common descent right? But do you believe 1) The offspring is always very similar to the parent i.e. within the scope of DNA recombination and mutation. or 2) Just occasionally (but often enough to account for the millions of species that exist and have existed) the offspring is dramatically different from the parent. If (1) then the issue you raise is a problem whether you believe the variation is guided or unguided. The intermediate stages from A to B must have existed and must have been viable. It leads to interesting questions about what happened to intermediate forms - but it applies to any one who holds (1) - who might well be teleological. If (2) then there are all sorts of issues e.g: (a) In all the millions of reproductions that humanity has witnessed we have no reliable reports of anything other than gradual change. (b) If an organism is significantly different from its parents that in itself makes unviable. Typically organisms thrive in an environment which includes the other members of their species and complex organisms depend on complex relationships with their close relatives. If a dog gives birth to some new species which is dramatically different processes such as the placenta, birth, suckling, development, learning of effective behaviour, relationships with siblings, are all going to make its prospects very poor. I guess in the end it is a question of which you find more plausible - that intermediate organisms died our or that just occasionally stunningly different organisms are born and prove to be viable.markf
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
I love Dawkins because he says things as they are. Take this, for instance: "Gradual evolution by small steps, each step being lucky but not too (italics in original) lucky, is the solution to the riddle. But if it is not gradual, it is no solution to the riddle: it is just a restatement of the riddle." That's absolutely true! It's exactly the same thing as what I have often stated, that unless darwinists are able to deconstruct complex functions into simple functional selectable steps, their theory is not theory at all. So, Dawkins would be a very good IDists. And this: "There will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been. These will be challenges to our ingenuity, but if our ingenuity fails, so much the worse for our ingenuity. It does not constitute evidence that there were no gradual intermediates" This is a wonderful act of pure faith. It is beautifully unfalsifiable, so I suppose that for those strict popperians out there it should obviously not be science. What better evidence of the strictly religious nature of darwinism? By the way, there is a problem I have always wondered about, and which is rarely discussed, even here. It could be defined: "the problem of the billions of molecular missing links". Shortly, it goes this way: Let's suppose that species "b" derives from species "a" through darwinian mechanisms. Let's suppose, for simplicity, that the main difference between the two is the emergence of a new protein, "B", form a pre-existing protein, "A". Let's say that "B" is very different from "A" (maybe a new protein domain), so that the transition from one to the other qualifies as a dFSCI transition. For instance, the transition could require 200 bits of functional information. Such a transition cannot happen through mere RV. Therefore, our darwinian friends have to deconstruct the transition into intermediate functional steps, just to be credible, so that NS cam enter the scenario. Let's pretend they succeed (they never have, but just for discussion...). So, the transition from "A" to "B" has been deconstructed into, say, 20 intermediates, each of them functional and selectable. No single intermediate transition is so complex as to configure dFSCI at a 150 bit threshold, so in theory each transition could have happened by chance, and then been selected. Well, my simple question is: Why today, in the existing proteome, we do find protein "A" (in the progenitor species) and protein "B" (in the derived species), but no instance of any of the 20 intermediates? Let's remember that each of those intermediates is suppose to be "more functional" of its ancestor, and has been selected and expanded in the process. So, why have all of them disappeared? A simple question. No simple answer, I believe. Maybe no answer at all. I know, someone will come and say that obviously those intermediate expanded in specific "niches", and have been completely substituted by its derivatives, while the original protein "A" has survived in another "niche", and therefore we find it today. Well, I will not comment on this "russian nesting niches" model, I prefer proper fairy tales. So, multiply the question for all existing functional proteins, and you will have a good number of "molecular missing links". OK, maybe not billions, but anyway...gpuccio
November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
tgpeeler, I like this statement of Dawkins: 'There will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been." Actually I made a very 'conservative' video that shows a very small taste of what sort of craziness we should expect, to see in the fossil record and in existing life, if the small step 'experimental' Darwinian method were actually true:,,, What Would The World Look Like If Darwinism Were True - video http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=9223906b3ae70c6fe1ee ,,, actually the failed experiments would be far worse than what I illustrated in the video. I feel the point of the video is very important to realize,,, and even one that Darwin himself recognized a serious argument against his theory: "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species ,,, I would really like to see someone with some real talent as to making videos make a descent video as to the confusion that we should naturally expect to see. in the fossil record and in life, if Darwinism were actually true,,, so as to clearly drive the point home of just how far off the mark is as to what we should expect to see,:bornagain77
November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
BA77 - thanks. You are correct. Found this howler on p. 84. "Gradual evolution by small steps, each step being lucky but not too (italics in original) lucky, is the solution to the riddle. But if it is not gradual, it is no solution to the riddle: it is just a restatement of the riddle. There will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been. These will be challenges to our ingenuity, but if our ingenuity fails, so much the worse for our ingenuity. It does not constitute evidence that there were no gradual intermediates." How hilarious is this??? THIS is what we're up against, but we're the irrational true believers? Right.tgpeeler
November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Thanks. Will update notes. :-)tgpeeler
November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
tgpeeler the page number is 83 http://www.trueorigin.org/edentj2.aspbornagain77
November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
I love Dawkins on "gradualism." "A key feature of evolution is its gradualness. (This is a matter of principle rather than fact) It may or may not be the case that some episodes of evolution take a sudden turn." River Out of Eden, page 83. "Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation." Also River Out of Eden. Sorry, can't find page # right now. Translation, gradualism is a matter of dogma, not reason or data. It is what it needs to be regardless of the facts. Wow. Now there's some intellectual integrity for you... What a joke these people are. No, really.tgpeeler
November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
What looks like a sudden episodic event in geological time, can actually be rather gradual in terms of our ordinary conception of time. I would guess that this will be pointed out to Rampino, but I doubt that he will otherwise get a lot of heat. Of course, I could be mistaken. I've mentioned in another thread, that my own view of evolution is based in niche change, and what Rampino is reporting fits right in with that.Neil Rickert
November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
@PaV so, you have lost your interest in bees?DiEb
November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
molch, Are you going to answer my question about what you object to the historical record of Jesus?Clive Hayden
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
molch: The only thing I can think when reading your reply is that you meant it with snark. SO I will make some assumptions about you when I reply. 1. You are an ardent evolutionist. 2. You think you are smarter than ID supporters. 3. You think ID arguments are at best illogical. If these assumptions are wrong, I apologize in advance. Maybe you don't think these things, but the sarcastic nature of your reply made me think that these were what you meant. I think you did not understand my reply. Consider fossils. Yes there are a ton of fossils. But, most fossils, ( as they obviously should be independent of whether evolution is true or not ) are of animals which belong to what is assumed to be a long lived stable specie. There is VERY LITTLE fossil evidence that, without inventing a whole list of unseen transitions, supports transitions between species. The story must be pieced together from very different forms. So yes there is VERY LITTLE evidence for gradual transitions between forms. Second if "evolution is episodic" it consists of bursts of evolution not necessary periodic in nature. Thus trying to define an "average" rate of change is highly dependent upon the time period selected. Now I will admit, that the episodic nature of evolution does not by itself point out that the mechanism of evolution must be a chaotic process. It may be that evolutionary rates show some dependence upon another variable that has a chaotic behavior. Either way, the episodic nature of evolution points to an underlying dependence on some chaotic process. It is much, much harder to make sense of chaotic processes. I would appreciate some of your thoughts in reply with a little less snark.JDH
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Barry: Thanks. I made the correction. When I posted, I had literally five minutes to write it up and post.PaV
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Not only would this make it impossible for people to predict rates, but it would make the problem much more intractable. The result is fewer scientific papers. I'd accept this, except it seems to assume that scientists aren't willing to utterly make blind guesses whenever they need or want to.nullasalus
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Actually I think life itself, as to when it was introduced on earth, especially bacterial life, in conjunction with gradual, and 'precise', geological processes, had more of a direct impact on transforming (terra-forming) the overall environment of the earth, than any of the temporary catastrophes on earth had to contributing to the transforming of life.,,, Myself I look at it as the 'Designer' wiping the blackboard clean to get ready for the next stage of introducing life upon the face of the earth: notes: 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 Since oxygen readily reacts and bonds with many of the solid elements making up the earth itself, and since the slow process of tectonic activity controls the turnover of the earth's crust, it took photosynthetic bacteria a few billion years before the earth’s crust was saturated with enough oxygen to allow a sufficient level of oxygen to be built up in the atmosphere as to allow higher life: 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 Increases in Oxygen Prepare Earth for Complex Life Excerpt: We at RTB argue that any mechanism exhibiting complex, integrated actions that bring about a specified outcome is designed. Studies of Earth’s history reveal highly orchestrated interplay between astronomical, geological, biological, atmospheric, and chemical processes that transform the planet from an uninhabitable wasteland to a place teeming with advanced life. The implications of design are overwhelming. http://www.reasons.org/increases-oxygen-prepare-earth-complex-life Evidence of Early Plate Tectonics Excerpt: Plate tectonics plays a critical role in keeping the Earth’s temperature constant during the Sun’s significant brightness changes. Almost four billion years ago, the Sun was 30 percent dimmer than it is today, and it has steadily increased its light output over the intervening period. This steady increase would have boiled Earth’s oceans away without plate tectonics moderating the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. http://www.reasons.org/evidence-early-plate-tectonics 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 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. 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. 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 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 Metal-mining bacteria are green chemists - Sept. 2010 Excerpt: Microbes could soon be used to convert metallic wastes into high-value catalysts for generating clean energy, say scientists writing in the September issue of Microbiology. http://www.physorg.com/news202618665.html 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. 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. 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. 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 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.” Planet's Nitrogen Cycle Overturned - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: "Ammonia is a waste product that can be toxic to animals.,,, archaea can scavenge nitrogen-containing ammonia in the most barren environments of the deep sea, solving a long-running mystery of how the microorganisms can survive in that environment. Archaea therefore not only play a role, but are central to the planetary nitrogen cycles on which all life depends.,,,the organism can survive on a mere whiff of ammonia – 10 nanomolar concentration, equivalent to a teaspoon of ammonia salt in 10 million gallons of water." As well, many types of bacteria in earth's early history lived in what are called cryptogamic colonies on the earth's primeval continents. These colonies dramatically transformed the primeval land into stable nutrient filled soils which were receptive for future advanced vegetation to appear. CRYPTOBIOTIC SOIL - Excerpt: When moistened, cyanobacteria become active, moving through the soil and leaving a trail of sticky material behind. The sheath material sticks to surfaces such as rock or soil particles, forming an intricate web of fibers throughout the soil. In this way, loose soil particles are joined together, and an otherwise unstable surface becomes very resistant to both wind and water erosion. Bacterial 'Ropes' Tie Down Shifting Southwest Excerpt: In the desert, the initial stabilization of topsoil by rope-builders promotes colonization by a multitude of other microbes. From their interwoven relationships arise complex communities known as "biological soil crusts," important ecological components in the fertility and sustainability of arid ecosystems.( Of note: Phylogenetic analyses performed by the researchers have further shown that the evolution of the trait occurred separately in three different genera; an example of "convergent evolution" (read evolutionary miracle story), rather than a tie to a single common rope-building ancestor.)bornagain77
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
"the LITTLE data that is available." what might you be speaking of here? Obviously not the amount of fossils available? "If it evolution is chaotic" hmmm: "episodic" - "chaotic" - practically the same thing...molch
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
One thing to recognize here is the compelling need for evolution to be slow and gradual for purely professional reasons. If it is slow and gradual, all kinds of averaging assumptions can be made. Then even not so smart scientists can make educated guesses about mutation rates and models and about what specie appeared when, such as calculating when two branches shared a common ancestor. This allows for the generation of more papers because more conclusions can be squeezed out of the little data that available. If it evolution is chaotic, there really is not much modeling that can be done. The theory would end up not being able to make any quantifiable predictions, since the rates of change are unpredictable. Not only would this make it impossible for people to predict rates, but it would make the problem much more intractable. The result is fewer scientific papers.JDH
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Jerry Coyne's already calling for a magazine boycott, it seems.nullasalus
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
PaV, Cheesy means you left the word "not" out.Barry Arrington
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
SCheesman: I did put it mildly purposively knowing that a person's political persuasion will temper their view of the treatment Bork received accordingly. But, yes, it was atrocious behavior on the part of the Dems.PaV
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
He'll get Goulded or Sgoulded.RkBall
November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply