Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Secular and Theistic Darwinists Fear ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this comment I included an essay I wrote in 1994 at the behest of a Christian friend, David Pounds, after my conversion from militant atheism to traditional Christianity.

Dave encouraged me to write it, but it only chronicles one aspect of the journey (the most significant one).

But there was another extremely significant aspect of this journey, which I cannot overemphasize, and that was reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, recommended to me by Dave. I was thoroughly schooled in traditional Darwinian orthodoxy, and never gave a thought to the possibility that there might be problems with it.

It took me only a few hours over a couple of days to read the book, and my materialistic worldview concerning origins completely and irrevocably collapsed. The logic, evidence, and argumentation presented by Denton were compelling, and I realized that I had been conned by the “scientific consensus,” with the obvious intention of promoting a secular, materialistic worldview.

It also became immediately obvious that “God-guided evolution” was an oxymoron, since “evolution,” as defined in the academy and by its major promoters, is by definition undirected and without purpose.

This is why secular humanists (e.g., the NCSE) must denigrate, defame, ridicule, and otherwise abuse ID proponents, and fight attempts to present any contrary evidence. The stakes are high, for those who want to promote a godless worldview.

Comments
bornagain 77:
Mathgrrl, actually ID is taken seriously by a majority of Americans:>Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design http://www.dakotavoice.com/200.....nt-design/</blockquote Yes, and most americans believe in alien abductions: http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/ When I have a problem with my car, I don't care what 'most americans' think the solution is, I care what most mechanics, think the solution is. When I'm sick, I don't care what most americans think about it, I care what most doctors think about it. In that same way, in evaluating scientific subjects, or anything else for that matter, what 'regular people' think doesn't (and shouldn't) carry nearly as much weight as what the experts in the field think. It of course doesn't mean the experts are always right, but I'd bet on what a respected geologist says about earth's history over that of a shoe-shiner, no matter how clever that shoe-shiner was, or how good he was a shining shoes. Most people think that humans only use about ~10% of their brains, but I'd guess that essentially no trained neurobiologists believe this. The "most people believe in an ID" is an argument that I hear over and over, and for the life of me I can't understand why you think it is a compelling argument at all.
jurassicmac
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
zeroseven: My vote is with mathGrrl. Well, I had not exactly asked for popular vote, but thak you just the same for your contribution :). In a sense, I feel on TV. I don't like incivility, but believe be, there are many different ways to be incivil, and some of them are worse, and less sincere, than others.gpuccio
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
andrewjg, thanks for the &LT &GT tips. Unlike Evolutionary Designed DNA, Intelligently Designed computer code is intrinsicly brittle. By that I mean that almost any change to a computer binary code will make a significant change to the function of that code. I used the example of a single bit changing a Jump on Zero to a Jump on Non Zero code earlier. Good programming practices can limit the damage somewhat, but changing jump conditions is definitely going to affect the execution of the program. A lot of changes to DNA, on the other hand, will result in no change in the protein it specifies at all, since many amino acids are specified by two different DNA sequences. Even if a DNA change does result in a different amino acid, if that amino acid is buried inside a protein and it doesn't affect the active areas on the surface of the protein, there will be no difference in the function of that protein. I can't find the figures right now, but IIRC, on the average about one half of all DNA mutations produce no detectable effect on the organism. That is definitely not true for Intelligently Designed computer code.warehuff
September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
z7 - actually, just speaking for myself, I am stimulated when my foundational beliefs are actually challenged by means of rational argument. That provides me the opportunity to consider new arguments and data and to make adjustments in my thinking, if warranted. What makes me angry (and uncivil) is when I am subjected to relentless stupidity and willful ignorance. But that's just me. Have a nice day.tgpeeler
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
"That’s all, for me. And anybody is free to judge my or your intellectual honesty." My vote is with mathGrrl. For some reason her questions unleashed a torrent of emotive uncivil responses. And now she has probably gone, realising that the prospect of a civil discussion has gone. What makes people angry and uncivil? When their foundational beliefs are threatened.zeroseven
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000096
Based on the landscapes of these two different surfaces, it appears possible for adaptive walks with only random substitutions to climb with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape from any primordial or random sequence, whereas an enormous range of sequence diversity is required to climb further up the rugged surface above the middle region.
Other articles on protein evolution: http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v10/n12/abs/nrm2805.html
Directed evolution circumvents our profound ignorance of how a protein's sequence encodes its function by using iterative rounds of random mutation and artificial selection to discover new and useful proteins. Proteins can be tuned to adapt to new functions or environments by simple adaptive walks involving small numbers of mutations. Directed evolution studies have shown how rapidly some proteins can evolve under strong selection pressures and, because the entire 'fossil record' of evolutionary intermediates is available for detailed study, they have provided new insight into the relationship between sequence and function. Directed evolution has also shown how mutations that are functionally neutral can set the stage for further adaptation.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=related:snFAUWZhkIsJ:scholar.google.com/&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=WCuJTJy2MJSg8AT5-5TfDg&sa=X&oi=science_links&ct=sl-related&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQzwIwAA Of course there appear to be some who believe that chemistry behaves differently outside the laboratory, or the fact that experiments are controlled implies that they are not relevant to real life. That would make evolution somewhat different than other branches of science, where the ability to control variables makes research possible.Petrushka
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Petrushka@87 Which paper? Is your link in this thread?andrewjg
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Let’s be simple. Durston measures the functional information in the P 53 DNA domain at 525 Fits. Therefore, according to my definition and threshold, and even according to Dembski’s threshold, it is a protein which can be classified as exhibiting dFSCI.
Several papers have been linked that showed protein evolution in the laboratory that began with random sequences, and proceeded with random mutations. One of the papers I linked asserted that it was rather easy to reach the mid-point in functionality, starting from random sequences.Petrushka
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
MathGrrl: From my post #53 to you: "Let’s be simple. Durston measures the functional information in the P 53 DNA domain at 525 Fits. Therefore, according to my definition and threshold, and even according to Dembski’s threshold, it is a protein which can be classified as exhibiting dFSCI. That means that a purely random search, starting form any non related starting state, be it from scratch of form an existing unrelated sequence, has to generate 525 bits of functional information to produce that protein domain." What was it that I had never stated? As I asked Indium, why do darwinists start to imagine things, when they have no more arguments?gpuccio
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
MathGrrl: Gpuccio has never stated which, if any, of Durston’s calculations are equivalent to his (gpuccio’s) concept of “functional information”. Are you kidding? All of them!gpuccio
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
MathGrrl: For once, let's change: I am not patient anymore. you say: I have patiently been requesting a step-by-step example of how to calculate CSI (or some variant thereof) for a biological system taking into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms. Well, I have defined and explained how to compute dFSCI. Now, you give me a "biological system with known and explicit evolutionary mechanisms", and I will apply my definitions and procedures to it. If those systems sgould not exist, it's not certainly my fault. Maybe the great theory of darwinian evolution has not been able to produce a real model in the manny years it has existed. Not my problem at all. My definition and procedures remain perfectly valid, and can be applied to what exists, not certainly to what does not exist. That's all, for me. And anybody is free to judge my or your intellectual honesty.gpuccio
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
@warehuff 79 "BA, computer object code is Intelligently Designed. The Intelligent Designers optimize the code for compactness and speedy execution. This makes the code extremely brittle and it's almost impossible to change even a single bit without having an effect on the program." That is at best half the story. Everything BA said is true. Good programs are modular, layered, a great deal of care is taken to separate responsibilities and ensure you "don't repeat yourself". Good programs are designed to be maintained and incrementally improved. The fact that we don't have machines that can determine what the code is intended to do as opposed to what it says is more about our ability than design rules in particular. But we certainly do have many way in which we prevent the brittleness you talk about being a problem. There is redundancy and error detection and correction mechanisms everywhere. We also have a ton of redundancy in code. Just look at something like the graphics display system in Windows for example. There are multiple rendering paths. Redundancy is a hallmark of good design. You are confusing our limitations as designers with design in general. But lets look at DNA and all the systems involved in the maintenance and expression of it. There should be millions of inferior systems i.e. systems out there and yet there are not. Bacteria that is 250 millions years old is the same as it is today. The fact that the base layers of life all have so much in common are so stable is a testament to good design. The fact that the higher layers of life are so mutable and adaptable is again evidence of design of the highest order. Systems that just happened without forethought could hardly be so robust.andrewjg
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
@warehuff Use &gt; for > and &lt; for <andrewjg
September 13, 2010
September
09
Sep
13
13
2010
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
That should be: Apples do not equal Pears Computer Code does not equal DNA Code. Apparently when the "less than" and "greater than" symbols are typed next to each other, the Blog code deletes them.warehuff
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 3: "Case in point, is it easier for man to design a new operating system for a computer by ‘bottom up’ incrementally changing a existing program one bit at a time, maintaining functionality of the computer system for each step the entire time, or is it easier for man to design a new operating system from the top down, in the proper hierarchal structure, so as to accomplish the desired function?" BA, computer object code is Intelligently Designed. The Intelligent Designers optimize the code for compactness and speedy execution. This makes the code extremely brittle and it's almost impossible to change even a single bit without having an effect on the program. A LOT of those effects are major - for example, changing a single bit can change a Jump On Zero instruction to a Jump On NonZero which will crash the average program. Because of this Intelligently Designed brittleness, it is probably not possible to make major changes to most computer programs by changing one bit at a time while keeping each iteration of the program viable. DNA code, on the other hand, is evolved. There is a ton of redundancy in the basic code and the organisms "designed" by evolution are full of feedback loops that tend to keep the organism in optimal condition for survival and reproduction. Because of this, if you start changing single DNA base-pairs, you will find that about half of the changes have no discernable effect on the organism at all. A very significant fraction of the changes that do affect the organism, make "useful" changes. The changes that damage the organism are discarded by evolution. Apples Pears Computer Code DNA Codewarehuff
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
Jurrasicmac @ 36 I haven't been a theist since grammar school, but many of my friends and relatives are and the ones who aren't fundamentalists tend towards theistic evolution. Their general idea of TE is that Darwinian evolution works all the time without requiring supernatural attention, but God occasionally "tweaks" the process to get an organism exactly the way He wants it. It's always seemed like a pretty reasonable belief to me. There are problems with it, as you point out, but those are problems with religion in general. Theistic Evolution is not only compatible with ID, it solves a problem I've never seen addressed by the ID community - just when is the Intelligently Designed DNA added? Genesis implies that all of the DNA in all of the species was assembled over a six day period several thousand years ago, but that theory hasn't stood the test of time. Instead, life seems to be billions of years old and species seem to only last for a few million years on average. New species also seem to be derived from older species. Darwinian evolution says that variation and natural selection (plus sexual selection, genetic drift and a host of other factors) is responsible for the DNA changes that make new species. Theistic Evolution says that in addition to that, God is responsible for some of the changes, especially the ones that led to human beings. When He wants to make a new organism or fine tune an existing one, He just slips the new DNA into a newly fertilized egg (or at some other stage such as the sperm or unfertilized egg) and the job is done and ID's problem is solved. "No it does not. If you have to invoke a miracle in your explanation, It is not science at all." Well, no, it's THEISTIC Evolution.warehuff
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
Mathgrrl @ 62, sorry, not coming out to play with you either. It's a lot more fun for me to watch Upright, BA77, GP, etal, do the damage to your lack of argument than to do it myself. I'm trying to learn patience by watching the masters. I still have a ways to go. "What is information?" Indeed. That is rich. Have a nice day.tgpeeler
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Mathgrrl in 48: "I’d also really appreciate it if you could answer one particular question from my previous post: If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI?" If you were really interested in the truth you wouldn't ask this kinda silly questions. It's sad and transparent really. You would instead ask "Why do we need to develop new models like CSI etc. for information when we already have well defined Shannon information?" And I could or someone else could explain why.Innerbling
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
mathgrrl, You have, so far, failed to post what exactly you find lacking in Durston's measurements. If you do so, then GP will have an opportunity to respond to an actual argument. Since intellectual honesty is one of your concerns, stating Durston's errors outright, then allowing those to be scrutinized, would surely be more productive than simply walking away with a wholly manufactured belief, don't you agree?Upright BiPed
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Interesting discussion. I would hope there's not "fear" of ID but rather willingness to consider how the empirical data converges more to the ID side or the naturalistic side. What do folks think are the most important biological papers that give empirical support to Intelligent Design?LarTanner
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Sorry Cabal your right, the proper term I should have used is,,, 'you neo-Darwinists' since I was in fact referring to the dogmatic atheistic position that is currently taught as established fact in all our major universities despite have zero empirical support. My apologies to all the other flavors of evolution out there.bornagain77
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
I only wish
"you Darwinists"
would not be used quite as often...Cabal
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Mathgrrl, actually ID is taken seriously by a majority of Americans: Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/zogby-poll-most-americans-believe-in-intelligent-design/ It seems that it takes a fair amount of brainwashing (oops I meant 'higher' education) to completely crush the common sense that most Americans have to see overwhelming Intelligent Design that is clearly present in such things as this: Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm I don't know Mathgrrl, it is hard for me to take you Darwinists seriously, when you guys pretend evolution has all this great support behind it when in fact it doesn't. Perhaps you are the one who can show me functional complexity being generated??? Perhaps you could show me a flagellum being put together by evolutionary processes? Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630 Or if that's to hard perhaps you could show me where Axe went wrong: Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. (of note: the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Maybe that is too much to ask you Darwinists Mathgrrl, perhaps you could show me a simple two step increase in vertical evolution: This following paper, and audio interview, shows that there is a severe 'fitness cost' for cells to carry 'transitional' proteins that have not achieved full functionality yet: Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness - May 2010 Excerpt: Despite the theoretical existence of this short adaptive path to high fitness, multiple independent lines grown in tryptophan-limiting liquid culture failed to take it. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the double-mutant trpA gene. Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2 Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - audio http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/05/testing_evolution_in_the_lab_w.html Or perhaps that is too hard for you, so maybe you can show me the work that falsifies Behe: "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/nature_paper_finally_reaches_t.html I don't know Mathgrrl, you act as if you got all this evidence backing you up and I can't find anything whatsoever to back you up in what you Darwinists say is true!!! Perhaps I missed something,,, could you please show me that knock down piece of evidence that will finally prove evolution even plausible to me??? I promise if you do that I will join you in your crusade to convert America to your religion of blind pitiful indifference a.k.a. Darwinism!!!bornagain77
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
math, As expected. Where exactly in your latest post did you address whatever you find lacking in Durston's measurement?Upright BiPed
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed,
Perhaps if you could just do a little more posturing
Your incivility is noted. If you want ID to be taken seriously, you should spend more time answering legitimate questions than casting aspersions on others' characters. Doing so gives the impression that you can't answer those questions.
you could tell him exactly what you find missing from Durston’s measurement
Gpuccio has never stated which, if any, of Durston's calculations are equivalent to his (gpuccio's) concept of "functional information".MathGrrl
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 57
Truly it is a marvel to watch Darwinists claim, on one post, that naturalistic forces can produce information just as efficiently as an intelligent agent...
Who was this silly darwinist that said naturalistic forces can produce information just as efficiently as an intelligent agent? That is quite a stupid thing to say. Which post was that? I'd like to give them a piece of my mind for saying something so ignorant.
...and, on another post, claim not to know what it is that is being produced. You’ve got to love it.
Which posts were those again? I'm sure you're not putting straw-man words in to someone else's mouth, are you?jurassicmac
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
mark, Your need to hustle the party whine is duly noted.Upright BiPed
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
mathgrrl, Perhaps if you could just do a little more posturing you might shake GP from his non-responsive treatment of you. Or, alternatively, you could tell him exactly what you find missing from Durston's measurement, and he could respond to an actual argument.Upright BiPed
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
#62 UB As I said it may not apply to Allan, but all ID supporters should be aware that if their opponents drop out of the conversation it may be because they have been excluded without warning. It is quite frustrating (of course they may just have got bored).markf
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
further notes Mathgrrl: Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of change that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination in Vreeland's experiment. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by verifying that Dr. Vreeland's methodology for extracting ancient DNA was solid and was not introducing contamination because the DNA sequences this time around were completely unique: World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered (419 million years old) - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. “We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had,” Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. “These six pieces were unique",,, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-dna-bacteria-discovered.html These following studies, by Dr. Cano on ancient bacteria, preceded Dr. Vreeland's work: “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.” http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=281961 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 Dr. Cano's work on ancient bacteria came in for intense scrutiny since it did not conform to Darwinian predictions, and since people found it hard to believe you could revive something that was millions of years old. Yet Dr. Cano has been vindicated: “After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reductionist-predictions-always-fail/comment-page-3/#comment-357693 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 ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria. Here is a revisit to the video of the 'Fitness Test' that evolutionary processes have NEVER passed as for a demonstration of the generation of functional complexity/information above what was already present in a parent species bacteria: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there 'HAS' to be 'major genetic drift' to the DNA of bacteria within 250 million years, even though the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain exactly the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. In fact recent research, with bacteria which are alive right now, has also severely weakened the 'genetic drift' argument of evolutionists: The consequences of genetic drift for bacterial genome complexity - Howard Ochman - 2009 Excerpt: The increased availability of sequenced bacterial genomes allows application of an alternative estimator of drift, the genome-wide ratio of replacement to silent substitutions in protein-coding sequences. This ratio, which reflects the action of purifying selection across the entire genome, shows a strong inverse relationship with genome size, indicating that drift promotes genome reduction in bacteria. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/06/05/gr.091785.109 But Mathgrrl this is really not surprising since if genomes did 'drift about' their would be nothing for the genomes to drift to: Evolution Tested and Falsified - Dr. Don Patton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036803 Evolution Vs. Functional Proteins - Where Did The Information Come From? - Doug Axe - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. (of note: the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723bornagain77
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply