Home » 'Junk DNA' » Jonathan Wells on the junk DNA myth

Jonathan Wells on the junk DNA myth

Jonathan Wells Yesterday, we noted the Abstract and Conclusion of Jonathan Wells’s Cornell Origin of Biological Information paper, “Not Junk After All.”

Here is an interview with Wells on the junk myth, “Yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such”, here’s an excerpt from his book, The Myth of Junk DNA, and here’s his response to critics, “Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA”.

 

One thing you can be sure of, now that it is clear that very little DNA is junk, you will no longer hear how it prove ID is wrong; a future discard will be substituted.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

50 Responses to Jonathan Wells on the junk DNA myth

  1. link to thread that was closed during debate:
    http://debunkingchristianity.b.....ly-to.html

    A few days ago I was on another blog discussing theodicy which eventually turned ID. After 686 posts the topic was closed before I could really dissect the information aspect of nucleotide arrangements/sequences as programming.

    Andy_Schueler said:

    You seem to believe that naturally occuring sequences have an invisible property called “information” which a random amino acid sequence doesn´t have, and if only you´d “knew this language”, you could tell these two kinds of proteins apart based on finding this “information”. No. You couldn´t. There are naturally occuring sequences which have no biologically meaningful function (or have biologically meaningful functions that are actually harmful to the organism…) and there are proteins in randomized synthetic libraries that have biologically meaningful functions. And even if that wouldn´t be the case, for any useful definition of “information” (yours is not one them), it is trivial to show that evolutionary processes are able to create it. You have no case.

    The appeal is often made to coding which didn’t appear to produce functional information (or did produce a harmful protein) to skirt away from Information/programming being from Intelligence. It seems like a clear red herring to me since there is still functional information produced as a result of other programming (programmed information) regardless whatever random processes are rearranging the code. I argued that if I was omniscient regarding human proteins I could identify the good coding from the bad based on the specific sequences. What am I missing here?

  2. http://debunkingchristianity.b.....ly-to.html

    Another comment he made from the same link:

    It is not “obvious” to you because you barely understand what you are saying – you wish it would be obviously true, but all you have are your intuitions and experiences with systems that are not analogous.
    “Ink doesn´t arrange itself on a blank page to produce a newspaper article, ergo abiogenesis is impossible” is not “practical wisdom” it´s foolish nonsense – you let your intuitions and experiences with one system dictate what should be possible (or not) for every other system, including those that are absolutely not analogous. The analogy doesn´t make sense on any level:
    1. There is a virtually infinite number of possible arrangements for ink molecules on paper, only a tiny subset of which would correspond to letters from the english alphabet, while for chemical reactions that create polymers of nucleotides, EVERY possible arrangement would correspond to a string of “letters” (to stay in the analogy).

    2. Ink molecules arranging themselves to form a newspaper article again implies that there is this one tiny tiny needle in the HUUUUUGE haystack of possibilities that “random processes” have to stumble upon, but as I already explained to you, this is false. There isn´t just one “needle”, there isn´t even just one kind of “needle”. There is substantial evidence to support that the earliest replicators relied heavily on RNA to store and transmit genetic information and to catalyze chemical reactions. But it didn´t have to be any specific instance of these molecules – ANYTHING capable of autonomous replication would have done. For all instances of autonomously replicating RNA systems that we found so far, we know that there are variations of the system with equal, better, or worse replication fidelity, and it doesn´t matter which of those was the first. It didn´t even have to be RNA, it has also been demonstrated that other XNAs could do the same job (the ‘X’ is a placeholder for various alternatives to ‘R’ (=”Ribose”) that have been tested).

    3. “Information” in polymers of nucleotides has little to do with “information” in a human language. DNA / RNA / XNA polymers are not analogous to “words” in a human language (well, in some sense they are – but this analogy is completely misleading at best and your intutions and experiences based on the english language do not apply here).

    4. DNA / RNA / XNA polymers are not “symbolic codes”.
    5. The chemistry that happens and the reactions that are possible on a sheet of paper is not the chemistry that happens and is possible in a hydrothermal vent (for example).</blockquote?

  3. B: The diagnosis is simple: selectively hyperskeptical dismissal of otherwise uncontroversial facts. With D/RNA coding for proteins, we are looking at a plain case of object code — which has been cracked for decades now, used in a string data structure. The objector needs to ponder whether a punched paper tape or the prongs on a Yale lock key hold information. And those proteins are a part of a complex, functionally specific key-lock fitting molecular nanotech system that we can only begin to glimpse. Their function is specifically dependent on folding driven by specific sequence. KF

  4. KF @ 3

    How would you make the case for peer-review? I think that the objector in this case would say that it is a different “type” of information that occurs as a natural phenomenon rather than as a result of intelligence. If you were refuting his 5 points, how would you approach it? What different points would you make?

  5. @ Breckmin

    You’d be better directing your questions in a venue frequented by scientists.

  6. Alan Fox:

    You’d be better directing your questions in a venue frequented by scientists.

    Like TSZ, lol?

  7. @ 3 kairosfocus

    particularly interested in a hydrothermal vent as it relates to Jack Szostak’s work on creating (watching them form)stable vesicles which can break and then later form self-replicating proto-cells capable of making RNA chains. It is amazing to me that we could postulate the chemicals for nucleotides all being in the same place in the universe, let alone ribose, etc… how do they end up with useful or meaningful information? My suspicion is they don’t… and this is light years away from DNA let alone small functional RNA.

  8. @ 5

    Well Mr. Fox,

    I take it you have lost faith in Uncommon Descent’s ability to scientifically analyze the data of a specific find?

    Do you have anything specific in mind that was not scientifically understood here at uncommondescent?

  9. @ 5

    Mung makes a good point, where else would I go? (to get the ID side of the argument)

  10. Mr. Fox, someone pointed out a while back that while on UD you are fairly well behaved but once on TSZ you revert back to the boorish behavior that is typical of internet atheists. Why is this? But regardless of your hypocrisy in your treatment of us, let’s take a look at your claim that Darwinism is scientific and Intelligent Design is unscientific and see what we can find. This morning another atheistic neo-Darwinist, like yourself, claimed, as you frequently do, that ID was untestable and unscientific to which I responded:

    I hold that Darwinism is unscientific and ID is scientific for the former has no discernible demarcation criteria so as to delineate it as scientific whereas the later, ID, does,,,

    Moreover all the foundational presuppositions undergirding neo-Darwinism are found to be false.

    Reductive materialism is falsified by advances quantum mechanics.

    ‘Randomness’ (entropic processes of the universe) consistently destroy functional information instead of build it.

    Natural selection is ‘empty’ of true explanatory power and to the extent that it does do anything, it is found that Natural Selection reduces genetic information instead of creates it.

    see also Denis Nobel’s lecture on the modern synthesis being false.

    As to neo-Darwinism having no discernible falsification criteria so as to delineate it as scientific:

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    In fact all the foundational presuppositions undergirding neo-Darwinism, in the modern synthesis, are now shown to be false:

    Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212

    Whereas ID does not suffer such an embarrassment as to having no discernible falsification criteria so as to delineate it as scientific:

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    ,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    - Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    As to my claim, ‘Reductive materialism (which is the main philosophy underpinning the atheistic version of neo-Darwinism) is falsified by advances quantum mechanics’:

    the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    As to my claim that ‘‘Randomness’ (entropic processes of the universe) consistently destroy functional information in the cell instead of build it up’

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? …. The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
    Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 – Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    ,,having a empirically demonstrated direct connection between entropy and the information inherent within a cell is extremely problematic for Darwinists because,,,

    “Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
    Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

  11. Mr. Fox, as to my claim that ‘Natural selection is ‘empty’ of true explanatory power and to the extent that it does do anything, it is found that Natural Selection reduces genetic information instead of creates it.’

    Natural Selection Is Empty – Michael Egnor – August 30, 2013
    Excerpt: What’s essential about adaptationism, as viewed from this perspective, is precisely its claim that there is a level of evolutionary explanation. We think this claim is just plain wrong. We think that successful explanations of the fixation of phenotypic traits by ecological variables typically belong not to evolutionary theory but to natural history, and that there is just no end of the sorts of things about a natural history that can contribute to explaining the fixation of some or other feature of a creature’s phenotype. Natural history isn’t a theory of evolution; it’s a bundle of evolutionary scenarios. That’s why the explanations it offers are so often post hoc and unsystematic. -
    Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini’s – What Darwin Got Wrong – 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75991.html

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – published online May 2013 -
    Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0010

    Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information – No Beneficial Mutations – Lee Spetner – Michael Denton – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816

    Though on top of all that CS Lewis’s argument from reason and Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, in which it is shown neo-Darwinism results in the epistemological failure of naturalism itself,,

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    Then perhaps you can begin to understand why I find you assertion that ID is ‘unscientific’ to be laughable Mr. Fox:

    “Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.”
    ~ Alvin Plantinga

    Verse and Music:

    Proverbs 21:30
    There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD.

    Better Than A Hallelujah – Amy Grant
    http://myktis.com/songs/better-than-a-hallelujah/

  12. Breckmin asks where to get an ID argument. Well yes. UD is about the only place left for that. What you won´t get is any kind of evidence -based explanation.

  13. “What you won´t get is any kind of evidence -based explanation.”

    Says the man who can’t produce evidence for a single molecular machine being generated by Darwinian processes:

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here is an example that intelligence can do as such:

    (Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video
    https://vimeo.com/36880067

    Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU5ojTpyzg

    ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0

  14. Alan Fox:

    Breckmin asks where to get an ID argument. Well yes. UD is about the only place left for that. What you won´t get is any kind of evidence -based explanation.

    Well no, Alan, that’s jut not true, and you know it’s not true. As you speak there are multiple threads at TSZ defending ID, and both Upright BiPed and gpuccio have put in appearances over there in spite of it’s obvious echo-chamber qualities.

    Take, for example, the thread on Darwin’s Doubt, the new book by Stephen Meyer. But it seems that Elizabeth is the only “critic” there to have actually read the book!

    So on that score alone Breckmin should be asking here rather than there. At least we try to do our homework here.

  15. BA77:

    Mr. Fox, as to my claim that ‘Natural selection is ‘empty’ of true explanatory power and to the extent that it does do anything, it is found that Natural Selection reduces genetic information instead of creates it.’

    That’s NOT why it’s an empty concept, or at least that’s not the argument Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini make.

  16. Mung, funny, what I quoted is verbatim of how Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini sum up their argument, before Egnor states,,

    Natural selection is not a level of explanation. In F&P-P’s cogent phrase, natural selection is empty.
    See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....YUxbv.dpuf

    mung, Perhaps you have a better quote from them? If so I will be glad to amend my notes.

  17. BA77:

    I read the Egnor article. Nothing I said contradicts what he wrote. The problem for me is what you appended to what he wrote that he did not in fact himself write. Nor did Foder and Piattelli-Palmarini write it.

    This was your exact “quote”:

    ‘Natural selection is ‘empty’ of true explanatory power and to the extent that it does do anything, it is found that Natural Selection reduces genetic information instead of creates it.’

    The quote marks are yours, not mine.

    If you can show me where that’s an actual quote from either Egnor or from Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini I’l gladly withdraw my objection.

    I can gladly provide you with quotes from their book, they just won’t look like the one you’ve given.

    “If nobody believes Skinner any more, why does everybody still believe Darwin?” p. 3

  18. mung so you do not object to what Egnor or from Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini wrote but to what I wrote preceding the quote? Okie Dokie hows this for splitting hairs:

    Natural Selection Is Empty – Michael Egnor – August 30, 2013
    Excerpt: “What’s essential about adaptationism, as viewed from this perspective, is precisely its claim that there is a level of evolutionary explanation. We think this claim is just plain wrong. We think that successful explanations of the fixation of phenotypic traits by ecological variables typically belong not to evolutionary theory but to natural history, and that there is just no end of the sorts of things about a natural history that can contribute to explaining the fixation of some or other feature of a creature’s phenotype. Natural history isn’t a theory of evolution; it’s a bundle of evolutionary scenarios. That’s why the explanations it offers are so often post hoc and unsystematic.” – Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini’s – What Darwin Got Wrong – 2010
    Natural selection is not a level of explanation. In F&P-P’s cogent phrase, natural selection is empty.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75991.html

  19. BA77:

    mung so you do not object to what Egnor or from Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini wrote but to what I wrote preceding the quote

    There was no quote, there was an alleged quote. I object to your assertion that you were quoting anyone.

    BA77:

    Natural selection is ‘empty’ of true explanatory power and to the extent that it does do anything, it is found that Natural Selection reduces genetic information instead of creates it.

    Reference please? Who are you quoting?

  20. Mung, I did not claim that either Egnor or Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini wrote what I said before I quoted them directly. Thus I amend my notes to include this following quote from Egnor:

    Natural selection is not a level of explanation. In F&P-P’s cogent phrase, natural selection is empty.

    I hope this is to your satisfaction as I have removed any personal interpretation I may have had, that you may have objected to, from my notes and let Egnor’s own words speak for themselves. I’m quite happy to have Natural selection is not a level of explanation. In F&P-P’s cogent phrase, natural selection is empty. in my notes and to remove any false interpretation I may have imposed on it.

  21. Hi Breckmin,

    Just a few comments in response to #2 above.

    1. Comparing amino acid sequences to ink dots may be off the mark; comparing them to Scrabble letters is not. The same goes for the nucleotides in RNA.

    2. In a discussion hosted by Edge in 2008, entitled, Life! What a Concept, with scientists Freeman Dyson, Craig Venter, George Church, Dimitar Sasselov and Seth Lloyd, Professor Robert Shapiro (1935-2011) explained why he found the RNA world hypothesis so incredible:

    … I looked at the papers published on the origin of life and decided that it was absurd that the thought of nature of its own volition putting together a DNA or an RNA molecule was unbelievable.

    I’m always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters, containing every language on Earth, and you heap them together and you then took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there, and the letters fell into a line which contained the words “To be or not to be, that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule, given no feedback — and there would be no feedback, because it wouldn’t be functional until it attained a certain length and could copy itself — appearing on the Earth.

    3. Now let’s consider proteins. Specifically, let’s consider a protein made up of 150 amino acids – which is a fairly modest length. If we compare the number of 150-amino-acid sequences that correspond to some sort of functional protein to the total number of possible 150-amino-acid sequences, we find that only a tiny proportion of possible amino acid sequences are capable of performing a function of any kind. The vast majority of amino-acid sequences are good for nothing. So, what proportion are we talking about here? An astronomically low proportion: 1 in 10 to the power of 74, according to work done by Dr. Douglas Axe. When we add the requirement that a protein has to be made up of amino acids that are either all left-handed or all right-handed, and when we finally add the requirement that the amino acids have to be held together by peptide bonds, we find that only 1 in 10 to the power of 164 amino-acid sequences of that length are suitable proteins. I’d certainly call that a needle in a haystack, and I think you would, too.

    4. Regarding the reality of the genetic code, this topic was covered in a post of mine entitled, Is the genetic code a real code? where I quoted Barry Arrington’s argument that the genetic code is a semiotic code, as well as a statement by Chance Ratcliff that “the DNA to polypeptide mapping function is in the form F:A?B, where F: is performed essentially by RNA polymerase, aminoacyl trna synthetase, and the ribosome, and works by mechanism to convert elements of A (codons) into elements of B (amino acids).”

    I hope that helps answer Andy Schueler’s objections.

  22. If we compare the number of 150-amino-acid sequences that correspond to some sort of functional protein to the total number of possible 150-amino-acid sequences, we find that only a tiny proportion of possible amino acid sequences are capable of performing a function of any kind.

    With respect, this is rubbish, Vincent. The unexplored space of all theoretically synthesizable proteins is vast, theoretically infinite. What cannot be claimed is what level of potentially functional (in some context) proteins lies within that space. Random sapling (Szostak for example) suggests functionality is widespread.

  23. Oops not young trees

    sampling!

  24. OT: Is Richard Dawkins proving the existence of God after all?
    The scientist in the following video, who works within the field of Quantum Mechanics, shows how one of Richard Dawkins presuppositions, that he used in a recent debate, actually proves the existence of God:
    Is Richard Dawkins proving the existence of God after all? – Antoine Suarez – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXXqv9zKEw

  25. Mr. Fox,

    Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 1, 2012

    Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21.

    These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein.

    And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences.

    Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required.

    And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier.

    These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....1503051454

    Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB – Doug Axe – 2011
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....article-in

    Shortcuts to new protein folds – October 2010
    Excerpt: Axe concludes that all of these putative shortcuts are dead ends. The Darwinian search mechanism is not capable of finding new protein folds by random sampling and all the shortcuts to new folds are dead ends.
    http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/.....folds.html

    Here is an article that clearly illustrate that the protein evidence, no matter how crushing to Darwinism, is always, ‘unscientifically’, crammed into the Darwinian framework by Evolutionists instead of the Darwinists ever considering the fact that they might have a problem:

    The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics: Protein Evolution Case Study – Cornelius Hunter – January 2011
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....etics.html

  26. Hunter’s not a biologist, Phil.

  27. Mr. Fox, Dr. Hunter has a PhD in biophysics.

    Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology.
    http://www.discovery.org/p/208

    But since you bring it up, Darwin’s degree was in theology, which explains why most of the arguments for Darwinism are based in Theodicy instead of science. (numerous references upon request supporting that fact)

    As to your Szostak reference, you’ve been shown to be wrong on this before, but to let others know where Szostak’s work fails,,,

    This following paper was the paper that put the final nail in the coffin for Szostak’s work:

    A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells – 2009
    Excerpt: “Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division.”
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0007385

    To show how ludicrous this is,,

    How Proteins Evolved – Cornelius Hunter – December 2010
    Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....olved.html

    And yet you are not allowed teach such problems in the classroom! No wonder Darwinists have to sue people to keep them from talking about this evidence in schools!

  28. Dr. Hunter has a PhD in biophysics.

    Yes, you’re right. So, he has less excuse than you for the amazing level of ignorance e exhibits.

  29. And when I said “hunter is not a biologist” I meant he does no work as a biologist and never has done. Published papers, for instance?

    Darwin spent most of his adult life in the study of biology.

  30. Oops re missing H

  31. ad hominem Mr Fox? So your boorish atheistic behavior finally surfaces on UD! Perhaps now that you sunk to that level we can now just bow at your feet at how much smarter you are than theists and forget evidence altogether?

  32. And might I be so bold as to ask what your particular PhD is in Mr. Fox so that I might know how you acquired such great wisdom to call another PhD ignorant?

  33. ad hominem Mr Fox? So your boorish atheistic behavior finally surfaces on UD! Perhaps now that you sunk to that level we can now just bow at your feet at how much smarter you are than theists and forget evidence altogether?

    So, Phil, can you tell me about Cornelius Hunter’s work in biology. A published paper? A coherent sentence?

  34. Your PhD Mr Fox?

  35. Of Note: Dr. Axe challenges a Darwinist to create a single new gene by Darwinian processes:

    Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie – Douglas Axe August 16, 2013
    Excerpt: Poenie want to be free to appeal to evolutionary processes for explaining past events without shouldering any responsibility for demonstrating that these processes actually work in the present. That clearly isn’t valid. Unless we want to rewrite the rules of science, we have to assume that what doesn’t work didn’t work.
    It isn’t valid to think that evolution did create new enzymes if it hasn’t been demonstrated that it can create new enzymes. And if Poenie really thinks this has been done, then I’d like to present him with an opportunity to prove it. He says, “Recombination can do all the things that Axe thinks are impossible.” Can it really? Please show me, Martin!
    I’ll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF within a few billion years.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75611.html

  36. Now Mr. Fox, I know you think it beneath yourself to have to actually provide empirical proof, (seeing as you are so enamored with your own intelligence, which you deny is real by the way) but why is Dr. Axe asking for just a single gene to be created by Darwinian processes? I mean, certainly you are not foolish enough to believe all the wondrous complexity we see in life all around us happened by accident without even a single gene of proof to prove it did happen by accident? Or are you really that gullible? A yes or no answer will suffice!

  37. “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111,

    Your PhD Mr. Fox?

  38. ‘Darwin spent most of his adult life in the study of biology.’

    Stamp-collecting, Reynard. In his case, plants. Not a scientist, however theoretical. Although, at least he expressed a definite awareness of the insuperable problems the direction he was taking would lead to; which is more than can be said for his ‘groupies’. In fact, he dropped out of his medical studies. I expect he couldn’t ‘cut it’.

    As for Hunter not being a scientist, because he didn’t work in a commercial lab, Einstein pointed to a draw in his desk in his patent office, remarking that that was his Physics Department (having been turned down for a post as junior lecturer). And, as I suggested earlier, he didn’t do too bad for a dilettante.

    By the way, what’s your response to Philip’s #7?

  39. Axel,

    You should probably read a bit more about Darwin, who, as well as collected facts of naturalists breeders and gardeners, performed many experiments at his house in Down.

  40. Always fatuous jibes devoid of any sense, on your part, Reynard, and a seemingly endless silence in response to the questions put to you by IDers, destroying your position.

    If reason and logic meant anything to you, this quotation by Philip from C S Lewis should make you cringe and whimper (especially in response to your ‘laughable assertion that ID is unscientific’):

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    Come on… Where’s the flaw in Lewis’ logic? Speak up.

  41. In his case, plants.

    Barnacles are generally considered animalia. On the other hand, plats are a wonderful example f how evolution works so I am glad you brought it up!

  42. Plants!!! not plats

    Is it just me or does the odd missing letter plague other posters?

  43. By the way, what’s your response to Philip’s #7?

    Comment name and number doesn’t tally. Best to paste a quote and ideally use the permalink facility.

  44. Where’s the flaw in Lewis’ logic?

    I think Elizabeth Anscombe spotted that a while ago.

  45. Nice cryptic answer. Why don’t you spell it it out, Alan. Be a good chap and briefly spell it out for us, will you.

  46. wd400, I’ve performed a lot of experiments in my home too.

  47. Axel, How many of the results of your experiments have you managed to publish? Would you be so kind to provide the citations to your published manuscripts?

  48. I would categorise my response, franklin, not as a literal statement of fact, but as an example of trivial mendacity evidently used as a metaphor, in casual disparagement.

    As reported on here to me, I have no way of knowing whether our famous theology graduate, who apparently died a convinced Christian, had the results of his experiments peer-reviewed, without following WD400′s advice and reading Darwinian literature. Indeed, only the context suggests that the subject of such experiments could be classified as being of a scientific nature.

    But, alas, I have read enough on here to know that Darwin, for all his limitations, was brighter than his modern-day followers, who have at their disposal information totally discrediting his hypotheses; and have read quotes of his stating why he, himself, regarded his conjectures with enormous reservations. He would surely set you all straight, today, were he alive.

  49. I was hoping for an answer from Alan Fox, but I think he’s drawn ‘one of his lines in the sand’. For which, alas, there is no remedy, but a stoical resignation.

  50. Did I own up to ‘mendacity’, franklin? I tell a lie. I have quite a clear memory now of trying to fashion a small parachute out of a handkerchief with the corners knotted and sewing threads attached, and dropping it with a small payload from the roof of the lean-to at the back of our house.

    Unfortunately, even today my technical nous is not what it might be, thinking the masthead of this blog was a fancy kind of exhaust-pipe, for quite a while, but it must have been all the more deficient in my childhood, because I feel a twinge of shame now that my expectations had been so high, for such a primitive design and technology.

    I believe Charles would never have been so naive, and that’s not necessarily any great tribute, is it?

Leave a Reply