Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Horizontal gene transfer discovered from bacteria to insects

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

(“several species of ticks and mites”)

From Washington University :

It’s a dog eat dog world, and bacteria have been living in it for a long time. It’s of no surprise that bacteria have a sophisticated arsenal to compete with each other for valuable resources in the environment. In 2010, work led by University of Washington Department of Microbiology Associate Professor Joseph Mougous uncovered a weaponry system used in this warfare between bacteria. The combatants inject deadly toxins into rival cells.

Now, in a surprising twist, Mougous and colleagues have found that many animals have taken a page from the bacterial playbook. They steal these toxins to fight unwanted microbes growing in or on them. The researchers describe their findings in a report to be published online Nov. 24 in the journal Nature.

“When we started digging into genome databases, we were surprised to find that toxin genes we thought were present only in bacteria were also in several animals,” explained co-author Matt Daugherty, a postdoctoral fellow in the Malik lab. “We immediately started wondering why they were there.”

While such transfer events are common between microbes, very few genes have been reported to jump from bacteria to more complex organisms.

Best guess: There’ll be more.

One problem this creates for Darwinian evolution is this: Determining when a change actually happened in a Darwinian way (natural selection acting on random mutation) as opposed to horizontal gene transfer is now a matter for research, not dogma.

Abstract

Horizontal gene transfer allows organisms to rapidly acquire adaptive traits1. Although documented instances of horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to eukaryotes remain rare, bacteria represent a rich source of new functions potentially available for co-option2. One benefit that genes of bacterial origin could provide to eukaryotes is the capacity to produce antibacterials, which have evolved in prokaryotes as the result of eons of interbacterial competition. The type VI secretion amidase effector (Tae) proteins are potent bacteriocidal enzymes that degrade the cell wall when delivered into competing bacterial cells by the type VI secretion system3. Here we show that tae genes have been transferred to eukaryotes on at least six occasions, and that the resulting domesticated amidase effector (dae) genes have been preserved for hundreds of millions of years through purifying selection. We show that the dae genes acquired eukaryotic secretion signals, are expressed within recipient organisms, and encode active antibacterial toxins that possess substrate specificity matching extant Tae proteins of the same lineage. Finally, we show that a dae gene in the deer tick Ixodes scapularis limits proliferation of Borrelia burgdorferi, the aetiologic agent of Lyme disease. Our work demonstrates that a family of horizontally acquired toxins honed to mediate interbacterial antagonism confers previously undescribed antibacterial capacity to eukaryotes. We speculate that the selective pressure imposed by competition between bacteria has produced a reservoir of genes encoding diverse antimicrobial functions that are tailored for co-option by eukaryotic innate immune systems. (You have to pay to read the article.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Gary S. Gaulin: Thoughts Zachriel? Yes, your paragraph did not answer the question you had posed.Zachriel
December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Thoughts Zachriel? https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-534918Gary S. Gaulin
December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Gary S. Gaulin: could you please in around one paragraph explain the premise, systematics, requirements and necessary variables in the theory that has changed a lot since Darwin’s time, and without confusing it with other theories such as Cell Theory, Gene Theory and all others? No.Zachriel
December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Zachriel, could you please in around one paragraph explain the premise, systematics, requirements and necessary variables in the theory that has changed a lot since Darwin’s time, and without confusing it with other theories such as Cell Theory, Gene Theory and all others?Gary S. Gaulin
December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
bornagain77: (it is apparently not a universal law like other physical sciences are) The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a law.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Zach, I rest my case. I feel, for the unbiased reader. I have more than defended my position and shown your 'evidence' to be vacuous and even deceptive. It now seems we are just repeating points that I have already refuted and you refuse to accept. Thus, I'll leave to the last word to you if you want it.bornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Of humorous note to Zach's 'excuse' for why Darwinism does not have a rigid mathematical basis (it is apparently not a universal law like other physical sciences are),,, It is interesting to note that a materialist/atheist finally gets around to appealing to Darwinism as proof for the multiverse: Excerpt: "Peiris acknowledges that this argument has its critics. “It can predict anything, and therefore it’s not valid,” Peiris said of the reasoning typically used to dismiss the notion of a multiverse as a tautology, rather than a true scientific theory. “But I think that’s the wrong way to think about it.” The theory of evolution, Peiris argues, also resembles a tautology in certain respects — “an organism exists because it survived” — yet it holds tremendous explanatory power. It is a simple model that requires little initial input to produce the vast diversity of species we see today." per Denyse O'Leary https://docs.google.com/document/d/13kI7_fHCT7SHTcFjUPyAKWSjRv9XsvSlgj_zMElD3fc/edit?usp=sharing :) Yep folks the multiverse exists in the minds, excuse me, brains of atheists because Darwinism is a fact! LOLbornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
bornagain77: corrected to how all the species of life originated on earth. No. Darwin did not explain all species, including the most recent common ancestor and its ancestors. bornagain77: Moreover, in regards to the origin of life, was Darwin really a Theist when he said God created the first life, or was he just lying about his motives so as make his book more acceptable to the public? He was being poetic. In any case, it wasn't a scientific hypothesis. bornagain77: Claiming that Darwinism encompasses everything from genetics to paleontology is a blatant lie, Genetics and paleontology contradicts Darwinian claims! Not according to the vast majority of geneticists and paleontologists. bornagain77: And why no observational evidence from Lenski’s LTEE? Huh? Lenski has published several papers from his experiment, including the role of contingency in evolution. See Blount, Borland & Lenski, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 2008. bornagain77: I cited evidence that clearly shows that entropy holds for biology. Of course entropy applies to biology. bornagain77: It is on you to empirically show why the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations compared to an extremely rare rate of beneficial mutations does not constitute a insurmountable barrier for Darwinian claims. That has nothing to do with entropy. bornagain77: Understanding the limits of what evolution can do was what was effective in developing the drug cocktail against HIV. Behe had nothing to do with the development of drug cocktails. Behe pointed out that rare events are rare, which everyone already knew. bornagain77: Evolutionary story telling has nothing scientific to say about how feathers originated. Evidence indicates they evolved from scales.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
corrected to how all the species of life originated on earth. And you still refused to honestly address the evidence I presented anyways!' Moreover, in regards to the origin of life, was Darwin really a Theist when he said God created the first life, or was he just lying about his motives so as make his book more acceptable to the public? Do you consider that deception 'scientific'? And do you support abiogenesis or do you think that God created life on earth as Darwin seemed to believe in his book? Claiming that Darwinism encompasses everything from genetics to paleontology is a blatant lie, Genetics and paleontology contradicts Darwinian claims! Newton could not put a planet in his lab, but you can easily put trillions of bacteria in a lab, so why the dodge? And why no observational evidence from Lenski's LTEE? as to: " In any case, evolution doesn’t contradict the laws of thermodynamics." another lie, I cited evidence that clearly shows that entropy holds for biology. It is on you to empirically show why the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations compared to an extremely rare rate of beneficial mutations does not constitute a insurmountable barrier for Darwinian claims. Moreover, by understanding 'pathogens' Dr. Behe has deduced the 'edge of evolution'. and Understanding the limits of what evolution can do was what was effective in developing the drug cocktail against HIV. Darwinian presupposition that there is no limit to what Darwinian processes can accomplish certainly did not contribute to that breakthrough in finding an effective treatment. It was in realizing the limits of Darwinian processes that an effective treatment was found for HIV! Evolutionary story telling has nothing scientific to say about how feathers originated. Disagree? Go into the lab and prove that lizards can start growing feathers!bornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
bornagain77: Darwinism makes claims for how all life originated on earth. Darwin didn't propose a theory about life's origin, only its diversity. bornagain77: Yet Darwinism is certainly not, like other physical sciences, a ‘well established’ field of study. Evolutionary biology is certainly an established field, and encompasses everything from genetics to paleontology. bornagain77: I dare you to go into the lab, using all evolutionary biologists and all the computer power in the world, and by using the mathematics of population genetics, and all the chemicals you want, to turn a bacteria into a jelly fish And Newton couldn't move planets, much less make one. Science works by proposing and testing of hypotheses. bornagain77: lying that evolution does not contradict entropy, and Darwinists trying to censor papers that point out the contradiction of evolution with entropy Sure. The physics community is in on the conspiracy. In any case, evolution doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics. You do realize that adding intelligence doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics? bornagain77: Science Owes nothing to Darwinism Understanding evolution is crucial for fighting pathogens such as influenza. Not to mention feathered dinosaurs.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Zach as to: "The Theory of Evolution only applies to biological organisms. They are also all well-established fields of study." Darwinism makes claims for how all the species of life originated on earth. That is a sweeping claim that goes all the way down to the foundation of physical science. Yet Darwinism is certainly not, like other physical sciences, a 'well established' field of study. That is the entire point. Darwinism lacks rigor at all levels.,,, You have no observational nor mathematical evidence to point to tell me how even a single metazoan originated. I dare you to go into the lab, using all evolutionary biologists and all the computer power in the world, and by using the mathematics of population genetics, and all the chemicals you want, to turn a bacteria into a jelly fish,,, It can't be done by humans! Not now, not ever! "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Moreover, Zach, lying that evolution does not contradict entropy, and having Darwinists trying to censor papers that point out the contradiction of evolution with entropy, does not constitute a honest scientific rebuttal of the fact that evolution does, in fact, contradict the degenerative effects of entropy. This is borne out empirically: Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 “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.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Zach you say: "It’s just not realistic to think that scientists from all over the world, the people who have helped make great advances in science, don’t understand the scientific method." Science Owes nothing to Darwinism, there is not one major breakthrough in science that is attributable to Darwinian presuppositions: Science Owes nothing to Darwinism Excerpt: “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/science-owes-nothing-to-darwinism-jonathan-wells/#comment-531669 Moreover, Darwinism has no observational evidence of a single molecular machine arising by unguided Darwinian processes. To claim Darwinism is a 'well established' science without any such an observation is 'not realistic' to put it mildly and, without such confirming observational evidence is to certainly not 'understand the scientific method'. Moreover, by using the same exact method of reasoning that Darwin himself used to make Darwinism seem 'scientific', (presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question in the remote past), Dr. Stephen Meyer has shown that Intelligent Design is far superior to Darwinism as a scientific explanation for how all life got here: Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design https://vimeo.com/32148403bornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
bornagain77: “geology, medical science, astronomy, germ theory”, do not claim to be overarching theories of science, as well established as Gravity, as Darwinism does. The Theory of Evolution only applies to biological organisms. They are also all well-established fields of study. bornagain77: Nor do they make claims that contradict known laws of science. Nor does the Theory of Evolution. If it did, it wouldn't be considered a valid field of study. bornagain77: Moreover they, especially astronomy and medical science, are heavily reliant on observational evidence. All sciences rely on observation. It's just not realistic to think that scientists from all over the world, the people who have helped make great advances in science, don't understand the scientific method.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Zach, "geology, medical science, astronomy, germ theory", do not claim to be overarching theories of science, as well established as Gravity, as Darwinism does. Nor do they make claims that contradict known laws of science. Moreover they, especially astronomy and medical science, are heavily reliant on observational evidence. Darwinism contradicts observational science! as to: "There are areas of evolutionary theory which have a mathematical basis, including cladistics and population genetics," As was pointed out previously, cladistics is a joke that is severely abused by Darwinists, (see Berlinski's reply to the literature bluff of Matzke, One Man Clade, ENV), and population genetics, when modeled correctly using real world data, shows Darwinism to be compliant with the principle of genetic entropy. Moreover population genetics quickly breaks down when trying to model the higher overlapping levels of functional complexity found in life, much less is it useful for making predictions as to how those overlapping levels of functional complexity got here, In fact, in the following video, Fisher's work in population genetics is shown to be mathematically invalid for modeling overlapping complexity. Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791kbornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
ba, Without a rigid mathematical basis to test against, that will allow scientists to potentially falsify Darwinism, (as other theories of science, including ID, are measured) Darwinism can forever play dodge ball with the evidence and be falsified by nothing. Can you provide a premise of ID that can be mathematically falsified?velikovskys
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
bornagain77: Yet, contrary to what you believe to be true, ALL RIGID theories of physical science that claim to have vast explanatory power, such as General Realtivity, Quantum Mechanics, Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, ALL, i.e. EVERY ONE OF THEM, have a rigid mathematical basis that can be tested against to extreme levels of precision. So you're claiming that geology, medical science, astronomy, germ theory, etc., are not sciences. That sounds like an argument by definition. There are areas of evolutionary theory which have a mathematical basis, including cladistics and population genetics, but the theory is broader than what can be encapsulated in a few simple formulas, especially with regards to untangling historical events.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
,,,Despite the red herring tactics from Darwinists about the Entropy of open systems not 'preventing' evolution from happening, the fact of the matter is that when the equations of thermodynamics are scrutinized, we find that purely material processes are not sufficient to explain why life exists in such a extremely high thermodynamically 'non-equilibrium' state. In the following paper, Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that non-material information is what is constraining the cell to be in such a extremely high thermodynamic non-equilibrium state. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information to be independent of energy and matter, instead of emergent from energy and matter, 'resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions'.
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Here is a recent video by Dr. Giem, that gets the main points of Dr. McIntosh’s paper over very well for the lay person:
Biological Information – Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 11-22-2014 by Paul Giem (A. McIntosh) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_r6mFdwQM
Of supplemental note,, It is also very interesting to note that Ludwig Boltzmann, an atheist, when he linked entropy and probability, did not, as Max Planck, a Christian Theist, points out in the following link, think to look for a constant for entropy:
The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: “This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann’s constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant.” http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.html
I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out, or even propose, a precise measurement for the constant on entropy is that he, as an atheist, had thought he had arrived at the ultimate ‘random’ explanation for how everything in the universe operates when he had link probability with entropy. i.e. In linking entropy with probability, Boltzmann, again an atheist, thought he had explained everything that happens in the universe to a ‘random’ chance basis. To him, as an atheist, I hold that it would simply be unfathomable for him to conceive that the ‘random chance’ (probabilistic) events of entropy in the universe should ever be constrained by a constant that would limit the effects of ‘random’ entropic events of the universe. Whereas on the contrary, to a Christian Theist such as Planck, it is expected that even these seemingly random entropic events of the universe should be bounded by a constant. In fact modern science was born out of such thinking:
‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true.’ Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
Verse and Music:
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. Phillips, Craig & Dean - When The Stars Burn Down - Worship Video with lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPuxnQ_vZqY
bornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
And, unlike Darwinian claims for which I can find no substantiating evidence, these degenerating effects of entropy in biology are overwhelmingly borne out empirically,,,
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 “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.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video https://vimeo.com/91162565 Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 1/2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PHsu94HQrL0#t=1040s Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
Thus contrary to what you want to believe to be true Zach, Darwinism is in fact a pseudo-science that not only does not have a mathematical basis, but is in fact, a pseudo-science that almost directly contradicts a known theory of science (Entropy) that does have an extremely rigid mathematical basis in science:
"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4
Moreover, Darwinists, instead of ever being honest to these crushing mathematical and empirical difficulties that Entropy presents to Darwinism, have used heavy handed tactics to try to censor any papers pointing these fatal problems with Entropy for Darwinism out,,,
Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article - Granville Sewell episode - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey Luskin - August 20, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/censorship_lose075541.html
,,, and apart from the Darwinian red hearing rhetoric about the Entropy of open systems not 'preventing' evolution from happening (which makes about as much sense as saying that the law of Gravity does not 'prevent' a two-tons of aluminum from flying,,, (but just try to make two-tons of aluminum fly without a massive input of functional information/complexity to make that two tons of aluminum fly!),,,
"The laws of probability apply to open as well as closed systems." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas El Paso Here is a video based on Granville Sewell's 2013 Biocomplexity paper Biological Information - Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems 11-15-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_G9HtsfXfs The Common Sense Law of Physics - Granville Sewell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB-ylAMJfxA&list=UUFtmZ8EmhTxzFJD6Uga9YTg
bornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Zach, like a boy who didn't do his homework, you make a flimsy excuse for why Darwinism does not have a rigid mathematical basis:
"Many areas of science don’t have a “rigid mathematical basis”,"
Yet, contrary to what you believe to be true, ALL RIGID theories of physical science that claim to have vast explanatory power, such as General Realtivity, Quantum Mechanics, Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, ALL, i.e. EVERY ONE OF THEM, have a rigid mathematical basis that can be tested against to extreme levels of precision. You can see the foundational equations of modern science on Table 1 of the following paper:
"Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?" Walter Bradley - paper Excerpt: Only in the 20th century have we come to fully understand that the incredibly diverse phenomena that we observe in nature are the outworking of a very small number of physical laws, each of which may be described by a simple mathematical relationship. Indeed, so simple in mathematical form and small in number are these physical laws that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper, as seen in Table 1. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/scievidence.html Designed Universe - Walter Bradley PhD.- video (24:30 minute mark for list of equations) https://vimeo.com/105537135
Yet, Darwinism is the only hypothesis in science that claims to be an overarching theory of science, and which claims to have vast explanatory power for how life came to be on earth, (which is certainly not a minor claim for a supposedly 'scientific' theory to make), that has nothing of the sort that we can test against. Even Darwin himself admitted that his theory lacked the rigor of a proper science:
Science owes nothing to Darwinism – Jonathan Wells - November 24, 2014 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/science-owes-nothing-to-darwinism-jonathan-wells/
Indeed, Darwinism does not even appeal to any known physical laws of the universe, as other overarching theories of science do, so as to derive any of the so called 'predictions' of Darwinism, (forget all the major failed predictions of Darwinism for a moment!).
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
Moreover, the Second Law of thermodynamics, which is based on rigid, testable, mathematics,,,
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/shining-light-on-dark-energy/
,,,, Entropy is VERY antagonistic to any Darwinian claims of easily increasing functional complexity/information! In fact, entropy is the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.
Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both - 2007 Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,, http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030220
This following video, visually, brings the point very personally home to us about the degenerating effects of Entropy on our bodies:
Aging Process - 85 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk
bornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
There are a number of ways to show how mutation and selection can create new structures.
And yet no one has been able to do such a thing. Very telling, that.Joe
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
You claim that Darwinism has a demonstrated empirical basis, but cite no evidence. Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy
Liar. Darwin specifically claimed that the numerous transitional fossils required by his concept precludes such an arrangement.Joe
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
What matters is science is the scientific method, the ability to predict and test entailments of the theory.
Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have any entailments.
As the Theory of Evolution posits
Please reference this alleged theory of evolution.
Let’s consider the mammalian middle ear.
Please do. Start by telling us how many mutations it took to produce and what genes were involved.
Provide a precise definition of information, and a testable entailment for your claim.
Buy a dictionary and then learn how to use it. Your ignorance means nothing.Joe
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
bornagain77: 1. Without a rigid mathematical basis to test against, that will allow scientists to potentially falsify Darwinism, (as other theories of science, including ID, are measured) Darwinism can forever play dodge ball with the evidence and be falsified by nothing. Many areas of science don't have a "rigid mathematical basis", whatever that is supposed to mean. What matters is science is the scientific method, the ability to predict and test entailments of the theory. bornagain77: Not even the infamous hypothetical Precambrian rabbit would falsify Darwinism since Darwinists can always spin a story as to why it doesn’t falsify Darwinism. As the Theory of Evolution posits an ancestor-descendant relationship, showing that an organism precedes any plausible ancestor would falsify the Theory. bornagain77: 2. You claim that Darwinism has a demonstrated empirical basis, but cite no evidence. The nested hierarchy. Fossil succession. bornagain77: 3. You claim there are a number of ways to show that unguided processes can ‘create new structures’. Sure. Let's consider the mammalian middle ear. bornagain77: 4. Actually, contrary to what you personally believe is ‘scientifically meaningless, information being shown to be its own independent entity that is not reducible to a material basis Gobbledygook. Provide a precise definition of information, and a testable entailment for your claim.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
Zach, 1. I wholeheartedly disagree. Without a rigid mathematical basis to test against, that will allow scientists to potentially falsify Darwinism, (as other theories of science, including ID, are measured) Darwinism can forever play dodge ball with the evidence and be falsified by nothing. Not even the infamous hypothetical Precambrian rabbit would falsify Darwinism since Darwinists can always spin a story as to why it doesn't falsify Darwinism. Dr. Hunter puts the situation between Darwinism and the abundant contrary scientific evidence to Darwinism like this:
“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter
It is interesting to note that ID, unlike Darwinism, can easily be falsified by empirical evidence,,, One molecular machine, or non-trivial functional information, generated by unguided material processes, would falsify ID,,
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A 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 Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html
2. You claim that Darwinism has a demonstrated empirical basis, but cite no evidence. Funny, if Darwinism had a demonstrated empirical basis, such as one molecular machine generated by unguided material processes, then ID would be falsified. Of note, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s “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
Zach, let's, to put it nicely, just say you are bluffing about the empirical evidence shall we. 3. You claim there are a number of ways to show that unguided processes can 'create new structures'. Okie dokie, would one of those 'structures' happen to include a molecular machine such as a flagellum???
Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors - 2011 Excerpt: Figure 3 - Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/figure/f3/
A citation from you including a video of molecular machines, such as a ribosome, spontaneously assembling themselves from a soup of amino acids would be the perfect refutation. We eagerly await your refutation! :) 4, You claim that the fact that information is not reducible to a material basis is 'Scientifically meaningless'. Actually, contrary to what you personally believe is 'scientifically meaningless, information being shown to be its own independent entity that is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact quantum teleportation shows material to be reducible to a information basis), is one of the most important scientific facts a person can learn about the structure of reality.
"I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons. I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself. Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory." – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
bornagain77: The primary reasons that Darwinism is a pseudo-science are as such:
1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis
1. Not required of a scientific theory, though population genetics does have a mathematical basis. 2. False. 3. False. There are a number of ways to show how mutation and selection can create new structures. 4. Scientifically meaningless.Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Thus Darwinism, even though Darwinists will refuse to accept the falsification, is empirically falsified as far as our best science can tell us. Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Moriah Peters - You Carry Me - music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H-zQjgurQ
bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to demonstrate how a single gene/protein of those ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathways arose.
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
The reason why a ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure, such as a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway, would be, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to a 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:
Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Dr. Quantum – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4
I personally hold that the reason why internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional instead of three dimensional is because of exactly what Darwinian evolution has consistently failed to explain the origination of. i.e. functional information. ‘Higher dimensional’ information, which is bursting at the seams in life, simply cannot be reduced to any 3-dimensional energy-matter basis:
John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw
In the following paper, Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that non-material information is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter 'resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions'.
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, (Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. - the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Here is a recent video by Dr. Giem, that gets the main thermodynamic points of Dr. McIntosh’s paper over very well for the lay person:
Biological Information – Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 11-22-2014 by Paul Giem (A. McIntosh) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_r6mFdwQM
Dr. McIntosh's contention that 'non-material information' must be constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium has been borne out empirically. i.e. It is now found that 'non-local', beyond space-time matter-energy, Quantum entanglement/information 'holds' DNA (and proteins) together:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, i.e. found in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, per physorg etc.. etc..
bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Moreover, Natural Selection, that other great pillar upon which Darwinian evolution rests, has also been undermined as having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have attributed to it. Even William Provine himself admits that Natural Selection is not a 'force' that pushes or pulls anything,,
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) William Provine - Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University
To the extent that Natural Selection does do anything, Natural Selection is found to be a eliminative force not a generative force as is commonly believed in Darwinian thought:
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk From a Frog to a Prince - video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) - No Beneficial Mutations - Gitt - Spetner - Denton - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-
As well, Natural Selection is grossly inadequate to do the work attributed to it by Darwinists because of what is termed ‘the princess and the pea’ paradox. The devastating ‘princess and the pea’ paradox is clearly elucidated by Dr. John Sanford, at the 8:14 minute mark, of this following video,,,
Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933
Dr. Sanford points out, in the preceding video, that Natural Selection acts at the coarse level of the entire organism (phenotype) and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘slightly detrimental’, and have no noticeable effect on phenotypes, and are thus far below the power of Natural Selection to remove from genomes before they spread throughout the population. Here is a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Sanford on the subject:
“Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations” - John Sanford - September 6, 2013 Excerpt of concluding comments: Our findings raise a very interesting theoretical problem — in a large genome, how do the millions of low-impact (yet functional) nucleotides arise? It is universally agreed that selection works very well for high-impact mutations. However, unless some new and as yet undiscovered process is operating in nature, there should be selection breakdown for the great majority of mutations that have small impact on fitness.,,, We show that selection breakdown is not just a simple function of population size, but is seriously impacted by other factors, especially selection interference. We are convinced that our formulation and methodology (i.e., genetic accounting) provide the most biologically-realistic analysis of selection breakdown to date. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0011
Here are a few more notes on this insurmountable ‘princess and the pea’ paradox:
Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video https://vimeo.com/91162565 The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm
Moreover, as if the princess and the pea paradox were not devastating enough as to undermining any credibility Natural Selection might have had as to having the causal adequacy to explain the highly integrated levels of overlapping functional information found in life, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is now known to not even be on the right playing field in the first place:
“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf
Here is, what a Darwinist termed, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway (which operates as if it were ’4-Dimensional):
ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1
bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Another primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that Darwinian evolution does not have a demonstrated empirical basis to support its claims (in fact empirical evidence also consistently shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ “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.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html
Another reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that the two foundational pillars of Darwinian evolution, Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection, are both now shown to be severely compromised as to having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have presupposed for them. In regards to random mutation, although Darwinian evolution appeals to ‘unguided’ random mutations/variations to DNA as the main creative source for all evolutionary novelty, there are now known to be extensive layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any unguided “random” changes happening to DNA in the first place:
The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011 Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.” http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf
Moreover, for the vast majority of times that changes do happen to DNA, they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ by sophisticated molecular machines, not unguided ‘random changes’ from a cosmic ray, chemical imbalance, or some such entropy driven event as that:
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611
And when random, accidental, mutations do slip through the multiple layers of error correction, they are found to be, as was highlighted in the preceding Behe paper, detrimental to the organism for the vast majority of times. Here are many more references along that line in the following paper:
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Zach, Darwinism is a pseudo-science in the full meaning of the word. The primary reasons that Darwinism is a pseudo-science are as such:
1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis
Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, who won the ‘censor of the year award’ from ENV admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science:
“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago
The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,
“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 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Chaitin is quoted by Dr. Robert Marks at the 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600
One of the primary reasons why a rigid mathematical basis for Darwinism will never be formulated is because of the insistence of Darwinists for the 'randomness postulate' at the base of Darwin's theory:
“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli - Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher(pp. 27-28) “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
Moreover, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, math consistently shows us that Darwinism is astronomically unlikely:
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford , Walter ReMine
bornagain77
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
One of the alleged ToE's facets is the ability to stay hidden. :razz:Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply