Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

Originally posted by Barcs
Nope. Genetic changes and environment are the prime "mover of all things" in evolution.

Actually that is not the prevailing paradigm. Neo-Darwinism is a reconcile with mendellion genetics. Put simply it's random mutation at the genetic level sorted through natural selection, the main driver being advantages to survival and reproduction. In regards to the enviroment what we observes is changes in the existing genes, gene plasticity or epigenics. This has often been used falsly (including this thread) as evidence fr neo darwinism. It's fairly well understood in genetics what is happening in these cases, eg.genetic drift and selective breeding. It's just not exactly clear how the genes react so intelligently to the enviroment and so quicky. Dwarfing the effective rate of random mutation.

If you are going to present yourself as an expert you should at least have a little knowledge of what you are defending.

Evolution is based on objective evidence. Creation is not. It really is THAT simple. I do say "I don't know" when asked what caused the universe or life on earth. Technically you should as well, but you don't. You are claiming your view of these events is fact when its faith.

If you are refering to neo-darwinian evolution being based on objective evidence, I'd love to see some, keep in mind the specifics though, random mutation through natural selection. There's only proof of degenerative effects, I can site scientific papers if you wish, actual experiments. Can you show any experiments that empiricly show random mutation can generate new functional gene sequences? let alone new organs and body plans? Experiments conducted by both sides of the issue demonstrate how unlikely it is to occur. E-coli? Fruit Flies? you better look harder. These actually refute neo-darwinism.

And since it will never be "chance" - then the only logical conclusion is an Intelligent Entity! Jehovah God!

Scientificaly ID makes no claims to the identity or source of intellegence, in it's pure form it would simply be the acknowledgement that the unverse is not just comprised of both matter / energy but information as well. Scientifcaly this is as far as it goes. Everything else is a misrepresentation.

The evidence for evolution is gargantuan and undeniable.
It happened, we just don't know how. But we do know that life evolved and diversified into what we see today.

Granted, I believe life evolved and diversified. That seems undeniable to me. What you do not seem to understand is the actual theory of evolution as it stands. Are the mechanism of random mutation enough to do the job?

I'm happy to engage in the science on this issue, but I'll hold you to the same standards and ask for scientific validation. I've lots of questions I'd like to ask of an evolutionary expert such as yourself.

I've been looking for years and the actual genetic science says it is not, the fossil record says it is not.
No we will never know the origin of life under materialism because it cannot look outside of material causes. Information is NON material. This is why many recent ID proponents are in fact engineers and computer scientists. Here's a secret most genetic scientists actually think like enginneers for a reason. They both are working with machines. Machines requiring information, self sustaining and free of entropy that simply cannot be carried by the physical chemical mechanisms themselves for the information would quickly breakdown.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Yet the so called "God of the gaps" that evolutionists always ridicule is the ONLY logical and satisfactory answer to the question of the Origin of Life. Other than that the alternative is NOTHING.

So its either god or nothing? And I'm the close minded one here?

That nothing created everything by chance events and thus evolutionists have no other explanation but to admit "we don't know".

This is the legacy of evolution theory - its very foundation is nothingness.

The theory of nothing has nothing to do with evolution. Why are you putting the 2 concepts in the same boat? I don't recall any science paper that claims 'nothing' ever existed. Come on man, this is too easy.

As for the Origin of God - like I said - God's origin is infinite as Infinity and Space - both had no beginning and no end. Always existing.

And both exists for God exist. Of course you're not able to grasp this for your knowledge is only in the physical realm. Your not able to see that which is invisible because you're only looking at the physical and not the spiritual.

But hey that's OK - that's what you believe - and i have no intension of changing it - it's all up to you to do that.

Interesting. So now I'm not spiritual at all, and you suddenly know my personal beliefs on spirituality, because I acknowledge evolution for the fact it is, and agree with science that can be backed up with facts. I understand that is your guess about who god is, but it's still a guess. A cat wearing a well designed Halloween costume is still a cat.

Even though the evidence is not only compelling and convincing but factually accurate.

This is the part I still haven't seen. These are like Stephen C Meyer facts. He'll take a whole bunch of science and throw it together to disguise the wild claims he hides in the mix. You can talk facts all day but your interpretation of DNA and its complexity is a guess based on unknown factors that can't be experimented with or tested.

And since you "don't know the answer" to basic question of life - its origin - then by your own words:

You're faced with just as many questions no matter what your guess is.

The difference is that I don't claim my views on the unknown are fact. You on the other hand, clearly do, yet can't back it up. It's been fun, but not really challenging at all.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
Nope. Genetic changes and environment are the prime "mover of all things" in evolution.

Actually that is not the prevailing paradigm. Neo-Darwinism is a reconcile with mendellion genetics. Put simply it's random mutation at the genetic level sorted through natural selection, the main driver being advantages to survival and reproduction. In regards to the enviroment what we observes is changes in the existing genes, gene plasticity or epigenics. This has often been used falsly (including this thread) as evidence fr neo darwinism. It's fairly well understood in genetics what is happening in these cases, eg.genetic drift and selective breeding. It's just not exactly clear how the genes react so intelligently to the enviroment and so quicky. Dwarfing the effective rate of random mutation.

If you are going to present yourself as an expert you should at least have a little knowledge of what you are defending.

I guess you haven't seen many of my posts. I'm not defending neo darwinism, I'm defending modern evolutionary science. The term neo-darwinism was coined in 1895, get with the times. My statement was accurate, albeit simple, but I'm trying to explain to someone who doesn't have a firm grasp on the concept of evolution.

If you are refering to neo-darwinian evolution being based on objective evidence, I'd love to see some, keep in mind the specifics though, random mutation through natural selection. There's only proof of degenerative effects, I can site scientific papers if you wish, actual experiments. Can you show any experiments that empiricly show random mutation can generate new functional gene sequences? let alone new organs and body plans? Experiments conducted by both sides of the issue demonstrate how unlikely it is to occur. E-coli? Fruit Flies? you better look harder. These actually refute neo-darwinism.

I hope by neo-darwinism you are simply referring to modern evolutionary science, because if not you are creating a big strawman.

I'd love to see some actual experiments.

You said random mutation through natural selection. That is incorrect. The mutations happen first, caused by various factors (sun rays, radiation, etc). Natural selection is how certain creatures are better equipped to survive the environment as a result of the mutations.

TONS of Evidence of Macro-evolution

Micro evolution in action

Micro evolution observed in a lab

Granted, I believe life evolved and diversified. That seems undeniable to me. What you do not seem to understand is the actual theory of evolution as it stands. Are the mechanism of random mutation enough to do the job?

I'm happy to engage in the science on this issue, but I'll hold you to the same standards and ask for scientific validation. I've lots of questions I'd like to ask of an evolutionary expert such as yourself.

I wouldn't consider myself a true 'expert', I'm certainly not an evolutionary biologist just a well informed individual that knows how to learn. Science is more like a hobby. So you agree with evolution, but think its more of a guided process? Sure, it's possible, but I haven't really seen any legit evidence to demonstrate that.

Originally posted by Barcs
I guess you haven't seen many of my posts. I'm not defending neo darwinism, I'm defending modern evolutionary science.

Modern evolutionary science is Neo-Darwinism. The bottom line is that the source of raw new genetic information is meant to come from random mutation. I think we can agree on that?

Random mutation does happen, natural selection does happen, natural forces are not ignored it fact the argument is that natural forces are finely tuned.

You said random mutation through natural selection. That is incorrect. The mutations happen first, caused by various factors (sun rays, radiation, etc). Natural selection is how certain creatures are better equipped to survive the environment as a result of the mutations.

Sorry but that's complete rubbish. No the mutations are random due to errors in the dna mRna to protein transfer.
Natural selection is the mechanism by which beneficial mutations are preserved. Failures will die off. There are other factors, symbiosis, genetic drift and epigenics.

The thing I must repeat over and over concerns new genetic sequences that produce new function. Although DNA helps guide protein synthesis it alone does not account for how individual proteins arrange themselves into larger complex systems.

There’s no denying micro evolutionary change. These are simply one or two point mutations. It’s a quantum leap away from the development of new organs and body plans.

As for your links;

Forgive me for not investigating the wall of links at talk origins. All I can say is can you point me to the one that empirically shows new gene sequences emerging and how? We have examples of this in nature because obviously new sequences have emerged. But alas all we have are a few assumptions to give a story of how they may emerge. Just developing a story without demonstrating the steps is not complete science. This is what the majority of cases there entail.

Spots on guppies can hardly accumulate to large scale morphological changes. This is not the result of random mutations. It’s quite obvious seeing that the effect is so fast that the guppies have this ability to begin with and is not an emergent quality.

In fact lots of different patterns can emerge, what’s interesting is that the rarer phenotypes were more successful. The evidence suggests that the fitness of a trait is not determining its frequency, but rather the frequency of a trait is determining its fitness. A genetic comparison between the phenotypes would show they are identical.

Onto Lenski’s e-coli experiments. Now this is interesting, I’m using Lenski’s work to support my own argument; after all it’s one of the longest running experiments going and should give us good clues to the efficacy of neo-Darwinism.

It’s been shown that E-coli already had the mechanisms to metabolise citrate.

Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it's not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a "citrate permease" which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell's membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, "The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions."

Michael Behe has reviewed these experiments quite thoroughly. The ability came about through the knocking out of functions, not additions.

By examining the DNA sequence of the E. coli in the neighborhood surrounding the IS [insertion sequence] elements, the investigators saw that several genes involved in central metabolism were knocked out, as well as some cell wall synthesis genes and several others. In subsequent work, Cooper et al. (2001) discovered that twelve of twelve cell lines showed adaptive IS-mediated deletions of their rbs operon, which is involved in making the sugar ribose. Thus, the adaptive mutations that were initially tracked down all involved loss-of-FCT.

www.lehigh.edu...

I'd love to see some actual experiments.

The following experiments demonstrate random mutation fails to create new genetic information. Let’s start with Lenski since we are on the subject.

Beneficial mutations within a bacterial population accumulate during evolution, but performance tends to reach a plateau. Consequently, theoretical evolutionary models need to take into account a “braking effect” in expected benefits on the survival and the reproduction of organisms. This phenomenon (known as negative epistasis) has, for the first time, been demonstrated experimentally by a French-American collaboration, including a team from the Laboratoire Adaptation et Pathogénie des Micro-organismes (CNRS / Université Joseph Fourier). The results are published in Science on 3 June 2011.

www2.cnrs.fr...

Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.

www.sciencemag.org...

The exact opposite effect, a decline in genetic information. Here’s another that demonstrates the same thing.

Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation. We generated combinations of beneficial mutations that arose in a lineage during rapid adaptation of a bacterium whose growth depended on a newly introduced metabolic pathway. The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto more fit backgrounds. These three alleles all reduced morphological defects caused by expression of the foreign pathway. A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs effectively predicted the interactions between them. These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

www.sciencemag.org...

This is from the results of Lenski's work. NON ID source.

So what experiments have been done to test the likelihood beyond simple one or two point mutations? What experiments can demonstrate that natural selection can provide a new functional genes? I’m not sure many people actually understand the actual odds at play here. Each mutation must add to the next and stay functional to avoid being subject to natural selection. Except in a blind random process, the protein cannot not know which fold should occur next or what fold has occured previously. It’s completely random. The odds are mind boggling.

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.

The Case Against Darwin Protein Folds.
bio-complexity.org...

Also related;
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations.
bio-complexity.org...

Here’s another batch of them on similar lines.
evoinfo.org...

So you agree with evolution, but think its more of a guided process? Sure, it's possible, but I haven't really seen any legit evidence to demonstrate that.

You could say that. I’m glad you can say that it may be possible. That’s good enough for me.

The bottom line is accounting for the origin of the information. Even the Nobel Prize winning scientist Jack Szostak understands this problem.

In 2003, Nobel Prize-winning origin-of-life researcher Jack Szostak wrote a review article in Nature lamenting that the problem with "classical information theory" is that it "does not consider the meaning of a message" and instead defines information "as simply that required to specify, store or transmit the string." According to Szostak, "a new measure of information-- functional information--is required" in order to take account of the ability of a given protein sequence to perform a given function.

Szostak sums it up beautifully and illustrates the heart of the problem, To say this is not a problem is just plain ignorance. Real scientific questions are being stifled, in return they retaliate by twisting the argument into a religious and political issue.

So we can see that ID has performed real science and poses legitimate challenges to Darwinism. I don’t see how anyone can honestly say that isn’t true. Scientific dissent from Darwinism does not just come from the ID camp, not at all.

And finaly from a Thermodynamics point of view. Peer reviewed in a non ID journal. Sorry for posting the abstract in full. But I really like this one.

Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?

This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate origin of genetic information from a thermodynamic perspective. The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is proposed that the entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce due to energy input from an outside source, especially the sun when considering the earth as a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, whilst this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for genetic information because the information system is composed of machinery which requires precise and non-spontaneous raised free energy levels – and crystals like snowflakes have zero free energy as the phase transition occurs. The functional machinery of biological systems such as DNA, RNA and proteins requires that precise, non-spontaneous raised free energies be formed in the molecular bonds which are maintained in a far from equilibrium state. Furthermore, biological structures contain coded instructions which, as is shown in this paper, are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information. Thus, the specified complexity cannot be created by natural forces even in conditions far from equilibrium. The genetic information needed to code for complex structures like proteins actually requires information which organises the natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around – the information is crucially not defined by the material on which it sits. The information system locally requires the free energies of the molecular machinery to be raised in order for the information to be stored. Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it. This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.

journals.witpress.com...

I also noticed in the other thread a swath of false claims regarding that ID has not produced anything peer reviewed in 7 or 8 years. This is nothing short of denial. The dirty tactics, false allegations and threats are also denied. And of course the scientific evidence to the contrary is also denied.

Originally posted by squiz
Sorry but that's complete rubbish. No the mutations are random due to errors in the dna mRna to protein transfer.
Natural selection is the mechanism by which beneficial mutations are preserved. Failures will die off. There are other factors, symbiosis, genetic drift and epigenics.

learn.genetics.utah.edu...
Try reading a bit before calling something complete rubbish.

There’s no denying micro evolutionary change. These are simply one or two point mutations. It’s a quantum leap away from the development of new organs and body plans.

What do you think happens when lots of tiny mutations happen over millions of years? They appear to be BIG changes. You are making the hasty generalization that organisms suddenly grow new organs and redesign. That's not how it works.

Forgive me for not investigating the wall of links at talk origins. All I can say is can you point me to the one that empirically shows new gene sequences emerging and how? We have examples of this in nature because obviously new sequences have emerged. But alas all we have are a few assumptions to give a story of how they may emerge. Just developing a story without demonstrating the steps is not complete science. This is what the majority of cases there entail.

Everyone ignores that link. It's getting comical. That wall of links is exactly what shows how they emerge, but again, it's not like they suddenly appear overnight. Small changes happen over time and eventually it becomes big. Sudden environmental changes will accelerate evolution, for example the extinction level event that ended the triassic period paved way for a new type of creature to become dominant. Without it, it's highly unlikely mammals would have ever become as successful as they are today. So you agree with micro evolution, but don't think the small changes ever add up?

So you ignore my link and expect me to look into yours? Interesting. I'll be back to address the rest of the nonsense, but please at least read some of the things in that link. If you have questions I'll be happy to answer. There's no evidence of any guiding force for evolution, or of an intelligent designer. The best argument they have is that it appears to be too complex to arise naturally. That might be a good guess, but there should be evidence to suggest it happened. Objective evidence, not filling in the gaps of knowledge with a guess.

Originally posted by Barcs
Try reading a bit before calling something complete rubbish. :lol

So? The enviroment can cause the damage in the rna transfer. Oh ys damaging radiation can lead to novel functional body plans and organs. It's not the same as epigenic responses to the environment, which is what I thought you where refering to in that regards. Epigenecs is not random. So I agree I misinterpreted your point.

It's still fundamentally Random mutation filtered through natural selection. Random mutations provide the raw genetic material. You said this was wrong?

What do you think happens when lots of tiny mutations happen over millions of years? They appear to be BIG changes. You are making the hasty generalization that organisms suddenly grow new organs and redesign. That's not how it works.

Ah no they don't that's just speculation.
See the research, the evidence says something entirely different. Negative epistasis. There's no evidence that new complex proten folds can manifest from random mutation.

Everyone ignores that link. It's getting comical. That wall of links is exactly what shows how they emerge, but again, it's not like they suddenly appear overnight. Small changes happen over time and eventually it becomes big. Sudden environmental changes will accelerate evolution, for example the extinction level event that ended the triassic period paved way for a new type of creature to become dominant. Without it, it's highly unlikely mammals would have ever become as successful as they are today. So you agree with micro evolution, but don't think the small changes ever add up?

Perhaps it's because there's too many issues there to cover simply. Show me the one that empirically shows exactly how the new genes emerged. Too much to ask?

Darwinism is nothing but filling the gaps with speculation and stories. I'm still waiting for actual evidence of complex protein folds spontaneously forming. Darwin does not even get past this prime objective, the very foundation of life.

People should really stop yelling "I want evidence" when they don't hold their own beliefs to the same criteria. How often must we hear "fossils are rare that's why we lack evidence in such and such"? Evolution can not explain everything without making up excuses that are criticized in other views. Deal with it.

Originally posted by squiz
It's still fundamentally Random mutation filtered through natural selection. Random mutations provide the raw genetic material. You said this was wrong?

I'm not a big fan of using the word random, when the causes of mutation are known. I suppose since we can't predict exactly when its going to happen, you could justify that. I didn't say that was wrong, it was just worded oddly when you said "random mutations through natural selection". When the 2 things are separate. Natural selection doesn't cause mutations. I think it was just the wording, that's all.

What do you think happens when lots of tiny mutations happen over millions of years? They appear to be BIG changes. You are making the hasty generalization that organisms suddenly grow new organs and redesign. That's not how it works.

Ah no they don't that's just speculation.
See the research, the evidence says something entirely different. Negative epistasis. There's no evidence that new complex proten folds can manifest from random mutation.

Speculation? How can you honestly say that you believe micro evolution is true, but that the changes don't ever add up? It doesn't even make sense. That's like if I had a jar of coins that I added change to every couple of weeks, but it never filled up.

I think we may be talking about 2 different things. Could you explain this in detail please? What process are you talking about that would need new complex protein folds to manifest from random mutation? Are you talking about the origin of DNA? I was under the impression that the pairs of atoms in DNA are what hold the information, and what mutates, not the protein folds. Perhaps you could explain this a bit clearer. I'd appreciate it.

Perhaps it's because there's too many issues there to cover simply. Show me the one that empirically shows exactly how the new genes emerged. Too much to ask?

Explain what you mean by "new genes". Are you talking about speciation? One change in a gene? An entire new sequence? You agree with micro evolution, which has been demonstrated in a lab and exactly shows the mutation process. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Darwinism is nothing but filling the gaps with speculation and stories. I'm still waiting for actual evidence of complex protein folds spontaneously forming. Darwin does not even get past this prime objective, the very foundation of life.

Darwin's been dead for a long time now, please stop referring to evolutionary science as "Darwinism". We all know the term is nothing but a creationist buzz word to attack Darwin's original hypothesis instead of what the field has become in modern biology. Darwin didn't know most of the stuff we know today about cells and genetics.

I do appreciate you actually providing some sources and reading material, especially in the other thread. I will be going through that as soon as I get a chance, I just don't have the resources available at work to do the research. I'll get to it as soon as I can, I promise. You are the first ID person that's actually done this so far.

Originally posted by vasaga
People should really stop yelling "I want evidence" when they don't hold their own beliefs to the same criteria.

Haha, right back at ya.

How often must we hear "fossils are rare that's why we lack evidence in such and such"? Evolution can not explain everything without making up excuses that are criticized in other views. Deal with it.

There isn't a lack of evidence, there is TONS of it. I posted several links above, that you clearly didn't read, and no ID or creationism advocate has even attempted to read it, because they probably don't even understand it. The amount of discovered 'transitional' fossils is huge. Obviously we don't have everything, but we never will. Nobody said that evolution explains everything. It explains the diversity of life on earth, and not a single other theory backed by evidence can do this. You can dodge that point every single time I bring it up, but it's true.

Originally posted by squiz
Onto Lenski’s e-coli experiments. Now this is interesting, I’m using Lenski’s work to support my own argument; after all it’s one of the longest running experiments going and should give us good clues to the efficacy of neo-Darwinism.

It’s been shown that E-coli already had the mechanisms to metabolise citrate.

Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it's not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a "citrate permease" which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell's membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, "The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions."

Michael Behe has reviewed these experiments quite thoroughly. The ability came about through the knocking out of functions, not additions.

By examining the DNA sequence of the E. coli in the neighborhood surrounding the IS [insertion sequence] elements, the investigators saw that several genes involved in central metabolism were knocked out, as well as some cell wall synthesis genes and several others. In subsequent work, Cooper et al. (2001) discovered that twelve of twelve cell lines showed adaptive IS-mediated deletions of their rbs operon, which is involved in making the sugar ribose. Thus, the adaptive mutations that were initially tracked down all involved loss-of-FCT.

www.lehigh.edu...

I'm not seeing how this is evidence of a designer, or even design. You are saying evolution can't be true because we haven't witnessed speciation, which takes a LONG time.

The following experiments demonstrate random mutation fails to create new genetic information. Let’s start with Lenski since we are on the subject.

Beneficial mutations within a bacterial population accumulate during evolution, but performance tends to reach a plateau. Consequently, theoretical evolutionary models need to take into account a “braking effect” in expected benefits on the survival and the reproduction of organisms. This phenomenon (known as negative epistasis) has, for the first time, been demonstrated experimentally by a French-American collaboration, including a team from the Laboratoire Adaptation et Pathogénie des Micro-organismes (CNRS / Université Joseph Fourier). The results are published in Science on 3 June 2011.

www2.cnrs.fr...

That would actually make sense considering they are not drastically changing the environment where the bacteria live. Either way I don't see how any of this shows evidence of a creator or intelligent designer. It shows that mutations do happen, and that the more beneficial ones survive, which is exactly how evolution works. Were these bacteria given millions of years of observation, with various changes in environment, some drastic? If not, then it can't be reliable enough to simulate complex change. Of course the mutations will level out in a lab simulated environment. Of course there will be genetic loss at some point. Neither is guaranteed, however. There isn't some unspoken law of evolution that every change has to be complex or gain genetic info, species just change over long time periods to adapt to their environment.

And finaly from a Thermodynamics point of view. Peer reviewed in a non ID journal. Sorry for posting the abstract in full. But I really like this one.

You are posting things that allegedly conflict with evolution. You AREN'T posting evidence of intelligent design, which is what I requested. If you want to argue evolution, that's cool, but we should kick it to a different thread. This one is about intelligent design, and the alleged convincing and compelling evidence to support it. Not about evolutionary studies. Evolution and ID are separate and do not negate each other. Disproving evolution (if you could), doesn't prove ID. I was asking for science experiments that suggest intelligent design, not ones that don't show complex changes in a short time span. I wish I could take a look at that whole paper without buying it.

reply to post by Barcs


Thanks Barcs for a couple of very balanced posts, It seems I have misjudged you.
I'm glad we have our definitions finally on some sort of level.

As for the folding problem, well this was the final straw for me personally. I don't have much time at the moment.
But this clip explains it fairly well.



As for proof of a designer that is really a secondary thing for me, first I believe the poblems with the current theorie(s) must be addressed instead of hiding behind religious and political agendas. My posts mostly reflect this.

I see no problem looking for more or other natural causes for explanations, I would like the criticisms and the challenges to be up front and dealt with scientiffically without all the mudslinging and twisting of arguments.

The designer is infered by the acknowlegement of functional specified information in the cell.
There is known mechanism for this to arise except through intelligence.

I'm not christian, I've never even read the bible. My point of view has come from science, as well as appealing to what I feel is intuitive. After all Darwinism is attempt to dispense with the illusion of design. It appears designed as admitted.

You will disagree with this I'm sure. Which is ok. But I'm am hoping you see that there are legitimate problems with the status quo. Like everyone else I'm just after answers.

reply to post by Barcs


Ok. Explain the cambrian explosion to me. With evidence, since you said there's so much of it.

Originally posted by Barcs
That would actually make sense considering they are not drastically changing the environment where the bacteria live. Either way I don't see how any of this shows evidence of a creator or intelligent designer. It shows that mutations do happen, and that the more beneficial ones survive, which is exactly how evolution works. Were these bacteria given millions of years of observation, with various changes in environment, some drastic? If not, then it can't be reliable enough to simulate complex change. Of course the mutations will level out in a lab simulated environment. Of course there will be genetic loss at some point. Neither is guaranteed, however. There isn't some unspoken law of evolution that every change has to be complex or gain genetic info, species just change over long time periods to adapt to their environment.

It was not meant to be evidence for design, it simply demonstrates the limits of beneficial mutations. It must be understood that the way they usually measure fitness is determined by the rate of reproduction. This is what they call beneficial. However an increased rate of reproduction can also come at a cost, usually with metabolism.

Beneficial mutations do not mean an increase in biological information. It costs. Like the E-coli ability to metabolise citrate. Likewise the myth that anti-biotic resistant bacteria is confirmation of darwinian theory. But what happens is the resistant strain also suffer a cost to fitness. The mutant strains when combined with the parent strain will lose out against the parent strain, it cannot reproduce as fast and is targeted by natural selection. It turns out that the resistant strain suffers a loss of function.

Even beneficial mutations ultimately add up to a loss of overall functionality. The more there are the more they work against each other. It's not going forwards it's going backwards.

And finaly from a Thermodynamics point of view. Peer reviewed in a non ID journal. Sorry for posting the abstract in full. But I really like this one

You are posting things that allegedly conflict with evolution. You AREN'T posting evidence of intelligent design, which is what I requested.

In much of science many things cannot be proven but are infered. Often it's not about proving something as it is falsifying.

Actually I think the paper is good evidence if the line of reasoning is true, it does imply design, infact it requires intelligence.

We can never measure the intelligence of course it can only be infered. As Szostak says, A new specified order of information is required. Once again, there is no known mechanism for specified functional information to arise except through intelligence. This is the proof. Or rather I should say can it be falsified?

From the paper;

It has often been asserted that the logical entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce, and thereby new information could occur at the expense of increasing entropy elsewhere, and without the involvement of intelligence. In this paper, we have sought to refute this claim on the basis that this is not a sufficient condition to achieve a rise in local order. One always needs a machine in place to make use of an influx of new energy and a new machine inevitably involves the systematic raising of free energies for such machines to work. Intelligence is a pre-requisite.

To clarify on the protein folding problem. It's is quite simple to understand. Some proteins can be thousands of amino acids but In a simple example say a sequence of 100 of the 20 different types of amino acids. We can easily see how many possible combinations can arise from this, an astronomical amount.

And yet if but one is incorrect in the sequence, it will not fold properly and will be nonfunctional. Take this to a longer chain and the odds are exponential.

Then we must have multiple proteins working together for even simple tasks.

Then for new organs we need many many more all being functional and working together.

At this stage we are well, well beyond the reach of what random mutation can accomplish. Actually we are beyond reach at the very fist stage.

I'm sorry but I must use the term Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism. I cannot use the word evolution theory because I believe in evolution. I just don't buy the darwinian mechanism. So I have to distinguish.

reply to post by squiz


Thanks for providing some more information. I, too, am all about learning as well. I will get back to you later tonight on the video and your other recent posts. I just don't want the discussion to turn back to philosophy, since we're talking science here. I'm having a little difficulty understanding that you agree with evolution but not Darwinian evolution, when they are the same thing. Are you a proponent of Lemarkian or another type of evolution?

Ok. Explain the cambrian explosion to me. With evidence, since you said there's so much of it.

www.fossilmuseum.net...

www.fossilmuseum.net...

There's the fossils. What did you want explained? I'm sure you know the basic mechanics of it, being so familiar with evolution and all. I'm assuming you've read all about it, since you always read opposing viewpoints, RIGHT? The talk origins link I posted speaks about the Cambrian explosion.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by squiz

 

I'm having a little difficulty understanding that you agree with evolution but not Darwinian evolution, when they are the same thing. Are you a proponent of Lemarkian or another type of evolution?

I could only speculate, I'm drawn to the idea of teleology, pardon the pun. This to me also seems intuitive. It may be that evoluton is a unfolding program.

like when many components are needed for a single purpose as in the intricate folds of proteins. The molecular machines on one scale, in physiology of the lifeform itself and then in the interwoven relationships between species as well as the interactions/dependencies with the changing enviroment. It's much like a fractal dependency of systems, In fact it is. The dependenies can be extrapolated further and further into the cosmos.

There has been some research showing fractal relationships in DNA.

What I'm getting at is that fractals are a simple mathamatical formula that produces self similarity. The same but different. Looking at animated fractals of a simple formula. We can see a large variety of patterns emerge yet they seem to have a common flavour or I could say a common ancestor. Strangely they can appear very organic and similar to some aspects of lifeforms.

The biological information may be arranged fractally, this is what we need to account for the information not the mechanical and chemical parts, we are exactly chemically similar to all life when we break it down reductionist style.

But it's how those bits are arranged. This is where intelligence is needed. A sheet of music conveys information just like the biochemical arrangements. We could look at the genome project like that.

We are seeing the sheet music and not getting the whole picture, what is needed is the musician. Not just any random guy but an artist because the notes have to be played just right otherwise it's going to sound like crap.

But the big elephant in the room in all this is consciousness. The cambrian could also be described as an explosion of consciousness. The more so called primitive life forms just as complex biologicaly as those today may have had limited consciousness. Mammals represented an enormous leap in consciousness. Humans the biggest leap ever. We are the enigma as far as that is concerned. Biological complexity and a top down approach seems aparent in the cambrian with most of the phyla appearing alltogether simply because biodiversity is required for complex life forms. The biocomplexity was right there at the beginning.

But the increase in intelligence and consciousness can be seen arcross the map of time if we stand way back and look. Not gradually but in steps and stages much like the fossil record. Or pehaps even in a fractal pattern.

Without consciousness when considering life, we end up looking at only half of the picture, the mechanics. It may be that it's because consciousness is just as elusive and difficult to nail down as higher intellegence at work is. Yet we know we are conscious.

It's all just speculation. These are only my observations.

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

Ok. Explain the cambrian explosion to me. With evidence, since you said there's so much of it.

edit on 10-1-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

What about the Cambrian Explosion? It was a period over millions of years in which organisms increased in size. It didn't just happen over night.

If the Snowball Earth or even Slushball Earth theory is correct, the reason there are few if any fossils from that time period is that the whole Earth was frozen over, with just small pockets of open ocean here and there, so there wouldn't have been any land for fossils to form on. Second, most organisms were too small to be preserved well, although there is evidence of huge multicellular organisms in the Edicaran, the period before the Cambrian. They hadn't evolved hard shells yet, which makes fossilization difficult.

There is evidence of life going back 1 billion years and maybe even two:

www.cosmosmagazine.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by squiz

But it's how those bits are arranged. This is where intelligence is needed. A sheet of music conveys information just like the biochemical arrangements. We could look at the genome project like that.

We are seeing the sheet music and not getting the whole picture, what is needed is the musician.

By direct application of Evolution's mutation and selection, computers write music today using random genetic algorithms.

Randomness alone doesn't produce intelligent solutions, it's randomness + environment selection + copying what does the trick. No engineer or musician required, evolutionary algorithms are blind.