Thursday, November 11, 2010

Did Horizontal Gene Transfer Create Evolution?

It is common knowledge that evolution is supposed to be caused by random biological variation that helps with reproductive success. By definition such biological variation is more likely to be passed on to later generations and eventually to become established in a population. And, according to the theory, if such variation accumulates it leads to all kinds of biological novelties. One problem, however, is that biological variation is not for free. It arises as a consequence of sophisticated molecular machinery and this forces evolutionary theory to violate science’s dictum of simplicity. Scientific explanations should not consist of a series of coincidences and lucky strikes. In Darwin’s day the knowledge of biology was sufficiently rudimentary that this free lunch problem could be overlooked. But the twentieth century dispelled any such notion that biological variation is a freebie. And recent research has made the problem even worse.

For decades evolutionists have mostly characterized the massive biological variation their theory depends on as a consequence of genetic changes. One example everyone remembers from their high school biology class is mutations, but there are many others as well. But these changes and rearrangements depend on the preexistence of elaborate and complex molecular structures and machines. The DNA macromolecule is just one player in this profound micro choreography. With evolution, what we must believe is that this molecular world somehow evolved, and then as luck would have it the various biological variation mechanisms, that evolutionists place so much faith in, became possible. In other words, evolution produced evolution.

That is quite a bit of serendipity that has been built into evolutionary theory. But that’s not all.

In recent years an even more elaborate source of biological variation has been recognized to be important in biology. It is called lateral or horizontal gene transfer to indicate that genetic material is transferred between individuals rather than vertically between generations. In other words, genes can move from one individual to another, and even between species.

Horizontal gene transfer doesn’t just happen. It is not for free. As with other forms of biological variation it rides on a train of elaborate mechanisms and just-right molecular properties.

And evolutionists are now depending on increasingly heroic versions of horizontal gene transfer to explain what science is telling us. One example is how evolutionists use horizontal gene transfer to explain the origin of biology’s molecular machines.

For example, the universal genetic code has for half a century now been used as powerful evidence for evolution. After all, all species share essentially the same code. It is the ultimate homology running through all of biology. Is it not obvious that the species have inherited the code from an early ancestor via evolution, as the code remained unchanged for eons?

But if that’s so obvious, then how did the code arise in the first place. In fact, the code has remarkable properties useful for the higher eukaryote species. How did such a profound design happen to arise so long ago? The evolutionary explanation that it was a “frozen accident” not only seems rather facile, but does little to help our understanding.

More recently evolutionists have found that attempts to simulate the evolution of the genetic code via traditional evolutionary mechanisms leads to failure. As one report explained:

Starting with a random initial population of codes being used by different organisms—all using the same DNA bases but with different associations of codons and amino acids—they first explored how the code might evolve in ordinary Darwinian evolution. While the ability of the code to withstand errors improves with time, they found that the results were inconsistent with the pattern we actually see in two ways. First, the code never became shared among all organisms—a number of distinct codes remained in use no matter how long the team ran their simulations. Second, in none of their runs did any of the codes evolve to reach the optimal structure of the actual code. “With vertical, Darwinian evolution,” says Goldenfeld, “we found that the code evolution gets stuck and does not find the true optimum.”

Enter horizontal gene transfer. To remedy their failures, the evolutionists built their computer world on a super horizontal gene transfer capability. In this HGT-on-steroids world, species not only could readily and successfully exchange genetic material, but in such a way that they could swap parts of the genetic code as well. In other words, the evolutionists constructed an algorithm to evolve the code:

The results were very different when they allowed horizontal gene transfer between different organisms. Now, with advantageous genetic innovations able to flow horizontally across the entire system the code readily discovered the overall optimal structure and came to be universal among all organisms.

Like a Newton-Raphson search, the algorithm nicely tracked to more advantageous codes. Of course there is no evidence that the world so long ago just happened to provide for such an algorithm. But that has never stopped evolutionists. After all, if evolution is true then it must have happened somehow:

Goldenfeld admits that pinning down the details of that early process remains a difficult task. However the simulations suggest that horizontal gene transfer allowed life in general to acquire a unified genetic machinery, thereby making the sharing of innovations easier. Hence, the researchers now suspect that early evolution may have proceeded through a series of stages before the Darwinian form emerged, with the first stage leading to the emergence of a universal genetic code. “It would have acted as an innovation-sharing protocol,” says Goldenfeld, “greatly enhancing the ability of organisms to share genetic innovations that were beneficial.”

Perhaps so, but what we do know for certain is that these evolutionists are good with computers.

We also now know that evolution relies on an even greater degree of serendipity. Biological variation has always been slipped in through the back door, but now the free lunch is even more obvious. The story now calls for an elaborate innovation-sharing protocol world to have arisen which, in turn, just luckily constructed another vertical evolution world. Once again, evolution creates evolution. Religion drives science and it matters.

57 comments:

  1. The New Scientist article quoted here is behind a paywall. Is there a primary publication by the authors of the research in question that might be accessed at PubMed or elsewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pedant:

    "The New Scientist article quoted here is behind a paywall. Is there a primary publication by the authors of the research in question that might be accessed at PubMed or elsewhere?"
    ======

    Wow Pedant. I got horribly flamed for stating a similiar dilema sometime back as a no excuse. But seeing how you are considered to be on the correct side, I bet they'll give you a pass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Looks like Nigel Goldenfeld was kind enough to ignore copyright...

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's a good strategy to search author homepages for "pay-walled" articles, quod erat demonstrandum.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks, troy, for the reference and the tips. I saw the paper you cite on PubMed, but was puzzled, because the New Scientist piece is dated 26 January 2010, and the Vetsigian, Woese, and Goldenfeld paper has a July 2006 publication date.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, quite a delay. Could be that Woese was looking for some attention and got it. He seems to be quite full of himself. Check out this paper where he quotes from a letter by himself to Crick, for "two reasons in addition to its intrinsic historical interest".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dr. Hunter I like this quote of yours,

    'Like a Newton-Raphson search, the algorithm nicely tracked to more advantageous codes. Of course there is no evidence that the world so long ago just happened to provide for such an algorithm. But that has never stopped evolutionists.'

    This is just precious, a computer program was 'Intelligently Designed' to prove evolution.,,, Shame that sheer irony is lost on neo-Darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. bornagain77:

    "This is just precious, a computer program was 'Intelligently Designed' to prove evolution.,,, Shame that sheer irony is lost on neo-Darwinists."

    The model was not intended to prove evolution. It provides a logical argument that HGT may have been necessary in the evolution of a (nearly) universal genetic code.

    According to your twisted logic, computer models in meteorology "prove" that the weather was intelligently designed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. troy: "Yeah, quite a delay. Could be that Woese was looking for some attention and got it. He seems to be quite full of himself."

    Woese can back it up. Google his name. How many people do you know who have discovered an entire new Kingdom of life? Ever hear of Archaea? Woese is the man who discovered it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cornelius: "It is common knowledge that evolution is supposed to be caused by random biological variation that helps with reproductive success. By definition such biological variation is more likely to be passed on to later generations and eventually to become established in a population."

    Huh? By definition, variations from the parental DNA are LESS likely to be passed on to later generations. Most mutations are detrimental, remember?

    Most variations die off, either immediately or over a period of time. Only the rare mutations that improve the species are passed on and incorporated into the genome.

    Cornelius: "One problem, however, is that biological variation is not for free."

    Actually, it is. Variations are inevitable, a normal cost of imperfect reproduction. Most are discarded as a part of the cost of living and making the next generation. The small percentage that are kept are basically free.

    Cornelius: "It arises as a consequence of sophisticated molecular machinery and this forces evolutionary theory to violate science’s dictum of simplicity."

    It arises as a consequence of IMPERFECT molecular machinery that occasionally makes a mistake. It violates no law and the departures from the "simplicity" of perfectly copying the DNA cannot be prevented.

    Cornelius: "Scientific explanations should not consist of a series of coincidences and lucky strikes."

    Evolution is a series of unpreventable changes to the genome being sifted by natural selection with only the "winners" being kept. Evolution is a process for finding and keeping the small percentage of mutations that are "lucky strikes".

    Cornelius: "In Darwin’s day the knowledge of biology was sufficiently rudimentary that this free lunch problem could be overlooked."

    I'm sorry, but you still show no signs of understanding how evolution works. There is no free lunch problem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. bornagain77: This is just precious, a computer program was 'Intelligently Designed' to prove evolution.

    Mutation, selection and horizontal mechanisms are directly observed, the latter especially in more primitive organisms. While orthodox phylogeny is supported for most taxa, ambiguities occur when tracing the origin of many of the most ancient genetic structures. (These ambiguities may just be a result of observational resolution, but it's reasonable to consider that there was a period in life's history before vertical evolution became the norm.) Therefore, it is reasonable to consider models of evolution that include these mechanisms. Furthermore, it is known that simple point-mutations are very limited, and that robust evolution requires recombination.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dave:

    "Woese can back it up. Google his name. How many people do you know who have discovered an entire new Kingdom of life? Ever hear of Archaea? Woese is the man who discovered it."

    I didn't say that Woese doesn't deserve to be full of himself. The old silverback certainly does and it's entertaining to read his chest-thumping prose.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zach: "Mutation, selection and horizontal mechanisms are directly observed, the latter especially in more primitive organisms. While orthodox phylogeny is supported for most taxa, ambiguities occur when tracing the origin of many of the most ancient genetic structures. (These ambiguities may just be a result of observational resolution, but it's reasonable to consider that there was a period in life's history before vertical evolution became the norm.)"

    If this is possible truth, how can you be sure that there was a unique UCLA and not differents populations of UCLAs?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Troy

    Looks like Nigel Goldenfeld was kind enough to ignore copyright...



    From article:

    These cooperative dynamics
    arise because of the dual role played by the genetic code: it is not
    only a protocol for encoding amino acid sequences in the genome
    but also an innovation-sharing protocol

    Protocol? Encoding? Code? These are just chemicals, right?

    and further down the article:

    Finally, the evolutionary dynamic
    that gave rise to translation is undoubtedly non-Darwinian, to most
    an unthinkable notion that we now need to entertain seriously


    Most interesting and this is just page 2. Back to reading article.

    Thanks for the link.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Blas: If this is possible truth, how can you be sure that there was a unique UCLA and not differents populations of UCLAs?

    We're not certain if there was just one LUCA. It is quite apparent that all the lines of descent point to a common origin. However, once we get to the base, resolution isn't good enough to determine whether that common origin was a single organism, or a population of disparate organisms. It's not even clear if the concept of organism is useful to describe the primordial life form. (The evidence is leaning towards a single universal ancestor, but that doesn't mean it was the only organism at that time, or that it wasn't preceded by a disparate community.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Troy:

    "According to your twisted logic, computer models in meteorology "prove" that the weather was intelligently designed."
    ======

    And yet according to the twisted way you define the word PROOF, these cartoony entertainment flicks prove evolution as a fact. Go figure!!!

    Life must have been tough for your Church before the Advent of animation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dave Mullenix:

    "Actually, it is. Variations are inevitable, a normal cost of imperfect reproduction."
    ======

    "IMPERFECT REPRODUCTION" ??? Exactly, this agrees with what the Bible has to say about human imperfection being passed onto their offspring. Adam and Eve could no longer pass on what they no longer posessed.
    Romans 5:12 (New International Version)

    12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—"

    Sure enough what you said is certainly true in the case of humans. Science cannot figure out why so many of the genes for renewal are turned off. This has been the subject of much study to find out just exactly how to turn those switches back on. Interestingly, they were functioning perfectly before the fall.

    Deuteronomy 32:4 bares this out.
    "The Rock, perfect is his activity . . "
    footnote:
    "The Rock, perfect is his activity." Heb., hats·Tsur´ ta·mim´ po·`oloh´; LXX, "God, true are his works"; Sy, "For without blemish (spotless) are his works"; Vg, "God's works are perfect."

    Yet verse 5 of Deuteronomy 32 shows who actually is at fault for the imperfection in genetics.

    "Deut 32:5 - "They have acted ruinously on their own part;
    They are not his children, the defect is their own."

    So flawed traits are past down from parents to children and the cycle has gone on degeneratively downwards to the present time. But James 1:14-14 shows that though this is true, it however does not excuse individuals who would make excuses and blame ancestors for their ills. Actually the Israelites tried to excuse their behavior by blaming their forefathers and it didn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  19. continued with Dave Mullenix:

    "It arises as a consequence of IMPERFECT molecular machinery that occasionally makes a mistake."
    ========

    This is actually proved by epigenetics or genomic imprinting research of Marcus Pembrey and others who have ruffled the feathers of Scientific Orthodoxy who consider him and his fellow geneticist heretics for their findings.

    "The Ghost in Your Genes"

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1128045835761675934#
    --------

    Dave Mullenix:

    "It violates no law and the departures from the "simplicity" of perfectly copying the DNA cannot be prevented."
    ========

    In the sense that it does not violate Sin's Law, then you are correct. I found a research paper on genomic impriniting or epigenetics and at the top of the paper it referenced a quote from Jeremiah 31:29 and here's what it says.

    " 29In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.(A)

    The actual footnote says about the phraze "set on edge" refers to the teeth being blunted or dulled. This is true and I know it for a fact, since I have a relative who as a child loved lemons and ate so many that the acid ate away the enamel on her teeth. She later had to have her teeth bonded. The point of the scripture is that there are negative consequences to the descendants of which their forefathers made bad choices in life or experienced some tramatic environmental events. It can show up generations later. This is what has angered the critics of Marcus Pembrey and his colleagues who have issues with accountability and immoral choices. This is where idealogy and philosophy of the critics enters in.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @bornagain77

    You have often quoted and referenced Perry Marshall here and other places like uncommon descent. While I like alot of his arguements I do not agree with everything he believes in. But again i did at one time enjoy his info.

    Do you know if he personally moderates his forum or is it someone else ??? I'm apparently banned there and IP blocked since I posted several posts on things against what he believes scripturally. I don't believe in Hellfire, or immortality of the Soul and some other doctrinal matters like Trinity for which I showed that his beloved "Information Theory" and John 1:1 refutes.

    It is also for the same exact reasons I apparently was banned over at evolutionfairytale.com/forum. It's okay to discuss evolution, but you are not allowed to point out any flaws in Biblical doctrinal matters.

    So again, do you know who moderates over at Perry's website cosmicfingerprints.com ???

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zach:"The evidence is leaning towards a single universal ancestor, but that doesn't mean it was the only organism at that time, or that it wasn't preceded by a disparate community"

    Which evidence? if we do not know. vidence fit with wichever story you want. UCLA sometimes exist as a fact sometimes it doesn´t exist.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Blas: Which evidence? if we do not know. vidence fit with wichever story you want. UCLA sometimes exist as a fact sometimes it doesn´t exist.

    No. Not every whichever story is equally consistent with the evidence.

    Which evidence? Start with the standard phylogeny where we have multiple branches converging, and the fossil succession where we can clearly see more complex form arising after more primitive ones.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eocene wrote:

    Interestingly, [these genes] were functioning perfectly before the fall.

    And you know this how? Is this another example of what you supposedly conceder common sense?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Doesn't the "tree of life" with conveging phylogenies break down when we get to the phylum level? I read that scientists are having trouble sorting out how the vertebrates, annelids, mullusks, arthropods, the echinodersm, etc. are related. There are also sometime problems sorting things out at the order level also. And all the phyla show up in the fossil record at the same time in the Cambrian.

    And increases in complexity over time since the Cambrian have been pretty much confined to the vertebrates. And most invertebrates have hardly changed at all since the Devonian.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Troy:

    It seems from the intro that things are getting better, but there are stiil lots of problems and disputes.

    ReplyDelete
  26. troy, have you seen this?

    I will help you:

    Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

    ...

    More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either.

    Dr Dupré said: "There are problems even in that little corner." Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That's the nature of science Nat, and that makes it exciting.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes Joe, I have seen that. In the early history of evolution HGT was apparently rampant, giving the tree a more network-line appearance at the root. Just like a real tree.

    Do you have a point?

    ReplyDelete
  29. My question is whether the evidence of the nested hierarchy can really be said to point to a common origin of all life if it breaks down at the level kingdom and phylum level. Of course, maybe more research will reveal the answers. Or maybe it won't.

    I'm just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  30. nullasalus: Doesn't the "tree of life" with conveging phylogenies break down when we get to the phylum level?

    We can easily resolve many branchings with no ambiguity, but other branchings are difficult to resolve, especially in the most ancient transitions, or those associated with rapid radiations. This is the expected pattern, of course. The closer to the juncture, the more closely the branches resemble one another!

    As troy points out, as expected, increasing resolution continues to confirm and extend our view of the posited branching pattern.

    nullasalus: And all the phyla show up in the fossil record at the same time in the Cambrian.

    Um, angiosperms. But in any case, what we observe is a fractal pattern of branching, so phylum designations can be somewhat arbitrary.

    natschuster: And increases in complexity over time since the Cambrian have been pretty much confined to the vertebrates.

    Um, angiosperms.

    So, humans are just modified chordates. Microevolution.

    ReplyDelete
  31. natschuster: My question is whether the evidence of the nested hierarchy can really be said to point to a common origin of all life if it breaks down at the level kingdom and phylum level.

    The data doesn't show it breaking down at the level of kingdom and phyla. Rather, increasing resolution continues to confirm orthodox phylogeny. Once we get to the domain level, resolution isn't good enough to determine whether that common origin was a single organism, or a open community of disparate entities, but is strong enough to indicate a common origin.

    ReplyDelete
  32. but we are not getting closer to the amcestral nodes when we examine modern species. We are hundreds of millions of years apart.

    And if 95% percent of species have not evolved much more complexity in 500,000,000 then I don't see how it can be called a pattern of increasing complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  33. troy: who is nullasalus?

    http://telicthoughts.com/nullasalus/

    ReplyDelete
  34. And I was under the impression that there was no orthodox phylogeny at the level of phylum and kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  35. natschuster: And if 95% percent of species have not evolved much more complexity in 500,000,000 then I don't see how it can be called a pattern of increasing complexity.

    Evolution doesn't imply monotonic increases in complexity. Complexity typically increases when it provides an evolutionary advantage. Along with the fractal nature of the phylogenetic tree, we also expect a chaotic pattern of adaptation, mostly small changes, some big changes, and the rare revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  36. So we don't see an overall pattern of increase in comlexity. And angiosperms really don't help much because there are a lot more animal species than plant species. And angiosperms haven't increased much in complexity since they first showed up.

    ReplyDelete
  37. natschuster: And I was under the impression that there was no orthodox phylogeny at the level of phylum and kingdom.

    Phyla and kingdom are merely convenient designations when discussing a fractal tree. The designations represent the surviving lineages, when at the time, the original ancestor was just one of many species, most of which went extinct.

    ReplyDelete
  38. natschuster: And angiosperms really don't help much because there are a lot more animal species than plant species.

    Help what? You had incorrectly said, "increases in complexity over time since the Cambrian have been pretty much confined to the vertebrates." Angiosperms are reasonably considered more complex organisms than their predecessors. Those previous adaptations took time, and included seeds, vascularization, etc. Not sure where you're getting your information.

    natschuster: And angiosperms haven't increased much in complexity since they first showed up.

    Complexity is not a simple scalar, but orchids have a great many complex adaptations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If there are 2,000,000 animals species, and ~270,000 plants species, and most of the animals have not increased much in complexity, or have not change much in any direction, then even though we see complex angiosperms, and some increase in complexity in vertebrates, how can it be said that there is an overall pattern of an increase in complexity in the fossil record?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Your sentence is compound, so let's break it down.

    natschuster: If there are 2,000,000 animals species, and ~270,000 plants species,

    An inordinate fondness for beetles.

    natschuster: ... and most of the animals have not increased much in complexity, or have not change much in any direction, ...

    Many would consider people or elephants more complex than the primitive aquatic chordates found during the early Cambrian.

    natschuster: ... then even though we see complex angiosperms, ...

    What? Plants don't count?

    natschuster: ... and some increase in complexity in vertebrates, ...

    Humans being just modified chordates. Tubes with with an array of sense organs at one end.

    natschuster: how can it be said that there is an overall pattern of an increase in complexity in the fossil record?

    Evolution doesn't imply monotonic increases in complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Natschuster said:

    If there are 2,000,000 animals species, and ~270,000 plants species, and most of the animals have not increased much in complexity, or have not change much in any direction, then even though we see complex angiosperms, and some increase in complexity in vertebrates, how can it be said that there is an overall pattern of an increase in complexity in the fossil record?

    Side note: haven't flying insects appeared since the Cambrian, and even since the Devonian? Would you not regard the difference between something like a silverfish and something like a wasp to be an increase in complexity?

    But then, of course, there was Stephen Gould's famous argument that evolution didn't tend to greater complexity: adapting to a new environment could involve increases in complexity, decreases in complexity, both (e.g. the loss of hind limbs in whales and the appearance of sonar), or changes in detail that didn't affecxt overall complexity. If average complexity increased over time, it was only because there was a lower limit to the complexity of life but no upper limit, so a few lineages have increased in complexity fairly noticeably.

    I'm not sure how your point is supposed to be an argument against large-scale common descent or "Darwinian" mechanisms. If you're going to argue that mutation, natural selection, etc., even with horizontal gene transmission thrown in, aren't likely to increase the complexity of organisms, aren't you making things easier for "Darwinism" by arguing that most lineages haven't increased much in complexity since millions if not tens of millions of centuries ago?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I do believe that Zackriel was siting the fact that the overall trend of the fossil record was a pattern of increasing complexity over time. And this was evidence for evolution. I was responding to that assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  43. natschuster said...

    I do believe that Zackriel was siting the fact that the overall trend of the fossil record was a pattern of increasing complexity over time. And this was evidence for evolution. I was responding to that assertion.


    Trend nat, not a smoothly increasing, constant slope line over all time.

    You don't understand what a trend line is in data, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Scott:

    "And you know this how?"
    =======

    Because the work of Marcus Pembrey in collaboration with Swedish researcher Lars Olov Bygren has proven the biblical explanations of where a person's lifestyle choices are detrimental to ones health, longevity and in the long run everlasting existance. Whether you believe or understand this or not is irrevelant since the truth of the matter does not rest on your(Scott's) approval. There is already evidence that epigenetic transgenerational inheritance can occur in humans in response to wrong lifestyle choices which are often championed as freewilled right to person nobody else's business choices.

    Things such as food supply, environmental catastrophic events, tramatic events (Holocaust experience, etc) and such modern day pursuits of degrading lifestyle choices such as drug misuse & abuse, over-eating, drunkeness, sexual immorality and smoking can not only effect the present individuals health/life, but also their descendants many generations later who may not even involve themselves personally in such perverted life choices.

    Another reason to believe what they have found is that it has infuriated the Occultish Scientifism Orthodoxy who demonize and villify anyone who dares to think outside the conventional Materialist Box of research and understanding. Marcus Pembrey even admits he is considered a heretic for this very reason and for me, this is enough reason to believe what he and his colleagues have discovered.

    *wink* - *thumbs up*

    ReplyDelete
  45. Scott:

    "Is this another example of what you supposedly conceder common sense?"
    =======

    The standard for Common Sense is put in place by the one who authored the bible. Of course all true standards for right and wrong are set as well. This is why the issue of Universal Sovereignty back in Eden was first put into question, whether or not God has the right to determine certain basic standards and principles to live by while enjoying massive amounts of freedom to life. In otherwords, Unrestrictive Animalistic Passionate Freedom vrs true freedom with checks and balance controls for the health benefits of those enjoying such freedom.

    But here are some more scriptures pertaining to the effects of inheritance on later generations of offsprings in regards to humans of course.

    Exodus 20:5 - (American Standard Version)

    5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, "

    Interestingly, this scriptural warning about the consequences of idolatry were completely disregarded by those early generation Israelites and it was their later offspring who eventually paid the price for not only idolatry, but even spiritual adultery for turning to foreign gods. Yet those later generations complained about how unfair it was that they should have to pay the price for the stupid actions of their forefathers. Take a look at this scripture which laments the sad condition that befell Israel.

    Lamentations 5:7 (Amplified Bible)

    7 "Our fathers sinned and are no more, and we have borne their iniquities."

    Footnotes:

    1. Lamentations 5:7 Fathers and sons alike are responsible for the calamity that has befallen Jerusalem. The truth of the matter is: this generation too deserved their punishment. "Woe to us, for we have sinned! Because of this our hearts are faint and sick; because of these things our eyes are dim and see darkly" (Lam. 5:16, 17).

    The later generation Isrealites tried to excuse their own behavior by blaming earlier generational bad choice making, but despite that seemingly unfair disadvantage, people still have freewill to make the right choices despite what genetic abnormalities my exist.

    I had a feeling that secretly you wanted me to share that with you, but the intense peer pressure from all your atheist buddies on this page would have made that embarrassing for you to ask. Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  46. natschuster: I do believe that Zac{h}riel was siting the fact that the overall trend of the fossil record was a pattern of increasing complexity over time. And this was evidence for evolution. I was responding to that assertion.

    This is apparently the statement at issue.

    Zachriel: Start with the standard phylogeny where we have multiple branches converging, and the fossil succession where we can clearly see more complex form{s} arising after more primitive ones.

    But it's not a pattern of monotonic increase. Reviewing,

    natschuster: And increases in complexity over time since the Cambrian have been pretty much confined to the vertebrates.

    Which is false.

    natschuster: If there are 2,000,000 animals species, and ~270,000 plants species, and most of the animals have not increased much in complexity, or have not change much in any direction, then even though we see complex angiosperms, and some increase in complexity in vertebrates, how can it be said that there is an overall pattern of an increase in complexity in the fossil record?

    Which confuses the observed increase in complexity over the entirety of biological history with a monotonic increase. More particularly, we were making a qualitative statement concerning simple bacterial organisms to eukaryotes to primitive worms and algae to fish and flying insects and seeds to birds and lions and deciduous trees.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Steven J, you say...

    "...aren't you making things easier for "Darwinism" by arguing that most lineages haven't increased much in complexity since millions if not tens of millions of centuries ago?"

    It's more like, "where is the evolutionary change" in these animals?" A shrimp is found to be 360 million years old but it looks just like a shrimp of today. Where are the pre-shrimp in the fossil record? When scientists are discovering complex animals dated to be so old without much change to them as observed by future generations, how can one say, this is evolution and we are understanding it better with these discoveries? These findings are not making a case for Darwinian evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Eocone,

    Because the work of Marcus Pembrey in collaboration with Swedish researcher Lars Olov Bygren has proven the biblical explanations of where a person's lifestyle choices are detrimental to ones health, longevity [..]

    It seems you're attempting to present another false dichotomy as lifestyle choices are clearly not the only factors that can be detrimental. Nor are positive lifestyle choices immune from detrimental effects. Furthermore, there are a number of pseudo genes that appear to represent functionality lost before human beings appeared, such as the ability to synthesize vitamin C. It's unclear how human choices could have retroactively disabled this function in our primate ancestors.

    In fact, merely existing, the process of cellular replication and metabolism causes the build up of waste and damage faster than our bodies can repair and clean up. Some of which is passed on to further generations.

    We simply do not see any indication of a demarcation point where biological life was immune to this sort of degradation - whether intentionally caused by a designer or otherwise.

    Another reason to believe what they have found is that it has infuriated the Occultish Scientifism Orthodoxy who demonize and villify anyone who dares to think outside the conventional Materialist Box of research and understanding.

    Let me guess, either we've been infected by evil forces or our hearts have been hardened by God. As such, anything we reject as pseudo-science must be true?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eocene wrote:

    The standard for Common Sense is put in place by the one who authored the bible.

    I expected you would assert this. But it's unclear if this is anything but an assertion on your part. That God is the author of common-sense appears to be the culmination of a number of earlier common-sense assumptions about the world we live in.

    But, again, it's unclear why you'd expect realty to adhere to common-sense conclusions. In other words, is it common-sense to conclude that God is the author of common-sense?

    History is littered with common-sense interpretations which we have discarded. For example, was our ancient common-sense interpretation that the sun orbited the earth put in place by God? Or was that some other kind of common-sense which had some other source?

    I had a feeling that secretly you wanted me to share that with you, but the intense peer pressure from all your atheist buddies on this page would have made that embarrassing for you to ask. Enjoy.

    Was that your common-sense interpretation of my comment? If so, chock that up to a failed conclusion based on what you consider-common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  50. In PNAS paper above three scientist write about special highly ordered interdependent operations we call functions. They call these functions protocols, encoding, translation etc

    Mucho interesting!

    Lets think about it: computer you are using now is performing certain functions. You may or may not know what type of computer you have in the box. It could be electronic, quantum, chemical or mechanical computer. No matter which one is in the box it is performing orderly operations we recognize as functions.

    BTW if you had mechanical computer with Pentium equivalent processor it would not fit in your room. It would be as big as shopping mall and consume power of a city. It would keep small army of technicians busy with all the breakdowns. Certainly not portable.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Scott quoting me, then responding:

    ME: "The standard for Common Sense is put in place by the one who authored the bible."

    SCOTT: "I expected you would assert this."
    ======

    Why thank you Scott. I actually take that as a compliment because it most certainly is the most important foundation for my beliefs. Here is one of the main reasons I do quote the Bible and I'll again let the scriptures explain it on it's own.

    Hebrews 4:12 - (Today's New International Version)

    12 "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

    When the reading of anything from the bible is read silently or heard allowed, it's effect is to divide the fleshy physical material man (which most see) from his inner most feelings found in the Heart (which in this case is nothing more than the symbolic term used to illustrate the seat of motivation, who you are and what makes you, you). A person's response to any verse exposes who they are and how they feel about almost any subject referenced in that particular verse. Hence my reasons for quoting it. And your reactions negative or possitive.

    There even may be many lurkers out there who may not desire to comment or ask further questions for fear of Peer issues. Understandable as fear of man is common to most humans and given the often vulgar, fithy retorts found here, I can see their point. But sometime in the future they most likely will be presented with an opportunity in private to ask someone questions without fear of being made fun of, as they would in this combat atmosphere of debate games where truth and understanding for the benefit of mankind is never the ultimate goal as opposed to big fish little pond game playing.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Corny wrote:
    "It is common knowledge that evolution is supposed to be caused by random biological variation that helps with reproductive success."

    Partially.

    "By definition such biological variation is more likely to be passed on to later generations and eventually to become established in a population."

    Then the variation we observe in a population cannot credibly be called "random" if it has been influenced by selection, which it clearly has.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I wrote:
    I expected you would assert this.

    Eocene wrote:
    Why thank you Scott. I actually take that as a compliment because it most certainly is the most important foundation for my beliefs.

    Was this another common sense interpretation of my comment? If so, its seems this represents yet another failed conclusion based on what you consider-common sense.

    Here is one of the main reasons I do quote the Bible and I'll again let the scriptures explain it on it's own

    So, the Bible is the word of God because it says it's the word of God? Is this a common-sense conclusion?

    Again, It's unclear why you expect reality to reflect what you consider common sense interpretations of phenomena.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Scott:

    "Again, It's unclear why you expect reality to reflect what you consider common sense interpretations of phenomena."
    ======

    Interesting!!!

    Which parallel universe of alternate reality of MAYA(Illusion) are you visiting today ??? Or is it just a video game ???

    May I suggest a "What Is Truth?" phraze default button when you wish to respond ??? That way way instead of all the readers(lurkers) here being forced to wasting 10-15 minutes on the usual go nowhere diatribe, we'll understand it's still a status quo behavior and accountabilities issue for you.

    Thanks 4 playing. *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  55. Eocene wrote:

    May I suggest a "What Is Truth?" phraze default button when you wish to respond ???

    Your continued attempt to muddy the waters with "parallel universes" is transparent and disingenuous.

    My point is really quite simple. That which is considered common-sense need not necessarily reflect reality.

    Despite the fact that history is littered with discarded common-scense conclusions about phenomena, apparently you're unwilling or unable to accept this as even a possibility.

    Again, was our ancient common-sense interpretation that the sun orbited the earth put in place by the author of the Bible? Or was that some other kind of common-sense which had some other source? How about our common-sense conclusion that objects are solid, rather than actually over 99% empty space?

    Your continued avoidance of this issue speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete