A topologically closed membrane is a ubiquitous feature of all cellular life forms. This membrane is not a simple lipid bilayer enclosing the innards of the cell: far from that, even in the simplest cells, the membrane is a biological device of a staggering complexity that carries diverse protein complexes mediating energy-dependent – and tightly regulated - import and export of metabolites and polymers.
And how could it have evolved? The paper agrees that “the origin(s) of the membrane(s) and membrane proteins remain enigmatic”
Studies of the past several decades have provided major insights into the structural organization of biological membranes and mechanisms of many membrane molecular machines. However, the origin(s) of the membrane(s) and membrane proteins remain enigmatic.
Indeed, such evolution is downright obscure:
Despite the growing understanding of the structural organization of membranes and molecular mechanisms of many membrane proteins, the origin(s) of biological membranes remain obscure.
And this is only the beginning. The paper is loaded with preposterous just-so stories, many of them contradictory, of how evolutionists believe the membrane evolved. Calling all of this raw speculation would be kind. The evolution of the cell membrane is downright ridiculous but evolutionists, as usual, remain ever dogmatic. They may not know of evolution occurred, but they’re sure it did. What’s worse, they insist it is a fact that is beyond any reasonable doubt. It would be perverse, as they often say, even to consider the possibility it may be wrong. All one needs to do is listen to evolutionists to understand what it is all about, and it isn’t science.
So what's the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a "just-so story", Cornelius?
ReplyDeleteIn your view?
A so story is telling an hypothesis without bringing up his problems.
DeleteFor example: The membrane evolved. Could a membrane evolve without be a cell membrane? Could exist a cell without an evolved membrane?
Which is the simpliest form that can evolve? This axxumption is consistant with what we found in the simpliest unit of life?
Elizabeth Liddle
DeleteSo what's the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a "just-so story"
Calling a scientific hypothesis a "just-so story" makes for better propaganda and will get you a paycheck from the DI. "Wedge" strategy and all that.
Calling all biological features "evolved" keeps the checks coming from the taxpayers, checks needed for the modern academic laboratory and staff. "Materialist consensus reality" strategy and all that.
DeleteCalling all biological features "evolved" keeps the checks coming from the taxpayers, checks needed for the modern academic laboratory and staff. "Materialist consensus reality" strategy and all that.
DeleteOh really?
That's how science funding works in the US, is it?
How odd.
The problem is to get the paychecks you need to publish in high impact magazines.
DeleteTo publish in high impact magazines you need positive results.
If your investigation line is origin of membranes the only way to present your results as positives is say that what you find in the lab is possible in the life, time and place you immagine without any mention of the problems in that real situation.
Result so-storie published.
Well, not exactly, no.
DeleteIn fact, I'd call that a "just-so story".
Proof it, show me a paper of OOL saying "this is improbably could happened".
DeleteJust for clarification, talking about the author of the paper work.
DeleteThat's how science funding works in the US, is it?
DeleteYou didn't confine the question to academia as I did in my statement. Moving along:
No. Obviously research in the hard sciences not included. Oh wait, I forgot about what happened to Guillermo Gonzales at Iowa State.
Yes. Life sciences, and not just in the U.S. Work in one of those labs, express interest in design, and you lose your paycheck. Unless tenured, but you still lose your lab.
I understand that outside the Anglosphere,
such fundamentalist Darwininan enforcement is not so dominating, e.g. such as in France.
Could you provide some citations for this?
DeleteLiddle: Could you provide some citations for this?
DeleteThis is not discussed in the mainstream press as it would be too damaging for public acceptance. A scenario which would threaten the tax money gushers.
Here is the only photo I could find for Behe in the lab. A very young Behe: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Behe.gif
Now he received tenure so his lab work must have been solid. Does he have a well funded lab today? I don't think so. I could be wrong.
And here is the story on Gonzales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_%28astronomer%29
Notice how he was SUPPOSEDLY denied tenure (after a campaign by faculty campus-wide) because of his lack of research funding. Why was he denied research funding? It seems he was a pariah because of support for ID so the lack of funding is no surprise and makes my point in itself. The huge instruments used in astronomy must be paid for, and apparently denial of access to these instruments is the kiss of death or maybe kiss of unemployment for astronomers.
To be honest, your recent posts on epigenetics, and now cell membranes, can be summed up as:
ReplyDeleteOrganisms are homeostatic! Evolution fails!
Do you think that evolutionary biologists hadn't noticed homeostatic mechanisms before you pointed a couple of them out?
The paper is loaded with preposterous just-so stories, many of them contradictory, of how evolutionists believe the membrane evolved.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. I'm here to learn. Please list the stories in that load and point out the contradictions.
Cornelius Hunter: Not only is the protein-punctuated sandwich structure incredibly complicated, but organisms actively fine-tune its design as conditions change.
ReplyDeleteYour argument seems to be, "it's complicated, therefore not evolution".
Zachriel:
DeleteYour argument seems to be, "it's complicated, therefore not evolution".
And an excellent argument it is.
Zachriel:
Delete"Your argument seems to be, "it's complicated, therefore not evolution"."
No, the argument is that the claim that evolution is a fact is not supported by the science.
And, as has been explained to you countless times, that is a complete straw man.
DeleteSo why you keep banging on about it, I have no idea.
The point is that evolutionary theory is extremely well supported by facts, and evolutionary processes have been observed in real time.
But clearly, and no-one claims otherwise, we do not, and never will have, a complete account of the evolution of every biological features.
That said, there is a large amount of literature on the evolution of cell membranes.
Oh, and that post where you quoted me without attribution - I have responded to it, having just found it, and would appreciate a reply.
Cornelius Hunter: No, the argument is that the claim that evolution is a fact is not supported by the science.
Delete"increasingly sophisticated"
"incredibly complicated"
"astonishingly modified"
"downright ridiculous"
It seems to be argument by adjective. Is there something we're missing?
Zach, besides your blind faith in materialistic atheism, do you have ANY actual rigid empirical evidence that evolution is a fact?
Delete“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.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
Excerpt:
It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the 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? (A. Aspect; A. Zeilinger) Appealing to the probability of various 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! 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!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteZachriel: "Your argument seems to be, "it's complicated, therefore not evolution"."
No, the argument is that the claim that evolution is a fact is not supported by the science.
You should talk to your buddies at the DI's Evolution News and Views. Even they know the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory:
EN&V "Coyne is right that evolution, in at least one sense of that multivalent word, is a fact. Life's forms did emerge progressively. Anyone with a pick and time can go dig and verify this."
from here.
Why don't you guys come back when get your story straight.
bornagain77: besides your blind faith in materialistic atheism ...
DeleteWe're neither a materialist nor an atheist.
bornagain77: do you have ANY actual rigid empirical evidence that evolution is a fact?
Evolution is directly observed. Divergence from common ancestors is strongly supported by a variety of evidence, including the nested hierarchy and the succession of fossils.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/principle-of-superposition.html
Zach you state:
Delete'We're neither a materialist nor an atheist.'
and yet walks like a duck and talks like a duck,,,, amazing that is Yoda!
You also state,
'Evolution is directly observed'
apparently Zach you don't realize that 'directly observed' and 'succession of fossils' mean completely different things as far as empirical science concerned:
Zach, the following list of experiments is what 'directly observed" means in empirical science:
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
The following quote and video clearly illustrates just how unreliable your 'succession of fossils' are as to making a 'directly observed' case for atheistic neo-Darwinism:
If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following 'true' statement:
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils
Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
http://vimeo.com/30921402
Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg
Hunter:
DeleteZachriel:
"Your argument seems to be, "it's complicated, therefore not evolution"."
No, the argument is that the claim that evolution is a fact is not supported by the science.
Hunter, don't let Zachriel intimidate you with his cretinous BS. The complexity argument is a perfectly valid argument against Darwinian evolution. There is no way a system can increase in complexity unless it is programmed to do so. The idea that order can rise out of chaos through random changes is a brain-dead idea. This would be like saying that the air in a room can suddenly bunch up in one corner because of the random collisions of the molecules. The likelihood of that happening is zero.
As I've said many times before, chicken feather voodoo science is what evolutionists practice.
Zachriel:
DeleteEvolution is directly observed. Divergence from common ancestors is strongly supported by a variety of evidence, including the nested hierarchy and the succession of fossils.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/principle-of-superposition.html
Funny. Why does that support Darwinian evolution and not Design evolution? The truth is that fossil record does not support the minute transitions predicted by Darwinian evolution. This is not a requirement of Design evolution.
bornagain77: if you consider a man-made, 1 in 10^11 to 10^12, protein, that binds to the universal energy molecule of ATP and gums up the works of a living cell, as stunning proof that functional proteins are 'uncommon', you are living in a dream world
DeleteThat wasn't the claim. You had suggested that stable folding proteins were exceedingly rare. Have you abandoned that claim?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLouis Savain: There is no way a system can increase in complexity unless it is programmed to do so.
DeleteCan you provide a clear, quantitative measure of complexity?
Louis Savain: Why does that support Darwinian evolution and not Design evolution?
Is this the Unnamed Designer using an Unknown Mechanism at an Unspecified Time and Place for Inscrutable Purposes Theory? Perhaps you can narrow it down a bit.
bornagain77: and yet walks like a duck and talks like a duck
DeleteYou are welcome to your opinions, but please don't misrepresent ours.
Zachriel: Evolution is directly observed. Divergence from common ancestors is strongly supported by a variety of evidence, including the nested hierarchy and the succession of fossils.
bornagain77: you don't realize that 'directly observed' and 'succession of fossils' mean completely different things as far as empirical science concerned:
Of course they're different. The distinction is in our previous statement. While evolution is directly observed, the history of that evolution is inferred from a variety of evidence.
bornagain77: If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following 'true' statement:
Well, quote-mining can make people upset. It is correct that you can never put fossils in a direct lineage. Rather, they fit the expected historical transitions. A simple example is that you don't see primates before more primitive mammals. And you don't see mammals before more primitive vertebrates.
Zach you can play word game goop and poop if you want but your busted of substantiating evidence period!
DeleteQuack! Quack!
Cornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteThe paper is loaded with preposterous just-so stories, many of them contradictory, of how evolutionists believe the membrane evolved.
Please list these preposterous contradictory just-so stories. Then please give us your scientific reasons for what the paper got wrong, and why it is wrong.
Personal incredulity goes over well with the Creationists here, not so much in the scientific community.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe entire theory of evolution is a just-so story. A hypothesis is an assumption that can be tested. A just-so story is just speculation about how things could have happened without providing any way to test that they did happen in the speculated manner.
DeleteChicken feather voodoo science is what evolutionists practice.
So you think that evolutionary hypotheses aren't tested?
DeleteIt would be nice if neo-Darwinists were to ever 'honestly' address the primary problem at hand. The 'problem' of information. Though neo-Darwinists wax eloquent in long winded just so stories of how a structure as complex as a membrane could have evolved in a bottom up materialistic fashion, the plain fact of the matter is that they have not demonstrated the origination of even a single functional protein by purely material neo-Darwinian processes:
ReplyDeleteStephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
The reason why it is so difficult for material processes to generate functional proteins is because 'information', which is not reducible to material processes, is found to be integral to functional proteins:
Why Proteins Aren't Easily Recombined, Part 2 - Ann Gauger May 17, 2012
Excerpt: In other words, even if only 10% of non-matching residues were changed, the resulting hybrid enzyme no longer functioned. Why? Because the substitution of different amino acids into the existing protein structure destabilized the fold, even though those same amino acids worked well in another context. Thus, each protein's amino acid sequence works as a whole to help generate a proper stable fold, in a context-dependent fashion.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/why_proteins_ar_1059771.html
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."
Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics
'quantum information' shown in proteins here:
Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini & 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/
and classical information/data is shown to be a subset of quantum information here:
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the (classical) data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
bornagain77 (quoting : the substitution of different amino acids into the existing protein structure destabilized the fold, even though those same amino acids worked well in another context.
DeleteStable, folding sequences are not that uncommon, even in random sequences (~10^-11).
Well Zach though much could be said for your uttering 'not that uncommon' and '1 in 10^11' in the same breath,, the fact of the matter is that functional protein sequences are even more rare than the 1 in 10^11 to 1 in 10^12 (one in a trillion) number derived from Szostak's work on ATP binding:
DeleteHow Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010
Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html
This following paper was the paper that put the final nail in the coffin for Szostak's work:
A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells
Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385
Here is a very interesting comment by Jack Szostak himself:
DeleteThe Origin of Life on Earth
Excerpt: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.
It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.
Dr. Jack Szostak - Nobel Laureate and leading Origin of Life researcher who, despite the evidence he sees first hand, still believes 'life' simply 'emerged' from molecules
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth
"a very rough but conservative result is that if all the sequences that define a particular (protein) structure or fold-set where gathered into an area 1 square meter in area, the next island would be tens of millions of light years away."
Kirk Durston
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors - 2007
Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,,
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47
bornagain77: though much could be said for your uttering 'not that uncommon' and '1 in 10^11' in the same breath,
DeleteThere are approximately 6*10^23 molecules in a mole. A few nanograms of amino acid sequences are enough to be confident of finding sequences that fold.
bornagain77: the fact of the matter is that functional protein sequences are even more rare
That wasn't the question at issue, which concerned folding.
bornagain77: Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
Millions is a very small number when discussing molecules.
Zach protein folds, protein domains, genes, etc.. whatever you want, please feel free to present ANY empirical evidence for ANY novel functional 'folded' protein and/or protein domain, and/or gene, arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes instead of just presenting your belief as if your blind faith in neo-Darwinian processes is good enough for rigid experimental proof in science!
DeleteNotes:
In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, which was 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it was estimated to take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape.
"Blue Gene's final product, due in four or five years, will be able to "fold" a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing." Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000
http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html
Networking a few hundred thousand computers together has reduced the time to a few weeks for simulating the folding of a single protein molecule:
A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. A Single Protein Molecule - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018233
As well, despite some very optimistic claims, it seems future 'quantum computers' will not fair much better in finding functional proteins in sequence space than even a idealized 'material' supercomputer of today can do:
Shtetl-Optimized
Excerpt: Quantum computers are not known to be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time.
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456
Protein folding is found to be a 'intractable NP-complete problem' by several different methods. Thus protein folding will not be able to take advantage of any advances in speed that quantum computation may offer to any other problems of computation that may be solved in polynomial time:
Combinatorial Algorithms for Protein Folding in Lattice
Models: A Survey of Mathematical Results – 2009
Excerpt: Protein Folding: Computational Complexity
4.1
NP-completeness: from 10^300 to 2 Amino Acid Types
4.2
NP-completeness: Protein Folding in Ad-Hoc Models
4.3
NP-completeness: Protein Folding in the HP-Model
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sorin/pdfs/pfoldingsurvey.pdf
Further note on the extreme rarity of biologically relevant protein domains;
DeleteProteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011
Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html
Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
"our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."
http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm
The Extreme Complexity Of Genes - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/
of note:
the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
http://www.hgmd.org/
I really question their use of the word 'celebrating'. (Of note, apparently someone with a sense of decency has now removed the word 'celebrating')
bornagain77: protein folds, protein domains, genes, etc.. whatever you want, please feel free to present ANY empirical evidence for ANY novel functional 'folded' protein and/or protein domain, and/or gene, arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes instead of just presenting your belief as if your blind faith in neo-Darwinian processes is good enough for rigid experimental proof in science!
DeleteThen you have abandoned your previous claim about stable, folding proteins.
bornagain77: Despite its speed, it was estimated to take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape.
There's the same problem predicting turbulent flow. Is turbulence mystical?
bornagain77: Protein folding is found to be a 'intractable NP-complete problem' by several different methods.
So? That doesn't mean protein folding is mystical or supernatural. And remember, random sequences can form stable folds.
'Then you have abandoned your previous claim about stable, folding proteins."
DeleteNo I haven't. You have presented no evidence that 'biologically relevant' functional proteins can be generated by purely neo-Darwinian processes. And for you to allude to Szostak's work on man-made ATP binding from a random library, is to be completely disingenuous to the evidence, espespecially in that his man-made 'functional' proteins were found to,,,
'man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division."
Thus despite whatever you have deluded yourself into believing, you have ZERO evidence that functional proteins can be had by neo-Darwinian processes!
Zach you state:
Delete'There's the same problem predicting turbulent flow. Is turbulence mystical?'
Actually, Zach, since I hold reality itself to be 'miraculous', then yes it is 'mystical':
But to delve into just how quickly supercomputers can be swamped by what should, by all rights, be a simple process to explain in a reductive materialistic framework. A 'simple neon atom' does as such!
Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy - June 2010
Excerpt: The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. "The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today's supercomputers," explains Yakovlev.
http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.html
Moreover Zach, 'material' paricles are now found to require a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time.
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement - Anton Zeilinger - video
http://vimeo.com/34168474
Zach, What non-local, beyond space and time, cause do you propose to explain all the 'material' particles continued existence within space-time of the physical universe? I already have a cause!
Revelation 4:11
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
Unto The King Eternal - music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPYRhOQcCU
In fact, Zach, I hold motion itself to be 'mystical/miraculous';
DeleteActs 17:28
'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
In conjunction with the mathematical, and logical, necessity of an 'Uncaused Cause' to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,,
"The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment."
Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a 'First Mover' accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. One line of evidence arises from the smallest indivisible unit of time; Planck time:
Planck time
Excerpt: One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10^−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change. As of May 2010, the smallest time interval that was directly measured was on the order of 12 attoseconds (12 × 10^−18 seconds),[4] about 10^24 times larger than the Planck time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
The 'first mover' is further warranted to be necessary from quantum mechanics since the possibility for the universe to be considered a self-sustaining 'closed loop' of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the 'hidden variable' argument, as first postulated by Einstein, in quantum entanglement experiments. As well, there also must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain quantum wave collapse for 'each moment' of the universe.
As to your claim that protein folding is not 'mystical', once again I find your lack of wonder to be completely unwarranted. In fact,,,,
DeleteAlso of interest to the extreme difficultly man has in computing the folding of a protein within any reasonable amount of time with supercomputers, it seems water itself, (H2O), was 'designed' with protein folding in mind:
Protein Folding: One Picture Per Millisecond Illuminates The Process - 2008
Excerpt: The RUB-chemists initiated the folding process and then monitored the course of events. It turned out that within less than ten milliseconds, the motions of the water network were altered as well as the protein itself being restructured. “These two processes practically take place simultaneously“, Prof. Havenith-Newen states, “they are strongly correlated.“ These observations support the yet controversial suggestion that water plays a fundamental role in protein folding, and thus in protein function, and does not stay passive.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080805075610.htm
Water Is 'Designer Fluid' That Helps Proteins Change Shape - 2008
Excerpt: "When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806113314.htm
Further notes on water:
Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible - October 2011
Excerpt: WATER'S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.,,, They found that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds were slightly longer than the deuterium-oxygen ones, which is what you would expect if quantum uncertainty was affecting water’s structure. “No one has ever really measured that before,” says Benmore.
We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.900-waters-quantum-weirdness-makes-life-possible.html
Anomalous life enabling properties of water
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html
Water's remarkable capabilities - December 2010 - Peer Reviewed
Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. ... Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/pro-intelligent_design_peer_re042211.html
Of related interest to water being a 'designer fluid', is that water can transmit 'information' in order to reconstitute a DNA sequence:
DeleteDNA Sequence Reconstituted from Water Memory? - 2011
Water carrying only the electromagnetic signature of a DNA sequence can make a replica of the sequence out of simple building blocks, Nobel laureate HIV researcher shows.
Excerpt: When Noble laureate HIV researcher Luc Montagnier discovered that certain bacterial and viral DNA sequences dissolved in water causes electromagnetic signals to be emitted at high dilutions, that was bad enough. Now, new results from his lab appear to show that the DNA sequence itself could be reconstituted from the electromagnetic signal. That has so stunned the scientific community that one prominent supporter was nonetheless moved to remark: “Luc is either a genius or he is mad!” But some quantum physicists are taking that very seriously, and are linking Montagnier’s findings to decades of research demonstrating the sensitivity of organisms to extremely weak electromagnetic fields.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DNA_sequence_reconstituted_from_Water_Memory.php
Of related note to protein folding and intelligence:
So Much For Random Searches - PaV - September 2011
Excerpt: There’s an article in Discover Magazine about how gamers have been able to solve a problem in HIV research in only three weeks (!) that had remained outside of researcher’s powerful computer tools for years. This, until now, unsolvable problem gets solved because: "They used a wide range of strategies, they could pick the best places to begin, and they were better at long-term planning. Human intuition trumped mechanical number-crunching." Here’s what intelligent agents were able to do within the search space of possible solutions:,,, "until now, scientists have only been able to discern the structure of the two halves together. They have spent more than ten years trying to solve structure of a single isolated half, without any success. The Foldit players had no such problems. They came up with several answers, one of which was almost close to perfect. In a few days, Khatib had refined their solution to deduce the protein’s final structure, and he has already spotted features that could make attractive targets for new drugs." Thus,,
Random search by powerful computer: 10 years and No Success
Intelligent Agents guiding powerful computing: 3 weeks and Success.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-much-for-random-searches/
Alan Turing & Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/
Another reason why the human mind is not like a computer - June 2012
Excerpt: In computer chess, there is something called the “horizon effect”. It is an effect innate in the algorithms that underpin it. Due to the mathematically staggering number of possibilities, a computer by force has to restrict itself, to establish a fixed search depth. Otherwise the calculations would never end. This fixed search depth means that a ‘horizon’ comes into play, a horizon beyond which the software engine cannot peer.
Anand has shown time and again that he can see beyond this algorithm-imposed barrier, to find new ways, methods of changing the game. Just when every successive wave of peers and rivals thinks they have got his number, Anand sees that one, all important, absolute move.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/computer-science/another-reason-why-the-human-mind-is-not-like-a-computer/
bornagain77: No I haven't. You have presented no evidence that 'biologically relevant' functional proteins can be generated by purely neo-Darwinian processes.
DeleteBut that wasn't the claim. Rather it concerned the likelihood of stable, folding proteins. We would be happy to discuss your modified claim once we agree on the former.
bornagain77: "man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division."
Yes, that is exactly the function they were hoping to detect. The question was whether the artificial gene would fold properly within the cell. It did.
bornagain77: since I hold reality itself to be 'miraculous', then yes it is 'mystical'
Mystical has several meanings, such as having a reality beyond the senses or intelligence. Perhaps it would have been clearer to say supernatural. In any case, if you aren't making a scientific statement, one based on observation, then we won't argue the point.
Zach, You clearly have no intention of ever dealing forthrightly with the evidence.
Deletebornagain77: You clearly have no intention of ever dealing forthrightly with the evidence.
DeleteWe're dealing with a very specific claim, the prevalence of stable, folding amino acid sequences.
Zach, all I can say is that if you consider a man-made, 1 in 10^11 to 10^12, protein, that binds to the universal energy molecule of ATP and gums up the works of a living cell, as stunning proof that functional proteins are 'uncommon', you are living in a dream world and should take up acting or some other career where you ability to detach from reality and live in a fantasy world can be used to more appropriately rather than you wasting your and other people's time in science!
DeleteZach, to try again, however futile it may be, to impress upon you the universe wide gap between Darwinian processes and functional proteins, you mentioned a man-made protein of 1 in 10^11 that gummed up the works of a living cell, yet if we were to try to find a protein that actually interacted in a meaningful way with other proteins and did something useful in a cell, instead of just gumming up the works, we find that it is extremely difficult to find a functional protein sequence:
Delete"The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable."
Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")
further notes:
Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design Sick! (as in cool) - Fazale Rana - June 2011
Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required:
"...cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2"
If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely?
In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs requires intelligent agency to arise. Sick!
http://www.reasons.org/viral-binding-protein-design-makes-case-intelligent-design-sick-cool
Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses - June 1, 2012
Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, "to leapfrog over bottlenecks" to improve the activity of the binder.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-computer-designed-proteins-variety-flu-viruses.html
It's easy to spot a DTB (Darwinian True Believer). Religious fanatics who have substituted blind faith for reason always project the same motivation onto those who disagree with their beliefs. An obvious example is the application of the (presumed) pejorative "Creationist" (or the obviously pejorative "IDiot") to anyone who points out the obvious rational flaws in evolutionary theory. It's hard to tell if this is just defensive name-calling or a permanently internalized straw man argument. Either way, the strategy appears successful because the intellectual and emotional threat of reasonable discourse is foreclosed.
ReplyDeletestjones911,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your courteous invitation to reasonable discourse.
Perhaps you would begin by answering the questions that Thorton and I posed above.
Perhaps you could respond to my original comment by explaining how name-calling and straw man arguments contribute to reasonable discourse. People who question past and current versions of evolutionary orthodoxy can dismiss DTBs as easily as DTBs dismiss them. Yes, I have willingly and knowingly lowered myself to Thorton's level. Enlightening, no?
DeleteThe easiest, most effective way to shut me up and put me in my place would be to answer the scientific questions.
DeleteBut neither you nor any of the other blustering IDCers here will, because you can't.
Perhaps you could respond to my original comment by explaining how name-calling and straw man arguments contribute to reasonable discourse.
DeleteSez the guy who name-calls people "DTBs" and who presents no argument at all.
Congratulations, Pedant! You got my point exactly. I note without surprise the absence of any actual response (rational or otherwise) to my original question.
DeleteEvolutionists have discovered that lipids can form bubbles and the bubbles can actually divide! It's the lab version of Mr. Bubble Bath. Here's a evolutionst propaganda site for kids.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.historyforkids.org/scienceforkids/biology/cells/doing/vacuoles.htm
Yes kids, in many ways bubbles were a lot like living cells and Coke cans were a lot like smartphones.
The DNA/RNA and cellular membrane form an integrated system that is irreducibly complex.
ignorant Creationist
DeleteEvolutionists have discovered that lipids can form bubbles and the bubbles can actually divide! It's the lab version of Mr. Bubble Bath.
Ignorant Creation discovers that if he closes his eyes tightly, plugs his ears with his fingers and goes "LA LA LA LA" he can actually remain a scientifically illiterate ignoramus.
There's no cure for willful ignorance.
Neal: The DNA/RNA and cellular membrane form an integrated system that is irreducibly complex.
DeleteIs it? Research has shown that synthetic base pairs (NaM and 5SICS) can be copied by DNA polymerase, which arranges them in the same Watson-Crick arrangement of base pairs current found in nature - even though these synthetic base pairs do not form hydrogen bonds.
From the article.
Romesberg said this unexpected finding has major implications for evolutionary theory. The ability of DNA polymerase to place NaM and 5SICS together (and presumably other base pairs held together by hydrophobic forces), doesn't seem likely to be just a coincidence. It may be possible that early life actually started out using such "artificial" base pairs, then discarded them for the four familiar ones found in living things today.
Testing that hypothesis would be extremely difficult, Romesberg said. There's unlikely to be any direct evidence of this transition, only indirect evidence such as this hitherto unknown capacity of DNA polymerase.
In other words, this sort of flexibility strongly collaborates the theory that other forms of genetic material can be interchanged and still replicated.
It's good to bring in hazmat team sometimes. Pink Shirt Guy did. PSG
ReplyDeleteNew Gallop poll out about evolution.
DeleteOnly 15% of Americans believe the fairy tale about evolution.
Note: theistic evolution is an oxymoron. It is really just intelligent design. So, after 150 years of propaganda and indoctrination from academia and the press, Darwinists have 15% of the population blindly following. It's interesting that this number is getting close to the percent of atheists (by 6%). Evolutionists exist on the fringe of society. Unfortunately that fanatical fringe happens to inhabit academia giving the little pup a big bark.
And to the eyes of the rest developed world, the United States is the country of fanatical, fringe Christianism. Those numbers help other countries to look down on you. These are very mean people.
DeleteThe "rest developed world" I assume largely refers to the future Islamic region consisting of non-reproducing materialist whites and Christianity-hating immigrants and their offspring. Mean people? Maybe a few, especially those rioting ones-- berserk, as in Athens, Spain, and the Parisian 'burbs as their socialist dream-wreck unfolds.
DeleteWhat are we to think of Japan, an aging and shrinking society apparently grappling with the cultural inroads of scientism?
Does anyone care what the intelligentsia of this "undeveloping" world thinks?
Ignorant Creationist
ReplyDeleteNew Gallop poll out about evolution.
Only 15% of Americans believe the fairy tale about evolution.
Not only is he ignorant, the Creationist is also a liar.
The actual percentage is 47% believe that humans evolved, with 32% believing God directed evolutionary processes and 15% believing God wasn't involved.
This is up from 9% believing God wasn't involved a decade ago.
Gallup Poll 2012: Evolution Creation
Still pretty sad numbers for an industrialized nation. If anything the results just highlight the need for more and better science education, so we'll get less willfully ignorant Creationists.
You mean that after a century of forced indoctrination, only 15% believe in your crap? Talk about an epic FAIL.
Delete33% of Americans think the sun goes around the earth
Delete14% think sound travels faster than light
33% disagree the earth goes around the sun in a year
41% think astrology is scientific
49% think ordinary tomatoes don't have genes but genetic modified do
How much you're willing to bet that those statistics are bogus, velikovskys?
DeleteLouis Savain June 4, 2012 7:58 PM
DeleteHow much you're willing to bet that those statistics are bogus, velikovskys?
I'm inclined to agree. This one, for example:
33% of Americans think
seems to me to be way too generous.
Louis,they look like the real thing,they are for 2009,can get you a link if you wish.
DeleteWatch it ,Ian.
Oh, Oh, I have a question, I have a question. Cells need this epigenetic mechanism to respond to changes in the environment. But without the mechanisms, they won't survive the changes. So they needed to evolve the mechanisms before the environment changes. But before the environment changes there is no selective pressure to develop these mechanisms. Unless the answer is that the organism could survive changes without the mechanisms, but not as well as with the mechanisms. But that means that the selective pressure would not be all that great. The selection coefficient might not be strong enough to drive the evolution of such a fantastically complex mechanism. What exactly are the numbers?
ReplyDeleteYep. The more one thinks about evolution, the more stupid it looks.
DeleteNat,
DeleteOver 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. So, the majority of all species that needed to adapt did not. In many cases, they would have survived if they didn't have to compete with other species that did adapt, or they only survived in areas where the environment didn't change. Nor do we think that all features are built all at once, but that in some cases existing systems were be appropriated to perform other roles.
However, if cells were pre-programmed to adapt, How do you explain this high extinction rate?
Did this supposedly super advanced programmer develop code based merely on useful rules of thumb, rather than use explanatory knowledge? But then it would seem that your designer isn't all that advanced after all, as we'd have a better explanation as to how to make progress that it would.
Oh, I forgot, knowledge has nothing to do with it. Over 98% of all species that ever existed went extinct because, "That's just what the designer must have wanted.", right?
Scott:
DeleteHowever, if cells were pre-programmed to adapt, How do you explain this high extinction rate?
Did this supposedly super advanced programmer develop code based merely on useful rules of thumb, rather than use explanatory knowledge? But then it would seem that your designer isn't all that advanced after all, as we'd have a better explanation as to how to make progress that it would.
Whether or not many species went extinct does not mean that the designers were not advanced. When was the last time you designed an insect or even a microbe using DNA sequences? Besides, the idea that the designers were omniscient is a strawman of your own making. And a favorite strawman of evolutionists in general, I might add. Which gives credence to Hunter's perennial criticism: it's all about religion.
The book of Genesis mentions many designers (Elohim or the lords). The Elohim were obviously experimenting since it took them hundreds of millions of years to finish their design and engineering work. And after the work was done, they still had to take a step back to look at it all before they concluded was that it was "very good". Nowhere does it say that either the designers or their work were perfect. It is certainly probable that they made mistakes along the way and may even have caused a bunch of species to go extinct because they were not satisfied with the results.
Be cool.
Louis Savain
DeleteThe book of Genesis mentions many designers (Elohim or the lords). The Elohim were obviously experimenting since it took them hundreds of millions of years to finish their design and engineering work. And after the work was done, they still had to take a step back to look at it all before they concluded was that it was "very good". Nowhere does it say that either the designers or their work were perfect. It is certainly probable that they made mistakes along the way and may even have caused a bunch of species to go extinct because they were not satisfied with the results.
ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!
ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!
DeleteNot yet but soon, it will be and to your eternal chagrin, I'm sure. And then there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. I'll be watching from the bleachers with a bag of Cheetos. :D
Run Thorton,doom is upon ye,so sayeth the prophet Louis ,the one with the Cheetos stained fingers and the Big Gulp
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's right. I'm the prophet with a smile on his face and a bag of Cheetos in his hands. Thorton's room-temperature IQ and obsessive personality will never let him see the humor, though. :D
DeleteCells need this epigenetic mechanism to respond to changes in the environment.
DeleteWhich mechanism?
But without the mechanisms, they won't survive the changes.
That's a rather wild generalisation, isn't it?
But before the environment changes there is no selective pressure to develop these mechanisms.
Not everything that happens, happens because of selective pressures.
Unless the answer is that the organism could survive changes without the mechanisms, but not as well as with the mechanisms.
Good answer.
But that means that the selective pressure would not be all that great.
Yep, not as great as if the absence of mechanisms were certainly fatal. But as to be great enough to make a difference... how would you know?
What exactly are the numbers?
5, 11, 24.3, 12.
Are you saying that organisms can develop complex mechanisms like the ones describe in the paper sited above without really strong selective pressure?
DeleteSavain says:
DeleteThe book of Genesis mentions many designers (Elohim or the lords). The Elohim were obviously experimenting since it took them hundreds of millions of years to finish their design and engineering work. And after the work was done, they still had to take a step back to look at it all before they concluded was that it was "very good". Nowhere does it say that either the designers or their work were perfect. It is certainly probable that they made mistakes along the way and may even have caused a bunch of species to go extinct because they were not satisfied with the results.
Further detail?.
I was going to retract my recommendation for Prometheus, Louis, as it has a putrid script. But now I suspect you'll enjoy it in ways I cannot.
natschuster,
DeleteAre you saying that organisms can develop complex mechanisms like the ones describe in the paper sited above without really strong selective pressure?
No, I haven't said a word about that. I suggest you re-read the OP, your post, my reply, and the definition for epigenetics.
Geoxus:
DeleteI was going to retract my recommendation for Prometheus, Louis, as it has a putrid script. But now I suspect you'll enjoy it in ways I cannot.
It must indeed be a very interesting movie. I can't wait to see it. :D
natschuster:
DeleteUnless the answer is that the organism could survive changes without the mechanisms, but not as well as with the mechanisms.
Geoxus:
Good answer.
No it's not. The difference between an epigenetic adaptive mechanism and evolution is that the former can react rapidly to changes whereas evolution cannot. Environmental insults to the organism are too frequent to insure survival without a fast reactive mechanism for adaptation.
Savain said:
DeleteNo it's not.
On reflection, you're right. He failed to consider as well the possibility that many organisms lived confined in fairly stable environments.
The difference between an epigenetic adaptive mechanism and evolution is that the former can react rapidly to changes whereas evolution cannot. Environmental insults to the organism are too frequent to insure survival without a fast reactive mechanism for adaptation.
An all-or-nothing situation may be true in many cases, but I see no reason to think it should always be that way.
It must indeed be a very interesting movie. I can't wait to see it. :D
Be assured it contains plenty of idiotic reasoning and behaviour.
Louis: Whether or not many species went extinct does not mean that the designers were not advanced.
DeleteI did not say this mere extinction rate *alone* suggested these supposed designers were not advanced.
People can create two kinds of knowledge: rules of thumb, which represent non-explanatory knowledge, and explanations, which represent explanatory knowledge.
We explain our relatively recent and rapid increase in our creation of knowledge in that knowledge comes to us in the form of long chains of hard to vary explanations. On the other hand, shallow, easily varied explanations and rules of thumb impede our ability to make progress.
Now, you're essentially claiming the knowledge as found in the genome was created by designers more advanced than us. Yet, the knowledge we find there doesn't take the form of explanatory knowledge. Rather, it's non-explanatory.
So, the question is, why would designers that are supposedly more advanced than know less about making progress than we do?
How do you explain this discrepancy?
Or perhaps you think our relatively recent and rapid creation of knowledge occurred because "that's just what God must have wanted?
Aren't these epigenetic adaptations in things like the cell membrane universal? That's what I understood from the article sited above. So, since every organism has them, they can't be the reaon some organisms became extinct. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteCan you look for this "epigenetic" adaptations in most of extinct organisms? What about before LUCA?
DeleteObvoiusly, *this = these.
DeleteFrom the paper:
ReplyDeleteAnd how could it have evolved? The paper agrees that “the origin(s) of the membrane(s) and membrane proteins remain enigmatic”
Indeed, how can a cell evolve a membrane if the cell's DNA molecules (which presumably contains the coded sequences for the membrane itself) cannot survive without a protective membrane in the first place?
But I'm sure some evolutionists will invent some cockamamie (just-so) explanation, like they invented a cockamamie (just-so) explanation for why music is necessary for human survival.
Quotes from the paper:
ReplyDelete"Studies of the past several decades have provided major insights into the structural organization of biological membranes and mechanisms of many membrane molecular machines. However, the origin(s) of the membrane(s) and membrane proteins remain enigmatic."
"Despite the growing understanding of the structural organization of membranes and molecular mechanisms of many membrane proteins, the origin(s) of biological membranes remain obscure."
Understanding the design and structure about something, in this case, a cell membrane is good science. This is what science is all about. Making up a possible story to suggest how it may have evolved all on it's own is not science. This cannot be tested. It cannot be observed. It is outside the realm of true science.
No one was there to see how it evolved, let alone IF it evolved, so we have just left the realm of science and entered the realm of speculation. Good dependable, reproducible science which even creationists can support, is science that stays within the realm of observation and testable hypotheses. Educated guesses about the unobservable past, (some of which seem more educated than others) are fine to think about and investigate as much as possible, but some just cannot be validated or invalidated at all. It is pure wishful speculation. That's OK as long as we admit that we don't know and may never know.
Believing these just so stories takes as much or even more faith than to believe there is intelligence behind the design we see. But no, that is one speculation that is disallowed in science no matter how difficult or complicated the problem may be. Here is where presuppositions come in to play. Here is where "religion drives science."
Great post. Meaning, especially apropos for us educated folks after decades of bamboozling, and gradually waking up to this frequent refrain of "could be" "could possibly be" , "might be", etc. etc. Only decades later you get all those "might be's" as never have evolved into anything like useful science, driving any kind of application.
DeleteMSEE June 5, 2012 2:08 AM
DeleteGreat post. Meaning, especially apropos for us educated folks after decades of bamboozling, and gradually waking up to this frequent refrain of "could be" "could possibly be" , "might be", etc. etc. Only decades later you get all those "might be's" as never have evolved into anything like useful science, driving any kind of application.
So, let's get this straight. First, the neo-Paleyists accuse evolutionists of making unjustified claims of absolute certainty but then they are attacked for "this frequent refrain of "could be" "could possibly be" , "might be", etc. etc."
So which is it, too certain or too cautious?
@ Spedding: So which is it, too certain or too cautious?
DeleteLets take one example from the lay press, although there are countless examples from prior decades in the academic journals.
The example: Dawkins 1976 The Selfish Gene on the eye and here is his demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E
He POSTULATES a membrane early in his just-so story/lecture. Has there been research on this membrane evolution? Does Dawkins say that at some point a half-membrane and the genes for such are passed on to offspring, and how a half-membrane confers advantages? No because this would get laughs. So has there been a research program for uncovering the details of this membrane, and which animals actually had a half-membrane? I may be wrong, but this is likely one of those just-so "could be" scenarios just sort of hanging out there for almost half a century, unfalsifiable. Same for the Dawkins "cup" in the lecture. Did an animal at some point have a "half cup" and what advantages did it confer if so? At least in real science, you have a chance to know what is really there such as is being done at CERN with the search for the Higgs, and the money can be spent on answering the question if enough people want to know.
MSEE June 5, 2012 10:28 AM
Delete@ Spedding: So which is it, too certain or too cautious?
Lets take one example from the lay press, although there are countless examples from prior decades in the academic journals.
The example: Dawkins 1976 The Selfish Gene on the eye and here is his demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E
I note that you didn't answer the question but I never expected that you would. Neo-Paleyists rarely do.
I may be wrong, but this is likely one of those just-so "could be" scenarios just sort of hanging out there for almost half a century, unfalsifiable.
There is nothing wrong with speculative explanations in science provided there is no implication that they are anything more than that. Indeed, that arch-proponent of falsification, Karl Popper, encouraged scientists to be bold in their speculations. Science is always in need of new ideas.
As for this half-century of failing to falsify or demonstrate something, why should we expect science to be able to replicate in the laboratory in fifty years something that may have taken nature fifty thousand?
At least in real science, you have a chance to know what is really there such as is being done at CERN with the search for the Higgs, and the money can be spent on answering the question if enough people want to know.
But they haven't found the Higgs boson. Perhaps it is one of those physics 'just-so' stories like phlogiston or the luminiferous ether or dark matter.
MSEE
ReplyDeleteSo has there been a research program for uncovering the details of this membrane, and which animals actually had a half-membrane? I may be wrong, but this is likely one of those just-so "could be" scenarios just sort of hanging out there for almost half a century, unfalsifiable. Same for the Dawkins "cup" in the lecture. Did an animal at some point have a "half cup" and what advantages did it confer if so?
Incredible that there are clueless goobers out there still using the "what good is half an eye" argument. Especially ones who brag about how intelligent and well educated they are.
At no stage in eye evolution did there exist "half an eye". What existed at every step in the evolutionary path was a fully functional eye with less capability than the current one.
An eye with a 50% capability is better than one with 49%
An eye with a 2% capability is better than one with 1%
Sometimes with the stupidity that comes from Creationists all you can do is shake your head and laugh.
@ Thornton: Thanks for the vituperation, makes you look so good and confident and SO normal as far as materialists go. As usual you don't address my point but go the personal attack route. Please address MY POINT. Please address gradualism as it applies to the membrane. Before the membrane completely enclosed what did it look like and what advantage did it confer, and what organism are we talking here? Please stay on point, you must if you are to come out on top. You can refer to whatever piece of 150 years positive data you care to present.
DeleteMSEE
DeletePlease address MY POINT.
I did address your point. Not my problem you're so ignorant you're using the incredibly stupid "what good is half an eye" argument, one that even most other Creationists have abandoned.
No one in science says or things there was a stage where cells had "half a membrane" as you demanded to see. Just like the eye, it is posited that the membrane we see today evolved from simpler precursors. As has already been pointed out there is quite a bit of literature on the subject.
Membrane Self-Assembly Processes: Steps Toward the First Cellular Life
How much research have you done on your own, and what papers on the topic have you read? I bet the answer is a big fat ZERO.
OK now please understand that you did not address my point. The book apparently does not address the Dawkins invoked membrane which gradually comes over the "eye patch" in the Dawkins video I supplied, or did you watch it? I am not talking cellular membranes. Please address my point, what did a partial eye membrane look like and how did it confer advantage to survival? What organism are we looking at here? Not much admiration for use of "incredibly stupid" descriptor by a confident debater I might add. Want to really address the membrane point or not? Just say no if you can't.
DeleteThornton:
DeleteHow much research have you done on your own...?
How do you measure how much research? My current project has been going for 6 years and is close to the end point. You can check it out for yourself if you want. It would be very good if you could prove one of us stupid as you always are pointing out here.
BTW I meant "cell membrane" previously.
MSEE
DeletePlease address my point, what did a partial eye membrane look like and how did it confer advantage to survival?
My word but you're a dense one. There was never a "partial eye membrane" just like there was never a "half-cup" or a "half-lens" There was always a layer of epidermis that over time gradually evolved light sensitivity. 1% capability is an advantage over 0% capability.
Evolution of the eye - animation
The Dawkins lecture does an excellent job of explaining how at each step of the way you had a fully functioning light detection system that over time gradually evolved more capability. The lecture was even deliberately geared down for elementary school children, yet it still went right over your "well educated" head.
Thornton: How much research have you done on your own...?
How do you measure how much research? My current project has been going for 6 years and is close to the end point.
Wouldn't be a Creationist without a bit of dishonest quote-mining. I asked how much research and reading have you done on the topic of membrane evolution. Instead of just admitting you were completely ignorant on the topic you tried to slime your way around it. That speaks volumes about both your low honesty and maturity levels.
Thorton, has any PhD in the entire exalted world of OOL research EVER evolved a single functional protein, much less a entire membrane, by purely material processes???
DeleteDr. Charles Garner on the problem of Chirality in nature and Origin of Life Research - audio
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-04-12T17_21_16-07_00
Origin Of Life - Problems With Proteins - Homochirality - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490
Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 - Robert Sheldon - May 2010
Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn't imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/21/homochirality_and_darwin_part_2.thtml
ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics - June 2011 - Audio Podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00
Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html
Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Batspit77, you clearly have no intention of ever dealing forthrightly with reality.
ReplyDeleteNow please stop spamming the board with your C&Ped drivel.
Thorton, If you provide the evidence I asked for I'll gladly stop exposing you as dishonest. Shoot, I'll gladly proclaim for all ID people to see that purely material processes can generate functional proteins as I would find that extremely interesting and something extremely worthy of investigation.
Delete@thornton: How much research have you done on your own, and what papers on the topic have you read? I bet the answer is a big fat ZERO.
ReplyDeletenotice the comma with "and", signifying two questions with no common object.
I asked how much research and reading have you done on the topic of membrane evolution.
No you didn't -- you asked how much reading have I done on membrane evolution, and it was cell membrane evolution obviously to which you referred based on further verbiage from you. I have done zero reading on cell membrane evolution, and I'm glad because since it hasn't been observed on the macroevolutional scale, I have no use for that info in my specialization. I studied cell membranes in Guyton and in physiological psychology with a very general understanding as a result. All this is irrelevent to my question regarding a protective membrane over a patch of photosensitive cells evolved, and how, based on gradualism, the various stages of this evolution conferred advantages.
YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION> NOTICE? I can't view a quicktime video, but apparently the video start point is a patch of photosensitive cells with a covering of a transparent membrane. A really convenient just-so starting point.
Instead of just admitting you were completely ignorant on the topic you tried to slime your way around it.
Wrong, as again was not cell membranes in my topic -- and I admit to being 100% ignorant of cell membrane macroevolution at the OOL, and am happy about it since I was not there to observe and neither was any human, and virtually no evidence is possible on the topic.
MSEE
DeleteThorton: I asked how much research and reading have you done on the topic of membrane evolution.
No you didn't
Yes I did. Go ahead and lie about it to evade the topic again. Show us again what a lying Creationist looks like.
YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION> NOTICE? I can't view a quicktime video
So now it's my problem you can't download a free application and are too lazy to do any reading or research yourself. Did you read the rest of the article? Great defense of your position there. "Since I can't see it, it doesn't exist!!"
I was not there to observe and neither was any human, and virtually no evidence is possible on the topic.
There are literally thousands of papers on eye evolution with more evidence than you can read in a year. Here's just from 2008 on:
eye evolution
But you're just another ignorant know-it-all Creationist who doesn't want to learn. Ignorance is way easier, right?
I'm being real specific here. Don't think for a moment I'm going to browse through thousands of papers speculating on what happened. You either know or you don't know. How did that membrane as it gradually evolved over the photosensitive patch, confer survival advantage before it became an intact covering? How? Tell us? If you can't say, uh let me guess, you're going to come back with more vile sounding insults. ANSWER MY QUESTION.
DeleteThorton said
Delete"eye evolution"
"Conclusion: We identified 156 genes positively selected in the cephalopod lineage and 1,571 genes commonly
found in the cephalopod and vertebrate camera eyes from the analysis of cephalopod camera eye specificity at
the expression level. Experimental validation showed that the cephalopod camera eye-specific candidate genes
include those expressed in the outer part of the optic lobes, which unique to coleoid cephalopods. The results of
this study suggest that changes in gene expression and in the primary structure of proteins (through positive
selection) from those in the common molluscan ancestor could have contributed, at least in part, to cephalopod
camera eye acquisition."
"We propose that one major evolutionary trend in Metazoa has been the specialization of cells into distinct and diverse cell types, each with a limited number or even with only one specific function rather than the evolution of new functions, especially with regard to the molecular toolbox of light perception."
"The development of our eyes owes in part to ancestral structures which
functioned in phototaxis. With the origin of bilateral annelid larva, two eyes
co-evolved with neurons to improve phototaxis performance."
Very explicative, now I really understand the evolution of the eye.
MSEE
DeleteI'm being real specific here. Don't think for a moment I'm going to browse through thousands of papers speculating on what happened.
Of course you won't look for any information yourself. You're a willfully ignorant Creationist. If you read the scientific literature you might accidentally learn something.
You either know or you don't know. How did that membrane as it gradually evolved over the photosensitive patch, confer survival advantage before it became an intact covering? How? Tell us? If you can't say, uh let me guess, you're going to come back with more vile sounding insults. ANSWER MY QUESTION.
Let me try your Creationist tactic:
How did you avoid being arrested for all those iphones you stole from your fellow engineering students? How? Tell us? If you can't say, uh let me guess, you're going to come back with more vile sounding insults. ANSWER MY QUESTION.
The answer you've already been given twice is that the question makes no sense because it is based on your ignorance and misunderstanding. The "half a membrane" you keep demanding an explanation for, just like your claimed "half an eye cup", exists only in your Creationist imagination
You've been given multiple references to good explanations for the gradual evolution of light sensing capability. That you choose to ignore the data and keeps asking the same nonsensical question is a direct result of your willful ignorance and immaturity.
"You've been given multiple references to good explanations for the gradual evolution of light sensing capability."
DeleteOkie Dokie Thorton, can you also tell us exactly which material particles have become 'self-aware' and are actually doing the 'seeing'?
This following video and study highlights the profound mystery behind the question of, ‘exactly what is perceiving the sight of our eyes?’:
Coast to Coast – Blind since Birth – Vicki’s NDE – Part 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y
Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their NDEs. 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/
Thorton since these blind people actually were 'there' and actually did see their bodies while they were clinically dead, and you were not there to 'see' the evolution of eyes, which evidence do you think should carry more weight as to validity?
further notes:
Colliding With The Pharyngula: My Encounter With PZ Myers - JonathanM - June 2011
Excerpt: This becomes particularly problematic for the Darwinist when one considers that the respective developmental mechanisms utilise similar genes (e.g. sine oculus and Six) in later stages of development (rendering implausible the thesis that the common ancestor had some sort of rudimentary eye that used the common gene in its development, the use of which has persisted through the evolution of the different types of eye structure).
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/colliding_with_the_pharyngula_047281.html
Moreover Thorton, I'm fairly certain that you are very comfortable with your pile of peer-reviewed stories on the evolution of the eye, but I'm not as confident as you that you have the problem answered. One problem is that trilobite eyes pop suddenly into the fossil record (with the whole trilobite of course) in the Cambrian explosion, fully formed, with ZERO evidence of the numerous intermediate stages that should have preceded them in the fossil record. Moreover trilobite eyes are found to be 'optimal'. How does neo-Darwinism purport to explain this Thorton?
DeleteEvolution vs. The Trilobite Eye - Andy McIntosh
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032589/
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge observed, “These lenses--technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses--optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on earth, hit upon the best possible lens that optical physics has ever been able to formulate” [Eld76]. Notice these lenses weren’t just good as, but were better than anything modern optical physicists have been able to conceive!
,,, “The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure” [Lev93p58].,,,
The trilobite lens is particularly intriguing since the only other animal to use inorganic focusing material is man. The lens may be classified as a prosthetic device since it was non-biological, which also means the lens itself, with apparently no DNA inherent within, was not subject to Darwinian evolution. The manufacturing and controlling of the lenses were obviously biological processes, with an unknown number DNA-prescribed proteins (each with a prescriptive manufacturing program) for collecting and processing the raw materials to manufacture the precision lenses and create the refracting interface between the two lenses.
The lenses do not decompose as any other animal’s lenses would, so they are subject to rigorous scientific investigation,,, Since no immediate precursors of trilobites have been found, Darwinists are without any evidence as to how an organism with an eye as complex as a trilobite could have arisen,,, especially in,, the lowest multi-cellular fossil-bearing stratum,,,
Appendix F:
“Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbe’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals” [Cla75]
Physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti observes:
“In fact, this doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery - that the refracting interface between the two elements in a trilobite’s eyes was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century - borders on sheer science fiction” [Lev93p57].
“The trilobites already had a highly advanced visual system. In fact, so far as we can tell from the fossil record thus far discovered, trilobite sight was far and away the most advanced in Kingdom Animalia at the base of the Cambrian,,, There is no other known occurrence of calcite eyes in the fossil record” [FM-trib].
bornagain77: The lens may be classified as a prosthetic device since it was non-biological, which also means the lens itself, with apparently no DNA inherent within, was not subject to Darwinian evolution.
DeleteThat's like saying shells aren't subject to evolution.
bornagain77: Since no immediate precursors of trilobites have been found, Darwinists are without any evidence as to how an organism with an eye as complex as a trilobite could have arisen
Yes, the origin of the trilobite eye is still obscure, however, light-sensing is very ancient, much older than trilobites. Interesting, trilobite eyes went through a process of evolutionary diversification.
Clarkson, Levi-Setti & Horváth, The eyes of trilobites: The oldest preserved visual system, Arthropod Structure & Development 2006.
Zachriel
DeleteYes, the origin of the trilobite eye is still obscure,
Most people would agree with that
Zachriel
however, light-sensing is very ancient, much older than trilobites.
Most people would agree with that too
Zachriel
Interesting, trilobite eyes went through a process of evolutionary diversification.
Since when has "evolutionary diversification" been a problem?
In other words, bornagain77's point.....
Since no immediate precursors of trilobites have been found, Darwinists are WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE as to how an organism with an eye as complex as a trilobite could have arisen".....still stands
.
So why do you insist that the trilobite eye is a product of Darwinian evolution?
sakeenah4: Since when has "evolutionary diversification" been a problem?
DeleteOnly when there's no admitted gap. The trilobite eye diverged into many complex forms, so apparently the evolution of complexity is not a problem.
sakeenah4: So why do you insist that the trilobite eye is a product of Darwinian evolution?
Because there is substantial evidence of evolution throughout biology, including complex structures. Nor are trilobites the first metazoan, bilaterate or arthropod found in the fossil record. That it can be difficult to untangle history doesn't mean there is no history or that positing miracles to fill those gaps has scientific validity.
Zachriel
DeleteThe trilobite eye diverged into many complex forms, so apparently the evolution of complexity is not a problem.
You are suggesting that the trilobite eye started off as simple; then it evolved to be complex; then there was divergance.
How do you know that it started off as simple?
sakeenah4: You are suggesting that the trilobite eye started off as simple; then it evolved to be complex; then there was divergance.
DeleteWe answered this already. Because there is substantial evidence of evolution throughout biology, including complex structures.
Which part of the soul senses light?
ReplyDeleteWhat drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! - APM - UD Blogger
Deletehttp://www.uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
(Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
(Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)
Since you have quoted Planck and Schroedinger, perhaps you can explain how these eminent scientists defined consciousness or is it more like the idle speculation of which you are so quick to accuse evolutionists.
DeleteSo your consciousness can see? That could come in handy, how do you activate it?
ReplyDelete