Thursday, May 17, 2012

Here's a New Technique For Mapping DNA Information Which Exposes Yet More Evolutionary Foolishness

A new method has been developed for mapping the precise locations at which DNA has been marked with a hydroxyl group. The hydrogen-oxygen molecule, like the methyl group to which it is attached, influences gene expression and so helps organisms adapt. The adaptation of species to environmental pressures would seem like obvious evidence for evolution. But in recent years we have begun to understand the enormous complexity of adaptation. It is not a story of natural selection acting on undirected biological variations (that is, variations that are blind to environmental pressures). This sort of undirected process has been the evolutionary dogma for the past century. In what was known as the Modern Synthesis, biological adaptation was described as resulting from blind variations resulting, for instance, from genetic rearrangements or unguided mutations. No thanks to evolution we are now beginning to understand the real version of biological adaptation. What we are seeing is an incredibly complex adaptation machine that tweaks the designs of organisms in response to environmental pressures.

It is not a simple story as there are a variety of different ways such adaptations can occur. These mechanisms, broadly labeled as epigenetic inheritance, can regulate the expression of genes as well as redesign the genes. The bottom line is that the adaptations are not unguided, they benefit the organism, and they are extremely complex. The evolutionary story is completely wrong. As one evolutionist admitted, the Modern Synthesis:

states that variations are blind, are genetic (nucleic acid-based), and that saltational events do not significantly contribute to evolutionary change. The epigenetic perspective challenges all these assumptions, and it seems that a new extended theory, informed by developmental studies and epigenetic inheritance, and incorporating Darwinian, Lamarckian, and saltational frameworks, is going to replace the Modern Synthesis version of evolution.

A new extended theory? This should be interesting, for it would have to explain how evolution creates mechanisms which, themselves, cause evolution (in the form of adaptation). In fact, evolutionists are already explaining this without losing a step. For instance (from the same paper):

Epigenetic inheritance should be favored in fluctuating environmental conditions that last for more than one generation (but not for very long) and may be particularly important in the type of environments experienced by many microorganisms. In such fluctuating environments, efficient epigenetic inheritance is likely to evolve (i) if the parental environment carries reliable information about the offspring’s environment, (ii) when the response to induction is lengthy and incurs a very high cost, and (iii) when recall is not an option or incurs too high a cost.

That was easy. Evolution just happens. So long as there is an advantage to a new design, then it will appear. That's how evolution works.

One of the best known epigenetic mechanisms is DNA methylation in which a methyl group is added to cytosine, one of the four DNA chemical letters. The methyl group is a sort of marker that can help to regulate the expression of genes. DNA methylation is accomplished via the action of a complicated molecular machine (DNA methyltransferase) that adds the methyl group at precisely the right location in the DNA strand.

So evolution configured DNA methyltransferase and the associated molecular information that tells it where to add the methyl group, so that later the organism and its offspring could benefit when certain environmental pressures arose. That's good planning.

And to further complicate matters, this molecular marker can, itself, be modified. That is, the mark can be marked, thus adding another layer of information to the epigenetic mechanism. In this case, the methyl group is hydroxylated. And of course a different complicated molecular machine is required for the task, and the information of when and where to go to work is needed.

Evolution must have created all these processes and molecular machines so evolution could occur. But that’s not all. Researchers found differing methylation patterns amongst mice from the same litter, reared in the same environment. As was reported:

[Researchers] found regions in the animal's genetic makeup with strikingly different patterns. Moreover, these regions occurred among genes responsible for determining anatomy during early development.

In other words, variably methylated regions of DNA have been discovered, and such variability could lead to increased trait variability. Evolutionists speculate that this could help the population survive:

We're proposing that certain gene variants contribute to heterogeneity in populations. In a fluctuating environment, this gives generations more opportunity to survive.

And perhaps this new capability could help answer long-standing questions about how it is that evolution could work so well. As the article explains:

For more than 100 years, mainstream science has embraced the basic tenets of Darwin's view that characteristics that increase an organism's ability to survive and reproduce will be passed from generation to generation. … Characteristics that affect an organism's ability to adapt and survive in times of environmental change have been thought to arise by chance through random mutations in an organism's DNA. However, this view could not explain how such mutations, which arise only rarely, help organisms of every size and variety adapt quickly enough through time.

So evolution created genes, chromosomes and alleles, horizontal gene transfer, introns, DNA methylation, and its additional hydroxyl signal just to name a few structures and processes. Of course there is a dizzying array of molecular machines choreographing this drama at just the right moments. All this so more evolution could occur.

And we can add another miracle to the list: variably methylated regions of DNA so future generations could survive when some unforeseen environmental challenge arises. It would be difficult to imagine a more foolish theory. The levels of absurdity to which evolutionists will go is truly remarkable.

40 comments:

  1. I would like to see a Drew Berry animation of the spliceosome or editosome before I die.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius, the only foolish thing here is your garbled understanding of epigenetics and how it relates to evolutionary theory!

    CH:A new extended theory? This should be interesting, for it would have to explain how evolution creates mechanisms which, themselves, cause evolution (in the form of adaptation).

    Well, not very new - people have been talking about the evolution of evolvability for decades (throughout my own life at least - in fact I remember thinking, when I first encountered the concept of genetic mutation, in my teens: "I guess mutation rates themselves could evolve")

    There is no law that says that the unit of selection has to be the organism. Why shouldn't it operate at population level as well? It's the same principle.

    And why shouldn't the mechanisms that govern gene expression within an organism also affect the germline? Especially if populations in which it did were less likely to go extinct when faced with environmental change?

    You seem to regard every advance in biological research as a setback for "evolution". Strange that all these advances/setbacks are discovered by "evolutionists"!

    And yes, it seems Lamarck was partially right.

    Have a listen to this lecture by Denis Noble.

    I think you will enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Cornelius, the only foolish thing here is your garbled understanding of epigenetics and how it relates to evolutionary theory!"

      Assigning stunningly elegant planning and foresight to undirected 'natural' processes is not foolish?

      Scientists decipher the 3-D structure of the human genome - By Steve Bradt, Harvard University, - 2009
      Excerpt: - the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -,,, "Nature's devised a stunningly elegant solution to storing information - a super-dense, knot-free structure," says senior author Eric Lander, ,,,
      http://www.broadinstitute.org/news/press-releases/1360

      Delete
    2. Elizabeth Liddle

      Strange that all these advances/setbacks are discovered by "evolutionists"

      Evolutionist won't let non evolutionist in the field say that they are not evolutionist. And if they say they admit that they are not evolutionist, they won't be in the field. The field is prejudiced in advance to make materialism right. Got that?

      Delete
  3. BA77: Assigning stunningly elegant planning and foresight to undirected 'natural' processes is not foolish?

    It would be self-contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'contradiction'???

      Starburst Zombie Video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5VvxqQ1kp4

      Delete
    2. “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” George Orwel

      Delete
  4. That was easy. Evolution just happens. So long as there is an advantage to a new design, then it will appear. That's how evolution works.

    I don't think that's an accurate paraphrase of what Jablonka and Raz were saying. You've put the effect before the cause*. There's a conditional in there: If a new design appears and it confers an advantage, it will persist. That's how evolution is thought to work.

    *The cart before the horse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It would be refreshing if biologists pretty much abandoned the sloppy catch-all term "evolution" and were simply more specific about what existing mechanisms were responsible for variation in a given study... such as "DNA methylation". The term evolution is about as precise (and as scientific) as saying "thingamajig".


    I think evolutionists would discover that as long as they stay within the bounds of science and speak precisely regarding the mechanisms of variability and their actual effects, most arguments would cease.

    It is only when evolutionists ask us to take their imaginations or sloppy talk as fact that most arguments and skeptism arise.

    DNA methylation adds another mechanism to understanding what we always observe and that is variation within bounds. A sort of artifical intelligence within the cell that responds to various input. Perhaps in a few decades human software development would be prepared to learn and thing or two from the living cell. Dum down default philosophy of Darwins fails yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The article from physorg states the discovery in this way:

    New technique reveals unseen information in DNA code - May 17, 2012
    Excerpt: Imagine reading an entire book, but then realizing that your glasses did not allow you to distinguish "g" from "q." What details did you miss? Geneticists faced a similar problem with the recent discovery of a "sixth nucleotide" in the DNA alphabet. ,,, Two modifications of cytosine, one of the four bases that make up DNA, look almost the same but mean different things.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technique-reveals-unseen-dna-code.html

    I would like to point out that while this discovery is impressive, it fails to convey just how wide the gulf is from what is actually going on in the cell, information-wise, to what we actually understand of what is going on in the cell.

    Here is a small glimpse of what we understand of what is going on in the cell:

    Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell - Diagram
    http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf

    ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic
    http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl

    And here is a glimpse of what we DON'T understand of what is going on in the cell:

    Systems biology: Untangling the protein web – July 2009
    Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. “Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured,” he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. “The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent,” he says. “The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html

    Francis Collins on Making Life
    Excerpt: 'We are so woefully ignorant about how biology really works. We still don't understand how a particular DNA sequence—when we just stare at it—codes for a protein that has a particular function. We can't even figure out how that protein would fold—into what kind of three-dimensional shape. And I would defy anybody who is going to tell me that they could, from first principles, predict not only the shape of the protein but also what it does.' - Francis Collins - Former Director of the Human Genome Project
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/collins-genome.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps some may say that Vidal and Collins are just being melodramatic about our ignorance of what is going on in the cell, but to back up their observation, fairly recently this was discovered:

      Cellular Communication through Light
      Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.
      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086

      The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another?
      Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions. ,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed.
      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php

      and this was recently discovered:

      DNA Caught Rock 'N Rollin': On Rare Occasions DNA Dances Itself Into a Different Shape - January 2011
      Excerpt: Al-Hashimi's group was able to observe transient, alternative forms in which some steps on the stairway come apart and reassemble into stable structures other than the typical Watson-Crick base pairs.,,, Because critical interactions between DNA and proteins are thought to be directed by both the sequence of bases and the flexing of the molecule, these excited states represent a whole new level of information contained in the genetic code,
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128104244.htm

      And this was also discovered:

      Quantum Information In DNA - short video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

      Moreover, no one even has a real solid clue as to exactly what all the quantum information is doing in the cell,,, Moreover, seeing that the structure of reality is now shown to be as such,,,

      matter reduces to energy,
      energy reduces to quantum information,
      quantum information reduces to consciousness,

      ,,, then I think it is obvious, seeing the materialistic rut biology currently is in, that biology still have a very long way to go to in fathoming the 'information flow' inside of cells.

      Delete
    2. BA, thanks for the info. "The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another?"

      That's incredible. What's happening in the cell makes the inside of the space lab look like a cave drawing. There is no level of complexity or technology that could be discovered in the cell that evolutionists would say was designed. They have no metric. If it was discovered that cells sent space probes to land on Mars and bring back soil samples, evolutionists would say it is explained by evolution. They have no metric or means to say otherwise. It's not science, it's a straightjacket.

      Delete
    3. There is no level of complexity or technology that could be discovered in the cell that evolutionists would say was designed.They have no metric.

      No, there isn't any "level of complexity" that would lead us to say that a thing was designed. But not because we have "no metric". We have lots.

      But we also have an explanation for that complexity, as long as it is found in the context of something that self-replicates with heritable variance in reproductive success.

      If you brought back a complex item from Mars, of unknown origin and unknown use, and it did not reproduce we would probably infer that it was designed.

      And, moreoever, designed by something that did.

      It's not that we don't have a metric for complexity, it's that we don't think that complexity is the relevant metric.
      There does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding around here about what scientists actually do and how they think!

      Delete
    4. 'If you brought back a complex item from Mars, of unknown origin and unknown use, and it did not reproduce we would probably infer that it was designed.'

      What if this was brought back from Mars?

      Self-replicating machine - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX-iJLHZt8M

      further note:

      Mind Blowing Technology - video
      http://www.break.com/index/mind-blowing-technology-2300947

      Delete
    5. We wouldn't have clear evidence either way, but we could be fairly sure, nonetheless, that self-replicating entities were involved, either as designers or as design.

      Delete
    6. Just as long as you get to deny design as first cause huh?

      Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein - The UFO Interview
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259/

      A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. A Single Protein Molecule - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018233/

      Delete
    7. Not at all. I have no wish to deny design as the first cause. What I am saying is that we can't infer design from complexity alone, and the only design we can infer is design by known designers.

      To use Cornelius's word, inferring a designer as "first cause" would be metaphysics, not science.

      Nothing wrong with that.

      Delete
    8. Not at all. I have no wish to "deny design as first cause".

      What I am saying is that you can't infer design from complexity alone, and all our evidence suggests that functional complexity is produced either in, or by, self-replicators.

      Inferring "design as first cause" would be metaphysics, as Cornelius's would say, not science.

      Nothing wrong with that.

      Delete
    9. So inferring design for as first cause of self-replicator is metaphysics, and I suppose inferring non-design as first cause on self-replicator is not metaphysics?

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Thus ID is by far a more 'causally adequate' scientific explanation i.e. presently acting cause known to produce effect in question!:

      Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video
      https://vimeo.com/32148403

      Delete
  7. Well, Neal, I think you have a good point, and, in general, biologist are extremely specific when they use the term, and not "sloppy" at all.

    Where I find "sloppy" use of the term is by "anti-evolutionists" who do use it as a catch-all, and it is never clear which bit of the theory they are objecting to.

    I am not aware of any biologists asking you to "take their imaginations or sloppy talk as fact", although I will concede that some writing aimed at lay audiences can be sloppy - or at least hyperbolic.

    And it seems to me that it is these attempts to advocate for biological science that "anti-evolutionists" seize on and object to, rather than the science itself.

    But I have to object to this:

    DNA methylation adds another mechanism to understanding what we always observe and that is variation within bounds. A sort of artifical intelligence within the cell that responds to various input. Perhaps in a few decades human software development would be prepared to learn and thing or two from the living cell. Dum down default philosophy of Darwins fails yet again.

    Firstly methylation of DNA has been known about for decades and is a key mechanism in gene expression (the switching on and off of genes) in multicellular organisms, both during development and during life itself. The reason you don't have toenails on your ears, is that the toenail-growing genes are switched off in your ears. And the reason your brain works at all is that genes within your neurons are constantly being switched on and off, in response to incoming chemical signals as proteins are needed or no longer needed.

    What is relatively new is the discovery that germline cells can also be methylated by chemical signals within the parent, so that offspring are produced with some genes already activated or inactivated, depending of the status of the parent. In some cases the result is not terribly good for the offspring - in some cases it is.

    This is interesting from a population-level selection point of view, as it raises the possibility that populations in which methylation of the germ cells introduces random noise between genotype and phenotype, preserving genetic diversity, thus makes the population more robust to environmental change, and less likely to go extinct.

    But certainly there is "artificial intelligence" in the cell. I'd call it perfectly natural intelligence myself! Cells, like organisms, have complex homeostatic feedback systems. What epigenesis tells us that populations may have such systems too.

    That is why your last sentence is so totally unfair. There is no "Dum down default philosophy of Darwins" failing here. This work is being done by evolutionists. And it is very important, because it has implications for human health.

    To read this blog, you would think that biologists who accept the theory of evolution (and they are in the vast majority) were all stupid, or willfully ignorant, and never did any useful work. The reverse is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lizzie,

    I think that the term evolution could be removed from the vocabulary and it would not only benefit our discussion but science in general. It would eliminate a lot of misunderstanding and be a sort of built-in anti-exaggeration (lying) repellant.


    For example, to suggest that variation in bird beak size is the same thing as to why bird beaks exist at all is, of course, a lie. To label bird beak size variation and the origin of bird beaks as being the result of evolution tells us really nothing other than telling a lie.

    To say that bird beak size is dependent on gmp4 protein regulation is uncontroversial and scientifically informative and specific. It also says nothing (as it should) about universal common descent. For a biologist to say that they hypothesize that mutations (list specifically) were responsible for the origin of bird beaks then it is open for testing and falsification using the scientific method. If a good test can't be preformed then it remains nothing more than an untested hypothesis. See how little controversy is involved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Neal

      I think that the term evolution could be removed from the vocabulary and it would not only benefit our discussion but science in general.

      Well it would certainly benefit discussion between people who do accept the theory and those who don't! Good idea. I don't think it does much harm within science, as it is usually (and has to be) carefully defined within its context.

      It would eliminate a lot of misunderstanding and be a sort of built-in anti-exaggeration (lying) repellant.

      I don't think people generally lie, Neal, on either side (AiG excepted). But I do think the misunderstandings are profound, and I agree it would be good to put the term aside. My other bugbear is "natural selection" which I think is a most misleading term (though apt, in its original coinage), and worst of all, "random".

      So, let's proceed :)

      For example, to suggest that variation in bird beak size is the same thing as to why bird beaks exist at all is, of course, a lie.

      Well, whether or not it was a "lie" would depend on what exactly was being claimed and for wat motive.

      But if you are asking me to agree that the tendency for beak sizes in a given generation to reflect the beak sizes that benefitted the parents in the previous generation is not "the same thing" as "why bird beaks exist at all", then, clearly, in detail, yes, I agree.

      However, I not agree that there is any difference in kind between the process that led to beakish mouths tending to dominate populations in which more beakish mouths were better suited to available food than less beakish mouths, and the process we see today by which larger beaks tend to dominate populations when larger beaks are more suitable to available food.

      It's not as though anyone is proposing that bird ancestors had no beaks in one generation, and proper beaks in the next.

      To say that bird beak size is dependent on gmp4 protein regulation is uncontroversial and scientifically informative and specific.

      Yes, but that is not all that the finch studies tell us, and nor does it tell us what variants in the genes that regulate bmp4 contribute to adult beak size. That's the interesting part, as it must have been alleles of those genes whose frequency was being affected by changes in seed size availability.

      Genes that regulate the expression during development of bmp4 are the ones we need to investigate if we want to know about the origin of bird beaks. It's a protein that is implicated in the development of bone and muscle as well as in beaks, i.e. in beakless animals (us, for instance) as well as in beaked ones. So one hypothesis for the origin of bird beaks would be that variants of the regulatory genes that result in expression of bmp4 that tended to result in greater expression around the mouth were advantageous in some way for bird ancestors. You can probably imagine the kind of environmental resources that would tend to favour individuals with harder-than-average lips!

      It also says nothing (as it should) about universal common descent.

      Not alone, indeed. But coupled with phylogenetic analysis of the relevant regulatory genes it could say a great deal.

      It also says nothing (as it should) about universal common descent.

      Again, not alone. But if you explore the ToL website you will find at least references to the very large body of evidence that does support (fairly) universal common descent. Which, of course, many ID proponents accept.

      (more below)

      Delete
    2. For a biologist to say that they hypothesize that mutations (list specifically) were responsible for the origin of bird beaks then it is open for testing and falsification using the scientific method.

      Even without a specific list, it is open for testing. That's what molecular phylogenetics does.

      If a good test can't be preformed then it remains nothing more than an untested hypothesis.

      Indeed, but fortunately, such tests are performed all the time.

      Here's the link again to the ToL website.

      Delete
    3. "Even without a specific list, it is open for testing. That's what molecular phylogenetics does."

      And it failed testing!

      How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin? - Maureen A O'Malley - Eugene V Koonin - July 2011
      Excerpt of Conclusion: The irrefutable demonstration by phylogenomics that different genes in general have distinct evolutionary histories made obsolete the belief that a phylogenetic tree of a single universal gene such as rRNA or of several universal genes could represent the “true” TOL (Tree Of Life as conceptualized by Charles Darwin).
      http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-6-32.pdf

      Delete
  9. Have you actually read the paper, BA77?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enough to get the gist, i.e. same ole same ole Darwinian non sense, evidence doesn't match what is expected so invent just so stories,, yada yada yada,,

      Delete
    2. Notes:

      Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black - November 2010
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/eugene-koonin-pot-calls-kettle-black.html

      Douglas Theobald's Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design - November 2010
      Excerpt: Wolf and Koonin may not acknowledge this fact because they're not ID proponents. Regardless, their critique of Theobald confirms the central point of this post: intelligent design is an equally potent cause to produce similar genetic sequences in comparison to common ancestry.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html

      But Isn't There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? - Casey Luskin - December 2010
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/but_isnt_there_lots_of_other_d041111.html

      Delete
    3. As well it is important to note that neo-Darwinists, with their imaginary trees constructed from the self admitted discordant genetic data, have no empirical basis to rely on in which to claim their model is anything other than fantasy;

      Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

      "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. -
      Doug Axe PhD.

      Moreover,,

      Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010
      Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies

      The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011
      Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,,
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      Thus despite vehement protestations to the contrary, the following illustrates is the state of the art in cutting edge Darwinian research:

      File:Beating-a-dead-horse.gif
      http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Beating-a-dead-horse.gif

      Music:

      The Civil Wars - Barton Hollow
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooTyuRd9zSg

      Delete
  10. Let's see now. Rapid adaptation is essential to the survival of all species. Yet evolution somehow mysteriously evolved adaptation before the species were programmed to adapt. One thing that evolution forgot to evolve is the intelligence of evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CH: But in recent years we have begun to understand the enormous complexity of adaptation.

    Yes, we have. Individual genes are replicators. That is, they play a casual role in their own copying.

    And when we include the organism itself as part of the gene's environment, then natural selection still applies.

    What criticism do you have of this, if any?

    ReplyDelete
  12. LS: Let's see now. Rapid adaptation is essential to the survival of all species. Yet evolution somehow mysteriously evolved adaptation before the species were programmed to adapt. One thing that evolution forgot to evolve is the intelligence of evolutionists.

    If you cannot see the problem with this sort of presupposition, then it would seem the shoe, in regards to intelligence, is on the other foot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott:

      If you cannot see the problem with this sort of presupposition, then it would seem the shoe, in regards to intelligence, is on the other foot.

      Typical evolutionist non-refutation. Point to a small flaw in a criticism and act as if it is a refutation of the criticism. The point I tried to make is this:

      How can an organism survive if it has to wait for evolution to evolve the one thing that it absolutely needs to survive, adaptation?

      Having said that, this simple logic of my criticism probably went over your head, Scott. Otherwise, you're just plain dishonest. Either way, don't bother to respond because this is the last time I will respond to your comments. See ya.

      Delete
    2. Louis Savain: How can an organism survive if it has to wait for evolution to evolve the one thing that it absolutely needs to survive, adaptation?

      The posited problem for early life is quite the contrary. Variation was rampant, the problem was maintaining fidelity across generations. For instance, primitive methylation in bacteria protects the cell from foreign DNA introduction. Methylation is very ancient and may date to the origin of life.

      Waddell, Eilders and Sims, Prebiotic methylation and the evolution of methyl transfer reactions in living cells, Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere 2000.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel:

      blah, blah, blah...

      You bore me, Zachriel.

      Delete
    4. Louis Savain: You bore me

      LS: Science is hard!

      Delete
    5. Zachriel:

      blah, blah, blah...

      You bore me more than before, Zachriel.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete