header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?

 (Read 3280 times)

Brutus Buckeye

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7657
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #98 on: August 07, 2020, 05:20:07 PM »
What is the current version of man? The Chinese? The Russians? The Scientologists? 
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 4576
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #99 on: August 07, 2020, 05:33:25 PM »
but is there any doubt that there have been many types of archaic man that have evolved, existed for some amount of time, and ended up being wiped out by the current version of man?

It undoubtedly seems that the current version of man is actually devolving..


https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1287509143763300352

Volbrigade/oU

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1087
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #100 on: August 07, 2020, 05:51:20 PM »
It undoubtedly seems that the current version of man is actually devolving..


https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1287509143763300352
Now, now... "don't judge", Volt.

Oh, Lord...

"if we can just get rid of that archaic Jewish God, everything will be so wonderful...".

You're more right than you might know, Volt.  We actually are devolving.  Mutations -- which by the way, are deleterious; they don't turn microbes into men -- are piling up in our genome.

Always have been.  Further evidence that we ain't been around as long as the m2m-ers need us to be.

If that were the case, we'd be extinct by now.

https://creation.com/human-genome-decay-and-origin-of-life

ZenMode

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #101 on: August 07, 2020, 05:56:40 PM »
What is the current version of man? The Chinese? The Russians? The Scientologists?
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo erectus
  • Homo neanderthalensis
  • Homo floresiensis
  • Homo naledi
  • Homo sapiens

« Last Edit: August 07, 2020, 06:14:18 PM by ZenMode »

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37998
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #102 on: August 07, 2020, 06:04:09 PM »
A major problem for Darwin back in the day was the age of the sun.  Nobody had a clue how it could be billions of years old, as would be necessary for Darwin's theory.

No less a personage than Lord Kelvin estimated its age at only 20 million years.  Later some thought it could be powered by radioactive decay, but that didn't work either.

It wasn't until the 1930s that the power of the sun became generally understood, which allowed its age to be at least consistent with Darwin's theory.

highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 4576
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #103 on: August 07, 2020, 06:35:35 PM »
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo erectus
  • Homo neanderthalensis
  • Homo floresiensis
  • Homo naledi
  • Homo sapiens
  • Homo ignoramus

Brutus Buckeye

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7657
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #104 on: August 07, 2020, 11:25:47 PM »
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo erectus
  • Homo neanderthalensis
  • Homo floresiensis
  • Homo naledi
  • Homo sapiens


What is the average genetic distance between each of those classifications?
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24485
  • Liked:
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
« Reply #105 on: September 04, 2020, 06:01:07 PM »
Introduction

“There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.”[color=var(--csc-dark)]1[/iurl][/sup] Such was professed by Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education’s 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.[/font][/color]
For those who follow the debate over origins, Dr. Scott’s words are as unsurprising as they are familiar. It seems that almost on a daily basis, we find the news media quoting evolutionary scientists declaring that materialist accounts of biological and chemical evolution are “fact.” Students who take college-preparatory or college-level courses on evolution are warned that doubting Darwinism is tantamount to committing intellectual suicide — you might as well proclaim the Earth is flat.[color=var(--csc-dark)]2[/iurl][/sup] Such bullying is enough to convince many that it’s much easier on your academic standing, your career, and your reputation to just buy into Darwinism. The few holdouts who remain are intimidated into silence.[/font][/color]
But is it true that there are “no weaknesses” in evolutionary theory? Are those who express doubts about Darwinism displaying courage, or are they fools that want to take us back to the dark ages and era of the flat Earth?[color=var(--csc-dark)]3[/iurl][/sup] Thankfully, it’s very easy to test these questions: all one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to chemical and biological evolution.[/font][/color]
This chapter will review some of this literature, and show that there are numerous legitimate scientific challenges to core tenets of Darwinian theory, as well as predominant theories of chemical evolution. Those who harbor doubts about Darwinism need not be terrified by academic bullies who pretend there is no scientific debate to be had.



President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24485
  • Liked:
Re: Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
« Reply #106 on: September 08, 2020, 06:40:37 PM »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24485
  • Liked:
Ancient human DNA shows humans did not evolve from Neandertals
« Reply #107 on: September 12, 2020, 02:38:51 PM »
A new study has examined the mtDNA sequences of two Cro-Magnon specimens dated to 23,000 and 25,000 years old. One specimen (Paglicci-25) had no sequence differences from the modern reference sequence, and the other (Paglicci-12) only one substitution. It is remarkable that so little change in the sequence had occurred over the last 23,000 years. The ancient Cro-Magnon mtDNA and modern European mtDNA differed by only 2-3 base pairs on average (see table below). This difference is even less than that observed among modern Europeans! In contrast, these ancient modern humans differed from nearly contemporary Neandertals by an average of 24 base pairs.

mtDNA Sequence Variation Among Modern and Ancient Hominids
IndividualModern EuropeansNeandertals
MeanMin.Max.s.d.MeanMin.Max.s.d.
Paglicci-252.30111.824.523282.4
Paglicci-123.20101.723.522272.4
Modern Europeans4.40182.3----
According to the authors of the study:


"Although only six HVRI sequences of ancient a.m.h [anatomically modern humans] and four sequences of Neandertals are available to date, the sharp differentiation among them represents a problem for any model regarding the transition from archaic to modern humans as a process taking place within a single evolving human lineage."

Caramelli, D., C. Lalueza-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegnii, B. Chiarelli, I. Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani, and G. Bertorelle. 2003. Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 6593-6597.


President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24485
  • Liked:
The Adequacy of the Fossil Record
« Reply #108 on: October 03, 2020, 05:44:07 PM »
Evolutionists have used the excuse that the fossil record is not complete enough to be an accurate representation of the history of life on the Earth. A recent book, The Adequacy of the Fossil Record (Donovan, S.K. and C.R.C. Paul, eds. 1998. The Adequacy of the Fossil Record. Wiley, Chichester, UK), examined the fossil record in terms of its completeness, bias (over and under representation of certain species and groups of organisms), and stratigraphic range (its completeness for a species over the entire history of its existence). Their conclusions were that the fossil record is surprisingly complete, with about 10% of all species that have ever lived being represented. There are some biases and stratigraphic incompleteness in the fossil record, but these problems can be estimated mathematically from the available data. There are many examples of stratigraphic gaps in the fossil record, with these gaps being the rule rather than the exception. In the past, it has been assumed that the gaps represent incompleteness of the fossil record. The authors suggest the "heretical" view that stratigraphic data should be used to test the phylogenetic relationships between species rather than assume that the relationships exist and that the fossil record is incomplete.

Baumiller, T.K. 1999. Enough remains to work with. Science 283: 1271.
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24485
  • Liked:
Applied Intelligent Design:Engineers Know Engineering When They See It
« Reply #109 on: October 04, 2020, 01:35:30 PM »
Engineers of all types (e.g., mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, civil, software) are focused on how to get things to work. They need to pull together all that is known about materials and properties, and organize them to perform a function. They need to meet design requirements: a company or government says “Here is what we need to do; how can we get it done within the limits of cost and time available?” Knowledge of engineering principles grows as the needs of a society grow, often becoming more sophisticated, pushing the boundaries of know-how. Engineers are trained to see design and judge good design.
Human engineers must also navigate intellectual property laws, because many engineers want to patent their designs and protect them from theft. There’s a lot of angst going on in America on this very issue. China and other countries are accused of stealing our intellectual property, which can have not only economic but national security consequences. But who owns the patent on a leaf, or a coral? Engineers don’t know, and they don’t care. Perhaps that’s part of what makes biomimetics so popular. They see a good design, and they can copy it without violating any laws. 
Take materials science. Engineers are always looking for better materials with which to make prosthetic devices, adhesives, tools that are flexible yet strong, and many other things. They see successful materials in nature, and can measure their performance characteristics, which is great: engineering is big on measurement. Who is going to sue them if they try to mimic the material? Nobody. It’s a winning strategy, and it drives science forward. It drives biologists and engineers to understand the organism, and it gives engineers measurable design principles to strive for.
Let’s take a look at specific organisms that produce very enviable materials, and learn how knowledge about the organisms is leading to superior designs for human productivity.
Fish Scale Electronics
America can’t sue China for using fish technology. [color=var(--csc-primary)]New Scientist[/iurl] says that the materials in fish scales have desirable properties:[/font][/size][/color]
Quote
Fish scales could provide an eco-friendly alternative to plastic for use in flexible displays for electronic devices.
Flexibility is important for wearable electronics to enable the creation of displays that bend, fold or twist easily, says Hai-Dong Yu at Nanjing Tech University in China. Plastic has been the go-to material for achieving this kind of flexibility but because of its harmful impact on the environment, sustainable, low-cost alternatives are highly sought after. [Emphasis added.]
Think of all the fish parts that go to waste in seafood. Consumers don’t like to eat the skin, but that wasted material adds up to two million tons globally each year — material that is flexible, low-cost, and eco-friendly. That gave engineers at Nanjing Tech University an idea:
Quote
The team extracted gelatin from fish scales and used this to create an extremely thin film. Tiny silver nanowires were then incorporated into it, to act as electrodes, along with a light-emitting material made of zinc sulphide and copper, to provide light for the electronic display.
The researchers see green in more ways than one. The material is ideal for low-cost, temporary electronic displays that could be marketed (score one for green) and are biodegradable after just 24 days in soil (score two for green). Plastic displays, by contrast, could take centuries to break down. 
The [color=var(--csc-primary)]American Chemical Society[/iurl] (ACS) points out that this kind of flexible material could be applied in single-use applications. “Flexible temporary electronic displays may one day make it possible to sport a glowing tattoo or check a reading, like that of a stopwatch, directly on the skin.” The Nanjing University engineers deserve credit, but ultimately, it is the fish that should arouse our admiration. They come designed to produce this ideal material in ways we cannot yet fully understand. [/font][/size][/color]
Leaf Technology
Inspired by leaves, engineers at [color=var(--csc-primary)]Northwestern University[/iurl] have come up with a way to reduce frost on any surface by 60 percent or more without electrical power. Reducing frost formation is important for airplanes, windows and machinery. How do leaves do it?[/font][/size][/color]
Quote
This idea came from looking at leaves,” said Northwestern’s Kyoo-Chul (Ken) Park, who led the study. “There is more frost formation on the convex regions of a leaf. On the concave regions (the veins), we see much less frost. We found that it’s the geometry — not the material — that controls this.”
Butterfly Black
Some materials need to absorb as much light as possible. It would be great to do this without paint. [color=var(--csc-primary)]Duke University[/iurl] announced a discovery by its engineers: “To Make Ultra-Black Materials That Won’t Weigh Things Down, Consider the Butterfly.” [/font][/size][/color]
Biologists at Duke studied butterflies from around the world that have black in their wings, and found that it wasn’t added melanin (a protein pigment) that made certain species ultra-black, but the geometry of the wing scales. The blackness is an illusion created by the micro-structure of the scale material. “Light goes into their scales, but very little of it bounces back out.”
Quote
Butterfly wings may look smooth to the naked eye. Up close it’s a different story. Magnified thousands of times, butterfly wings are covered in scales with a mesh-like surface of ridges and holes that channel light into the scale’s spongy interior. There, pillar-like beams of tissue scatter light until it is absorbed.
This 3-D geometry is so effective, you can coat it with gold and it still looks black. “You almost can’t make them shiny,” a team member remarked. How could this be used?
Quote
Ultimately, the findings could help engineers design thinner ultra-black coatings that reduce stray light without weighing things down, for applications ranging from military camouflage — for stealth aircraft that can’t be seen at night or detected by radar — to lining space telescopes aimed at faint, distant stars.
Some on the team want to figure out why this ability “evolved” numerous times in butterflies. It’s unlikely that soldiers or stargazers will care about that.
Bone and Coral Tech
Another desirable property for materials is strength without weight. Bone and coral reefs are showing the way to researchers at [color=var(--csc-primary)]Johns Hopkins University[/iurl]. [/font][/size][/color]
Quote
Inspired by how human bone and colorful coral reefs adjust mineral deposits in response to their surrounding environments, Johns Hopkins researchers have created a self-adapting material that can change its stiffness in response to the applied force. This advancement can someday open the doors for materials that can self-reinforce to prepare for increased force or stop further damage.
Engineers have had difficulty fulfilling such design principles using synthetic materials. Natural materials like bone, coral and wood succeed because they have internal signaling systems that can resupply damaged parts with more material. That’s a tall order to imitate. So far, the Hopkins team working on this have made only a cheap imitation, using electrical charges that are activated by pressure as “signals” to draw more ions to the spot. 
Gecko Tech
Consumers have grown to love the robotic floor vacuums that clean the house on their own. Wouldn’t it be great if they could also clean the walls? [color=var(--csc-primary)]Georgia Institute of Technology[/iurl] invites us to consider wall-crawling vacuums using gecko-foot material.[/font][/size][/color]
The adhesive properties of gecko toe pads, based on atomic van der Waals attraction, have been understood for years now. The problem has been mass producing that kind of adhesion on synthetic materials. Georgia Tech researchers now feel that “surfaces that grip like gecko feet could be easily mass-produced.” An embedded video shows devices they engineered that can pick up anything when a knob is turned: fruit, golf balls, and even an egg. Turn the knob back, and the adhesion stops. A variety of applications come to mind:
Quote
Polymers with “gecko adhesion” surfaces could be used to make extremely versatile grippers to pick up very different objects even on the same assembly line. They could make picture hanging easy by adhering to both the picture and the wall at the same time. Vacuum cleaner robots with gecko adhesion could someday scoot up tall buildings to clean facades.
“With the exception of things like Teflon, it will adhere to anything. This is a clear advantage in manufacturing because we don’t have to prepare the gripper for specific surfaces we want to lift. Gecko-inspired adhesives can lift flat objects like boxes then turn around and lift curved objects like eggs and vegetables,” said Michael Varenberg, the study’s principal investigator and an assistant professor in Georgia Tech’s George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering.
No more nails in the wall; imagine putting a picture where you want it, then easily removing it and putting it somewhere else. It’s all conceivable if materials scientists can create the microscopic protrusions that make geckos able to climb glass, trees and almost anything. 
It’s All Free
These designs are free for the observant engineer, because nature had it first. Biomimetics would be no big deal if natural designs were simple, but biomimicry is thriving because engineers know when they have found something incredibly well designed. Animal and plant designs are often so good, and so detailed, in fact, that engineers struggle to imitate them. That’s good, because it pushes the envelope. Understanding the design principles behind natural materials requires close observation with electron microscopes and experimental manipulation, then a lot of thought about how to imitate them with synthetic materials. The future looks bright for biomimetic engineering — the science of applied intelligent design.

President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24485
  • Liked:
Missing the Point: Codes Are Not Products of Physics (Updated)
« Reply #110 on: March 21, 2021, 03:33:02 PM »
Elaborate schemes to explain the origin of the genetic code from the laws of physics and chemistry miss the whole point about codes: the origin of information. ID books make this abundantly clear, such as in Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, and The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy (expanded reprint) by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen and contributing authors. Whether intentionally or not, origin-of-life researchers continue to ignore the main point about codes: a code is a set of abstract symbols that represent information which can be used to convey a message, and both a code and a message presuppose a mind. Conversely, if a material process can explain the arrangement of building blocks in a sequence, it is neither a code nor a message.

Codes may make use of material building blocks, such as letters on a printed page or radio pulses through space, but the essence of a code is the information it is able to convey. The essence of a message is the intended meaning from the messenger. The meaning may be live or programmed. In either case, codes and messages convey the foresight of a mind with the intention to communicate.

With all the insistence about this fundamental aspect of codes by ID scientists for the past 36 years (and more), it is sad to see other scientists continuing to belabor the fallacy that codes can emerge from mindless processes. If that were true, it would be the equivalent of a miracle. If other want to dismiss the “miracles” they think that intelligent design requires, what should design advocates say about the evolutionists’ miracles of chance? If others wish to limit their explanatory toolkit to “natural laws,” what about the laws of probability?

Case 1: Codes from Thermodynamics
In the Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics, Klump, Völker, and Breslauer attempt to argue that the existing DNA code was naturally selected as the most optimal for energy stability. That natural selection is the intended meaning is clear from their title: “Energy mapping of the genetic code and genomic domains: implications for code evolution and molecular Darwinism.” In other words, they propose that natural selection extended down into prebiotic life, despite the common understanding that accurate replication is a prerequisite for natural selection. In this case, the laws of thermodynamics do the selecting. This is made clear in the title of a news piece from Rutgers University, “Genetic Code Evolution and Darwin’s Evolution Theory Should Consider DNA an ‘Energy Code’ — ‘Survival of the fittest’ phenomenon is only part of the evolution equation.” But how does meaning (semantics) emerge in an “energy code” created by “molecular Darwinism”? Their hypothesis ignores this requirement entirely.

“The origins of the evolution of the DNA genetic code and the evolution of all living species are embedded in the different energy profiles of their molecular DNA blueprints. Under the influence of the laws of thermodynamics, this energy code evolved, out of an astronomical number of alternative possibilities, into a nearly singular code across all living species.”

Scientists investigated this so-called “universal enigma,” probing the origins of the astounding observation that the genetic code evolved into a nearly uniform blueprint that arose from trillions of possibilities.

The scientists expanded the underpinnings of the landmark “survival of the fittest” Darwinian evolutionary theory to include “molecular Darwinism.” Darwin’s revolutionary theory is based on the generational persistence of a species’ physical features that allow it to survive in a given environment through “natural selection.” Molecular Darwinism refers to physical characteristics that persist through generations because the regions of the molecular DNA that code for those traits are unusually stable. [Emphasis added.]

Their argument is akin to the multiverse hypothesis: out of “trillions of possibilities” a universe was naturally selected with conditions permitting complex life — and here we are! In the “molecular Darwinism” story, the laws of thermodynamics “selected” arrangements of DNA building blocks that were stable, and presto! Functional information! That’s why all life forms use it! (Notice the non-sequitur.)

The folks at Rutgers don’t mention information, and they only mention function in an after-the-fact way, intimating that “molecular Darwinism” might enable or favor biological functions.

Different DNA regions can exhibit differential energy signatures that may favor physical structures in organisms that enable specific biological functions, Breslauer said.

The following quote from the paper has to be read to be appreciated as a classic example of academic gobbledygook. In short, they derive the genetic code from the second law of thermodynamics, the very law that degrades information!

When the iconic DNA genetic code is expressed in terms of energy differentials, one observes that information embedded in chemical sequences, including some biological outcomes, correlate with distinctive free energy profiles. Specifically, we find correlations between codon usage and codon free energy, suggestive of a thermodynamic selection for codon usage. We also find correlations between what are considered ancient amino acids and high codon free energy values. Such correlations may be reflective of the sequence-based genetic code fundamentally mapping as an energy code. In such a perspective, one can envision the genetic code as composed of interlocking thermodynamic cycles that allow codons to ‘evolve’ from each other through a series of sequential transitions and transversions, which are influenced by an energy landscape modulated by both thermodynamic and kinetic factors. As such, early evolution of the genetic code may have been driven, in part, by differential energetics, as opposed exclusively by the functionality of any gene product. In such a scenario, evolutionary pressures can, in part, derive from the optimization of biophysical properties (e.g. relative stabilities and relative rates), in addition to the classic perspective of being driven by a phenotypical adaptive advantage (natural selection). Such differential energy mapping of the genetic code, as well as larger genomic domains, may reflect an energetically resolved and evolved genomic landscape, consistent with a type of differential, energy-driven ‘molecular Darwinism’. It should not be surprising that evolution of the code was influenced by differential energetics, as thermodynamics is the most general and universal branch of science that operates over all time and length scales.

The stability of a DNA double helix has no correlation with its information content. Presumably, a repetitive sequence of A-G-T-C-A-G-T-C throughout the whole strand might be the most stable of all, but it would convey no message and have no function. An “energy code” that settled out of entropy would never translate into a molecular machine with a sophisticated function. The authors assume that because the existing code is stable and has the potential to be information-rich, it will be naturally selected to be rich with information. This is nonsense. Will the emergence of shopping carts that are more stable with four wheels instead of three wheels guarantee that they will be filled with groceries? No amount of rhetoric can defend such an idea.

The authors realize their hypothesis has a long way to go:

Next steps include recasting and mapping the human genome chemical sequence into an “energy genome,” so DNA regions with different energy stabilities can be correlated with physical structures and biological functions.

Good luck with that. No amount of research can justify a flawed premise.

Case 2: Natural Sequences
Another paper tries to get codes by material processes. It is found in PNAS by Inouye et al., “Evolution of the genetic code; Evidence from serine codon use disparity in Escherichia coli.” This team bounces off the concept of synonymous codons, where one amino acid can be represented by two to six codons. The code for serine, for instance, can be represented by AGU/C (one “box”) or UCU/C/A/G (a second box). This is the only case where it takes two base substitutions to move from one box to the other. “Deciphering how this came to be will provide important insight into the origin of life and the genetic code,” they promise.

The authors attempt to arrange amino acids into phylogenetic trees. At the origin of life, only seven amino acids were in use, they propose; then alanine branched into the second box for serine, and so forth. They assume that the ones with the most synonymous codons evolved first, and later, the ones with single codons. They count how many amino acid species exist in bacteria, and off they go, working out a scenario for how the genetic code evolved. Strangely absent is the word information in the scheme. How do these codons translate into a function? Why, they “acquire” it! The Enlightenment has dawned!

Substitution of Ala residues with Ser not only makes a protein more hydrophilic but also, in some cases, may cause a protein to acquire an enzymatic function or provide a site for protein modification, such as phosphorylation and acetylation.

There’s no sense in continuing this notion. It’s all mixed up.

Therefore, it is further speculated that Ser residues encoded by AGU or AGC in proteins had originally different functions from Ser residues encoded by UCX. Since then, the two different sets of Ser codons have been thoroughly mixed up during evolution.

Don’t read this paper as the scientific method at work. Read it as a bedtime story.

Looking at the codon table (Table 1), we seem to be able to decipher hidden stories about how genetic codons evolved. Based on the hypothesis that the simplest and thus the most primitive amino acid among the 20 amino acids is GGX or Gly, the codons for other amino acids are proposed to have evolved from GGX. In the second step of codon evolution, new sets of the codons for seven amino acids emerged….

Emerged. Yes children, thanks to Darwin, we know that codes, messages, and other wondrous things can emerge from matter — all by themselves.

The Power in a Code
Materialists who limit themselves to Darwin’s mechanism continue striving for natural ways to get codes. They look at energy. They look at building blocks. They connect building blocks to energy. But like plugging an extension cord into itself, there is no power that “emerges” in the system — except via speculative stories in the imaginations of materialists. Meyer, Thaxton, and the others remain vindicated: the power in a code only flows when plugged into information.
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24485
  • Liked:
A Precambrian House of Cards
« Reply #111 on: April 05, 2021, 06:42:26 PM »
Since I recently wrote a series of articles on alleged Ediacaran animals for Evolution News, I was amazed to stumble upon a brand-new study by [color=var(--csc-primary)]Evans et al. (2021)[/iurl] in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, which makes some fantastic claims about developmental and genetic similarities between us and Ediacaran animals. Wow, that’s cool, they not only found the elusive Ediacaran animals but even could unravel their genomes!? [/font][/size][/color]
Well, not really. Even one of the authors of the study said, “These animals are so weird and so different, it’s difficult to assign them to modern categories of living organisms just by looking at them … And it’s not like we can extract their DNA — we can’t” (Dr. Mary Droser quoted in [color=var(--csc-primary)]Dockrill 2021[/iurl]). Actually, they found nothing new at all, which did not stop the media from reporting, “Humans Have Surprising Similarities to Strange Creatures from 550 Million Years Ago” ([color=var(--csc-primary)]Dockrill 2021[/color]). Of course, they are not really similar, as [color=var(--csc-primary)]Dockrill (2021)[/color] also finds that “they seem so different. Mysterious creatures that lived in the ocean half a billion years ago — headless, limbless things, seemingly alien to us in all respects.” The only alleged similarities are said to be found in the unknown genes of these fossil organisms. Thus, it’s unknown similarity, and that unknown similarity somehow proves evolution. Science can be so cool.[/font][/size][/color]
A Fallacy of Begging the Question
So, what is really behind such a weird grand claim? [color=var(--csc-primary)]Evans et al. (2021)[/iurl] selected four of the iconic Ediacaran organisms from the so-called “White Sea assemblage” from Russia and South Australia as representative taxa and assigned them to different positions in the animal tree of life: Tribrachidium as stem Eumetazoan, Dickinsonia as stem Bilaterian, Ikaria as stem Protostomian, and Kimberella as stem Lophotrochozoan.[/font][/size][/color]
Based on these assumed affinities and the implied biology, they then attributed to these fossil organisms the key developmental genetic features of the concerning groups of animals and concluded that therefore these half-a-billion-year-old fossils shared many similarities with us, including genetic pathways for multicellularity, axial polarity, body symmetry, immune and nervous system, as well as apoptosis (programmed cell death). Indeed, the authors even say that “these traits help to better constrain the phylogenetic position of several key Ediacara taxa and inform our views of early metazoan evolution” (quoted in [color=var(--csc-primary)]Dockrill 2021[/iurl]). [/font][/size][/color]
Hmmm, anybody raising their eyebrows yet? It sounds like they first assumed a relationship, then interpreted the fossils according to this assumed relationship, attributed non-preserved features to the fossils based on this assumed relationship, and then used these purely conjectured similarities as evidence for the assumed relationship. 
I am not making this up. Here is [color=var(--csc-primary)]Evans et al. (2021)[/iurl] in their own words: “Given the assumption of animal affinities, regulatory elements essential for multicellularity and found in holozoans were likely operating in Ediacara taxa.” It’s a classic case of the logical fallacy of begging the question. But putting that aside, we should definitely dare to ask a few critical questions considering the underlying assumptions. Most of all this one: Are these four organisms really animals belonging to the attributed groups?[/font][/size][/color]
A Precambrian House of Cards | Evolution News
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.