Posted on 10/07/2009 5:05:03 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
The poor evos just can’t get a break...LOL!
Evolution is dead. Creationism will soon be mainstream!
Amen!
Joseph W. Thornton, professor of biology at the University of Oregon, was honored recently at the White House as a recipient of a 2006 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) -- the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on young researchers at the outset of their careers.According to the White House, Thornton was recognized "for innovative research on the evolution of complex molecular systems, for reconstructing and experimentally characterizing ancient genes, for elucidating the mechanisms by which hormones and their receptor proteins evolved, and for educating students and non-governmental organizations about issues at the interface of biology and public policy."
"I'm very grateful for NSF's very strong support of the research that my students, postdocs and I do," Thornton said. "It's quite encouraging that he White House is giving this award to an evolutionary biologist, especially one whose work demonstrates how evolution assembled the so-called 'irreducibly complex systems' that Intelligent Design advocates say can't possibly have evolved."
Evolution was still-born.
It's not enough that you have genetic coding that produces a given protein or enzyme.
Now, you have to have exogenous coding that tells the genetic coding which part of a protein or enzyme to produce, and in which direction, and connected to what.
Much of this coding is in the non-protein coding portion of DNA strands ~ however, they (the famous "they" who work in laboratories) have determined that much of the important intellectual work taking place inside cells occurs in the form of the "non protein coding" regions actually producing RNA instead of DNA.
Even the place of supposedly primitive RNA is being revised quickly as we speak.
The current view of the entirity of the DNA/RNA machinery underlying our forms of live is now Billions of Times more complex than was imagined in the days of yore (a few months ago) when all we had to be concerned with were genes!
Translation:
Writing propaganda that is useful to those in government that wish to spend even more Billions propping up the failed TOE.
bookmark
But you’re always telling us that mainstream science stifles dissent!
“Second, it is repeatedly said that science is intolerant of theories without data and assertions without adequate evidence. But no serious student of epistemology any longer takes the naive view of science as a process of Baconian induction from theoretically unorganized observations. There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become “observations” we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited. In the 1930s well-established and respectable geneticists described “dauer-modifications,” environmentally induced changes in organisms that were passed on to offspring and only slowly disappeared in succeeding generations. As the science of genetics hardened, with its definitive rejection of any possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, observations of dauer-modifications were sent to the scrapheap where they still lie, jumbled together with other decommissioned facts.”
One very important point made above and not to be overlooked is that there is a prevailing framework of thinking in science, evolution, that is not to be questioned, except in the minutiae of details in someone else's peer reviewed papers.
“...what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed.”
And if an “observation” does NOT fit? It will quietly be buried with nary a trace.
Absolutely. If it wasn't, you'd think there'd be some evidence in the evolutionist camp that a few minutes of FReeper research couldn't debunk completely.
Combined with the point made by Bridgham et al (2009), that even tiny structural/functional changes may not be achievable by random mutation/selection, these considerations pretty much squelch the likelihood of Darwinian processes doing much of significance during evolution.For me the fossil evidence screams loud and clear that phyletic evolution didn't occur. Punctuated... well, perhaps.
GGG reminds me of Keith Olberman.
Nope. Reminds me of all those in the “new media” working to debunk liberal mythology wherever they find it. GGG has done yoeman’s work in bringing new news that is helping debunk the evolutionm myth.
Good work, Gods, Guns, Guts!
Never happen.Evolution is an irreducible tenet of a religion that is held just as fanatically by University scientists as a Wahaabi holds Islam.
The message must be a little tough to hear since the messenger is being so vilely attacked. Darwinism is falling limb by limb. Time to rename it to make it more palatable like the the slimehead fish, renamed and pricey as “orange roughy”.
I’m taking suggestions for Darwinism’s New and Improved Name.
Like Olberman, GGG thinks he is an expert on everything, thinks people hang on his every word, and if you disagree with him, you are on the “Worst person in the world” list.
Unlike Olberman, GGG is not gay.
Our findings indicate that even if selection for the ancestral function were imposed, direct reversal would be extremely unlikely, suggesting an important role for historical contingency in protein evolution. [emphasis mine]
Wow! That is like saying "Methinks it is lake Ottersea" cannot evolve into "Methinks it is like a weasel".
From what little I could get from the abstract of the Science paper, this paper shows that in this case, you can’t go back to the earlier form by just making a single mutation. Nothing having to do with what you put in the false title.
Why don’t these rags spend the $ for a journal subscription and set it up so you can view the source material for free?
Why they don’t- because then people would read the paper and see that these creationist fishwraps are what they are, the equivalent of the Weekly world News.
No, I think that the letter states that unless the 5 specific restrictive mutations are reversed a non-functional protein is produced when other "key function switching" mutations are reversed. IOW there is a definite order of mutations. Thus even with selection for the old function the protein will not evolve the old function, "You can't get there from here."
A ---> B is allowed.
B ---> A is not allowed.
Interesting little tidbit abotu Joe Thornton’s claim that nature could ‘construct irreducible complexity’
“And these are the words that disappeared (in brackets):
Our goal is to illustrate how a complex, tightly integrated molecular system - [one which appears to be irreducibly complex] - evolved by Darwinian processes hundreds of millions of years ago....”
“Two days ago, I pointed out that it’s a tad inconsistent to say there is no scientific controversy about ID, when one is participating in that very controversy (as Thornton and in fact a whole lot of other scientists and scholars are). Seems Thornton didn’t like me calling attention to this. So goodbye to the phrase “irreducible complexity” from his University of Oregon webpage see: http://www.uoregon.edu/~joet/ the last sentence of the second paragraph
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/say_it_aint_so_joe_thornton_pu.html
And here’s the link where Joe Thorton was refuted by Behe
“The Lamest Attempt Yet to Answer the Challenge Irreducible Complexity Poses for Darwinian Evolution”
“In tomorrow’’s issue of Science, researchers Jamie Bridgham, Sean Carroll and Joe Thornton of the University of Oregon claim to have shown how an irreducibly complex system might have arisen by a process they call “molecular exploitation.” Their paper, “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation,” Science 312 (7 Apr 2006):97-101 and an accompanying commentary by Chris Adami are sure to stir lively discussion. Mike Behe has already weighed in, [Here: http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/the_lamest_attempt_yet_to_answ.html] arguing that Bridgham et. al. haven’t even come close to answering the challenge of irreducible complexity. Tomorrow we’ll provide a detailed scientific response to the paper as well.”
Here’s the truth about Joe Thornton’s supposed creation of IC (Which by the way doesn’t even begin to resemble IC in the slightest- no wonder he took down his original claim from his website- He obviously knew how lame his attempt was to show IC ‘could arise naturally’ given his lame examples)
“The study by Bridgham et al (2006) published in the April 7 issue of Science is the lamest attempt yet — and perhaps the lamest attempt that’s even possible — to deflect the problem that irreducible complexity poses for Darwinism.
The bottom line of the study is this: the authors started with a protein which already had the ability to strongly interact with three kinds of steroid hormones (aldosterone, cortisol, and “DOC” [11-deoxycorticosterone]). After introducing several simple mutations the protein interacted much more weakly with all of those steroids. In other words, a pre-existing ability was decreased.
That’s it! The fact that this extremely modest and substantially irrelevant study is ballyhooed with press releases, a commentary in Science by Christoph Adami, and forthcoming stories in the mainstream media, demonstrates the great anxiety some folks feel about intelligent design.
In the study the authors wished to see if two related modern proteins called the glucocorticoid (GR) receptor and mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) could be derived from a common ancestral protein. Using clever analysis the authors made a protein that they thought represented the ancestral protein. That protein binds several, structurally-similar hormones, as does modern MR. They then introduced two amino acid changes into the protein which are found in modern GR. The two changes caused the ancestral protein to bind the different kinds of hormones anywhere from ten- to a thousand-fold more weakly. That protein bound aldosterone about three-fold more weakly than cortisol. The authors note that modern GR (in tetrapods) also binds aldosterone more weakly than cortisol. So perhaps, the thinking goes, an ancestral gene that could bind both hormones duplicated in the past, one copy accumulated those two mutations to become the modern GR, and the other copy became modern MR.
Here are number of comments in response:
1) This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results. There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it is a straw man.
2) The authors (including Christoph Adami in his commentary) are conveniently defining “irreducible complexity” way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as IC. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their “system”, on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex.
3) In the experiment just two amino acid residues were changed! No new components were added, no old components were taken away.
4) Nothing new was produced in the experiment; rather, the pre-existing ability of the protein to bind several molecules was simply weakened. The workers begin their experiments with a protein that can strongly bind several, structurally-very-similar steroids, and they end with a protein that at best binds some of the steroids ten-fold more weakly. (Figure 4C)
5) Such results are not different from the development of antibiotic resistance, where single amino acid changes can cause the binding of a toxin to a particular protein to decrease (for example, warfarin resistance in rats, and resistance to various AIDS drugs). Intelligent design proponents happily agree that such tiny changes can be accomplished by random mutation and natural selection.
6) In the “least promising” intermediate (L111Q) the protein has essentially lost its ability to bind any steroid. In the “most promising” intermediate protein (the one that has just the S106P alteration) the protein has lost about 99% of its ability to bind DOC and cortisol, and lost about 99.9% of its ability to bind aldosterone. (Figure 4C)
7) Although the authors imply (and Adami claims directly) that the mutated protein is specific for cortisol, in fact it also binds aldosterone with about half of the affinity. (Compare the red and green curves in the lower right hand graph of Figure 4C.) What’s more, there actually is a much larger difference (about thirty-fold) in binding affinity for aldosterone and cortisol with the beginning, ancestral protein than for the final, mutated protein (about two-fold). So the protein’s ability to discriminate between the two ligands has decreased by ten-fold.
8) One would think that the hundred-fold decrease in the ability to bind a steroid would at least initially be a very detrimental change that would be weeded out by natural selection. The authors do not test for that; they simply assume it wouldn’t be a problem, or that the problem could somehow be easily overcome. Nor do they test their speculation that DOC could somehow act as an intermediate ligand. In other words, in typical Darwinian fashion the authors pass over with their imaginations what in reality would very likely be serious biological difficulties.
9) The fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the intrinsic value of the experiment itself.
10) In conclusion, the results (and even the imagined-but-problematic scenario) are well within what an ID proponent already would think Darwinian processes could do, so they won’t affect our evaluation of the science. But it’s nice to know that Science magazine is thinking about us!
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/the_lamest_attempt_yet_to_answ.html
Thanks for the ping!
See the following re: Joe Thornton. Hat tip to Cottshop for digging this up!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2357164/posts?page=23#23
Behe is one of two things:
Ignorant or a perjurer.
He stared in the Dover trial that there is no scientific evidence for molecular evolutio, There are tons of journals with articles on it.
He is either stupid or lied under oath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.