You see, the continual march of scientific research keeps finding more reasons to toss Evolution or Darwinism right into the trash can. It is very easy to find actual evidence, while Darwinists keep needing stories that involve unobserved phenomenae or unproven measurements of age or simple misinformation. One of my friends was a good friend of Dr. Duane Gish, who ran out of Darwinists to debate because they would not agree to debating factual evidence and always wanted to debate on religious grounds. Gish was the fellow that debated against Ian Plimer in Australia, a debate that Darwinists claim as a "win" even though it prompted an NCSE member (Jim Lippard), to write an article about how NOT to debate a creationist and the crowd was loudly booing and hooting at Plimer near the end. I have watched the whole debate and Plimer comes across as an uncouth buffoon who has so little knowledge of science that he is able to do little other than make wild charges and insults. "The Gish Gallop" is supposedly a quick list of several facts that Darwinists hate to hear and is used as an insult but frankly Duane Gish knew his stuff and could rattle off facts when pressed for answers. I take it as an honor whenever someone has compared me to Duane Gish.
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati actually finds that even Theistic Evolutionists are afraid to debate him. I did go to see a Sarfati-Hugh Ross debate and Ross withdrew, unwilling to debate the brilliant Sarfati. He was lured back by being given a new, less prominent foe to take on. I noticed that one of the commenters even called Sarfati a liar? That is a good way to lose every little tiny bit of your credibility, commenter. Sarfati is smarter than you or me, as honest as the day is long and a very nice, personable man to boot. A brilliant scientist, a Chess Master and author of many books and technical publications, and a guy who easily tears each new Dawkins book to shreds using evidence and logic.
Another fellow that Darwinists love to say nasty things about is Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. Dr. M's crime? He has challenged every prominent Darwinist individual and organization he can find to debate him in court according to the laws of evidence. In other words, only evidence, no stories, allowed. They have all turned him down. You see, when the rubber meets the road the Darwinists are afraid to show up on the starting line. The following articles are part of the reason why...
Left-Handed Amino Acids Explained Naturally? 01/10/2011
Jan 10, 2010 — The problem of left-handed amino acids in life’s proteins has remained an evolutionary conundrum for decades (see online book and earlier entries). Another team has tried to tackle it, and boasted great things for their small returns. Science Daily said,
What is the origin of such asymmetry in biological material? There are two competing hypotheses. One postulates that life originated from a mixture containing 50% of one enantiomer and 50% of the other (known as a racemic mixture), and that homochirality progressively emerged during the course of evolution. The other hypothesis suggests that asymmetry leading to homochirality preceded the appearance of life and was of cosmic origin. This is supported by the detection of L excesses in certain amino acids extracted from primitive meteorites. According to this scenario, these amino acids were synthesized non-racemically in interstellar space and delivered to Earth by cometary grains and meteorites.A team in France was able to reproduce the reported excess by warming up some comet-like ice. The excess the article reported, though, is just 1.3%. Life needs 100% of one hand or the other. Their celebration outran their delivery: “This is the first time that a scenario that explains the origin of this asymmetry has been demonstrated using an experiment that reproduces an entirely natural synthesis,” they said. They believe that circularly polarized light in stellar nebulae produced the slight excess. “These findings imply that the selection of a single enantiomer for the molecules of life observed on Earth is not the result of chance but rather of a deterministic physical mechanism.”
Sorry. 1.3% doesn’t cut it. It’s like getting 1.3% of the way to Hawaii; you’re still going to drown. The chance hypothesis is definitely out the window (online book), so astrobiologists are desperately looking for some deterministic mechanism that can deliver 100% pure single-handed amino acids. How many more years since Pasteur showed this to be a fundamental separator of life from non-life do we give the Darwin Party overtime to figure it out? Game over! Charlie lost!credit
“Two competing hypotheses,” they said. There’s the either-or fallacy in action. The reasonable hypothesis they left out is intelligent design: single-handed proteins were purposefully chosen, because life cannot exist without it. Their false dichotomy is like a choice between fish sticks and fish balls, when what you crave is beef. Where’s the beef in this evolutionary myth? It’s all racemic buns, and they deserve a swift paddling.
Next headline on: Origin of Life • Physics • Stars and AstronomyWhy your brain has gray matter, and why you should use it (01/13/2006).
Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified 01/03/2011
Jan 3, 2010 — A common hypothesis in evolutionary circles is evolution by gene duplication. It posits that duplicated genes are free to evolve new functions without affecting the primary gene. This idea has been dealt a serious blow by a paper published in Complexity on Dec. 22.1
Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr first dealt a falsifying blow to natural selection as a creative force for genetic information:
Research into the evolution of genes has shown that the peptides they code for are of a finicky and precarious nature, both marginally stable and prone to aggregation. Protein folding happens to be a highly complex and synergistic process, involving a number of epistatic relationships among many residues. This phenomenon, compounded with the issue of interactions between protein molecules, can significantly complicate adaptive evolution such that in the majority of cases the overall effects on reproductive fitness are very slight. Many arguably “beneficial” mutations have been observed to incur some sort of cost and so can be classified as a form of antagonistic pleiotropy.2
That’s right out of the starting gate in this paper. What about gene duplication? Isn’t evolution free to “tinker” with the copy (paralog) without affecting the function of the original? The idea that natural selection is more permissive with duplicated genes was analyzed by Bozorgmehr. Then he examined the best examples presented by evolutionary biologists. For a duplicate to be preserved at all, rather than eliminated by negative selection (also called purifying selection), it must provide some benefit:
Indeed, the place and extent of natural selection as a force for change in molecular biology have been questioned in recent years. Detecting the incidence of any beneficial substitutions in genes has so far relied on statistical inferences as empirical evidence is less readily available. In many instances, nonsynonymous changes and shifts in allelic diversity may be induced by factors that can serve to imitate selective effects—biased gene conversion, mutational and recombinational hotspots, hitchhiking, or even neutral drift being among them. Moreover, several well-known factors such as the linkage and the multilocus nature of important phenotypes tend to restrain the power of Darwinian evolution, and so represent natural limits to biological change. Selection, being an essentially negative filter, tends to act against variation including mutations previously believed to be innocuous.
Were selection to be completely relaxed and any manner of changes permitted, this would only serve to guarantee complete degeneration. It would invariably lead to the introduction of null and nonsense mutations, scrambling the open reading frame (ORF), and degrading the cisregulatory elements involved in transcription—leading to the gene’s pseudogenization. Thus, a measure of purifying/stabilizing selection seems necessary for duplicate preservation, and any evolutionary divergence would proceed under a relaxed regime rather than none at all.His primary purpose was to see if novel genetic information can arise by gene duplication. He first defined information in functional terms (contra Shannon information): genetic information is “The qualitative increase in operational capability and functional specificity with no resultant uncertainty of outcome.” The paper then described how to test for novel genetic information, described the way evolutionists believe it arises in duplicated genes, and looked at the best examples cited in the literature.
When citing one case, he stated a principle Darwinians need to keep in mind: “A key problem associated with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution is that many of the putative incipient and intermediate stages in the development of a biological trait may not be useful themselves and may even be harmful.” Finally, the author spent a paragraph on “de novo recruitment without duplication”; i.e., the emergence of new genetic information out of the blue. “This represents a return to the idea of the hopeful monster at the molecular level,” he said of recent attempts to revive Goldschmidt’s long-discredited hypothesis (cf. 02/24/2010). After looking at the examples, he said, “de novo recruitment of noncoding DNA would seem extremely improbable and implausible.”
In conclusion, he noted that accidental gene duplication clearly adds to the size of some genomes. “However, in all of the examples given above, known evolutionary mechanisms were markedly constrained in their ability to innovate and to create any novel information, he said. “This natural limit to biological change can be attributed mostly to the power of purifying selection, which, despite being relaxed in duplicates, is nonetheless ever-present.” He allowed that subfunctionalization (division of function between copies) might act in some cases, but that, too, provides no new functional information (cf. 10/24/2003, 07/26/2006, 10/17/2007). Then he examined cases of co-option cited by Darwinists, but found, again, that “a proclivity toward functional stability and the conservation of information, as opposed to any adventurous innovation, predominates.”
In short, neo-Darwinism fails by both natural selection and tinkering with duplicate genes.
The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around,but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results i n the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original.His ending paragraph is like a good-news-bad-news joke on neo-Darwinism. Good news: “Gradual natural selection is no doubt important in biological adaptation and for ensuring the robustness of the genome in the face of constantly changing environmental pressures.” Bad news: “However, its potential for innovation is greatly inadequate as far as explaining the origination of the distinct exonic sequences that contribute to the complexity of the organism and diversity of life.”
So what comes next after neo-Darwinism’s demise? He didn’t offer a replacement evolutionary theory, but warned that any new contender must think holistically about the cell (cf. 04/02/2008). “Any alternative/revision to Neo-Darwinism has to consider the holistic nature and organization of information encoded in genes, which specify the interdependent and complex biochemical motifs that allow protein molecules to fold properly and function effectively.” None of the 95 references in the paper referred to intelligent design or creationist sources.
1. Bozorgmehr, “Is Gene Duplication a Viable Explanation for the Origination of Biological Information and Complexity?,” Complexity 22 Dec 2010, DOI: 10.1002/cplx.20365.
2. Regarding pleiotropy, see 01/17/2005, 10/17/2007 bullet 3, 11/03/2008, 04/02/2008, and 04/12/2006. Regarding antagonistic pleiotropy, see 09/30/2010 and 06/30/2009, 03/17/2003. Regarding epistasis, see 10/17/2007 bullets 3-4, 12/14/2006 and 10/19/2004.
Whew. Now that that’s over, it’s time to clean up the mess left by the Darwin Party parade. Don’t let any new usurpers in the lab who don’t understand biological information and the holistic nature and organization of information encoded in genes. Scientists need to learn from their mistakes. They haven’t learned yet. Evolution has been falsified many times before (e.g., 10/19/2004), and yet the myth goes on.
Bozorgmehr did not refer to intelligent design, and did not cite any ID sources, but arrived at the same conclusions about the natural limits to biological change that creationists and ID advocates have been preaching for decades. This indicates that common sense and honest evaluation of the facts falsifies Darwinism without reliance on religious or creationist sources. (Where ever did anyone get the idea that informational codes could arise, or have any meaning, apart from intelligent design?)
Next headline on: Cell Biology • Genetics • Darwin and Evolution • Intelligent Design