Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Chirality is the reality and Evolution cannot get around it....And DNA falsifies Evolution...again.

This is not a new, strange radar.   I am simply not taking comments personally or going to be dragged into sarcasm and derision anymore.   I am sorry I began going down that road and it really isn't me.   So you are not seeing a strange radar, you are seeing the normal radar bringing my normal mindset and behavior to the internet.  I really wanted to make it easy for people to see that Darwinism is mostly smoke and mirrors and help them get in front of the inevitable crash and burn of the whole thing.  I still do.  

You see, the Christian life is a long journey filled with obstacles.   It is easy to begin falling back into old habits in the areas you think are already figured out.  I don't blame the commenters for trying to lead me astray, that is what they are trying to do.  It was on me to recognize it and move on.    When you spend time doing something like this and you lose your focus, hey, it is a good thing to recognize a wrong turn and correct course.   I think you will be interested in my philosophy post, hopefully on Thursday or Friday.   Work and life come first you know.

So until we do look at the philosophy behind Creation versus Evolution how about some tasty thoughts to digest.  For one, doesn't chirality falsify abiogenesis in yet another way (there are so many...)?  Yep,  and then for the second point, the more we study DNA the more we see that information and coding and conservation of kind are there whereas any means of evolving into a new creature is continually falsified. 

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...

credit

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 LifePhysicsStars and Astronomy
  Why 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




    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.
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:
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.

credit


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 BiologyGeneticsDarwin and EvolutionIntelligent Design

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

In the comment section two posts down you were asked for the evidence behind the first model that you pasted. Actual evidence FOR the creation model as opposed to the usual attempts to peck away at evolution etc.

You got anything?

Jon Woolf said...

"Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr"

I ran a search on this chap's name, because I'd never heard of him before and wanted to know more about him. Discoveries followed in rapid order:

* The name is apparently a pseudonym.

* He's a known troublemaker on several pro-evolution blogs, such as Larry Moran's Sandwalk and PZ Myers's Pharyngula.

* Someone claiming to be him (and apparently telling the truth) participated in a comment-thread at Sandwalk, where he sounds ... well, a lot like you, Radar: arrogant, self-righteous, pompous, patronizing, and unable to grasp just how badly he's being pwned by Larry and the commenters.

* In the course of that comment-thread, the said commenter admitted to being a Holocaust revisionist. It also came out that he's a failed businessman with (apparently) no formal scientific training.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one more thing: The website wePapers.com lists another paper by "Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr," titled "The Genetic code and the Latin language". Its short description reads as follows:

The genetic code and the biological information it makes possible are a profound engima for scientists studying the origin of life. However, a link to natural human language, in this case Latin, is found when the frequency distribution of characters is analyzed.

I'm afraid at that point I burst out laughing and didn't read any further. A useful relationship between the natural genetic code and an artificial human language such as Latin? 'Doesn't pass the giggle test' is the understatement of the week.

Anonymous said...

The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).

Anonymous said...

Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

Anonymous said...

The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

Anonymous said...

Links:

Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8132/8132notw1.html

References:

Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595.
Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.
Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389: 234-235.
(cont'd)

Anonymous said...

McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234.
Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151.
Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltani and M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801.
Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.
Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523.
TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/021401.html
Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.

Further Reading:

Clark, Stuart. 1999. Polarized starlight and the handedness of life. American Scientist 87(4) (Jul/Aug): 336-343.

Guterman, Lila. 1998. Why life on Earth leans to the left. New Scientist, 160(2164): 16.

radar said...

Again, I directed those who wanted a thorough discussion of the geological column from a Creationist perspective to read Tas Walker's blog and website.

The rest of you need to catch up to science of 2011.

Anonymous said...

Tsk tsk tsk...that arrogant tone is quite unbecoming, Radar.

Now watch that blood presure...

Shahbaz said...

DNA testing by way of oral swabs is by far the standard procedure of sample collection as it's really quick to perform; nevertheless DNA tests, such as paternity testing.

DNA Tests

Embriette said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Embriette said...

Oh, and Jon Woolf, before you laugh about there being a link between genetics and language, try reading the book "Not a Chimp," written by Jeremy Taylor. He delves very deeply into the link between genetics and language, citing a large amount of credible research that has been published in journals such as Science, and he is clearly not a creationist/proponent of ID.
I burst out laughing reading your comment-you really honestly think there is no relationships between genetics and language? Thank you for giving more ammo to the creationists-you basically just said language had to have been created, as there is no genetic basis for it.
Looks like we're both a barrel of giggles today, huh?

Embriette said...

I find it humorous that half of the people against you remain anonymous. Typical.
I also find it humorous that someone accuses you of just chipping away at evolution rather than proving creation. Well, if something is disproven (i.e. evolution) doesn't that mean the alternative (i.e., creation or ID) is proven? And, don't the evolutionists do the same thing, in trying to chip away at creation/ID? Let's not be hypocritical here.
I also find it hilarious that people continually accuse you of being arrogant. Is that the best they can come up with? Beyond that, evolutionists are some of the most arrogant people I have met. Typically what we accuse people of, is what we see in ourselves. Jesus did say, don't remove the speck of wood from your neighbors eye, without first removing the plank in your own eye.
Another thing I wonder. The anonymous poster, that provided us with all of those scientific references-did that poster actually read those references, or just post the comment assuming no one would read them? Just trying to look educated by posting a whole bunch of references...
Love what you're doing radar. The defensive attitude of those who post comments is only proof that you are touching a nerve, and boy does that make me smile. If the evolutionists weren't so afraid of their religion (yes, religion, you need FAITH to believe in such a fairy tale) being wrong, they wouldn't care about people like you and me and just laugh us off as ignorant, uneducated religious fanatics. But they can't-because they know evolution is in danger and is seriously being challenged. They've even been called to continue fighting the creationists in the courtroom (Berkman, M.B., and Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom. Science 331, 404-405)-and yes, I have read what I am citing. It's humorous, really, to see the evolutionists rallying together and preparing for battle

radar said...

Embriette,

A scientist who is not afraid to have an identity and is interested in the one of the coolest of fields! Awesome! Re:"working to obtain my PhD in the Interdepartmental Program in Cell and Molecular Biology" - real science!

Funny how the typical anonymous commenter tends to sound awfully prideful while accusing others of his sinful attitudes. Me, I just try to publish what is true and I'll leave the ranting and raving to the commenters. When a real scientist like you comes along, your calm manner is refreshing 'midst the storm of naysaying nabobs! Thank you!

You might like my last post entitled "Creation Couple(s). Be sure to let me know when you begin posting on your blog, I will be interested in what you have to say!