ID in their own words: Paul Nelson

Doesn't that quote end with, "But don't quote me on that."? ;)

Funny. He makes this sound like the lack of any theory of ID is just an oversight, something they've been too busy to get around to. The real issue is that ID by its very nature will never have a theory. Not in any sense that a real scientist would recognize. Plugging in Jehovah to fill in bits you don't like or can't understand is their essential MO. No legitimate 'theory' can start out hardwired to always have the same punchline, no matter what evidence comes along.

How long do you think it will be before some some IDer comes thru here, angrily denies that ID lacks a theory, then gets shown this quote by Lenny or someone like that, only to have him run away and change the subject? I'd say a couple days, max.

ID's real problems will begin when/if they try to formulate a theory. They'll become a much bigger, fatter, easier target. I think they know this. That's why they prefer to do this hit-and-run thing of attacks on bogus flaws of evolutionary biology. It's way easier, much less risky, and convinces gullible people just as much.

I'm sure Dembski will jump on this fully contextual and proper quote as another example of how Darwinists "like to quote-mine too."

... Five, Four, Three, Two ....

Nelson attempts to defend himself at IDTF - from May 9th.

They have not even attempted to create an ID theory. They have attempted, twice, to create disproofs of evolution. The first was IC:

P1: Anything with IC can't have evolved
P2: Living things have IC
C: Living things didn't evolve

P2 may be correct depending on how you define IC, but P1 was shown to be wrong at least two ways.

attempt 2:

P1: Anything with CSI can't have evolved
P2: Living things have CSI
C: Living things didn't evolve

Again, P1 is totally wrong.

And that's where ID stands. Two failed attempts to disprove ID. No theory to speak of.

'disprove evolution', obviously.

How many scientists, when they're in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do? In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism? (And I don't mean "evolution", because most IDers accept evolution. We're talking mechanisms here.)

Re "'disprove evolution', obviously."

But which hypothesis? When a theory is composed of several related hypotheses, doesn't a "disproof" have to be aimed at one of them in particular?

Henry

and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity

How many scientists, when they're in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do?

— Blast

In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism? (And I don't mean "evolution", because most IDers accept evolution. We're talking mechanisms here.)

How long do you think it will be before some some IDer comes thru here, angrily denies that ID lacks a theory, then gets shown this quote by Lenny or someone like that

Do we predict that adaptations will occur in virtually any biological system as a result of mutation and selection? Does anyone doubt it?

— Russell

How many scientists, when they're in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do? In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?

but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise

— BlastfromthePast

Aren't you talking about "microevolution"---which is generally accepted by IDers---rather than "macroevolution", which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing? In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise---or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional "information" come from?

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism Response to "Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore" by Eugenie C. Scott, Science (May 2000) Michael J. Behe Science Online July 7, 2000 Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." From "Darwin's Black Box" Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. (p. 5) From "Darwin's Black Box" "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." (p.176) "I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent." in Reply to My Critics, Biology and Philosophy 16, p697, 2001. Christianity Today, August 12th 2002 "A Nuclear Bomb" For Evolution?: Critics of Darwinism say skull's discovery isn't all it's cracked up to be by Todd Hertz Behe said ID is "several levels of biology removed from the hominid versus chimp distinction." The point of contention between evolution and intelligent design is whether design or chance guided human development?not how humans developed. "Darwin's claim to fame was not so much that he thought that organisms might have evolved from common ancestors," Behe said. "Other people had put forward other theories but had always invoked guiding intelligence. His main point was that it might happen by chance." Darwin's Black Box, Reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller (as published in Creation / Evolution Volume 16: pp, 36-40 [1996]) Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1)," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

drvr2hrdwr wrote: Mr. Behe, may I get your comment or opinion on the theistic verses atheistic nature of intelligent design theory? It seems to me that ID proposes that all life requires an intelligence to design it. So, if God did not design life on Earth, then some other intelligent creatures (space aliens presumably) must have. These creatures would then require an intelligence to their design, and so on for as many level of regression as one my choose to suggest. Since life could not have existed at the first instant of the Big Bang, there must be a terminal point to this regression, requiring that the original intelligent designer must have been God. Thus, ID theory is inherently theistic. Or would you and other ID proponents suggest that only life on Earth would require an intelligent designer, but life elsewhere would not require an intelligent designer? Would you suggest that a Godless abiogenesis could occur elsewhere giving rise to extraterrestrial intelligence, which in turn designed life on Earth, thus making ID theory potentially atheistic? Neil Habermehl

From: Michael Behe To: drvr2hrdwr Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: Re: Atheistic ID? Hi, Mr. Habermehl. Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn't require irreducibly complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us, as I speculated in Darwin's Black Box ("Aliens and Time Travelers", pp. 248-250). I don't think that's the case, but it isn't logically impossible. Best wishes. Mike Behe

Aren't you talking about "microevolution"---which is generally accepted by IDers---rather than "macroevolution", which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing?

— BftP

In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise...

I'm not a regurgiquoter, unlike the IDers.  I prefer my own words to anyone else's, unlike the IDers.

How many scientists, when they're in their labs, say to themselves:  What would Darwin do?  In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?  (And I don't mean "evolution", because most IDers accept evolution.  We're talking mechanisms here.)

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef "naturally through chance", and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any "information" to make life appear. Do you disagree with Behe?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

You asked about scientists in their labs. Personally, this lab scientist does not deal on a daily basis with new species arising. But he does deal with random mutation and selection. That's my day-to-day "Darwinism". What have the IDers proposed that could help me do my work?

— Russell

And it's also why creationists can't wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

— Arden Chatfield

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity? Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given. No one knows whence it comes from though. And there are competing "theories" as to how it operates.

And it's also why creationists can't wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

— H. Humbert

And it's also why creationists can't wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

— H. Humbert

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity? Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given. No one knows whence it comes from though. And there are competing "theories" as to how it operates.

— BlastfromthePast

Just as there are no competing theories to Evolution to explain speciation. Note: neither "goddidit" nor "Not Evolution" are theories.

— H. Humbert

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef "naturally through chance", and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any "information" to make life appear. Do you disagree with Behe? Yes, and no. I agree with Behe that the "logic" of ID, or of IC, doesn't completely rule out the possibility of ET origins; but, the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally. (why IC life here and not there?)

as the IDers would say, where does this additional "information" come from?

Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn't require irreducibly complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us

I agree with Behe that the "logic" of ID, or of IC, doesn't completely rule out the possibility of ET origins

the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally.

I'm a Christian and I believe in the "fact" of evolution

So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a "creationist", and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of "evolution"? I haven't had problems with the "fact" of evolution since High School. Put it another way: I've NEVER had problems with the "fact" of evolution.

I have thoroughly examined the Modern Synthesis

ID might not represent a completely "material" explanation of evolution, but Richard Goldschmidt does just fine---and it makes sense.

It seems to me that ID "logic" would suggest that "mutations" and "selection" in, and of, themselves cannot add "information" to the system

And who the hell are you, again . . . . . ?

— 'Rev Dr'Lenny Flank

Good, we've moved into worthless Creationist rhetoric now. Define 'information' please.

— Joseph O'Donnell

Um, how does Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" idea make evolution wrong . . . . . ? After all, "hopeful monster" is a theory of . . . well . . . evolution. So what the heck are you yammering about?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

So first you ask, how can ID help me in the lab. Then when I indicate a way in which it might, then you simply dismiss the whole thing: define 'information' please. (Do you really mean you don't know what information is?)

This is a classic example of close-mindedness.

I think it's just a classic example of calling bullshit when I see it :)

— Joseph O'Donnell

That's the problem: if you want to remain the final arbiter of all things, then you don't have to entertain any ideas you don't want to. As I said: "classic close-mindedness!"

information as Dembski's:http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey . . . or in chapter six of Dembski's Intelligent Design. But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

Had he written a book entitled, "Origin of Adaptations", I'd be supporting him right now. So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a "creationist", and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of "evolution"? I haven't had problems with the "fact" of evolution since High School. Put it another way: I've NEVER had problems with the "fact" of evolution. [Have I made my point yet, or do I have to repeat it again and again?]

— Whoever

but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise---or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional "information" come from?

It seems to me that ID "logic" would suggest that "mutations" and "selection" in, and of, themselves cannot add "information" to the system. According to this logic then, the conclusion to be reached is that the "mutations" are a "built-in" part of the biological system. Since there would be "built-in limits" to where selection can take the organism (only so much available "stored information"), I think I would look for "where" this potential for mutations is "located", and what kinds of "regulatory mechanisms" either enhance or suppress it (if at all).

I highly recommend you read the Material Basis of Evolution by Richard Goldschmidt. He was light-years ahead of his peers. He presents a highly intelligent (and dare say, probable) theory of evolution.

Panda's Thumb has now officially become the equivalent of liberal AM Radio: a bunch of like-minded people who talk only to themselves in some kind of grandiose lovefest while fulminating and cutting off anyone who differs with them. And we all know the fate of Liberal AM Radio!

"How do you like them apples?"

Ha! You may be right!

Is that you John?

The "Blast From The Past" name raised my suspicions of a disguised troll as well, but when he started mumbling about "Shannon information" I was leaning toward Jerry (aka DonkeyKong)

Nah, ny money is on this particular instance of "NavyDavisonKong" (or whoever) not being our friend Salty. Or, alternatively, someone upped his...you know.

And hey, BFTP, where did you run anyway? There are about 500 questions for you to answer here, you know, scientific ones. Don´t be shy.

And who the hell are you, again . . . . . ?

Why don't you go first?

Um, how does Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" idea make evolution wrong . . . . . ? After all, "hopeful monster" is a theory of . . . well . . . evolution. So what the heck are you yammering about?

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don't you read the book and then read my quotes. You might be in for an education.

Only with the publication of books such as Darwin's Black Box (1996) or The Design Inference (1998) do hints of a positive theory of design begin to emerge.

How many scientists, when they're in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do? In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?

— BTFP

It seems to me that ID "logic" would suggest that "mutations" and "selection" in, and of, themselves cannot add "information" to the system.

According to this logic then, the conclusion to be reached is that the "mutations" are a "built-in" part of the biological system.

Since there would be "built-in limits" to where selection can take the organism (only so much available "stored information"),

I think I would look for "where" this potential for mutations is "located", and what kinds of "regulatory mechanisms" either enhance or suppress it (if at all).

{N.B. Scientist's have just reported being able to "stop" mutations from occurring in bacteria (which have one of the highest---if not the highest---mutation frequencies of all organisms)}

If the "rate" of mutation could not be experimentally "shifted", then I might look into whether there is a commonality between said mechanism and the mechanism of other organisms (sort of like a "box" gene)

In other words,

I think good science flows, one way or the other. That was my point from the beginning. If we use the metaphor of a "search engine" trying to get through the probability space of where biological organisms might go---or have gone---I think ID is a better one for "macroevolution", and RMNS for "microevolution," with ID being the more important of the two.

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling "What would Jesus do?"?

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling "What would Jesus do?"?

It seems to me that ID "logic" would suggest that "mutations" and "selection" in, and of, themselves cannot add "information" to the system

Nelson writes: "we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'-but, as yet..."

Wow. Where does he go for trick or treat...?

When I go to that link, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/htsrv/trackback.php?tb_id=325 , I get a blank page.

If I believed they genuinely thought much at all, let alone about that in particular, it would say a lot about those creationists' version of Jesus if they had decided he would think it a good idea to lie about the intent of their mission (ie ID wedge), to deny aspects of reality, to misrepresent scientists' work, to lie about their own work or lack of it, to lie, bully and cheat their way into museums, journals and PhDs etc etc.

It seems to me that ID "logic" would suggest that "mutations" and "selection" in, and of, themselves cannot add "information" to the system.

— BftP

Genetic material is known to occasionally, just randomly, get duplicated within a genome - all the way from one nucleotide up to the entire genome. That's new information. It can be selected. These are facts. This is not a question of opinion.

— Russell

{N.B. Scientist's have just reported being able to "stop" mutations from occurring in bacteria (which have one of the highest---if not the highest---mutation frequencies of all organisms)}

— BftP

N.B. Total "B.S." (Of course, you can prove me wrong by offering a citation.)

— Russell

Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from "microevolution" even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing "microevolution" from blending into "macroevolution" over billions of generations?

— Russell

Um, how does Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" idea make evolution wrong . . . . . ? After all, "hopeful monster" is a theory of . . . well . . . evolution. So what the heck are you yammering about?

— Lenny

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don't you read the book and then read my quotes. You might be in for an education.

— BftP

I notice you didn't asnwer my question. I;ll ask again: Goldschmidt;s ideas were based on evolution. So how do any of them make evolution wrong, or help ID "theory" in any way, shape, or form? It's a simple question. Why won;t you answer it?

— Lenny

Comparison of genomes gives patterns that seem best explained by the hypothesis that various genes have at some point been duplicated in the transcription process. Indeed, in some cases it seems that whole genomes have been duplicated. If the original gene can supply the required protein, then the duplicate gene is free to mutate. This is new information.

— John Wendt

We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing

I can show numerous cases where 'information' or new functions, alterations or similar have been made to proteins or systems, nylonase genes for an example or numerous pathogenicity factors.

— Joseph O'Donnell

We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing.

— BftP

That's your problem. The only interesting question is whether they are right. The close-minded, like you, will never be convinced of anything.

— PaulP

Nelson writes: "we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'-but, as yet . . . "

And, of course, Darwinism will quickly become entirely discredited at the transpeciation level.

More predictions. Boy you sure do got a lot of predictions. That, and a whole lot of "Darwins." Dawrin this, and Darwin that...

Even Thomas Huxley, in the 1890's, said that the fact that no known example of transpeciation had been observed was a knock on Darwin's theory

There's a relatively recent book titled "Speciation" by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, which would be a good palce to start. It talks about speciation and species concepts. Maybe worth a look, ah?

— Scott Davidson

From the fossil record we can deduce that there are now life forms that did not exist in the distant past. I wonder how they arose?

— PaulP

BlastFromThePast:

Can you define transpeciation from me please?

Now, getting to your quote above, isn't it entirely possible that the "new function" you're talking about is no more than the un-silencing of part of the code for the particular protein involved. Thus, there's no NEW information; just the loss of suppression of information.

so I asked you to 'define' information. You see, neither of those 'definitions' you have provided answers at all what you meant here. I can show numerous cases where 'information' or new functions, alterations or similar have been made to proteins or systems, nylonase genes for an example or numerous pathogenicity factors. Again, you are asking for the ADDITION of new information that neither of the theories you quote attempt to answer in this context (just another demonstration of the uselessness of ID). Again, specify 'information', as in the ACTUAL unit of information. Not blither blather as 'aaaaaa' or 'blahjehaj' or whatever. What the actual, testable experimentally unit of information is. Care to show me?

—

Darwinists love tautolgies.

Much time would be saved if those who want to support Darwin would stop the silly allegations that anyone who favors ID is a creationist---this is simply setting up a straw man.

Dr Lenny: Goldschmidt readily admits "microevolution"---it's likely he INVENTED the distinction between it and "macroevolution." The entire book is an argument that the kinds of mutations that characterize "micro" from "macro" are entirely disparate. He introduces the idea of a "systemic mutation", which is, basically, a changing around of chromosomal "patterns". He observes the obvious: the phylogenetic difference between males and females in higher animals is generally at the level of "macroevolution"; and, of course, the difference between them is strictly chromosomal. So your assertion that "it's evolution", etc., etc., is pointless given Goldschmidt evidence and analysis.

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same

he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about.

Here is an ID prediction: as the human (and other) genome becomes more amenable to analysis, then we will find that huge amounts of information is stored in the genome, common to most species, but that through such physical rearrangements (like recombination/insertions/translocation, etc) and through different forms of microRNA control, different phenotypes result.

— BftP

But it's so easy to prove you wrong: N.B. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518175350.ht . . .

— blast

To Stop Evolution: New Way Of Fighting Antibiotic Resistance Demonstrated By Scripps Scientists

{N.B. Scientist's have just reported being able to "stop" mutations from occurring in bacteria

It's amazing how easily and quickly a dismissive tone is taken by those who post here. Look at the obvious non sequitor in the above quote [in which it is pointed out that duplicated genetic material constitutes new information]: so "two" copies ... of the same gene, or two copies of the same genome is "new information"? So, if I have two copies of Encyclopedia Britannica I have "more" information than if I have one copy? Do you see how quickly you arrogate?

It seems to me that ID "logic" would suggest that "mutations" and "selection" in, and of, themselves cannot add "information" to the system.

Russell wrote: Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from "microevolution" even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing "microevolution" from blending into "macroevolution" over billions of generations? Darwinists love tautolgies. What you assume to be true, you present as proof for what you assume.... You don't "know" any such thing as "microevolution" leads to "macroevolution."

I see no reason to respond to the other parts of your post since you make it quite evident that you're unwilling to think [...] Your attitude makes discussion pointless.

Can nayone else here tell me what BlastFromThePast means by transpeciation?

Let me see if I've got this straight. The claim under discussion seems to be that all of the information necessary to produce every species that ever has existed or ever will exist, was present in the very first DNA, and exists today in the DNA of every living creature. Unstated (at least I haven't seen it stated) is the presumption that this original omniplastic DNA didn't itself evolve, but was created de novo by supernatural means.

Now, we present in evidence strong indications of a process by which new information has been generated: genes, indeed entire genomes, sometimes duplicate themselves during imperfect reproduction. The copies, not serving any immediate functional purpose, can mutate within some wide range without harming the organism, and are thus not selected away. Eventually, a mutation is of clear benefit to an organism, after which it is selected for. Importantly, this benefit derives from a new function never before possessed by any organism. There doesn't seem to be any debate that this happens.

Instead, the debate seems to be whether the information necessary to produce this new function was always present and inherent in the DNA that got duplicated; that as a result of not being selected away to preserve one useful function, the new copy's capability to produce this new function was no longer being suppressed, and was permitted to emerge.

It seems to me that if this is the case, it would indeed lead to the prediction that if our abilities were comprehensive enough, we would necessarily discover all of these incipient capabilities embedded in the DNA of every organism. Extrapolating on this, presumably we could not only recreate every creature now extinct, but every possible organism. As an analogy, every organism's DNA contains a complete dictionary and grammar of the biological language, from which we could in principle compose every grammatically possible novel. Which novels selection writes remains entirely contingent, of course.

To show otherwise, it would be necessary to demonstrate that some mutation or transcription error or cosmic ray or whatever was the direct cause of a change to the DNA to produce a pattern that never before occurred, and that the resulting change was required for some new characteristic to evolve. In other words, that the necessary information simply did not exist in the DNA prior to the event that caused the change.

Obviously, I'm not a biologist. Is this more or less what's being discussed here?

Flint:

Using BlastFromThePast's thinking, I cannot see where new species arose. If he accepts the fossil record, then there are species existing today that did not in the past, so the question is where they arose from. He made a big deal of questioning the Modern Synthesis's explanation but I can't see his alternative.

(And on a side point I note that Darwin did not know about genes and his theory is unaffected by any discoveries about them. He just needs some mechanism to permit fitness to be inherited and some mechanism or mechanisms to permit mutations. )

PaulP:

My reading is that BFTP says every possible species is inherent in every existing species. Whether this vast potential to produce species ever actually brings forth any specific organism is a matter of chance, but the potential itself has been there from the beginning.

In other words, he seems to be saying that new species can arise, but new information cannot. If any new species DOES arise, it can only be because the information necessary to describe it has been lurking in the DNA of every creature since God created DNA.

This strikes me as a defensible position, falsifiable in principle although not using current technology. It allows for natural selection to produce an essentially endless tree of life just as current knowledge indicates, but posits that the molecular and atomic arrangements in which all possible life is encoded, were created all at once. Ever since, interactions between organisms and their environment has been playing out the possibilities God embedded in the primordial DNA.

This ["front loading"]strikes me as a defensible position, falsifiable in principle although not using current technology.
There is nothing about supernatural intervention that is falsifiable. If, given the future (possible)technology you refer to, we feel comfortable in making the statement that all of that stuff isn't really there, the IDiots can still maintain that it is, and you just haven't found it yet.

Jim Wynne:

The same argument could be made for ANY prediction that something will be found, or that some result can be produced. I'm not willing to go quite that far, at least not in practice. It should be possible to show that some pattern of DNA pairs is simply not there before, and is there after, some "information-augmenting" event.

Let's say I claim there's an elephant in the closet. So we look, and the closet is empty. Have we falsified my claim? I guess it depends on what standard of evidence is being applied.

Yes, micro, macro, front-loading elephants, this is all very on topic. Speaking of which, can anyone get to that link in the post http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/htsrv/trackback.php?tb_id=325 ?

The same argument could be made for ANY prediction that something will be found, or that some result can be produced. I'm not willing to go quite that far, at least not in practice. It should be possible to show that some pattern of DNA pairs is simply not there before, and is there after, some "information-augmenting" event. Let's say I claim there's an elephant in the closet. So we look, and the closet is empty. Have we falsified my claim? I guess it depends on what standard of evidence is being applied.

— Flint

Yes, micro, macro, front-loading elephants, this is all very on topic

— steve

can anyone get to that link in the post http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/htsrv/trackback.php?t . . . ?

So has blast gone from "it's still just a dog" and "they're still bacteria" to "it's still DNA"? Is that ID?

Let me see if I've got this straight. The claim under discussion seems to be that all of the information necessary to produce every species that ever has existed or ever will exist, was present in the very first DNA, and exists today in the DNA of every living creature. Unstated (at least I haven't seen it stated) is the presumption that this original omniplastic DNA didn't itself evolve, but was created de novo by supernatural means.

— FLint

Using BlastFromThePast's thinking, I cannot see where new species arose. If he accepts the fossil record, then there are species existing today that did not in the past, so the question is where they arose from. He made a big deal of questioning the Modern Synthesis's explanation but I can't see his alternative.

— PaulP

as I pointed out in a post, most of them have to do with chromosomal re-arranging

— BlastfromthePast

Paul, I don't know that anyone really knows how new species come about. Look at my post about the new book Speciation. Goldschmidt---who was probably the finest biologist of his time---suspected that it had to do with re-arragements of chromomes which he called "systemic mutations." He was scorned at the time. Now 65 years later, there is precious little evidence of "speciation" events, and, as I pointed out in a post, most of them have to do with chromosomal re-arranging.

Here is an ID prediction: as the human (and other) genome becomes more amenable to analysis, then we will find that huge amounts of information is stored in the genome, common to most species, but that through such physical rearrangements (like recombination/insertions/translocation, etc) and through different forms of microRNA control, different phenotypes result.

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

That's Goldschmidt's speculation.

Why don't you read his book, The Material Basis of Evolution?

Goldschmidt---who was probably the finest biologist of his time---suspected that it had to do with re-arragements of chromomes which he called "systemic mutations." He was scorned at the time. Now 65 years later, there is precious little evidence of "speciation" events, and, as I pointed out in a post, most of them have to do with chromosomal re-arranging.

Oh, I see. How embarrassing for me. The article is titled: To Stop Evolution: New Way Of Fighting Antibiotic Resistance Demonstrated By Scripps Scientists

— Russell

Did you get around to actually reading the article, Blast? No, I didn't think so. Here let me help you. First of all, you'll notice the article was a summary, for the general public, of primary scientific literature. (Did you check into that? No, I don't suppose so.)

— Russell

They blocked one enzyme (LexA) involved in one specialized DNA recombination pathway. Now let's see how Blast characterizes that finding: {N.B. Scientist's have just reported being able to "stop" mutations from occurring in bacteria

— Russell

Do you see how quickly you lose focus? Here. Let's recap. Your assertion was: It seems to me that ID "logic" would suggest that "mutations" and "selection" in, and of, themselves cannot add "information" to the system. Fact 1 - uncontested by anybody - Additional genetic material occasionally, just randomly, comes into being by various copying glitches. Fact 2 - uncontested by anybody - Genetic material is subject to molding by selection (what evophobes like to call "microevolution") Put Fact 1 and Fact 2 together: what do you think? Has new information been added to the system?

— Russell

Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from "microevolution" even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing "microevolution" from blending into "macroevolution" over billions of generations?

— Russell

Darwinists love tautolgies. What you assume to be true, you present as proof for what you assume . . . . You don't "know" any such thing as "microevolution" leads to "macroevolution."

— BftP

OK, now hold it right there. Where is the tautology? What am I assuming to be true? I'm asking you a question, which you seem intent on dodging: What mechanism limits the degree to which the microevolution, that even creationists acknowledge, can effect change over billions of generations?

— Russell

Salamanders have several times more DNA than humans do.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Where can we find "information for making clorophyll" anywhere in the human genome?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

And that has what, exactly, to do with whether or not life was designed . . . . ?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Saying "the phylogenetic difference between males and females" seems to mean you think males and females are different species from which sub-branches of different animals descend - especially since you label it "macroevolution" on Goldschmidt's behalf.

— SEF

Well, then you are worng already. We share 99% of our genome with chimps. We share about 50% with bananas. We share even less with prokaryotes.

— RDLFlank

In response to your question, "What mechanism limits the degree to which the microevolution, that even creationists acknowledge, can effect change over billions of generations?", I reply; the "mechanism" appears to be Nature itself.

Species is already a variable enough concept without adding undefined levels of "sub" to it. I wouldn't call dogs speciated yet but they are well on the way to it. Whereas wolves are already counted as a separate species. The herring gull has not completely speciated because it's still in contact with neighbouring populations - but it behaves like 2 species in the UK where the ends of the ring meet.

Hybrid sterility is an insufficient condition (and not always testable, eg on fossils!). Donkeys are not the same species as horses. Yet despite "common knowledge" to the contrary, mules (the hybrid) are not always sterile. It's just that fertility is vanishingly low. Similarly camels and llamas turned out to still be close to their speciation event, as did lions and tigers. With things like yeasts and plants, variations and hybrids tend be much more different and count as separate species more easily than happens with mammals.

To see speciation, it helps if you have a life-form with rapid generations. That's why there have been more new species of bacteria (and viruses if you count those) than there have been mammals. Plus the prokaryotes are a larger group to start off with than just the mammal lineage out of the whole of the eukaryotes. It's fairly typical of a human to be dismissive of bacteria though - until they kill you. However, there's been a new species of mosquito too. Insect generation time is reasonably rapid.

We used to study bacteria, moulds and insects when looking for new traits and divisions to arise - both because there was more chance of seeing something happen in a reasonable amount of lab time and also because very few people object to you being mean to those life-forms. Humans are so speciesist. Anyhow, E.coli can reproduce every 15-20 minutes. That means up to 26-35 thousand generations per year. Humans tend to breed at about 20-25 years for the purposes of counting generations. In the approx 40,000 years since colonising Australia (the first time!), there have only been 1600 to 2000 generations. That's a lot less than a single bacterial year. Humans need 6 to 7 hundred thousand years to do what bacteria can do in 1 year.

Also, if your (or Behe's) "front-loading" crap were viable, we'd expect tos ee ever organism have roughly the same size genome (it all has the same "information", right?). We don't. As I already noted, salamanders have several times more DNA than humans do.

— RDLFlank

So you are of the opinion that chromosome doubling, transpositions, chromosomal fusions, broken chromosomes, or polyploidy are . . . somehow a problem for evolution and support for ID . . . . ? How, exactly. Evolutionary biologists have been discussing these things for thirty years now. Do try and keep up.

— RDLFlank

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

— RDLFlank

Yes, there's plenty reason for embarrassment if you would trouble yourself to read the title of the actual experiment

In all, the data indicate that the decreased evolution of resistance in the lexA mutant did not result from decreased persistence or the inability to grow upon acquisition of a gyr mutation, but rather from an inability to induce mutations.

These in vitro results fully recapitulate the in vivo mouse model studies and demonstrate that LexA cleavage-mediated derepression of one or more genes is essential for the efficient evolution of resistance.

Further evidence that the resistance-conferring mutations are induced is provided by the fact that deletion or mutation of several genes, including lexA, renders cells unable to evolve significant levels of resistance.

Did you miss this sentence in the article? "A few years ago, when he was first starting to think about this, Romesberg encountered a paper in a scientific journal that discussed certain genes that "make mutations," as he put it.

When these genes are deleted from cells, the cells lose their ability to mutate, even when subjected to massive amounts of ultraviolet light."

Or this one? "Halting evolution is exactly what Romesberg and his colleagues demonstrated in their latest PloS paper."

Isn't bacterial mutation one of the examples of "speciation" that is always bandied about when Darwinists want to "prove" RMNS really works?

So, if my Encyclopedia Brittanica is reprinted, and they have problems printing---copying errors per your analogy---you say I end up with "more" information---just randomly.

Where's the egg now?

If I am "intent on dodging" your question,

Shouldn't the fossil record give evidence of this kind of gradual change? Where are the missing links

The herring gull has not completely speciated because it's still in contact with neighbouring populations - but it behaves like 2 species in the UK where the ends of the ring meet.

— SEF

We observed the same in vitro pre-exposure mutation rate and spectrum for the lexA(S119A) strain as we did for the control strain (Table 3). However, the lexA(S119A) strain exhibited a post-exposure mutation rate that was approximately 100-fold lower than that observed for the ΔlacZ control strain (Table 3).

Quoting directly from the original articles entitled "inhibiting" mutation, etc. "In all, the data indicate that the decreased evolution of resistance in the lexA mutant did not result from decreased persistence or the inability to grow upon acquisition of a gyr mutation, but rather from an inability to induce mutations."

— Joseph O'Donnell

So in other words they are STILL able to evolve resistance but they are not as fast or anywhere near as efficient at doing so. This makes the target LexA considerably attractive for inhibiting because it will slow up their rate of mutation heavily. However, it does nothing to stop existing anitbiotic genes, such as genomic islands like MecA from Stapylococcus aureus. They, like any good scientists, have reported that the mechanism they have uncovered may be significant and reported the potential pathway. We now have a testable hypothesis, because you'll notice the experiment was performed using double kockout bacteria that didn't have LexA. The challenge we have now is to replicate the result using some mediator against LexA that inhibits it and see how things go.

— Joseph O'Donnell

You are aware that these mechanisms, to begin with, are there to repair double stranded DNA breaks that result from exposure to environmental pressures like UV correct? If you remove the mechanisms designed to prevent UV damage and then expose them to UV..

— Joseph O'Donnell

Blast, if you actually read the Cirz et al. article, it's quite clear that they did not really stop mutation.

— qetzal

Since everyone is reading the Cirz, et. al., article. Did you notice this:

"Thus, our results indicate that the mutations that confer resistance to ciprofoxacin and rifampicin are not simply the result of unavoidable errors accumulated during genome replication, but rather are induced via the derepression of genes whose protein products act to significantly increase mutation rates." (p.10, online version)

Yes, exactly, you'd expect them to mutate all the more since they're underprotected. But, oh, wait a minute, that's ONLY if we're dealing with "random mutations." So maybe we're not dealing with random mechanisms.

What is critical here is not that mutations can be completely stopped, but that the rate of mutation, and a certain type of mutational behavior, can be inhibited (that's sort of like stopped),

"The data suggest that the increase in mutation rate is caused by recombination pathways that are induced to repair antibiotic-mediated DNA damage. A mechanism consistent with our results is illustrated in Figure 3. Three recombinational repair pathways appear to be involved that are distinguished by the type of damage they repair and the type of mutation they induce."

— Cirz, et.al.

(that's sort of like stopped)

Would he like to retract that statement?

"The data suggest that the increase in mutation rate is caused by recombination pathways that are induced to repair antibiotic-mediated DNA damage. A mechanism consistent with our results is illustrated in Figure 3. Three recombinational repair pathways appear to be involved that are distinguished by the type of damage they repair and the type of mutation they induce."

— Cirz, et.al.

You've got your logic upside down. If they've "remove(d) the mechanisms designed to prevent UV damage and then expose them to UV . . . " . . . . . . . . Yes, exactly, you'd expect them to mutate all the more since they're underprotected. But, oh, wait a minute, that's ONLY if we're dealing with "random mutations." So maybe we're not dealing with random mechanisms.

—

So, according to you, mutations occur in order to repair damage to the organism. It's purposeful activity, in other words. And according to Romesberg, et. al., the organism even has a way of affecting the "rate" of mutations (viz. it controls the rate) when threatened.

—

Maybe the "classic paradigm" is wrong. In fact, doesn't what we see seem to act like a DESIGNED response to an outside danger?

Where can we find "information for making clorophyll" anywhere in the human genome?

Did you notice I was careful to specify lower versus higher "animals" in the first quote?

If you have any questions, read Goldschmidt's book.

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont' skip any steps. I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as "transpeciation" and "chromosomal changes". Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible. What does the designer do, precisely, in your view. What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does. Where can we see these mechanisms in action today. I've been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here's your chance. Right in front of the whole world. The floor is all yours.

Here's something to consider: "However, the genome size of many eukaryotes does not appear to be related to genetic complexity. For example, the genomes of salamanders and lilies contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans. This apparent paradox was resolved by the discovery that the genomes of most eukaryotic cells contain not only functional genes but also large amounts of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins. The difference in the sizes of the salamander and human genomes thus reflects larger amounts of non-coding DNA, rather than more genes, in the genome of the salamander." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.section . . . How many strikes does that make Lenny?

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

Lenny, please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that random mutation and natural selection is the mechanism that brings this about.

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont' skip any steps. I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as "transpeciation" and "chromosomal changes". Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible. What does the designer do, precisely, in your view. What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does. Where can we see these mechanisms in action today. I've been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here's your chance. Right in front of the whole world. The floor is all yours.

For three days now, I've been asking Blast to please please pretty please with sugar on it tell me what the scientific theory of ID is and how we can test it using the scientific method. For three days now I've gotten nothing back from him but arm-waving.

I can only think of three possible reaosns why Blast won't answer my simple question. Either:

(1) there IS NO scientific theory of ID, and IDers like Blast are simply lying to us when they claim there is, or

(2) there IS a scientific theory of ID, but Blast is too ignorant and uninformed to know what it is, or

(3) there IS a scientific theory of ID and Blast DOES know what it is, but for some unfathomable reason, he wants to keep it secret from everyone.

Blast, if you won't tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, would you at least tell me WHY you won't tell me? Is it reason number one, number two, or number three?

My money, of course, is on reason number one . . . . .

RDLFlank wrote: So you are of the opinion that chromosome doubling, transpositions, chromosomal fusions, broken chromosomes, or polyploidy are . . . somehow a problem for evolution and support for ID . . . . ? How, exactly. Evolutionary biologists have been discussing these things for thirty years now. Do try and keep up.

And Goldschmidt was discussing it within the context of "macroevolution" 35 years before that.

Like I say Lenny, read his book.

Lenny: Eat your heart out! Blast has maintained stony silence with respect to your question, while I GOT my answer! (i.e. the mechanism that prevents micro- from progressing to macro-evolution: "Nature!")

On another Blast related question though: I haven't actually read Goldschmidt, but, second-hand so to speak, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the "hopeful monster" idea - perhaps via Stephen Jay Gould. Please tell me, though, that Goldschmidt didn't endorse the front-loading idea that Blast ascribes to him.

Do you know what that means for a bacterium? It means *death*. These systems work by recognising where UV excision/repair systems have repaired bases that have formed thymine dimers (Two thymines that have become linked together). In simple terms, they then repair the break by the insertion of random base pairs during replication if it ended up getting missed (Hence why UV causes mutations). If you delete them out as the researches did, then UV is LETHAL because this system no longer functions, and when the chromosomes replicate there are large 'holes' in the DNA (double stranded DNA breaks) that cause replication systems to collapse and cell death.

— Joseph O'Donnell

Here, using an in vivo infection model, we show that interfering with LexA autoproteolysis renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to mutate and acquire resistance to ciprofloxacin.

Good God, now you've moved onto pure hillarity! First you claim it can be stopped, then when it's pointed out even your CITATION disagrees with your assertion you then change it into 'sort of like stopped'. Sort of? It is either STOPPED or it isn't. Which is it?

Understand how the system works first and before making silly statements. As you clearly don't understand how this system works, the rest of your post is irrelevant. Learn about UV excision repair systems and what DNA double stranded breaks are first before writing complete nonsense.

— Joseph O'Donnell

I'm just happy that Nelson, unlike his dishonest bretheren, has sort of admitted the truth: There is no theory of ID. IC and CSI have been halfassed notions, and are wrong.

For example, what if you design an experiment where you knock out the genes that "make mutations", and then test the ensuing bacteria under UV light.

If they die, then that's proof that it is the presence of the gene(s) that has "induced" the mutations, and not simply the damage done by the UV.

Again, your interpretation is wrong-headed.

Here is an actual quote from the article. Tell me how I should interpret it, please:

Those with the lexA inactivated didn't form any resistance whatsoever

hose with the lexA inactivated didn't form any resistance whatsoever,

In all, the data indicate that the decreased evolution of resistance in the lexA mutant did not result from decreased persistence or the inability to grow upon acquisition of a gyr mutation, but rather from an inability to induce mutations. These in vitro results fully recapitulate the in vivo mouse model studies and demonstrate that LexA cleavage-mediated derepression of one or more genes is essential for the efficient evolution of resistance. Further evidence that the resistance-conferring mutations are induced is provided by the fact that deletion or mutation of several genes, including lexA, renders cells unable to evolve significant levels of resistance.

I'll take it slow and easy so you can follow:

Lenny: Eat your heart out! Blast has maintained stony silence with respect to your question, while I GOT my answer! (i.e. the mechanism that prevents micro- from progressing to macro-evolution: "Nature!")

— Russell

(A) BftP:"For example, what if you design an experiment where you knock out the genes that "make mutations", and then test the ensuing bacteria under UV light."

(B)JoD: "Again, this is obviously going to lead to rampant thymine dimers and then double stranded DNA breaks. This will obviously lead to death."

(C)BftP: "If they die, then that's proof that it is the presence of the gene(s) that has "induced" the mutations, and not simply the damage done by the UV."

(D) JoD: "Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage. What about that are you not getting just yet?"

Joseph: If in (B) you say the absence of the genes "will obviously lead to death", then how can you say in (D) "Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage." In other words, how do "dead" bacteria evolve???

Now, let's turn it around: a "mutational" pathway is designed into the bacteria. When it is subjected to UV, this pathway is activated, higher mutation rates ensue, allowing the bacteria to make needed repairs. It now functions properly into the future.

The power of ID.

In regards to the article: there were in vivo and in vitro experiments conducted. You're quoting from the in vitro section. Here's what they said: "In dramatic contrast, no resistant mutants were isolated from mice infected with the lexA(S119A) strain. And in the abstract they clearly say: In this work, we show that preventing induction of the SOS response by interfering with the activity of the protease LexA renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to evolve resistance in vivo to ciprofloxacin or rifampicin, important quinolone and rifamycin antibiotics.

And the quote I've used already: Here, using an in vivo infection model, we show that interfering with LexA autoproteolysis renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to mutate and acquire resistance to ciprofloxacin.

They're using an "in vivo" infection model; not an "in vitro" one. The "in vitro" model is used to get at the actual mechanism of resistance formation:

Here's there quote:
"In order to further characterize the genetic requirements of these resistance-conferring mutations, we studied bacteria in vitro."

Regarding Table 3:

"We next examined the mutation spectrum of the gyrA gene in the resistant clones by sequencing a 1,000-nt region encompassing the quinolone resistance-determining region [33]. We found that the spectrum of the post-exposure mutations differed significantly from the pre-exposure mutations (Table 3).

BlastFromThePast:
1) If you think transpeciation has occurred, then why cite Huxley saying that the fact that it had not been observed was a problem for Darwinism? I naturally deduced you thought transpeciation is not possible.

Remember Huxley were up against the idea that species are immutable forms, which fails if transpeciation occurs.

2) Darwin did not know about genes. Therefore his idea will not be disproved if the Modern Synthesis's theory on the making of new species turns out to be wrong.

3) Regarding the Modern Synthesis, you still have not explained why it cannot produce new species. The existence of a mechanism that inhibits mutation is a logically necessary but not logically sufficient condition to prove that the Modern Synthesis is wrong on this point. To keep to your analogy, to stop someone from crossing the road it may be logically necessary for you to be there to stop him, but that does not mean you thereby stop everyone.

4) I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis's mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call "information".

Joseph: If in (B) you say the absence of the genes "will obviously lead to death", then how can you say in (D) "Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage." In other words, how do "dead" bacteria evolve???

Now, let's turn it around: a "mutational" pathway is designed into the bacteria. When it is subjected to UV, this pathway is activated

In regards to the article: there were in vivo and in vitro experiments conducted.

"In dramatic contrast, no resistant mutants were isolated from mice infected with the lexA(S119A) strain. And in the abstract they clearly say: In this work, we show that preventing induction of the SOS response by interfering with the activity of the protease LexA renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to evolve resistance in vivo to ciprofloxacin or rifampicin, important quinolone and rifamycin antibiotics.

In the presence of two antibiotics ciprofloxacin and the other being rifamycin, which inhibits protein synthesis, the bacteria are so unlikely to develop a mutation that it is effectively impossible.

Here, using an in vivo infection model, we show that interfering with LexA autoproteolysis renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to mutate and acquire resistance to ciprofloxacin.

They're using an "in vivo" infection model; not an "in vitro" one. The "in vitro" model is used to get at the actual mechanism of resistance formation:

Joseph: If in (B) you say the absence of the genes "will obviously lead to death", then how can you say in (D) "Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage." In other words, how do "dead" bacteria evolve???

Again, I've pointed out why this is above and noted they used TWO antibiotics, not jus one

Lenny: Eat your heart out! Blast has maintained stony silence with respect to your question, while I GOT my answer! (i.e. the mechanism that prevents micro- from progressing to macro-evolution: "Nature!")

On another Blast related question though: I haven't actually read Goldschmidt, but, second-hand so to speak, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the "hopeful monster" idea - perhaps via Stephen Jay Gould. Please tell me, though, that Goldschmidt didn't endorse the front-loading idea that Blast ascribes to him.

YOU are the one who wrote: Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can. *I* called your loudmouthed bluff by responding: Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont' skip any steps. I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as "transpeciation" and "chromosomal changes". Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible. What does the designer do, precisely, in your view. What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does. Where can we see these mechanisms in action today. I've been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here's your chance. Right in front of the whole world. The floor is all yours. Well, Blast, what's the problem here. YOU offered to tell em all about it; *I* took you up on your offer. Wassamatter, is your mouth just bigger than your balls? Any time you are ready to live up to your own words and "spell it out for me", I'm waiting.

The fossil record does not support the idea of slow, gradual, evolution (you seem to like Gould; well, consult him). The fossil record is a "record" of what Nature has actually produced. Nature hasn't actually produced slow, gradual evolution.

Now, here's one relevant quote, written in 1940:

BlastFromThePast: 1) If you think transpeciation has occurred, then why cite Huxley saying that the fact that it had not been observed was a problem for Darwinism? I naturally deduced you thought transpeciation is not possible. Remember Huxley were up against the idea that species are immutable forms, which fails if transpeciation occurs. 2) Darwin did not know about genes. Therefore his idea will not be disproved if the Modern Synthesis's theory on the making of new species turns out to be wrong. 3) Regarding the Modern Synthesis, you still have not explained why it cannot produce new species. The existence of a mechanism that inhibits mutation is a logically necessary but not logically sufficient condition to prove that the Modern Synthesis is wrong on this point. To keep to your analogy, to stop someone from crossing the road it may be logically necessary for you to be there to stop him, but that does not mean you thereby stop everyone. 4) I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis's mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call "information".

— PaulP

So, Modern Synthesis, or plain old Darwinism, it looks like nature changes quickly; in other words, "micromutation" (the essence of the MS) won't work, we need "macromutations."

Is BlastfromthePast really John Davison, minus the produce section?

He is the only one I know who doesn't realize that Goldschmidt's ideas were discredited; today he's known only for the phrase "hopeful monster."

Is BlastfromthePast really John Davison, minus the produce section?

(b) huge amounts of intermediate forms would have to evolve and then become extinct; yet the fossil record shows none of this;

— BlastfromthePast

Question 1: are there life forms now existing that did not exist in the past. If so then where did they come from? All I've read above suggests Blast does not not believe new forms can arise at all.

Question 2: "Darwin's theory fails on many counts: (a) species are not infinitely plastic". Where does wither Darwin's theory or the Modern Synthesis require infinite plasticity?

Question 3: How does your point 3 demonstrate why/how the Modern Synthesis cannot produce new species? What you have written explains why you hold your opinion but does not explain why the rest of us should agree with you.

My original point 4 was "I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis's mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call "information"."
I think you have joined together two different things and confused yourself. No attack on the Modern Synthesis proves ID right. In particular, even an intelligently designed life form could mutate in accordance with the Modern Synthesis.

Hey Blast:

YOU are the one who wrote:

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

*I* called your loudmouthed bluff by responding:

Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont' skip any steps.

I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as "transpeciation" and "chromosomal changes".

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

What does the designer do, precisely, in your view.

What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does.

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today.

I've been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here's your chance. Right in front of the whole world.

The floor is all yours.

Well, Blast, what's the problem here. YOU offered to tell em all about it; *I* took you up on your offer.

Wassamatter, is your mouth just bigger than your balls?

Any time you are ready to live up to your own words and "spell it out for me", I'm waiting.

Hello? Blast? Hello?? Are you still there, Blast? Hello?

Yep, that's what I thought . . . . . .

IDers are cowards, all.

Question 1: are there life forms now existing that did not exist in the past. If so then where did they come from? All I've read above suggests Blast does not not believe new forms can arise at all. Question 2: "Darwin's theory fails on many counts: (a) species are not infinitely plastic". Where does wither Darwin's theory or the Modern Synthesis require infinite plasticity? Question 3: How does your point 3 demonstrate why/how the Modern Synthesis cannot produce new species? What you have written explains why you hold your opinion but does not explain why the rest of us should agree with you. My original point 4 was "I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis's mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call "information"."

— PaulP

I think you have joined together two different things and confused yourself. No attack on the Modern Synthesis proves ID right. In particular, even an intelligently designed life form could mutate in accordance with the Modern Synthesis.

— PaulP

I'd like a simple clarification: is "Blast" saying that no transitional fossil sequences exist?

— Wayne

And, of course, let's admit, there's controversy over the few transitional sequences that are claimed.

Having no theory is better than continuing to rely on Darwin's. That's how I feel.

— Blast

Blast:

You have gone into great detail on your problems with the Modern Synthesis and mentioned that you think there is some merit in ID. You also accept "microevolution".

1) I am still asking if YOU think new life forms have arisen. If so how is this compatible with ID? If not then please explain the fossil record.

2) The V you refer to does not imply infinite plasticity. Darwin did not think a dog could give birth to a cat today.

3) Regardless of your problems with the Modern Synthesis, ID is intellectually a joke at this point. If you are so demanding of the Modern Synthesis, how can you not notice the problems with ID? What have you have posted here that gives support to ID?

No, I'm saying that according to Darwin we ought to see "lots" of transitional fossil sequences.

I've looked up and down, consulted the acclaimed experts,

No, I'm saying that according to Darwin we ought to see "lots" of transitional fossil sequences. (And, of course, let's admit, there's controversy over the few transitional sequences that are claimed.)

— Blast

2.) Remember the famous "diagram" in the Origins? Well, it's V-shaped, with the top "gap" the product of diversification (=variability). Extend the V's out----where, and how, does it end? Darwin never gives an explanation.

.) Well, I disagree. I don't think that you can simply say you have "ID blocks" and the the MS mechanism comes along and does the rest---they're really apples and oranges. The MS simply doesn't present any mechanism powerful enough to overcome the conserving nature of genetics and cell architecture. It's like trying to climb up a down-going escalator on crutches, when what you need is "flubber". (I hope you watch Disney films!)

— Blast

Darwin's view of Puncutated Equilibrium:
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.153

He didn't believe the "phyletic gradualism" that is sometimes attrirbute to him.

Henry

It seems that Blast's view of the genome is somewhat simplistic

That you may not be able to find any explanations you like, does not mean that science has not addressed them. My problem with ID is that based on such ignorance, it insists on accepting the default explanation of design.

— PvM

=It seems that Blast's view of the genome is somewhat simplistic, calling it conserving when in fact, the genome seems to be excellently geared towards evolvability.

— PvM

1) I am still asking if YOU think new life forms have arisen. If so how is this compatible with ID? If not then please explain the fossil record. 2) The V you refer to does not imply infinite plasticity. Darwin did not think a dog could give birth to a cat today. 3) Regardless of your problems with the Modern Synthesis, ID is intellectually a joke at this point. If you are so demanding of the Modern Synthesis, how can you not notice the problems with ID? What have you have posted here that gives support to ID?

— PaulP

My problem with Darwinism is that even when confronted with a lack of transitional fossil organisms, it remains undeterred.

— Blast

Hardy-Weinberg statistics are fairly conservative, I would think.

— Blast

Ah, but, indeed, Darwin did think that. What makes you think he wouldn't?

Are we being trolled?

Dembski's math makes more sense to me than Fisher's.

My problem with Darwinism is that even when confronted with a lack of transitional fossil organisms, it remains undeterred.

Whether I think life forms have arisen or not is entirely academic---becuase they have. Do I think that the fact that new life-forms have arisen invalidates ID---obviously not. What is the actual mechanism? That remains to be discovered.

So Darwin never addressed the issue? Is that Blast's argument? And yet he makes the claim that Darwin's theory requires infinite plasticity. Is this your final answer?

— PvM

Evan Eichler, associate professor of genomic sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, and colleagues looked at duplicated DNA sequences on a specific section of chromosome 2, to compare them with ape genomes and Old World monkey genomes. They expected to find that duplications had occurred gradually over the last few million years. Instead, they found that the big duplications had occurred in a short period of time, relatively speaking, after which only smaller rearrangements occurred. An analysis of the degree of chromosomal decay for this section showed that the major duplications occurred in the narrow window of evolutionary time between 20 million and 10 million years ago, after human ancestors had split from Old World monkeys, but before the divergence of humans and great apes. "It is unclear why [these duplication] events occurred so frequently during this period of human and great ape evolutionary history. It is also unclear as to why they suddenly cease, at least in this region of chromosome 2," Eichler says. Other regions may show different temporal biases. The important implication here is that episodic bursts of activity challenge the concept of gradual clock-like changes during the course of genome evolution," he says. "Since duplications are important in the birth of new genes and large-scale chromosomal rearrangements, it may follow that these processes may have gone through similar episodes of activity followed by quiescence." It is unknown what effect the sudden duplication activity may have had on chromosome 2. Eichler theorises that it may have resulted in genes for increased brain size or pathogen evasion. "If specific regions of chromosomes can have very punctuated events, it means our models based on gradual evolution are probably wrong," he says.

Dembski's math makes more sense to me than Fisher's.

Too bad it doesn't make sense to David Wolpert.

— steve

Here's a little something from the latest New Scientist:

"If specific regions of chromosomes can have very punctuated events, it means our models based on gradual evolution are probably wrong," he says.

Let me be more precise: Darwin says that he can envision species giving rise to genera, genera to families, families to orders, and (in the first edition)orders to classes. Why does he stop at classes? Why not continue the progression from classes to phyla and from phyla to kingdoms? Why does he stop at the class level? What is the mechanism for stopping?

The Linnaean taxonomy is a formal system for classifying and naming living things based on a simple hierarchical structure, from most general to most similar The basic hierarchy as formulated by Linneus, is as follows:

Imperium ("Empire") - the phenomenal world

Regnum ("Kingdom") - the three great divisions of nature at the time - animal, vegetable, and mineral

Classis ("Class") - subdivisions of the above, in the animal kingdom six were recognized (mammals, birds, amphibians, fish, insects, and worms)

Ordo ("Order") - further subdivision of the above - the class Mammalia has eight

Genus - further subdivisions of the order - in the mammalian order Primates there are four. e.g. Homo

Species - subdivisions of genus, e.g. Homo sapiens.

Varietas ("Variety") - species variant, e.g. Homo sapiens europaeus.

As time progressed changes were made. The rank of Empire is obviously superfluous, while Variety came to be used only by gardeners, insect collectors, etc. The use of Latin was replaced by the vernacular, although it is still retained in the actual generic and specific names. And two new ranks were erected - Phylum (or Division in the case of Plants) was added between Kingdom and Class, and Family between Order and Genus, giving seven hierarchical ranks in all. So, in this nested system of rankings, kingdoms are made up of phyla, phyla of classes, classes of orders, and so on; each higher rank including at least one and usually more subordinate members. This seven-layered hierarchy is the version still used today Kingdom Phylum,Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

I request the reader to turn to the diagram illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups.

— Darwin

Our research specifically addresses a new paradigm that has emerged in the past few years in which particular regions of the human genome have been shown active in the acquisition, duplication and dispersal of large gene-containing genomic segments. We hypothesize that these 'jumping genomic segments' are part of an ongoing evolutionary process that results in a novel form of large-scale variation in human genomic DNA and contributes rapidly to primate gene evolution.

A two-step model for the origin and dispersal of recently duplicated segments in the human genome. Genomic segments of various lengths from different regions of the genome were duplicated to an ancestral pericentromeric region followed by the dispersal of a mosaic genomic segment to multiple pericentromeric regions.

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

Plus "Domain" as the rank of eukaryotes or prokaryotes.