b. July 15, 1928
d. December 30, 2012
“Thus, we regard as rather regrettable the conventional concatenation of Darwin’s name with evolution, because there are other modalities that must be entertained and which we regard as mandatory during the course of evolutionary time.”
“I have concerns about scientists thinking that they’re God when it comes to biology.”
“A future biology cannot be built within the conceptual superstructures of the past. The old superstructure has to be replaced by a new one before the holistic problems of biology can emerge as biology’s new mainstream.”
“I do not like people saying that atheism is based on science, because it’s not. It’s an alien invasion of science.”
- Carl Woese
Suzan Mazur: Why do you think NAI chose to give you and your team $ 8M, since you are known as a challenger of Darwinian dogma? Is NASA finally acknowledging the Darwin approach is wrong?
Carl Woese: I would hope so because that’s very clear from our NASA Astrobiology Institute grant application.
Suzan Mazur: You’ve described the “disconnect between Darwinists, who had taken over evolution, and microbiologists, who had no use for Darwinian natural selection.” Do you have anything to say about the recent decision of Huffington Post to block publication of microbiologist James Shapiro’s response to Darwinist Jerry Coyne following Coyne’s attack on Shapiro’s thinking about a reduced role for natural selection in evolution?
Carl Woese: I think that’s immoral. Science must be free to examine what it sees. If you’re going to say everyone must follow the Darwinian line, that’s not free science.
Carl Woese, evolution skeptic.
Please do. Since your only contribution around here is comic relief another clown nose to wear would provide some variety.
Please, guys. Remember the rules!
Fine Billy, keep beating your strawman. Yeah, yeah, I know you have no idea what that means
We do but there comes a time when someone keeps posting the same nonsense he’s been corrected on 100x to call him out for his moronic trolling. Billy boy has reached that time.
colewd,
Axe? Pull-the-legs-off-a-spider-and-show-it-ceases-to-function Axe? Don’t make me laugh. Hunt’s was a blog post, and he did NOT come to the conclusion that evolution was troubled by this issue. Nor did Dryden, Thompson and White, which is another published paper that does not support your conclusions. In fact, so far all I see is Axe, Axe, and Axe. That’s it.
You have got a fucking nerve. I have explained in great detail ‘why I don’t like it’: because of the real mechanisms of biology, the extensive evidence that motifs are copied, not generated afresh, and the fact that there is no mechanism that does what you seem to imagine happening – random generation of extensive sequence, or the destructive remodelling of proteins to make every new one.
In the end a genome, if generated completely randomly, would represent 1 point in a n^v space. Are genomes generated completely randomly? No, of course they aren’t. Is there only one viable genome in the space? Again, of course not. Are acids or bases unsubstitutable? Of course not. So why the incessant gibbering as if those things were true?
I have already remarked there is no formal rule against PRATT comments and perhaps there should be. But until then, there is the Noyau thread.
Allan Miller,
First let me apologize for the evolutionist comment.
I think we may have common ground here. Randomly would be 1 point in n^v space. As 1 point approaches n^v then the randomness of the space is reduced. Where n^v is the size of the space and 1 to n^v is the possible solutions in that space. I think this is the ratio that Tom English uses.
OK, try this:
As I have been telling you for years now, the only possible way to make any scientific determination as to the how, when, where, and by who is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. Our current knowledge of Stonehenge came after many decades of study and uncovering new evidence. And we still can’t say who beyond some group of humans who lived there, when keeps changing, and how is still being uncovered.
That said “assuming design” the more important questions would be how exactly does it work seeing it isn’t reducible to physics and chemistry; how can we fix and maintain; and what is the purpose- if we are here by design then there is a purpose
They have better things to do and are not beholden to your agenda.
.As I have been telling you for years now, the only possible way to make any scientific determination as to the how, when, where, and by who is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
Anything else?
Adapa,
If what I am saying is nonsense then make an argument as Allan is doing.
If my argument is weak then you should be able to easily neutralize it.
If you get too pissed of because I am upsetting your world view then put me on ignore
Many people already have. You ignored everything that was explained to you.
We have. You’re too dishonest to admit it and instead keep trolling.
Pointing out your willful ignorance and dishonesty serves a purpose.
We’ve done that. Repeatedly. Your inability to understand is the problem, for example :
This is beyond stupid. There’s no hope for you, you’ll never get it. I give up
dazz,
Why do you think this is stupid?
Adapa,
Honestly dude i have never seen you make a coherent argument. I am looking forward to one in the future.
Adapa,
Do you realize that I have never made this claim. Do you have reading comprehension problems.
What does “1 point approaches n^v” or “randomness of the space” even mean?
What you have to ask yourself is, how do these sequences evolve?
Describe a simple process of RN+NS, show us you understand evolution
Moved some posts to guano.
And yet Alan will claim, with a straight face (actually we all know he is smirking) that Dazz and Adapa follow the rules.
While I think this site would be more readable with a bit less sniping, I also realize that there are contributors who do little else, and we can deal with it.
Flint,
Everyone has their idea about what is little else.
When moderators start off with the preconceived position that some posters are good and some posters are bad (and it just so happens that those atheist moderators only think it is the non-atheists who are bad) there is a problem.
When moderators say, its ok for someone to insult, because they prefaced it with “I feel…” and then when that exact same preface is used again, they said, “Oh, you can’t say that” there is a problem.
When moderators say it is spamming to conclude that there is no theory of evolution, there is a problem.
When a site is fully supportive of guerilla skepticism, and uses guerilla skepticism to treat some posters differently than others, there is a problem.
When moderators try to pretend that they never see the offending posts OVERWHELMINGLY from one side only, There is a problem!
The odds of such a coin being a fair coin are astronomically against it being a fair coin.
dazz,
Dazz, What are doing criticizing it if you don’t know what it means? Just ask for clarification. It means if there is function in only one sequence then the rest of the sequences don’t function and are defined as random. When most of the sequences function then they are not random but functional.
The Lenski experiment showed how random mutations could enable an adaption in e coli bacteria in a citrate environment by allowing an enzyme that could break down citrate to be transcribed in an aerobic environment. The enzyme was previously functional in a non aerobic environment. I think around 4 mutations were involved in this adaption.
I think this is Jetsons level understanding 🙂
Your genome and mine are different. If only one sequence is functional, which one of the 7 billion humans is functional and why are the rest alive?
Yes, Bill, this is incredibly stupid and doesn’t look anything like evolution.
And what’s with that weird functionality – randomness dichotomy?
It doesn’t make any sense
I admit I am not as familiar with this site as you are. I’m not a frequent visitor. If what you say is true, then that sort of favoritism surely undermines the usefulness of this site, as it does others where there is an Official Truth and favorable treatment for those who spout it.
I’ve also noticed that, by and large, theism is held in low regard by most people here. So I can understand that saying there’s no theory of evolution here is much like saying there are no gods over at UD – even though nominally neither site is at all religious!
I often puzzle at the equation of anti-science and pro-gods. So if someone argues, more or less forcefully, for the validity of some completely natural explanation for some aspect of reality, that person is ipso facto a religious atheist, whereas conversely those who consistently reject (or deliberately mangle) the science tend to emphasize the value of their religious beliefs. I see there is a close connection here, but I don’t quite understand why it should be.
I don’t like the practice of sniping, of discussions degenerating into mutual insults and staying there, but I think I can understand the frustration from both sides at the failure of the other to adopt and embrace their own obviously superior values and beliefs.
I’d definitely value your own thumbnail description of what you think the theory of evolution says, without your usual bitter sarcasm. I confess I have NEVER seen ANYONE who both (1) rejects that theory; and (2) properly represents what that theory is. I have by now seen hundreds if not thousands of rejections of caricatures no evolutionary biologist would credit. I’d reject those caricatures myself. Nonetheless, I’m not a biologist and must regard myself as far too ignorant of all of the details to truly understand the theory.
I read this half a dozen times, pondered it for a while, and came up empty. There is no intrinsic reason why random changes cannot produce functionality. Nor is there any intrinsic reasons why functional mutations didn’t occur at random.
Both random and functional (which are by no means mutually exclusive) are not definitions, they are observations.
Yeah it’s like when someone says “mutations are always harmful” i think, okay, you don’t have any understanding of what a mutation is.
dazz,
I now understand. You took this out of context. This was not a discussion about genomes. It was about functional space inside a single gene and the amount of functional sequences that are there with changes in AA arrangements.
Flint,
Yes. I defined without function as random and created confusion.
Flint,
Well, I think the point is that, with all of the discoveries of biological systems which have their own seemingly inherent abilities to correct themselves, and alter themselves according to their needed survival, there no longer really is an evolutionary explanation for how this came to be. I mean, just look at what Larry Moran is saying. He is saying that virtually ALL of the differences between chimps and men is NOT because of some survival benefit that intelligence or other physical abilities allowed, but rather he is saying it is derived from purely random, neutral accidents that just so happen to be predominant at some time (at least that’s what it sounds like he is saying, as incredible as this is to imagine).
Without a coherent explanation for how complex, highly functional novel traits came to be, I don’t see how anyone can claim there is actually a theory of evolution. As far as I am concerned, in such a case, the ONLY real theory of evolution is that it was DESIGNED to be complex and useful. Nothing else makes any sense.
It doesn’t make any difference. Take any gene. Is there a single functional sequence for it? Does every human, every chimp, every fruit fly have the same sequence as the rest of members of their species in that gene?
No.
Try reading it again for comprehension and you’ll see why your sentence is a non-sequitur.
You have yet to demonstrate even a high school level of understanding of biology and biochemistry. You should leave the Royal Society proceedings alone until you’re ready for them.
No. You have yet to argue against it, though. You just keep repeating the same strawmen.
Please discuss moderation issues in the, admittedly confusingly named, Moderation Issues thread.
Ahem
Were you lying when you said that? Or maybe someone hijacked your account.
Science has been studying genomes for over half a century. Why don’t the IDiots have anything to show for it? You don’t even have a methodology which will tell you how, when, where, and by who.
What better things do IDiot researchers have to do than try and understand the how, when, where, and by who of the “design”? Beg for donations from the gullible? Write popular press books full of misrepresentations and lies to sway ignorant laymen?
Science does have a well supported coherent explanation for how complex, highly functional novel traits came to be. You’ve had it explained any number of times. Your inability to understand scientific concepts doesn’t make the science mysteriously disappear.
Maybe our ideas of what a theory is are different. My notion is, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the mechanisms by which populations change from one generation to the next. If these changes are rarely beneficial, why does that mean there’s no theory? If beneficial changes rarely reach fixation within a population, that’s pretty interesting but again, why does that mean no theory? If the current consensus is that Darwin identified only one of the mechanisms, and then not one of the more important mechanisms, the theory changes and extends. Why is that a problem?
But there IS a coherent explanation of how these traits come to be. They result from a fascinatingly disparate array of mechanisms, with selection being involved but not necessarily well focused. After all, beyond some degree of deleterious, organisms really do not survive to breed. Yes, the notion that every last minor feature of every organism was selected for some purpose is long gone.
It seems that the PROCESS of evolution, like life itself, is astoundingly multifaceted and complex. What fascinates me is that beyond some point, complexity defies design processes as we know them. So, interestingly enough, it’s exactly what makes you see design that makes me see that design couldn’t be involved. You think ONLY design could produce what I think necessarily lies beyond the limits of any rational design process.
” Your inability to understand scientific concepts doesn’t make the science mysteriously disappear.”
half a dozen creationists blogging “I don’t believe you!” are definitely going to make 10,000 biologists stop what they’re doing, throw away their data, turn the lights off, and go home.
any day now.
colewd,
Apology accepted, thanks!
Except it didn’t show that. As far as anyone knows the change was in response to an environmental cue, especially given that Dr Minnich observed the same adaptation in two weeks
And your position still has nothing top show for it. And I listed the more important questions to answer. Do you not read the comments you respond to?
I see FrankenJoe avoids the questions once again. That’s OK, nothing can show the impotence and ineptitude of the ID movement like Joe’s cowardly dodges. Once you get past “it looks designed to me!!” they have nothing. No testable hypotheses, no lines of inquiry, no plans for research, NOTHING.
Regarding the n^v “problem” I think it is worth saying one more time that the size of the sequence space (=n^v) is completely and utterly irrelevant to any argument about anything. Well, except perhaps the idea that if you make v random* independent* draws amongst n equiprobable* options, then there are n^v equiprobable outcomes. Okaaay, that might be relevant for trying to guess a random password, but nothing else operates that way. (Not even phone numbers!)
*IMO of these three requirements, it is independence that IDists always fail to appreciate.
For arguments about sequence space, what matters is the density of sequences with some minimally advantageous effect, and how traversable the space is. Does anyone actually think that adding three amino acids to the C-terminus of a protein somehow makes finding a protein with that functionality 8,000 times more difficult? Really?
What if Glutamine wasn’t part of the genetic code? Would that somehow make evolving a 200aa protein 28,500 times easier? It’s beyond goofy.
There’s been an interesting conversation re ‘genes required for multicellularity’…
colewd December 30, 2016 at 8:37 pm
Allan Miller:
colewd December 30, 2016 at 11:40 pm
Colewd expresses incredulity that Hox genes, cell adhesion genes, and cell cycle control genes [!!] (amongst others) are present in unicellular organisms.
DNA_Jock replies(in part)
colewd December 31, 2016 at 4:37 am
Yes, you floated 5% as a question, but you then proceeded in an attempt to defend that number…
First, if I understand your math here, you estimate that mammals have four times as many genes as yeast, and therefore (by counting genes) you are saying that if there’s only 25% “duplication” [overlap?] between yeast and mammal genes, then only about 5% (6.25%) of the mammalian genes can be present in yeast. In your desperation to get the number down near 5%, you have made a rather funny claim: if there’s only 25% “duplication”, then 75%, that’s three-quarters, of yeast genes are NOT found in mammals. That’s hilarious.
Not to worry, though; your gene-counting technique is useless, thanks to the fact that the numero uno method of “acquiring” extra genes is duplication and divergence. By way of example, humans have five “growth hormone” genes lined up in tandem on 17q. They have related, but different, functions. Or to use one of your examples, actin: humans have lots of versions of the actin gene, dispersed all over the place, fulfilling related, but different, roles.
The question “How many new genes are required for X?” is a well-known set-up line for a massive equivocation over the meaning of “new”. If a somatotropin gene gets duplicated, then diverges, does that count as zero, one or two “new” genes? Does it count if two unrelated genes are cobbled together to create a new chimera? Or does the DNA sequence have to be generated from (almost) random DNA fragments to be called “new”? Creationists / IDists love to posit the ‘requirement’ for lots of ‘new’ genes, and then studiously ignore the first two mechanisms. It gets old, eventually.
Although you mention Cambrian animals, it’s rather clear that your focus is pretty much on vertebrates, in particular terrestrial vertebrates. (“What good is a heart without lungs?” “Ask a fish” ROFL)
If you are going to view mammals, yeah primates, yeah HUMANS as somehow the acme of evolution – it’s finest achievement, its goal — then you have made a rather large mistake about evolution, motivated, I suspect, by hubris.
Nematodes rock! 🙂
DNA_Jock,
When an argument is devastating to your case try to disqualify it out of hand.
Smart tactic.
This is the mathematical equation that defines the sequential space of telephone numbers, the english language, computer passwords and two of the most critical mechanisms in modern biology DNA translation and alternative splicing.
How did a human design concept end up in biology?
Lawn sprinklers water the grass.
Rainclouds water the grass.
How did a human design concept end up in meteorology?
No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the average ID-Creationist.
But it’s a straw man. As many have tried explaining, it matters not what the theoretical extent of “search space” is. What matters is the density of, say, functional proteins happens to be in the local area. I suppose people have already pointed you to Jack Szostak’s work showing functionality in random sequences.
Those random sequences didn’t assemble themselves
The reason for dismissing the size of the sequence space has been explained to you repeatedly: No evolutionary mechanisms search the whole sequence space, they only explore near sequences with demonstrated capabilities.
Until you understand this, you are not capable of participating in a discussion of the topic. Try re-reading Arrival of the Fittest slowly and make a genuine attempt to learn.
Oh brilliant!
colewd asks how did a mathematical concept (i.e. sequence space) end up in DNA translation?
Answer: humans put it there.
It’s a map|territory mistake.
Watch:
How did contours end up on hills?
The reason for dismissing the size of the sequence space has been explained to you repeatedly:No evolutionary mechanisms search the whole sequence space, they only explore near sequences with demonstrated capabilities.
Until you understand this, you are not capable of participating in a discussion of the topic.Try re-reading Arrival of the Fittest slowly and make a genuine attempt to learn.
I read that book. It doesn’t say what Patrick thinks it says. It starts with existing proteins
Well designed sequences don’t help you, Alan