|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Genetic Redundancy: The Ultimate Evidence of the Design of Life
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 19. September 2006 16:23
Genetic Redundancy: The Ultimate Evidence of the Design of Life
by Peter Borger
Abstract: The fundamental premise of the intelligent design concept is that biological systems are the result of intelligent design. Question is however, how the design of such systems can be unequivocally recognized. It has been argued that the irreducible complexity of biological systems can only be explained invoking intelligence and as such it is often presented as evidence of intelligent design. The Darwinians interpretation of irreducible complex systems and their apparent design is that they are the ultimate accumulated result of the natural selection of slightly advantageous traits. Straightforward unambiguous evidence for the design of biological systems should come from observed biological systems that cannot be the result of natural selection. If we would find a biological system to exist for which we must assume neutral selection, then we would not only have the evidence for intelligent design, but the system would also qualify as a falsifier of Darwinian Theory. Over the past two decades scientists have observed the peculiar biological phenomenon of genetic redundancy, which pertains to genes or genetic systems that seem to have no obvious function. Indeed, genetic redundancy is now defined as the situation in which the disruption of a gene is selective neutral. Genetic redundancy is the resultant of cooperating scale free genetic networks that provide robustness to organisms. One of the biggest surprises of modern biology genetic redundancy terminates Darwin’s era of natural selection.
To read the entire paper, please click here.
[ 19. September 2006, 16:25: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 06. November 2006 17:16
Ok I showed this paper to a biology teacher. He had the following to say.
quote:
Borger is mis-representing "robustness" by using "redundancy."
A redundant system is one with separate, independent mechanisms for performing the same task. I.e. a hospital with back-up Diesel generators if the power-grid goes down.
A robust system is one which works anyway, even if severely damaged. I.e., some years ago, an Israeli F-15 collided with an IAF A-4 diuring a training exercise. The A-4 pilot had to punch out, but the F-15 pilot merely thought he had lost his hydraulic system. Instead he had lost an entire wing. The bird was robust, the shape of the fuselage was such that he had adequate lift.
The immune system, for example, is robust; it is not redundant. It has multiple components - complement, humoral immunity, cell-based immunity, and so forth - but they are not independent in the sense of a back-up generator.
If we would find a biological system to exist for which we must assume neutral selection, then we would not only have the evidence for intelligent design, but the system would also qualify as a falsifier of Darwinian Theory.
I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what that might entail. I have in mind something analogous to membrane ion pumps, such as the Na+/K+ pump, which works against diffusion gradients.
Any commnet Peter?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. November 2006 18:55
Neither natural selection, allelic mutation nor sexual reproduction ever had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. Their sole purpose now as in the past was to preserve the staus quo. As such they were and still are anti-evolutionary. All the selection in the world can do no more than produce intraspecific varieties.
All creative evolution resulted from the conrolled derepression of endogenous predetermined potentialities which had been front loaded from very early on in the evolutionary sequence. The number of original creations and front-loadings is unknown but one thing is certain. Chance played no role in any of it just as it plays no role in the release of potentiality during the differentiation of the individual from the egg. Both ontogeny and phylogeny proceed driven entirely from within with no role for the environment beyond that of providing a stimulus.
Furthermore, phylogeny is no longer in progress. All we see now is extinction, the phylogenetic equivalent of the death of the individual.
The Darwinian model is nothing more than the product of an imagination which for congenital reasons is unable to recognize that there was never a role for chance in any aspect of the living world. Everything we are now learning from moleculat biology and chromosome physiology pleads for a predetermined evolution, an evolution just as predetermined as is the differentiation of the individual from a single cell, the egg.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg. Nomogenesis, page 134
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 06. November 2006 21:10
quote:
A redundant system is one with separate, independent mechanisms for performing the same task. I.e. a hospital with back-up Diesel generators if the power-grid goes down.
A robust system is one which works anyway, even if severely damaged. I.e., some years ago, an Israeli F-15 collided with an IAF A-4 diuring a training exercise. The A-4 pilot had to punch out, but the F-15 pilot merely thought he had lost his hydraulic system. Instead he had lost an entire wing. The bird was robust, the shape of the fuselage was such that he had adequate lift.
LOL! Did you show the paper to a biologist or an engineer? Did it ever occur to your engineer/biologist that redundancy is a method of making something robust? Frankly, I don't see how nit picking over the definition of redundant and robust makes any difference to the validity of the paper.
[ 06. November 2006, 21:11: Message edited by: Jehu ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 12. November 2006 23:33
adhitthana
Did that person seriously read Peter's article or just skim it? Peter's use of redundant of multiple copies of the the same thing seems accurate. Similarly his descriptions of robust.
Definition Redundant: Google
Definition Robust: Google
Recommend finding someone to seriously read and evaluate the paper. Peter seems to be laying out show stopper consequences for Darwinism.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. November 2006 06:26
St George Jackson Mivart presented the first "show stopper for Darwinism" in 1871 when he asked the question "how can natural selection be involved with a structure that has not yet appeared?" The Darwinian farce has been stopped numerous times since by a number of real scientists. It persists only because its proponents are homozygous, chance-worshipping, atheist mystics. Here are some of them: Stephen J. Gould, Ernst Mayr, William Provine and, last but not least by any means, the most rabid atheist of all, Richard Dawkins. Not one of these pontificating wordsmiths ever did an experiment in his life or dirtied his dainty little fingers at a paleontological site or in the field anywhere. All four spent the better part of their lives glued to their endowed chairs at some of our most distinguished institutions, filling meter after meter of useless shelf space with pure science fiction based on a faulty original assumption. That assumption, that evolution had an exogenous identifiable cause, is DEAD WRONG. Like ontogeny still does, phylogeny always proceeded entirely from within those organisms which were preprogrammed to produce offspring dramatically different from themselves. Such organisms apparently are no longer extant.
There is NOTHING in the Darwinian model that ever had anything whatsoever to do with creative, progessive evolution, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Here is a partial list of such factors.
Selection, natural or artificial.
Sexual reproduction.
Mendelian inheritance.
Allelic mutation.
Population genetics.
In other words, the Darwinian paradigm is a DELUSION as the title of my recent essay proclaims.
"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. November 2006 04:26
To adhittanta:
Your teacher says: quote:
Borger is mis-representing "robustness" by using "redundancy."
Your teacher apparently does not follow the scientific literature on the topic. I am not the one who is misrepresenting robustness and redundancy. The literature I cited is clear about it: genetic redundancy provides an organism the robustness to withstand mutations. And there is no association with gene duplications and redundnat genes do not mutate faster than essential genes. Your teacher should start by seriously reading my references.
quote:
A redundant system is one with separate, independent mechanisms for performing the same task. I.e. a hospital with back-up Diesel generators if the power-grid goes down.
Yep, that is what my article was about. Biologicalgenetic redundancy, back up systems, if you like.
quote:
A robust system is one which works anyway, even if severely damaged. I.e., some years ago, an Israeli F-15 collided with an IAF A-4 diuring a training exercise. The A-4 pilot had to punch out, but the F-15 pilot merely thought he had lost his hydraulic system. Instead he had lost an entire wing. The bird was robust, the shape of the fuselage was such that he had adequate lift.
Yep, and the robustness we see in biological systems is due to redundant, back up systems. Genetic redundancy! Should one system break down, another takes over. This is biology as we currently understand it. Unconceivable for the Darwinians, becasue they have to explain such redundant systems with random mutations and selection. That would imply neutral selection and overturns the Darwinian fable.
quote:
The immune system, for example, is robust; it is not redundant. It has multiple components - complement, humoral immunity, cell-based immunity, and so forth - but they are not independent in the sense of a back-up generator.
The immunesystem is not only robust, but parts of it are also redundant. This is even mentioned in nmy paper (the no-phenotype human CCR5 knockouts). If he had read my paper he would have known that the CCR5 molecule is part of the immune system.
quote:
"If we would find a biological system to exist for which we must assume neutral selection, then we would not only have the evidence for intelligent design, but the system would also qualify as a falsifier of Darwinian Theory."
I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what that might entail. I have in mind something analogous to membrane ion pumps, such as the Na+/K+ pump, which works against diffusion gradients.
Falsifiers of Darwin are usually not recognized as such by the Darwinians. Neutral selection is a paradox and falsified Darwinism. I don't see how the Na+/K+ pumps could prevent that.
Best wishes,
Peter Borger
[ 15. November 2006, 04:29: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 15. November 2006 16:23
Peter Borger.
I have read your article and also a book from Barabasi who you cited. It seems to be new idea that processess inside cells are somehow similar to processes in world web and you cited Barabasi that even 80% of non-fuctioning routers does not affect the function of internet. Yet Brabasi claims that web has non-scaled topology and properties and so have cells processess. It means anyway that there are always few centers present that hitting on them simultaneously will destroy all web. The same rules should be valid for airports - you can destroy randomly many airports without any effect, but when you destroy only few main airports fly-transport will collapse.
If I underestand correctly also living organism are build in this way - if you hit or damage many parts of body organism would survive, but when you hit "centrums" (heart) organism will die.
It is somehow interesting that Behe antidarwinistic arguments constist on irreducible complexity and your view seems to be opposite one - any parts could be dismantled without damaging vital cell functions.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 17. November 2006 23:46
This raises the question:
How do you describe robust systems that contain redundant sets of irreducibly complex systems?
How do you convincingly prove that they are irreducibly complex?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. November 2006 01:48
There is no evidence that any of the following structures ever had simpler predecessors.
1. centriole.
2. centromere.
3. telomere.
4. mitochondrion.
5. bacterial flagellum.
6. eukaryotic flagellum.
7. cell membrane.
8. ribosome.
9. nuclear membrane.
10. microtubules.
etc, etc.
Every intracellular organelle appeared instantly and was not preceded by simpler versions. Some are homologous. Irreducible complexity is the rule, not the exception. For most organelles intermediates are inconceivable, just as intermediates are inconceivable for true species and all the higher taxonomic categories. Only a homozygous, atheist, chance-worshipping (Darwinian) mentality could imagine otherwise. In physiology it is known as "The All Or None Law."
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links. They never existed."
Otto Schindewolf.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 18. November 2006 23:59
I've been lurking here for quite some time and have refrained from posting because my qualifications and knowledge are dwarfed by pretty much everyone else's here.
Let me introduce myself. My name is Dan Smith and I work as an electronics CNC tech at a large machine shop. I am no scientist, but I am constantly amazed at how much the machinery I work on reminds me of the biological machinery of life.
If I could inject a point here:
Prof. Davison has often said that ID should have never been offered as a subject for debate. I didn't understand at first, but I think I'm finally starting to see the wisdom of his statement.
The proponents of ID (myself included) waste too much time trying to convince "the other side" of the validity of design. In my opinion, we should move on. We've won the debate - but they'll never admit it.
I think it's time for ID scientists to take the bull by the horns and crank out some research based on the implications of such a conclusion. For IDists, life's machinery is technology - and research based on that premise has to lead to different (and better) conclusions than those reached by people who are still trying to figure out how all this happened by accident.
I think a good start would be for the ID camp to publish an actual peer-reviewed journal (on paper - not just online) and solicit research that is not constrained by the limitations of the "theory" of evolution.
Let mainstream science spin it's wheels - asking the wrong questions and coming to the wrong conclusions. Quit trying to become part of their camp. Start your own camp. ID should put the pedal to the metal and never look back.
It's time for a slight twist on an old addage:
"If you can't join 'em... Beat 'em!".
OK, I've had my say. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone on my first post here!
[ 19. November 2006, 07:01: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. November 2006 07:16
Daniel Smith
I also think it would be a good idea to publish an honest-to-God hard copy journal that starts with the premise that Intelligent Design is established beyond any doubt. To regard ID as an "inference" is actually counterproductive because it indicates weakness and uncertainty. As such it invites debate. There is no place in science for debate and never was, yet that is largely what we see going on, especially in the ephemeral world of the internet and public lecture halls. It is downright infantile if you ask me and a monumental waste of time and energy.
It is also a mistake to attempt to force reality into the confines of any sort of religious framework. We don't even know how many Creators there must have been, when, how many times, or where they did their creating and their front-loading, but that there were one or more is no longer a matter of conjecture if you ask me and no one is likely to!
Meanwhile, while the "prescribed" ideologues continue to rail against one another, real scientists continue disclosing a machinery that could never have been produced except through an intelligence far beyond our present capacity to even imagine. What we are observing with internet forums, endless books, and contrived public debates is primarily a struggle between insecure firmly entrenched intellectual camps, all desperately trying to establish themselves as superior to their adversaries. They spend most of their time banning their critics from their proceedings, sometimes even inviting them back so they can ban them once again! You don't have to tell me about it. I have been there and know all about it. It is very revealing. It is as the philosopher observed -
"Man in sooth is a marvellous vain, fickle, and UNSTABLE subject."
Montaigne, my emphasis.
"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
ibid
"Study Nature not books"
Louis Agassiz
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 19. November 2006 16:04
Daniel Smith
quote:
I am no scientist, but I am constantly amazed at how much the machinery I work on reminds me of the biological machinery of life.
Neither me. But this remark is excellently good. Barabasi noticed that topology and nodes distribution of worldwide web have some similarities with processess in cells. I do not think he is right - even if he promote and propagate his ideas very - but it is first step in direction I suppose as correct. That there are similarities how human constructs processess and machines and computers and how processess in nature are running. If a human is a God image there should be similarities in thinking and especially in creative power representing itself in their creations. I would say that greatest inventions in science and creation in art -literature, music - occurs suddenly by "saltus".
But we should be aware before marxistic "law of change of quantity into quality" - as mentioned and venerate by Gould in his Panda thumb.
I would say that creative power of logic and invetion are now centered around computers and we should seek there for some "rules" supporting creation against neodarwinism.
[ 19. November 2006, 16:10: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 19. November 2006 18:00
Prof. Davison
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the situation. A hard copy journal was exactly what I had in mind. I don't understand why so many ID proponents try so hard to be a part of the corrupt Darwinian establishment - even going so far as to disguise their views in order to "get published". I agree with you that it's a waste of time to try to convince anybody of anything. Most people have their minds made up anyway.
Your comments about the religious aspect - while often misinterpreted here - also have great value. I see many ID proponents trying to "fit" scientific data into their own religious framework. The probelem with this is - while we all have some sort of religious framework (even atheists) - there's no way we can know all there is to know about any Intelligence capable of producing the kind of technology we see in the biological machinery of life. We should always go where the evidence leads us.
I do believe in a healthy skepticism though - that we should not blindly follow the work of others without thouroughly testing it ourselves. Often it's a religious conviction that causes us to doubt the conclusions of the atheist establishment - so it can be a healthy thing as well.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 19. November 2006 18:22
Martin
quote:
Barabasi noticed that topology and nodes distribution of worldwide web have some similarities with processess in cells. I do not think he is right - even if he promote and propagate his ideas very - but it is first step in direction I suppose as correct. That there are similarities how human constructs processess and machines and computers and how processess in nature are running.
To me, this area is where IDers have a distinct advantage - simply because the largely atheist establishment will interpret the technology of life as the product of accidental causes and will waste vast amounts of time and energy trying to discover how unguided natural processes can produce such things.
I recently saw a show on the Research Channel where a University of Washington professor was describing genetic networks in great detail. In an attempt to show that no designer was required for these networks, he had devised a computer program to model - what he called - "random" networks (all of which had the same proteins, in the same numbers as the original working network). His methods and numbers seemed very biased towards his conclusion and his results were too. He essentially showed that if you combine these proteins, they'll do what they were originally programmed to do. For him however - it solved the "puzzle" of how a robust network could evolve. It was amazing to watch a man literally ignoring all this technologically advanced biological machinery while coming to his conclusion. He completely embodied the phrase "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel".
It would seem to me that we - as proponents of designed biological networks - would interpret these networks differently and would instead find ways to learn from the technology they represent. The robustness of biological networks should have many positive implications for our own designed networks. Instead of trying to show that these networks were designed, we should start with that premise and move on from there.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic