A Dozen Jokes [HD]
By CGR Trailers
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
Primarily the 'lack of conclusiveness' for neo-Darwinism in scientific terms is due to concerns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information (Sewell, Abel, Dembski, Marks). But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded solely by the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance and 'epigenetic' studies.
Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video
“Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005
Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory.
The Case Against Molecular Reductionism - Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton - video
New Insights Into How (Adult) Stem Cells Determine What Tissue to Become - August 2010
Excerpt: Within 24 hours of culturing adult human stem cells on a new type of matrix, University of Michigan researchers were able to make predictions about how the cells would differentiate, or what type of tissue they would become.,,, "Our research confirms that mechanical factors are as important as the chemical factors regulating differentiation," Fu said. "The mechanical aspects have, until now, been largely ignored by stem cell biologists."
Electricity Forms Your Heart - July 2010
Excerpt: “The direction of growth and orientation of various cell types in tissue culture can be influenced by externally applied electric fields.” They added, “Furthermore, endogenous [inside organism] electric currents exist in a variety of tissues and have been hypothesized to influence cell migration and shape.”
The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010
Excerpt: So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.,,, So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used.,,, Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.
This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show 'exceedingly rare' beneficial morphological changes from mutations to the DNA code.
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer
"Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
This following video and article are much more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned:
Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information
Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism:
Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation:
Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable.
Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine
“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan)."
Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent
This lack of beneficial morphological novelty also includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations:
...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells
Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010
Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
Many times evolutionists will mention evo-devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology) to try to support the Darwinian claim that minor changes/mutations to DNA can drive major morphological novelty, yet, in this following comment, from a 2005 Nature review article, evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne expressed strong skepticism at the proposed mechanism of 'gene switches' for evo-devo:
"The evidence for the adaptive divergence of gene switches is still thin. The best case involves the loss of protective armor and spines in sticklebacks, both due to changes in regulatory elements. But these elements represent the loss of traits, rather than the origin of evolutionary novelties...We now know that Hox genes and other transcription factors have many roles besides inducing body pattern, and their overall function in development - let alone in evolution - remains murky."
Here is a more thorough critique of evo-devo:
Nature's "Gems": Microevolution Meets Microevolution - Casey Luskin - August 2010
Here are many more lines of evidence arguing against any DNA mechanisms for body plan development, Evo-Devo included:
Response to John Wise - October 2010
Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.
As well, recent 'cloning studies' give evidence against DNA/Genetic reductionism:
"There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. For example when an egg's genes (DNA) are removed and replaced with genes (DNA) from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate to produce hybrids.) The Jurassic Park approach of putting dinosaur DNA into ostrich eggs to produce a Tyrannosaurus rex makes exciting fiction but ignores scientific fact."
The Design of Life - William Dembski, Jonathan Wells Pg. 50
If that wasn't enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for "Genetic Reductionism":
DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer
Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it."
This following video gives a glimpse of this 'higher level' information in action:
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video
Here is a article that gives a small glimpse at the extreme organizational complexity that goes into crafting all the cells into one human body:
How many different cells are there in complex organisms?
Excerpt: The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the cellular ontogeny of which has been precisely mapped, has 1,179 and 1,090 distinct somatic cells (including those that undergo programmed cell death) in the male and female, respectively, each with a defined history and fate. Therefore, if we take the developmental trajectories and cell position into account, C. elegans has 10^3 different cell identities, even if many of these cells are functionally similar. By this reasoning, although the number of different cell types in mammals is often considered to lie in the order of hundreds, it is actually in the order of 10^12 if their positional identity and specific ontogeny are considered. Humans have an estimated 10^14 cells, mostly positioned in precise ways and with precise organization, shape and function, in skeletal architecture, musculature and organ type, many of which (such as the nose) show inherited idiosyncrasies. Even if the actual number of cells with distinct identities is discounted by a factor of 100 (on the basis that 99% of the cells are simply clonal expansions of a particular cell type in a particular location or under particular conditions (for example, fat, muscle or immune cells)), there are still 10^12 positionally different cell types.
My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
The Human Body is simply amazing:
The Human Body - You Are Amazing - video
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,,
Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding 'architectural plan' of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place.
10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida
...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
Kangaroo genes close to humans
Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,"
A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4)
Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution
Neo-Darwinism's Gene Homology Problem - video
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video
Since evolution was forced, by the established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes which can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit, this 'complex interwoven network' finding is absolutely devastating for the population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright, since genes are now shown not to be the independent entities evolutionists required them to be (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005).
Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis