text:
Muller's return is huge lift for Ulster's Heineken hopes
Ulster squad returning to full strength as Pienaar and Bowe are also available
WITH European matters now taking centre stage for the next two weekends, Ulster welcome back influential skipper Johann Muller for Saturday's first Heineken Cup double-header clash with Benetton Treviso at Ravenhill (kick-off 6pm).
And things are also looking up for the Ulster coach with the return of Ruan Pienaar from autumn international duty while Tommy Bowe is also expected to be back in an Ulster shirt following his Ireland duties.
Muller has not played since suffering a calf injury against the Cardiff Blues in late October and the 33-year-old's return is particularly timely for Ulster coach Mark Anscombe, who has been hit by injury problems in the engine room with other second rows Lewis Stevenson and Iain Henderson both sidelined.
However, the situation is not so clear-cut with Jared Payne reportedly still under observation over his groin injury and must therefore be doubtful for Saturday with Ulster Rugby reporting that the Kiwi will be assessed regarding his involvement later in the week.
Payne picked up the injury after featuring in last month's defeat at the Scarlets and the best hope is that he may ultimately be fit enough for some involvement in Ulster's return to European action following on from their two opening wins over Leicester Tigers and that seismic result at Montpellier which has put Anscombe's men in control of Pool five.
With Craig Gilroy and Darren Cave both now looking like probable starters, and helpfully both are looking in good form, Payne's best hope may now be to make Ulster's bench.
Pienaar (pictured) returns to action, after his spell away with South Africa during the autumn internationals. He was rested for last weekend's 19-11 win in Zebre, and his big-game experience will be a key factor in Ulster's plan to take four, or preferably five, points off Treviso.
Bowe should also be champing at the bit for some action again after having a rather downbeat Guinness Series with Ireland which saw him play all three Tests but fail to bag any tries.
Rob Herring and Mike McComish both picked up knocks at Zebre – a stinger and bang to the hip joint respectively – which saw them leave the action early but both are expected to train and theoretically be fine by the weekend which, in Herring's case, will be a considerable relief with Rory Best currently out of action.
Anscombe remained pretty positive about Herring's chances following the Zebre win, though there clearly was a concern after he had to leave the field in a dazed-looking condition.
"He's doing fine and we're going to have to assess him during the week," the coach said.
There is also a positive development long-term absentee Paddy Wallace, who has returned to full training following the ACL injury that he had sustained in February.
The 34-year-old is expected to be available for selection this weekend and seems more likely to feature for the Ulster Ravens in their British and Irish Cup clash at Ayr.
While there is no indication of when Chris Henry will be fit again, there is better news regarding Ian Porter, who is back in training and seemingly bound to feature for the Ravens.
However, prop Paddy McCallister has suffered another setback after re-aggravating a hamstring tear while playing for Ballynahinch at the weekend. McCallister is expected to be ruled out for four to six weeks.
Ulster will be going all out to nail two wins over Treviso, who have failed to even register a point in Europe after their two opening pool games ended in defeat to Montpellier at home before Leicester Tigers turned them over 34-3 at Welford Road.
And the Italians' PRO12 form has hardly been electric either as they have failed to win their last four games – albeit gaining losing bonuses from three defeats and then last weekend's high-scoring draw with Cardiff Blues – which has seen them positioned in 10th place and only six points ahead of Zebre.
The Ulster coach will certainly want to play his strongest hand for Saturday's first outing in these pivotal back-to-back European clashes with the Italians and winning outcomes are essential to Ulster's progress in the competition.
Mind you, the coach knows that his squad will have to be much sharper when they return to Italy than was the case last weekend when they took on Zebre and won without really impressing.
"Overall, it was a pretty sub-standard performance," Anscombe said.
"Some of the decisions around the breakdown were unfathomable but that's what you get sometimes and we have to look at ourselves and we know that's not good enough and that's not what we expect," he stated.
Belfast Telegraph


text:
Conversation on Aging
with Judy Lief
Monday October 7th, Judy Lief will be our guest.
The evening's topic will be "Nothing to Prove: Discoveries of Aging."
"Conversations on Aging" include meditation, contemplation and discussion of topics related to aging as well as death and dying. Please join us to share your concerns, experiences, and ideas.
Meetings are bi-monthly. Our purpose is multi-faceted:
- to learn and communicate about the many aspects of aging;
- to help identify and organize support for the physical, psychological and spiritual needs of our community as we, and our friends and family – grow older
- to explore and share ways to view and experience our own aging from a positive and aspirational perspective, consistent with our view and path
- to connect and exchange with other local and international groups on aging, including the mandala-wide Aging in Shambhala steering committee
Andrea Sherman, PhD, serves on the Mandala - Aging in Shambhala steering committee, is a gerontologist with an extensive background in Creativity and Aging, Director of Transitional Keys/a lifecyle program, and is currently in the Foundations of Buddhist Contemplative Care program. She has been active in the Shambhala Center of NY since 2008.
Cynthia Spencer is a meditation instructor, teacher, and practitioner of dharma arts including calligraphy and kado. Her interest in the support of aging and dying arises from working with friends and family members. She has been part of the Shambhala community since 1979.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Application Information
Scholarship Overview
**We're sorry, but it looks like this scholarship is no longer available. Check out your scholarship matches list for more options.** This scholarship is for AOSA members who have been members for the previous fiscal year. To qualify for this scholarship, applicants must be US citizens or have resided in the US for the past five years and demonstrate financial need. The scholarship funds may be used for training or special creative projects that are associated with Orff Schulwerk and that will benefit music education.
How easy is it to apply?
Not too bad
This scholarship's application process may have items such as essays that could take a couple hours.
How much competition is there?
Not much
This scholarship won't have as many applicants as most.


text:
BERLIN — A new study conducted by Bayer HealthCare suggests that an investigational treatment for acne may be suitable for patients with dark complexions whose acne includes a condition that causes irregular discoloration of the skin known as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, or PIH.
In the study, published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, patients received azelaic acid in the 15% strength. Patients with dark skin are at increased risk of PIH, which is a widespread side effect of acne vulgaris, and also may result from skin irritation. Bayer and Intendis market the drug around the world under the brand names Skinoren and Finacea.
By the end of the study, in the 16th week, all patients showed at least a "one-grade improvement" in their PIH, while 92% showed a "two-grade improvement" and 31% had complete clearance of PIH.


text:
Bayern Munich vs Valencia Live Stream Football: Watch Online Champions League Soccer (Team News)
Bayern Munich vs Valencia takes place Wednesday in the first round of games in Group F of this season's Champions League. The match kicks off at 2.45 p.m. ET and can be watched online through live stream (details below).
Bayern Munich are one of the consistently strongest teams in European soccer, and are usually a side most would like to avoid until the latter stages of the tournament. This season will be no different and the German side boasts one of the most evenly balanced and efficient sides in the Champions League this season.
Valencia are also a very strong side, and are consistently one of the top teams in La Liga in Spain. If the Spanish side were at full strength many would call this is a very tight match up, with probably most giving Bayern the upper hand, especially with their home advantage. However, Valencia are also suffering from a number of injuries to key players, which could undermine their effort, and should see Bayern come out clearly on top.
For Valencia Ever Banega, Fernando Gago and David Albelda will all be unavailable for the Bayern Munich match. Pablo Piatti, a key attacking midfielder will also be missing from the depleted Valencia midfield, which could potentially see them overrun by their highly competent German opposition.
Bayern Munich on the other hand have managed to rest key players Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery over the weekend, and they will be fresh and ready to wreak havoc on the Valencia defense.
The Germans also have Bastian Schweinsteiger back from injury and with him now returning to the side Bayern Munich boast one of the most powerful midfields in Europe.
Bayern Munich vs Valencia will kick off at 2.45 p.m. ET from the Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany, and the game can be watched online through live stream by clicking here.


text:
Can the Power Grid Handle Renewable Energy?
December 12, 2013
Energy officials are worried about the potential of power grid collapse due to the use of renewable energy, says the Los Angeles Times.
The power grid is supposed to keep the United States' power supply steady and stable. Engineers have to work carefully to determine how much power to feed into the system without overloading it. Because renewable energy is more unpredictable than traditional forms of energy, this process is made difficult.
- Solar panels may produce large amounts of energy one second, only to cease producing power when the sun retreats behind a cloud.
- On especially windy days, some states have had to dump energy from wind turbines because there was no room for the power in their systems.
State and federal officials are spending billions of dollars to keep up with renewable energy's demands. A group of scholars from the California Institute of Technology said that making green energy work will be "one of the greatest technological challenges industrialized societies have undertaken."
There are proposals in California to move the state to run on 80 percent renewable energy within the next 20 years, but skeptics say that the plan is not yet workable. California's Public Utilities Commission has ordered power companies to invest in efforts to store up wind and solar power in order to distribute that energy over time in a more even fashion. But it is not at all clear that the technology is economically feasible. Southern California Edison has said that the commission's mandate "could cost up to $3 billion with uncertain net benefits for customers."
In Colorado, the U.S. Department of Energy is using a supercomputer called Peregrine to deal with the risks of alternative energy. The computer -- the size of a Mack truck -- manages a quadrillion calculations per second, mapping out grid scenarios involving multiple energy sources like wind and solar.
Source: Evan Halper, "Power Struggle: Green Energy versus a Grid That's Not Ready," Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2013.
Browse more articles on Environment Issues


text:
Item #112-2692 (4 customer reviews)
Your wedding guests will love this practical, beach-themed wedding favor. More details…
|We apologize but this product is no longer available. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
You may be interested in some of these related selections:
view all Practical Wedding Favors
Each glass coaster features a block design with seashell and starfish designs and has a space in the middle to place a photo.
Sold in sets of 2, the coasters come packaged in a clear box tied with a filmy white organza ribbon.
Size: 3-3/4" x 3-3/4"
Pricing ~
$2.15 each set of 2 for 1-48
$1.95 each set of 2 for 49-95
$1.75 each set of 2 for 96
Shipping Options:
We offer flat rate & expedited/next day shipping.
Click here for rates.
Rush Processing:
Because we understand that you may need your items sooner than the indicated timeframe, we offer Rush Processing for select items. If you are concerned that your order will not arrive in time for your wedding, please contact us so we can work with you personally.
Click here for more information
Drop Shipped Items:
There are a few items on the Web site that will be shipped to you directly from the manufacturer and will arrive separately from the rest of your order. These items typically include edibles, personalized ribbon, and some personalized embroidery.
International Shipping:
We can now ship internationally via our international shipping agent. We have partnered with Bongo International to fulfill our international orders.
5 out of 5 - good quality! -
Kacey (marietta)
Exactly as expected! Each pair is individually wrapped and the glass is thick and sturdy.
Recommend: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
5 out of 5 - Beach and Shell Design Photo Coaster Set -
Anonymous (Morehead City, NC)
Very pleased with coasters. They were true to everything that was said. Especially pleased that I received them within 2 days.
Recommend: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
5 out of 5 - Coaster set -
Heather (Green Bay WI)
The items were shipped very quickly and everything looks just as it did on line. Good quality.
Recommend: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
5 out of 5 - Beach and Shell Photo Coaster -
Anonymous (Oviedo, Florida)
Just the right thing for each guest to take away from our rehearsal brunch.
Recommend: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
You will receive your first email shortly


text:
On TravelingCrossing
Layoff News
The federal government is backing away from requiring that home-heating fuel contain at least two per cent renewable content. Environment Minister Peter Kent said Monday he plans to amend the Renewable Fuels Regulations in the new year to make the current exemption for home-heating oil permanent nationwide. That will likely be good news for consumers, since it costs more to produce home-heating fuel using renewable products such as biofuels. Refineries in the Maritime provinces would also be given an extra six months to ensure that two per cent of the diesel fuel they produce comes from renewable sources,
Read the full article here:
Layoffs temporary at Halifax Shipyard
The post Layoffs temporary at Halifax Shipyard appeared first on LayOff Watch.
Only TravelingCrossing consolidates every job it can find in the domain and puts all of the job listings it locates in one place.


text:
GENBOX-L ArchivesArchiver > GENBOX > 2003-08 > 1061436929
From: "Cheri Casper" <>
Subject: RE: [GENBOX] Research Targets
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:35:40 -0700
In-Reply-To: <000701c36787$c4f87910$0100a8c0@beth>
Beth - Yes, that will work. I seldom use the "family page" so it didn't
occur to me to look there. CheriC
-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Gay [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Research Targets
Cheri, I don't know if my message will get through, sent one earlier this
morning that never made it. Evidently some kind of virus affecting the
lists. I did a scan that said no viruses. Anyway there is a research target
button on the family page for a couple. Will this work?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheri Casper" <>
> Is there anyway to link a Research Target to multiple people, say a
> I don't think so but thought I might check just in case. Alternatively is
> there a way to "duplicate" a Research Target and associated searches and
> change the name of the Individual?
> CheriC
==== GENBOX Mailing List ====
To join this list, send an email to with the
word "subscribe" as the subject line. Then email your messages to
and they will appear on this list.
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go
This thread:
|RE: [GENBOX] Research Targets by "Cheri Casper" <>


text:
So now it's the "creationists'" fault that Darwin's followers can't face facts?
|January 22, 2014
|Posted by News under Genetics, Natural selection, News
Further to science ideas ready for retirement, Philip Cunningham draws attention to a curious admission on the part of Wired's Kevin Kelly: His idea to retire is "fully random mutations:"
So to be clear: the evidence shows that chance plays a primary role in mutations, and there would be no natural selection without chance. But it is not random chance. It is loaded chance, with multiple constraints, multi-point biases, numerous clustering effects, and skewed distributions.
He considers the question of why the assumption of "random mutation" persists and notes that it was "a philosophical necessity to combat the erroneous earlier idea of inherited acquired traits, or what is commonly called Lamarckian evolution." Today, we call it horizontal gene transfer, and many researchers would be surprised to hear it considered an erroneous idea.
As a rough first-order approximation, random mutation works pretty well as an intellectual and experimental framework. But the lack of direct evidence for actual random mutations has now reached a stage where the idea needs to be retired.
There are several related reasons why this unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by natural selection. The second is that if mutations are not random and have some pattern, than that pattern creates a micro-direction in evolution. And since biological evolution is nothing but micro actions accumulating into macro actions, these micro-patterns leave open the possibility of macro directions in evolution. That raises all kinds of red flags. If there are evolutionary macro-directions, where do they originate? And what are the directions? To date, there is little consensus about evidence for macro-directions in evolution beyond an increase in complexity, but the very notion of evolution with any direction is so contrary to current dogma in modern evolution theory that it continues to embrace the assumption of randomness.
This is a beaut, a keeper, a classic. In short, biologists must be wrong in thinking that there is no direction to evolution but admitting that is too controversial? So they have to keep it quiet by misrepresenting to the rest of us what "random evolution" means? Or if Kelly doesn't mean that, what does he mean?
I guess that is as much intellectual openness or curiosity as one could expect from Darwin's latter day followers. In fairness, they probably don't even understand people whose standards for both qualities are just plain higher.
And it's not just some of the ideas that need to retire.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
46 Responses to So now it's the "creationists'" fault that Darwin's followers can't face facts?
1lifepsyJanuary 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm
There are several related reasons why this unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by natural selection.
Translation: We are intentionally obscuring and misrepresenting scientific data in order to deny any comfort to our political enemies.
This was always the main reason behind Darwinian evolution: a hatred of Christianity, especially Christian fundamentalists. Science is always subservient to the political and ideological goals of atheists/materialists/Darwinists. But then again, the same can be said for some Christian fundamentalists. In the process, scientific progress takes a dive. Telling it like I see it, as always.
The "importance" of natural selection is contrived. Yes differential reproduction due to heritable happenstance variation, ie natural selection, exists, it's just that it has never been observed doing anything beyond that-> differential reproduction due to heritable happenstance variation. I don't see the importance to that and no one has been able to demonstrate any importance.
Also Dr Spetner has already proposed a "non-random evolutionary hypothesis" in "Not By Chance"- a book that should be required reading for anyone involved in this debate.
Q: Why do evolutionists
fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by natural selection.
?? As evolutionary scientists, shouldn't what creationists think be irrelevant? Who could fear such a harmless, crackpot crew?
A: They don't fear creationists, they fear "fellow" evolutionists. Any scientific fact or theory* that provides support for the creationist viewpoint is used as a Hammer, not by creationists, but by rabid gatekeepers of evolution (think Myers, Coyne) to beat the scientist revealing that fact/proposing that theory either a) into submission or b) out of a job.
This admission is another excellent indictment of how the evolutionary establishment works to stifle open and free inquiry, and thus, scientific advancement itself.
*Tuning of the universe. Dino DNA. Fossil record stasis. Functionality of the entire DNA. Epigenetics. ID Theory. Et cetera ad nauseam.
drc466 @4,
Excellent point.
Random Mutations? We ain't got no Random Mutations. We don't need no Random Mutations. I don't have to show you any stinking Random Mutations! 🙂
We don't need no stinking badges! – video
That's right folks, Darwinists don't need no stinking Random Mutations;
Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
And Darwinists also don't need no stinking Natural Selection:
"Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection."
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
And Darwinists also don't need no stinking Mathematical foundation:
Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
Except page 9: (Gregory) Chaitin states [3], "For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works." In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
Shoot, Darwinists don't need no stinking empirical evidence whatsoever:
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community's attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on "wish-fulfillment," we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis."
That's right folks, Darwinists don't need any stinking thing at all to declare that their theory is beyond reproach from any finding whatsoever and that you are an IDiot for not believing them.
Talking Evolution With Evolutionists – Cornelius Hunter – December 2011
Excerpt: "Like the cultist I spoke with, evolutionists are certain even though the facts do not support such certainty.,,," "You can present the facts, you can walk through the logic, you can review the experiments, and you can tally up the findings. It doesn't matter. It never did matter because, ultimately, evolution never was about the science."
Verse and Music:
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Evanescence – Lies Lyrics
7sixthbookJanuary 22, 2014 at 4:16 pm
"To date, there is little consensus about evidence for macro-directions in evolution beyond an increase in complexity"
I can't count the number of evolutionist who when I debate them would say that evolution is not goal oriented so the mutations aren't trying to increase complexity in the organism. They say evolution is random, not increasing complexity at all.
Apparently the article in the OP disagrees.
Why do evolutionists "fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists".
I can't speak for "evolutionists", but evolutionary biologits don't. Kelly doesn't come off as someone who knows what he is talking about here – the fact there are non-random patterns in mutations (including spatial, directional and temporal patterns) has long been known. The randomness of mutation refers to the fact mutations are random with respect to their fitness (ie, animals can't induce particular mutations that are likely to benifit their offspring).
This is the sort of thing you'd hope an undergrad could see through, why Edge thought it was worth including I can't imagine.
9gpuccioJanuary 22, 2014 at 5:22 pm
I have rarely read such a confused and misleading piece of thought. I think that both IDists and neo darwinists can equally be irritated by it, and that is really something!
Just as a curiosity, why should a skewed distribution be non random? Is the author convinced (like many) that only a uniform distribution, or maybe a normal distribution, can be considered a random distribution? Maybe just reading on wikipedia the list of probability distributions could help…
10gpuccioJanuary 22, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Kelly doesn't come off as someone who knows what he is talking about here – the fact there are non-random patterns in mutations (including spatial, directional and temporal patterns) has long been known. The randomness of mutation refers to the fact mutations are random with respect to their fitness (ie, animals can't induce particular mutations that are likely to benifit their offspring).
For once, I perfectly agree with you.
I would add that any genomic variation due to some physical process, and particularly to biochemical laws, is necessarily random with respect to the functional information implied, for example, by a functional protein sequence, for the simple fact that physical laws and biochemical laws that generate variation in the genome have no way of knowing what kind of sequence will generate protein functionality.
Unless, obviously, the variation is designed.
Ernst Mayr basically says the same thing in "What Evolution Is"- ie that natural selection is non-random because what lives and what is eliminated is not form a uniform distribution:
Not all individuals have an equal probability for survival because the individuals that have properties making their survival more probable are a restricted non-random component of the population.-page 118 WEI
Darwin's alleged designer mimic is nothing but a mirage.
The randomness of mutation refers to the fact mutations are random with respect to their fitness (ie, animals can't induce particular mutations that are likely to benifit their offspring).
That is incorrect. The randomness refers to their happenstance/ accidental nature-
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Mayr WEI page 281
wd400 and gpuccio at 8 through 10: Kelly writes at Wired and he was writing FOR The Edge. One senses that he knows how Darwinians think (and generally agrees with them, and seems to think they agree with him on this).
It's not clear he would be heard from in either venue if it were all as doubtful as you are representing here.
as to wd400 trying to defect attention away from the happenstance/accidental (unguided) nature of the word random, especially as it is used in neo-Darwinian evolution. The unguided, happenstance, definition of the word random is a core theoretical mandate in the naturalist's worldview
"Random: A Carefully Selected Word" Dr. Michael Behe – video
Unguided or Not? How Do Darwinian Evolutionists Define Their Theory? – Casey Luskin – August 11, 2012
Excerpt: While many new atheists undoubtedly make poor philosophers, the "unguided" nature of Darwinian evolution is not a mere metaphysical "add on." Rather, it's a core part of how the theory of Darwinian evolution has been defined by its leading proponents. Unfortunately, even some eminent theistic and intelligent design-friendly philosophers appear unaware of the history and scientific development of neo-Darwinian theory.
15lifepsyJanuary 22, 2014 at 7:15 pm
The randomness of mutation refers to the fact mutations are random with respect to their fitness (ie, animals can't induce particular mutations that are likely to benifit their offspring).
This is really a strange definition. According to this, a mutation that only ever occurs in the same exact loci over millions of years would still technically be "random" because the mutation is not induced for fitness. I'm pretty sure I have never heard any evolutionist define the randomness of mutation this way.
16QueriusJanuary 22, 2014 at 7:57 pm
In my opinion, the term "random mutation" is acceptable in the sense that it suggests that there's no intelligent planning or implicit direction. The term is misleading in the sense that the sources/types of mutations make a difference–that not all mutations are equally likely.
The word 'Random' as it is used by Darwinists, as Dr. Behe clearly illustrated in the video I previously listed, is clearly meant by leading Darwinists to convey the sense that the 'random' event that occurred was unplanned and unguided. Especially in regards to God having planned or guided the event. Yet, if we look at the source for 'randomness' in this universe, we find that a random event means that a entropic event has occurred (i.e. such the decay of an unstable particle) in this universe. And though the entropic event is in itself not predictable by us in a specific, precise, sense, what gives the Darwinists the idea that the event was unguided or unplanned by God? In my humble opinion the Darwinists has no right whatsoever to claim that the random, seemingly chaotic, entropic events that happen in this universe are unguided and unplanned. The reason I have for this is two fold. One reason is that the initial entropy of the universe is found to be fine-tuned on the order of 1 in 10^10^123. The fine-tuning of that initial condition for entropy absolutely blows away all the other initial conditions of the universe in terms of precision. The number, if written out in ordinary notation, could not be written out even if a number were written on every sub-atomic particle in the universe. That by itself should give Darwinists severe pause with the claim that the 'random' entropic events of the universe are unplanned and unguided. But the second reason why I don't think Darwinists have a leg to stand on when they claim that the random, entropic, events of the universe are unplanned and unguided is that it is now found, by advances in quantum mechanics, that the space-time of this universe is not a 'closed system' of cause and effect, as materialists have always assumed, but that every particle and photon of the universe is dependent upon a non-local, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain each particle and photon's continued existence in this universe. i.e. God upholds the universe in its being!
Hebrews 1:3
sustaining all things by his powerful word.
Thus scientifically, Darwinists have no right to claim that the random, entropic, events of the universe are unplanned or unguided. Scientifically, there is simply no reasonable room for debate on the matter. But Where this gets into Theological issues, not scientific issues, is when we look at what type of events are associated when entropy. Death, Disease, Cancer, Earthquakes, Tornadoes, etc.. etc.., are all traceable to entropic events at their base. But so are good things traceable to an entropic base, such as Gravity and the passage of time itself. Thus, Theologically, not scientifically, it is very easy to say that these bad things were unintended by God. In fact, I hold that it is very hard for mere humans mortals to understand why God would allow suffering in this lifetime. But that is a purely theological matter and is not a matter for science. As I said before, as far as the science itself is concerned, Darwinists have no reasonable right to contend that the random, entropic, events of the universe are unintended.
Verse and poem
Romans 8:18-25
I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Autumn Leafs Laughter
Oh please do tell us of your secret
you majestic autumn leaves,of regal red ,and shimmering golden yellow,
Brilliantly coloring the landscapes of trees.
Do you dare pass away in a rush of beauty while you are slowly dying?
Pay ye no heed to all the other deaths so solemnly attended with tears and crying?
or Does the essence in you somehow yearn jealously for a glorious life to come?
And you somehow know that death shouldn't be sad but fun?
For I truly wish I could die like you and that I knew the secret of your story, so that my countenance should light up and glow as my soul is delivered to behold God,s glory.
So please autumn leaves which mock death with such defiant belly laughter,
Do tell us your secret over death so that we may properly enter the hereafter.
Autumn Leafs Laughter – video
19gpuccioJanuary 23, 2014 at 2:25 am
lifepsy and others:
I think I should make more clear what I think:
1) A random system is one whose behaviour is best described by a probability distribution. All known random systems, with the probable exception of quantum randomness (intrinsic randomness), are indeed deterministic systems, in the sense that their behaviour is in principle caused by necessity laws. But their peculiar nature makes it practically impossible, for us, to understand that behaviour in detail by an algorithmic computation, because too many variables are implied, or for intrinsic features of how the system evolves (chaotic systems). Therefore, the best way we have to describe and cognize those systems is by some probability distribution (a mathemathical object that assigns probabilities to the possible events).
2) So, the random nature of a system is more a feature of how we cognize it scientifically that a fundamental property of the system itself. Again, quantum events are a probable and important exception to that.
3) That said, the fact remains that many natural system are best explained by probability distributions that are not the uniform distribution or other symmetric distributions, like the normal distribution. In no way that means that those are not random systems. That's why a skewed distribution is random just the same. That's why Kelly does not know what he is talking about. Just to make an example, if we record the results of throwing a die with 1 on five sides and 2 on the sixth side. 1 here has 5/6 probability as a discrete event, and 2 has 1/6 probability. The probability distribution that best describes the form of the outcome is skewed and completely non symmetrical, but the system is still a random system. Nobody can tell in advance if a single outcome will be a 1 or a 2, but the results conform to a general form which is best described by a simple discrete probability distribution.
3) In this sense, the random variations spontaneously happening in genomes are certainly a random system. Even if each event is certainly caused by biochemical laws, we cannot know in advance which event will take place in each case. So, we describe the system by a probability distribution.
4) Which probability distribution? The best approximation is certainly a uniform distribution. For each nucleotide in a genome sequence, we assume an uniform probability of mutation to each other nucleotide. That means that the variation of any pre-existing sequence can best be described as a random walk.
5) Obviously, that is not completely true. There are certainly slightly different probabilities for different mutations. And, if we consider all forms of variation (including deletions, insertions, inversions, and so on) the probabilities of each of those events are certainly different. But again, a uniform distribution is the best approximation we can use. As far as I know, no other known probability distribution describes biological RV more efficiently.
6) At this point, we could ask: but is it possible that some more detailed probability distribution, which takes into account the more realistic probabilities of each variation event, could explain better the functional information in proteins? The answer is: no. And the reason is simple. The different probabilities of the various random events that take place at genomic level are certainly important, but in no way they are related to the functional sequences that make a protein functional. IOWs, as I have already said:
"I would add that any genomic variation due to some physical process, and particularly to biochemical laws, is necessarily random with respect to the functional information implied, for example, by a functional protein sequence, for the simple fact that physical laws and biochemical laws that generate variation in the genome have no way of knowing what kind of sequence will generate protein functionality.
Unless, obviously, the variation is designed."
7) Regarding the modeling of the random walk, I have already shown, elsewhere, that it is true that in a random walk where each single variation event is best approximated by an uniform distribution, the distribution of possible outcomes is not uniform, because obviously the states which are more similar to the starting state are by far more likely, at least after a limited number of variation events. But that's exactly why the probability of all outcomes which are completely unrelated to the starting state can be considered best described by an uniform distribution, and the probability of each unrelated state is somewhat lower than 1/n (where n is the numerosity of the search space). That's why 1/n, which is what we usually use in our ID reasoning, is a higher threshold for the true probability of each unrelated state in such a system.
8) Last but not least, as everyone can see, I have never included NS in this reasoning. The reason is simple: NS is essentially a necessity mechanism which, even if it certainly operates on random variation, and can also include random components in the way it operates, a necessity (algorithmic) description of how it works can certainly be used. That's why the possible effect of NS must be computed separately, as I have tried to do in specific models some time ago. I will not add the reference again, because I think that nobody really would take the time to consider those long and complex posts. 🙂
IOWs, what NS can or cannot do must be evaluated on the basis of what we really know of the laws that imply NS in specific systems. Those points can never be solved by merely appealing to probability, exactly as we don't appeal to probability to describe the trajectory of a moving object in mechanics.
20gpuccioJanuary 23, 2014 at 2:34 am
Querius (#16):
In my opinion, the term "random mutation" is acceptable in the sense that it suggests that there's no intelligent planning or implicit direction. The term is misleading in the sense that the sources/types of mutations make a difference–that not all mutations are equally likely.
Excuse me if I choose your post to correct again this error, but I believe that it is a very important point to be clarified.
As I have tried to explain in my previous post, the simple fact that "not all mutations are equally likely" in no way means that the system is not a random system. So, the term "random mutation" is not misleading at all.
This idea, that only a uniform distribution can be used to describe a random system, is very diffused. There is no problem with that, because most people are not familiar with probability theory. But I think that this misconception has already caused a lot of confusion here, so I believe it should be definitely corrected.
So, for the last time, random does not mean that the outcomes are equally likely. Please, see my example of the die with only two outcomes, in my previous post.
The Genome is a Read-Write Memory System-James Shapiro – video
This clips describes why we now need to view the genome as Read-Write (RW) memory system rather than a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to accidental change.
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome.
Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
gpuccio, do you still believe these changes are random?
23gpuccioJanuary 23, 2014 at 3:05 am
I do believe that random variation happens continuously in the genome. I don't believe, obviously, that RV explains functional information in the genome. Functional information is designed.
I have often proposed guided variation and/or intelligent selection (even after random variation) as possible ways of design implementation in biological beings. Those are instances of design.
But RV certainly exists. We see it all the time.
24gpuccioJanuary 23, 2014 at 3:15 am
Ah, another point.
While your examples of intelligent working in the genome are wonderful, and very significant, I still think that any appearance of new dFSCI (like a new protein superfamily) requires an input of functional information from outside the existing genome. But many adaptations and variations can certainly be controlled by the existing genome itself.
It is a fundamental point in my views of ID, however, that new dFSCI can only originate because of an input from a conscious intelligent being.
gpuccio, Kelly states:
"Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur."
Clearly Kelly is looking for what he terms spontaneous mutations, which is another way of saying mutations that he believes to be completely unguided, unplanned, i.e. non-directed. 'Spontaneous mutations which are adamantly held by Darwinists to be the source for all the complexity in life we see. As I have briefly laid out, Shapiro has made the point clear that the vast majority of 'mutations/changes' to the genome are not 'spontaneous' in the Darwinian sense, in that sophisticated molecular machines are in fact making very specific changes to the genome in a very precise fashion. As to exactly how the decisions are being in the cell made as to how to make these precise changes/mutations to the genome, nobody knows. The reason nobody knows exactly how the decisions are being made is due to the extremely complex level of hierarchical information involved above genomic information. Do you believe these molecular machines are making these changes in a 'spontaneous/random' fashion. I certainly don't!
Sounds of silence: synonymous nucleotides as a key to biological regulation and complexity. – Jan 2013
Excerpt: Silent or synonymous codon positions, which do not determine amino acid sequences of the encoded proteins, define mRNA secondary structure and stability and affect the rate of translation, folding and post-translational modifications of nascent polypeptides.,,,
Synonymous positions of the coding regions have a higher level of hybridization potential relative to non-synonymous positions, and are multifunctional in their regulatory and structural roles.
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion – March 2010
Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten – of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot.
etc.. etc..
26gpuccioJanuary 23, 2014 at 4:37 am
You quote a phrase by Kelly:
"Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur."
That phrase, IMO, is simply wrong. Those mutations to which he refers, "errors in the repair process for damaged DNA", are simply random. There are two kinds of errors, random error and systematic error. I some mutations are the result of systematic error, that only means that there is some definite repetitive malfunctioning in the repair mechanism. I don't believe that to be the case.
The simple truth is that errors are random, wherever they occur. Kelly just suggests that they are non random because of his completely wrong idea that random means equally probable, or for other wrong ideas of his. As far as he cannot give us a necessity explanations of the errors, errors are random, for the reasons I have tried to explain in my post #19.
I think that you, instead, refer to intelligent variations implemented in the genome by functional mechanisms, whatever they are. Those are not "random errors", but the working of a definite functional system.
However, as I have tried to explain, I believe that any system which works algorithmically can do many things, but not generate new original dFSCI. IOWs, even those intelligent mechanisms cannot explain the appearance of a new protein superfamily.
I believe that random errors can contribute practically nothing to functional information, the few documented cases of microevolution are all trivial, and mostly of the "burning the bridges" type, just to quote Behe.
Instead, intelligent adaptations guided by existing algorithms in the genome, or however in the existing living beings, can certainly do much more. For example, many mechanisms in bacteria, including plasmidic systems, are probably very good adaptational systems. As I have said many times, antibody maturation in humans is a very good example of embedded protein engineering (although, being somatic, it does not produce heritable information).
However, the generation of a new protein superfamily, or of a new protein network or regulation network, or even a new body plan, are good examples of new, original dFSCI. The only possible explanation for them is the input of new functional information from a conscious being, an agent who is outside the existing biological being, and who interacts with it to modify it.
gpuccio, I think you are trying to split hairs with your definition between systematic and spontaneous mutations. Moreover,,
Evolutionists Caught Again—But They Still Believe – Dr. Cornelius Hunter – May 2012
Excerpt: As a new paper now explains, under evolution we must believe that mutations rates have been "evolutionarily optimized." That is, evolution is now so brilliant that it created the means to not only control, but to optimize the actual mutation rates.,,, (Here is how they put their findings)
"Upon comparing 34 Escherichia coli genomes, we observe that the neutral mutation rate varies by more than an order of magnitude across 2,659 genes, with mutational hot and cold spots spanning several kilobases.,, Importantly, the variation is not random: we detect a lower rate in highly expressed genes and in those undergoing stronger purifying selection.,, Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations.,, Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved. ,, The findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution and the control of mutations.,,"
Dr. Hunter Comments: "These findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution? Well sure, if by that they mean how absurd are evolution truth claims."
A few additional notes that may be of interest:
Proof reading of DNA polymerase (Reduces error rate to 1 in 100 million) – video
The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011
Excerpt: "Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation."
Protein Researchers Unravel the Molecular Dance of DNA Repair – March 2012
Excerpt: Using state-of-the-art technology, scientists at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research at the University of Copenhagen and their international collaborators have successfully obtained molecular snapshots of tens of thousands processes involved in DNA damage repair.,,, "We first damaged the DNA of cells using radiation or chemical drugs and then used a technique called mass spectrometry, which is a way of precisely determining the identity of proteins and their chemical modifications," Petra Beli says.
"This allowed us to follow thousands of protein modifications that happened in the process of DNA repair, shedding new light on how the networks of biochemical signals are regulated and how the infrastructure of alerts works."
The data from the experiments is so extensive that it will require much further work by researchers to fully understand the significance and impact of these newly identified signaling pathways.
Contradiction in evolutionary theory – video – (The contradiction between extensive DNA repair mechanisms and the necessity of 'random mutations/errors' for Darwinian evolution)
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
Excerpt: The bottom line is that repair mechanisms are incompatible with Darwinism in principle. Since sophisticated repair mechanisms do exist in the cell after all, then the thing to discard in the dilemma to avoid the contradiction necessarily is the Darwinist dogma.
New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms – Cornelius Hunter – January 7, 2013
Excerpt: mutations don't occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene's single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene's nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,
These findings contradict evolution's prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,,
29gpuccioJanuary 23, 2014 at 1:28 pm
I have not spoken of "systematic and spontaneous mutations". I have only mentioned the difference between systematic error and random error, which are two well known concepts in methodology.
However, I have simply tried to clarify my opinions on a few important points. I am not sure that I understand what your opinions are on those points, but I am happy that you keep them.
gpuccio- Have you read "Not By Chance", by Dr Lee Spetner? He has a "non-random evolutionary hypothsus" that posits "built-in responses to environmental cues".
gpuccio, 'spontaneous/random' mutations, in the sense of completely undirected, unplanned, mutations, mutations which are suppose to be the source for all creativity in the neo-Darwinian view of things, which is the sense in which leading Darwinists themselves adamantly mean the term 'random mutation' when they use the term (as amply illustrated in the Behe video I listed) is the primary type of mutations that Kelly is concerned with (this is where you are trying to split hairs and make things more complicated than they actually are). I have addressed the fact that, scientifically, Darwinists have no right to presume 'spontaneous mutations' to be completely undirected in the first place in post 17. I could go further in clarifying issues in this matter as to how it completely undermines Darwinian thinking, but I think it will fall on deaf ears since you seem to be more concerned with declaring him to be (IYO) wrong. So I will refrain.
32gpuccioJanuary 24, 2014 at 2:27 am
Just to understand.
Do you believe that all mutations are guided?
Do you deny that unguided mutations happen at all?
Do you believe that SNPs which cause mendelian diseases in humans are guided mutations, and that they contribute to the evolution of functional information?
I would like you to answer that, because my simple point is that random mutations exist, that they are random and unguided, and that they do not contribute to the evolution of functional information.
I believe my points are clear enough. Could you please clarify your position?
33gpuccioJanuary 24, 2014 at 2:35 am
No, I have not read that.
But maybe you can clarify a point for me.
I certainly believe that there are "non random responses" to "environmental cues". I also believe that those processes, which can be understood as the working of intelligent algorithms in the genome, or however in the living being, can contribute significantly to intelligent adaptation. That can also mean the refinement of existing functions or proteins.
What I don't believe is that such mechanisms can generate new, original dFSCI: IOWs, new functions that require new complex digital sequences. New protein superfamilies are a good example of that.
The simple reason why I don't believe they can is that they must be essentially algorithmic processes, IOWs something similar to a computer program. And, as I have stated many times, I strongly believe that algorithmic processing, however complex and intelligent, cannot generate new dFSCI, and that an input of information from a conscious agent is necessary for that.
But, if Spetner (or you) has convincing arguments against that, I am happy to hear them.
gpuccio, do you believe anything happens in the universe apart from God's permissive will?
As to the first question:
Do you believe that all mutations are guided?
As clearly pointed out in post 17, Scientifically, there is no question that everything that happens in this universe has to pass through God's permissive will first. Scientifically there is simply no room for debate on the matter. To deny that fact is to not understand what science has revealed to us and is to argue Theology instead of science. Scientifically, not Theologically, all mutations, ever decay of every unstable particle, every snowflake that falls to the ground, EVERYTHING!, are all guided. There is nothing that happens in this universe apart from God permissive will as far as science can tell us.
Do you deny that unguided mutations happen at all?
See the answer to your first question.
Do you believe that SNPs which cause mendelian diseases in humans are guided mutations, and that they contribute to the evolution(?) of functional information?
This following quote by Dr. John Avise is illuminating as to this question. In the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses (bad) Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism:
It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012
Excerpt: "Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]" – Dr. John Avise – "Inside The Human Genome"
There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn't have done it that way.
Does it even phase John Avise that the scientific evidence, that he himself cites, is absolutely SCIENTIFICALLY crushing for Darwinism? Moreover, he goes on to state,,,
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found that the total number of known disease causing mutations has almost doubled since he wrote his book:
Total Entries – 148,413
What's completely ironic is that Dr. John Avise's theological argumentation from detrimental mutations for Darwinian evolution, as to what God would and would not do, turns out to be, in fact (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful 'scientific' argument against Darwinism since nobody can seem to find any truly beneficial mutations that are on their way to building up functional complexity/information that is greater than what is already present in life:
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
Thus scientifically, there is no question as to whether everything that happens in the universe is part of God's will or not, and that 'spontaneous mutations', for the overwhelming majority of times, ALWAYS reduce functional information. What is a mystery is why do Darwinists insist on using Theological argumentation as to what God would or would not do in this universe to try to make the 'scientific' case for Darwinism. If I want bad Theology I would go to a Unitarian church! 🙂
Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video
What I don't believe is that such mechanisms can generate new, original dFSCI: IOWs, new functions that require new complex digital sequences. New protein superfamilies are a good example of that.
In Spetner's scenario all the information is already present- just as Meyer said in SitC- think genetic algorithms. They do not create any new information or produce dFSCI- all the information they need is already designed in. They cannot exceed that designed in dFSCI.
Even if new proteins and superfamilies would be created it would be due to the design which would have all of that information already.
Hopefully that helps.
38gpuccioJanuary 24, 2014 at 8:08 am
I have no doubts that "everything that happens in this universe has to pass through God's permissive will first". That is something I strongly believe for religious and philosophical reasons. I would not say, however, that it is "scientifically" obvious. If you believe that, it's fine for me, but I would not support that argument in that way.
But design detection in biological information is all another matter. The existence of dFSCI in biological objects strongly supports the inference to an explicit intervention of a conscious designer, an intervention which would be something very different from the "permissive will" of God. What is required is an active input of functional information in specific material objects.
So, when I ask if, say, the mutation that originates a defective SMN1 protein and causes spinal muscolar atrophy in the newborn is a random event or not, I am not suggesting that it happens out of the "permissive will of God". I am sure it does not, because, like you, I believe that nothing happens out of the permissive will of God.
What I am asking is if you believe that such a mutation is a random error, similar to a typo or to the result of the tossing of a coin, or if you think that it is a specifically designed event, where a designer willingly modifies that single nucleotide in that genome to achieve a specific plan.
And, anyway, even if you believe that, in that case the design would not be detectable, because the variation is not complex (one nucleotide), and for all scientific reasons a design inference cannot be made for a simple variation.
Because ID theory is about detectable design, not about design in any case. And the main idea in ID is that design is detectable only if it generates complexity linked to some definite specification.
39gpuccioJanuary 24, 2014 at 8:16 am
Thank you for the clarification.
With all the limits of one who has not read the other's arguments, I must say that I don't agree. The facts we know are all for a gradual increase of complex functional information in the course of biological evolution.
Moreover, I really don't believe that new dFSCI can be generated algorithmically. Unless, obviously, the information itself is already in the algorithm.
So, unless we can show that the sequences of all 2000 known protein superfamilies (or some equivalent information, like all the biochemical rules and computing power to calculate those sequences for definite functions) were already included in the original information (of the first living beings?), together with all the information needed to generate protein networks, organs, body plans, and so on, I cannot understand how all those things could come into existence at different times in natural history without many new, original, fresh inputs of functional information.
Maybe I will read Spetner sometime, and then I can be more specific.
gpuccio- Spetner does not advocate universal common descent. He says the deck was stacked in the originally Created Kinds- several thousand of them- he isn't sure how many.
But anyway, you are not actually limiting the designer (or God, if you prefer) such that there could not have been a designed program insewrted into the originally designed organisms such that the diversity of life observed could arise?
Granted I do not accept UCD- for lack of supporting data- but I am not going out on a limb to say it is impossible via all mechanisms- especially knowing what genetic and evolutionary algorithms can create starting from randomly generated virtual populations.
41gpuccioJanuary 24, 2014 at 8:59 am
All that can be fine, but in a scientific discussion I need some facts in favor of those "Created Kinds", whatever they are, existing on our planet at OOL and during natural history, and mechanically interacting with matter.
You see, in the end it is not so important how the functional information is inputted. The designer can input it from his intuitive knowledge, or through some intelligent algorithm he implements, or he may have created Kinds (whatever they are) on some other plane, and then input the information from that plane. I don't know, we can make any hypothesis, but then we have to match our hypotheses with known facts.
Known facts about what we can observe (or infer) about material biological objects in natural history tell us that there is a constant (but probably non continuous) input of new information at definite times.
When a new protein family appears, it appears. It was not there before. It is there at some time in natural history, and it is still there now.
That we have to explain. That information comes from someplace. And it had to be generated originally from a conscious agent.
As far as we can understand, the original designed organism was some prokaryote (LUCA or FUCA, which IMO are the same thing). As far as we can know from facts, it was not very different from modern bacteria or arches. I really can't see how "a designed program such that the diversity of life observed could arise" can be found in that kind of biological being.
No one knows what the originally designed organisms were. The facts that favor the originaslly Created Kinds are the observences that reproduction produces very similar organisms to the parents. It is only when we cannot observe ddoes soemthing magical occur to bring about new body plans requiring new body parts.
My only point is a clever enough designer should be able to program organisms to produce new protein superfamilies if that is what is required.
gpuccio, contrary to what Darwinists claim to the contrary all completely random entropic events in this universe lose information from the initial information input that God put into the initial entropic state of the universe:
"Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…"
Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]
"Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology."
Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.
"Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more."
Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century
Thus, if you want life, new proteins and/or new life forms in general in the universe, then a new input of 'functional' information into the universe will be required.
Kerrie Roberts- No Matter What **With Lyrics**
Romans 8:18-25
I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Autumn Leafs Laughter
Oh please do tell us of your secret
you majestic autumn leaves,of regal red ,and shimmering golden yellow,
Brilliantly coloring the landscapes of trees.
Do you dare pass away in a rush of beauty while you are slowly dying?
Pay ye no heed to all the other deaths so solemnly attended with tears and crying?
or Does the essence in you somehow yearn jealously for a glorious life to come?
And you somehow know that death shouldn't be sad but fun?
For I truly wish I could die like you and that I knew the secret of your story, so that my countenance should light up and glow as my soul is delivered to behold God,s glory.
So please autumn leaves which mock death with such defiant belly laughter,
Do tell us your secret over death so that we may properly enter the hereafter.
Autumn Leaf's Laughter – music poem
44gpuccioJanuary 24, 2014 at 11:47 am
"Thus, if you want life, new proteins and/or new life forms in general in the universe, then a new input of 'functional' information into the universe will be required."
But that's exactly my point! 🙂
Well sorry for any confusion. It is just the whole 'unguided/random/spontaneous' part is where the real controversy is at. Theists as well as Atheists completely mishandle the issue by not tracing out the entropic root. i.e. 1 in 10^10^123. There is nothing 'unguided' in the sense that atheists would like to mean it. That point can't be stressed enough!
46QueriusJanuary 25, 2014 at 5:18 pm
gpuccio stated
As I have tried to explain in my previous post, the simple fact that "not all mutations are equally likely" in no way means that the system is not a random system. So, the term "random mutation" is not misleading at all.
Within the scope of your definition for "random mutation," I agree with you.
However, you obviously know about mutability variation within genomic architecture, so you used the term "non-uniform" distribution of "random" mutations, which sounds like an oxymoron.
My objection is that broadly applying the term "random mutations" blurs out the fact that certain organisms have an advantage with mutability in certain regions, and these regions are not random, but at least some have the appearance of design.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
Newsweek Wall Street editor Allan Sloan looks at the impact of the New York Stock Exchange offering stock of its own.
Sean Cole reports on a new magazine by and for college students about one of their favorite topics: sex.
This corporate earnings season marks at least the 10th straight quarter of double-digit earnings growth. Bob Moon takes a look at what's behind the trend.
The Smithsonian Institute's board of regents today reviews a controversial contract that gives Showtime the right to block some independent filmmakers from accessing Smithsonian archives. Ashley Milne-Tyte reports.
Warner Brothers is scheduled to release a CD of protest songs by Neil Young today, weeks earlier than originally planned, possibly because Young was giving the songs away on his Web site. Jeff Tyler reports.


text:
VIDEO: Fan Yells "Mashed Potatoes" After Tiger Woods Tee Shot at Chevron
Tiger Woods finally won a tournament this past weekend, taking the Chevron World Challenge by one stroke over Zach Johnson. It was Tiger's first win in two years and 26 tournaments since that fateful Thanksgiving when his ex-wife Elin took a 9-iron to his head, neck and Escalade.
Woods didn't dominate this tournament like he used to when he was winning big on a regular basis. In fact, the former world's No.1 player was a stroke down with two holes to play, but managed to birdie No.17 and 18 for the come from behind victory. No doubt that after tying things up with Johnson on the 17th, Tiger was buoyed by the guy that hollered "mashed potatoes" after his tee shot on 18. Read more ›