Life 2.0 (Science plays God)

The Economist ^ | 9/10/06 | The Economist

[voletti]

At the moment, what passes for genetic engineering is mere pottering. It means moving genes one at a time from species to species so that bacteria can produce human proteins that are useful as drugs, and crops can produce bacterial proteins that are useful as insecticides. True engineering would involve more radical redesigns. But the Carlson curve (Dr Carlson disavows the name, but that may not stop it from sticking) is making that possible.

In the short run such engineering means assembling genes from different organisms to create new metabolic pathways or even new organisms. In the long run it might involve re-writing the genetic code altogether, to create things that are beyond the range of existing biology. These are enterprises far more worthy of the name of genetic engineering than today's tinkering. But since that name is taken, the field's pioneers have had to come up with a new one. They have dubbed their fledgling discipline “synthetic biology”. Truly intelligent design

One of synthetic biology's most radical spirits is Drew Endy. Dr Endy, who works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to the subject from engineering, not biology. As an engineer, he can recognise a kludge when he sees one. And life, in his opinion, is a kludge.

[Dimensio]

metmom's reasoning is that because it is impossible to rule out an intelligence as the ultimate cause for any "increase of order" event, it is therefore logical to presume that any "increase of order" event is ultimately caused by intelligence. That her conclusion is based upon a logical fallacy is of no concern.

[Thatcherite]

And that can't be explained by degradation from the design because..................?

Start with the premise of degradation from design and you'll get one set of tests that you can make to see if the premise is true. For example you wouldn't expect there to be any pattern in the degradation that followed similar "kinds" of species about. It would be curious indeed to see similar "kinds" experiencing identical degradation.

Start with the premise of evolution from a common ancestor and you get a different set of tests that you can make to see if the premise is true. For example you'd expect flaws in the genomes to follow the hierarchy of common descent. Very closely related species, that have a recent common ancestor, would share all the genomic flaws of that common ancestor. More distantly related species, where the common ancestor is in the distant past, would share fewer genomic flaws. It isn't just the flaws that are relevant of course. We'd expect function to follow the pattern of common descent too, both at the genotype and morphological level.

The Designer could have done anything, even designed things to mirror the appearance of common descent for inscrutable reasons. What those who reject common descent need to ponder is why all the tests that would falsify common ancestry that we can devise end up failing to falsify it. Instead the predictions of genome and morphology that we make using the assumption of common descent are confirmed, again and again and again. If there was a Designer (and that hypothesis can never be disproved, a Designer can do anything and therefore satisfies all tests) then that Designer either used evolution, or mimicked the results of evolution.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Human creatures will not be able to create life, nor should they attempt to do so. Life 2.0 displays an enormous amount of arrogance, moreso than even a 1.5 or something in the 1 range. Humanity could return to its state before the Flood (people lived past 900 years), but man was CREATED perfect.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

There are theories into hyperdrives. And it is not known whether there are even habitable planets out there.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

You handled that with a lot of kindness (rather than slamming back). Kudos.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Millions of fossils without a discernable missing link. The fossil record is not a support for macroevolution.

They are far more evidence of a worldwide Flood (organic things rot, they would have to be buried relatively fast in mineral-rich sediment to be fossilized). As you mentioned, there are millions of fossils, and yet fossilization does not occur all that easily. The Flood fits the conditions to fossilize a lots of organics, all over the world.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

A cube is not nearly as complex as life, and you should know that. (You probably do).

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

That was uncalled for.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Paranoid and a Macroevolutionist....

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Are you a Creationist, or aren't you?

[Ichneumon]

Millions of fossils without a discernable missing link.

You're kidding, right? I take it you never pay attention to the news, or read any science journal, not even the ones written for general audiences? There have been dozens of "missing links" found and reported in the last year alone, much less over the past 150+ years. Here, start to learn something finally:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...

Phylum Level Evolution

Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life

Cuffey: Transitional Fossils

What Is A Transitional Fossil?

More Evidence for Transitional Fossils

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Transitional Forms of Whales

Fossil Horses FAQs

PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth

Mammaliformes: Docodonta

Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation

Evolution and the Fossil Record

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird

Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant

More are being found all the time. For one example, not long ago there were no major transitional fossils between whales and their land-based ancestors. In the time since, however, *many* have been found, mapping out an unmistakable sequence transitioning between land mammals and fully aquatic whales, including this fine fellow:

For details, see:

The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Links on whale evolution

SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin of Whales

Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales

Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls

Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus±whale clade

A new, diminutive Eocene whale from Kachchh (Gujarat, India) and its implications for locomotor evolution of cetaceans

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales

Mysticete (Baleen Whale) Relationships Based upon the Sequence of the Common Cetacean DNA Satellite1

The Mitochondrial Genome of the Sperm Whale and a New Molecular Reference for Estimating Eutherian Divergence Dates

Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss

Eocene evolution of whale hearing

Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised

Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals

Subordinal artiodactyl relationships in the light of phylogenetic analysis of 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes

New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Cetacean Systematics

LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF THE TIME OF ORIGIN OF CETACEA AND THE TIME OF DIVERGENCE OF CETACEA AND ARTIODACTYLA

Phylogenetic Relationships of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans as Deduced from the Comparison of Cytochrome b and 12s rRNA Mitochondrial Sequences

Molecular evolution of mammalian ribonucleases

How many more would you like?

The fossil record is not a support for macroevolution.

ROFL! Oh, I see -- you've made the mistake of "learning" about science from Jack Chick comics instead of actually getting a real education on the topic.

Read and learn, kid:

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Also:

[From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Version 2.85

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

[Last Update: April 15, 2005]

Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.

Introduction

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Outline

Introduction Universal Common Descent Defined Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism What Counts as Scientific Evidence Other Explanations for the Biology How to Cite This Document Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method Phylogenetics introduction Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction Maximum parsimony Maximum likelihood Distance matrix methods Statistical support for phylogenies Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees? Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees	Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree Unity of life Nested hierarchies Convergence of independent phylogenies Statistics of incongruent phylogenies Transitional forms Reptile-birds Reptile-mammals Ape-humans Legged whales Legged seacows Chronology of common ancestors	Part 2. Past history Anatomical vestiges Atavisms Whales with hindlimbs Humans tails Molecular vestiges Ontogeny and developmental biology Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches Snake embryos with legs Embryonic human tail Marsupial eggshell and caruncle Present biogeography Past biogeography Marsupials Horses Apes and humans
Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism Anatomical parahomology Molecular parahomology Anatomical convergence Molecular convergence Anatomical suboptimal function Molecular suboptimal function	Part 4. Molecular evidence Protein functional redundancy DNA functional redundancy Transposons Redundant pseudogenes Endogenous retroviruses	Part 5. Change Genetic Morphological Functional The strange past Stages of speciation Speciation events Morphological rates Genetic rates Closing remarks

They are far more evidence of a worldwide Flood (organic things rot, they would have to be buried relatively fast in mineral-rich sediment to be fossilized).

No, sorry:

Problems with a Global Flood

"Polystrate" Fossils

Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"

Dinosaur Prints in Coal

The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood

Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?

Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust

Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust

What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?

Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood

Why The Flood Can't Be Global

The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce

The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See

Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood

Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?

Fleeing from the Flood

Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model

Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood

While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing

More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology

Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood

Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -- Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

As you mentioned, there are millions of fossils, and yet fossilization does not occur all that easily. The Flood fits the conditions to fossilize a lots of organics, all over the world.

Let me get this straight -- your "evidence" for a global flood is that there are bunches of fossils? You can't think of any other scenario that could have produced bunches of fossils? Really?

[Ichneumon]

You handled that with a lot of kindness (rather than slamming back). Kudos.

Too bad her "kind" response was riddled with fallacies and errors...

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Showering down what you obviously consider to be support for missing links isn't going to fly. In many cases, fossils of the supposed end species are dated as being earlier than that of the missing link. Others have superficially appeared to be transitional species and have later been declared to be unrelated.

Furthermore, how about posting a picture of an actual fossil, rather than a Macroevolutionist's reconstruction of a jumble of fossilized bones?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

No more so than yours. You in particular seem to have something against Creationism (not only that you consider it to be wrong). When you are confronted with a comment with which you disagree, do not immediately insult the the poster.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Bye.

[Ichneumon]

Showering down what you obviously consider to be support for missing links isn't going to fly.

Because, after all, you're just going to ignore it all out of fear that you might learn some facts that might challenge the things you want to believe. That's really common among anti-evolution creationists.

In many cases, fossils of the supposed end species are dated as being earlier than that of the missing link.

Wow, what a cheap excuse for ignoring ALL transitional fossils, and all the biochemical, DNA, and biogeographical evidence which independently cross-confirms the transitional status of those fossils. Reality just bounces off your forehead with a sharp "ping", doesn't it?

Furthermore, the observation you point out is not a problem for transitional status, which you would understand if you bothered to learn the first thing about paleontology before you attempted to lamely critique it. Read this to get a clue. Short form: Your observation would be a valid objection if species existed for only a point in time, but since in reality they generally persist for many millions of years, your attempted point is, well, pointless. It's like someone saying, "hey, my mother was alive last week, and I was alive twenty years ago, so she can't be my ancestor!" Nice try, kid. Next time try a dishonest diversion that's not already on the list of creationist errors, fallacies, and red herrings.

Others have superficially appeared to be transitional species and have later been declared to be unrelated.

There are always borderline or questionable cases. Now how lame and dishonest of you is it to handwave away the vast numbers of transitional fossils which are NOT? How grossly dishonest of you was it to flatly declare that there weren't any at all? And why is it that almost without exception the anti-evolution creationists are some of the biggest liars I have ever seen?

Furthermore, how about posting a picture of an actual fossil, rather than a Macroevolutionist's reconstruction of a jumble of fossilized bones?

There were dozens of complete and "non-jumbled" fossils in my links. Why are you pretending that there aren't? Oh, right, because you're as dishonest as the rest of the creationists.

Don't you know that there's even a commandment against bearing false witness?

Don't you feel any shame whatsoever for attempting to mislead your fellow Freepers with such lame and transparent misrepresentations and falsehoods? If you do, you'll be the first anti-evolution creationist to display any shame whatsoever, but I always hold out hope that eventually one of you guys will turn out to actually follow the Christian ideals you pretend to be espousing. Come on, for once show me that at least one of you has better ethics than the decent atheists I know, none of which would stoop to the kind of behavior I see the anti-evolutionists routinely engage in.

[Ichneumon]

[Too bad her "kind" response was riddled with fallacies and errors...]

No more so than yours.

Gosh, kid, you sort of "forgot" to identify any actual errors or fallacies in my posts. You just made an unfounded allegation without a shred of support. What a sleazy thing to do.

You in particular seem to have something against Creationism (not only that you consider it to be wrong).

I have nothing whatsoever against creationism. I do however have a problem with sloppy thinking, false claims, fallacious arguments, and outright misrepresentations -- you know, like you have made in your own posts on this thread.

When you are confronted with a comment with which you disagree, do not immediately insult the the poster.

I don't. If you can find any post of mine in which I "immediately insult the the [sic] poster" without any cause, I'll be glad to apologize.

[Ichneumon]

Now, would you care to retract your blatantly false claims? Or are you going to continue to repeat claims that you know are false?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Why is it that the Macroevolutionists seem to always try to get the last post on what end out becoming crevo threads?

[Ichneumon]

Why is it that the Macroevolutionists seem to always try to get the last post on what end out becoming crevo threads?

Why is it that the anti-evolutionists seem to always be completely unable/unwilling to deal with material which demonstrates that they're spreading gross falsehoods, and are unable to even retract their falsehoods when caught at it? They don't even attempt to defend their material or explain their behavior. Probably because they know they can't.

Prediction: Jedi Master Pikachu will repeat these false claims on future threads, while pretending that his falsehoods have never been refuted and that he has never seen any evidence to the contrary. I've seen this behavior time and time and time again from the anti-evolutionists. They have no shame, and no regard for truth whatsoever.