Evolution Observed Using Intelligent Design?

Breaking news, various media outlets report that what was expected to occur within billions of years, happened in a lab in just 60 days without “mystical complexity or a lot of the things that people have hypothesized — special genes, a huge genome, very unnatural conditions,” said evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano of the University of Minnesota, co-author of a study that was published on Jan. 17, 2012.

Evolutionists believe multicellular life forms evolved from single-celled ones but are unable to explain how single cells could unlearn the selfishness that is required for survival and learn to work as a team.  Also a very important aspect that is used quite often to measure evolution is called fitness.  This is also  important to use in determining the value of this particular experiment.

The subject of the experiment was yeast. In Wired, the experiment went like this…

“Once per day they shook the flasks, removed yeast that most rapidly settled to the bottom, and used it to start new cultures. Free-floating yeast were left behind, while yeast that gathered in heavy, fast-falling clumps survived to reproduce.”

“Within just a few weeks, individual yeast cells still retained their singular identities, but clumped together easily. At the end of two months, the clumps were a permanent arrangement. Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular, displaying all the tendencies associated with “higher” forms of life: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multicellular offspring.”

The authors admitted that this was not “natural selection” at work,  “by selecting for yeast cells or clusters that settled most quickly.”  Their reasoning for the lab experiment was this was give them knowledge on how this could have worked in the distant past. They have the idea if they can perform it in the lab, nature could surely do it also. A problem with that is, this is how they would accomplished it in the lab but how do that know that this is how nature would accomplish the same task in the real world?

So during the experiment the scientists would select to keep only the large clusters that sank to the bottom, then select the best snowflake-formers to survive and reproduce.

Remember evolution is measured in terms of “fitness” so how fit were the artificially produced ones from the originals? Michael Behe comments on the research with this…

“… Examination showed that the fast-sedimenting cells formed clusters due to incomplete separation of replicating mother-daughter cells.

“The cell clusters also were 10% less fit (that’s quite an amount) than the beginning cells in the absence of the sedimentation selection. After further selection it was seen that some cells in clusters would “commit suicide” (apoptosis), which apparently made the clusters more brittle and allowed chunks to break off and form new clusters. (The beginning cells already had the ability to undergo apoptosis.)”

The experiment fails the fitness factor, the yeast became less fit than the originals. Also how could it be called evolution in general when the yeast could form snowflake clusters before any selected pressure was applied to them? In other words, no new ability, they were the same snowflake clusters producers throughout the process. No new information had evolved in the lab and when you take into account the failed measure of fitness, the breaking news was just all hype.

About these ads

10 thoughts on “Evolution Observed Using Intelligent Design?

  1. Sound like the result was based on (what some might call, and others may deny) intelligent design.

  2. The authors admitted that this was not “natural selection” at work,

    Michael’s creationist affliction has blinded him again. Artificial selection and natural selection are exactly the same thing—merely performed by different entities.

    His abyssal ignorance of the history of science precludes him from knowing that Darwin got the idea for natural select6ion from the breeding of animals and plants by humans. His great insight was that “natural” and “artificial” selection both employ exactly the same mechanisms, and produce exactly the same the same results. The only difference is the entity that performs the selection: people for artificial selection, or predators, parasites, and other agents in the environment for natural selection.

    If this experiment involves “intelligent design,” then honeybees are intelligent, because they breed fruit trees for characteristics that they like, by selecting which trees to pollinate. E. coli bacteria in our gut are intelligent, because they select certain human variations so as to maximize their metabolism.

    In the Minnesota experiment, the researchers “selected” for multicellularity, and they did this in exactly the same way that the blind forces of the environment would select for it—or for any other trait. No “intelligent design” involved at all.

    In fact, the same effect occurs at the bottom of brewer’s tanks,where the clumpy yeast falls of its own accord, without any human input. How could this be “intelligent design” when a scientist does it in a lab, and not when it happens of its own accord in a brewery?

    Biologists now think that multicellularity evolved at least 25 different times.. Apparently it’s a relatively easy thing to
    do.

  3. Evolutionists believe multicellular life forms evolved from single-celled ones but are unable to explain how single cells could unlearn the selfishness that is required for survival and learn to work as a team.

    Here again, Michael’s preconceptions blind him. In this case, it is the “agent fallacy.” Michael believes that everything that happens in the universe requires an outside agent to tell it what to do.[1] Thus, a yeast cell can be “selfish” or it can choose to “cooperate.

    Well, guess, what. In some environmental conditions, more cells will survive if they clump together and act as a single entity. If more survive that have this capability, then more of them will do it. Simple as that. Although smarter than the average creationist, yeast cells do not have enough brains to decide whether they wish to be selfish or to cooperate. If the ones which cooperate survive better, then the survivors will cooperate more. That is, they are more “fit.”

    “The cell clusters also were 10% less fit (that’s quite an amount) than the beginning cells in the absence of the sedimentation selection.

    Michael Behe is a PhD microbiologist. So his statement above is not ignorant. No. it is a bald-faced lie. Behe is playing a shell game. He compares the fitness of the evolved yeast in the original environment with the original yeast in the original environment. But the evolved yeast are in a new environment—one where fitness is measured in terms of clumping ability, and not in terms of metabolic ability.[2]

    Behe continues—

    After further selection it was seen that some cells in clusters would “commit suicide” (apoptosis), which apparently made the clusters more brittle and allowed chunks to break off and form new clusters.

    Behe misleads again. All multicellular organisms use apoptosis. It is a characteristic of multicellular life. It is not a bad thing; it has several uses, and happens all the time.

    Further, Behe contradicts his own point. If apoptosis aids in multicellular reproduction, and multicellularity is the measure of fitness, then apoptosis increases fitness, rather than decreasing it.

    Michael Behe must be getting crotchety in his old age, if he thinks that anyone would fall for this obviously false argument.

    ==============

    [1] A question for Michael: Doesw he believe that God intervenes in the orbits of planetasw to keep them from wandering about aimlessly? (Actually, Isaac newton did believe that.) Does he believe that God persoannly supervises every detauil of a humjan embrtyo’s growthy, tellin the liver when to strat formiong, and telling the heart to build up its four chambers one at a time? I think even Michael would consider this just a bit silly. And yet …. And yet.

    [2] Rabbits evolved from fish. Yet, if you hold a rabbit underwater, it will drow, while the fish will not. Does this show that the fish is more “fit”? According to Behe, it does….

  4. Also how could it be called evolution in general when the yeast could form snowflake clusters before any selected pressure was applied to them? In other words, no new ability, they were the same snowflake clusters producers throughout the process.

    Because that’s what evolution is: the spread of traits throughout a population under selective pressure.

    For the third time in a single post, Michel’s ignorance of evolution defeats him. If he only knew what he was talking about, he might even be dangerous.

    Evolution works with what exists.[1] Even though yeast is single-celled, it, like many other microbes, produces proteins, adherin and cadherin, which are sticky. It, and they, also produce simple signaling molecules which establish chemical gradients that yeast (and other microbes) follow to find food.

    But these features do not normally lead to multicellularity—normally, only a few individuals clump together, and then only temporarily. The researchers wondered, would these molecules, common to many microbial species, induce multicellularity in yeast, if enough selective pressure were applied? This was the object of the experiment, and it succeeded.

    It matteres not whether multicellulaiity initially arose in this fashion. The point is, it could arise by this simple process. And it could probably arise in other species as well. After all, biologists now think that multicellularity arose naturally at least 25 different times.

    The point of the experiment is that the evolution of multicellularity seems to be much easier than anyone had thought.

    ===========

    [1] What exists may of course change through mutation and other mechanisms. But this was an experiment in pure selection.

  5. Olorin says, “Michael’s creationist affliction has blinded him again. Artificial selection and natural selection are exactly the same thing—merely performed by different entities.”

    It is a major difference, an intelligent being is performing the process rather than from a mindless process and the authors of the paper even agreed with that but got skewed into claiming this is how nature works from what they did rather than what nature does. Also, with a 10 percent fitness loss in just only two months, what about a few years or longer, how much fitness loss would occur then? In evolution, the expectation is a pathway that leads to gains in fitness.

  6. Michael, did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not.

    For example, your comment about “decreased fitness” just above is hilarious!: “what about a few years or longer, how much fitness loss would occur then?” Bwahahahahhaaaa. Your understanding seems even less than what I had thought. But I’ll let5 you figure it out for yourself this time.

  7. Also, with a 10 percent fitness loss in just only two months, what about a few years or longer, how much fitness loss would occur then?

    Since you have not a clue, here is the answer:

    Assume the clumpy strain, after two months, has 10% less fitness in the wild than the original strain.

    If the clumpy strain is reintroduced back into the wild, what would be its relative fitness after a few years?

    Michael assumes it would be much worse.

    The right answer, of course, is exactly the opposite. Its fitness would rise until it is equal to the original strain before the experiment. We’ll let him figure out why this would occur.

    Michael, this is the problem when you criticize something that you know nothing about. People laugh.

  8. Wait, there is another possibility. Instead of returning the experimental bugs to the wild, Michael may have been asking: What if we left the clumpy yeast in the experimental environment, instead of returning them to the wild environment?

    In that case, assuming the fitness is 10% less after two months, how much worse would it be after a couple of years.

    Michael assumes it would become much worse.

    But again he would be wrong. If we leave the clumpy stuff together, then compare it with the wild strain before the experiment, we would find that its fitness would be the same—10% less. Again, we’ll let Michael try to figure out why.

    So Michael would again be,defeated by his ignorance of evolution.

  9. We haven’t heard anything indicating that Michael underestands why the fitnesses he so badly misclaculated would tyurno uit as they do, so we’ll assume he’s still mystifuied by the science of it all.

    Meanwhile, here’s a simpler problem. Everyone is welcome to try it: Calculate the volume of a cylinder of mozzarella having radius “z” and height “a.”

  10. Time’s up.

    The volume of a cylinder of mozzarella with radius “z” and height “a” is—wait for it—

    V = pi z z a

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s