Poetry Discovered In A Bacterial Genome

Can scientists detect intelligently-designed complexity in nature? It’s an interesting question that came to mind with this latest discovery. Poetry has been detected for the first time in nature although it’s known that this was done intentionally in a lab. The BBC reports on this work…

“Poet Christian Bok has encoded his verse into a strip of DNA and had it inserted into a common bacterium, E.coli. DNA is at the heart of every cell. It is a string of molecules called nucleotides which come in four types – adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T).

This genetic sequence is used as an instruction manual for cellular operations. Individual commands are contained in shorter chunks of the DNA called genes. Dr Bok used cryptography to embed his poem into the genetics of the bacterium, devising a chemical alphabet in which each letter is represented by a specific triplet of nucleotides. So, for example, the nucleotide sequence “ATA” codes for the letter “y” and GTG stands for the letter “n”. It took him four years just to work out the code.”

Natural section was brought up in the article as claiming it would remove the poem because there was no benefit. Since natural section is being missed used and often times has a variety of meanings for example, Hodge, M. J. S. 1992. Natural Selection: Historical Perspectives. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 218 which was quoted in ICR states the following… “A quite general issue has still received no canonical treatment: what kind of a thing is natural selection anyway? A law, a principle, a force, a cause, an agent, or all or some of these things? The view that natural selection is a law has been countered by the view that it is a principle, while that conclusion has been countered in turn by an insistence that it is neither.”

The fact of the matter is it’s possible for scientists to intentionally insert messages into the genetic code which therefore should alert everyone to the idea that creationism or intelligent design is a scientific theory! As a matter of fact, it’s possible for an unbiased observer to distinguish natural law from intelligent design in a living organism by examining the code for the presence of specified information!

Natural section is mindless, there is no caring on what gets tossed out, but a Darwinist would claim functional information aids the survival of the organism but poetry would not, but what’s the difference? In a study to help evolutionary scientists understand natural selection as predicted by evolution, Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University conducted an experiment on Salmonella bacterium which was published in the journal of science during November 2010.

Their aim was to come up with new insights on how evolution increases fitness. The researchers were surprised about the results about this experiment because evolutionary expectations were not met. The mutations caused a loss in fitness rather than an increase in fitness! Fitness is supposed to be the strong evidence for evolution yet this experiment adds a new twist, now evolution evidence consists of loss of fitness and gain, another way of the data predicting the theory…

This brings us back to the first question, Can scientists detect intelligently-designed complexity in nature? The answer is, “yes” of course evolutionists will deny that “poetry” is not fitness, the same way they embrace loss in function or fitness as being new evidence for evolution which is why you have a soup full of definitions for natural selection. The evidence however which is detectable, points to a creator, namely God!

Does Purposeful Evolution Really Exist?

Scientists have been amazed at the awesome designs in nature such as DNA where it was once considered to be a simple blob is actually one of the most complex and specialized designs known to man. This amazing design contains an array of special parts required for function as a result, evolutionists invoke another mindless process which includes understanding on how it must be built.

For example, the DNA Damage Repair function which is essential for life was described by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab as evolving this way…

“Homologous recombination is a complex mechanism with multiple steps, but also with many points of regulation to insure accurate recombination at every stage.  This could be why this method has been favored during evolution.  The machinery that relocalizes the damaged DNA before loading Rad51 might have evolved because the consequences of not having it would be terrible.”

Since there are problems with the belief in a slow gradual change where scientists discovered that natural selection does not work. An example of this would be in the study on the belief in protein evolution. In fact it is ridiculously unrealistic. Homologous recombination is a man-made story fused together in order to rescue the slow and gradual story and would not have existed when things like proteins first evolved.

The explanation about evolution given by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is a strange one considering a mindless process would have to know certain things in order for the design to be successful. How could a mindless process understand there are consequences of not having something would be detrimental to the point where it could mean death? How would that motivate a non-mind to produce machinery and complex mechanisms to avoid such terrible consequences?

Considering the following…

1) Mathematics emerged because the consequences of not having it would make science inaccurate.

2) Life emerged because the consequences of not having it would make the earth a very lonely place.

3) Earth emerged because the consequences of having no planets being able to sustain life in this particular solar system would be terrible and lonely.

4) Eyes emerged because the consequences of not having them would be blindness.

5) The constants of physics became fine-tuned because the consequences without it would be terrible.

6) The machinery that repairs DNA might have evolved because the consequences of not having it would be terrible.

What we have here is something intelligently designed being corrupted by a man-made story on how various mindless processes are able to do the same thing. It’s like trying to build a running car using homologous recombination, how far would that car get built and stay running while experimenting with trial and error with a mindless process for billions of years? And a car is nowhere near the complexity that exists like with DNA!  There is no such thing as “purposeful evolution” it’s called intelligent design, created by God!

Where Is Evolution Going To End Up?

This a challenging question to answer because there has been a distinct pattern of evolutionary explanations that builds itself into the realm of complexity with its stories, some of which are well beyond from what Darwin himself envisioned (spontaneous variation and natural selection) while other evolutionary explanations are well beyond from even what neo-Darwinism envisions which as a result has sparked some angry feelings among some evolutionists…

A new phrase that sounds more like a car race than science, “mating between the quickest,” Physorg reports…

“Three Australian biologists, including lead author, Professor Rick Shine, from the University of Sydney’s School of Biological Sciences, believe they have identified a new evolutionary process based on their invasive cane toad research. Professor Shine said the process, which depends on “mating between the quickest” rather than “survival of the fittest”, challenges the long-held view that natural selection is the only driving force for evolution.”

Shifting gears to another speed, this time its survival of the slowest, reports Physorg

“In the study, the researchers investigated four genetically distinct clones of Escherichia coli clones, and sampled them periodically to look for the presence of five specific beneficial mutations.They discovered that after 500 generations all lineages had acquired beneficial mutations but two had significantly more than the others, which should suggest they were more likely to survive in the long-term than the other line of bacteria.  What they found instead was that after 1,500 generations the other two lineages had gone on to dominate.”

In another article, there was a call to depart from classical Darwinian evolution…

“In some cases, less fit organisms may out-survive their in-shape counterparts, according to a study reported in the March 18 issue of Science. The finding surprised researchers who assumed less fit organisms would be the eventual losers in evolution’s fight for survival.”

One of the team researchers made a comment about how this long-term evolutionary experiment which continues to “yield surprises,” and then using the unexpected result as an insight into the “richness and complexity of evolution.”  Keep in mind, all the bacteria were still members of the same species, E. coli. And beneficial mutations are in the eye of the beholder much like how fast this alleged evolution goes or if the fit or less fit survive better. Also, sometimes what appears beneficial in one context can have negative consequences in other parts.

On another front considered to be a war zone, there is a pretty big battle for fitness definitions. Nature came out swinging by defending the terms, “inclusive fitness” or “kin selection” in response to Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita and Edward O. Wilson last August, which argued the idea should be abandoned while keeping classical evolution as the main explanation!

In science...”Online today in Nature, nearly 150 evolutionary biologists challenge Harvard University’s Edward O. Wilson, one of the world’s most preeminent scientists, and two colleagues. At issue is the usefulness of a 50-year-old theory about the role of relatedness in the evolution of complex social systems like those of ants, bees, and humans. Wilson, along with Harvard mathematicians Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita argue that the theory, called inclusive fitness, does not explain how these complex societies arose; in a rebuttal today in Nature and in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, their critics say that the Harvard trio have misrepresented the literature and are simply wrong.”

“We argue that standard natural selection theory in the context of precise models of population structure represents a simpler and superior approach, allows the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses, and provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations.”

The defenders of “inclusive fitness” or “kin selection” strongly disagreed and raised a concern that evolution was branching off into dead ends which had no compatibility…

“By opposing ‘standard selection theory’ and ‘inclusive fitness theory’, we believe that Nowak et al. give the incorrect (and potentially dangerous) impression that evolutionary thinking has branched out into conflicting and apparently incompatible directions,”  In fact, there is only one paradigm: natural selection driven by interactions, interactions of all kinds and at all levels.  Inclusive fitness has been a powerful force in the development of this paradigm and is likely to have a continued role in the evolutionary theory of behaviour interactions.”

Jerry Coyne released his angry mob mentality with venom (which he has done several times on creationists) because he is on the side of “kin selection”…In his blog he writes…

“The only reason this paper was published is because it has two big-name authors, Nowak and Wilson, hailing from Mother Harvard. That, and the fact that such a contrarian paper, flying in the face of accepted evolutionary theory, was bound to cause controversy.  Well, Nature got its controversy but lost its intellectual integrity, becoming something of a scientific National Enquirer.”

“Oh, and boo to the Templeton Foundation, who funded the whole Nowak et al. mess and highlighted the paper on their website. The lesson: if you’re a famous biologist you can get away with publishing dreck.  So much for our objective search for truth—a search that’s not supposed to depend on authors’ fame and authority.”

Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson remained adamant with their position“Inclusive fitness theory is neither useful nor necessary to explain the evolution of eusociality or other phenomena,” they said.

Science Daily came to the defense of “Inclusive fitness” with their story…

“Bees are probably the most useful group for studying why eusocial organisms have workers that do not reproduce, but the authors got a lot of their basic facts about bees wrong. For example, the authors argue that having defensible nests is the most important consideration for eusociality, but they ignore the fact that there are thousands of nest making animals that are not eusocial,” said Wcislo, a specialist in the biology of bees.”

And finally, evolution of the weakest! According to science daily only the weak survive…

“Conventional rules of survival tend to favor the strongest, but University of Pittsburgh-based researchers recently found that in the emerging world of self-healing materials, it is the somewhat frail that survive.”

Keep in mind, this particular article is not a story about evolutionary theory, rather it’s about a quest to mimic biology in creating flexible materials.  Still, the headline illustrates the pervasiveness of evolutionary lingo! But one could argue that this article is about a Creator with an amazing purposeful design, “In short, a little bit of weakness gives a material better mechanical properties.”

So where is evolution going to end up? It’s leading to nowhere but a dead end, it’s not a search for truth, but how nature could be manufactured without an intelligent mind, God. Yet, it’s a fact, the evidence points to His wisdom which has designed some of the most amazing things we observe in nature. The evolution ‘theory’ is nothing more than invented stories that only attempt to replace God. By so doing, the confusion increases, building faith in naturalism with a framework that has no direction nor a foundation!

Accomplishing Innovation Through Mistakes?

Nature is remarkably designed for instance, one-cell animals that were once considered simple creatures, have mind-blowing complexity with more of it yet to be uncovered, how could such innovations be created in the first place? The story begins in science daily with an idea that claims that evolution accomplishes it through mistakes.

“Some individuals are better adapted to a given environment than others, making them more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. But exactly how nature creates variation in the first place still poses somewhat of a puzzle to evolutionary biologists.”

“Now, Joanna Masel, associate professor in the UA’s department of ecology and evolutionary biology, and postdoctoral fellow Etienne Rajon discovered the ways organisms deal with mistakes that occur while the genetic code in their cells is being interpreted greatly influences their ability to adapt to new environmental conditions — in other words, their ability to evolve.”

So here we have the implication of  animals having the ability to evolve which then leads to innovation like bacteria to man because later. How can they get  from errors to innovation? Here is an interesting analogy…

“Evolution needs a playground in order to try things out,” Masel said  who had his paper published in PNAS,  “It’s like in competitive business: New products and ideas have to be tested to see whether they can live up to the challenge.”

Random mutations are like an idea formulated by intelligence? Certainly natural selection has no ability to think in order to direct what mutations are produced in the first place while knowing which ones should be tested and others that should be discarded. What’s more puzzling about that analogy is the fact that when companies are originally created, there is a purpose in place for it. It’s basically intelligently designed to either provide a particular service or sell a particular product.

In no way does innovation of companies comes from no ideas and no purpose or direction. Some companies may fail do to lack of direction and purpose or no market for what product or service they are offering. Certainly evolution with its lack of purpose, and non-thinking process doesn’t remotely compare with a business. So overlooking that error, evolutionists go into detail about accomplishing innovation through various mistakes…

“In nature, it turns out, many new traits that, for example, enable their bearers to conquer new habitats, start out as blunders: mistakes made by cells that result in altered proteins with changed properties or functions that are new altogether, even when there is nothing wrong with the gene itself.  Sometime later, one of these mistakes can get into the gene and become more permanent.”

Keep in mind, we want to see how innovations like brains, eyes, or wings, got there. All we have are protein mistakes. The gene was fine, then something happened… “Sometime later, one of these mistakes can get back into the gene,” they claimed. Is there any evidence for this claim?  None found in the article.

The explanation then takes a more bizarre turn, by invoking global and local solutions. A global solution has “a proofreading mechanism to spot and fix errors as they arise.”  Something “watches over the entire process,” wait a minute, how can an entire process that oversees errors and being able to fix them be a product of errors itself?  It appears that global solutions nothing more than about preserving integrity of the genome, not innovating brains, eyes or wings.  So that means innovation must be local…

“The alternative is to allow errors to happen, but evolve robustness to the effects of each of them.  Masel and Rajon call this strategy a local solution, because in the absence of a global proofreading mechanism, it requires an organism to be resilient to each and every mistake that pops up.”

“We discovered that extremely small populations will evolve global solutions, while very large populations will evolve local solutions,” Masel said.  “Most realistically sized populations can go either direction but will gravitate toward one or the other.  But once they do, they rarely switch, even over the course of evolutionary time.”

Using a purposeful concept, the explanation in the evolutionary framework entails a lot of strategy like a chess game! Now if an organism has an ability to use strategy in order to allow some errors to creep in, but then “evolve robustness” to their effects, did that strategy itself evolve through step by step mistakes?  The article doesn’t say.

The story plot thickens with the introduction of a contrast between “regular variation”, and what they call “cryptic variation.” Regular variation for the majority of it’s production, produces something non-useful or bad with very slim odds of producing something useful. While on the other hand, cryptic variation is supposed to produce something non-deadly and mostly harmless. Even so, cryptic variation doesn’t have the power to innovate.  Here they come up with a story about it for it to supposedly work…

“So how does cryptic variation work and why is it so important for understanding evolution? By allowing for a certain amount of mistakes to occur instead of quenching them with global proofreading machinery, organisms gain the advantage of allowing for what Masel calls pre-selection: It provides an opportunity for natural selection to act on sequences even before mutations occur.”

While Masel’s recalls Darwin’s personified depiction of his theory, yet even Darwin might have had doubts of natural selection keeping harmless variations in the junkyard for later analysis and future usage. Masel argued that “the organism doesn’t pay a large cost for it, but it’s still there if it needs it.”

So now we know how important cryptic variation is to evolution but still one asks…Is natural selection a person?  Does it have a plan?  How would natural selection have any precognition of the need for an eye, a wing, or a brain? A mistake that leads to a misfolded protein are very deadly for the organism.

Purifying selection (eliminating mistakes) and compensating selection (tolerating mistakes) are not controversial for creationists. But having those protections still won’t give you a brain, eye or a wing! The analogy they made between a business and evolution demonstrates they have the idea it’s intelligent design but they are trying desperately to invoke miracles in evolution.