Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe

[Jefferson]

Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe

This is the show from Friday October 2nd, 2009.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

For DNA to be unwound the DNA needs ATP. So how could ATP evolve from the DNA functions when the DNA needs ATP? This is replete throughout biology that all these interdependent systems need one another. It's just so funny. DNA can't evolve without the protection of a cell around it. And a cell can't exist without the DNA to design the cell and keep it functioning.

SUMMARY:

* Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe to Drop: Is Evo Devo Killing Natural Selection? Listen in as Real Science Friday co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy the September 2009 Creation magazine! The pro-evolution magazine NewScientist rejected one of Darwin's two major theories when they published their cover story: Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life, which theory they indicated was as important as his theory of Natural Selection, because without Darwin's Tree of Life developmental pathway theory, his idea of Natural Selection would never have been accepted, they explain. So why have evolutionists turned against Darwin's Tree of Life? Because of the thousands of species genetically evaluated, more than half are clearly not the product of a developmental biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush, or any other hierarchical scheme for that matter). Now the second shoe is dangling. Geneticists have found the basic blueprint for the overall animal kingdom in virtually every creature they've investigated! Now Darwin's second shoe is about to drop. For if evolution were true, then by the genetic mapping of the animal kingdom, it is becoming obvious that millions of years before creatures with structures like eyes, hearts and limbs had evolved, the sophisticated regulatory genes that develop those structures had already come into existence! Ironically, survival of the fittest will see the death of the unfit theory of Darwinism, because by the relentless march of scientific observation, countless evolutionists will be compelled to admit that it simply does not fit the evidence. And thus: Darwin Was Wrong about Natural Selection! For if evolution were true, then sophisticated regulatory genes appeared 50 million years before they were needed. So there would have been simply no role for a selection-for-survival mechanism. Normally, it's three strikes and you're out. But Darwin's dead, so he only gets two.

* Kangaroos: Ira Flatow is not much like a kangaroo, regardless of what he might think. (Btw, today's Real Science Friday program might be as exciting as our recent programs Microbiologist in Studio about the extraordinary developments in genetics, and List of Not So Old Things about extreme challenges to old-earth claims, including a growing list of scientific observations of phenomena that even old-earth geologists now admit did not form over millions of years, but rapidly.) Now, Creation magazine reports from the director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, that "There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's Creation editors add that, "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'" Ira should jump right on this story. Ira should tell his audience that when he told them that humans are 98% similar to chimps (a now disproved, yet obviously exaggerated claim even at the time) and when he used that as evidence that we were evolutionarily closely related to chimps, Flatow should now acknowledge his error and admit that since "organisms as diverse as leeches and lawyers are 'built' using the same developmental genes," that with the death of Darwin's Tree of Life, and with the regulatory gene blueprint throughout the animal kingdom, and with Kangaroo genes showing such extraordinary similarity to humans, that the bottom line is that Darwinists were wrong to use that kind of genetic similarity as evidence of a developmental pathway. (And hey CMI: That "leeches" line was really funny!)

* ATP Energy Packs: Bob and Fred talk about Brian Thomas' fabulous Creation article on ATP synthase, the world's tiniest rotary motors, the majestic molecular machines made by the Mastermind, motors that constantly churn out trillions of energy packs needed to power living cells!

* David White's Evo Devo Article: Bob and Fred relate the stunning genetic blueprint information that David White (B.Sc., Genetics) included in his article, Climbing Mount Improbable "Evo Devo" Style! As it turns out, God laid out a basic genetic blueprint that He coded into virtually the entire animal kingdom, and from that big batch of basic raw materials, He masterfully chooses which genetic resources He'll use to implement a dolphin, a lion, and a squid, and a million other creatures! Way to go God!!

* Help Colorado RTL Get Signatures: If you live in Colorado, could you help circulate the Personhood Colorado & CRTL 2010 petition? We need your help! If you live in any other state, can you help to advance personhood via the 2010 ballot or in one of three different ways?

* THANK YOU FROM BOB ENYART! Our 2009 KGOV Telethon raised $38,225 of our $40,000 goal for vitally needed funds to keep BEL reaching out over the Internet for another year! Thank you all so very much! And what's more, two businessmen who enjoy BEL (one owns a farmer and the other a high tech engineering firm) each said they would be sending a donation in for the telethon and so there's a real possibility that we'll meet or exceed our goal! Thank you Lord!

* Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Guillermo Gonzalez' Privileged Planet (clip), Illustra Media's Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart's Age of the Earth Debate; Walt Brown's In the Beginning and Bob's interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week; the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI's tremendous Creation magazine!

 

[Alate_One]

Now, Creation magazine reports from the director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, that "There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's\

Bob should know better than to go on promoting this story. This is a BALD FACED LIE and misrepresentation of the highest order.

The similarity between humans and kangaroos is not genetic IDENTITY as we see in Chimpanzees and humans, but similarity. Yes the genes are similar and in a similar order but that's true of ALL vertebrates and even all ANIMALS. Its called synteny. And no its not the same as genetic identity.

You can see this in the lancelet and Trichoplax genomes.

However the level of IDENTITY (not just similarity) is directly correlated to evolutionary distance. To say kangaroos are closer to humans than chimpanzees based on their genetic similarity is a lie, period. This is certainly NOT what the researchers are saying.

Creation editors add that, "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'" Ira should jump right on this story. Ira should tell his audience that when he told them that humans are 98% similar to chimps (a now disproved, yet obviously exaggerated claim even at the time) and when he used that as evidence that we were evolutionarily closely related to chimps,

And no its not disproven, we ARE around 94%, not just similar but IDENTICAL to chimpanzees. Our chromosomes are the same, save one that's been fused, NONE of this is true of any other mammalian group outside the great apes, certainly not the kangaroo.

 

[Alate_One]

You people seriously need to learn some actual biology before you go making moronic statements.

For DNA to be unwound the DNA needs ATP. So how could ATP evolve from the DNA functions when the DNA needs ATP? This is replete throughout biology that all these interdependent systems need one another. It's just so funny. DNA can't evolve without the protection of a cell around it. And a cell can't exist without the DNA to design the cell and keep it functioning.

ATP is a BUILDING BLOCK of RNA (which is virtually chemically identical to DNA), if you have DNA and RNA (which everyone thinks the first cells had) you have ATP. ATP is FAR simpler than DNA, its like complaining you don't have steel when there's a complete car right in front of you. Take a piece off.

 

[Bob Enyart]

A_O, how about the circular dependencies of this one proposition

A_O, how about the circular dependencies of this one proposition

ATP is a BUILDING BLOCK of RNA (which is virtually chemically identical to DNA), if you have DNA and RNA (which everyone thinks the first cells had) you have ATP. ATP is FAR simpler than DNA, its like complaining you don't have steel when there's a complete car right in front of you. Take a piece off.

A_O, we were responding to the evolutionist proposition that perhaps ATP synthase evolved from mechanisms that unwind the DNA. The point here that perhaps you can reconsider, is that this sets up circular dependencies. Since the DNA requires ATP, it's not helpful to suggest that the ATP production evolved from DNA functionality. That's all. As the OP says:

For DNA to be unwound the DNA needs ATP. So how could ATP evolve from the DNA functions when the DNA needs ATP?

A_O, I have written further replies to your various other comments. But I think it's wise to not post them yet and see if you will address this simple rebuttal to that one particular circular evolutionist proposition.

Holding off makes further conversation difficult, because my schedule makes it hard to promise to return and continue. But I'll try…

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[GuySmiley]

And no its not disproven, we ARE around 94%, not just similar but IDENTICAL to chimpanzees. Our chromosomes are the same, save one that's been fused, NONE of this is true of any other mammalian group outside the great apes, certainly not the kangaroo.

Why do you say the 98% figure is not disproven, and then go on to defend another figure?

 

[Alate_One]

Why do you say the 98% figure is not disproven, and then go on to defend another figure?

It's in the mid to high 90s. If you say something is "disproven" you're implying that the actual figure was 70%, not a difference of 4%.

 

[Alate_One]

The word is "bold."

Sorry. I had it right, nice try though.

 

[GuySmiley]

It's in the mid to high 90s. If you say something is "disproven" you're implying that the actual figure was 70%, not a difference of 4%.

Oh, well I dont have a degree in any science, so I didn't know the technical limitations of the scientific term "disproven." What is the cutoff exactly? Apparently 28%.

 

[Alate_One]

A_O, we were responding to the evolutionist proposition that perhaps ATP synthase evolved from mechanisms that unwind the DNA. The point here that perhaps you can reconsider, is that this sets up circular dependencies. Since the DNA requires ATP, it's not helpful to suggest that the ATP production evolved from DNA functionality. That's all.

A_O, I have written further replies to your various other comments. But I think it's wise to not post them yet and see if you will address this simple rebuttal to that one particular circular evolutionist proposition.

And my original point still stands. Making RNA (the chemical cousin of DNA) REQUIRES the presence of ATP, so if you have RNA and DNA around you're bound to have extra ATP sitting around.

Now you might say, where does the ATP come from if not from the ATP synthase? There's a lot more than one way to make ATP. All cells today also make ATP in ways that don't involve the ATP synthase.

Of course if you'd ever had (and remembered) introductory biology you'd already know the answer and wouldn't wrongly assume that anyone would publish an idea about ATPase evolution that was *actually* based on circular dependencies.

The main way to make ATP without the ATP synthase is through Glycolysis, and further through fermentation. Cells can survive just fine without an ATP synthase, however, they are limited to a much lower harvest of energy without the ATP synthase. So the presence of an ATP synthase or a simpler version would likely be a huge benefit to the cell. We can say that DNA helicases probably existed long before the ATP synthase, eliminating your supposed "circular dependencies".

So your entire point is STILL based on misinformation and wrong assumptions.

Holding off makes further conversation difficult, because my schedule makes it hard to promise to return and continue. But I'll try…

So, your "schedule" may prevent you from coming back to answer . . . great. I do hope you at least read what I'm about to say in any case.

I realize you probably think you are defending the faith with your "real science" shows, but in truth you're dragging the Christian faith through the mud by promoting misrepresentations and outright lies.

As both a scientist and a fellow Christian I would ask you to please stop.

I'm not asking you to accept evolution or any other piece of science you disagree with, but these segments serve only to confuse Christians and confirm nonbelievers in their mistaken idea that Christians are anti-science and anti-intellectual. This particular type of show will not bring anyone to Christ.

St. Augustine said this nearly 2000 years ago:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

 

[Delmar]

The word is "bold."

No really, Bob shaved his mustache, so now his face is bald

 

[Bob Enyart]

Done.

Done.

And my original point still stands. Making RNA (the chemical cousin of DNA) REQUIRES the presence of ATP, so if you have RNA and DNA around you're bound to have extra ATP sitting around.

Came back.

Checked.

Done.

The above is as far as I've read.

I'll not go further with A_O on this.

Have a great night all! (you too A_O)

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[fool]

Hi Bob :wave:

 

[Alate_One]

Came back.

Checked.

Done.

The above is as far as I've read.

I'll not go further with A_O on this.

Have a great night all! (you too A_O)

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

I guess we can classify this as a cop-out. Too bad you didn't read further, though its hard to believe for the amount of time you were active in the thread before posting. I think its more likely you didn't like what you read.

Guess we'll have to re-name Real Science Friday as Wrong Science Friday if you are not going to correct your errors. :nono:

 

[Bob Enyart]

A_O, I apologize for bailing out too early...

A_O, I apologize for bailing out too early...

I guess we can classify this as a cop-out. Too bad you didn't read further, though its hard to believe for the amount of time you were active in the thread before posting. I think its more likely you didn't like what you read.

Guess we'll have to re-name Real Science Friday as Wrong Science Friday if you are not going to correct your errors. :nono:

A_O, while talking to Jefferson by phone this weekend he told me that I bailed out too early reading your post, because your argument is logically consistent. So, I apologize for bailing out too early. If I can confirm your claim that it is believed that DNA could function without the energry provided by ATP Synthase, then I will need to withdraw or modify my argument on this point. By the way A_O, my introductory biology was in he 70s, and that was after ATPase had been identified, but I think before it's actual rotorary motor function had been discovered (I think).

Thanks A_O (and Jefferson)!

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[Alate_One]

A_O, while talking to Jefferson by phone this weekend he told me that I bailed out too early reading your post, because your argument is logically consistent. So, I apologize for bailing out too early.

I suppose its only Christian of me to forgive you.

If I can confirm your claim that it is believed that DNA could function without the energry provided by ATP Synthase, then I will need to withdraw or modify my argument on this point.

Fermentation (as an alternative endpoint of glycolysis) takes place in many organisms under low oxygen conditions and does not involve the F-ATPase (I call it F-ATPase because there are quite a number of other ATPases) at all, and still allows cells to make ATP, albeit not nearly as much or as efficiently. But they certainly survive just fine, consider beer and wine production.

Chemiosmosis (the process by which the F-ATPase makes ATP) is certainly complex and with moving parts but there's no reason to think it had to "come first" in any evolutionary scheme because its quite possible to do without it, if you're a single celled organism. Certainly the level of energy required for multicellular life REQUIRES chemiosmosis and the F-ATPase.

Indeed there's good evidence that eukaryotic life at one time DID do without the F-ATPase since chloroplasts and mitochondria (the ONLY places chemiosmosis and the F-ATPase occur in eukaryotes) appear to have descended from an ancient symbiosis with bacteria. This is outlined in the endosymbiotic theory.

By the way A_O, my introductory biology was in he 70s, and that was after ATPase had been identified, but I think before it's actual rotorary motor function had been discovered (I think).

That's hardly an excuse since the reactions of glycolysis and fermentation, have been known since the 1940s

There are certainly unknown factors and problems in abiogenesis, but what you've pulled out here isn't one of them. And even if science never figures out abiogenesis, common ancestry of all eukaryotic life is still very well demonstrated.