Archive: Mountains, Demons, Proteins, Mutations, Human Lab Rats
The following short articles were first published in June 2002. Looking back 22 years, ask if biologists made any progress in understanding evolution. Are they taking note of intelligently designed phenomena?
Note: Some embedded links may no longer work.
Why Do Old Mountains Still Have Roots? 06/27/2002
Think of a lava lamp. As a lump of lighter material rises to the surface, it might protrude for awhile, but will flatten out at the top and bottom. It obeys Archimede’s Principle of buoyancy, also called isostasy, that the weight of overlying material must be balanced by the buoyancy of the underlying material, but if fluid, will stretch out and become thin. Now think of mountains floating in the mantle. As the tops of the mountains erode down to a plain over long ages, the bottom “roots” should compensate by rising up under their own buoyancy. However, it appears that the oldest mountains still have roots.
In the June 27 issue of Nature, David James explains the problem, and discusses a possible solution by Karen M. Fischer of Brown University in the same issue. She proposes that old roots thicken by metamorphosis over time, becoming more dense and resisting the upward force of buoyancy.
Fischer evaluated many mountain ranges globally and included gravity data, but it appears she came up with her theory to save long ages of mountains. It’s an example of circular reasoning: assuming the ages of the old mountains, and then tweaking the parameters to preserve the oldness of the old mountains. She assumes that all mountains are built by similar processes, and take similar amounts of time to form. Yet an unexpected result occurs; the oldest mountain roots should be long gone. Could the dates be the problem? Never. The long ages are the given, and the other parameters are adjusted to explain away a resulting anomaly. Is this how science should be done?
Maxwell’s Demon Does Not Violate Thermodynamics 06/27/2002
For over 130 years since James Clerk Maxwell proposed his famous puzzle, physicists have wondered if “Maxwell’s Demon” (a thought experiment) allowed for violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We all know hot and cold gas molecules mix to lukewarm, but he pictured a little fellow of atomic size that might sort the molecules into hot and cold compartments by intelligence alone. Instead of a demon (Kelvin’s term, not Maxwell’s because the latter was a “deeply religious man”), perhaps a permeable membrane or mechanical device would work as well. Not so, says John Maddox in the June 27 issue of Nature. Any device, demon, or machine would itself be subject to the Second Law and would add more entropy to the system than removed by the sorting. The Second Law of Thermodynamics remains unviolated.
Maxwell’s Demon pops up often in discussions of physics, because it provides an opportunity to solve a conceptual puzzle. We are always taught that the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be violated (when the whole system is taken into account), but this appeared to allow for an exception in principle, though not in reality. Of course, Maxwell himself believed in the universality of the law, but argued that because it is statistical in nature (he was the Father of Statistical Mechanics), at least the conceptual possibility existed for exceptions. Physicists ever since have explored whether this is possible, and in each case, even in the quantum mechanics era, have decided it’s not. This article is entitled “Maxwell’s Demon: Slamming the Door” in a long tradition of concluding the Second Law always applies. If it cannot be violated even in this unnatural conceptual model, it cannot be ignored in questions of evolution.
What’s also notable in this story is the praise heaped on Maxwell himself, whom Maddox calls “probably the outstanding scientist of the nineteenth century”— and that’s in great company of many others of the era. Maxwell, a scientist par excellence (both in experiment and theory) and a jolly good fellow, also a Bible-believing Christian, natural philosopher and anti-evolutionist, is featured in our [biography]. We believe you will find his life and words tremendously interesting. We also eagerly anticipate the publication of Volume III of Maxwell’s Complete Scientific Letters and Papers, due from Cambridge University Press in September. Until then, you can enjoy the classic biography by Lewis Campbell online, The Life of James Clerk Maxwell, complete with some of his anti-evolution poems.
William Dembski discusses the Maxwell Demon paradox from an information-conservation viewpoint in his recent book No Free Lunch.
The New Science of Protein Sociology 06/27/2002
A news feature in Nature June 27 explores the new science of protein complexes: …the classic view of many cellular processes involves proteins interacting with one another in linear pathways, coming together as they shift around in the cell’s cytoplasm. In recent years, however, biologists have realized that many important cellular functions are actually carried out by protein complexes that act as molecular ‘machines’.” The article explains that some complexes, like the ribosome, stay together for long periods, whereas others join loose fellowships for temporary tasks. Some proteins are versatile and belong to several clubs. In some cases, it is the complexes that are conserved between very different animals, but the individual proteins differ. New techniques of electron microscopy are allowing scientists to visualize these protein complexes in this cutting-edge field of structural biology.
This adds another layer of complexity to the cell. Instead of seeing one gene produce one protein, that works alone on a single task, scientists now have to take into account the complex interactions of dozens, sometimes hundreds of different proteins, that must work in concert, like players in an orchestra or workers in a factory. Do factories and orchestras create themselves out of rocks and water See also our April 4 and March 8 headlines about protein complexes.
Plant to Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria: Your Password is NORK 06/27/2002
The cover story of the June 27 Nature tells about how plants communicate with their nitrogen-fixing bacteria and fungi, on which they depend to get nitrogen from the soil. They share a “protein password” called NORK, explains Nature Science Update. The two different organisms share the password and receptor. The mycorrhizal fungi on the roots have a receptor called SYMRK that is the same protein as NORK. Not only are these proteins involved in signalling, they are also involved in defense. Animals have similar protein signals in their immune systems.
Signals, coded messages, receptors, and passwords: these all speak of intelligent design, not evolution. The March 2002 issue of Creation Magazine has an interesting article about nitrogen-fixing bacteria, the “molecular sledgehammer” that uses tiny machinery to separate the nitrogen molecule apart, one of the toughest nuts in chemistry to crack because of its triple bond. Animal life would not be possible without this amazing symbiosis between plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
How Does the Cell Route Messages? Through Its Switchboard 06/26/2002
Another “level of complexity” has been found in the cell, according to story in SciNews. Researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have found that signal transduction, the way that cells transmit signals from the external environment to the nucleus, is not just an automatic cascade of chemical reactions, but is regulated by a “switchboard” so that the nucleus is not swamped: “It’s a wonder cells make it through the day with the barrage of cues and messages they receive and transmit to direct the most basic and necessary functions of life.”
The switching system involves first detecting messages coming through channels in the cell membrane onto receptors, then tagging them with one of two delivery signals, calcium or cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). A whole class of proteins called PDZ proteins are now seen to be involved just in deciding which signalling molecule will be used. The delivery tag determines how the nucleus will respond to the message. The study by Donowitz et al. into the tagging of messages for delivery into the nucleus was published in the June 20 issue of Nature. A related story about how the nucleus signals which genes to express is found on UniSci.
The closer we look at the cell, the more intelligently designed it appears. The scientists found this switching system must work in its entirety, or else serious diseases can result.
Speech 06/25/2002: On June 21st, intelligent design proponent and mathematician William Dembski spoke to a hostile audience, the Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank California. He spoke on “Skepticism’s Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design” and told them how to do it (wishing them “Good luck” at the end, in the sense of “You’ll need it”). In the process he turned skepticism against itself. The speech is reproduced on the Discovery Institute website.
Beneficial Mutations Battle for Supremacy in the Test Tube 06/25/2002
A team of biologists studied the “Fitness Effects of Fixed Beneficial Mutations in Microbial Populations,” in the June 25 issue of Current Biology. They identified colonies of bacteria with fixed beneficial mutations and concluded that only large, fixed beneficial mutations were likely to promote evolution in the long term:
Beneficial mutations are intuitively relevant to understanding adaptation, yet not all beneficial mutations are of consequence to the long-term evolutionary outcome of adaptation. Many beneficial mutations—mostly those of small effect—are lost due either to (1) genetic drift or to (2) competition among clones carrying different beneficial mutations….
They admit that “Beneficial mutations are very rare events and are thus difficult to observe.” They also had to make some untestable assumptions:
it is tempting to suppose that fitness effects of contending mutations, or even beneficial mutations, can be directly inferred (i.e., without making a priori assumptions about the shapes of these distributions) from our fitness effect data …. Practically, however, this is a very difficult if not intractable problem. … To make inference with respect to the underlying distributions, therefore, we had to appeal to theoretical predictions. These predictions drastically reduce the degrees of freedom involved, thus permitting reasonable inference of the two key parameters. Our study of advantageous mutations thus depends equally on experimental and theoretical results, and it is with this in mind that we decided to present them together.
They thus undermined any real independent test of evolutionary theory, because they could not really predict an outcome that could be falsified. And how did they decide what were “beneficial mutations”? These were decided on the basis of surviving numbers: “The subpopulation that was found to increase in frequency was deemed the ‘winner.’”
Critics of evolution have long claimed that natural selection is a tautology, and here is a perfect example in practice. Who are the most fit? Those that survive. And how did they survive? Because they must have had a beneficial mutation that made them more fit. Thus, survivors survive, and fitness makes them fit. A rose is a rose is a rose. Boys will be boys. Two equals two. True? Yes. Useful? No. This is circular reasoning that makes this paper worthless as evidence for evolution.
Playing Games in the Science Lab With Human Rats 06/25/2002
Two evolutionists from the University of Edinburgh had their students play games to study the evolution of altruism (unselfishness), explains their paper in the June 25 issue of Current Biology. They rigged up a game with cables, colored lights and signals that paid money for various selfish and unselfish behaviors. When the results were in, they deduced that “indirect reciprocity” or just the general improvement to a person’s reputation for becoming known as a generous person produced benefits that would help the altruistic behavior evolve. They explain, “Nonreciprocal altruism among non-kin is frequently observed in humans. Such ‘generalized altruism’ could, for example, be a cultural trait, or it could have evolved because it normally provides a net fitness benefit. Indirect reciprocity is one of the major evolutionary concepts that could explain generous behavior.”
Thus kindness is just sex. Isn’t this what evolution reduces kindness and generosity to? They reduce altruism to just a “fitness benefit,” i.e., some trait that helps you pass on your genes. This is not only dumb, it’s ugly. It sweeps away any truly unselfish actions based on morality, and colors it as purposeless survival of the fittest. It is grunge reductionism, turning the beautiful into the raw, throwing mud on the bridal gown. Recall how the PBS Evolution TV series portrayed evolution: over images of an Apollo rocket launch and a choir singing the Hallelujah Chorus, the narrator claimed that all human activity, however sublime, stems from our inherent urge to reproduce. This is reductionism at its most absurd.
It’s also junk science. The students signed up to play a game, and were getting paid! How do their actions in this staged setting have anything to do with real life? Do you play Monopoly the same way you operate your daily affairs? I’ve see the gentlest preacher’s wife take great glee in loading Boardwalk with hotels and stomping her competitors out of business in Monopoly, who in real life is the kindest and most unselfish, hard working person you could know. These scientists also failed to demonstrate that their conclusions were not Lamarckian, and that somehow the most altruistic would actually cause genetic changes, or would help the population pass on improved genes. Evolutionists have this kinky idea that human beings are just lab rats under forces of mindless evolution with nothing but sex on their minds, and that somehow an experiment like this tells them something about how human behavior evolved.
These scientists have way too much time on their hands. Here’s how they should learn about altruism. They should go visit a widow in a nursing home and show genuine kindness to her, listen to her tell about her life, and meet her physical needs. They should visit a disabled child or orphan, or adopt one from a totalitarian country, someone that has no hope of passing on his genes, and give him encouragement and love and hope of a better life. They should join the fight against evil and suffering and unbridled lust and selfishness in the world. Enough of this nonsense about altruism being an evolutionary game played by selfish genes.
The Epistle of James in the New Testament presents a very different, un-Darwinian view of altruism, as does all the Word of God. Altruism is not a game played for the advantage of the individual, the group, or the genes; it is human behavior nearest to the image of Jesus Christ, the most altruistic of all, who gave His life for the very, very unfit.