[_ Old Earth _] KOONIN’S KATASTROPHIC KONDEMNATION OF EVOLUTION

[Asyncritus]

In the summer of 2007, Eugene Koonin, from the national Centre of Biotechnology Information at the National Institute of Health, published ‘The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution’ in Biology Direct.

His Credentials

Wiki says: Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,[1] Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology.

His interests which interested me the most are:

·[FONT=&quot] Application of comparative genomics for phylogenetic analysis, reconstruction of ancestral life forms and building large-scale evolutionary scenarios. [/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot] Mathematical modeling of genome evolution.[3][4][5]
[/FONT]
· Computational study of the major transitions in the evolution of life, such as the origin of eukaryotes.

No bird-brain, then.

 

[Asyncritus]

Koonin had this to say:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”.

I could have told him that, as I have been telling barbarian and his followers for years now.

But ‘major transitions’?

Weren’t these the very transitions Darwin intended to explain? If these ‘major transitions’ represent a “sudden emergence of new forms”, the obvious conclusion to draw is that nature is right, and Darwin was a fool.

“The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

In other words, Darwin’s idea explains nothing.

In fact, Koonin tells us exactly what Darwinism cannot explain:

“The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.”

That’s just about everything.

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

No intermediate grades?

It is by appealing to these very same ‘missing grades’ that the whole evolutionary house of cards has been built. To doubt their existence is to risk being fired from most university biology departments. To suggest that they are IMAGINARY, is to bring down the wrath of the establishment in such force that it is impossible to carry on sensible conversations.

 

[Asyncritus]

Let me now go on to destroy all of the arguments about natural selection, using the works of serious mathematicians and members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Mootoo Kimura, the Japanese mathematical biologist, argued that on the genetic level – the place where mutations take place – most mutations are neutral from the selective point of view.

In the introduction to ‘The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution’ he states that ‘the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused NOT BY DARWINIAN SELECTION but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations.’

Population geneticists understood the radical nature of the correctness of the theory.

They could see that to the extent that the neutral theory is correct, Darwin is wrong.

This has caused some population geneticists to attack, in print yet, the barefacedness of the popular Darwinian literature.

 

[Asyncritus]

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity [Notice the damning nature of the article’s title!]

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597.full Michael Lynch, [IU Distinguished Professor Michael Lynch named a National Academy of Sciences fellow]

who is an evolutionary biologist, said that ‘For example, Dawkins' (7–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading.’

Lynch (how appropriate a name!) goes on to say:

“What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.”

But if natural selection is possibly neither necessary nor sufficient to account for the complexity of living organisms, then it is perfectly possible that it is totally irrelevant to living systems!

And thus sinks the creative god of evolution: gurgle, gurgle, gurgle.

So Barbarian’s prolonged dalliance with natural selection as the creative god driving evolution forward, has come to its end.

Time will tell, as more and more research underlines the opinion that NS is nearly useless in driving evolution.

I could have told them that myself.

 

[Barbarian]

Oh, so Koonin's discovered punctuated equilibrium? Cool. But a bit late, no? BTW, rapid transitions have been part of Darwinian theory since Thomas Huxley, back in... um...

Mr. Darwin's position might, we think, have been even stronger than it is if he had not embarrassed himself with the aphorism, "Natura non facit saltum," which turns up so often in his pages. We believe, as we have said above, that Nature does make jumps now and then, and a recognition of the fact is of no small importance in disposing of many minor objections to the doctrine of transmutation [i.e., Darwin's theory].
Thomas Huxley, 1860

Surprise.

Koonin is a follower of Stephen Gould, whose theory is opposed to the "strict adaptionist" theories of Richard Dawkins and his followers. It should be known that Koonin and Gould are Darwinians, much as Huxley was a Darwinian. They agree that Darwin's four basic premises have been shown to be correct, but they disagree (as Huxley did in 1860) that this means evolution must always be gradual (they do point to a number of cases of documented gradual evolution which is, in their analysis possible but unusual) So he's not a couple of decades behind the curve; some creationist just thought a carefully edited "quote" might make it appear so.

And Async has a quotemine twofer for us today:

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
Michael Lynch

(Lynch is fond of neutralist theories, but this bit was cut out specifically because out of context, it's completely misleading about Lynch's opinions)

Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2009, Lynch is known for his work supporting neutral theories of evolution, which argue that much of genetic diversity in eukaryotes arose not because of natural selection but because the genetic machinery that cleans up mutations could not work efficiently enough in small populations to keep them out.

In his Inaugural Article (1), he showed that the rate of genetic mutation is higher for large, multicellular organisms, including humans, with relatively small population sizes, compared with organisms such as yeast and invertebrates. That, he says, could lead to problems for our species if we continue to subvert natural selection with modern medicine.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16013.full

But if natural selection is possibly neither necessary nor sufficient to account for the complexity of living organisms, then it is perfectly possible that it is totally irrelevant to living systems!

See above. Surprise, again. Lynch says that interfering with natural selection will reduce human fitness. Imagine that.

Isn't it time you started reading the articles from which these doctored "quotes" are taken? Aren't you tired of being taken?

And thus sinks the creative god of evolution: gurgle, gurgle, gurgle.

And now you know better. Nice try. Live by the quote mine, die by the quote mine.

Tell you what; go find out how Lynch thinks that neutral evolution has a role to play in addition to natural selection (which as you see, he considers critical in evolution), and we'll talk. But for your own dignity, stop swallowing everything you see on some creationist website. They're taking advantage of you.

 

[Asyncritus]

Come barbarian.

This is an unusually poor reply from you, quite possibly because you haven't any answers to proffer.

To call PNAS and Biology Direct (both of which I looked up personally) 'creationist', beggars belief. They'd better not get their hands on you if they ever read your words!

You seem to be claiming personal acquaintance with Koonin and Lynch - and as you're so fond of doing, and are so incapable of doing anything else - are accusing me of quotemining.

I gave the references, and you can look them up for yourself.

When you've done so, perhaps we can have a sensible discussion.

Koonin is commenting on the facts: there are no intermediate forms worthy of the name, despite all the flimflam you insist on inventing, making up, or dredging up.

Eldredge and Gould said pretty much the same thing, as have generations of palaeontologists.

Huxley, who you quoted, was well aware of that fact, and still, very stupidly in my opinion, carried on with Darwinism.

Lynch and Kimura (you fail to mention Kimura - he was a most potent mathematician, unlike your degree in systems analysis or whatever) are saying very clearly that natural selection, on which you pin your fast-fading hopes, can't do the job of forwarding evolution. Despite all Dawkins' hoo-hah.

The tide is ebbing, barbarian. You'll end up stranded in the middle of nowhere if you don't repent of this nonsense.

 

[Asyncritus]

And you don't even read the bits you cut and past, no doubt hoping that your followers won't read them either. Here's your most recent gaffe:

Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2009, Lynch is known for his work supporting neutral theories of evolution, which argue that much of genetic diversity in eukaryotes arose not because of natural selection but because the genetic machinery that cleans up mutations could not work efficiently enough in small populations to keep them out.

Did you read the words in red? What do you think they mean?

In his Inaugural Article (1), he showed that the rate of genetic mutation is higher for large, multicellular organisms, including humans, with relatively small population sizes, compared with organisms such as yeast and invertebrates. That, he says, could lead to problems for our species if we continue to subvert natural selection with modern medicine.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16013.full

Your emphasised bit does nothing to support Darwinism. No new species, no new genera, no new organisms... so what then? Answer, no evolution.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Koonin had this to say:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”.

I could have told him that, as I have been telling barbarian and his followers for years now.

Keep in mind that there is no valid field of scientific study that follows what the Bible has to say-- like the biblical cure for leprosy, for instance.

 

[Barbarian]

This is an unusually poor reply from you, quite possibly because you haven't any answers to proffer.

The most direct and effective response to quote mining is to show that the misrepresented scientist doesn't believe what the quote miner claimed. Koonin sees evolution as a fact, contrary to your claims and your doctored "quote."

And Lynch says that human genome could degenerate if it were not for natural selection. Again, the opposite of what you were trying to have him say.

If you'd actually read the articles instead of cribbing stuff off of creationist sites, you'd avoid embarassments like this.

To call PNAS and Biology Direct (both of which I looked up personally)

Doubtful. If you actually read the articles, you would have realized the facts I showed you. Unless you were consciously trying to deceive us.

You seem to be claiming personal acquaintance with Koonin and Lynch -

Just acquainted with their ideas. Which is why is was so easy for me to derail your quote mining game. Hint: learn some biology and use evidence, instead of telling us about what you think scientists think.

and as you're so fond of doing, and are so incapable of doing anything else - are accusing me of quotemining.

Gotcha again. Are you starting to realize why presenting doctored "quotes" won't work for you?

When you've done so, perhaps we can have a sensible discussion.

Sure. Drop the quote mining, and show us some evidence.

Koonin is commenting on the facts: there are no intermediate forms worthy of the name, despite all the flimflam you insist on inventing, making up, or dredging up.

To be fair to Koonin, his argument is that there are no intermediate forms today, not that there were never any such. For example, an organism with apomorphies of both mammals and reptiles.

Er, except for montremes like the platypus, which is transitional in character between reptiles (lays eggs, complex reptilian skeleton, has a cloaca, poorly homothermic) and mammals (mammalian jaw, fur, primitive milklike process for nursing, poorly homothermic).

Oops. Koonin seems to base his notions in arthropods, which don't have many living transitionals (the insects being a major exception).

Eldredge and Gould said pretty much the same thing

Let's take a look...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould,
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Surprise.

Huxley, who you quoted, was well aware of that fact,

In fact, Darwin was unaware of any such intermediate forms, merely predicting that some of them would be found in spite of the spotty nature of the fossil record. Not too long after Huxley's statement predicting that dinosaurs would prove to be the ancestors of birds, Archaeopteryx, a transitional between birds and dinosaurs, was found. There are very few major groups (as Gould said) that do not have a transitional between them. As you know, I've pressed you to name even one case of two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional and you couldn't do it. There still are some, but my faith in your ignorance of the evidence has so far been vindicated.

and still, very stupidly in my opinion, carried on with Darwinism.

As you learned, Darwinism is completely compatible with such intermediate forms. Darwin even predicted them, before any were known.

Lynch and Kimura (you fail to mention Kimura - he was a most potent mathematician, unlike your degree in systems analysis or whatever)

It's not the only degree I have. I have a master's degree in systems, however, and if you knew anything about it, you would know that it's mostly mathematical.

are saying very clearly that natural selection, on which you pin your fast-fading hopes, can't do the job of forwarding evolution. Despite all Dawkins' hoo-hah.

As you should know, Kimura pointed out the necessity of natural selection. His theory was that neutral mutations could over time, also produce some evolutionary change. And as you just learned Lynch has pointed out that natural selection is necessary for human evolution, and if we interfere with natural selection in humans, that could be bad for us in the long run. Darwin said the same thing, in The Descent of Man. Surprise.

The tide is ebbing, barbarian. You'll end up stranded in the middle of nowhere if you don't repent of this nonsense.

Nice try. Hopefully, you'll figure out that quote mining is a very unreliable way of learning about biology.