ID/Evolution "New Paper in Bio-Complexity Reveals a Remarkable Coincidence"

[semitope]

New Paper in Bio-Complexity Reveals a Remarkable Coincidence
Jonathan M. July 5, 2012

Critics of intelligent design often claim that the peer-reviewed literature published by ID proponents amounts to nothing more than a negative critique of the neo-Darwinian paradigm, as opposed to positive arguments for ID as an alternative hypothesis. The falsity of this claim has long been evident, but a new paper in the journal BIO-Complexity (to which Ann Gauger has already drawn our attention), co-authored by Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, and Douglas Axe, explicitly sets out a positive argument for design.

Lignin, a complex organic polymer found in wood, is the world's second most abundant biopolymer (after cellulose). Moreover, it is extremely rich in stored energy. Surprisingly, in 400 million years, no living organism has evolved the ability to use it as an energy source. This is intriguing, given that many spectacular innovations have emerged over the course of life's history. The new paper explains,

It is estimated that 30% of the earth's non-fossil organic carbon is in the form of lignin. Considering its massive abundance and its high energy content (40% higher than cellulose, gram for gram), it is striking that no organism seems to have tapped it as an energy source.

Does this observation make more sense under a Darwinian view or under an intelligent-design view? The paper continues,

The Darwinian account must somehow reconcile 400 million years of failure to evolve a relatively modest innovation -- growth on lignin -- with a long list of spectacular innovations thought to have evolved in a fraction of that time. How can one mechanism have been at the same time so effective and so ineffective? That tension vanishes completely when the design perspective is adopted. Terrestrial animal life is crucially dependent on terrestrial plant life, which is crucially dependent on soil, which is crucially dependent on the gradual photo- and biodegradation of lignin.

In other words, the indigestibility of lignin is in the best interests of the ecosystem as a whole. As the paper explains,

We know that all complex terrestrial life depends on land plants and that land plants depend on soil. We also know that humus, the organic component of soil, is generated by the continual, gradual decomposition of plant material, and we know that lignin is what forces the decomposition to be gradual. Without lignin, the polysaccharide components of dead plant material would be consumed too rapidly for plant-supporting soil to exist, and life as we know it would not be possible. Only in a world with lignin can terrestial plant life have the rich diversity that we see, and without that diversity animal life as we know it could not exist.
[...]

Perhaps the oddest aspect of this is that Darwin's theory is unable to make sense of a situation that otherwise makes perfect sense. If life is the product of intelligent design, it stands to reason that the whole design must be considered -- not just the functions of molecules and cells and tissues and organs and organisms, but also the functions of the entire ecosystems.

What's interesting is that the biodegradation of lignin can be accomplished by micro-organisms, including fungi (e.g. Hainal et al., 2012), who use it as a carbon source. In such cases, however, there is a net loss of energy, which ensures that the process is kept gradual. As the authors explain,

Typically several weeks are needed to achieve roughly 10% degradation of lignins below 1,000 daltons in molecular weight, and oxygen is always needed. In view of this, the answer that a Nature news article gave several years ago to the question "What can't bacteria do?" still looks to be correct -- they cannot metabolize lignin, because "the molecule is too large for most bacteria to handle, and its activation energy is too high."

In the case of fungal degradation of lignin, the paper explains:

The degradation of lignin by white-rot fungi has some special and even strange features. Firstly, lignin is not degraded during fungal growth but only after nutrient depletion triggers secondary metabolism. This is strange since secondary metabolism is usually connected to biosynthetic reactions rather than degradative processes. Secondly, despite the fact that complete oxidation of lignin is highly exothermic, fungal degradation of lignin actually needs an energy source. It has been postulated that lignin degradation is too slow to serve as a source of metabolic energy [...] Under optimal aerobic culture conditions, one gram of fungal mycelia degrades one gram of lignin in about 48 hours, consuming one gram of glucose in the process (as an energy source). Once glucose is depleted, lignin degradation ceases completely.

Now ask yourself: Is this the kind of coincidence one would expect to see under a Darwinian paradigm or under a design paradigm?

It is certainly surprising, on a Darwinian view, that over the course of 400 million years of evolution, no living organism has evolved the ability to metabolize lignin (despite the supposed occurrence of far more spectacular innovations in a fraction of that time). This makes perfect sense, however, under a design paradigm. As the authors put it, intelligent design "routinely takes the broad view and the long-term view, and because of this it alone makes sense of life."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07..._bi061701.html

thoughts?

[ZachSmash]

islam is the true religion.

[semitope]

islam is the true religion.

true religion of peace. You have no choice but to be peaceful once you are decapitated.

[PaulG]

So basically because lingin hasn't found a predator. Evolution is incorrect?

The concept sounds very evolutionary, that the fungi did well in its environments.

[Renegade83]

Give it a rest semitope, not a single person is going to be swayed by your bull**** masquerading as science. Science wins, theism loses.

Thank the flying spaghetti monster people like you will cease to exist after a few more generations.

[germanyt]

I suppose without an alternative source of energy some organisms might have developed the ability to digest it. Apparently sources that didn't require such evolution were readily available.

[semitope]

So basically because lingin hasn't found a predator. Evolution is incorrect?

The concept sounds very evolutionary, that the fungi did well in its environments.

that there is this energy rich resource out there not being used even though organisms seem to have developed very numerous and complex systems to deal with various food sources and other things really. Somehow they did not evolve the ability to consume something that would damage the design... oh, I mean the naturally evolved state. *rollseyes*

[PaulG]

that there is this energy rich resource out there not being used even though organisms seem to have developed very numerous and complex systems to deal with various food sources and other things really. Somehow they did not evolve the ability to consume something that would damage the design... oh, I mean the naturally evolved state. *rollseyes*

You fail to realize that being a predator is not the only way of killing off life or a species. Environments encompass all parameters(Not just predators) in which a species or life may survive. Plants compete for space also, and there are plenty of plants that trump the fungi.

[No7]

i dont know why i read the whole thing but basically this

I suppose without an alternative source of energy some organisms might have developed the ability to digest it. Apparently sources that didn't require such evolution were readily available.

[VAPlowhorse]

It pretty much shoots itself in the foot by pointing out how slow the degradation process is. Not exactly a good investment for mammals that can **** it out and move on to more cellulose/starch. Some mechanisms also rely on free radical production, which would not be easy on the species trying to use it. Furthermore, mammals need not only a micro organism capable of metabolizing it, but one that can survive an compete in a rumen or similar organ. In the current environment, it is readily digested by free living micro robes while mammals persue softer targets.

Looks like just another attempt to dumb a complex system down so that it fits your goals.

[DaCougarMech]

micro-organisms are the king of varied metabolisms.

[A-GAME]

[lucious]

i think i get it: When a scientific paper(no matter how pseudo-sciencey) supports my ridiculous beliefs, its accepted uncritically and I never bother to question the motives or research methods/peer review of the scientists involved. Science is wonderful and instantl correct if it backs up whatever i believe.

If however it contradicts my belief in mythology, I attack it mercilessly, invent conspiracy theories, call scientists cultists, go on about how fallible human intellect is.....


double standards, not even once

[A-GAME]

[Harbinger]

semitope, produce an article from the National Academy of Sciences that discredits evolution.

[GregariousWolf]

Bio-complexity journal is a Discovery Institute publication.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05...iew034331.html

Also, the claim "no living organism" can metabolize lignin is false. No animals digest lignin, but fungi and bacteria are able, as with cellulose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignin

Lignin is indigestible by animal enzymes, but some fungi (such as the Dryad's saddle) and bacteria are able to secrete ligninases (also named lignases) that can biodegrade the polymer. The details of the biodegradation are not yet well understood. The pathway depends on the type of wood decay - in fungi either brown rot, soft rot, or white rot. The enzymes involved may employ free radicals for depolymerization reactions.[20] Well understood lignolytic enzymes are manganese peroxidase, lignin peroxidase and cellobiose dehydrogenase. Furthermore, because of its cross-linking with the other cell wall components, it minimizes the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose to microbial enzymes. Hence, in general lignin is associated with reduced digestibility of the overall plant biomass, which helps defend against pathogens and pests.[10]

Lignin degradation is made by micro-organisms like fungi and bacteria. Lignin peroxidase (also "ligninase", EC number 1.14.99) is a hemoprotein from the white-rot fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium with a variety of lignin-degrading reactions, all dependent on hydrogen peroxide to incorporate molecular oxygen into reaction products. There are also several other microbial enzymes that are believed to be involved in lignin biodegradation, such as manganese peroxidase, laccase, and Cellobiose dehydrogenase (acceptor).

Lignin-related chemicals can be further processed by bacteria. For instance, the aerobic Gram-negative soil bacterium Sphingomonas paucimobilis is able to degrade lignin-related biphenyl chemical compounds.

In conclusion, the Discovery Institute cannot be trusted on matters of biological science. Not only are they blogging their own publication as if it were news, but they can't get basic facts right.

[GermanBB]

searching lignin and microbe over at sciencedirect, after reading op........ lulz were had. OP didn't even make the slightest attempt to search any of this stuff... it's not even a little.. it's a lot of separate data on rumen microbes digesting lignin.


this one is for you OP:

[lucious]

this is what happens when you only look for what you expect to find, without proper peer review and biased scientists.

[Meatros]

The concept sounds very evolutionary, that the fungi did well in its environments.

This.

Further, where is the calculation that demonstrates that we should expect organisms to evolve the ability to metabolize lignin? If there are other sources that are easier to metabolize, well, there's your answer.

As to making perfect sense under design, this is an absurd claim. There is no theory of intelligent design, therefore there can be no predictions in favor of it. In short, this is speculation not science. Might as well say that this makes sense under the view that ancient time traveling wizards made lignin hard to metabolize so that they could use it in their magic potions for millions of years.

In short, this is a waste of time. Until the IDer's have a legitimate theory (not "I don't know" = magic did it), they should not be taken seriously. This is why you aren't taken seriously, Semitope.

[lucious]

at least he got called on his double standard.

if a creationist scientist writes anything, its instantly legit and we need not investigate their research methods or peer review process. They werent even attempting to falsify their idea, they were looking for what they wanted to find.

evolution explains perfectly why an organism might use a more efficient energy source if they couldnt metabolise lignin. if they couldnt, they would die off.

semitope fail. Called on hypocrisy. ban him for trolling.

[Meatros]

at least he got called on his double standard.

if a creationist scientist writes anything, its instantly legit and we need not investigate their research methods or peer review process. They werent even attempting to falsify their idea, they were looking for what they wanted to find.

evolution explains perfectly why an organism might use a more efficient energy source if they couldnt metabolise lignin. if they couldnt, they would die off.

semitope fail. Called on hypocrisy. ban him for trolling.

I think his belief is that only creationists tell the truth, whereas scientists always lie or are somehow mentally retarded.

[lucious]

I think his belief is that only creationists tell the truth, whereas scientists always lie or are somehow mentally retarded.

the lulzy thing tho, is that these peeps are in fact scientists....however moronic their theory is.

[VAPlowhorse]

Honestly, this is one of the best pieces of creationist propaganda I have seen yet. It explains fairly accurately why lignin metabolism is a poor source of energy for most organisms, then complains that we don't see a lot of animals doing it.

Brb, racoons don't perform photosynthesis, evolution be false.

[semitope]

This.

Further, where is the calculation that demonstrates that we should expect organisms to evolve the ability to metabolize lignin? If there are other sources that are easier to metabolize, well, there's your answer.

As to making perfect sense under design, this is an absurd claim. There is no theory of intelligent design, therefore there can be no predictions in favor of it. In short, this is speculation not science. Might as well say that this makes sense under the view that ancient time traveling wizards made lignin hard to metabolize so that they could use it in their magic potions for millions of years.

In short, this is a waste of time. Until the IDer's have a legitimate theory (not "I don't know" = magic did it), they should not be taken seriously. This is why you aren't taken seriously, Semitope.

yeah. It all works out if you outright claim there is no theory. Then when it explains things and the predictions come true, you can just claim "hey, I already said there is no theory so away with all this!" Funny you ask for predictions to accept it as a theory then claim there can be no predictions as its not a theory. SO what should they do?

"easier to metabolize" is something you can only say after the fact. There is no reason to not evolve the mechanisms to make it as easy as anything else to metabolize and considering it is so common and high in energy, it would be beneficial to develop the mechanisms to metabolize it. Lignin serves to protect plant cellulose from bacteria. One would expect that, if such a a high energy source was in the way of another food source, they would evolve a way to actually deal with that first rather than somehow evolving a way to deal with something that is secondary to it.

Honestly, this is one of the best pieces of creationist propaganda I have seen yet. It explains fairly accurately why lignin metabolism is a poor source of energy for most organisms, then complains that we don't see a lot of animals doing it.

Brb, racoons don't perform photosynthesis, evolution be false.

reading and comprehension problems abound. "slow" is in that article in a section about the fungal degradation of lignin. i.e. fungal degradation of lignin is slow and that is beneficial to the ecosystem. It does not say lignin degradation has to be slow. Organisms have enzymes that speed up these processes. Of course you think those randomly evolved, but lignin was just off the menu as a food source for some reason.

searching lignin and microbe over at sciencedirect, after reading op........ lulz were had. OP didn't even make the slightest attempt to search any of this stuff... it's not even a little.. it's a lot of separate data on rumen microbes digesting lignin.


this one is for you OP:

post one. Shouldn't be hard considering you went out of your way to find a stupid pic. lets see how your find differs from what is covered in the article.

It pretty much shoots itself in the foot by pointing out how slow the degradation process is. Not exactly a good investment for mammals that can **** it out and move on to more cellulose/starch. Some mechanisms also rely on free radical production, which would not be easy on the species trying to use it. Furthermore, mammals need not only a micro organism capable of metabolizing it, but one that can survive an compete in a rumen or similar organ. In the current environment, it is readily digested by free living micro robes while mammals persue softer targets.

Looks like just another attempt to dumb a complex system down so that it fits your goals.

dumb a complex system down? Isn't that what evolution is all about? Completely ignoring modern biology to claim ridiculous things?

Bio-complexity journal is a Discovery Institute publication.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05...iew034331.html

Also, the claim "no living organism" can metabolize lignin is false. No animals digest lignin, but fungi and bacteria are able, as with cellulose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignin



In conclusion, the Discovery Institute cannot be trusted on matters of biological science. Not only are they blogging their own publication as if it were news, but they can't get basic facts right.

...and you can't be trusted to read. The article covers degradation by fungi and bacteria.

will be back to correct any mistakes

[PLZGO]

so why didn't god create animals that could digest lignin?

[Stizzel]

Animals don't eat mushrooms therefor god. Another gem from the discovery institute.

By the way, constantly referring to evolution as darwinism is as funny as calling gravity newtonianism. Which you would do if the bible said there was no gravity.

[aRCaNEbrah]

so if god made us and there is intelligent design how the fck did we evolve over a long list of primate species and not just as an evolved being as (im assuming your holy book) says?

evolution is a fact. its as much of a fact as gravity and that the earth goes around the sun. these things 500+ years ago were not factual and were in fact answered by religion. most claims made my religions have been proven not factual in terms of scientific discovery and the stories/fairy tales do nothing to help.

roll bread

[Meatros]

yeah. It all works out if you outright claim there is no theory. Then when it explains things and the predictions come true, you can just claim "hey, I already said there is no theory so away with all this!" Funny you ask for predictions to accept it as a theory then claim there can be no predictions as its not a theory. SO what should they do?

Okay, then what's the scientific theory?

If there is no theory then it cannot 'explain' things and their predictions cannot come true.

As to asking for predictions, where did I do this? There can't be any scientific predictions of ID, since it isn't a scientific theory!

Notice you didn't post a scientific theory of ID?

I did and I think everyone else did too.

"easier to metabolize" is something you can only say after the fact. There is no reason to not evolve the mechanisms to make it as easy as anything else to metabolize and considering it is so common and high in energy, it would be beneficial to develop the mechanisms to metabolize it. Lignin serves to protect plant cellulose from bacteria. One would expect that, if such a a high energy source was in the way of another food source, they would evolve a way to actually deal with that first rather than somehow evolving a way to deal with something that is secondary to it.

Are you saying that I could have said it 400 million years ago, prior to the fact?

In any event, how do you determine that it is 'as easy as anything else to metabolize'? Further, since there are other food sources available, where is the necessity?

[Meatros]

so why didn't god create animals that could digest lignin?

Exactly.

Again, ID is on the same level of 'explanation' as the time traveling wizards.

[lucious]

who keeps repping semitope? expose yourself!