The human brain is truly awesome. A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
[…]
Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have spent the past few years engineering a new imaging model, which they call array tomography, in conjunction with novel computational software, to stitch together image slices into a three-dimensional image that can be rotated, penetrated and navigated.
[…]
They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study:
And as Smith explains:
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor—with both memory-storage and information-processing elements—than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
Evolutionists are certain, however, that all of this—and all the rest of biology by the way—just happened to arise on its own. They can’t explain how, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact. After all, any other explanation is not scientific and in any case chimpanzees and humans have way too much in common. Anyway the world is too evil and god never would have made all those beetles, so evolution must be true. With evolutionists, it's all about philosophy and theology. Religion drives science and it matters.
Cornelius, you're getting further and further removed from reality with each pointless raving post.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of sad.
Cornelius, you're getting closer and closer to reality with each wonderful poignant post.
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a lengthy post but the "internet" erased it. I hate the internet. Good post Cornelius.
ReplyDeleteSorry I shouldn't say I hate the internet. It is convenient in may ways. It's just frustrating at times.
ReplyDeleteThe Darwinian mechanism is at its core a binary OR (survive or not survive) via a random driver. Its simply logically insufficient as a mechanism to account for life except for acting on existing life to a varying and limited probabalistic degree. This should be obvious even to a Darwinian NS & RM monger by now.
ReplyDeleteThorton , you're getting further and further removed from reality with each pointless raving post.
ReplyDeleteWhen Darwinists have nothing more to say than the salient idiocies of Thornton et al., you know they're getting worried in face of the facts of life.
ReplyDeleteGary:
ReplyDelete"When Darwinists have nothing more to say than the salient idiocies of Thornton et al., you know they're getting worried in face of the facts of life."
=======
True, and while I can agree with this(especially in Thorton's case) as a result of personal experience and observation over the years, it should also likewise be admitted that such neanderthal behavior is also found many other religious groups who have been known to go to such extremes on occasion, even so far as to kill their opponents.
It's just sad that what could otherwise be an important discussion turns into some childish adolescent poop throwing contest.
William Brookfield:
ReplyDelete"I just wrote a lengthy post but the "internet" erased it. I hate the internet. Good post Cornelius."
=======
You need to approach posting in this blogspot comments section as you would Public Speaking where you have a restrictive timeframe for which to deliver your material. In public speaking you need to only focus on a few main point and the same is true here. Too many points and you run overtime in your speech. Too many points elaborated on here and the program deletes your lengthy post automatically. Too many points also loose your audience.
Focus on one or two, then create another post to add further material or points as you need. Even when you receive that error message that let's you know your post is "TOO LARGE", your post just still may still go through. However a second post immediately after that will often cause the program (for whatever unknown reason) to delete your previous post.
Just make them smaller even if you have much material which ends up being in smaller posts.
Thorton said...
ReplyDeleteCornelius, you're getting further and further removed from reality with each pointless raving post.
In what way was Cronelius removing himself from reality with this post?
What exactly about the post did you react to?
Hmm, yes, there are lots of cells in the brain (and the rest of the body) and they all grow from a single egg. The result of this growth is complexity.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding how this happens is more about understanding how cells grow and divide than it is about evolution. Generating this type of complexity is not an insurmountable problem when you look at it in terms of cells replicating - in terms of computational modelling you can use relatively simple, local rules for cellular behaviour that will generate very complex structures.
Highlighting the words 'like a microprocessor' just illustrates why scientists have to be wary of using analogies to human artifacts. People like Cornelius will try and argue that because you can draw weak analogies between human artifacts and biological ones it must mean they were designed. As far as we know, humans didn't design life, and the only observed example we have of any intelligence creating an 'information processing system' are humans making computers - which are radically different in their design than biological brains.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"Understanding how this happens is more about understanding how cells grow and divide than it is about evolution."
=====
On this point Bill you are correct. Every scientific finding the past few years on the complexity and sophistication with what cells do, how they work and function with purpose and intended goals and massive amounts of resources to correct errors does not bode well for evolutionary explanations. Why ??? Because by it's religious nature, the original philosophical-ideological-metaphysical thought of evolution philosophers spews up images of blind undirected random luck forces with no goals, no direction, purpose or intent for any of the things it is given storytelling credit for accomplishing. Yes, there is quite a difference.
------
Bill Bigge:
"Generating this type of complexity is not an insurmountable problem when you look at it in terms of cells replicating - in terms of computational modelling you can use relatively simple, local rules for cellular behaviour that will generate very complex structures."
======
The only complexity I can see is an evolutionist actually being honest and explaining with a straight face just how brilliantly sophisticated complex running molecular machines driven and guided by the most complex information storage compression mechanism ever known resulted from nothing more than blind undirected forces physics and chemcials. This is never touched upon. It's almost as if the very subject itself has some kind of Rabies or some morphed super-infectious version of the AIDS virus that can be contracted by a mere touch.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"Highlighting the words 'like a microprocessor' just illustrates why scientists have to be wary of using analogies to human artifacts.
=======
I agree, I wish they would stop using words like "INFORMATION" and replace the usuage of such terms which denotes ordered intelligence to words like "FRACTALS" or "PATTERNS" since from almost every Evolutionist's mouth we are told there is no such thing as true information inside DNA. Such intelligent origined word/terms are misleading to the very nature of Evolutionist Doctrine/Dogma. Thanks for appreciating that. *thumbs up*
-------
Bill Bigge:
"People like Cornelius will try and argue that because you can draw weak analogies between human artifacts and biological ones it must mean they were designed.
=======
Cornelius has said many times he is an "Impiricist", not a "Rationalist". He wants hard facts and evidence, not philosophy and metaphysics(religious Stories, fables, myths, etc).
-------
Bill Bigge:
"As far as we know, humans didn't design life, and the only observed example we have of any intelligence creating an 'information processing system' are humans making computers - which are radically different in their design than biological brains."
=======
Again you are correct. The intelligently designed computer communications systems designed by human intelligence are a mere fraction of the sophistication and complexity of the communications systems found in the natural world which supposedly happened as a result of nothing more than blind pointlessness of undirected forces and chemcials all by themselves with no help from any intelligence with the exception of Richard Dawkin's aliens.
Eocene:"The only complexity I can see is an evolutionist actually being honest and explaining with a straight face just how brilliantly sophisticated complex running molecular machines driven and guided by the most complex information storage compression mechanism ever known resulted from nothing more than blind undirected forces physics and chemcials. This is never touched upon."
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------
Really? Apart from all those scientists researching biogenesis of course, but I guess they don't count and neither does any of their experimental work!
---------------------------------------
"Again you are correct. The intelligently designed computer communications systems designed by human intelligence are a mere fraction of the sophistication and complexity of the communications systems found in the natural world..."
---------------------------------------
The phrase irreducible complexity comes to mind doesn't it. If you knock out a few transistors from a computer it will have a critical affect on the computers operation, they are brittle, they need to be designed. If you knock out a few neurons or synapses the brain keeps working. Computers follow strict archetectural rules, brains are messy and approximate - every one is wired differently - yet they ususlly work fine.
These types of messy, approximate systems are very ameanable to evolution because they can tolerate a large degree of variation during construction.
---------------------------------------
"Cornelius has said many times he is an "Impiricist""
---------------------------------------
Then he should start to pay attention to evidence and fact instead of making confused statements about things he doesn't seem to understand.
The little bit of research that I've been involved with into the origin of self replicators isn't driven by religion, it is an attempt to establish if and how self replicating systems can occur naturally, and under what circumstances.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to claim that they can't, I prefer to try and find out if they can before making any definitive claims either way. We know a lot of things that indicate that it might be possible, but the unknowns are even greater which is why we do emperical research rather than armwaiving.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"Really? Apart from all those scientists researching biogenesis of course, but I guess they don't count and neither does any of their experimental work!"
=====
I want hard facts and evidence, not conjectured RNA-World fables and myths found on YouTube!
-----
Bill Bigge:
"The phrase irreducible complexity comes to mind doesn't it. If you knock out a few transistors from a computer it will have a critical affect on the computers operation, they are brittle, they need to be designed. If you knock out a few neurons or synapses the brain keeps working. Computers follow strict archetectural rules, brains are messy and approximate - every one is wired differently - yet they ususlly work fine."
"These types of messy, approximate systems are very ameanable to evolution because they can tolerate a large degree of variation during construction."
=====
Ecological systems everywhere around the Earth are having major important componants knocked out all over the place and systems are failing. Science is directly responsible for this and has no concept that the fix has zero to do with a materialist "Fix-It-Pill" approach as it needs a spiritual one (people doing the right thing). I know, unacceptable.
=====
Bill Bigge:
"Then he should start to pay attention to evidence and fact instead of making confused statements about things he doesn't seem to understand."
=====
Apparently you have an entirely different take on what a fact and evidence actually are. Opinions, gut feelings, assumptions, assertions, telling a make-believe story where gaps are everywhere and clear data is absent do NOT translate to a FACT.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"The little bit of research that I've been involved with into the origin of self replicators isn't driven by religion, it is an attempt to establish if and how self replicating systems can occur naturally, and under what circumstances."
======
I have no problem with that. Experiment and research away. However, you are taking the wrong approach. Actual life is not about inert chemcial reactions of some material substrate replicating crystaline patterns triggerd by some other chemcial catalyst. Life is the result of the information that drives it. So how does just one informational code(plans, instructions, blueprints, bytes, bits, ideas, algorithm file, etc) develope from nothing more than chemicals and physics ???
=====
Bill Bigge:
"You seem to claim that they can't, I prefer to try and find out if they can before making any definitive claims either way. We know a lot of things that indicate that it might be possible, but the unknowns are even greater which is why we do emperical research rather than armwaiving."
======
Ever see the scf-fi movie staring Jodi Foster called, "Contact" ??? They were looking for possible life from other worlds. Rather than using giant super-sophisticated Telescopes to find proof of life, they actually were looking for a "CODE/S". Why were they doing that Bill ???
You know what else these advanced imaging techniques are good for? Testing evolutionary hypotheses:
ReplyDeleteProfiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium.
"Comparison to the vertebrate pallium reveals that the annelid mushroom bodies develop from similar molecular coordinates within a conserved overall molecular brain topology and that their development involves conserved patterning mechanisms and produces conserved neuron types that existed already in the protostome-deuterostome ancestors. These data indicate deep homology of pallium and mushroom bodies and date back the origin of higher brain centers to prebilaterian times."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/20813265?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000%2Cf1000m
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium."
=======
I've heard the mushroom story before. Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???
Cauliflower
"I have no problem with that. Experiment and research away. However, you are taking the wrong approach. ... So how does just one informational code(plans, instructions, blueprints, bytes, bits, ideas, algorithm file, etc) develope from nothing more than chemicals and physics ??? "
ReplyDelete----------------------------
Bizzare statement - this is exactly the kind of thing we are investigating - so why is trying to establish under what circumstances the laws of physics and the resut of chemical interactions could produce self replicating systems the wrong approach to trying to understand if and how self replicating systems can be produced by nature?
You seem to think that we need t understand where information comes from before we can understand how replicators form, the reverse is actually true, if we understand how replicators form, and subsiquently evolve in the biological sense, then we have identified the process by which this information was generated. Information is not an entity in its self, it is a property of matter, the measure of which is dependant on context - and on the formal definition of information that the observer is using when taking measurements.
----------------------------
"Ever see the scf-fi movie staring Jodi Foster called, "Contact" ??? They were looking for possible life from other worlds. Rather than using giant super-sophisticated Telescopes to find proof of life, they actually were looking for a "CODE/S". Why were they doing that Bill ???"
----------------------------
SETI look for anomalous radio and optical signals. They want to find signals that correlate with the types of radio signals that humans produce, but which aren't known to occur in nature (including the rest of biology). We know humans make radios and can transmit signals into space, we hypothesise that if any other intelligent life exists within the universe then it might also find out how to do this.
""Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium."
ReplyDelete=======
Eocene:
I've heard the mushroom story before. Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???"
+++++++++++++++++
I'm not sure if you are trying to make a joke here. Annelids are ringed worms. Mushroom bodies are a pair of neuronal structures in insects and arthropods, etc.
http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/Flybrain/html/contrib/2000/crittenden/FIG1/fig1.html
No one is arguing humans are descended from mushrooms.
Cornelius said:
ReplyDelete"Evolutionists are certain, however, that all of this—and all the rest of biology by the way—just happened to arise on its own. They can’t explain how, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact."
Gene duplication, exaptation. But please continue with "Lalala, I can't hear you." At least you know the tune very well by now.
Dr Hunter needs another math refresher, this time on the power of compound interest.
2^40 is a little over a trillion. If you wanted to build a body with a trillion cells, the genetic instructions would need to include 40 "grow, then split" instructions. But 2^6 is more than 40, so the original "grow, then split" gene would only need to be duplicated 6 times over a billion of years of history to move from single celled creatures to trillion celled creatures.
Of course, the scientist's analogy to a microprocessor is a stretch, but since it helps his storytelling, Dr Hunter is not going to call him on it. The Intel 4004, the first microprocessor, had about 2,300 transistors according to Wikipedia. That doesn't include memory.
RobertC
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure if you are trying to make a joke here. Annelids are ringed worms. Mushroom bodies are a pair of neuronal structures in insects and arthropods, etc.
http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/Flybrain/html/contrib/2000/crittenden/FIG1/fig1.html
No one is arguing humans are descended from mushrooms."
======
The abstract you quoted referenced the word "PATTERNS" and that was the same subject I was discussing with Bill Bigge. Hence my reference to cauliflower which has a sort of Human brain pattern ??? If all it is , is patterns anyway, then why not cauliflower ???
Mark Twain said "Cauliflower is Cabbage with an education"
"The abstract you quoted referenced the word "PATTERNS" and that was the same subject I was discussing with Bill Bigge. Hence my reference to cauliflower which has a sort of Human brain pattern ??? If all it is , is patterns anyway, then why not cauliflower ???"
ReplyDeleteRivers and streams look like blood vessels from a distance, does this imply that they were designed? I'm not sure why you think cauliflower heads look like brains though - is is because they are white?
Eocene-
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how your response accounts for going from the comparative anatomy and molecular biology of worm brain structures (which happen to be called mushroom bodies) and the vertebrate pallium to:
"Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???"
The abstract I referenced cites patterning mechanisms, which you can look up yourself.
Since were on the subject-from an ID perspective, the recognition of patterns is key.
Suppose I argue human brains and cauliflower DO share common design. How would ID falsify this silly hypothesis?
Researchers thought that they had simulated half a mouse brain on a BlueGene L Supercomputer back in 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6600965.stm
ReplyDeleteIf a synapse is now considered more complex than imagined, then this takes the level of complexity to a whole new level. Excellent article by CH. The synapses as storage and information processors certainly makes a lot of sense. Wow. So, we've seen comparisions of a single eukaryote cell being like a city and the brain liken to the world wide web. When King David (1000 BC) said that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" he was right on target.
Gary said...
ReplyDeleteWhen Darwinists have nothing more to say than the salient idiocies of Thornton et al., you know they're getting worried in face of the facts of life.
LOL! Sure little yap dog. I'm sure the scientific community is just worried sick about Creationist clowns like you posting ignorance based rants on a backwater blog.
Speaking of avoiding facts, when are you going to provide that disproof of evolution by using equations from statistical mechanics you promised us? You sure tucked tail and ran on that bit of empty bluster when called on it.
Ever see the scf-fi movie staring Jodi Foster called, "Contact" ??? They were looking for possible life from other worlds. Rather than using giant super-sophisticated Telescopes to find proof of life, they actually were looking for a "CODE/S". Why were they doing that Bill ???
ReplyDeleteWow. First mushroom bodies = cauliflower, then this. Yet another reason this board needs a *facepalm* smiley.
The inability to distinguish a science fiction movie from actual science research is yet another reason no one takes your IDC blithering seriously.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"Bizzare statement - this is exactly the kind of thing we are investigating - so why is trying to establish under what circumstances the laws of physics and the resut of chemical interactions could produce self replicating systems the wrong approach to trying to understand if and how self replicating systems can be produced by nature?
========
The problem Bill is that imformation itself has nothing to do with any kind/type of material substrate.
-Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and “Father of Modern Cybernetics”
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
Do you take this above understanding and FACT into account with your experimentation and development with regards your personal research ???
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"You seem to think that we need to understand where information comes from before we can understand how replicators form, the reverse is actually true, if we understand how replicators form, and subsiquently evolve in the biological sense, then we have identified the process by which this information was generated.
======
Maybe this is why I believe information has to come first before the material replicators.
Francis Crick's "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology"
The encoded information within DNA always controls the protein material, not the other way around. Even frustrated Crick eventually tried Panspermia logic. Why ??? A God was simply unacceptable which makes this issue a philosophical/idological one as opposed to anything to do with science.
You say you are an expert of sorts with regard computers. In the ASCII code system, what is represented by all those 1's and 0's in their various orders ??? Do you think they represent only plastic housing, copper wiring, voltage, magnetism, glass, etc ??? Or does it represent rather the ideas, plans, schemes, blueprints, math calculations, etc of a mind ??? DNA works the same way. Proteins don't dictate information to the DNA anymore than plastic, copper or voltage dictate real information back to the computer's software.
Ribosomes obey DNA and build structures based on those instructions received, not the other way around. That's actually the definition of an intelligent communications system. An encoder, transmitter/messenger and a decoder. Both start and end componants use a beforehand agreed upon language, otherwise the system breaks down. How could molecular machines(with all their own sophistication) magically morph without instructions to do so without the laws of the Central Dogma being enforced ???
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"Information is not an entity in its self, it is a property of matter, the measure of which is dependant on context - and on the formal definition of information that the observer is using when taking measurements."
======
Bill I never said information was an intelligent enity, that would be silly or at best some type of an materialist or animist religion. However all intelligent information we know the origin of comes from a mind. Just like any information you develope for your artificial life or robots comes directly from you. The robots do not develope some artificial intelligent life and then magically becomes self-aware. The information is not you, but it came from you.
"Do you take this above understanding and FACT into account with your experimentation and development with regards your personal research ???"
ReplyDeleteThat is a statement, not a fact - show me some information that exists, but is not in the form of a contextual arrangement of matter or energy.
How do you suggest I incorporate the idea of disembodied (substrate free) information into an experiment?
Neal, I'm just waiting on you to confirm that you understand the grouping in the previous thread so I can move on to my next (and last) point, and answer your other questions.
ReplyDelete"Bill I never said information was an intelligent enity, that would be silly or at best some type of an materialist or animist religion."
ReplyDeleteI never said that you said that information was an intelligent entity, just that you appeared to claim that it existed independantly of matter, energy and context.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"The inability to distinguish a science fiction movie from actual science research is yet another reason no one takes your IDC blithering seriously."
======
Funny indeed. You must have stumbled upon a mind slump as I have yet to see one of your usual cut n paste abstract specialties lately, just the usual uninformative snarks.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that we need to understand where information comes from before we can understand how replicators form, the reverse is actually true, if we understand how replicators form, and subsiquently evolve in the biological sense, then we have identified the process by which this information was generated.
I think a number of us would agree that discovering the source of information in biology is probably the most important discovery science could make.
Can matter somehow rearrange itself into "intelligent sequences" without the benefit of a pre-existing intelligence or can this be accomplished by relying strictly on natural laws and the interaction of matter?
To discover that autonomous natural processes could generate information would be a monumental discovery indeed.
"You say you are an expert of sorts with regard computers. In the ASCII code system, what is represented by all those 1's and 0's in their various orders ??? Do you think they represent only plastic housing, copper wiring, voltage, magnetism, glass, etc ??? Or does it represent rather the ideas, plans, schemes, blueprints, math calculations, etc of a mind ??? DNA works the same way. Proteins don't dictate information to the DNA anymore than plastic, copper or voltage dictate real information back to the computer's software."
ReplyDeleteWe build computers to do work for us, the information they contain, be it information entered by a human or information gathered by sensors, requires the physical archetecture of the computer for it to exist there.
DNA works the same way - it is an arrangement of matter.
"I think a number of us would agree that discovering the source of information in biology is probably the most important discovery science could make."
ReplyDeleteIf you are talking about biogenesis then we are really talking about how chemical systems can produce replicators capable of descent with modification - basically replicators that make imperfect, but sometimes functional copies.
If you are talking about biological evolution then "the source of information in biology" is an interaction of inperfect replicators in a complex environment - this has been known about since ..... Darwin!
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"That is a statement, not a fact - show me some information that exists, but is not in the form of a contextual arrangement of matter or energy."
======
Here's an example Bill. Are you ready ???
Okay, now "THINK" about it. Now show us how your thoughts can originate by nothing more than chemicals and the undirected forces of physics without any help from you and that these thoughts then become just so information onto a material platform. It's a simple matter of chemicals and catalyst making crystal patterns and fractals, right Bill ???
Again, "THINK" about it. Your thoughts only become material when you imput them into your computer or physically write them down with a pen on paper. Only then do they EVER become material.
------
Bill Bigge:
"How do you suggest I incorporate the idea of disembodied (substrate free) information into an experiment?"
======
EXACTLY , I don't, this is not my problem Bill. It's yours. I could never prove what you hope to prove and I admit it.
"Can matter somehow rearrange itself into "intelligent sequences""
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by this - the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems? Adding the label intelligent to the product of a chemical process is confusing.
"Okay, now "THINK" about it."
ReplyDelete-------------------------
Ok, I thought about it. It occurred to me when I was thinking that if I were in a brain scanner you would be able to observe me thinking about it - you could see the changing blood flow and electrical signals produced by my brain as I thought.
-------------------------
"Your thoughts only become material when you imput them into your computer or physically write them down with a pen on paper."
-------------------------
If that were true then you wouldn't be able to see my brain working when I thought about it.
Bill: "How do you suggest I incorporate the idea of disembodied (substrate free) information into an experiment?"
ReplyDelete======
Eocene: "EXACTLY , I don't, this is not my problem Bill. It's yours. I could never prove what you hope to prove and I admit it."
It is your problem because you are making this claim - that information exists independantly of matter and energy. If you want me to incorporate this into my experiments then you need a theoretical framework. - some systematic description of how this information works when decoupled from matter, and how it interacts with matter.
You are claiming it exists so go away and prove it.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"DNA works the same way - it is an arrangement of matter."
======
Bill, the encoded information etched and encryted into DNA and the protein molecules actually making the DNA are not the same. Anymore than your immaterial ideas inside of your personal secret thoughts in your head are not the same as them eventually being written down on paper.
I usually get a debate about a snowflake being information becuase it's a pattern. Unfortunately for them, there is no H2O water molecule or group of water molecules encoded with instructions for the formation of any type of snowflake pattern. There is no information encryted in a group of water molecules which explain or defines themselves or contain a library of all the amazing countless Water Anomalies which most people know nothing about.
Does that make sense ???
Doublee said...
ReplyDeleteI think a number of us would agree that discovering the source of information in biology is probably the most important discovery science could make.
Can matter somehow rearrange itself into "intelligent sequences" without the benefit of a pre-existing intelligence or can this be accomplished by relying strictly on natural laws and the interaction of matter?
To discover that autonomous natural processes could generate information would be a monumental discovery indeed.
Science already knows the source of information in biological entities. It comes from the environment. When you get a population of imperfect self-replicators competing for resources, selection pressure from the environment will determine which lives to pass on its genes and which dies. That interaction determines the information content of each subsequent generation, and can indeed produce new information.
This is not new news. Science has known it for years. It's the basis of the whole science of genetic algorithms, where the iterative application of a few simple evolutionary processes can produce wonderfully complex designs chock-ful-o' new information.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure what you mean by this - the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems? Adding the label intelligent to the product of a chemical process is confusing."
======
No you don't understand that in biological life, it's a code of instructions that fascilitate replication otherwise evolution never gets off the ground. It's not about the material. In the RNA world of Viruses, they need a host cell with DNA to hijack/steal in order to replicate. How did the Fable/Myth RNA World ever function without that informational code ???
Again, these are not my problems or beliefs, they are your side's alone. So experiment all you want.
I've enjoyed this, but forgive me as i have got to go to a meeting just now and I'm rushed.
Thanks
"Science already knows the source of information in biological entities. It comes from the environment."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Dembski and Marks accidentally concede this in their paper.
"Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper." from http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf
So if fitness and selection are a source of information in a simulation, why aren't they in nature?
"there is no H2O water molecule or group of water molecules encoded with instructions for the formation of any type of snowflake pattern."
ReplyDeleteThe pattern arises due to the way water molecules behave under varying temperature and other environmental conditions. It is not much of a mystery, but there is plenty still to be understood.
"Does that make sense ???"
Yes, perfect sense - you don't understand how water can form ice crystals. What I don't understand is why you need to postulate some disembodied property called information to explain something that is explained by looking at how water behaves as temperature changes.
"No you don't understand that in biological life, it's a code of instructions that fascilitate replication otherwise evolution never gets off the ground. "
ReplyDeleteNo, it is the arrangement of matter and its subsiquent behaviour that allows for replication.
Bill Bigge said...
ReplyDeleteYes, perfect sense - you don't understand how water can form ice crystals. What I don't understand is why you need to postulate some disembodied property called information to explain something that is explained by looking at how water behaves as temperature changes.
It makes perfect sense to an IDCer, as if fits right in with their "lets make up meaningless sciency-sounding gobbledygook to snow the laymen" campaign.
Next we'll be hearing about "complex specified information", and "informational specified complexity", and "functional specified information", and "digital specified complex information", and whatever other meaningless buzzphrases the IDiots can dream up.
disembodied digital functional specified complex guided nonrandom algorithmic psuedoshannon information - DDFSCGNAP
ReplyDeleteWhen a transcription factor binds DNA, it’s not looking at the information stored; it’s searching for a complementary 3 dimensional structure. We could make a chemical compound with a 3 dimensional structure similar to that DNA sequence, and the transcription factor would bind it. That’s the principle behind inhibitors by the way.
ReplyDeleteIn other word, if we were to encode all the biological information of an organism using molecules other than nucleic acids, it would not give a living organism (even if all the “information” is present). Every protein that interacts with DNA is relying on its 3 dimensional structure.
Charles: "When a transcription factor binds DNA, it’s not looking at the information stored; it’s searching for a complementary 3 dimensional structure."
ReplyDeleteExactly, 'information' is defined and contained by the structure, not the other way around.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete===
People like Cornelius will try and argue that because you can draw weak analogies between human artifacts and biological ones it must mean they were designed.
===
So where did I say that? Of course I didn't, but this is how discussions go with evolutionists. They make non scientific, dogmatic claims. Evolution is an undeniable fact. And when questioned, and their claims are shown to be absurd, they start making things up.
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete"So where did I say that? Of course I didn't, but this is how discussions go with evolutionists."
and this is different than you and your strawman version of "evolutionists" based on some quotations from Miller and GOuld? Please, save your hypocritical crocodile tears.
"And when questioned, and their claims are shown to be absurd.."
ReplyDeleteyes, nothing like a dorm-room style analogy between the brain and the internet to show that a claim is absurd.
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
and this is different than you and your strawman version of "evolutionists" based on some quotations from Miller and GOuld? Please, save your hypocritical crocodile tears.
===
Yes, I suppose that Leibniz, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Wallace, Le Conte, de Beer, Grant, Mayr, Eldredge, Gould, Ayala, Miller, Coyne, Alexander, Simpson, Ridley, Williams, Futuyma, Ruse, Jones, ..., etc, virtually every textbook, the list goes on and on, all these are misrepresenting evolution. Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists. Reading the evolution genre and asking evolutionists to justify their claims is really just quote-mining. Asking evolutionists to make sense of the major themes in their own literature is really just creating strawmen arguments.
So here's how it works. They literally make things up and ascribe them to you. But that's OK. When you ask about it, they ignore the question, and immediately claim your questions about what they *do* say (and say all the time, all through their literature), is nothing more than a strawman.
You can't make this stuff up.
Bill bigge
ReplyDeleteWhy different materials wouldn't perform same functions? We can recognize function by what it is regardless of medium.
"They literally make things up and ascribe them to you."
ReplyDeleteOk, lets take something you DID say:
"Clearly Darwin’s idea is mathematically tractable. That is, if fitness landscapes are relatively smooth and reasonably shaped, and if an initial population just happens to appear, and if biological variation just happens to arise and accumulate, and if populations do not resist such change, then of course species can evolve to new designs."
So, I await proof that:
1) Most (all) fitness landscapes are unreasonably shaped, or
2) Life (a population) does not exist, or
3) Biological variation does not arise and accumulate, or
4) Adaptation is not possible
Or is evolution tractable?
Cornelius: "So where did I say that? "
ReplyDeleteIt was implied in the way you highlighted the phrase "like a microprocessor" as should have been clear from the context of what I wrote.
Eugen: "Why different materials wouldn't perform same functions? We can recognize function by what it is regardless of medium."
ReplyDeleteDifferent materials don't function the same way but they can perform similar functions.
I can recognize that a lake functions to support an ecosystem. Was the lake designed?
Bill Bigge
ReplyDelete"No, it is the arrangement of matter and its subsiquent behaviour that allows for replication. "
Would this help you understand Bill?
http://www.physorg.com/news120920995.html
"“He likens the process to building a house. Starting with basic materials such as bricks, wood, siding, stone and shingles, a construction team can build many different types of houses out of the same building blocks. In the Northwestern work, the DNA controls where the building blocks (the gold nanoparticles) are positioned in the final crystal structure, arranging the particles in a functional way. The DNA does all the heavy lifting so the researchers don’t have to.”
It looks like these guys know what they’re talking about and designed synthesized DNA to do the major work for them. The key phrase in the article is "DNA controls" the process. From my limited knowledge of the subject, anything that controls anything needs some sort of programmer/programming
Peace
Bill Bigge
ReplyDelete"Information is not an entity in its self, it is a property of matter"
Really? Where are the material particles of information found? How do they interact with protons?
Bill
ReplyDeleteI can recognize that a lake functions to support an ecosystem. Was the lake designed?
I didn't mean lake function. More like lets say light switch function.
Dang it I have to go, we'll continue…
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete===
It was implied in the way you highlighted the phrase "like a microprocessor" as should have been clear from the context of what I wrote.
===
Whereas what I actually wrote was that evolutionists
can’t explain how such structures (the brain and its synapses--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements) evolved, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact.
You have injected your religion into science, made absurd claims, and now blame those who don't buy your claims which you can't defend.
Keepitreal said...
ReplyDeleteIt looks like these guys know what they’re talking about and designed synthesized DNA to do the major work for them. The key phrase in the article is "DNA controls" the process. From my limited knowledge of the subject, anything that controls anything needs some sort of programmer/programming.
" From my limited knowledge of the subject" - there's the problem, right there.
Adding a catalyst to a chemical reaction can control the speed of the reaction. Does that mean the catalyst needs needs some sort of programmer/programming to work?
Cornelius Hunter , I will give you a billion times a billion times a billion complex biological systems either known today or those we will find out about in the future for which we don't have any or a good explanation how they evolved. This number would essentially mean you if you post one system a day (that is a 24-hour period) you would not run out of systems till literally the hell freezes.
ReplyDeleteBut what gives?
The problem is that your reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is generic. It is the same for every single of these billions of systems: They are complex. So essentially with every post you are not presenting a new argument, but simply repeating the argument that you can not evolve complex biological systems. But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved.
So unless you have a reason that the individual system is different with respect to its evolvability from all the other systems you don't have a case.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteWhereas what I actually wrote was that evolutionists can’t explain how such structures (the brain and its synapses--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements) evolved, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact.
You have injected your religion into science, made absurd claims, and now blame those who don't buy your claims which you can't defend.
Historians can't explain exactly what Lewis and Clark were doing every minute of every day in their epic 1804-06 expedition, but they're absolutely certain the journey is a fact.
Do you also think historians have injected their religion into history and made absurd claims?
If not, why the blatant hypocrisy?
an example for Keepitreal,
ReplyDelete'...anything that controls anything needs some sort of programmer/programming'
A weakly acidic or basic buffer solution controls the pH of the solution even if a strong acid or base is added. There is no programme or programmer responsible for this, it is basic (no pun intended) chemistry.
"Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists."
ReplyDeleteTheir opinions on the facthood of evolution are duly noted, and irrelevant to the science of evolutionary biology. Science is done in labs and the field, not in armchairs.
second opinion:
ReplyDelete===
The problem is that your reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is generic. It is the same for every single of these billions of systems: They are complex.
===
Need to elaborate on that a bit. My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one. And the same is true for evolutionists. The only thing we can imagine is speculative, hand-waving explanations.
It is not controversial that speculative hand-waving, which is a reasonable thing to do sometimes, does not constitute facthood.
But this isn't merely a problem in one or a few isolated cases. It is pervasive, as the examples illustrate.
second opinion:
ReplyDelete===
But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved.
===
I didn't know that.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteYes, I suppose that Leibniz, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Wallace, Le Conte, de Beer, Grant, Mayr, Eldredge, Gould, Ayala, Miller, Coyne, Alexander, Simpson, Ridley, Williams, Futuyma, Ruse, Jones, ..., etc, virtually every textbook, the list goes on and on, all these are misrepresenting evolution.
(Emphasis added)
When did Immanuel (I assume that's the Kant you meant) discuss (let alone misrepresent) evolution?
Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists.
No, let's leave in Kant, if you can make a case.
(We'll deal with Leibniz another time...)
Thorton says..
ReplyDelete“Adding a catalyst to a chemical reaction can control the speed of the reaction. Does that mean the catalyst needs needs some sort of programmer/programming to work?”
That is true however if you read this
< http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018>
Leslie Orgel states..
“The catalytic properties of enzymes are remarkable. They not only accelerate reaction rates by many orders of magnitude, but they also discriminate between potential substrates that differ very slightly in structure. Would one expect similar discrimination in the catalytic potential of peptides of length ten or less? The answer is clearly “no,” and it is this conclusion that ultimately undermines the peptide cycle theory.”
Tell me Thorton, how do enzymes discriminate? What process or mechanism told those enzymes to discriminate upon?. How does random dumb luck, discriminate?
Before the first quoted statement above by Mr. Orgel also states..
” Clearly, self-organization requires catalysis that is not only sufficiently efficient but also sufficiently sequence-specific.”
So tell me Thorton, how do molecules and enzymes come together in a sequence-specific way, and what controls those identities to come together in the right way?. Magic?
Or this article” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101004112156.htm”
Newly Discovered DNA Repair Mechanism.
So tell me Thorton, how does a non-telic process “repair” anything?
In the field of computer science it takes an intelligent agent to repair code. So in biology and in all life, how do you explain repair mechanisms from the laws of chemistry and physics? I am very curious to see your answer.
Pedant:
ReplyDelete===
Yes, I suppose that Leibniz, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Wallace, Le Conte, de Beer, Grant, Mayr, Eldredge, Gould, Ayala, Miller, Coyne, Alexander, Simpson, Ridley, Williams, Futuyma, Ruse, Jones, ..., etc, virtually every textbook, the list goes on and on, all these are misrepresenting evolution.
(Emphasis added)
When did Immanuel (I assume that's the Kant you meant) discuss (let alone misrepresent) evolution?
===
I'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution. In fact, he was a significant contributor to evolutionary thinking. I discuss this in my book *Science's Blind Spot*. For a peek you can search for "kant" on this blog, and see those posts.
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete"My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one."
so, a failure of your research skills and a failure of your imagination = a failure of evolutionary biology.
Perhaps you can explain why you don't find these papers compelling (let me guess, it's bc they assume evolution is true and bc they push the problem off further back in time):
Emes RD et al. Evolutionary expansion and anatomical specialization of synapse proteome complexity. Nat Neurosci. 2008 Jul;11(7):799-806.
Ryan TJ, Grant SG. The origin and evolution of synapses. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009
"Whereas what I actually wrote was that evolutionists
ReplyDeletecan’t explain how such structures (the brain and its synapses--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements) evolved, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact.
You have injected your religion into science, made absurd claims, and now blame those who don't buy your claims which you can't defend."
----------------------------
I'm not sure how to respond - the level of your inability to understand the questions you are asking is overwhelming.
What is is about the brain that you find so difficult - we have already talked about how complex structures can grow from simpler interacting units, there is lots of research into that and some good progress in understanding the details of how cells grow into bodies. The fact that the human brain is overwhelmingly complex is a matter of size as much as anything. Ants have relatively simple brains by comparison but they grow in the same way - ours just grow bigger.
The question at issue is not the complexity of the brain, or anything else, but is about how things that grow can evolve to grow differently - again, lots of research and understanding (and observation) about how this works.
Now please explain what my religion is, and how it is injected into science - you've made this claim but never provided a shred of evidence - you didn't even explain to me what my religion was!
"My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one."
ReplyDeleteyou reject the theory of evolution a-priori as religious dogma - of course you wouldn't find any explanation compelling!
"how do enzymes discriminate?"
ReplyDeleteBased on the properties of their substrate-and complementing that with the size, shape, hydrophobicity and charge of their active site.
"how does a non-telic process “repair” anything?"
There are two strands to every DNA molecule. For example, UV damage causes bulky adducts. These are recognized by proteins as bulges in the double helix. The adducts are removed, and fixed by reading the non-broken strand, incorporating the properlybase paired nucleotides. Or not, if both sides are broken, or error-prone DNA repair is used. It is physics and chemistry, not C++.
"I'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution."
ReplyDeleteIt's what you wrote. If you aren't then who is?
Cornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteI will try to give an example: the Schrödinger equation describes all of chemistry 100 % accurate. Yet we can only solve it analytically for the hydrogen atom. 50 years ago we could apply and (numerically) solve it only to really small molecules due to lack of computing power. Nowadays computer power has grown immensely and methods have improved but there are still will always be cases that the equation fails. But that does not mean it is inaccurate or does not apply to all of chemistry.
Keepitreal said...
ReplyDeleteSo tell me Thorton, how does a non-telic process “repair” anything?
In the field of computer science it takes an intelligent agent to repair code. So in biology and in all life, how do you explain repair mechanisms from the laws of chemistry and physics? I am very curious to see your answer.
RobertC has already answered your question, but I'll point out a similar description was provided in the very article you cited:
Newly Discovered DNA Repair Mechanism
You'd probably do better if you read more than just the title.
As to why such a mechanism evolved in the first place, you need to understand that the repair processes are not 100% effective. What they do is effectively throttle the net mutation rate as to keep it at its optimum level - too little mutation means no variation to select from when the environment changes, too much mutation means lowered evolutionary fitness, less reproductive success across the whole population. In other words, the evidence shows that evolvabilty itself evolved.
The scientific paper apparently forgot to include a snippet that "it evolved overtime by chance".
ReplyDeleteI think I know the reason for this oddity; they could not "imagine" how the brain could have evolved.
But fear not, the brain is not only complex but specified to perform many tasks, this includes "imagining" and "day dreaming".
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteSo how did organisms survive if they didn't have a system to control mutation rates?
"So how did organisms survive if they didn't have a system to control mutation rates?"
ReplyDeleteThe lack of DNA repair makes organisms less fit compared to ones with it, but is DNA repair is not generally essential in prokaryotes.
Search the database of essential genes. How many prokaryotes require their DNA repair genes for survival? I get less than 25%
http://tubic.tju.edu.cn/deg/
Funny how all of you "know" things without bothering to google them. For example, Eocene should have googled mushroom bodies this morning before making arguments about humans not evolving from produce.
Ironic, since the entire focus of this blog is the claim that incompleteness of science makes support of the prevailing theory a "religious belief."
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
So how did organisms survive if they didn't have a system to control mutation rates?
The same way humans survived when they didn't have doctors, hospitals, and modern medicine.
The earliest simple life forms who didn't yet have the genetic repair capability still reproduced and survived. Then the ones who evolved the rudimentary capability for repair survived better. They had the advantage.
A major limiting factor in genome size is the effective per generation mutation rate. A repair capability that provides lower effective substitutions per nucleotide position per generation means bigger, more complex genomes are possible. Larger genomes permitted the evolution of more complex life forms with higher evolutionary fitness.
nanobot74:
ReplyDeleteI wrote:
####
My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one. And the same is true for evolutionists. The only thing we can imagine is speculative, hand-waving explanations.
####
And the evolutionist responds:
===
Cornelius,
"My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one."
so, a failure of your research skills and a failure of your imagination = a failure of evolutionary biology.
===
No, my failure to figure out how evolution could have created all of biology does not constitute a failure of evolutionary biology. As I pointed out, but you omitted from your quote-mine, I also pointed out that evolutionists themselves also have failed to figure it out.
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete===
The fact that the human brain is overwhelmingly complex is a matter of size as much as anything.
===
No, that is precisely what the 20th c. taught us, and the 21st is continuing to reveal. Biology is not a victory of quantity over quality. That was an evolutionary myth that has long since been busted. Cellular and molecular biology have revealed not mundane components that lead to higher function merely by virtue of accumulation. Rather, the closer we look, the more functionality and complexity we find.
===
Now please explain what my religion is, ...
===
Why is evolution a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact?
"Why is evolution a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact?"
ReplyDeleteThere effects are both observed.
Maybe I should extend my previous post to clarify. Descent with modification is basically the Schrödinger equation of evolutionary biology. Just because we can only solve that equation precisely in some cases (evolving bacteria) and approximately in some other cases, does not mean it is not applicable in the rest of the cases.
ReplyDeleteBill Bigge:
ReplyDelete====
"Why is evolution a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact?"
There effects are both observed.
====
Can you give one or a few examples of observed effects of evolution that make it a fact?
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDelete" . . the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems?
=====
No the real question is, can nothing more than chemcial reactions and physics create codes of purposeful instructive information for goal oriented replication ???
------
Bill Bigge:
ReplyDeleteAdding the label intelligent to the product of a chemical process is confusing."
======
Well that's the point Bill. So how will YOU in YOUR experiment detach your intelligence from the experiment to prove undirected with no purpose or intented biased goals to prove that nothing more than the undirected pointlessness of chance is the number one driver behind life as YOUR Dogma demands ???
I don't believe anyone has argued that material processes are not involved. Why everything is material in our world. However, you believe luck and chance did it and I believe an intelligent designer manipulated chemcials and the powerful forces of physics to accomplish a purposed outcome. Every experiment that you undertake has your human intelligent fingerprints all over it and therefore is doomed to failure to prove your dogma of pointlessness. Any interference or imaginative interpretation on your part thereafter would always be biased and suspect.
At best you could experiment as an Theistic Evolutionist by putting sterilized dirt in a jar with other sterilized chemicals and gases for an atomsphere, maybe wrap magnetics around the jar, ground them with a copper wire to a copper rods in (and this is important for powerful electrical conductivity) WET/DAMP Earth for an energy source. That would be intelligent imput at the beginning with no further imput afterwards with the exception of setting back and observing while twittling your thumbs.
You'll have to have that experiment watched round the clock for generation after generation of human scientists (billions of years???) until your side proves the evolutionary wonders of life magically appearing as you've stated. In the mean time there should be rules of science allowing for no religious injection of storytelling by any side. Just pure unadulterated explanations of how things are observed working and making practical applications for the benefit of humankind. Can you imagine how far good healthy science would go if such an approach were actually undertaken, what the benefits would be to mankind ???
Bill Bigge quoting Cornelius and accusing:
ReplyDeleteCornelius replying to Pedant:
"I'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution."
Bill Bigge's unimformed accusation:
"It's what you wrote. If you aren't then who is?"
======
No Bill, he didn't write that, but why stop there and make a correction when you believe you're on a roll ???
Pedant actually stated:
"When did Immanuel (I assume that's the Kant you meant) discuss (LET ALONE MISREPRESENT) evolution?"
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"Funny how all of you "know" things without bothering to google them. For example, Eocene should have googled mushroom bodies this morning before making arguments about humans not evolving from produce."
=======
Funny you can't see the purpose of an absurd illustration and my literal reference to caulifower to spotlight typical materialist penchant for mere shallow observation coupled with insertion of some deep imaginative fable and attaching the word FACT to it.
Seriously tho, Google humans more related to fungus than plants are related to fungus. This world just gets further and further into the proverbial toilette when it's geniuses come up with actual debates about imaginative trivial twaddle.
Nice try!!! LOL
Thorton's years of experience working for Walt Disney said:
ReplyDelete"The earliest simple life forms who didn't yet have the genetic repair capability still reproduced and survived. Then the ones who evolved the rudimentary capability for repair survived better. They had the advantage."
======
It just did!!! It just does!!! Because evolution did it!!!
How do you come up with this stuff ??? Which YouTube animation video did you download this from ???
Amazing, it just did!!!
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution. In fact, he was a significant contributor to evolutionary thinking. I discuss this in my book *Science's Blind Spot*. For a peek you can search for "kant" on this blog, and see those posts.
Previously, you said:
Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists.
I sense an equivocation here: Kant was “a significant contributor to evolutionary thinking” is made equal to ‘Kant was a *really* major evolutionist.’
So Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) contributed precisely what to Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory? A preference for secondary causes over direct intervention by the Abrahamic god in every passing event? By that criterion, you should include Thomas Aquinas in your pantheon of *really* major evolutionists.
Second opinion said:
ReplyDelete"Cornelius Hunter , I will give you a billion times a billion times a billion complex biological systems either known today or those we will find out about in the future for which we don't have any or a good explanation how they evolved. This number would essentially mean you if you post one system a day (that is a 24-hour period) you would not run out of systems till literally the hell freezes.
But what gives?
The problem is that your reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is generic. It is the same for every single of these billions of systems: They are complex. So essentially with every post you are not presenting a new argument, but simply repeating the argument that you can not evolve complex biological systems."
Wow! So there is no evidence of complexity that could ever convince you that chance could not have accidentally created it! Amazing! Absolutely amazing!
You hit the nail on the head. The problems for Darwin are numerous and far reaching. Can you say with a straight face cross your heart and hope to die type of honesty that you actually believe that your own brain is the product of nothing more than chance evolutionary processes?
Blind chance, lucky and EXTREMELY rare(if they exist at all)beneficial mutations, natural selection working once life is created, random chemical processes, etc etc are an adequate explanation for our brains? This is SCIENCE?! This is wishing upon a star type day dreaming. There is NO evidence for this!
2nd O:
"But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved."
I'm sorry, but you are living in a dream world. Darwin did no such thing. Showing that there are different types of eyes in living creatures has nothing to do with evolution unless you already believe in evolution to start with. These eyes appear out of order in the fossil record and in different unrelated species. Who is to say the Designer didn't create these creatures with different types of eyes? How in the world do you think the wiring from the eye to the brain evolved by chance? Who wrote the software for the eye? Who designed the blueprint for the creation of the eye? Blind chance, purposeless and directionless chemical reactions, and 1 in a trillion lucky mutations that improved the fitness of the organ a little bit each time? Please, if you want us to believe this, we need some evidence. I don't have enough faith to believe in trillions of timely miracles like you.
If you really believe Darwin solved the problem of the eye, you are like the ostrich with it's head under the sand afraid to read the critique of those who aren't quite as convinced.
2nd Op:
"So unless you have a reason that the individual system is different with respect to its evolvability from all the other systems you don't have a case."
On the contrary, he has a strong case because of the problems facing Darwin in countless numbers of cases. The evidence against Darwinism is stacking up. At some point, it will need to be addressed. Today's article is just one good illustration of that. One thing is clear - the brain is beyond the Edge of Evolution!
2nd O:
ReplyDelete"But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved."
I'm sorry, but you are living in a dream world. Darwin did no such thing. Showing that there are different types of eyes in living creatures has nothing to do with evolution unless you already believe in evolution to start with. These eyes appear out of order in the fossil record and in different unrelated species. Who is to say the Designer didn't create these creatures with different types of eyes? How in the world do you think the wiring from the eye to the brain evolved by chance? Who wrote the software for the eye? Who designed the blueprint for the new molecular machines and proteins needed to create the eye? Blind chance, purposeless and directionless chemical reactions, and 1 in a trillion lucky mutations that improved the fitness of the organ a little bit each time? Please, if you want us to believe this, we need some evidence. I don't have enough faith to believe in trillions of timely chance miracles. That is irrational and unscientific. I think it makes much more sense to believe in an Intelligent Designer, but hey, who am I? I'm not a scientist limited by naturalism so it is kind of hard to ask people like me to jump into your little worldview box of naturalism when I am not constrained to do so? Why would I want to limit myself like that? When all of human experience points to a designer for information, micro-processors, internet, etc, I would be foolish to boldly proclaim my faith in natural forces since I am not bound by naturalism. How foolish! Evolutionists though, have no choice it seems. Their worldview demands it.
If you really believe Darwin solved the problem of the eye, you are like the ostrich with it's head under the sand afraid to read the critique of those who aren't quite as convinced.
2nd Op:
"So unless you have a reason that the individual system is different with respect to its evolvability from all the other systems you don't have a case."
On the contrary, he has a strong case because of the vast number of problems facing Darwin in many different areas. The evidence against Darwinism is stacking up. At some point, it will need to be addressed. Today's article is just one good illustration of that. One thing is clear - the brain is far beyond the Edge of Evolution!
Oops. Looks like I posted twice. Sorry!
ReplyDeletetokyojim said...
ReplyDeleteWow! So there is no evidence of complexity that could ever convince you that chance could not have accidentally created it! Amazing! Absolutely amazing!
It has been conclusively demonstrated that complex biological systems can be and are produced by evolutionary processes. So no, merely continuing to point out complexity isn't sufficient for your case. You need to actually produce external evidence of this Designer - the identity, the construction mechanisms used, the materials used, the time frame when this design supposedly happened, etc.
You hit the nail on the head. The problems for Darwin are numerous and far reaching. Can you say with a straight face cross your heart and hope to die type of honesty that you actually believe that your own brain is the product of nothing more than chance evolutionary processes?
Yes. Why don't you just cut to the chase and scream "I AIN'T RELATED TO NO DAMN MONKEY!!!' like all the other Creationists are thinking.
Blind chance, lucky and EXTREMELY rare(if they exist at all)beneficial mutations, natural selection working once life is created, random chemical processes, etc etc are an adequate explanation for our brains? This is SCIENCE?! This is wishing upon a star type day dreaming. There is NO evidence for this!
Yes, it's science. Yes, there is considerable evidence for it. Several papers have been presented in this thread already. A simple Google Scholar or PubMed search will turn up thousands more.
Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.
Robert C
ReplyDeleteThese are recognized by proteins as bulges in the double helix. The adducts are removed, and fixed by reading the non-broken strand, incorporating the properlybase paired nucleotides. Or not, if both sides are broken, or error-prone DNA repair is used. It is physics and chemistry, not C++.
Lets say potato runs into a bush and 10 seconds later runs out peeled. I really do not care how peeling function was done.There could be a leprechaun hiding in there with a peeler possibly . But I know for sure peeling function was done and I can recognize it as such.
Speaking of bushes I like them trimmed.
Bill: " . . the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems?
ReplyDelete=====
Eocene: "No the real question is, can nothing more than chemcial reactions and physics create codes of purposeful instructive information for goal oriented replication ???"
The real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems? If you can demonstrate that they can then you have demonstrated how the first living things could have arisen.
Goal driven is not a criteria that is relevant to the problem.
Derick and Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"{{dolphin, cat} fish}"
I would render this as a nested hierarchy using an abbreviated Linnaean classification like this:
Chordata(Mammals)
You and Zachriel may want to study this article (written by an evolutionist by the way), that explains the use of hierarchies within biology. He shows that the view of the singular "hierarchy of nature" to be obviously false...
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf
Back to the IPOD analogy:
I did not examine your IPOD pictures too closely, but I apparently mistook your pictures of the Nano to be a Shuffle. Your breakdown of the differences between the Shuffle, Nano and Touch must have taken some time. But what's the point? I did not say that all the IPODS were the same. They have different model names for a reason! But they have enough similarities to be classified under the higher rank as IPODS.
Here is the fully nested hierarchy for the IPOD Shuffle:
IPOD(Shuffle(Gray,Blue,Green,Orange,Pink))
To classify the other models in a similar fine-grained arrangement then the Nano has 7 colors and 2 memory options which equals 14 variaties. Classic has 2 colors. Touch has 1 color and 3 memory options. Each of these could be depicted as the Shuffle was above. Only showing the higher levels (to save space) the IPOD product line would look like this in a fully nested hierarchy:
IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)
There are obviously cases were designed products could be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy. Zachriel already agreed that this was obvious.
Did the companies that designed the products that meet this criteria do so because they wanted to create an illusion that the products evolved on their own? That would be obsurd. It is equally obsurd to think that the Creator of life wanted to create an illusion of evolution. Evolutionists are only seeing what they want to see.
It does not follow that biological classification is evidence for evolution.
"Well that's the point Bill. So how will YOU in YOUR experiment detach your intelligence from the experiment to prove undirected with no purpose or intented biased goals to prove that nothing more than the undirected pointlessness of chance is the number one driver behind life as YOUR Dogma demands ???"
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't. I don't have a dogma that demands anything. I'm interested in the if and how of self replicating and evolving systems that operate within the laws of physics.
Now are you planning to get around to telling me how I can incorporate your hypothesised disembodied information into experimental work?
"Can you give one or a few examples of observed effects of evolution that make it a fact?"
ReplyDeleteThe fossil record
Genetics
Ring Species
Antibiotic resistance
...
But I'm not going to give you an education in modern biology. For goodness sake man, you have a PhD, go to a library and read some science journals! - thats where the evidence has been documented in detail for over a centuary.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteHere is the fully nested hierarchy for the IPOD Shuffle:
IPOD(Shuffle(Gray,Blue,Green,Orange,Pink))
To classify the other models in a similar fine-grained arrangement then the Nano has 7 colors and 2 memory options which equals 14 variaties. Classic has 2 colors. Touch has 1 color and 3 memory options. Each of these could be depicted as the Shuffle was above. Only showing the higher levels (to save space) the IPOD product line would look like this in a fully nested hierarchy:
IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)
There are obviously cases were designed products could be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy. Zachriel already agreed that this was obvious.
Where are your calculations for phylogenetic best fit Tedford? Where is your consistency index?
You haven't offered any objective criteria or reasons why your grouping is a 'best fit' hierarchy. You're basing the claim solely on your subjective personal opinion.
FAIL again Tedford, not that anyone is surprised.
Neal Tedford: There are obviously cases were designed products could be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy. Zachriel already agreed that this was obvious.
ReplyDeleteYes, but you have not shown the ability to distinguish the cases. It generally requires cherry-picking, which you have repeatedly done above.
Neal Tedford: IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)
What would happen if we examine the internals of the various models. Would we find that the same components cross between sets? In other words, would we find a mammalian heart in a frog?
Zachriel said, "Yes, but you have not shown the ability to distinguish the cases. It generally...
ReplyDelete---
ME: "Yes, but"... "Generally". You're waffling. Evolutionists certainly like to qualify everything they say.
So, just consider those cases that are not "generally" "cherry-picking and just say "YES".
You really should read the link: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf
This evolutionist doesn't agree with your version of "singular" "objective nested hiearchy of life.
What's the point? Evolution is neither falsified nor confirmed by biological classification.
Zachriel said, "What would happen if we examine the internals of the various models. Would we find that the same components cross between sets? In other words, would we find a mammalian heart in a frog?"
---
Me: Components within models are the same. Across models some components are the same, some modified, and other components only within the same model. Just like life.
Neal: They have different model names for a reason! But they have enough similarities to be classified under the higher rank as IPODS.
Here is the fully nested hierarchy for the IPOD Shuffle:
IPOD(Shuffle(Gray,Blue,Green,Orange,Pink))
Neal, I don't know what amazes me more: Your complete and thorough ignorance on the subject of nested hierarchies, or your complete lack of awareness of your ignorance. iPod shuffles do not fit into a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of features because they only have one di