Friday, April 13, 2012

Here’s the Latest Just-So Story: Recurrent Evolution

Biology’s designs don’t fit the evolutionary tree very well. Evolutionists expected the species to form, more or less, a common-descent type pattern. Species that are supposed to share a recent common ancestor would be highly similar with only minor differences. And on the other hand, species whose last common ancestor is ancient would be more dramatically different. Sister species could not have any dramatic differences, and distant species could not share unlikely designs that would not have been present in the distant common ancestor. These evolutionary expectations have been falsified many times over. And these failures of evolutionary theory are far greater than any evolutionary “noise.” But such failures do not cast doubt on the theory of evolution itself. This is because evolution is held dogmatically to be a fact. It cannot be false, for it is mandated by metaphysical beliefs which are far more powerful than any scientific reasoning. And so evolutionists appeal to a wide range of just-so stories to explain away the many contradictions to their theory. The latest is called recurrent evolution.

When evolutionists find the same design in otherwise very different species, they say that, like lightning striking twice, the design evolved independently in the two different evolutionary lineages. They will appeal to common environmental “induction,” developmental “plasticity,” and other serendipitous cartoon explanations that don’t actually tell us anything about how such astronomically unlikely events could have occurred. Particularly when these distant species are in completely different environments to begin with.

For example, humans and squid share uncannily similar, incredibly detailed and complicated, vision systems. This in spite of the fact their environments are very different. [Side note: Evolutionists dismiss this profound contradiction because the squid photocells are not inverted as the human’s are. This would be like travelling to a distant planet and finding a Lexus automobile with the steering wheel on the passenger side, and therefore dismissing all the similarities as meaningless].

And these repeated designs, in otherwise different species, are rampant in biology. It is not merely a rare occurrence which perhaps evolution could explain as an outlier. That the species do not fall into an evolutionary tree pattern is well established by science.

But it’s worse than this. These repeated designs do not merely occur twice, in two distant species. They often occur repeatedly in a variety of otherwise distant species. So now the evolutionist must not only believe that there are many of these miraculous repeating design events, but that in most cases, they repeat multiple times.

The first step to explaining something away is to give it a name. And so evolutionists have labeled this awkward evidence as recurrent evolution. As a recent paper explains:

The recent explosion of genome sequences from all major phylogenetic groups has unveiled an unexpected wealth of cases of recurrent evolution of strikingly similar genomic features in different lineages.

In addition, many instances of a third more puzzling phylogenetic pattern have been observed: traits whose distribution is “scattered” across the evolutionary tree, indicating repeated independent evolution of similar genomic features in different lineages.

And how to explain these puzzling, unexpected patterns? Evolutionists have a dizzying array of speculative hypotheses:

Cases of genomic recurrence caused by ratchet mutations are fundamental to understanding the evolutionary constraints and canalizations that shape the way in which the “genomespace,” as the morphospace, is explored through evolution, underscoring predictability in the overall outcome of neutral mutation, whether or not this will be “constructive.” … Other quasineutral changes that have been repeatedly used as substrate for molecular innovations suggest that certain genomic traits confer evolutionary flexibility, opening new venues that can be explored during evolution. Thus, their mere presence would be indicative of evolutionary potential, allowing specific hypotheses about the occurrence of typically accompanying features.

That, for those unfamiliar with evolution, is what passes as science. Such speculation is acceptable, because everyone agrees evolution is a fact. One way or another, it must have occurred:

We believe that the wealth of recurrent genomic features indicate unappreciated similarity of fundamental forces across lineages.

In other words, there is no level of “recurrence” that could harm evolution. It simply reveals some unknown “fundamental forces” across lineages which must have done the heavy lifting because, after all, evolution is a fact.

It is easy to appeal to “fundamental forces” across lineages. But why would they produce the same designs over and over? It would be like finding a Boeing 747 jet airliner on a distant planet and concluding that “Well, they have gravity too.”

Not only is recurrent evolution an unlikely hypothesis due to the fundamental probabilities involved, but in many cases evolutionists won’t even have their usual strong selection explanation to fall back on. This because many genomic recurrences don’t seem to be all that necessary:

What forces may explain genomic recurrence? In contrast to recurrent anatomical or physiological characters, which are usually (and reasonably) assumed to reflect adaption, often due to shared peculiarities of the organisms' environmental niches, the potential causes of observed recurrent genomic features are more diverse and may be very different for different recurrent traits—indeed, in some cases, the adaptative value of repeated genomic outcomes is dubious.

And just as convergent evolution was found to be far more widespread than the evolutionist’s worst nightmare, so too will recurrent evolution be found to be widespread:

The diverse instances discussed here represent only a subset of the known cases of repeated evolution at the genome level that have been found largely serendipitously, suggesting that recurrent patterns of genome evolution are widespread.

And if we needed further proof that common descent’s failure is inconsequential for evolutionists, because common descent was never part of evolution’s theoretical core, here it is.

As ancestrally shared features are the result of a common evolutionary history, shared features evolved by recurrent evolution are often the result of common evolutionary forces acting on different lineages.

If the pattern fits the evolutionary tree, then it is explained as common evolutionary history. If not, then it is explained as common evolutionary forces. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Common descent has always been an auxiliary hypothesis for the simple reason that evolution’s theoretical core does not mandate common descent, or anything else for that matter, aside from its insistence that the species arose naturally. Beyond that, anything goes.

Evolutionists insist the species arose naturally, their religion requires it.

38 comments:

  1. Well, evolutionists no longer have a tree to lean on. The poor babies. How unfortunate for them. But do I in any way feel sorry for the jackasses? Nope.

    By the way, where is that lying jackass who calls himself Zachriel? Hasn't he been preaching common descent on this board at every opportunity. Where is the false preacher now? What does the cretin have to say in the light of the powerful evidence that proves that common descent (nested hierarchies) is just a big pile of crap?

    ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  2. In Louis's case, we can make an exception to the evolved naturally rule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In your case, there is no exception. You were purposely designed to be stupid from the start. LOL.

      Delete
    2. Two peas in pod ,right Louis?

      Delete
  3. Jewel of a post. Thanks Dr. Hunter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Having worked in manufacturing, engineering and business for three decades now, I have learned how dangerous it is to bet any outcome on assumptions. One assumption is dangerous, two is 90% failure, and three is a total disaster. This doesn't seem to bother evolutionists. Their religion is based on piling one assumption over another to the Nth degree. Conclusion: evolution is one of the biggest LIES ever concocted by the deluded human mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. I would add that evolution is not just a lie. It's a criminal enterprise. Why? Because it's a mass effort to try to convince the whole world to believe in a lie.

      The truth of creation is too important to humanity's collective understanding of its origins to allow the religion of a bunch of deluded criminals to prevail. We must hit them with everything in the book.

      Delete
  5. CH: Common descent has always been an auxiliary hypothesis for the simple reason that evolution’s theoretical core does not mandate common descent, or anything else for that matter, aside from its insistence that the species arose naturally. Beyond that, anything goes.

    Anything goes?

    The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, as found in the genome, was created by a form of conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

    As such, one thing that most certainly couldn't "go" is the appearance of the most complex forms of life at the same time as the least complex. Another thing that certainly couldn't "go" is that life couldn't appear in the order of most complex to least complex. Something cannot be built until the knowledge of how to build it is created first.

    Do we not observe these things?

    Furthermore, this knowledge wouldn't take the form of explanatory knowledge, which is the sort of knowledge that people create, but would take the form of non-explanatory knowledge as natural processes cannot create explanations.

    As such, as a form of non-explanatory knowledge, another thing that certainly couldn't "go" is that the vast majority of conjectured genetic variations were beneficial, rather than neutral or detrimental.

    Do we not observe this as well?

    Finally, and most importantly, should some future research result in observations that suggest otherwise, is there any way to easily vary this underlying explanation without significantly impacting it's ability to explain what we observe?

    No, there is not. This theory would have no where to go. As such, It's deep and hard to vary.

    So, your claim "aside from its insistence that the species arose naturally" , "anything goes." represents either ignorance or you've deliberately and intentionally presented a false hood.

    Given your previous post, this sort of blatant misrepresentation is hypocritical.

    Will you be issuing a correction to your OP?

    Then again, that would require you to actually actual acknowledge the issue in the first place. Why would you start now?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott, your rhetoric actually was a very good argument supporting Cornelius' proposition! (Truthful answers to the questions you asked falsify your final assertion)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott is a just a useful idiot. Every dumb cult needs people like Scott. LOL.

      Delete
    2. Do observations indicate complex multi-celled organisms, such as human beings, appeared at the same time as the least complex single celled organisms?

      Do observations suggest that life appeared in the order of most complex, multi-celled organisms, such as human beings, first, with the least complex, single celled organisms appearing billions of years later?

      If not, then it's unclear how my argument supported Cornelius' proposition.

      Delete
    3. Scott, you dummy. Which appeared first, the horse buggy or the Corvette? The Apple II or the iPad? Evolution from least complex to more complex is a design attribute. In other words, there are two types of evolution:

      1. Stupid Darwinian evolution which is never observed.
      2. Sensible design evolution which is observed every day in the intelligently designed products we can buy at the store.

      Wake up and get a clue.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha..

      Delete
    4. Then we have people like Louis the fruit loop, who is a useless idiot.

      Hey fruit loop, tell us again how the Designer would never be dumb enough to reinvent the wheel with things like eyes and wings.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. LOL.

      Yo, bonobo face. You're lucky Hunter censors my comments. Otherwise, you'd be twisting in horror.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    7. Again CH closed his post with the following…

      Common descent has always been an auxiliary hypothesis for the simple reason that evolution’s theoretical core does not mandate common descent, or anything else for that matter, aside from its insistence that the species arose naturally. Beyond that, anything goes.

      Evolutionists insist the species arose naturally, their religion requires it.


      However, as I've pointed out, this is false. There are indeed things that cannot "go" according to evolutionary theory beyond the vague description of "arising naturally" Nor can this explanation be easily varied, should future observations conflict with it.

      Delete
    8. Louis: Sensible design evolution which is observed every day in the intelligently designed products we can buy at the store.

      Except, as I pointed out in an earlier post, this view is parochial in that it fails to take into account our current, best explanations as to how human beings intelligently design products. In other words, you're assumption isn't integrated with any modern form of epistemology, along with the consequence it would have on knowledge.

      Since you ran away from that thread, I'll post the details of my comment here, for your convenience.

      Louis: 6. I don't see your point of there being different kinds of knowledge. Any knowledge is just a memorized (stored) temporal pattern of sensed events.

      Because you cannot create something before you have the knowledge to actually do so. You might decide to build something you want, but deciding isn't enough. You need the knowledge to do so first. This is a key part of the underlying explanation of neo-darwinism.

      If the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created though conjecture and refutation, then the most complex and least complex forms of life cannot appear simultaneously. And they must appear in the order of least complex forms to most complex.

      However, if a designer always knew how to build the biosphere, rather than what sort of biosphere he wanted to build, then this designer would have had knowledge to build the most complex and the least complex forms of life, at the same time. And this designer could have created life in the order of most complex to least complex.

      Furthermore, people are universal explainers. Specifically, we do not test every logical possibility. We test theories that represent good explanations. As such, we use explanations as a criteria for what possibilities we should test. So, the kind of knowledge people create is explanatory-knowledge.

      However, natural process are not universal explainers. As such, they cannot create explanations for use as a criteria of which conjectured genetic variations to test. This would be non-explanatory knowledge.

      If the knowledge in the genome was created by natural processes, we would expect the knowledge to be created over a significant amount of time, with a great number of neutral or even detrimental conjectures, as all genetic variations would be tested, rather than only those variations that would represent good explanations for beneficial features.

      But if the knowledge in the genome is explanatory-knowledge, created by a person, then we should expect most genetic variations to be beneficial. In other words, rather than test all possible genetic sequences, a designer would create explanations as to why a particular sequences would provide benefit to an organism, then only test those sequences. This is in contrast to testing every possible genetic variation.

      In fact, our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge is explained by our growing tendency to prefer deep and hard to vary explanations, while discarding shallow and easily varied explanations and mere possibilities, which began during the enlightenment.

      And, if we're talking about some designer that has been around much longer than us and is more advanced than we are, it would have created even better explanations for how knowledge is created. As such, it would have resulted in an even more refined criteria for which conjectures to test; which would result in creating knowledge even faster, resulting in more beneficial mutations, etc.

      However, the genome doesn't seem to contain explanatory knowledge. Rather it appears to contain non-explanatory knowledge.

      Delete
    9. Scott:

      Because you cannot create something before you have the knowledge to actually do so.

      Why is that true?

      Delete
    10. One cannot perform a magic trick without the knowledge of how the trick is performed.

      If they could, it would no longer be magic *trick* as it would represent the spontaneous generation of knowledge. As such, it would actually be magic, not a magic trick, right?

      Delete
    11. Why do you think that the creation of some fundamental particle ex nihilo is magic? And why does it require knowledge?

      Even quantum physics postulates the continual creation and annihilation of particles from the vacuum. Is that magic? Does it require knowledge?

      My point is that there is no law that says that knowledge is necessary for creation. You want this law to exist because you have an ulterior motive, a stupid one at that.

      Delete
    12. Louis: Why do you think that the creation of some fundamental particle ex nihilo is magic? And why does it require knowledge?

      Do these "sensible" designers you keep referring to create intelligently designed products ex nihilo and in the absence of knowing how? Why would fundamental particles any different?

      Sounds like special pleading to me.

      Louis: Even quantum physics postulates the continual creation and annihilation of particles from the vacuum. Is that magic? Does it require knowledge?

      Vacuum is no longer considered nothing. Apparently, you didn't get the memo.

      Louis: My point is that there is no law that says that knowledge is necessary for creation.

      This would represent the spontaneous generation of knowledge, or magic. So, apparently, you think we live in a finite bubble of explicably, which is effected by a wider realm of inexplicability, in that it somehow creates fundamental particles sans knowledge.

      Would this be an accurate assessment?

      Louis: You want this law to exist because you have an ulterior motive, a stupid one at that.

      My motivation is to explain why we can make progress so we can criticize it and discard any errors we might have conjectured. This is how we improve our ability to make progress.

      Specifically, if we did exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in a universe of inexplicability, the inside cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm. (Remember you claim it can create fundamental particles without knowledge)

      However, any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus" rules inside this bubble as well. (again, you claim some being from within this realm can create things that exists inside this bubble, such as fundamental particles.)

      So, if creation can occur without knowledge, then there can be no better explanation that anything can be created without knowledge, including cars, simulations of entire solar systems, etc.

      Most importantly, what's inside this bubble would only *appear* to explicable if we carefully avoided asking specific questions - questions such as, how knowledge used to build the biosphere was created, etc.

      So, my motivation is to point out the error in your explanation for how we make progress. And I'm doing so by asking questions you must avoid to prevent your bubble of explicably from "popping."

      Delete
    13. You love hearing yourself talk crap, don't you, Scott? You're a moron and a jackass. That's my opinion of you. Bye.

      LOL

      Delete
    14. As usually, your argument collapses into an ad-hominem. No surprise here.

      Delete
  7. Louis: Every dumb cult needs people like Scott. LOL.

    Apparently, your dumb cult needs people like me as a target to vent your hostility. Calling me an "idiot", without actually addressing my argument, is one such example.

    Will you run away this time as well? Or will you actually address the argument I made?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, don't you believe that the ultimate origin of knowledge is absolutely nothing?

      Delete
    2. Neal,

      You're trying to comparing apples with oranges.

      By presenting a false dichotomy of knowledge either having one ultimate origin or knowledge having no origin at all, you've indicated you are a justificationist.

      However, I'm not a justificationist.

      From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism....

      Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.

      So, I'm suggesting that you're projecting this same confusion on everyone else, including myself.

      Delete
    3. Scott, you're the one that brought up the issue of where knowledge comes from many, many times to the point that it became the theme of your posts for months.

      I'm simply asking you your own question, but taking it back to ultimate origins. Whether you want to answer it as a truth or justify it, take your pick... but please answer the question the best you can.

      Delete
    4. If you think you're asking me my own question then, apparently, you've never understood it in the first place.

      Knowledge that is created does not need to be justified by some ultimate origin. If it did, it wouldn't represent creation. That's been my point all along.

      As such, creationism is misleadingly named, as it's not a theory of how knowledge is created. Rather, it denies that knowledge was created, in reality, by placing the ultimate origin of knowledge in some unexplainable realm.

      Delete
  8. Excellent post CH. Plenty of quotes from the evolutionists themselves to show the problem.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ugh. Silliness yet again. Look at the chart. The "genome features" they are talking about evolving recurrently are incredibly general and nonspecific. Like "genome reduction". Or sex chromosomes, which is just genome reduction on whichever chromosome ends up with the sex-determining gene.

    So basically your argument is omg genomes and chromosomes have decreased in size multiple times independently omg omg evolushion iz false and evolushionists r dumb i can haz creationism please?

    Even you guys can do better, please try at least, even for a connoisseur of creationism like myself this is getting tedious and old.

    PS: There is a lot more to the differences between vertebrate and cephalopod camera eyes than the inversion or non-inversion of the retina (and, by the way, the existence of cephalopod eyes with non-inverted retinas disproves the various sillinesses ID people have come up with claiming that the inverted retina actually is a necessary part of the design). The development is fundmentally different. The source tissue layers (endoderm vs. ectoderm) are fundamentally different. IIRC the lens proteins are different. There is a little bit of possible deep homology at the light-receptor stage and that's about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NickM,

      What astonishes me is that evolutionists are so easily led astray by the dubious bad design argument when the staggering level of complexity of the eye is so readily apparent: The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera. It can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages, contains over 2 million different working parts, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain. The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells, 130 million rods (allowing the eye to see in black and white), and 7 million cones (allowing the eye to see in full color). In an average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, using muscles that, milligram for milligram, are among the body’s strongest.

      The body would have to walk 50 miles to exercise the leg muscles an equal amount. The eye is self-cleaning. Lacrimal glands produce secretions (e.g., tears) to flush away dust and other foreign materials. Eyelids act as windshield washers. The blinking process (3-6 times a minute) keeps the sensitive cornea moist and clean. And, tears contain a potent microbe-killer (lysozyme) which guards the eyes against bacterial infection. During times of stress, one eye will “rest” while the other does 90% of the work; then the process is reversed, allowing both eyes equal amounts of rest. The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones.

      There are about seven-million shades of color the human eye can detect. It takes 200 million billionths of a second for the retina to create vision from light. The eye is so sensitive it can detect a candle one mile away. One type of light sensitive cell, the rod, can detect a single photon. For visible light the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye.

      If Odd Arrangements and Funny Solutions are the Proof of Evolution, Then What About These Optimized Designs? - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012
      Excerpt: Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-odd-arrangements-and-funny-solutions.html

      There is a biological computer in the retina which processes and compresses the information from those millions of light sensitive cells before sending it to the visual cortex where the complex stream of information is then decompressed. While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged.

      Delete
    2. To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second. The human is the only species known to shed tears when they are sad. In spite of this stunning evidence evolutionists use a very dubious and philosophically based "bad design" argument to try to undermine the obvious Theological implications. Something tells me evolutionists are not being fair with the evidence. And all this begs the question for the evolutionists; Can you go into your laboratory and design a better eye by random mutations?

      Optimized hardware compression, The eyes have it. - February 2011
      Excerpt: the human visual processing system is “the best compression algorithm around”.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/optimised-hardware-compression-the-eyes-have-it/

      New Book (Doesn’t) Explain How Eyes Evolved; The Bible Versus Evolution; Evolutionists Say “We See” - December 2011
      Quote: In fact biology’s vision systems display all manner of high-tech gadgetry and creativity. There are telephoto optics, scanning optics, and mirrors. Not surprisingly, evolution over and over fails to explain how these wonders arose spontaneously.,,, do men love darkness rather than light? Given evolutionists unceasing, unswerving, inexplicable attachment to twisting the science, this too seems quite accurate. They won’t even consider the possibility that their bizarre ideas could be wrong. They seem to be dogmatically attached to scientific lies.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-book-doesnt-explain-how-eyes.html

      Delete
    3. Moreover Nick, your beloved Junk DNA is falsified by the optics of the eye:

      Junk DNA found to have purpose in astonishing way:
      Why the elaborate repositioning of so much "junk" DNA in the rod cells of nocturnal mammals? The answer is optics. A central cluster of chromocenters surrounded by a layer of LINE-dense heterochromatin enables the nucleus to be a converging lens for photons, so that the latter can pass without hindrance to the rod outer segments that sense light. In other words, the genome regions with the highest refractive index - undoubtedly enhanced by the proteins bound to the repetitive DNA - are concentrated in the interior, followed by the sequences with the next highest level of refractivity, to prevent against the scattering of light. The nuclear genome is thus transformed into an optical device that is designed to assist in the capturing of photons. This chromatin-based convex (focusing) lens is so well constructed that it still works when lattices of rod cells are made to be disordered. Normal cell nuclei actually scatter light. So the next time someone tells you that it "strains credulity" to think that more than a few pieces of "junk DNA" could be functional in the cell - that the data only point to the lack of design and suboptimality - remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse. -
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig.html#more

      his following video and study highlights the profound mystery the question of exactly what in our "brains" is receiving the sight of our eyes:

      Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience - Pim Lommel - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/blind_woman_can_see_during_near_death_experience_pim_lommel_nde/

      Coast to Coast – Blind since Birth – Vicki’s NDE – Part 1 of 3
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y

      Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their NDEs. 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth.
      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/29895068

      Delete
    4. Hey ba77. Way to ignore my points. I swear to Allah, we could be discussing french toast recipes and you'd throw in some inane rhetoric and some crap about quantum souls. Why don't you get your own blog, instead of just spamming everyone else? It's almost like you've got a medical condition that prevents you from focusing on the points people are actually discussing.

      Delete
    5. Well NickM, since you think the miracle of eyesight randomly evolved, I thought I would show others just how detached from reality you are. ,,, Instead of being deceptively obfuscating to this primary point, Perhaps you can start by showing how a single protein randomly evolved?,, as to your other gripes about me, I consider them a compliment coming from a such a pathological liar as yourself!

      Delete
    6. Speaking of ignoring points NickM ,(which you falsely accused me of doing), exactly why haven't you ever addressed this rigid falsification of neo-Darwinism from quantum non-locality the many times that I have presented it to you?

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      Nick, it would seem that if you were actually honest in your quest to find the truth in these questions of origins, which is certainly not a light matter to consider the truthfulness of, then you would honestly, and objectively, address this 'non-local' evidence instead of ignoring it!

      footnotes:

      the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

      Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel - November 2012 (projected publication date)
      Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
      http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do

      Delete
    7. Nick:

      Ugh. Silliness yet again. Look at the chart. The "genome features" they are talking about evolving recurrently are incredibly general and nonspecific. Like "genome reduction". Or sex chromosomes, which is just genome reduction on whichever chromosome ends up with the sex-determining gene.

      So basically your argument is omg genomes and chromosomes have decreased in size multiple times independently omg omg evolushion iz false and evolushionists r dumb i can haz creationism please?

      Even you guys can do better, please try at least, even for a connoisseur of creationism like myself this is getting tedious and old.


      No, you’re not reckoning with the actual evidence. The paper is not nearly so idiotic. They have other papers on some of these phenomena, such as Iroquois clustering. It is by no means vague.


      PS: There is a lot more to the differences between vertebrate and cephalopod camera eyes than the inversion or non-inversion of the retina (and, by the way, the existence of cephalopod eyes with non-inverted retinas disproves the various sillinesses ID people have come up with claiming that the inverted retina actually is a necessary part of the design). The development is fundmentally different. The source tissue layers (endoderm vs. ectoderm) are fundamentally different. IIRC the lens proteins are different. There is a little bit of possible deep homology at the light-receptor stage and that's about it.

      This is a great example of evolutionary thinking. You discard the well known, well acknowledged striking morphological convergence because the development pathways are not homologous. Granted, if they were then it would be even more striking. But the fact that they aren’t doesn’t detract from the morphological convergence. The fact that you would require homologous development pathways, and homologous proteins, reveals your underlying bias, so you can’t even recognize a well known convergence.

      Delete