Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Here is Evolution’s Version of the Multiverse

Physicists have come up with the idea that there could be an astronomical number of universes in addition to our own. They call it the multiverse it can explain very improbable events, such as the origin of life, because no matter how improbable an event, it becomes a virtual certainty when you have so many universes in which it might happen. This idea of separated worlds is now emerging in genetics as well, as some evolutionists are contemplating the idea of different DNA worlds. The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work very well, and so evolutionists are experimenting with other models. One is a network model and using it evolutionists have found that DNA sequences in nature tend to separate into different worlds. But unlike the different universes in the multiverse, these DNA worlds can have some limited interaction. This means that, as usual, evolutionary theory has gained a great many new degrees of freedom. Here is how the evolutionists summarize their findings:

although this DNA is preferentially transferred (be it vertically or laterally) within a given genetic world, there is some inter-world transfer of DNA molecules occurring, leading to exchanges among different DNA vehicles (2.5% of the DNA families). This observation indicates that the changes accumulated relatively independently in the molecules of any of these worlds (i.e., the results of molecular evolution for different regimes of selective pressures and for different historical constraints) do regularly cross into another world. In principle, selected (or drifting) DNA molecules with their special adaptations can then invade and impact a new genetic world. Deciphering the rules of transitions of transfer between genetic worlds could then become a central question, prompting an integrated study of genetic evolution. In any case, the picture of the evolution of the natural genetic biodiversity should not be considered complete without the DNA molecules of any of these worlds. It implies that no general model of genetic evolution can be universally valid. Rather, many evolutionary models of the genetic biodiversity should legitimately coexist: DNA molecules change in some phages differently than they do in plasmids, or in populations of prokaryotic chromosomes. Sequencing and making trees out of the molecular data cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity. In the future, a plurality of evolutionary research fields will be required to understand the evolution of the various genetic worlds.

Don’t worry if you don’t follow all those details, for this is not science but rather story-telling. These conclusions are not motivated by the scientific data but rather by the conviction that evolution must be true, in spite of the data.

The point is this: The evolutionary tree that was predicted has failed, and this new model is tremendously more complex and flexible. It introduces many new variables which are impossible to nail down. DNA tends to stay within its own “world,” but not always. DNA changes tend to accumulate independently in each world according to different, unknown, rules. But these DNA changes can also cross over into other DNA worlds sometimes. And there are certain rules of how such transitions occur, but they also are unknown. Any number of rules can be hypothesized to fit the data, and they may vary depending on which worlds are involved, what DNA is involved, what species are involved, at what point in evolutionary history the event occurred, and so forth and so on. Everything is vague and flexible, available for other evolutionists to use as necessary in their own story-telling.

And so the conclusion is that there needs to be “many evolutionary models of the genetic biodiversity. The tree model “cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity” and “a plurality of evolutionary research fields will be required to understand the evolution of the various genetic worlds.”

This is yet another so-called do over for evolution. Evolution is constantly upended by the scientific data, and there seems to be a never ending stream of do-overs. Evolution does not explain the data, the data explains evolution. It is a tautology.

166 comments:

  1. Multiverse: The religion of the geeks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know who coined phrase "chance worshiper", but I tend to agree this is the correct way to describe ardent Evolutionists.

    I've experienced this myself at work with an IT administrator who would use and abuse the word Evolution. He would point me to screensavers he downloaded on his laptop or natural fractal patterns as proof for Evolution.

    Yet, the details or the understanding was lacking when challenged. It was simply the attachment to "order from chaos" which all his subsequent beliefs and ideas inherited from.

    It was an interesting first-hand experience to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So no matter what the genetic evidence says it will never falsify Darwinian evolution because all you have to do is to imagine it happening in 'another world',,,

    Is evolution pseudoscience?
    Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
    http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

    Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ.

    "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this recent quote from Gil Dodgen is very apt:

      "When I read the defenses of Darwinian orthodoxy by the most prominent — and supposedly most intellectually sophisticated — apologists for Darwinism, all I can do is shake my head in amazement at the fact that indoctrination in Darwinian “theory” can essentially perform a lobotomy on otherwise perfectly useful brains." Gil Dodgen
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/how-to-talk-to-your-professors-about-your-darwin-doubts/#comment-425208

      Delete
  4. Double-Helix Hallelujahs!
    Source of Life?....
    We'll find it yet!
    And if not, we'll make up something!
    Stroking our next amulet.

    http://www.tomgraffagnino.com/thoughtspage/2012/1/28/double-helix-hallelujahs.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chaps,

    I have recently browsed Stuart Kauffman's "Origins of Order". He and his school are advocating for applying physics to biology in quest of nature's deep order underneath a chaotic "surface". Of course, this is in its own right a scientific model enough. However, what strikes me is the assumption that nature acts by rules, in addition to providing constraints. In practice though rules are formulated arbitrarily by congitive agents on top of physicality as part of creation of functional systems. I can see no reason why this could not be so regarding the origins of life, i.e. life not only appears to be designed. I can see no reason why we can't rule out the possibility of intelligent agency on top of the physicality of chaos.

    I am not saying that Kauffman's models are rubbish. They just need to be inserted in the right context. Nature does not act at all, it is dumb and inert. Evolutionists personify it too much, whereas in fact it can only provide constraints. In contrast, the choice of initial conditions and controls to make things happen requires intelligence. David Abel brilliantly argues for it in his "The First Gene".

    Upon massive observation, chaos and fractal low-informational regularity are the only things nature is capable of producing on its own whereas functionality/control requires intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In addition, interestingly, someone - I think it was Dembski&Wells ("The Design of Life") - pointed out that the research by Kauffman and others was instigated by disbelief in the power of Darwinian evolution.

    As far as multiverse is concerned, I think it is a sign of decline of post-modern science. In my opinion it undermines the key principle of parsimony of scientific reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It would be momentarily refreshing if the evolutionists on this blog would take the advice of these fellow evolutionists and at least admit that "The tree model “cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity” and “a plurality of evolutionary research fields will be required to understand the evolution of the various genetic worlds"

    It's not just inadequate for isolated "anomalies" related to prokaryotes and a few other organisms.
    The tree of life (objective nested hierarchy) is dead.

    Genetic worlds? So, this is how they move on after Darwins foundational doctrine is no longer. Evolutionists should strongly consider a second career in writing fiction novels or learn how to play a banjo and tell campfire stories given their uncanny ability to make up stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One could hope that maybe an adult would stand up among the evolutionists and say, "enough"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One could hope that maybe an adult would stand up among the evolutionists and say, "enough"

      One could hope that maybe an adult would stand up among the Creationists and say, "I really don't have even the slightest understanding of the scientific theory I'm attacking"

      Delete
    2. But Neal, not if what Cornelius is saying is quite unfounded, which it is.

      It isn't that "evolutionists" aren't "adult", it's because what Cornelius is presenting is a childish cariacature of science, with many basic errors.

      This, for instance:

      "The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work very well, and so evolutionists are experimenting with other models."

      The tree model works extraordinarily well as a model of longitudinal inheritance, but we are now aware of some very interesting lateral gene transfer vectors as well. But there is absolutely not truth in the implication that "evolutionists are experimenting with other models" because "the evolutionary tree model doesn’t work very well". Nobody is throwing out the tree. What they are doing is discovering additional connectivity pathways to the extremely well-established longitudinal ones.

      Delete
    3. I like your use of the words "extremely well-established" to describe longitudinal connectivity. Could you perhaps explain that a tad bit for me, after-all I am a bit ignorant to the topic. How do you know they are extremely well-established? And what exactly are you referring to by longitudinal connectivity? Could you provide a reference to something I could read?

      Delete
    4. Forjah: I like your use of the words "extremely well-established" to describe longitudinal connectivity. Could you perhaps explain that a tad bit for me, after-all I am a bit ignorant to the topic. How do you know they are extremely well-established?

      Well, it has been known for century that living things inherit traits from their parents (longitudinal inheritance), and that by breeding from organisms with desired traits we can improve, for example, crop or milk yields, and domesticate animals. Mendel was one of the first on the track of the major mechanism of inheritiance, and Watson and Crick cracked it. Linnaeus also noted that a tree-taxonomy worked remarkably well for living things.

      And we know know a huge amount about genetics, and the relationship between genes and phenotypic traits.

      And what exactly are you referring to by longitudinal connectivity? Could you provide a reference to something I could read?

      I'm sorry if that was confusing. If we plot similarities betweeen genomes of, we get family trees on a small scale, and larger common ancestry trees on a large scale, i.e. longitudinally (down the generations). However, there are some "horizontal" (between branches) connections as well.

      Could you provide a reference to something I could read?

      Well, it's the whole of biology really! But you could start here:

      http://tolweb.org/tree/

      Delete
  9. Hunter: The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work very well, and so evolutionists are experimenting with other models.

    That is a lie, Cornelius, and you know it. The tree model works very, very well for multicellular organisms. Apes and humans share common ancestors. There is no doubt about that. Descent lines become blurry when it comes to single-cell organisms, but Darwin's tree of life wasn't even meant for them.

    What you are doing here is the equivalent of saying that Newton's theory of gravity does not work because there are black holes. Of course Newton's theory works perfectly well here on Earth. It has not been made obsolete by the arrival of general relativity. The two agree perfectly where they overlap (weak gravity, low speeds).

    Shame, really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Apes and humans share common ancestors. There is no doubt about that."

      Really??? "no doubt about that???"

      "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html

      Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
      Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis."
      http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202

      Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr
      http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4

      “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
      Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
      (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

      Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011
      Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10]
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html#comment-9266481

      Delete
    2. oleg:

      That is a lie, Cornelius, and you know it. The tree model works very, very well for multicellular organisms. Apes and humans share common ancestors. There is no doubt about that. ... Shame, really.

      Two things. If there was no doubt that apes and humans share a common ancestor, that would not be sufficient to conclude that the tree model works very well. It could still have all kinds of failures (as it does at all levels -- not just unicellular life).

      Secondly, you made an interesting claim. You said there is no doubt that apes and humans share common ancestors. Why is that true?

      Delete
    3. No reasonable doubt, Cornelius.

      Perhaps you should check out the Tree of Life web project as well. The work supporting each branch of the tree is well-referenced on each page.

      Delete
    4. EL:

      No reasonable doubt, Cornelius.

      Why is that true?

      Delete
    5. Because there is a great deal of evidence (genetic, morphological, palaentological) to support it.

      Delete
    6. EL:

      Yes, but a great deal of evidence doesn't mean it is beyond reasonable doubt. There is a great deal of evidence the world is flat.

      Delete
    7. Have you ever looked at the palaeontological, morphological and genetic evidence for common ancestry of apes and humans?

      Delete
    8. Cornelius Hunter

      Yes, but a great deal of evidence doesn't mean it is beyond reasonable doubt.


      When the evidence is considered in total and not subjected to being presented in cherry-picked snippets it does.

      There is a great deal of evidence the world is flat.

      Really? So when a scientist says "the Earth isn't flat, it's an oblate spheroid" is he stating a fact?

      Why aren't you screaming about how those lying scientists are misrepresenting the evidence for the Earth's shape then? I can see it now:

      "Religion drives geology, and it matters!"

      Delete
    9. EL:

      Have you ever looked at the palaeontological, morphological and genetic evidence for common ancestry of apes and humans?

      Yes, I have. My question for you is why is it that regarding their common ancestry, there is no reasonable doubt?

      Delete
    10. Cornelius Hunter

      EL: "Have you ever looked at the palaeontological, morphological and genetic evidence for common ancestry of apes and humans?"

      Yes, I have. My question for you is why is it that regarding their common ancestry, there is no reasonable doubt?


      Because the quantity and quality of the independent evidence from all those different scientific fields cross-correlates and corroborates a single logically consistent pattern which indicates the common ancestry of humans and chimps.

      As SJ Gould put it, due to the huge amount of consilient data human/chimp common ancestry has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

      Unless you can offer a better explanation for the palaeontological, morphological and genetic evidence. But we already know you won't.

      Delete
    11. EL:

      What you are saying is that some small primitive primate population spontaneously produced Johannes Brahms. You say there is no reasonable doubt about this even though you don’t know exactly how this happened. In fact you have no idea how this happened beyond vague speculation about random mutations creating Johannes Brahms.

      Instead you point to paleontological, morphological and genetic evidence for common ancestry of apes and humans. Unfortunately these don’t explain how your rather heroic claim that there is no reasonable doubt that Johannes Brahms spontaneously arose from a primitive primate population. Even evolutionists admit the complexity of the human brain is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. It has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-switches-than-internet.html

      Nor do your evidences make your heroic claim that there is no reasonable doubt that humans and apes arose from a common ancestor. In fact the morphological and genetic evidence are contradictory.

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html

      And the chimp-human DNA comparisons reveal that, if evolution is true, it must have sped up in just the right places. As one evolutionist explained: “The way to evolve a human from a chimp-human ancestor is not to speed the ticking of the molecular clock as a whole. Rather the secret is to have rapid change occur in sites where those changes make an important difference in an organism’s functioning.” But even that makes no sense because if evolution is true then these accelerated regions in the human genome would not have been under selection:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-chimp-human-genome-problems.html

      Then, to top it off they are conserved with the gorilla, thus defying the evolution just-so story:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-evolutionary-just-so-story-was.html

      Then there is the massive human-chimp Y chromosome differences, requiring what one evolutionist admitted to be “wholesale renovation.”

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/human-chimp-genomic-differences.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/if-this-were-science.html

      And of course there are the novel genes, such as the unique genes in the human genome. If these produce typical proteins then there is no explanation for how they could have arisen (of course there is no explanation for how any typical protein could have arisen):

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901172832.htm

      So I don’t understand how the evidence shows there is no reasonable doubt about human-chimp common ancestry.

      Delete
    12. So how do you account for the evidence that does suggest common ancestry? Let's take the broken GULO gene for example, or the fused chromosome evidence.

      What other model so neatly accounts for this? Even if you invoke some kind of divine guidance along the human lineage?

      And do you think that other great ape brains don't have "switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth"?

      Delete
    13. Cornelius Hunter

      What you are saying is that some small primitive primate population spontaneously produced Johannes Brahms.


      Of course Dr. Liddle didn't say that. Evolution produced humans and chimps from a common ancestor. It did't directly produce all the myriad social, economic and political factors that led to the musical development of a Brahms, any more than "evolution" produced the F-22 fighter plane.

      No one does those ridiculous over-the-top strawman representations better than you CH.

      Unfortunately these don’t explain how your rather heroic claim that there is no reasonable doubt that Johannes Brahms spontaneously arose from a primitive primate population.

      That's your ridiculous strawman argument, not Dr. Liddle's. How dishonest of you to attribute it to her.

      Even evolutionists admit the complexity of the human brain is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. It has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth:

      Argument from personal incredulity - zero value.

      In fact the morphological and genetic evidence are contradictory.

      You mean you cherry-picked particular snippets of research to misrepresent, then tried to support the unsupported assertions by linking to your previous posts with more unsupported assertions. Not very impressive or convincing.

      So I don’t understand how the evidence shows there is no reasonable doubt about human-chimp common ancestry.

      Your fellow Discovery Institute pal Michael Behe accepts human/chimp common ancestry. If you ask him nicely I'm sure he would explain it to you.

      Delete
    14. EL:

      So how do you account for the evidence that does suggest common ancestry? Let's take the broken GULO gene for example, or the fused chromosome evidence.

      If you were a geocentrist you’d ask how I account for the successful predictions and supporting evidence for geocentrism. If you were a flat-earther you’d ask how I account for the successful predictions and supporting evidence for the flat-earth. Few theories in science are 100% successes or failures. There’s going to be at least some evidence in the + and the – columns, for most theories. So how do I account for evidence that does suggest common ancestry? I put it in the + column.


      What other model so neatly accounts for this?

      It is “neat” only because you are severely cherry-picking your evidence. In fact the fused chromosome evidence is a case where common ancestry merely dodged a bullet. This is a common misrepresentation of science by evolutionists that it is powerful evidence for common ancestry. From a scientific perspective, the fusion event occurred in, and spread through, the human population. There is no evolutionary relationship revealed. Even if evolution is true, this fusion event would give us no evidence for it. The fused chromosome did not arise from another species, it was not inherited from a human-chimp common ancestor, or any other purported common ancestor. As usual it’s all about religion for evolutionists:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/ken-miller-and-chromosome-fusion.html


      And do you think that other great ape brains don't have "switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth"?

      Yes, human brains are much more complex. If you’re point is that even a primitive primate common ancestor would have had a pretty complex brain, then sure, but this just makes its spontaneous evolution all the more ridiculous.

      Delete
    15. So how many + does it take to be beyond a reasonable doubt?

      Delete
    16. Cornelius Hunter

      So how do I account for evidence that does suggest common ancestry? I put it in the + column.


      What items do you have in the + column now CH? Please be specific.

      From a scientific perspective, the fusion event occurred in, and spread through, the human population. There is no evolutionary relationship revealed.

      Please give your alternate explanation for why the two halves of the human chromosome 2 line up so precisely with primate chromosomes 12 and 13.

      Was that the work of the Devil who got tired of planting the fake fossils and decided to plant fake genetic evidence instead?

      Speak up CH, we can't hear your answer.

      Delete
    17. I'm not seeing any -ve items apart from your own incredulity, Cornelius.

      I'm seeing some moved goalposts, though.

      We were talking about common ancestry of humans and great apes, not common ancestry of all organisms. What -ve items are there for the case against common ancestry of, say, humans and chimps?

      Delete
    18. Looks like CH has cut and run again where the questions about his inane claims were too much for him to deal with.

      At least he's consistent.

      Delete
  10. What the heck are you guys yacking about? The "worlds" they are talking about have jack squat to do with the multiverse. They are just talking about different groups that may share genes at higher rates -- phages etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick, are you an expert on phages too??? If so, Please do tell me where this marvel of engineering came from???

      The first thought I had when I saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. This excellent video gives a small glimpse at the intricate, and humbling, complexity that goes into crafting the "simple" non-living bacteriophage virus.

      The Bacteriophage Virus - Assembly Of A Molecular "Lunar Landing" Machine - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023122

      "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject."
      James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist

      Delete
    2. Here is an animation of the Bacteriophage in action:

      The Virus - A Molecular Lunar Landing Machine - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4205494

      Clockwork That Drives Powerful Virus Nanomotor Discovered
      Excerpt: Because of the motor's strength--to scale, twice that of an automobile--the new findings could inspire engineers designing sophisticated nanomachines.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229200748.htm

      Delete
    3. NickM

      What the heck are you guys yacking about? The "worlds" they are talking about have jack squat to do with the multiverse. They are just talking about different groups that may share genes at higher rates -- phages etc.


      You'll have to give Cornelius a break. He's pretty much out of ideas for his anti-science propaganda. His "Evos wrongly claim evolution is a fact!!" rant has been done to death, as has his "evolution didn't predict this!!" one.

      Right now any interesting development in the news that he can somehow tie "...and so evolution must be false!!" to looks good to him. Doesn't matter if it's a complete non-sequitur like his latest "multiverse" nonsense here. No rock is too slimy for him to toss at the sciences that threaten his religious beliefs.

      Delete
  11. "Sequencing and making trees out of the molecular data cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity."

    "Disconnected network of genetic diversity"
    "Disconnected network of genetic diversity"
    "Disconnected network of genetic diversity"
    "Disconnected network of genetic diversity"
    "Disconnected network of genetic diversity"

    I know it will be hard for evolutionists that were raised on the formula and mashed vegetables from Darwins tree of life to accept, but the data shows "Disconnected network of genetic diversity", not a tree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which data, Neal?

      And can I draw your attention to ToLweb as well?

      Please explain why the cited data do not support a tree.

      Delete
  12. Neal, read the paper and try to understand what Bapteste et al. are saying, instead of quote mining it. Here are a couple of short quotes that should give you pause (if you have half a brain):

    Most of the genetic biodiversity found in cells is considered to be largely distributed among bacteria and archaea. The genetic diversity of eukaryotes appears comparatively smaller (1). Thus, any complete picture of the genetic evolution requires a deep study of the prokaryotic genomes. Two decades of investigations have demonstrated that the evolutionary processes leading to their extant genetic diversity were not simply tree-like (2), i.e., involving only the vertical transmission of genes in diverging lineages from ancestors to descendants. Rather, genetic material was also exchanged laterally between contemporary prokaryotes (3).

    Here they are saying that eukaryotes (including multicellular organisms) are not part of the analysis done in this paper. Bapteste is on record saying that the tree model provides a good description of animals. That means humans and apes, among others. This is what matters to you. I don't think you care about prokaryotes all that much.

    First, for all these entities, the genetic material is the same. DNA is a component of some phages, plasmids and chromosomes, not of any of these vehicles exclusively. Second, although this DNA is preferentially transferred (be it vertically or laterally) within a given genetic world, there is some inter-world transfer of DNA molecules occurring, leading to exchanges among different DNA vehicles (2.5% of the DNA families). This observation indicates that the changes accumulated relatively independently in the molecules of any of these worlds (i.e., the results of molecular evolution for different regimes of selective pressures and for different historical constraints) do regularly cross into another world.

    These worlds, in other words, are not disconnected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly how is new DNA 'preferentially transferred' from 'another world' deep into another genome of extremely complex polyfunctionality???

      DNA - Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ

      "applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It's just not going to work."
      - David Berlinski

      further notes:

      Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
      Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm

      New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010
      Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract

      Delete
    2. oleg

      Here are a couple of short quotes that should give you pause (if you have half a brain):


      Objection your honor! Assumes facts not in evidence.

      Delete
  13. CH: Physicists have come up with the idea that there could be an astronomical number of universes in addition to our own. They call it the multiverse it can explain very improbable events, such as the origin of life, because no matter how improbable an event, it becomes a virtual certainty when you have so many universes in which it might happen.

    As I mentioned in the previous thread, this particular variation of the multiverse is a bad explanation.

    Specifically, it's no better than the mere suggestion that the biosphere turned out the way it did because "that's just what a designer mandated". You won't get a nobel prize for merely suggesting "that's just what the laws of physics mandated", either.

    It's funny how Cornelius seems to recognize this in the case of physics, but fails to recognized it in the case of the current crop of ID.

    CH: The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work very well, and so evolutionists are experimenting with other models.

    The tree model works just fine. You seem to have confused a model not exhaustively explaining everything with a model not working very well. Again, this seems to suggest you subscribe a static conception of knowledge, which was common before the enlightenment.

    CH: Don’t worry if you don’t follow all those details, for this is not science but rather story-telling. These conclusions are not motivated by the scientific data but rather by the conviction that evolution must be true, in spite of the data.

    Science isn't story telling. It's explanation conjecturing followed by testing, including tests based on empirical observations. Scientific data is still applied, but the process is turned on it's head in comparison to empiricism.

    We cannot positively prove anything. The best we can do is weed out bad explanations, which can only brings us closer to truth.

    Why don't you start out by telling us exactly what form of empiricisism you subscribe to. Please be specific.

    CH: And so the conclusion is that there needs to be “many evolutionary models of the genetic biodiversity.

    There are many worlds in the sense that species evolve in isolation, which has been part of the theory since the beginning. This is a logical conclusion of the theory, in that genuinely new knowledge actually gets created. It's unclear why you think expanding on this existing aspect represents a failure of evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr. Hunter, I don't know if you've seen these articles that just came out, but here they are:

    Researchers reveal an RNA modification influences thousands of genes - May 17, 2012
    Excerpt: "This finding rewrites fundamental concepts of the composition of mRNA because, for 50 years, no one thought mRNA contained internal modifications that control function," says the study's senior investigator, Dr. Samie R. Jaffrey, an associate professor of pharmacology at Weill Cornell Medical College.
    "We know that DNA and proteins are routinely modified by chemical switches that have profound effects on their function in both health and disease. But biologists believed mRNA was simply an intermediate between DNA and protein," he says. "Now we know mRNA is much more complex,
    http://phys.org/news/2012-05-reveal-rna-modification-thousands-genes.html

    New technique reveals unseen information in DNA code - May 17, 2012
    Excerpt: Imagine reading an entire book, but then realizing that your glasses did not allow you to distinguish "g" from "q." What details did you miss? Geneticists faced a similar problem with the recent discovery of a "sixth nucleotide" in the DNA alphabet. ,,, Two modifications of cytosine, one of the four bases that make up DNA, look almost the same but mean different things.,,, Previous research has found that 5-hmC is 10 times more abundant in brain than in stem cells, so it may have an especially important role there. Jin's laboratory is using the new technique to finely map 5-hmC in the developing brain.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technique-reveals-unseen-dna-code.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. CH: Physicists have come up with the idea that there could be an astronomical number of universes in addition to our own. They call it the multiverse it can explain very improbable events, such as the origin of life, because no matter how improbable an event, it becomes a virtual certainty when you have so many universes in which it might happen.

    Not as far as I know. Certainly one motivation is to understand what might be a low probability of a universe with heavy elements in it (although we don't actually know what that probability is - it could turn out that there is only one possible kind of universe), and, of course without heavy elements there could be no Life As We Know It.

    That is a quite different issue to that of the probability of Life As We Know it given a universe containing heavy elements.

    ID proponents get this very muddled. They think that "fine tuning" has something to do with "explaining away" IDists' estimates of the probability of OOL within the observable universe.

    I do not know a single person (other than Crick, I guess, or Hoyle, and they are way out of date) who thinks that the probability of OOL is anything like the tiny probability estimates made by Dembski et al. Hence the new optimistic field of "astrobiology".

    And ther eason that nobody is bothered by those IDist estimates is because they are junk estimates.

    But the fine-tuning for a universe with heavy elements is something much more interesting.

    Please don't conflate the two issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I do not know a single person (other than Crick, I guess, or Hoyle, and they are way out of date) who thinks that the probability of OOL is anything like the tiny probability estimates made by Dembski et al.'

      The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011
      “The miracle of life is not that it is made out of nanotools, but that these tiny diverse parts are integrated in a highly organized way… with a fine tuning and complexity as yet unmatched by any human engineering… many investigators are uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled… The problem of how and where life began is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science.”
      Dr. Paul Davies - The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life:

      To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)
      http://christian-apologetics.org/2011/rabbi-moshe-averick-the-theist-holds-the-intellectual-high-ground/

      “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis

      “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
      Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28. (Sourced Quote)

      "The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"
      (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

      Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video:

      Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video
      a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175
      the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000
      a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000
      http://www.vimeo.com/11706014

      Programming of Life - Probability of a Cell Evolving - video
      http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/9/nyTUSe99z6o

      DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
      Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
      http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html

      Delete
    2. BA: The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000.

      You'd have quite an argument there if it weren't for the fact that evolutionary theory doesn't suggest the most simplest forms of living organisms formed all at once.

      Apparently, you're bound and determined to remain ignorant about evolutionary theory, as we've pointed out this sort of error over and over again.

      It's as if you're unwilling to accept any form of evolutionary theory other than one you know is false - as if this some how justifies your continued objections.

      Given this behavior, exactly what else are we supposed to conclude?

      Delete
    3. Well 10^500 Scott, actually I think 'life' existed before the simplest living organism. In fact I hold 'life' to have existed before all material reality;

      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.

      Consciousness precedes material reality;

      The way I found out that consciousness precedes, and is central to, material reality is a bit different from how it was arrived at from quantum mechanics itself. It all started when Dr. Dembski posted this video on UD a few years back:

      ,,, I noticed that the earth mysteriously demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;

      The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

      Delete
    4. ,,,for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe. And indeed, at first glance it appears as if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity is sufficient to explain the centrality we see for ourselves in the universe;

      Where is the centre of the universe?:
      Excerpt: The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

      ,,,Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.,,,

      4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8421879/

      ,,,yet, I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘thought experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for radically different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity to provide sufficiency was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so I dug around a bit and found this,,,

      The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity – Igor Rodnianski
      Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity – While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity.
      http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf

      Delete
    5. ,,,But since General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation is!

      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

      I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:

      Psalm 33:13-15
      The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

      Moreover Scott, I hold 'life' to have entered our space-time and defeated sin and death on the cross:

      The Center Of The Universe Is Life -
      General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

      Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive - music
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/

      Delete
    6. BA, watch the video again and take note of the captions at the bottom of the screen that appeared as the scene zoomed out.

      Can you tell me what they said and what impact they would have on how the earth was depicted in the animation?

      Delete
    7. 10^500 Scott, I have a video just for you:

      Moving in stereo -Cars - music video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAsMFWxmwqU

      Delete
    8. As I expected, you're avoiding the question.

      Again, in the video by with you've concluded the earth is central to the universe: what does the captions say as the scene is zoomed out and how would it effect the way the earth is depicted in the animation?

      Delete
    9. 10^500 Scott, And exactly why am I suppose to take the opinion of a person who believes there are 10^500 versions of himself seriously? Because you think I should??? And exactly why should I not respect one of the 10^500 versions of yourself opinion, that think you are crazy for thinking what you think, more than I respect the opinion of this version of you?

      Delete
    10. BA, I'm asking a simple question in regards to the video you yourself referenced in one of your own arguments. Specifically, the video from which you based your assumption the earth is central to the universe on.

      In other words, this is about your opinion, not mine. Don't you respect your own opinion? Do you even have a well defined opinion of the video?

      Or perhaps the video really isn't why you believe the earth is central in the first place.

      Rather, you believe the earth's centrality has been divinely revealed, and assume the video confirms your belief, despite not actually understanding exactly what was depicted.

      If not, then I'll ask again, with a bit more specificity...

      Which units of distance were used when zooming away from the earth and what would be the implications of those units in regards to how the earth was depicted in relationship to the rest of the universe?

      Delete
    11. And in case it's not clear which part of your previous comment I'm referring to, it's the first premise, which you base the rest of your argument on.

      BA: The way I found out that consciousness precedes, and is central to, material reality is a bit different from how it was arrived at from quantum mechanics itself. It all started when Dr. Dembski posted this video on UD a few years back:

      ,,, I noticed that the earth mysteriously demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;

      The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U


      So, apparently, you think that the earth is the center of the universe based on this video, which is what the rest of your argument is based on.

      Delete
    12. "In other words, this is about your opinion, not mine. Don't you respect your own opinion?"

      And exactly why should I respect your particular 10^500 opinion of my opinion more than one of the other 10^500 versions of your opinion of my opinion or more than I respect my own opinion of my opinion? :)

      Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Parallel Universe, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012

      You simply have no epistemological basis in which to argue from!

      Delete
    13. BA,

      The thing is, you keep avoiding what should be a slam dunk for your argument, assuming you actually have one. Yet, you keep avoiding the question. Why is this?

      Could be that...

      A. You've claimed the video "proves" the earth is central to the universe, despite knowing full it doesn't actually depict this. As such, you've knowingly presented a falsehood?

      B. You decided to claimed the video "proves" the earth is central to the universe, despite knowing full well you do not actually understand what's being depicted, which would also represent presenting a falsehood?

      C. You claimed the video "proves" the earth is central to the universe, but only thought you understood what was being depicted. As such, you were merely mistaken?

      D. You claimed the video "proves" the earth is central to the universe because you understand what was depicted and can explain exactly how the units in question support that claim?

      If the latter (D) is the case, then you should have no problem answering my question, which is directly based on your own claim.

      If you refuse, then exactly which conclusion (A-C) do you expect us to reach? Is there some other conclusion that I've missed?

      Delete
    14. If you refuse, then exactly which conclusion (A-C) do you expect us to reach?

      And exactly which portion of the 10^500 versions of "us" are you referring to? Only the versions of you who agree with this particular you??? Why is this particular 'knowledge you created' any better than the other knowledge the other yous have created???

      Moving in stereo -Cars - music video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAsMFWxmwqU

      Delete
    15. Except I've already pointed out that communication between universes isn't possible under the MWT isn't possible. So, us would obviously be limited to this universe.

      So, it would seem, you're either having difficulty forming short term memories, which is a serious condition, or you're yet again avoiding what should be a slam dunk answer for your argument, should you actually have one.

      Let me give you a hint. Distance in the video was measured in light years. And in case you're unfamiliar with the term, a light year is the distance at which light travels in a year.

      Again, what would be the implications of these distances in regards to how the earth was depicted relative to the universe in the video?

      Delete
    16. "I've already pointed out"

      Is it really proper for you to say "I've" without considering what the other 10^500 - 1 versions of you might possibly think of your particular unstable mental state on the 10^500 matter? I consider it pretty arrogant of you to assume 'the knowledge you've created' is superior to their 10^500 - 1 knowledge! :)

      Delete
    17. Ridicule is neither an argument or the slam dunk answer you should have to my question, should you actually have have a coherent argument in the fort place.

      Delete
    18. But alas 10^500 versions of Scott there can never be a 'slam dunk answer' in your 10^500 worldview, there are merely 'millions of different interpretations' where you claim 'knowledge is created'. i.e. Exactly why should I take your personal 'opinion' for what the truth is when the 10^500 versions of you deny the existence of truth in the first place?

      Delete
    19. No, as I've said several times, a scientific theory presents formalism, observations and interpretations as a coherent whole for the purpose of criticism

      You're the one appealing to the existence of rival interpretations separate from the rest of a scientific theory.

      I'm merely pointing to that it's unclear why you only make this appeal in the case of evolutionary theory, in that the same appeal could be made to deny anything.

      So, again, where is what should be a slam dunk answer, should you actually have one, based on the video you referenced?

      How is your claim not an example of conformation bias based on ignorance?

      Delete
    20. So are you saying that your particular version of truth is more valid than any of the other 10^500 versions of you who find your particular version of truth insane? If so why?

      Delete
    21. Moreover Scott, since you deny the existence of consciousness and of free will, then isn't the fact that you believe in 10^500 versions of yourself completely beyond your control? And isn't the fact that other versions of your 10^500 self find you completely insane completely beyond their control?

      "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881

      “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.

      The ultimate irony is that this philosophy implies that Darwinism itself is just another meme, competing in the infectivity sweepstakes by attaching itself to that seductive word “science.” Dawkins ceaselessly urges us to be rational, but he does so in the name of a philosophy that implies that no such thing as rationality exists because our thoughts are at the mercy of our genes and memes. The proper conclusion is that the Dawkins poor brain has been infected by the Darwin meme, a virus of the mind if ever there was one, and we wonder if he will ever be able to find the cure.
      ~ Phillip Johnson

      further notes:

      “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...”
      CS Lewis – Mere Christianity

      'Finding information in life, in ALL life on earth, is very peculiar for information requires 'meaning' to exist before the information can exist. Therefore finding information in life is equivalent to finding meaning for life on earth.' paraphrase UprightBiped UD blogger

      Delete
    22. BA: So are you saying that your particular version of truth is more valid than any of the other 10^500 versions of you who find your particular version of truth insane? If so why?

      What's particular revealing about this sub-thread is not only the lengths BA is willing to go to avoid answering my question, but the particular means by which he is willing to do so.

      For example, not only is it unclear how BA's response is relevant to the question I've asked, but I've pointed out before that MWT indicates each universe obeys the same classical laws of physics. Nor do observers obey some other unknown laws of physics as compared to everything else. This is one of the primary reasons why the MWT represents the best expansion for quantum mechanics.

      Yet, all of BA's attempts to avoid answering my question take the form of responses that indicates he does not underhand the above or is willing to intentionally ignore this when making arguments.

      Again, the MTW doesn't claim that anything can happen for any reason.

      Specifically, there are versions of myself that will be more closer to the truth than I am. And there will be version that are farther from the truth than I am. And the reason for this will be that each universe represents represents a particular set of possible outcomes. Or, to flip it around, there are universes for each series of outcomes that are possible. This is contrast to suggesting there are universes in which anything happens for no reason at all. Therefore, suggesting there are universes where I conclude X is true for no reason at all.

      For example, there will be universes where I am exposed to different information in different degrees. which will change what knowledge I end up with and influences my views. Or there will be universes where I have significantly reduced cognitive function due to a car accidence or some other event, etc.

      There is nothing about this which conflicts with my other comments indicating I think truth exists, but not in the form that BA is referring to since I'm a critical rationalist.

      So, not only is BA willing to avoid answering my question by posting distractions, but he's apparently willing to knowingly present distractions that ignore my previous comments.

      Of course, it could be that I'm being charitable in assuming BA is actually is capable or willing to comprehend the implications of the distractions he posts in the first place.

      Delete
    23. 'Specifically, there are versions of myself that will be more closer to the truth than I am. And there will be version that are farther from the truth than I am.'

      And exactly why is this particular version of the 10^500 yous more closer to the truth than the other 10^500 versions of you who think you are insane?

      Delete
    24. As to me being crazy....

      “And in Dublin in 1952 Schrodinger gave a lecture in which at one point he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might ‘seem lunatic’. It was that, when his equation seems to be describing several different histories, they are ‘not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously’ . . . Here is an eminent physicist joking that he might be considered mad. Why? For claiming that his own equation – the very one for which he had won the Nobel prize – might be true.”

      - Excerpt from the Beginning of Infinity.

      Delete
    25. “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
      (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

      Delete
    26. BA: And exactly why is this particular version of the 10^500 yous more closer to the truth than the other 10^500 versions of you who think you are insane?

      They have been exposed to different knowledge. Did you actually read the above comment?

      From my previous comment, Schrodinger thought his equation seemed to be describing several different histories which were ‘not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously’

      To use a contrived example, imagine I had decided to only watch a video on TED based on flipping a coin. Since the possible outcomes were heads and tails, I would have watched that video in some universes, but not others. In those that I did not, I wouldn't have been introduced to the idea that there are different forms of epistemology. In turn, I would've have been introduced to Popper's ideas on the philosophy of science - specifically his argument regarding the problem of induction, critical rationalism, etc.

      In other words, some sequences of events leave me with less information from which to criticize theories. And there are some sequences of events where I'm not exposed to the argument that criticism is the means by which we make progress at all.

      So, there are universes where I am more or less ignorant about how we make progress. However, in no universe am I exhaustively correct about anything as all we can do is conjecture explanations, weed out those that are bad and work with what's left. We get closer to truth, but we're always just scratching the surface.

      Furthermore, progress comes to us in the form of long chains of hard to vary explanations about reality, right? As such, we explain this observation in that the truth about the physical world consists of hard to vary explanations about realty. From this it we conclude that good explanations are deep and hard to vary, while bad explanations are are shallow and easily varied.

      Of course, I'm open to any other explanation you might have. For example, if the truth doesn't consist of hard to vary assertions about reality, then how do you explain our ability to make progress. How do you explain our relatedly recent, rapid increase in creating knowledge? Please be specific.

      Delete
    27. Schroedinger: “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

      However, given the above, it would seem Schroedinger didn't reach this conclusion based on his Nobel prize winning equation describing quantum mechanics alone. This is because, he too initially came to the conclusion his equation "seems to be describing several different histories, they are ‘not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously’ "

      In case you cannot recognize it, Schroedinger was describing a version of the MWT of quantum mechanics.

      See... http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2211.pdf

      Summary

      We have shown that Schrodinger’s first interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which the wave function is regarded as describing a continuous distribution of matter in space and arguably the most naively obvious interpretation of quantum mechanics, has a surprising many-worlds character. We have also shown that insofar as this theory makes any consistent predictions at all, these are the usual predictions of textbook quantum mechanics.

      Delete
    28. Schroedinger explicitly denied materialism, and affirmed that human consciousness was absolutely different from the material bodily processes: In his famous book, Nature and the Greeks (Cambridge University Press, 1954), Prof. Schrodinger also wrote:

      “I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”
      (Schrodinger 1954, p. 93). Quoted in 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Scientists Who Believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov.

      Quantum mind–body problem
      Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem

      "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

      "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
      Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
      http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

      Delete
    29. i.e. Rather than accept the reality of consciousness as fundamental to reality, as quantum mechanics is overwhelmingly indicating, and the obvious Theistic implications that entails, You (via your atheistic buddy Deutsch) have chosen to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself, without you even batting an eye as to the sheer insanity and dogmatism this reveals on your part.

      Delete
    30. BA: Schroedinger explicitly denied materialism, and affirmed that human consciousness was absolutely different from the material bodily processes: In his famous book, Nature and the Greeks (Cambridge University Press, 1954), Prof. Schrodinger also wrote:

      I'm not suggesting Schroedinger didn't deny materialism. Did you actually read my comment?

      Specially, nowhere in your quote does Schroedinger specially claim any particular interpretation of his wave-function equation (such as the one you're appealing to) is what led him to deny materialism.

      Again, initially, Schroedinger also came to the conclusion his equation "seems to be describing several different histories, they are ‘not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously’ "

      From the paper…

      We report here on some considerations on the many-worlds view of quantum mechanics inspired by Erwin Schrödinger’s [36] original interpretation of the wave function on configuration space as generating a continuous distribution of matter (or charge) spread out in physical space. As we shall explain, Schrödinger’s original version of quantum mechanics may be regarded as a version of many-worlds—though some adherents of many-worlds will presumably not regard it as such—that we think is worth considering. It is a version that, in our opinion, qualifies as a “precise version of” many-worlds such as Bell called for in the passage quoted above.

      So, it's unclear that Schrödinger's denial of materialism isn't actually based merely on any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is your claim, not Schrödinger's.

      Of course, there might be some quote of Schrödinger that substantiates your claim, but you have yet to provided it as of yet.

      Delete
    31. 10^500 Scott, The Schroedinger equation itself, (which you claim is solid proof that there are 10^500 other 'material' versions of you), refutes a materialistic understanding of reality:

      ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.
      Granville Sewell - Professor Mathematics - UTEP

      Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012

      i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist has presupposed such ‘transcendent’ control of our temporal, material, reality for almost 2000 years,,,

      John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      of note; 'the Word' is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.

      Further notes:

      Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.
      Galileo Galilei

      How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe - Dr. Walter L. Bradley - paper
      http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

      The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491

      How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?
      — Albert Einstein

      “… if nature is really structured with a mathematical language and mathematics invented by man can manage to understand it, this demonstrates something extraordinary. The objective structure of the universe and the intellectual structure of the human being coincide.” – Pope Benedict XVI

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      Delete
    32. It is interesting to note that 'i' in 'a+bi', which Dr. Sewell referred to as being in the complex valued solution of the Schroedinger equation, is the square root of negative one. The square root of negative one is a 'higher dimensional number' which, along with the higher dimensional nature of the 4-D space time of General Relativity, give a 'fingerprint' as to its origination from a 'higher dimension':

      The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss & Riemann – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/

      3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes
      Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA

      Also of note:

      Of related note; there is a mysterious 'higher dimensional' component to life:

      The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology
      Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale
      with body size as power laws of the form:

      Y = Yo M^b,

      where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent.
      A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling.
      http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf

      “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/

      4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/

      Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for 'random' Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the invariant scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this 'four dimensional scaling' of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional 'expectation' for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an 'emergent' property of the 3-D material realm.

      Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

      Delete
    33. BA: 10^500 Scott, The Schroedinger equation itself, (which you claim is solid proof that there are 10^500 other 'material' versions of you), refutes a materialistic understanding of reality:

      First, I'm growing concerned, as you seem to be having significant difficulty forming short term memories. Have you been prescribed some sort of medication, that you've stopped taking?

      To remind you, I'm a critical rationalist. As such, I do not assume evidence positively proves any one specific theory is true. Rather, the process is turned on it's head in that evidence is used to criticize theories we conjecture and weed out those that are bad explanations. What's left gets us closer to reality, but is not exhaustively true. A better explanation could be conjectured in the future, which would replaced the previous explanation.

      How do you explain you're continued misrepresentation of my position, if not by some sort of difficulty forming sort term memories, which would warrant medical attention?

      Second, your quote isn't from Schrödinger. Nor is it from a physicist. Rather, it's from a Professor Mathematics.

      There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do!

      That Sewell is unable to think of an alternative explanation isn't a refutation.

      Apparently, Sewell isn't familiar with the MWT, as it the linearity of the wave function can be explained in that each universe follows the same classical laws of physics and only interferes on the small scale.

      If Sewell isn't referring to the linearity of Schrödinger's wave function equation, then this is no different than any other fine tuning argument and has is not specific to any sort of supposed special observer status in quantum mechanics.

      Delete
    34. Well 10^500 Scott, YOU HAVE CONCERN ABOUT MY MENTAL STATE??? That is a laugh!!! I can't wait to tell my friends that you are concerned with my mental state! I'm positive people have been locked away in insane asylums for holding beliefs not nearly as detached from reality as yours is!,,, I tell my friends about this atheist on the internet, you, going on and on about how there are 10^500 versions of himself, and how he is convinced of this because he has mathematical proof to prove it, and they just laugh and laugh because they can't believe that a human could be 'educated' (brainwashed) to believe such complete nonsense. That you would go on to question my mental state in this matter is going to tickle them silly.

      Delete
    35. BA: ... Because he has mathematical proof to prove it...

      See, you did it again. You've forgotten already. Either that, or you're knowingly presenting a straw man of my position.

      Again, exactly what else are we supposed to conclude?

      BA: ... Because they can''t believe that a human could be 'educated' (brainwashed) to believe such complete nonsense.

      Except, you keep misrepresenting the theory despite having been corrected over and over again as nonsense. In fact, you cannot even fallaciously ridicule the theory correctly.

      So, if you're not having problems forming short term memories, then how do you explain it?

      Delete
    36. Notes:

      Many-worlds interpretation
      Excerpt: In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence, which resolves all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[11][12] and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In lay terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite[13]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

      First, decoherence is known to be wrong;

      The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
      Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
      http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

      and Second as to this comment:

      'everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.'

      This necessary premise of Many Worlds actually concedes the necessary premise to the ontological argument for God and thus defeats the MWI from within:

      God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4
      The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

      1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
      2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
      3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
      4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
      5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
      6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
      7. Therefore, God exists.

      Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4

      The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68

      Delete
    37. And here is the necessary premise of Many Worlds once again:

      'everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.'

      Perhaps the atheist, who believes it reasonable to believe in 10^500 versions of himself (which is more versions of himself than there are particles in trillions upon trillions upon trillions of universes), will, very ironically, hold that it is just not possible for God to exist in one of these past histories where "everything that could possibly have happened has happened". Yet it seems that atheists are very, very, selective as to what they will allow to be possible for someone with 'god-like' characteristics,,,

      "So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." -
      Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics - quote cited from 6:49 mark of this following video:
      Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661

      Hmmm people believing in 10^500 versions of themselves or believing that humans will evolve to a point someday to create universes reminds me of this verse,

      Isaiah 14:14
      "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

      And also reminds me of this verse:

      Genesis 3:5

      “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

      Thus the atheist who believes in 10^500 versions of himself is caught between a rock and a hard place. In order to keep from conceding the necessary premise for God in the ontological argument, the atheist must maintain that the existence of God is not even possible. Yet for the atheist to hold that it is not even possible for God to exist in one of these quasi infinite past histories of Many Worlds, where "everything that could possibly have happened has happened", he must hold that evolutionary capacity of 10^500 versions of himself is limited. Needless to say, such humbleness is not inherent to a 10^500 person!


      Verse and Music:

      Romans 1:21-22
      For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

      Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill How Great thou Art – 720P HD – Standing Ovation!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLMzr3PFgk

      Delete
    38. BA: First, decoherence is known to be wrong;

      Really? And you think so because?

      RCA: A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing.

      See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO8M07Numfs which explains the Renniger Negative Results experiment as seen through the Many-Worlds Theory of quantum mechanics.

      I'd again note that the MWT indicates each universe follows the same classical laws of physics, which is one of it's significant advantages. As such, we can use classical means, such as how fast a particle can travel in a classical universe identical to ours, to explain our ability to know the outer detector will detect the particle based on non-detection of the inner detector.

      In other words, the problem he's referring to is specific to non-MW interpretations as they do not provide this extended explanation.

      BA: 'everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.'

      Again, each universe is classical. Each potential classical outcome is possible, not merely anything.

      Are you having problem forming long term memories? Or perhaps you're merely attempting to apply some argument you found on the internet to a theory you do not understand?

      MS: Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves.

      Hungry again? I hope you take your shoes off before hand because, at this rate, you'd need to buy a whole rack to replace them.

      First, Deutsch addresses Tipler at length in his first book. They agree to a significant degree, however Deutsch makes several distinctions, such as the fact that we will always be just scratching the surface when it comes to knowledge. Furthermore, he points out that Tipler's ideas of what a far-future intelligence will or will not do is based on a long string of assumptions. That this intelligence will act in any way like our conceptions of a monotheistic God is speculation because their actions will be in part based on what knowledge they will create in the future.

      To give an example, it's not that people in the 1900s considered the internet or nuclear power unlikely. They simply didn't consider them at all because they did not yet exist. As such, we couldn't predict what impact they would have on us today. In the case of the these advanced humans near the omega-point, we're not just talking about a century from now but billions of years or more.

      So, It's not that what these advanced humans will be like isn't an interesting question. Rather, assuming we exist in a universe they created because we think they will act in a way that follows our current conceptions of God is parochial in that it ignores the impact of the creation of knowledge on our ability to predict the future.

      Second, it's not clear that the universe actually exhibits design in the first place. The question would be the same for any future designers as it would be for God. Why would they create this particular universe, rather than some other universe?

      Delete
    39. 10^500 Scott, you completely and willingly are missing the fatal point in your reasoning. To defend against the ontological argument you must maintain that it is completely incoherent for God to exist in any possible world. And you must do this all the while maintaining the absurdity that 10^500 versions of you exist in quasi infinite possible worlds. Thus you have in fact conceded the necessary premise to the ontological argument in your MWI by positing quasi infinite histories where:

      'everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.'

      It is clear, you simply have chosen to believe the absurdity of 10^500 versions of you rather than believe in God. The criticisms against MWI go far further, but what is the point? It is clear you have left common sense far behind for some severely misguided reason just so to deny God. Thus, I rest my case.

      Delete
    40. BA,

      What is it about "Again, each universe is classical. Each potential classical outcome is possible, not merely anything." do you not understand?

      From the wiki...

      'everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.'

      This isn't the same sort of possible worlds as you're referring to.

      For example, do you think one of the possible outcomes of classical physics, such an atom emitting a particle, would be the existence of God? Therefore, since all classical outcomes are realized, God's eventual existence must also be realized in one of these worlds? I'm guessing this isn't the case.

      In other words, unless you think God comes into existence due to some specific series of classical events in some universes, but not others, then this simply isn't applicable to the MWI.

      So, again, it seem that you're either having significant problems forming short term memories or you've merely latched on to the words, "possibilities" and "world" and assume the ontological argument is applicable, despite not actually understanding the MWT in the first place.

      To repeat, we're talking about histories here…

      “And in Dublin in 1952 Schrödinger gave a lecture in which at one point he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might ‘seem lunatic’. It was that, when his equation seems to be describing several different histories, they are ‘not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously’ . . . Here is an eminent physicist joking that he might be considered mad. Why? For claiming that his own equation – the very one for which he had won the Nobel prize – might be true.”

      So, again, how do you explain your continued misrepresentation of the MWT, despite being corrected over and over again? Why haven't you even acknowledged that you continue to ignore corrections, but just keep posting arguments as if they were never made?

      If you're not having problems forming short term memories, then what other conclusion are we supposed to reach?

      Delete
    41. And let's not forget, BA still hasn't provided what should be a slam dunk answer to my question.

      Again, what would be the implications of these distances [light years] in regards to how the earth was depicted relative to the universe in the video?

      Delete
    42. Scott, what are you going to do when you die and meet God? Are you going to tell him that He can't possibly exist because there are 10^500 versions of you? :)

      Third Day - Trust In Jesus
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtaCeJYqZA

      Delete
    43. BA: Scott, what are you going to do when you die and meet God? Are you going to tell him that He can't possibly exist because there are 10^500 versions of you? :)

      First, exactly where did I say the MWT indicates God couldn't possibly existence?

      I'm merely pointing out your argument that QM somehow refutes evolution or proves consciousness precedes material reality (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's possible to positively prove anything in the first place) is parochial. This is because it does't take into account the MWT of QM, or only takes into account a misrepresentation of the MWT itself.

      That's it. Nothing more.

      Second, why couldn't God have created the multiverse? Is your God too small to have created more than one universe?

      Or perhaps you think God having done so conflicts with your favorite holy text, which describes the actions of the one true God? As such, anyone who tentatively accepts anything other than a single universe denies God's existence? But this to would be parochial in that it ignores other possible conceptions of God.

      Apparently, you cannot recognize your particular conception of God as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

      Third, you still haven't answers my question, which seems to indicate you're belief that conscious reality proceeds materialism doesn't have anything to do with a comprehensive understanding of the video you referenced. If it did, you've be able to answer my question.

      Again, since the units of distance in the video are light years, what impact would that have on how the earth was depicted in reference to the rest of the universe?

      Here's another hint, when light from a star that is 180 million light-years away reaches us, what point in time does that light depict?

      Delete
    44. 'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object, which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself' - Scott - Many Worlds proponent
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html?showComment=1334583967799#c7217305678409346277

      Delete
    45. Why, thank you, BA, for reminding everyone that, Yes, I do have a criteria for criticizing theories, which I've elaborated on in detail. And, yes, I tentatively accept theories that survive criticism, even when the appear counter intuitive.

      What's your criteria? Does it result in tentative acceptance of things - even those that you find counter intuitive? Please be specific.

      Rather than answer my question, which subject will you pick now?

      Delete
    46. 10^500 Scott, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think that light travels instantaneously. That is not correct. I hold that the quantum waves of light collapse instantaneously to each unique point of conscious observation in the universe:

      This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous':

      Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
      Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
      http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm

      Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - 2010
      Excerpt: The Delayed Choice experiment changes the boundary conditions of the Schrodinger equation after the particle enters the first beamsplitter.
      http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/TermPapers/WheelerDelayed.pdf

      "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"
      John A. Wheeler

      Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video
      http://vimeo.com/38508798

      Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality
      Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the "hidden-variables" approach.
      http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori

      Delete
    47. Here’s a recent variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights the ability of the conscious observer to effect 'spooky action into the past', thus further solidifying consciousness's centrality in reality;;

      Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012
      Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
      According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger.
      http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

      Here is a experiment which highlights 'consciousness' in quantum mechanics

      “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.

      Preceding quote taken from this following video;

      Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video)
      http://vimeo.com/37517080

      Delete
    48. further notes:

      Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

      "I've just developed a new theory of eternity."
      Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest

      "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass."
      Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

      'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.'
      Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony

      It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

      Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

      The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions
      Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer)

      Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - video
      http://www.vimeo.com/29021432

      Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

      Delete
    49. BA: 10^500 Scott, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think that light travels instantaneously.

      No, I'm not.

      I'm under the impression that you concluded the video depicts the earth as being central to the universe merely because it confirmed your theistic assumptions. This is in contrast to you concluding this is the case based on a critical analysis of the video.

      No wonder why you've been avoiding the question. Apparently, you still haven't realized the problem after receiving several hints.

      The video doesn't depict the earth in the center of the universe. It only appears that way.

      Specially, the CMBR only appears to form a shell around the earth because the earth is the point from which observations were made. The cosmic microwave background radiation that was here is long gone. We cannot see it because it's traveling out into the universe, away from us, to some other part of the universe.

      The moon is 1.28 light seconds away. The sun is roughly 8.5 light minutes away. Light and radio waves travel too quickly for us to observe the early universe in our local vicinity. As such it only appears that we're in the center on the universe in the video.

      However, some other location the universe could detect the CMBR that was present here if it was far enough away from us. And that radiation would appear to form part of a shell around that location if it was depicted in the same way. It would just now be receiving the CMBR that was present here billions of years ago were our galaxy exists now.

      Delete
    50. BA: This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous':

      This is explained by the MWT without observers playing any special role. I'd post another link with the details, but you'd fail to read it, fail to understand it, or just forget again, as to just did here.

      The thing is, the more "weird" you depict QM, the more complexity you have to introduce to avoid observers existing in a superposition as well. So, your argument is counter productive.

      This is like arguing that planets exhibit "spooky behavior" in the form of geocentric epicycles to avoid the earth from moving. Except this spooky behavior represents conformation bias in regards to your belief in a supernatural designer that designed things without a complex material nervous system.

      Delete
    51. 'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object, which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself' - Scott - Many Worlds proponent
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html?showComment=1334583967799#c7217305678409346277

      Delete
    52. i.e. 10^500 Scott, rather than accept the fact that consciousness, something you experience first hand, is real, you have chosen instead to believe that you are a 10^500 multiversal object.

      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

      “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
      (Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).

      "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
      Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'

      In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether.
      http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28

      Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010
      Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.
      http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf

      "Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am.' My bet is that God replied, 'I am, therefore think.'"
      Art Battson - Access Research Group

      Moreover 10^500 Scott, the fact that you are thinking, i.e. that you are conscious, is the MOST sure thing you can know about reality:

      "Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body."
      http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf

      Delete
    53. Yes.

      I tentatively accept that I too exist in a quantum supposition of possible outcomes, along with photons, protons and everything else. The result would take the form of a complete universe that obeys the same classical laws of physics.

      This is illustrated, in detail, in the MWT explanation for the Renniger Negative Results experiment.

      See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO8M07Numfs

      To avoid this simpler conclusion, you must create a number of "epicycles" in that observes obey some unknown laws of physics or exhibit some sort of spooky behavior, which just so happens to coincide with biblical theology.

      So, yes, I accept the best explanation, even when it initially appears counter intuitive, because I have a criteria of critiquing explanation.

      What's you criteria, BA? Do you even have one?

      Which subject will you chose to avoid answering this question, yet again?

      Delete
    54. 'I have a criteria of critiquing explanation'

      'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object, which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself' - Scott - Many Worlds proponent
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html?showComment=1334583967799#c7217305678409346277

      Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

      Delete
    55. It doesn't follow based on what criteria, BA?

      Are you going to avoid the question again? If so, don't expect any further replies.

      Delete
  16. It appears that the conversation will never really get anywhere with the current minds in play.

    I propose a tournament of hand-to-hand human combat to determine the relevancy of survival of the fittest and divine intervention as appropriate interpretations of the data.

    Any takers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you see Indians collecting wood?

      Delete
    2. Fear cuts deeper than swords.

      Delete
    3. "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

      Delete
    4. Winning means fame and fortune. Losing means certain death.

      Delete
    5. Velik

      So there are:

      Native Americans
      Latin Americans
      African Americans

      Does everybody needs a prefix these days?

      Ian, nice quote :)

      Delete
    6. Sorry, Eugen. Not a big deal,kinda just kidding but your choice of examples was interesting.

      Delete
    7. So, no takers?

      I thought Thorton and Louis would be the first to sign up.

      Delete
    8. Smith

      are you pro or against ID? It's hard to tell. BTW how is your uvula today?

      Velikovsky

      I know you are funny guy but it makes you think....political correctness, how far it will go in the future?

      Delete
    9. Thanks, I understand that P correctness can go too far, a person could be wrong no matter what they do. But referring to a group as they wish to be known seems just good manners. Just like it is good manners to remind, without overreacting, the preferred usage.

      Delete
    10. Smith,

      Ever see"My Name Is Nobody? (uncut version only) Might give you an idea. As tournament director,you need to set the ground rules first. And the pot.

      Delete
    11. My hope was that marketing would not be necessary given the fervent belief systems evidenced. But, you are correct. Rules tend to help others limit the extremes to which they are willing to defend their faiths. Comfort and all that. I'll compile a list of rules. "My name..." looks like fun cinema. I'll give it a watch.

      Eugen - it's good to chat with you again. My uvula is doing well. Though I could do with a dash of alkalol. As for the other question, I'm neither for nor against. At least as much as much as my Indus-Mediterranean-Proto European, European heritage will allow. (I usually check "other" in the little boxes, just for fun)

      I agree with you about PC, too. Ever seen the movie PCU?

      Delete
    12. Velikovsky
      Yes, basic respect dictates that we call group as they wish to identify themselves. This is where it can get silly, depending on how much correctness group needs or demands.
      For ex. I could ask to be called North Mediterranean Canadian and look at Smith: Indo Mediterranean Proto European American (I’m guessing).
      Maybe in the future (politically correct) joke will start like this: North Mediterranean Canadian and Indo Mediterranean Proto European American walk into a bar…

      Movie PCU looks funny, I‘ll have to rent it.

      Delete
    13. It is indeed a more complex time we live in. But the good old days sucked worse if you were on the short side of the stick.

      Delete
    14. Yes.
      Hey, don't forget the eclipse tomorrow afternoon.

      Delete
    15. Found out a friend just built a 20 inch scope, trying to convince him to do the transit of Venus .

      Delete
    16. That is nice! What about filter for such a monster? BTW all the filters and filter materials are gone from astro shops.

      Delete
    17. I'd like to catch a meteor shower one of these days. A nice dark zone. A cup of tea. No light pollution...

      Delete
    18. We'll see,there is a state park about hour away which has a fairly dark sky. We were set to go tonight but it was too windy,it doesn't take much to push the scope around.

      Perseides are mid August with not a bad moon. Nice if you have the next day off.

      Delete
    19. Let's start with these.


      Divisions -
      Luck of the draw single match-ups. No weight divisions. No gender divisions.

      Match Decisions -
      Single round elimination.
      Round ends when one or both combatants submit, are knocked out, or are no longer willing to defend their faith(s). Teams with a majority of fighters after the initial rounds may choose which fighter to send to the next round.

      Overall Victory -
      The contest ends when one team is eliminated or both both teams are no longer willing to defend their faiths.


      Faults resulting in disqualification -
      Weapons.
      Interference by either team during a round
      Timidity or unwillingness to fight once a round is in progress.
      The use of powders, liquids, gels, etc. meant to hinder an opponent's ability
      Inappropriate fight attire. Fight attire must be approved by organizers two days prior to fighting.

      Delete
    20. An impressive effort, but probably for naught. The only way it might have a chance is a double top secret tournament. The participants should be unaware they are in a match. The question is how does one grade performance without physical violence. We need a metric. Points for actually engaging discussion, deductions for evasion. Something like that, get Eugen to judge. He is pro ID but seems fair minded

      Delete
    21. Eugen is indeed a pleasant respite from the turgidity of most posts. I appreciate his honesty and candor.

      Alas, while double top-secret would be fun, it doesn't quite lend itself to survival of the fittest. The goal is to test one's conviction. Perhaps it would be better to eliminate the ID proponents and simply have adherents to evolution go at it. That would be more appropriate given the stated convictions often voiced here.

      Delete
    22. Thanks for considering me to be a judge. I must warn you I didn’t even want to be a juror. When they told me it’s mandatory I said “but I no speak da English well” :)

      Delete
    23. That leaves you with the role of executioner. How do you feel about axes and masks?

      Delete
    24. Too bad, it was an interesting idea. Maybe you could pitch it as a World of Warfare type game.

      Delete
    25. The "Darwinist Expansion Set" would take quite a bit of marketing. Very niche.

      Delete
  17. That's what evolutionists do: When the evidence won't support their myth, they move the goalposts by inventing things. And some people STILL think common ancestry evolution is a 'science' May God help them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it's the scientific method. When the data ["evidence"] doesn't support their model ["myth"] they adjust their model ["move the goalposts"] by proposing new hypotheses ["inventing things"].

      However, you missed a crucial part: then they test their hypotheses against new data.

      This is how theories "evolve" - gradually change over time, retaining what works, changing what doesn't.

      And the common ancestry model, with evolutionary processes as the putative mechanism, remains a highly predictive theoretical framework.

      Which makes it not only "science" but well-supported science.

      And if God would like to help us, sure. That would be very welcome.

      Delete
    2. Exactly! Not only do they do that, but they want to make us believe in their childish talk. Just think of this quasi-science talk: crystallisation of life!

      Evolutionists, wake up, it's been 150 years since they thought that a living cell was a blob of protoplasm. It is a highly complex and functional whole that has semiosis at its centre. This is unthinkable without intelligence. All available scientific data suggests intelligence is life's sine qua non. Leave your world of dreams and be real scientists.

      Delete
    3. Elizabeth Liddle, what would it take, in your opinion, to falsify Darwinism? Darwin himself pompously stated that it would take him watching supernatural intervention happening, to persuade him that life was designed. In other words, he wanted to remain willfully blind to evidence whatever it was. Since he did not even theoretically admit that such evidence can exist, I conclude he was a blind bigot.

      What is your position as regards evidence contrary to Darwinism, if, of course, you agree at all that such evidence exists? Thanks.

      Delete
    4. What are you calling "Darwinism"? Or, if you prefer, what specific aspect of evolutionary theory do you think is false?

      If you can answer my question, I will attempt to answer yours. Right now it is far too general.

      And can you supply a citation for the statement you attribute to Darwin?

      Delete
    5. Actually, it's the scientific method. When the data ["evidence"] doesn't support their model ["myth"] they adjust their model ["move the goalposts"] by proposing new hypotheses ["inventing things"].

      However, you missed a crucial part: then they test their hypotheses against new data.


      Except they never think that maybe their myth is wrong, which is why the evidence continues to contradict it. How many falsifications of predictions does it take to realize maybe evolution is not the answer?

      If you keep moving the goalposts, but also keep 'evolution is a fact' as a dogma, how will true scientific progress ever come?

      You can't tell us how things evolve, there's no cogent theory, it's just that whatever happens is called 'evolution'...that makes it UNfalsifiable.

      Delete
  18. Lizzie, the way in which evolutionists regard evolution as a settled fact is not following the scientific method. The goalposts are switched in order to support the "fact" of evolution. We don't know at all that universal common descent took place, and there is strong evidence against it and little more than philosophy and cherry picked evidence to support it. Bird beak variation and guppie color and such (which is pretty much everything except for a fossil record that does not support evolution) is not sufficient to support UCD. The wonderful thing about the scientific method is that is will effectively challenge weak deductive or inductive arguments when it is allowed to. The fact of evolution is not allowed to be touched by the scientific method. It is an assumed fact because the alternative is a stumbling block to those so inclined to resist it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lizzie, the way in which evolutionists regard evolution as a settled fact is not following the scientific method.

      I disagree, Neal. Or at least with your generalisation.

      The goalposts are switched in order to support the "fact" of evolution.

      Not that I've observed. I agree with you that the word is used with different meanings, but I no of know case of an "evolutionist" attempting to exploit the ambiguity to switch goal posts. Obviously, if they did, I would disagree with them.

      But IMO, you do not have to do any switching of goal posts to be persuaded that the current standard model of the history of life on earth is a pretty well-supported model.

      We don't know at all that universal common descent took place,

      Well, the root is certainly fuzzy, and it may turn out that there is more than one root. But some kind of tree is very well-supported.

      and there is strong evidence against it

      Such as?

      and little more than philosophy and cherry picked evidence to support it.

      There is a huge amount of evidence to support it, so much so that even people like Behe and Dembski (I think), and Denton, and the entire catholic church, none of whom have subscribe to any "philosophy" that would support it, find it convincing.

      Bird beak variation and guppie color and such (which is pretty much everything except for a fossil record that does not support evolution)is not sufficient to support UCD.

      No, that wouldn't be sufficient at all. But you are completely ignoring all the evidence (not forgetting Linnaeus's taxonomy) for nested hierarchies (a tree distribution of heritable characters) which demands some kind of explanation. Common Descent is such an explanation. I guess baraminologists might one day come up with another.


      The wonderful thing about the scientific method is that is will effectively challenge weak deductive or inductive arguments when it is allowed to.

      Yes, indeed. I'm a scientist :) I challenge weak deductive or inductive arguments for a living. Or at least for half of it.

      The fact of evolution is not allowed to be touched by the scientific method.

      Which "fact" are you talking about? As you said, and I agree, it is far too sloppy a word to be terribly useful unless carefully defined in a given context. What, specifically, do you think is "not allowed to be touched"? I haven't come across one.

      It is an assumed fact because the alternative is a stumbling block to those so inclined to resist it.

      This is simply a myth.

      Delete
    2. Bird beak variation and guppie color and such (which is pretty much everything except for a fossil record that does not support evolution) is not sufficient to support UCD.

      Amazing how willfully ignorant this particular Creationist chooses to be.

      For example, there is a large body of scientific literature on the evolution of extant avian morphology from theropod dinosaurs. The following paper is just a summary of the evidence for the evolutionary development of over 20 different features, including ankle joints, hips, sternum, skulls.

      Theropod Diversity and the Refinement of Avian Characteristics

      But our willfully ignorant Creationist doesn't care. He don't need no stinkin' science when he has his GAWD to give him divine knowledge!

      Delete
    3. Again Thorton completely misrepresents the evidence:

      Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video and notes
      http://vimeo.com/30926629

      No Evidence For Bird Evolution
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UF3DhlUnDM0Qrwh8ZmyLJA2r9hGFvHjoXki6WTzYg5M/edit

      Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links - June 2009
      Excerpt: "one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,“ Ruben said. “However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link,,, “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.” ----"For one thing, birds are found (many millions of years) earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem,"...
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

      “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence”
      Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History

      The Archaeoraptor Fraud of National Geographic Magazine (In 1999)
      Excerpt: "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion."
      Storrs Olson

      Delete
  19. I think that the propaganda machine has been active so long that if you keep saying the same wrong things enough, then eventually people will begin to believe it. Such is the case with evolution.

    Fossils.... The Root, is not fuzzy, it doesn't exist! This is what I mean. Why can't evolutionists just call it like it is. Is that like saying that one is a little bit pregnant? Evolutionists have played this word game for too long.

    Nested Hierarchy... For starters, where does the sea squirt genome fit into the nested hierarchy? I haven't been able to get anyone here to answer that simple question.

    Which fact? That evolutionists consider universal common descent a fact. IF it happened is never tested, only how it could have happened. With the dogma that it DID happen as the foundation, cherry picking the data for evidence has become big business. This brings us back to bird beaks and guppies, and the relatively trivial results of mutation of the E.Coli. The scientific method is supposed to help remove the colored glasses from our view. Evolutionists only pay it lip service because of their established dogma. They guard the untested dogma better than King Tuts treasure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the propaganda machine has been active so long that if you keep saying the same wrong things enough, then eventually people will begin to believe it. Such is the case with evolution.

      Well, that can happen. I do not consider it is the case with evolution.

      Fossils.... The Root, is not fuzzy, it doesn't exist! This is what I mean. Why can't evolutionists just call it like it is. Is that like saying that one is a little bit pregnant? Evolutionists have played this word game for too long.

      There is no game.

      Nested Hierarchy... For starters, where does the sea squirt genome fit into the nested hierarchy? I haven't been able to get anyone here to answer that simple question.

      I don't know, Neal. What makes you think it doesn't fit?

      Which fact? That evolutionists consider universal common descent a fact. IF it happened is never tested, only how it could have happened.

      Because there are vast amounts of data to support that broad longitudinal picture. But, as I said, the root is certainly fuzzy, and there may have been many roots; we also know that not all genetic transfer is longitudinal. Hence the term "the web of life" to refer to genetic connectivity.

      BA77 linked to a nice review article about the genetic tree. You are seeing dogma where there is none. What you are actually seeing is broad consensus about the general shape of descent (a tree) with a lot of caveats about horizontal genetic transmission.

      With the dogma that it DID happen as the foundation, cherry picking the data for evidence has become big business.

      This is not true.

      This brings us back to bird beaks and guppies, and the relatively trivial results of mutation of the E.Coli. The scientific method is supposed to help remove the colored glasses from our view. Evolutionists only pay it lip service because of their established dogma. They guard the untested dogma better than King Tuts treasure.

      And nor is this. I'm sorry, Neal, but you have simply been misinformed. If I can help, I will try.

      Cheers

      Lizzie

      Delete
    2. Neal Tedford

      Nested Hierarchy... For starters, where does the sea squirt genome fit into the nested hierarchy? I haven't been able to get anyone here to answer that simple question.


      Another flat out lie, as the ignorant Creationist has had this answered a dozen times.

      Tree of Life: Urchordata

      Sea squirts (Tunicata) split from the main branch of chordates approx. 540 MYA. Their complete genome has been sequenced and presents no problem whatsoever for evolutionary theory.

      The Draft Genome of Ciona intestinalis: Insights into Chordate and Vertebrate Origins

      That the Creationist has latched onto sea squirts as his security blanket is a testimony to his anti-science willful ignorance.

      Delete
    3. Thorton since atheistic materialism denies the existence of absolute truth how in the world does someone 'flat out lie' in your worldview? Moreover since there is no free will in your worldview how could someone prevent himself from 'flat out lying' if there were such a thing as absolute truth in your worldview?

      notes:

      Pikaia Fossils Explode the Evolutionary Paradigm - Fazale Rana - May 2012
      Excerpt: Yet, in the Chengjian site—which corresponds to the beginning of the Cambrian—researchers have recovered a number of urochordate, hemichordate, cephalochordate, and agnathan specimens, all organisms that would be Pikaia’s evolutionary descendents. Instead of observing the sequential appearance of primitive chordates first, followed by more advanced chordates, the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates.
      http://www.reasons.org/articles/pikaia-fossils-explode-the-evolutionary-paradigm

      Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009
      Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

      Delete
    4. Lizzie, exactly why do you feel comfortable referencing the article I cited as if it supports Darwinism? The article I cited clearly demonstrated how fast and loose Darwinists are with the evidence! Nothing more! The empirical evidence I cited afted that article showed how bankrupt Darwinists are as to having any coherent basis in reality! Why did you not reference that one??? Dogma rears it ugly head over and over again in your writings!

      Delete
    5. Probably she believes you are mistaken, why so nasty,BA?

      Delete
    6. It always surprises me how morally indignant materialists can be when they hold morals to be merely subjective. But then with no free will I guess you have no other choice.

      Delete
    7. Moi? Not hardly. So you are following which objective moral?

      Delete
    8. Well apparently you think I'm not following some moral you have 'evolved within yourself' for you said I was 'nasty'. But since you lean very heavily to materialism/atheism, and morals are merely subjective in such a worldview, because they are 'emergent' from some material basis, I was wandering why you should be offended if anyone else should hold different morals.

      Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011
      Excerpt: I'm happy, of course, that Flam thinks that charity and goodwill are better than violence and selfishness. I'm also glad that she thinks human life is precious. Her inconsistency rescues her from the nihilism implicit in her worldview. I much prefer such inconsistency to those who follow their nihilistic ideas with ruthless consistency. However, it would be even nicer if she were to embrace Christianity, which actually provides us with reasons to believe that human life has value, that loving your neighbors is superior to hating them, that acts of kindness are superior to acts of violence, and that Hitler was objectively evil. Then she would have a real reason to condemn Hitler. "I don't like Hitler because my evolved instincts run contrary to his" just doesn't cut it.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/can_darwinists_condemn_hitler052331.html

      Delete
    9. BA,
      I think you may have the argument a bit muddled. I think it goes like this,I can know,subjectively, your tone is unnecessarily nasty or Hilter was bad,but how can I condemn you or him for it,if all things are equally justified or unjustified in a non-god system.

      Luckily, I wasn't saying you are a bad person, I just wanted to know why you choose to respond in that manner.

      Delete
    10. No you missed the argument: the argument is "why do you think that I should think that the manner was bad?"

      Delete
    11. Good question, do you think the manner was rude?

      Delete
    12. "Good question"

      why don't you answer it?

      Delete
    13. Ah, Just because you think ,I should think that you should think that the manner was rude? Do you think it was?

      Delete
    14. That's not the argument the argument is:

      "why do you think that I should think that the manner was bad?"

      Delete
    15. I see, so you do think you were being rude,and you want to know why I think you thought you were? I need more info, are you rude to all people or just some?

      Delete
    16. "why do you think that I should think that the manner was bad?"

      Delete
    17. Missed your answer, do you? My answer depends what your response is.

      Delete
    18. no it doesn't, for you to say so reveals politics not honesty!

      Delete
    19. How do you know that,or should I ask why do I think you know that?

      Delete
    20. politicking about your politicking! Typical!

      Delete
  20. Linnaeus taxology. Common design explains it better, as Linnaeus himself believed. Thoughtful design is not limited to one up designs but often to designing basic common platforms, using common standards and building blocks, with various features added, removed, turned on or off. The mixing and matching of characters throughout the immense mosiac of life betrays the Darwinian pattern of descent with modification. That these characters are often said to have evolved independently (sometimes hundreds of different times) is absurd. But, evolutionists have no metric for absurdity. Everything answers to the central dogma which is never questioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And common design is another possibility.

      But what is pointless is denying the tree. The tree is objectively there, as Linnaeus discovered.

      And there is very little "mixing and matching of characters". When a thing evolves more than once, it is almost always notably different - non homologous - in the two lineages (eyes, for instance, or flippers).

      You might be interested in Todd Wood's work btw.

      Delete
  21. Elizabeth Liddle said

    "But what is pointless is denying the tree. The tree is objectively there, as Linnaeus discovered."

    No, objectively there, are the nested hierarchy of traits(with exceptions). That is if you want a view of tree from the top. Then you can imagine a tree. The problem is we all know that at the base of the tree we do not find a trunk but a net.
    There other problems for the tree but that are not visible to darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. "Tree" is another name we give to the distribution that is also called "nested hierarchy".

      And the net at the bottom isn't really a "problem" as long as we can explain it. It just makes the "tree" metaphor less apt. Or more literal, actually (trees have multiple routes. But we also need to add a cobweb of between-branch lines to represent horizontal genetic transfer, in addiction to the branches which represent longitudinal genetic transfer.

      Delete
    2. Elizabeth Liddle said
      "Yes. "Tree" is another name we give to the distribution that is also called "nested hierarchy"."

      Well it is not the same.

      https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1SjY6HanJbApVyBc7D_D_qUHYzGruqnGj8DJF8BnG0JQ/edit

      This is the tree.

      https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1oYhTu2f0p2KHRVcYeTgvHNGDwOmjUhB27e5yI8N-ztE/edit

      And ToE immagine something like this

      https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1Bvg0GW14xB4IGQFJO8ZUNpe9Mvy47AtH1ikEz-cxX74/edit

      "And the net at the bottom isn't really a "problem" as long as we can explain it."

      Off course, nothing is a problem for ToE, it is fact.

      Delete
  22. Blas: No, objectively there, are the nested hierarchy of traits(with exceptions).

    Good. The nested hierarchy is the natural consequent of uncrossed descent, and we can observe this with, for instance, with y-chromosomes.

    What is your explanation of the nested hierarchy, that is, the strong correlation between traits? Examples of correlations are having mammary glands implying four heart chambers, or hair follicles implying lungs.

    (There's other evidence of common descent, but let's hear your explanation first.)

    ReplyDelete