Thursday, June 7, 2012

Evolutionists Self-Destructing: Now They Are Saying Evolution Created a Fine-Tuned Electro Magnetic Communications System Which We Can’t Even Detect

It has long since been known that the cells of organisms give off light but exactly how and why they do this has not been well understood. Evidence has suggested that this electromagnetic energy is more than merely a random by-product of metabolic processes but rather contains information which is transmitted and received by different cells. One recent study, for example, confirmed that some sort of non chemical information is transmitted between cells, in this case of the unicellular organism Paramecium caudatum. Different populations of the organism, separated by glass or quartz barriers which allow only certain frequencies of light, showed correlated activity. It appeared that one population can influence cell division and metabolic activities in neighboring populations. The barriers prevented any chemical influences and so information-bearing photons, rather than molecules, seem to the mechanism at work. If so, then at least two different frequencies are used in a fine-tuned electromagnetic communication system. As the paper concluded:

In the present study, three major experiments confirmed that separated populations of the ciliate Paramecium caudatum interact with each other through glass under conditions of complete darkness. A careful control showed that the interactions are due to conspecific cells and not to the medium containing bacteria. The mutual influence between the ciliates was found for cell division, growth correlation and energy uptake (vacuole formation).

Comparing these results with corresponding studies on onion roots, yeast cells, tissue cells and zygote-germination a major common feature appears: organisms (or isolated cells) can transmit information without the use of a molecular information carrier. The observed induction on growth, furthermore, hints at a universal property of growth regulation.

If the effects on cell division (growth) found in this and other studies reveal a common feature, we are obliged to accept that cells are not only a world of effective molecules but also a world of effective light.

And this electromagnetic communication system is so sophisticated we can’t even figure it out. We don’t know how the information is generated or how the photons are transmitted or received. Even just detecting the tiny energy fluctuations is incredibly difficult.

But rest assured, evolution created all of this. Which is to say, all of this just happened to arise by itself. That’s what evolutionist insist is a fact.

What science shows, on the other hand, is that evolution is a myth. Of course that was obvious all along. Let’s be perfectly clear. We can argue over many scientific details, but what is a fact is that evolutionists dogmatically make truth claims about things they don’t even understand and cannot explain. That’s called superstition.

164 comments:

  1. If they can not detect the signal how do they know it is originating within one of organisms? And how can they say the medium is light when the experiment is in the darkness? Why not hypothesize that this undetectable force, call it for instance 'the spirit', that sustains and nourishes life, originates in an extra-dimensional third party?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although these results are preliminary and may not withstand further investigation, there is precedent for this type of phenomenon. The author's introduction in the paper provides background as does the Wikipedia article on biophotons.

    See also bioluminescence:

    This night could use a little brightnin'
    Light up you little ol' bug of lightnin'
    When you gotta glow, you gotta glow.
    Glow little glow-worm, glow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH:
    "..but what is a fact is that evolutionists dogmatically make truth claims about things they don’t even understand and cannot explain. That’s called superstition.."

    Hey Cornelius, referring to latest NAS "formulations", you should update your typical final comment with this:

    Everything in biology makes more sense if not in the light of evolution.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/national_academ060571.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. The following study offers a bit deeper insight into the 'biophoton communication' of the cell:

    Bioactive peptide design using the Resonant Recognition Model - 2007
    Excerpt: There is evidence that proteins and DNA have certain conducting properties [12]. If so, then charges would be moving through the backbone of the macromolecule and passing through different energy stages caused by the different side groups of various amino acids or nucleotides. This process provides sufficient conditions for the emission of electromagnetic waves.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997124/

    Further note:

    The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another?
    Excerpt: More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions. ,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed.
    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moreover, besides 'biophotonic communication' of information within, and between, cells, there is also tantalizing evidence that quantum computation, which represents a even higher level of information processing that man hasn't even mastered yet, may very well be going on in cells:

      Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini & Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
      Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.
      http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/

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

      Quantum computation and Biophoton communication within, and between, the molecules of the cell would go a very long way as to explaining how the following finding is even possible:

      Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010
      Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm

      Delete
  5. Communication systems? It's not the same "stuff" SETI project is searching from decades just to have a confirmation about the presence of INTELLIGENCE in the outer space???

    Denying intelligence for this and other mind-blogging features it's really an "exercise of style", intellectually speaking..

    So sad..

    ReplyDelete
  6. And this electromagnetic communication system is so sophisticated we can’t even figure it out. We don’t know how the information is generated or how the photons are transmitted or received. Even just detecting the tiny energy fluctuations is incredibly difficult.

    So was detecting the neutrino, but scientists found them eventually

    But rest assured, evolution created all of this. Which is to say, all of this just happened to arise by itself. That’s what evolutionist insist is a fact.

    Strawman.

    Biologists insist the processes of evolution are an observable fact. The theory of evolution says nothing about how it all arose, it only describes what happened - and is still happening - after it started.

    We can argue over many scientific details, but what is a fact is that evolutionists dogmatically make truth claims about things they don’t even understand and cannot explain.

    Ah, I love the smell of straw in the morning!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian H Spedding:

      CH: "And this electromagnetic communication system is so sophisticated we can’t even figure it out. We don’t know how the information is generated or how the photons are transmitted or received. Even just detecting the tiny energy fluctuations is incredibly difficult."

      Ian Sp:

      So was detecting the neutrino, but scientists found them eventually

      Neutrinos are particles, with reasonably predictable characteristics. They are not a "communication system," nor are the byproduct of bioorganisms. This is a hapless rejoinder.

      CH: "But rest assured, evolution created all of this. Which is to say, all of this just happened to arise by itself. That’s what evolutionist insist is a fact."

      Ian Sp:

      Strawman.

      Biologists insist the processes of evolution are an observable fact.


      Then explain what produced this electomagnetic communication system.

      The theory of evolution says nothing about how it all arose, it only describes what happened - and is still happening - after it started.

      You've contradicted yourself: In the first part you claim that the "processes of evolution" are "observable fact", and then you turn around and say the theory of evolution "says nothing about how it all arose."

      You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      Darwinism, like Liberalism, is an assault on common sense. If you want to go crazy, fine; but don't drive the rest of us crazy.

      Delete
    2. OOH Yeah: Biologists insist the processes of evolution are an observable fact.

      Meaning "the processes" includes the construction of major novel features such as those discussed in the OP? I'm ready for the documentation of the "observable fact" which has actually been observed. Not interested in microevolved drug immunity or finches beaks, please.

      Delete
    3. MSEE

      OOH Yeah: Biologists insist the processes of evolution are an observable fact.

      Meaning "the processes" includes the construction of major novel features such as those discussed in the OP?


      Still too lazy to bother learning the basics I see. Not good, especially coming hard on the heels of you embarrassing yourself with the Creationist "what good is half an eye?" stupidity.

      Scientists have only been observing the processes in detail for a few centuries, and less than a century for things like genetics. Major events like you demand to see in real time take tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to complete. But the process is still observed working in real time, and the evidence for the long term effects of the process can be seen in real time.

      I'm ready for the documentation of the "observable fact" which has actually been observed.

      Here you go: observable evidence for the process.

      E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution

      I'm ready for the first Creationist to make a sensible demand and not one based on pathetic ignorance.

      Not interested in microevolved drug immunity or finches beaks, please.

      As before, of course you aren't interested in the actual science. You're a Creationist. All you want to do is bluster and remain willfully ignorant.

      Since you fancy yourself a genius and God's Gift to engineering: why don't you explain the magic barrier that prevents microevolutionary changes for accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones. Don't forget to supply your evidence.

      Delete
    4. Lino D'Ischia June 7, 2012 12:08 PM

      [...]

      So was detecting the neutrino, but scientists found them eventually

      Neutrinos are particles, with reasonably predictable characteristics. They are not a "communication system," nor are the byproduct of bioorganisms. This is a hapless rejoinder.


      Neutrinos are incredibly difficult to detect because they interact so rarely with other matter. We now know that billions of them, emanating from our Sun, are passing through very square centimetre of our bodies every second, yet we are completely unaware of them. Pauli first proposed the neutrino in 1930. It was 26 years before it was first detected. My "rejoinder" was apposite while yours is defeatist. If a phenomenon exists in that it has detectable effects then it will be observed even if it takes a long time.

      You've contradicted yourself: In the first part you claim that the "processes of evolution" are "observable fact", and then you turn around and say the theory of evolution "says nothing about how it all arose."

      No, there is no contradiction.

      An astronomer can observe our Sun, investigate its properties ansd develop a theory about the processes which keep it shining without necessarily having any knowledge about how it came into being. A biologist can observe how living things change over time and investigate the processes by which this happens without saying anything about how life itself originated. Evolution and abiogenesis are related topics but they are not the same thing.

      Darwinism, like Liberalism, is an assault on common sense. If you want to go crazy, fine; but don't drive the rest of us crazy.

      If you want a political analogy then neo-Paleyism is, like conservatism, a movement born of fear and immaturity. It is afraid of anything new because it might undermine comforting traditional - but probably delusional - certainties; it is immature because it seeks to perpetuate the apparently all-powerful and protective parent of childhood.

      Delete
    5. MSEE June 8, 2012 9:35 AM

      OOH Yeah: Biologists insist the processes of evolution are an observable fact.

      Meaning "the processes" includes the construction of major novel features such as those discussed in the OP? I'm ready for the documentation of the "observable fact" which has actually been observed. Not interested in microevolved drug immunity or finches beaks, please.


      For "major novel features" or new large animal species to emerge, the evolutionary processes must exist that allow those changes to occur. Antibiotic resistant bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, industrial melanism in the peppered moth and changes in finches beaks are all evidence that such processes exist. If you're not interested in them that's your choice but it suggests that you're not really interested in science either except where it supports your religious preconceptions.

      Delete
    6. Ian Spedding:

      If you want a political analogy then neo-Paleyism is, like conservatism, a movement born of fear and immaturity. It is afraid of anything new because it might undermine comforting traditional - but probably delusional - certainties; it is immature because it seeks to perpetuate the apparently all-powerful and protective parent of childhood.

      Conservatives appreciate wisdom. It appreciates the fact that human beings, using their God-given abilities to reason and to understand, can formulate ways of living that are "best". If it is resistant to change, it is because there is possibly more harm, than good, that will come from "change". President Obama has spent the last 3 and 1/2 years teaching us this lesson.

      Liberalism, on the other hand, is afraid of the truth. This is not only much worse, it is dangerous.

      The truth is is that God created the world, and that He will one day judge us. That scares the pants off of lots of people; so they deny God (and embrace Natural Selection---you can actually see this on cars. You know, the fish with Darwin inside). So, to deny truth---that is, that God exists---is the first step in becoming a liberal. This is the definition of being delusional.

      My "rejoinder" was apposite while yours is defeatist. If a phenomenon exists in that it has detectable effects then it will be observed even if it takes a long time.


      You have neither demonstrated that your statement is "apposite", or that mine is "defeatist". You've simply, again, avoided making a distinction between a simple particle system, and a highly complex system of communication.

      Who's "afraid of anything new because it might undermine comforting traditional - but probably delusional - certainties?

      You cling to Darwinism like it were a life-support system.

      A biologist can observe how living things change over time and investigate the processes by which this happens without saying anything about how life itself originated. Evolution and abiogenesis are related topics but they are not the same thing.

      The theory of evolution says nothing about how it all arose, it only describes what happened - and is still happening - after it started.

      So, you are agnostic when it comes to abiogenesis. You have NO theory. ID does. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for life.

      Now, Darwinists are always happy to say: "Well, if you think Darwinism is wrong, what's your theory? What are you going to replace it with?"

      So, Ian, if you think ID is wrong in saying that an intelligent agent brought life about, then if you think we're wrong, what are you going to replace our theory with?

      Putting your evasion on this point to the one side, Darwinism has demonstrated nothing. Avise isn't even current with the latest science. His whole notion of bacteria surviving because they develop resistance isn't quite right. Bacteria have been shown to maintain, in very low numbers, other bacteria in the colony which have no mutation to the stress-environment. It is something completely other than what NS is thought to bring about. It's a survival mechanism, no doubt; but it is not completely explainable simply on the grounds of NS.

      And this, of course, is your best shot. Even Behe was surprised at how little NS+Var. can actually do. But, you know, it's hard giving up "comforting tradition[s]."

      Delete
    7. Lino D'Ischia June 11, 2012 11:05 AM

      [...]

      Conservatives appreciate wisdom.


      Conservatives cling to tradition because it is safe and comforting and confuse that with wisdom.

      It appreciates the fact that human beings, using their God-given abilities to reason and to understand, can formulate ways of living that are "best".

      If human beings can reason to ways of living that are "best" what need do they have for a God to tell them the way. Further, if "best" includes morality then, yet again, there is no need for a god to tell us what is right and wrong.

      If it is resistant to change, it is because there is possibly more harm, than good, that will come from "change". President Obama has spent the last 3 and 1/2 years teaching us this lesson.

      Resistance to change where there is a clear need is, in itself, harmful. Resistance to change just because it comes from a political adversary is mean-minded and petty.

      Whatever we may think of President Obama (and I would prefer almost anyone who is not a Tea Party puppet), his health legislation was at least an attempt to address the appalling situation where one of the richest countries on Earth has around 45 million of its population who can't afford health care. Conservatives, of course, couldn't care less. For them it's all about survival of the fittest, which is odd, when you think about it, given their hatred of Darwinism.

      The truth is is that God created the world, and that He will one day judge us.

      In the Christian concept, God is held to be both omniscient and to exist outside our space and time. Being omniscient, he must have known exactly how we are made and, therefore, exactly how we would behave. Moreover, if he exists beyond our spacetime and is omniscient, He can see the whole history of the Universe, past, present and future, laid out before Him. He know everything we have done and everything we will do in the future. So how can He possibly judge us for behaving the way He made us to behave.

      And forget about free will as a defense because if God knows the future, as He must, then it is already settled, it is already there to be known and we have no choice is the matter.

      The truth is your concept of a god is incoherent to the point of absurdity.

      You cling to Darwinism like it were a life-support system.

      Actually, if by "Darwinism" you mean Darwin's original theory then that is now more of historical interest. The theory of evolution has been developed way beyond that and continues to, dare I say it, evolve.

      So, you are agnostic when it comes to abiogenesis.

      Basically, yes. There is no theory of abiogenesis equivalent to theories like evolution relativity.

      You have NO theory. ID does. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for life.

      No, you don't have a theory, you have a label. Your label is stuck over the place where an explanation should go and just says 'who' not 'how'. A scientific theory describes all that is known about something and provides a testable explanation of how it works. Your label says 'God' or 'Intelligent Designer' and that's all it says.

      Delete
  7. Don't get it. There's nothing in the study that indicates such a facility couldn't evolve.

    Cornelius Hunter: And this electromagnetic communication system is so sophisticated we can’t even figure it out.

    Is your argument, we don't understand it, therefore it didn't evolve? It's so sophisticated, it couldn't evolve? Because you aren't actually making an argument. You point at something and exclaim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggested that anything can evolve? It seems to me that there is no limits to this "process".

      Delete
    2. Happy Kenesin

      Are you suggested that anything can evolve? It seems to me that there is no limits to this "process"


      That's not what was said at all. It's merely being pointed out that personal incredulity is not considered a valid scientific reason for rejecting research results.

      The creationist on this blog specialized in the arguments from personal incredulity, but none of them can ever give valid technical reasons for rejecting overarching evolutionary theory. And none of them ever offer any serious alternatives. No Louis, "the Elohim designed us" isn't a serious scientific alternative.

      Delete
    3. Happy Kenesin: Are you suggested that anything can evolve? It seems to me that there is no limits to this "process".

      Absolutely not. Out of the universe of possible organic forms, the far vast majority could never evolve. And of those that could have evolved, only the tiniest sliver has evolved.

      However, we know of many well-established examples of evolutionary transitions, and we can reconstruct much of the history of evolution. We don't abandon a well-established theory because of a gap in that history (unless you are claiming it couldn't possibly have evolved). It would be like not believing gravity applies on the far side of the Moon because you haven't been there, or that Caesar really was a descendent of Venus, as he claimed, because of a gap in his known genealogy.

      Delete
    4. Zach:
      "There's nothing in the study that indicates such a facility couldn't evolve."

      There's even "nothing in the study that indicates" that violet little men live in my backyard, but that doesn't present a confirmation of it..

      Evolution of a quantum communication system by means of natural selection and random mutation?!?!? Are you dreaming?

      Can you please explain how did the first NON DELETERIOUS nucleotide mutation of this change in the past did confer a net advantage in the organism for wich occurred and for the selection that selected it?!?!?

      Remember: I'm not saying the advantage for the complete, fully developed feature, but for THE FIRST nucleotide single mutation.

      Or are you assume that it was a macro-100-nucleotides mutation, all in once?

      Delete
    5. The Winkler: There's even "nothing in the study that indicates" that violet little men live in my backyard, but that doesn't present a confirmation of it.

      The study wasn't about evolution or violet little men, so it is not surprising that it doesn't address those issues. Cornelius Hunter introduced the issue.

      The Winkler: Can you please explain how did the first NON DELETERIOUS nucleotide mutation of this change in the past did confer a net advantage in the organism for wich occurred and for the selection that selected it?!?!?

      Phototransduction is very ancient, long before the origin of trilobites. For instance, opsin, found throughout metazoa, is thought to have evolved from a non-photosensitive protein coupled receptor. See,

      Shichida & Matsuyama, Evolution of opsins and phototransduction, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 2009.

      You seem to be arguing God of the Gaps. Please reread our comment and try to address it.

      Delete
    6. Zach:

      "Phototransduction is very ancient, long before the origin of trilobites."

      And this fact would give evolution less and less time to developed it through ipotetic "chance and necessity" macro mechanisms..

      "..For instance, opsin, found throughout metazoa, is thought to have evolved from a non-photosensitive protein coupled receptor.."

      Ok, but something that is "..thought to have evolved.." by a lobby of scientists that have a ideological conflinct of interest on the issue doesn't add much evidences..

      A matters of [biased] opinions.

      "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 2009"

      °__°

      We're talking about philosopy here?

      :)

      Thanks anyway for the link, I'll look at it..

      "You seem to be arguing God of the Gaps."

      No, I'm just arguing an intelligent design and the implausibility of a materialistic random mechanism behind the life.

      The answer is epigenetic effects, interpreted ad "evolution" of information.

      http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1637.full

      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953

      Delete
    7. The Winkler: Ok, but something that is "..thought to have evolved.." by a lobby of scientists that have a ideological conflinct of interest on the issue doesn't add much evidences.

      In other words, you will simply pretend the evidence isn't there, even though, or especially because, it directly addresses your objection above.

      The Winkler: We're talking about philosopy here?

      Oh gee whiz. The 'Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge' was established in 1660. At the time, systematic study of natural phenomena, including biology, was called natural philosophy.

      Delete
    8. The Winkler

      Can you please explain how did the first NON DELETERIOUS nucleotide mutation of this change in the past did confer a net advantage in the organism for wich occurred and for the selection that selected it?!?!?


      Oh dear, another ignorant Creationist who's never heard of neutral genetic drift.

      Delete
  8. Zach:
    "There's nothing in the study that indicates such a facility couldn't evolve"

    Yes, the same just-so speculations.

    A communication system developed by selection & mutation? Are you dreaming?

    Exactly what could be the advantage in the environment that a communication can give straight to the organism that casually had the first NON DELETERIOUS mutation of his hypothetic structure?

    Remember: not the advantage ***once the system came up**, fully functioning, but the very first net gain of the very first casual mutation.

    How did the selection select that organism with the first mutation?

    Or you assume a mega nucleotides mutation of about 100 point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you really want to learn, Winkler, you might start with the following review:

      Bioluminescence in the Sea

      http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-081028

      Delete
    2. Thank you Pedant for the kind indication.

      BTW, I'm wondering what exactly make you think that I need to learn about this issue or that I don't really want to..

      Maybe a fine veil of prejudice based upon my statements?

      Delete
  9. Different day, same script:

    1. CH finds an interesting bit of research, loudly proclaims his personal incredulity: "ZOMG it's sooooo complex, it couldn't have evolved!! Since science doesn't know everything yet, that means it knows nothing!!"

    2. Batspit, talking to himself, posts 10,000+ words of off topic C&Ped drivel

    3. Several drive-by Creationists join the Hallelujah! chorus.

    4. Knowledgeable science folks just shake their heads.

    Same as it ever was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Several drive-by Creationists join the Hallelujah! chorus.

      Thorton, I feel sorry for you because,,,

      Atheists Don't Have No Songs - Steve Martin - First Atheist Hymnal - song
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFWA1A9XFi8

      Thorton, on the serious side, Perhaps you can relate more deeply with this following Hallelujah song since it may be more 'real' for you:

      Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen) - Allison Crowe live performance
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIMOdVXAPJ0

      Delete
  10. Of related note; Going up to the macro scale we also find electro-magnetic communication:

    Dr. Cornelius Hunter: Evidence Against Darwinian Evolution in the Hammerhead Shark - podast
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-04-27T16_11_33-07_00

    Recent Hammerhead Shark Research Shows Several, Independent Lines of Evidence Against Evolution
    Excerpt: It’s aerodynamic head, or cephalofoil, is a unique design, not only providing lift while swimming, but a platform for a distributed sensor suite, complete with widely spaced eyes and an array of electromagnetic sensors providing triangulation with superior binocular vision and electromagnetic tracking of prey, detecting extremely weak electrical signals arising from molecules in their prey.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/recent-hammerhead-shark-research-shows.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ooops, sorry for the double post, I received a server error page so I thought that my post wasn't "passed..

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pedant, the paper is very interesting, even it contains the same idolatrical "god-of-the-gaps" rethoric of the "evo-believer".

    Nonetheless, I'll surely read it in the future because is fascinating.

    Though the point is always the same: the protein is highly conserved, right?

    We're talking about some >500 aa for a firefly's luciferase..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protein_Structure.jpg

    I wonder how can you pretend that the corresponding gene can evolve just considering, for example, that (i) is extremely conserved, so it's "selection" goes back in the deep past and (ii) it's so big, multi-domain regulated and chemical-physical-mechanical "intertwined" with compounds and other cascade of proteins..

    All of this by means of small changes with no maladaptive intermediates but, indeed, useful and beneficial changes at the rate of 1 or 2 (maybe 3?) nucleotide for generation..

    And set aside, for the moment, the quantum communication system...

    That's would be something intersting and enlightening to learn about evolution, Pedant..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .."god-of-the-gaps"..

      Sorry, I meant to write "chance-of-the-gaps"...

      :D

      Delete
    2. The Winkler: All of this by means of small changes with no maladaptive intermediates but, indeed, useful and beneficial changes at the rate of 1 or 2 (maybe 3?) nucleotide for generation.

      You seem to be arguing that because there are gaps in the understanding of certain historical transitions, therefore evolution didn't happen. Though there are plenty of examples of well-established transitions, it's often difficult to untangle such ancient transitions. However, this directly addresses your question.

      Prado et al., Structural evolution of luciferase activity in Zophobas mealworm AMP/CoA-ligase (protoluciferase) through site-directed mutagenesis of the luciferin binding site, Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences 2010: "here we performed a site-directed mutagenesis survey of the carboxylic binding site motifs of the protoluciferase by replacing their residues by the respective conserved ones found in beetle luciferases in order to identify the structural determinants of luciferase/oxygenase activity. Although most of the substitutions had negative impact on the luminescence activity of the protoluciferase, only the substitution I327T improved the luminescence activity, resulting in a broad and 15 nm blue-shifted luminescence spectrum. Such substitution indicates the importance of the loop motif 322YGMSEI327 (341YGLTETT347 in Photinus pyralis luciferase) for luciferase activity, and indicates a possible route for the evolution of bioluminescence function of beetle luciferases."

      Keep in mind that you are arguing to gaps that inevitably shrink as more is learned.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, let me read it and I'll reply..

      Delete
    4. as to 'indicates a possible route for the evolution of bioluminescence function of beetle luciferases'

      Well if it is even possible, no matter how remote, (or disconnected from reality) then according to materialistic/atheistic thinking, it must of happened by purely random material processes in which God played no part. How can they possibly make such sweeping claims with no solid proof? because their religion absolutely demands it!

      The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site
      Excerpt: The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
      http://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist

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

      Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism - 60 Minutes - CBS News - video
      http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395214n&tag=re1.channel

      Quote of note at the 12:00 minute mark of the preceding video;
      'The whole randomness thing, that's like completely against all of physics'
      Jake Barnett - Math Prodigy

      Delete
    5. Further notes on 'chance of the gaps':

      Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011
      Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
      In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
      This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
      http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

      Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012
      Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html

      Delete
    6. bornagain77 Well if it is even possible, no matter how remote, (or disconnected from reality) ...

      It has to be reasonably consistent with what is known, or be able to explain the discrepancies.

      bornagain77 then according to materialistic/atheistic thinking, it must of happened by purely random material processes

      No. They are proposing a testable hypothesis, and marshaling evidence in support of that hypothesis, as opposed to say, handwaving.

      bornagain77 in which God played no part.

      God's existence or non-existence is not mentioned in the paper, and doesn't appear directly relevant to the study.

      bornagain77 How can they possibly make such sweeping claims with no solid proof?

      They are proposing a testable hypothesis, meaning a testable claim with tentative support, as opposed to say, handwaving.

      In particular, they answer the specific question raised by The Winkler.

      Delete
    7. Zach, handwaving??? Atheistic neo-Darwinists are, without even a close second, the reigning all time masters of handwaving!!! For instance when one points out that the vast majority of mutations are slightly detrimental and will spread throughout any given population far faster than any hypothetical unambiguous beneficial mutation can ever hope to become fixated in a population, the atheistic neo-Darwinists act as if this established fact does not even exist and go on pretending in their make-believe world that everything evolved.

      notes:

      “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
      Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
      http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

      Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:

      Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00

      Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

      DNA Degeneration: Top Population Geneticists agree neo-Darwinism is not supported by the data – John Sanford
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEkqwOXE5U

      Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

      Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
      Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
      http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf
      MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
      http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net

      Delete
    8. Winkler, you're on the right track, but be careful. If you continue on this course, you might lose your faith in supernatural causation of everything in our universe.

      Delete
    9. Why you seem so sure of it?

      :)

      "It's a long road"...Do you remember Jonh Rambo?

      Delete
    10. bornagain77: Atheistic neo-Darwinists are, without even a close second, the reigning all time masters of handwaving!!!

      The study included work with site-directed mutagenesis. Handwaving is when you sit in your chair and wave the study away without consideration.

      bornagain77: For instance when one points out that the vast majority of mutations are slightly detrimental and will spread throughout any given population far faster than any hypothetical unambiguous beneficial mutation can ever hope to become fixated in a population, the atheistic neo-Darwinists act as if this established fact does not even exist and go on pretending in their make-believe world that everything evolved.

      Who are these atheistic neo-Darwinists that rile you so? The Behe paper doesn't seem to support your claim. Do you have a citation?

      Delete
    11. Zach you say"

      "The Behe paper doesn't seem to support your claim."

      and yet the title of the article states:

      “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010

      Apparently you missed the title. Do you want me to darken it for you?

      The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain

      Better?

      Delete
    12. bornagain77: The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain

      But that wasn't the claim. You said that slightly detrimental mutation will spread through a population faster than a beneficial mutation, saying it was an established fact.

      Delete
    13. You doubt that slightly detrimental mutations are shown to spread throughout the population faster than beneficial mutations in Behe's study. Exactly how do you reason that? The study showed that the vast majority of mutations in laboratory experiments going back 4 decades were slightly detrimental! Are you trying to say that these slightly detrimental mutations, say in Lenski's LTEE did not spread throughout the population? Perhaps if you believe as such you should write Lenski and correct him for stating as such! Myself, I just take your denial of facts in evidence as further evidence of how blatantly dishonest you are!

      Further notes:

      Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010
      Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies

      The Frailty of the Darwinian Hypothesis
      Excerpt: "The net effect of genetic drift in such (vertebrate) populations is “to encourage the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discourage the promotion of beneficial mutations,”,,, "natural selection is not strong enough to guarantee that (hypothetical) beneficial mutations will eventually become fixed (universal) in a population or that weakly harmful mutations will be eliminated.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/the_frailty_of_the_darwinian_h.html#more

      Delete
    14. bornagain77: You doubt that slightly detrimental mutations are shown to spread throughout the population faster than beneficial mutations in Behe's study.

      Study? You mean review? In any case, we were working off your excerpt. We may be missing something. The paper is rather long-winded. Where does it say that slightly detrimental mutations spread faster than beneficial mutations? Are you confusing this with traits that have both beneficial and detrimental effects?

      bornagain77: Are you trying to say that these slightly detrimental mutations, say in Lenski's LTEE did not spread throughout the population?

      Detrimental mutations certainly can spread through a population, even become fixed. But that's not what you said. You said they spread faster than beneficial mutations, which is generally not the case on average.

      bornagain77: The study showed that the vast majority of mutations in laboratory experiments going back 4 decades were slightly detrimental!

      Most mutations are neutral. Behe's paper is arguing that beneficial mutations occur primarily from breaking or blunting an existing gene, though he admits there are counterexamples, and considers this just a rule of thumb.

      But, please, point out exactly where in the paper you are reading that. We may have missed it.

      Delete
    15. Zach since you are the one with the issue of being dishonest with the evidence, perhaps you can and take your own advice and do appropriate research before making sweeping false claims like you do. For instance, you claim most mutations are neutral but the fact is that most mutations are now shown to be slightly detrimental!

      Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
      Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html

      Myself, I'm content to let what you have written so far testify to sheer absurdity that IDists have to put up with from Neo-Darwinists in regards to their blatant, and apparently purposeful, dishonesty towards the evidence.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. bornagain77: For instance, you claim most mutations are neutral but the fact is that most mutations are now shown to be slightly detrimental!

      The study you cited concerned only ribosomal proteins in bacteria, which are highly optimized. Even synonymous substitutions can affect the rate of transcription. This may not be true in other areas of the genome or in non-bacterial organisms. Here's the actual paper:

      Lind, Berg & Andersson. Mutational Robustness of Ribosomal Protein Genes, Science, 2010.

      You didn't answer the question, though. You had said, slightly detrimental mutations are shown to spread throughout the population faster than beneficial mutations in Behe's study. We simply asked you where is this in Behe's paper?

      bornagain77: Myself, I'm content to let what you have written so far testify to sheer absurdity that IDists have to put up with from Neo-Darwinists in regards to their blatant, and apparently purposeful, dishonesty towards the evidence.

      What's absurd about asking a question?

      Delete
  13. Can someone please explain how not knowing how something works, in detail, indicates it was designed?

    For example, is the inability to know how something works a trait of all designed things or just those designed by supernatural beings?

    If the latter, wouldn't this imply that inexplicability is a trait of supernatural designers? If not, then exactly how does the inexplicability of anything indicate design?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Scott, you're on the wrong track..

      As Meyer puts it, "..This is not a god-of-the-gaps argument..but rather a positive argument, based on our uniform and repeated experience of cause-and-effect. ***It is not based on what we don't know, but on what we do know***: that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information. The design inference is based on sound and conventional scientific methodology. It utilizes the historical or abductive method and infers to the best explanation from multiple competing hypotheses.." the same, I humbly add, used by a certain guy known a Charles Darwin.

      Delete
    2. TheWinkler: No Scott, you're on the wrong track..

      Then what is the relevance of it in Cornelius' post, other than hand waving?

      TheWinkler: As Meyer puts it, "..This is not a god-of-the-gaps argument..but rather a positive argument, based on our uniform and repeated experience of cause-and-effect. ***It is not based on what we don't know, but on what we do know***: that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information.

      So, if I understand you correctly, it's based on your pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge?

      But, as I've pointed out before, that's a parochial argument in that it ignores other forms of epistemology.

      Delete
    3. The relevance is that the more complex a biological mechanism is, the harder are the likelihood that this process can raise by means of blind, random processes.

      It's not just a statistical argument, because the numbers involved are a matter of "possible" or "impossible", as you probably know..

      And don't start to say that RM & NS aren't random, because NAS says something different..

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/national_academ060571.html

      It isn't an authoritative conception of human knowledge but an occam's razor type of logical reasoning, based upon our common experience of cause & effect, that you can check every day..

      The same as SETI does with outer space signal..

      If I can quote Meyer again, "..In so doing, it deliberately employs a standard method
      of historical scientific reasoning, one that Darwin himself affirmed and
      partly pioneered in the Origin of Species. The method, variously described as
      the method of multiple competing hypotheses or the method of inferring to
      the best explanation, necessarily requires an examination of the main competing
      hypotheses that scientists have proposed to explain a given event in
      the remote past. Following Darwin and his scientific mentor Lyell, historical
      scientists have understood that best explanations typically cite causes that
      are known from present experience to be capable, indeed uniquely capable, of
      producing the effect in question.."

      So ToE hypotheses about the evolution must win against the logical and common experience explanation that derive from the observation of something behind which there's intelligence (a painting, a sculpture, a coded message), especially when these things can't evolve simply by a single or a double point mutation that doesn't confer advantage but are only a small part of the what the transition would have required (i.e., the difference between homologues enzimes sequence).

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. TheWinkler: The relevance is that the more complex a biological mechanism is, the harder are the likelihood that this process can raise by means of blind, random processes.

      Are you suggesting the lack of a good theory of how something works is an indication of complexity? But that assumes there is some way to mechanically derive theories using observations. Therefore, if we cannot explain something, it's because what we're observing must be complex?

      However, the evidence for Newton's laws of motion have been falling on every square meter of the earth's surface for billions of years, including the span of the entire existence of human beings. Yet, we only got around to testing Newton's laws about 300 years ago. Furthermore, the concept of Newton's laws are actually quite simple. He conjectured a single explanation for the movement of falling apples and orbiting planets. It was devising a way to test that theory and apply it that was complex.

      In other words, it's not clear that not having conjectured a good explanation for something necessitates it being complex, because it's not evidence that is scarce, but good conjectures that explains that evidence. In addition, in many cases, progress takes the form of integrating two or more complex theories into a single, simpler theory.

      So, again, "we don't' even know how it works" appears to be handwaving.

      Delete
    6. Winkler
      "And don't start to say that RM & NS aren't random, because NAS says something different."


      From paper cited
      Natural selection: Greater reproductive success among particular members of a species arising from genetically determined characteristics that confer an advantage in a particular environment.

      Non random per NAS

      Delete
    7. TheWinkler: It's not just a statistical argument, because the numbers involved are a matter of "possible" or "impossible", as you probably know.

      It seems we've shifted gears here from the relevance to "we don't' even know how it works" , to observed complexity. If so, it's unclear how numbers are meaningful in this case as the results you would get depend on which explanatory theory you're using to extrapolate observations. Specifically, we do not get theories from evidence.

      ...Evidence doesn’t imply that any particular theory is right. So whenever a person claims to have got a theory from evidence what he actually did was come up with a conjecture that explained the evidence.

      So, your augment is parochial in that it claims the numbers came directly from evidence, when they were really based on a particular explanation of that evidence. For example, the calculation would change significantly if one assumed a specific feature we observe was pre-elected before hand by a designer. It also assumes there is only one kind of unknowability and that it's applicable in the case of a process that creates knowledge. So, a parochial argument is one that is narrow in scope.

      TheWinkler: And don't start to say that RM & NS aren't random, because NAS says something different..

      A misrepresentation of RM &NS from evolutionnews.org isn't a good way to start an argument.

      For example, if you roll a six sided die that isn't loaded, you'll get a random number between one and six. That you only get numbers in this range is not random because the die only has six sides labeled 1-6.

      Now, imagine you mutate the die by randomly add another side with a random number, but do so in a way that the die is evenly weighted for each side. Note how this represents a different kind of unknowability. Specifically, you couldn't have predicted what the odds were of rolling a specific number before the addition because the additional face hadn't been randomly added yet. But, again, the fact that rolling this die gives us a number number between 1-6 or the number on the randomly added face number isn't random. Now imagine you repeat this process several times, etc.

      TheWinkler: It isn't an authoritative conception of human knowledge but an occam's razor type of logical reasoning, based upon our common experience of cause & effect, that you can check every day..

      I sense you're still haven't grasped the connection here. Specifically, your conception of human knowledge includes the level of complexity involved in how humans create knowledge, the role knowledge plays in designing things, whether knowledge is actually created or has always existed, etc.

      For example, how was the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, as found in the genome, created? Unless you explain this origin of this knowledge, all you've done is push the problem into some inexplicable realm.

      Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit that explanation.

      Delete
  14. Sorry Zach but I can't read the paper you quote from here..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21505686

    Do you have a free link or something else?

    The abstract isn't enough for me (and it would be sad if it wuold be enough for you)..:(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yesssss, a library...

      Therefore, you can't use a citation if I can't use it to answer you..

      Can you quote something else?

      Delete
    2. What became of the Christian work ethic?

      Delete
    3. Huh?

      Starting to take the "ad hominen" way?

      Delete
    4. Winkler,

      That is a handy rule.

      Delete
    5. The Winkler: Can you quote something else?

      Luciferase is a member of a large family of related enzymes. It's thought that luciferase evolved from an ancestral acyl-CoA synthetase as firefly luciferase retains this activity. Does that help?

      Delete
    6. Prado et al. mutated a proposed protoluciferase to determine whether it might result in increased bioluminescence. It did. While, this doesn't show this is what happened historically, it does demonstrate a possible evolutionary route. The study addresses your specific question above.

      Delete
    7. You EVOtist, always the same flaws in reasoning...

      "Prado et al. mutated a proposed protoluciferase to determine whether it might result in increased bioluminescence"

      Exactly, Prado et al....One and other several INTELLIGEN BEINGS tha modified INTELLIGENTLY a protein, after months of study and attempts with INTELLIGENTLY controlled experiments...

      A-R-E Y-O-U K-I-D-D-I-N-G?!?!

      Whats the pertinency of this example? Do you want to demonstrate the evolvability of a protein trough natural RM & NS by showing what a group of professional scientist can do of it????

      Extreme sadness...:(

      Something better?

      Delete
    8. The Winkler: Exactly, Prado et al....One and other several INTELLIGEN BEINGS tha modified INTELLIGENTLY a protein, after months of study and attempts with INTELLIGENTLY controlled experiments...

      They mutated a plausible protoluciferase in order to determine whether bioluminescence was within in range of mutation. A single mutation was responsible for improved the luminescence activity. You had suggested otherwise when you said, "The relevance is that the more complex a biological mechanism is, the harder are the likelihood that this process can raise by means of blind, random processes."

      Delete
  15. bornagain77 quoted from an excerpt "...and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state."
    I have been following similar and related developments in the field of physics led by physicist Frank Znidarsic addressing this very same phenomenon, the phenomenon of multiple atoms being harnessed together in a single quantum state. Please see http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4050 from the General Science Journal website.
    The name being given to the process of achieving a single quantum state is "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" or LEN reaction. Mr. Znidarsic updated his article just this last April, 2012. It is a facilitating read. There is no biophyics in the article.
    Progress in this field appears to be in the making very rapidly and it is ASTOUNDING to see discoveries of the phenomenon in the biological area (nothing of which makes sense in the darkness of evolution).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Red Reader, of a somewhat related note did you see this new proof for quantum mechanics that just came out?

      Breaking the limits of classical physics - June 2012
      Excerpt: In the quantum world objects can also have a position and a velocity, but not at the same time. At the atomic level, quantum mechanics says that nature behaves quite differently than you might think. It is not just that we do not know the position and the velocity, rather, these two things simply do not exist simultaneously.,,, In classical physics, light possesses both an electric and a magnetic field. “What our study demonstrated was that light can have both an electric and a magnetic field, but not at the same time. We thus provide a simple proof that an experiment breaks the classical principles. That is to say, we showed light possesses quantum properties, and we can expand this to other systems as well” says Eran Kot.
      http://phys.org/news/2012-06-limits-classical-physics.html

      ------------

      Red Reader, I don't know if you like metal, but here are a couple of songs for you from a group named "Red":

      Red - Breathe Into Me
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH-k_6tU9Wc

      Red - Feed The Machine
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2uZO7xnus

      Delete
    2. Progressive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HcT459lEg8&feature=relmfu
      Actually do read Zndarsic http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4050.
      One of his corollaries is that quantum mechanics is a subset of classical physics and not the other way round.... Low energy nuclear reactions of the kind Gretchen discussed in the link you posted (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/) can be understood entirely in Newtonian terms. In classical terms, he derives Plank's constant, Einstein's photo-electric effect E = hf/t

      Delete
    3. Red as to

      'One of his corollaries is that quantum mechanics is a subset of classical physics and not the other way round'

      I disagree. I think the following makes clear as to why classical is a subset of quantum:

      LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011
      Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics.
      http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf

      Delete
  16. What a waste of time and brain, ID goes down the toilet with no help, let them just disappear by their lies, because of people like them USA is in the state it is now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'because of people like them USA is in the state it is now.'

      Are you referring to the horrendous 1,200,000 abortions in America each year? Or the state of American education? Neither can be attributed to Christians, much less to ID. But they can be attributed to the growing secularization of America!

      Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011
      Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
      http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html

      The following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:

      The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930

      You can see that dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site;

      Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report
      http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html

      I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time

      United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy)
      http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

      AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth
      http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

      What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig - May 2012 - podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960's)
      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism

      At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA - graph
      http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544765_158500824274847_129232723868324_100415_1654573487_n.jpg

      Delete
  17. CEP 2007study:
    When the report's authors compared students of similar socioeconomic status at private, public and parochial high schools, they found that:

    Achievement scores on reading, math, science and history were the same;
    Students were equally likely to attend college whether they had graduated from a public or private school;
    Young adults at age 26 were equally likely to report being satisfied with their jobs whether they had graduated from a public or private school;
    Young adults at age 26 were equally likely to engage in civic activity whether they had graduated from a public or private school.
    There was, however, one important area in which private school students did excel: SAT scores. Students in private schools performed consistently better on the test than public school students.
    The second exception that the study found was limited to a very specific type of private school. Catholic schools that are run by holy orders, such as the Jesuits, did show consistently positive academic effects. However, this is a relatively small percentage of parochial schools, since the majority of Catholic institutions are run by a local diocese rather than a holy order.

    Prayers apparently only matter if the Jesuits are leading them

    ReplyDelete
  18. HMMM, "There was, however, one important area in which private school students did excel: SAT scores. Students in private schools performed consistently better on the test than public school students."

    Interesting that the SAT scores for private Christian schools stayed at exactly the same level they were at in 1963 (which happened to be equal to the SAT scores of public schools at that time) while the public schools, where prayer was removed, showed the decline. i.e. You have ignored the elephant in the living room once again

    Note as to your study:

    Do private schools educate children better than public schools?
    Excerpt: The results of education testing seems to show mixed results on the question of whether private schools educate children better. The results of the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress tests showed that private school students achieved higher scores at all three grade levels tested. However, a 2007 Center on Education Policy study found that once socioeconomic factors are corrected when assessing test results, private school students didn't perform any better than public school students. Basically, this study says that students who did well on the standardized tests would have done well regardless of whether they attended a private or public school. However, moving past the dueling tests and studies, what's clear is that private school students have better SAT scores, and better college admission and graduation rates, regardless of socioeconomic level.
    http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/private-schools-educate-public-schools

    Huge Red Flag goes up for me when the researchers of the study are allowed to 'correct' (i.e. to adjust) test results. Smells like the study was ripe for bias to me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But hey vel think about it, according to the relentless propaganda of atheists Christianity should have a negative impact on science and education, but as I've listed previously, America had a revival of faith during its rise to scientific preeminence in the world, as well we find that,

      Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011
      Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html

      Christianity sure doesn't sound anti-science, anti-education, to me! In fact if we dig deeper into this we find that the structure of reality itself reflects the Judeo-Christian (Theistic) presuppositions that led to the founding of science, and falsifies the materialistic presupposition at the base of the atheistic worldview.

      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

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

      Thus vel, you have one study, that I find reasonable to question the impartiality of, that maintains that public schools are merely 'almost' as equal to private Christin schools, whereas I have the founding of modern science itself, confirmed by the structure of reality itself, as well as the 'uncorrected' studies, telling me that a Christian education is superior. Go figure! And your point was what vel?

      Notes:

      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

      Delete
    2. Hnmmm, not exactly,private non religious schools did better as well.So religion didn't matter,unless you are an alumni of Jesuit education. Of course one might be lacking religious fervor and attend such an institution, I guarantee.

      Delete
    3. True BA,what possible advantage might a private school which is able to select its students have over a public school which is required to educate every child. And of course no one would think that socioeconomic factors could play a role in a child's performance.

      Why are just the SAT affected by prayer,BA?

      Delete
    4. My point is your proof is not proof. And now I expect you will ask if I understand quantum physics as a response.

      Delete
    5. vel, it seems your willingness to defend and believe a single study, that admits 'adjusting test scores', i.e. that 'corrected' test scores, and as if your study unambiguously showed that public schools performed 'almost' as well as private schools with prayer, is born out from your personal prejudice. Why should I put any confidence in that one study that contradicted previous studies and neglected the elephant in the living room of SAT's falling only for public schools after the removal of prayer when they openly admitted to changing the test scores of students to what they personally felt to be a more fair rendering? I don't know the political motives of the people behind the study, but this study, by itself, has fishy written all over it.,,, Moreover, it seems that their 'adjustment of test scores' did not translate to SATs. Moreover, to further bear out your personal prejudice in all this, you ignore the point that modern science was born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and that the structure of reality itself reflects that Judeo-Christian worldview.,,, With such unexamined partisanship on your part it seems you missed you calling as a politician.

      Delete
    6. 'And now I expect you will ask if I understand quantum physics as a response.'

      Well, as a matter of fact vel, quantum mechanics does reflect the exact structure to reality that we would expect to see if prayer really did have a positive effect on education, as I hold, and is very antagonistic to the atheistic position that prayers are futile. For one consciousness is shown to be foundational to reality:

      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

      Here is another experiment that reflects consciousness's central role in quantum mechanics,

      Eugene Wigner
      Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
      http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm

      and here is Wigner commenting on the implications of the findings of the experiment;

      "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'

      Delete
    7. Here is what the founder of Quantum Mechanics himself said:

      “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).

      Moreover, besides consciousness having a central role in reality, as revealed by quantum mechanics, it is found that physical reality itself reduces to 'information';

      "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin."
      John Archibald Wheeler

      Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
      Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
      http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf

      Delete
    8. Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything (life, consciousness, information etc. etc.) reduced to, or emerged from a base of material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found, by science, to be as follows:

      material particles reduces to energy
      energy reduces to information
      information reduces to consciousness

      Thus vel, the structure of reality itself reflects exactly what we would expect to see if prayer is truly effective as Christians maintain it is, and the structure of reality is completely antagonistic to the materialistic/atheistic belief that reality could care less about us.

      Further note:

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

      Delete
  19. ...and so yet another thread degenerates into batspit77 posting the exact same C&Ped woo and talking to himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to encourage him but sometimes it is too hard to resist. Probably doesn't affect the output very much anyway

      Delete
    2. The insufferable pomposity of evolutionists is the primary reason that they have such a hard time gaining converts. Nothing puts people off more than an annoying superiority complex. If your shit is good, it will be accepted. A condescending attitude is a sure sign that it isn't.

      Delete
    3. The arrogance and pomp of atheists in the face of all evidence that completely undermines their atheistic worldview is completely insane. Such stubborn arrogance and pomp in denying the overwhelming evidence for the reality of God reminds me of the passage of scripture:

      Isaiah 14

      9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
      10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
      11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
      12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
      13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
      14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
      15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

      --

      Music:

      Creed - Bullet
      http://www.youtube.com/v/KtCHFLMRX78&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1

      Flyleaf - Chasm (Living Water)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-BvOuE7wfw

      Kingdom Of God Vs. Kingdom Of Darkness
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060606

      Delete
    4. Louis Savain

      The insufferable pomposity of evolutionists is the primary reason that they have such a hard time gaining converts. Nothing puts people off more than an annoying superiority complex. If your **** is good, it will be accepted. A condescending attitude is a sure sign that it isn't.


      Guess what Louis: ToE is accepted by virtually all (over 99.9%) of evolutionary scientists - those who actually study and work in the field. It must be good then, right?

      Nothing puts people off more than an annoying superiority complex.

      Like Larry Bird said, "if you can do it, then it isn't bragging." Science can do it - back up our theory with hard empirical evidence. You Creationists can't.

      Delete
    5. 'Guess what Louis: ToE is accepted by virtually all (over 99.9%) of evolutionary scientists'

      appeal to authority?

      Hmmm, 'Guess what Thorton: Intelligent Design is accepted by 100% of Intelligent Design scientists - those who actually study and work in the field.' Moreover the vast majority of the ID scientists work at a fraction of the salary of evolutionary scientists, from private donations, whereas a substantial portion of evolutionary scientists work off tax dollars from the public. A tax dollars of the majority of the public that don't buy neo-Darwinism. Moreover, the effects of neo-Darwinism on science and society have been negative;

      Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096

      "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

      Neo-Darwinism’s negative effect on science and society
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lwdaq8r5K0JbzNtTU4-UqB3t-giK2-hUlsFrNDiJ7Ok/edit

      Whereas, the effects of presupposing superior design in nature and life, i.e. Intelligent Design, on science and society have been positive;

      "Biomimetics and the Positive Implications for Intelligent Design" - September 2011
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-09-23T15_43_04-07_00

      Breakthroughs in Biomimetics:
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tkj9oE8yTSfetoVdim76qevCnz56u0i2CFfvtc62BMA/edit

      Are Religious People Happier Than Atheists?
      Excerpt: there does indeed appear to be a link between religion and happiness. Several studies have been done, but to give an example, one study found that the more frequently people attended religious events, the happier they were; 47% of people who attended several types a week reported that they were ‘very happy’, as opposed to 28% who attended less than monthly.
      In practical terms, religious people have the upper hand on atheists in several other areas. They drink and smoke less, are less likely to abuse drugs, and they stay married longer. After a stressful even like bereavement, unemployment, or illness, those who worship don’t take it as hard and recover faster. All of the above are likely to be beneficial to a person’s happiness. Additionally, religious people, as a result of their beliefs, have a greater sense of meaning, purpose and hope in their lives.
      http://generallythinking.com/are-religious-people-happier-than-atheists/

      Gallup Poll of 676,000 shows the most religious Americans have highest well-being - February 2012
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/religion/gallup-poll-of-676000-shows-the-most-religious-americans-have-highest-well-being/

      (Largest) Study in Prestigious Journal Shows Abortion harms women’s mental health
      http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/09/study-in-prestigious-journal-shows-abortion-harms-women%E2%80%99s-mental-health/

      Delete
    6. Thorton, why don't you try to read his quotes or maybe to answer his questions?

      Maybe because it's easier to attack him than to respond to his reasoning and points?

      Delete
  20. Scott:
    "..Are you suggesting the lack of a good theory of how something works is an indication of complexity? But that assumes there is some way to mechanically derive theories using observations. Therefore, if we cannot explain something, it's because what we're observing must be complex?..

    ..So, again, "we don't' even know how it works" appears to be handwaving...

    ..It seems we've shifted gears here from the relevance to "we don't' even know how it works" , to observed complexity..."

    Scott, are you playing the part of some sort of "false dumb" (or "false blind", in this case)?

    I told you: it's because of WHAT WE KNOW that we infer the design paradigm!

    It's a positive argument, "positive", got it?

    For example, It comes from the observation of what happens when a mutation hits a sequence of a polipeptide!

    It comes from the evalutation of the incredible vastness of the gap between islands of function represented by the pretein sequence!!!

    Evo "just-so" explanation are, instead, about what we (ehm, "you") don't know cause are based for the main part on SIMILARITY, assuming that this feat represents a CORRELATION.

    But every week the clades and the phylogenies changes!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Scott:

    "..For example, if you roll a six sided die that isn't loaded, you'll get a random number between one and six.."

    It's from years that I read this blog, and since the beginning I recall your "six sided die" faulty analogy and the various asnwer to it from several guy.

    Are you sure you want to try it even with me?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Winkler: It comes from the evalutation of the incredible vastness of the gap between islands of function represented by the pretein sequence!!!

    Pointing to the distance between twigs doesn't mean they didn't spring from the same stem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zach:
    "Pointing to the distance between twigs doesn't mean they didn't spring from the same stem."

    Your analogy it's a CR (circular reasoning): you presuppose the fact that yo're trying to prove..

    I'm sorry: SIMILARITY doesn't per se prove evolutionary RELATEDNESS..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Winkler: Your analogy it's a CR (circular reasoning): you presuppose the fact that yo're trying to prove..

      Huh? You're the one who said the gap was too wide. We noted that your metric was faulty, that to determine whether the gap was too wide, you have to account for its posited history of divergence.

      The Winkler: SIMILARITY doesn't per se prove evolutionary RELATEDNESS..

      We're not pointing to similarity, and in fact, you were saying they were too dissimilar to have shared a common ancestor.

      Delete
  24. I've red your paper, Pedant.

    No doubt a nice eye-looking work..

    But if you cited it for proving the evolution of this astonishing feat, we're far far away..

    "..The distribution of bioluminescence across the major taxonomic groups does not appear to follow any obvious phylogenetic or oceanographic constraint.."

    But despite this fact, it clearly confirms evolution, right?

    "..It is difficult to calculate the number of times that
    bioluminescence has evolved independently, and there is a potential for both over- and underestimation.."

    Exactly, especially by using "just-so" hypotheses and affirmations of the conseguence.

    Or by using the "scientific method" of drawing clades and phylogenies that comes from the will to confirm what a scientist thinks about SIMILARITY beetween organisms..

    "..Part of the difficulty is defining what is meant by an “independent” origin. In the cases of bacterial symbionts, the trait may have evolved only once for the bacteria, but each squid or fish lineage that uses those microbes has to develop specialized light organs to host and maintain
    the culture.."

    Yessss...But, HOW exactly?

    "..Bioluminescent molluscs alone must have independently arrived at least seven ways to make light, and probably more.."

    Yeah, they MUST have done it...But WHY?

    Oh, what a fool: to confirm the teory!

    "..To generate a rough estimate, we have summed the number of distinct light-producing chemical mechanisms across the monophyletic lineages (Figure 1), to estimate that bioluminescence has evolved a minimum of 40 times, and likely more than 50 times, among extant organisms.."

    I can't believe it....Just a sum...

    So math here should be your undeniable proof of evolution, right?

    "Dietary linkages also suggest that some extant luminescence is almost certainly a post-Cambrian development, since it had to arise in the predators after the synthesis of luciferins evolved in the prey."

    Almost certainly...Yeah, sure..

    "To be effective, a community of sighted predators is also required."

    And what else? Maybe a glass of soda and a cracker?

    "..The fossil record and dates of phylogenetic separation estimated by molecular clocks may help to bracket the dates of luciferins utilized within articular groups, but it is presently difficult to narrow the range within 100 million years."

    I can't believe it..

    Molecular clock...

    Something else to prove the evolution of the bioluminescence?

    I mean something more technical and specific, at a molecular level, that would show, for examble, how the protein could have evolved and how this can be confirmed by lab experiments?

    Or do you prefer to switch to the communication system evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Scott:

    "TheWinkler: The relevance is that the more complex a biological mechanism is, the harder are the likelihood that this process can raise by means of blind, random processes.

    Are you suggesting the lack of a good theory of how something works is an indication of complexity?"

    You perfectly know the answer, Scott..

    "..[snopping other nonsense]..

    However, the evidence for Newton's laws of motion have been falling on every square meter of the earth's surface for billions of years, including the span of the entire existence of human beings. Yet, we only got around to testing Newton's laws about 300 years ago. Furthermore, the concept of Newton's laws are actually quite simple. He conjectured a single explanation for the movement of falling apples and orbiting planets. It was devising a way to test that theory and apply it that was complex.

    In other words, it's not clear that not having conjectured a good explanation for something necessitates it being complex, because it's not evidence that is scarce, but good conjectures that explains that evidence. In addition, in many cases, progress takes the form of integrating two or more complex theories into a single, simpler theory.

    So, again, "we don't' even know how it works" appears to be handwaving."

    First, nobody here thinks that what is unknown is God made.

    Second, I hope for your intelligence that the similarity "Newton's laws" = "Darwin's fairy tales" it's a joke, otherwise I'm really worried, especially for the use of the word evidence in the paragraph above..

    ReplyDelete
  26. velikovskys:

    "Winkler
    "And don't start to say that RM & NS aren't random, because NAS says something different."


    From paper cited
    Natural selection: Greater reproductive success among particular members of a species arising from genetically determined characteristics that confer an advantage in a particular environment.

    Non random per NAS"

    Sure?

    Can you explain me this phrase?

    "While our awe and wonder about the world may deepen in light of evolutionary theory -- indeed, evolution does seem miraculous -- our minds may also boggle and buckle when coming to terms with a certain fundamental randomness and unpredictability, a lack of a grand design, a perception that the theory portends a loss of meaning and purpose in our lives"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Winkler should have said:

      "While I concede that my original statement that the NAS says that NS is random was inaccurate,(see above), who is Susan Kassouf and what did she mean?"

      Fair question, maybe I can help.

      Susan Kassouf has a PhD in German,she works for the Endeavor Foundation which co- sponsored a conference,Evolutionary Thinking. She is not a spokesperson for NAS or a biologist herself, so what could motivate the interest in her remarks? Intellectual curiosity,no doubt.

      "certain fundamental randomness and unpredictability", I assume this is the source of your confusion. Of course you know that just because something is unpredictable it is not necessarily random.

      " certain fundamental randomness" , let's try a definition

      "Certain: of a specific but unspecified character,quantity, or degree"
      "Fundamental : serving as a original or generating source"

      Not being a mind reader, one could parse the phrase as, "to a degree the generating source ( of life) is randomness and unpredictability" . Mutations are thought random according to need, and life is unpredictable. Nowhere did she,as a non scientist, claim that everything is random. Helpful?

      Delete
  27. Scott:

    "TheWinkler: It's not just a statistical argument, because the numbers involved are a matter of "possible" or "impossible", as you probably know.

    It seems we've shifted gears here from the relevance to "we don't' even know how it works" , to observed complexity. If so, it's unclear how numbers are meaningful in this case as the results you would get depend on which explanatory theory you're using to extrapolate observations. Specifically, we do not get theories from evidence."

    The "numbers" are enough to tell us that with such a level of complexity the best explanation is JUST ONE.

    Scott:
    TheWinkler: It isn't an authoritative conception of human knowledge but an occam's razor type of logical reasoning, based upon our common experience of cause & effect, that you can check every day..

    I sense you're still haven't grasped the connection here. Specifically, your conception of human knowledge includes the level of complexity involved in how humans create knowledge, the role knowledge plays in designing things, whether knowledge is actually created or has always existed, etc.

    For example, how was the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, as found in the genome, created? Unless you explain this origin of this knowledge, all you've done is push the problem into some inexplicable realm.

    Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit that explanation."

    Briefly, I don't like philosophy, metaphysics, boltzmann brain, multiverse or epistemology: I prefer to talk about molecular biology & genomics in this blog.

    However, Knowledge it was created from the same intelligent being that created everything, space, time and 4 fundamental force included.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Winkler,

    Thanks for your effort. I recommended the review to convey the possible utility of bioluminescence in communication between organisms, which was one of the questions you raised on June 7, 2012 5:53 AM. If my reference failed in that respect, I'm sorry.

    In my view, the paper fairly lays out how little we currently understand about the evolution of a particular type of electromagnetic interactions between organisms.

    Indeed, there are many unanswered questions, but to scientists, learning more is an exciting challenge.

    The varieties of marine bioluminescence either evolved or were created by some unknown power. If you're content to stop looking for answers and settle for that unknown power, that's your privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ped:
    "The varieties of marine bioluminescence either evolved or were created by some unknown power. If you're content to stop looking for answers and settle for that unknown power, that's your privilege."

    It depends on what I can see from evidence, Ped, don't you thik?

    And from the study of molecular biology I can't see evidence for materialistic exlpanations..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the evidence for another cause?

      Delete
  30. vel:
    What is the evidence for another cause?

    The best explanation, i.e. that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prometheus? That would be a materialistic explanation or do you have a non materialistic intelligence in mind?

      Delete
    2. Can " non novel" complex and FSI be created without intelligence?

      Delete
    3. The Winkler

      vel: What is the evidence for another cause?

      The best explanation, i.e. that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information.


      That's not evidence. That's your hypothesis.

      I'll also note that the term "functionally specified information" has no meaning to the real scientific community. It was a catchy buzz-phrase invented by the ID movement and is defined by them to mean "information that only can be created by an intelligence". As such the argument "FSI proves design" is completely circular and completely worthless.

      Delete
  31. Just for a single example, this is one of my favourite:

    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Example of what? A test of the capability of evolutionary processes?

      It's seems to be a strawman. While acknowledging that the theory of evolution posits that cats and dogs share a common ancestor, the experiment tries to mutate a cat into a dog.

      Delete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. vel:

    "Can " non novel" complex and FSI be created without intelligence?"

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

    BTW, you can see transformation everywhere without creation of FCSI.

    A crystal, a snowflake: order redundancy but not FCSI.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thorton:

    "The Winkler

    vel: What is the evidence for another cause?

    The best explanation, i.e. that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information.

    That's not evidence. That's your hypothesis."

    It was an introduction: look at the link I provided later for an example.

    That is evidence.

    Thorton:
    "I'll also note that the term "functionally specified information" has no meaning to the real scientific community. It was a catchy buzz-phrase invented by the ID movement and is defined by them to mean "information that only can be created by an intelligence". As such the argument "FSI proves design" is completely circular and completely worthless."

    No, it has been defined to distinguish it from Shannon type information.

    And however the scientific community is biased on the issue, as you probably know.

    There's an ideological conflict behind.

    But the term is well suited for describing the kind of information processed in biological systems, and I really hope that you would honestly admit this..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Winkler

      T: That's not evidence. That's your hypothesis."

      It was an introduction: look at the link I provided later for an example.


      Ah, Axe and Gauger's famous brain fart. The one where they showed Kbl2 can't evolve into BioF2. Their big problem is that no one in the scientific community says or thinks BioF2 evolved from Kbl2 in the first place. The two enzymes evolved from a common ancestral form millions of years ago. Axe and Gauger's experiment is like trying to disprove evolution by showing a cat can't evolve directly into a dog. That's why the paper got laughed at and rejected by the scientific community, not because of any anti-ID bias.

      No, it (FSI) has been defined to distinguish it from Shannon type information.

      Then go ahead and define it then in a non-circular manner. In particular define the "specified" part. In human design a specification is a before-the-fact set of requirements drawn up as a design goal. The finished design is then tested to see if it meets the specification. All IDCers did was describe what they empirically observed about DNA then declared the after-the-fact observation to be a specification.

      Better yet, why not do a real world example for us? Give us an objective way to calculate the FSI (or FSCI) in a cat, or a goldfish, or in Mt. Rushmore.

      But the term is well suited for describing the kind of information processed in biological systems, and I really hope that you would honestly admit this..

      The term is meaningless gobbledygook only well suited into gulling unschooled laymen Creationists with a big "sciency" sounding phrase. I really hope you read and learn enough about the topic that you would honestly admit this.

      Delete
  35. Winkler:

    The best explanation, i.e. that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information.

    You've been asked before, what is this "intelligence"?

    Is it a thing? A being? An intelligent person?

    Or is it an attribute, the noun form of the adjective "intelligent" that we apply to persons? Converting a noun that refers to an attribute into a thing is a common pitfall in logic and is known as the fallacy of reification.

    Your invented "explanation" explains nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ped:
    "Your invented "explanation" explains nothing."

    Ped, it depends on what's the level of explanation that you want.

    ID theory explain only that is an intelligence, without identification, that's beyond the purpose of the theory.

    If you want a teological answer, I can give it to you but I don't think it's the purpose of this blog (and that you're interested in, besides)..

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Winkler

    ID theory explain only that is an intelligence, without identification, that's beyond the purpose of the theory.


    There is no such thing as ID theory. There is an ID unsupported hypothesis.

    Merely saying "intelligence did it" explains nothing, just as saying "evolution did it" would explain nothing. For ID to even get off the ground you need to supply the details like ToE does. You need evidence for a mechanism, and a timeline. Since ID posits conscious design you also need a way to gather raw materials, and a manufacturing process, and an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the designer.

    ID has none of that, and no plan in place to ever acquire that information.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ID theory explain only that is an intelligence, without identification, that's beyond the purpose of the theory.

    How convenient. Blame it on "an intelligence," unidentified, and stop there. But why stop there? Because the intelligence is unidentifiable and invented? Is that the barrier to moving further? If that's "the level of explanation" that satisfies you, you're welcome to it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thorton:
    "..supply the details like ToE does.."

    LOL

    Are you joking?

    A fair of just-so speculations, affirming the conseguences and circular reasoning is what's all about..

    Details?

    Exactly for WHAT?

    Antibiotic resistance?!?!?

    Clades or phylogenies?

    Ah, ok, THOSE details...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Winkler

      Thorton:
      "..supply the details like ToE does.."

      LOL

      Are you joking?


      Nope. Just pointing out that your ID "theory" is a whole lotta nothin.

      ToE has empirically observed mechanisms: genetic variation due to things like sexual recombination, genome imperfect copying, horizontal gene transfer. A filtering mechanism in natural selection that tends to accumulate the beneficial genetic variations. A timeline for when the major phyla appeared and how they diversified.

      What are ID's design mechanisms? Where is ID's timeline?

      What does ID have except handwaving and bluster?

      Details?

      Exactly for WHAT?

      Antibiotic resistance?!?!?

      Clades or phylogenies?

      Ah, ok, THOSE details...


      The details that can be found in any freshman level college biology text, or any natural history museum, or thousands of places online. The details that ToE has that ID doesn't. THOSE details.

      Delete
  40. Pedant:
    "How convenient. Blame it on "an intelligence," unidentified, and stop there. But why stop there?"

    ID isn't a science stopper, but that's a FAQ claim..

    Silly...

    Do you want that we start to talk about the ID predictions fulfilled and the evo-disaster like junk DNA?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Winkler

      ID isn't a science stopper, but that's a FAQ claim.


      You forgot to provide your non-circular definition of FSCI, and your objective way to measure it including examples.

      You forgot to provide any before-the-fact specifications for any biological features.

      You forgot to explain why Axe and Gauger's work is any sort of problem for ToE.

      Seems like you don't have anything to offer here besides empty rhetoric. Sadly, that's the one thing Creationist have an endless supply of.

      Delete
  41. Winkler,

    Funny that you brought up junk DNA, I assume that fsci resides in the genome. And ID predicts that most of genome is functional, complex, and specified, is this correct?

    If so what is this prediction based on? How does one perceive what choices an abstract intelligence might select. In other words doesn't the assumption of human concept of efficient design limit the abstract intelligence and might be viewed as a back door manner to give the designer attributes? That It designs in a manner comprehensible to human understanding, with goals which are discernible to human intelligence, or that It designs/ creates with specific goals at all.

    This would all seem beyond the scope of ID.

    ReplyDelete
  42. veli:
    "This would all seem beyond the scope of ID."

    And this is right, exactly..

    "doesn't the assumption of human concept of efficient design limit the abstract intelligence and might be viewed as a back door manner to give the designer attributes?"

    If you want an opinion, I don't think so, seriously.

    We can't limit nothing of the Designer's work 'cause when we try - in bona fide or not - our error in evaluating became apparent, sooner or later..

    Junk-DNA it's the grand example, and it's representative of how the "wrong path" will reveal as is by itself..

    The latest develops of research on (i) epigenetics (methylation, adenylation, etc.), (ii) gene double coding, (iii) "knots" in proteins and electro magnetic communications, just to mention few of them, are more and more problems for ET and consistencies of ID, as you probably "sense"..

    ReplyDelete
  43. The Winkler

    The latest develops of research on (i) epigenetics (methylation, adenylation, etc.), (ii) gene double coding, (iii) "knots" in proteins and electro magnetic communications, just to mention few of them, are more and more problems for ET and consistencies of ID, as you probably "sense"..


    What observations would be *inconsistent* with ID, and why? Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For example, vast majority of the proteins in a cell with errors in sequence or not-functioning, proteins from different organisms that make the same work but extremely different in sequence and structure, great amount of non repetitive DNA strands without coding logic and not transcribed, million years old bacteria with extreme sequence different from the present day ones, tremendous amount of transitional fossils with clearly observable macro-variation, etc., etc., etc...

      And last but not least, life arising from a tiny warm little pond everywhere...

      Delete
    2. The Winkler

      T: "What observations would be *inconsistent* with ID, and why? Please be specific."

      For example, vast majority of the proteins in a cell with errors in sequence or not-functioning, proteins from different organisms that make the same work but extremely different in sequence and structure, great amount of non repetitive DNA strands without coding logic and not transcribed, million years old bacteria with extreme sequence different from the present day ones, tremendous amount of transitional fossils with clearly observable macro-variation, etc., etc., etc.


      Why would those things be inconsistent with ID? A powerful enough Designer could certainly make those things happen if it so chose.

      How can you tell what would be inconsistent with ID without knowing the desires and capabilities of the Designer?

      Delete
  44. Thorton:

    >The Winkler

    >Thorton:
    >"..supply the details like ToE does.."

    >LOL

    >Are you joking?

    "Nope. Just pointing out that your ID "theory" is a whole lotta nothin.

    ToE has empirically observed mechanisms: genetic variation due to things like sexual recombination"

    And this for you adds information? Mmmm, maybe you should re-check what do you know on this process, that indeed isn't a well known mechanism and you certainly can't make a serious scientific hypothesys on it, otherwise is speculation..

    You can't take all the mechanisms of biology and use them inappropriately as "empirically observed mechanisms"..

    At least not with me...

    Do you really know how recombination works?

    It's a complicated stuff, isn't it?

    Talking about library and books, It's almost 20 pages of my molecular biology book but, through these pages, no serious explanation of how it evolved. Indeed, no explanation at all...

    Do you have one? I bet no...

    How did the proteome involved in recombination appear at first? All by a fairy tale macro mutation?

    "genome imperfect copying"

    This is a "quality" of a mechanism, not a mechanism..

    BTW, what would demonstrate? That the right nucleotide are switched 1 in 10^7?

    "horizontal gene transfer"

    Oh, yes, the miracolous HGT!

    N-O N-E-W I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N, got it?

    "A filtering mechanism in natural selection that tends to accumulate the beneficial genetic variations"


    Oh yes, another miracle..

    Too bad that to obtain the leaps needed for the very great amount of information you have a tremendous problem: the intermediate from one transition to another.

    You just can't "filtering" a protein by one, two or at the very best three or four switched nucleotides hwen the transitions requires 7, 15 or more nucleotides with extreme sequence specificity.

    "A timeline for when the major phyla appeared and how they diversified"

    What? A timeline? But do you think that I come from mars?

    Do you refer to the supposed, speculated, bias filtered and "just-the-positives" timeline that I see changing every week?

    Oh, ok..

    Do this two words suggest you nothing? "cambrian explosion".

    "What are ID's design mechanisms? Where is ID's timeline?"

    ID doesn't pretend to define a mechanism like evolution presumptuously tries from decades.

    "What does ID have except handwaving and bluster?"

    It provide the best explanation for the appearence of what is around us.

    ">Details?

    >Exactly for WHAT?

    >Antibiotic resistance?!?!?

    >Clades or phylogenies?

    >Ah, ok, THOSE details...

    The details that can be found in any freshman level college biology text.."

    Mmmm, ah ok, details like peppered moths (that don't stand on the trees), the "real intermediate please stand up" archaeopteryx , finches beaks, stasi, conservation of sequences (bacteria from millions of years 99,9% identical to those that express resistance for an antibiotic of the eighties), and great stuff like that...

    Fantastic..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Winkler

      N-O N-E-W I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N, got it?


      Define "information" as it applies to biological entities. Then explain your objective way to measure this "information" so you can determine if it's "new" or not.

      You still owe me a definition for FSCI and an objective way to measure it, with examples too. Avoiding questions seems to be your major skill set.

      I hear lots more empty bluster from you Winkler, but no mechanisms for ID

      Lots of hand-waving denials of the empirical scientific evidence, but no mechanisms for ID.

      Lots of regurgitated rhetoric you pulled off IDC websites, but no mechanisms for ID.

      ID doesn't pretend to define a mechanism like evolution presumptuously tries from decades.

      If that's the case then what earthly good is ID as an "explanation" since it explains exactly squat?

      Delete
  45. Sorry Thorton, now I go to bed: in Italy it's 10:40..

    Tomorrow perhaps I'll answer on the information issue..

    Remember that you're not the one and only that is waiting for answer..

    I'm too, so be prepared: If you pretend I will too, but I'm experienced on this kind of epilogue..

    All will end up in a trench warfare..:(

    ReplyDelete
  46. Scott: Can someone please explain how not knowing how something works, in detail, indicates it was designed?

    TheWinkler: No Scott, you're on the wrong track.

    Scott: Then what is the relevance of it in Cornelius' post, other than hand waving?

    TheWinkler: The relevance is that the more complex a biological mechanism is, the harder are the likelihood that this process can raise by means of blind, random processes.

    Scott: Are you suggesting the lack of a good theory of how something works is an indication of complexity? But that assumes there is some way to mechanically derive theories using observations. Therefore, if we cannot explain something, it's because what we're observing must be complex?

    TheWinkler: Scott, are you playing the part of some sort of "false dumb" (or "false blind", in this case)?

    No. I assumed you actually answered the question I asked, before answering some other question I didn't ask. Again, what is the relevance of "we don't even know how it works" in CH's post? If you do not want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't pretend that you did.

    ReplyDelete
  47. TheWinkler: I told you: it's because of WHAT WE KNOW that we infer the design paradigm!

    This is precisely my point. You cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. As such, you mistakenly include me, when you say, " WHAT WE KNOW" about designers.

    Specially, you assume I share your same pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge. But I do not. So, your argument is parochial in that fails to take into account other forms of epistemology. Of course, this doesn't phase you in the least since you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. There is simply no point in discussing it.

    It's the same sort of argument that claims morality would not exist if God didn't exist. Human beings obtained the knowledge of right and wrong from an authoritative source: God. No God, no morals. This is another facet of your pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge. Do you deny you hold this conception as well?

    Scott: Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit that explanation."

    TheWinker: Briefly, I don't like philosophy, metaphysics, boltzmann brain, multiverse or epistemology: I prefer to talk about molecular biology & genomics in this blog.

    Of course you don't. You cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea, that would be subject to criticism. So, talking about it is just a waste of time. Right?

    The WInkler: However, Knowledge it was created from the same intelligent being that created everything, space, time and 4 fundamental force included.

    So, there can be no better expiation for the adaptations we observe, other than "That's just what God must have wanted"

    Which is another concrete example of your pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge. It's from this framework which you've concluded that design is the most simple explanation for the biological complexity we observe.

    Specifically, if it's a "occam's razor type of logical reasoning", as you claim, then the level of simplicity you attribute to design is based on your conception of how humans obtain knowledge, the role knowledge plays in designing things, whether knowledge is actually created or has always existed, etc.

    For example, given your conception, any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex that "That's just what God must have wanted" since there's supposedly no need to add the complication of a complex material nervous system. Also, there is supposedly no need to explain the means by with God created the knowledge of how to build complex proteins, etc. Right?

    However, a designer, that just was, complete with the knowledge of how to build proteins, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms, "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build proteins, already present.

    In other words, all you've done is push the problem into some inexplicable realm.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The Winkler

    Sorry Thorton, now I go to bed: in Italy it's 10:40..

    Tomorrow perhaps I'll answer on the information issue..


    No worries. Get some rest.

    Remember that you're not the one and only that is waiting for answer..

    Science has been waiting for answers about ID's claims for a decade now. A few more days won't make any difference.

    I'm too, so be prepared: If you pretend I will too, but I'm experienced on this kind of epilogue..

    I think you mean dialogue. But anyway, I hope you'll actually try thinking for yourself and not just regurgitate the same already refuted nonsense you read from ID sites. So far that's all you've been doing. Rehashing already refuted IDC claims gets really boring really fast.

    All will end up in a trench warfare..:(

    Except the lurkers will see me providing evidence and answers, and they'll see you provide none. That's a victory in my book. :)

    ReplyDelete
  49. TheWinkler: It's from years that I read this blog, and since the beginning I recall your "six sided die" faulty analogy and the various asnwer to it from several guy.

    Again, you're assuming there is only one kind of unknowability. But this is yet another facet of your conception of human knowledge.

    I'm suggesting you're either confused about the context in which probability is useful, or you're smuggling assumptions into your argument which you have yet to explicitly disclose. Specifically, the usefulness of probability is limited to cases where we know all of the possible outcomes and greatly diminished in cases where the outcome would be effected by the creation of knowledge.

    An example of the former is Russian Roulette, where we know how many chambers the gun has, how many of those chambers are loaded with bullets, etc. If presented with a one or more specific variations of Russian Roulette, such as the number of chambers, bullets or times the trigger is pulled, one could use probability to determine which particular variation would have the least risk, the most risk, etc., which could be made in a mechanical fashion.

    However, in scenarios where there are multiple steps which include the creation of knowledge, this poses a barrier to forming useful predictions, even if the process is deterministic. This is because the possible outcomes would be unknown to us at the time. So, the application of probability is invalid in these cases, despite the fact that we almost universally under estimate it's invalidity in practice.

    As such, the question of whether predictions are relevant in the case of evolutionary theory depends on whether all possible outcomes of the evolution of the biosphere are currently known to us and/or whether it's based on the creation of knowledge.

    Again, this would depend on your specific conception of human knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  50. TheWinkler: It's not just a statistical argument, because the numbers involved are a matter of "possible" or "impossible", as you probably know.

    Scott: … it's unclear how numbers are meaningful in this case as the results you would get depend on which explanatory theory you're using to extrapolate observations. Specifically, we do not get theories from evidence."

    Scott: For example, the calculation would change significantly if one assumed a specific feature we observe was pre-elected before hand by a designer. It also assumes there is only one kind of unknowability and that it's applicable in the case of a process that creates knowledge.

    TheWinkler: The "numbers" are enough to tell us that with such a level of complexity the best explanation is JUST ONE.

    Again, the results (the numbers) are based on your particular concept of human knowledge. You even said so yourself when you said it's because of WHAT WE KNOW that we infer the design paradigm! So, this is a parochial argument in that it's narrow in scope.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Scott: "In other words, it's not clear that not having conjectured a good explanation for something necessitates it being complex, because it's not evidence that is scarce, but good conjectures that explains that evidence. In addition, in many cases, progress takes the form of integrating two or more complex theories into a single, simpler theory.

    So, again, "we don't' even know how it works" appears to be handwaving."
    TheWinkler: First, nobody here thinks that what is unknown is God made.

    Then what is the relevance of "we don't' even know how it works" in CH's post? Please be specific. Why is not not merely handwaving?

    TheWinkler: Second, I hope for your intelligence that the similarity "Newton's laws" = "Darwin's fairy tales" it's a joke, otherwise I'm really worried, especially for the use of the word evidence in the paragraph above.

    What part of in other words, it's not clear that not having conjectured a good explanation for something necessitates it being complex do you not understand?

    Again, I'm referring to the question I actually asked. if you don't want to answer it, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you did, or that I was arguing about something else, when I clearly indicated otherwise when I wrote: It seems we've shifted gears here from the relevance to "we don't' even know how it works", to observed complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Winkler:

    Do you want that we start to talk about the ID predictions fulfilled and the evo-disaster like junk DNA?

    No, of course not. I'd like you to stick to the point and provide independent evidence of the existence of an intelligent agent capable of creating all of the forms of life on our planet.

    Without independent verifiable evidence that such an intelligent agent exists, your claim that such an agent explains the diversity of life is a pile of mortadella.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Scott:

    "Again, what is the relevance of "we don't even know how it works" in CH's post? If you do not want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't pretend that you did."

    Scott, as often, you evotist (nothing offensive here, just abbreviation like "IDist") are professional "cherry picker"..

    You've done a fine cut & paste, omitting the points in which your answer was required or those in which I responded to you.

    BTW, I don't like cheating, so here there is:

    The fact that such a complicated communication system is almost totally unknown implies an intellectual serious and prudent analisys of the initial results, not dogmatic or rethorical appeal to the evolution creed.

    That, I guess, irritates CH: they don't even discover a biological process and et voilà, some darwinian just-so explanation comes out.

    Using your words, it can be synthesized as follows:

    Can someone please explain how not knowing how something works, in detail, indicates it was EVOLVED???????????

    Scott:
    "You cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. As such, you mistakenly include me, when you say, " WHAT WE KNOW" about designers.

    Specially, you assume I share your same pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge. But I do not. So, your argument is parochial in that fails to take into account other forms of epistemology. Of course, this doesn't phase you in the least since you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. There is simply no point in discussing it."

    Scott, first the design inference is based on sound and conventional scientific methodology. It utilizes the historical or abductive method and infers to the best explanation from multiple competing hypotheses.

    Several sciences use this method, it's not a "creationist" trick: I hope you will admit this..

    I'm happy to see that you smart guys, in your fanatic cherry picking, didn't say nothing about the fact that Darwin and his scientific mentor Lyell used the same scientific method of the best explanation, i.e. citing causes that
    are known from present experience to be capable, indeed uniquely capable, of
    producing the effect in question.

    Second, that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information it's alway been true from the perspective of an intellgent human being.

    Imagine you or your great-grandfather or your great-great-great-grandfather or a roman countryman or a babylonian scribe debunking unearthing a woman-like statue: would one of these different guys not think of an intelligent artifact?

    And yet they don't share the "same conception of human knowledge", don't you think?

    That's the core concept of ID.

    BTW, I'm not here only to defend ID...

    Scott:
    "Of course you don't. You cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea, that would be subject to criticism. So, talking about it is just a waste of time. Right?"

    No, simply I'm not interested in a semantical-logical-philosophical diatribe in this context.

    Let's talk about molecular biology, if you want, and if it confirm or disprove ET.

    Don't worry: if we decide to stop this 3d, we can continue in the next CH's article because I'm convinced that molecular biology and genomics will soon "mutate" clearly in the ET coffin..

    ReplyDelete
  54. Scott:
    ">The WInkler: However, Knowledge it was created from the same intelligent >being that created everything, space, time and 4 fundamental force included.

    So, there can be no better expiation for the adaptations we observe, other than "That's just what God must have wanted""

    No, this is theistic evolution, which is in clear contrast with the bible words on the subject..

    "Which is another concrete example of your pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge. It's from this framework which you've concluded that design is the most simple explanation for the biological complexity we observe."

    No, it's from the commmon logical framework of the human beings, based on our uniform and repeated experience of cause-and-effect.

    There's no escape, Scott, I'm sorry..

    Scott:
    "Specifically, if it's a "occam's razor type of logical reasoning", as you claim,"

    Go on, admit that you liked this one, eh? ;)


    "..then the level of simplicity you attribute to design is based on your conception of how humans obtain knowledge, the role knowledge plays in designing things, whether knowledge is actually created or has always existed, etc."

    No, again, it's from the commmon logical conceptions of the human beings, based on our uniform and repeated experience of cause-and-effect.

    Scott:
    "For example, given your conception, any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex that "That's just what God must have wanted" since there's supposedly no need to add the complication of a complex material nervous system. Also, there is supposedly no need to explain the means by with God created the knowledge of how to build complex proteins, etc. Right?"

    No, wrong.

    The life is irreducibly complex: there's no way to make it simplier or even better, I'm sorry.

    Or do you have an example?

    Please, don't quote the same old TalkOrigins dysteleological argument FAQs stuff like the retina, the pharynx, or rubisco, cause I know well how they are flawed.

    "However, a designer, that just was, complete with the knowledge of how to build proteins, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms, "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build proteins, already present."

    This would be more "economical", but God has preferred to create the life in the best way that is physically possible..

    There are limits to our understanding, and these limits will probably never be passed, despite our attempt to solve them with ideologically-religiously-driven pseudo-scientific theories.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thorton:
    ">I'm too, so be prepared: If you pretend I will too, but I'm experienced on >this kind of epilogue..

    I think you mean dialogue."

    No, I mean epilogue, you know? Prologue, epilogue?

    I would not want to end all this (that's why "epilogue") changing of views in a "trench warfare": you make a question, I answer, you don't like my answer and re-state your question, waiting for the answer, meanwhile I make the same, and so on..

    "But anyway, I hope you'll actually try thinking for yourself and not just regurgitate the same already refuted nonsense you read from ID sites."

    You're assuming that I don't have a library too..

    Or that I didn't studied evolution, biology, genetics or other..

    Maybe that's another faulty prejudice?

    "Except the lurkers will see me providing evidence and answers, and they'll see you provide none. That's a victory in my book. :)"

    I'm not competing here, just want to make you reasoning and have fun seeing how this will turn, finally, an useless effort..:(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Winkler

      I would not want to end all this (that's why "epilogue") changing of views in a "trench warfare": you make a question, I answer, you don't like my answer and re-state your question, waiting for the answer, meanwhile I make the same, and so on..


      The problem with that is that you haven't answered a single question yet.

      You can't give me a non-circular definition of FSCI.

      You can't provide an objective way to calculate FSCI, or give any real world examples.

      You can't define "information' as it applies to biological entities, or give any way to measure it.

      You can't supply a mechanism or a timeline for ID.

      When you say ID doesn't have a mechanism, you can't tell me what good is ID if it doesn't actually explain anything.

      You're assuming that I don't have a library too..

      Or that I didn't studied evolution, biology, genetics or other..

      Maybe that's another faulty prejudice?


      I have no idea what you've read or what you've studied. What I know is that so far you've presented just an uncritical regurgitation of standard ID arguments, vacuous claims that have already been beaten into a fine pink mist by the actual scientific evidence.

      I'm not competing here, just want to make you reasoning and have fun seeing how this will turn, finally, an useless effort..:(

      I'm not competing either, and I'm more than willing to examine your positive evidence for ID. Do you have any?

      Ok, now I'll take another rest, enjoying the match Italy-Spain..:)

      Aah, I knew down deep you were OK! My wife is very Italian, 2nd generation from Genoa. When the Azzurri took the World Cup in 2006 the family partied non-stop for 3 days. :)

      Delete
    2. Me:

      I would not want to end all this (that's why "epilogue") changing of views in a "trench warfare": you make a question, I answer, you don't like my answer and re-state your question, waiting for the answer, meanwhile I make the same, and so on..

      Thorton:
      "The problem with that is that you haven't answered a single question yet."

      That's precisely what I meant..

      I did it but you are denying it..

      "You can't give me a non-circular definition of FSCI."

      I can give you some but I'm sure that none of them are what you want because you're searching for a definition that is universally accepted by the scientific community, that, in some cases, applies a deliberate indolence on this issue: the risk is a definition that creates problem for ET..

      But, as you probably know, the same term "science" doesn't have an universally common definition that is accepted by every science community..

      Would we want to talk about the term species?

      So, although this lack of definition, biology books are full of this term, in the context of biological systems, pathways and mechanisms, as well as pretein machines.

      It's that precise term the one I'm referring to.

      "You can't provide an objective way to calculate FSCI, or give any real world examples."

      "You can't define "information' as it applies to biological entities, or give any way to measure it."

      Do you think that we can talk about a scientific subject only if it is possible to make calculations on it or only if it is measurable?

      Do you want a list of scientific disciplines that use terms referred to things that don't have equations or that are not precisely measurable?

      ID is not a branch of math, as you know well..

      "You can't supply a mechanism or a timeline for ID."

      When someone point to the fact that the origin of life concerns evolution, the lobbyists say: "ET is not about origin of life but only about it's development"

      So I respond to you that ID it's not about mechanisms or timelines but it's only about the origin of biological information.

      "When you say ID doesn't have a mechanism, you can't tell me what good is ID if it doesn't actually explain anything."

      It's good ad addressing the origin and the source of biological information in contrast to what evolution states.

      Me:

      You're assuming that I don't have a library too..

      Or that I didn't studied evolution, biology, genetics or other..

      Maybe that's another faulty prejudice?

      Thorton:
      "I have no idea what you've read or what you've studied. What I know is that so far you've presented just an uncritical regurgitation of standard ID arguments, vacuous claims that have already been beaten into a fine pink mist by the actual scientific evidence."

      Rethoric...

      Why we just don't go back on the communication system issue and on why this astoundishing feature it's a pain in the b...ack fo evolution?

      Me:
      I'm not competing here, just want to make you reasoning and have fun seeing how this will turn, finally, an useless effort..:(

      "I'm not competing either, and I'm more than willing to examine your positive evidence for ID. Do you have any?"

      I provided several predictions in a couple of posts above.

      A couple of positive evidences that I have in mind in this moment is double coding in DNA and epigenetics..

      Me:
      Ok, now I'll take another rest, enjoying the match Italy-Spain..:)

      "Aah, I knew down deep you were OK! My wife is very Italian, 2nd generation from Genoa. When the Azzurri took the World Cup in 2006 the family partied non-stop for 3 days. :)"

      Ohh, at least some relax from Thorton...:)

      BTW, Today I'm indeed in a laboratory in GENOVA for my job!!!

      It was a great match, anyway: 1-1 with one of the strongest team of the tournament...Let's see how things go on...:)

      Delete
    3. The Winkler

      T: "You can't give me a non-circular definition of FSCI."

      I can give you some but I'm sure that none of them are what you want because you're searching for a definition that is universally accepted by the scientific community


      Of course I want one that's universally accepted. You IDCers can make up your own pet definitions all you want, but unless you get everyone to agree on them they're worthless.

      T "You can't define "information" as it applies to biological entities, or give any way to measure it."

      Do you think that we can talk about a scientific subject only if it is possible to make calculations on it or only if it is measurable?


      Your whole claim is that natural processes can't cause information to increase.

      If you can't define something, and you can't measure something, how can you tell it never increases?

      "When you say ID doesn't have a mechanism, you can't tell me what good is ID if it doesn't actually explain anything."

      It's good ad addressing the origin and the source of biological information in contrast to what evolution states.


      You can't even define biological information, let alone explain its origin. You're just tossing around the same meaningless ID buzz phrases.

      T: "I have no idea what you've read or what you've studied. What I know is that so far you've presented just an uncritical regurgitation of standard ID arguments, vacuous claims that have already been beaten into a fine pink mist by the actual scientific evidence."

      Rethoric...


      Empirical observation.

      T: "I'm more than willing to examine your positive evidence for ID. Do you have any?"

      I provided several predictions in a couple of posts above.


      You failed to provide any explanation as to WHY your predictions logically flow from or are unique to ID. You may as well have said "ID predicts the sky will be blue".

      A couple of positive evidences that I have in mind in this moment is double coding in DNA and epigenetics.

      Positive evidence means direct evidence in support of a hypothesis as opposed to circumstantial, indirect evidence. How do DNA and epigenetics qualify as positive evidence for ID?

      Delete
  56. Scott:

    "Again, you're assuming there is only one kind of unknowability. But this is yet another facet of your conception of human knowledge."

    Scott, I'm asking myself why you're pushing these arguments instead of the main theme of CH's post..

    It's not so hard to answer..

    When a topic it's too "dangerous" for ET, better sidetrack to something more "metaphysical" or "phylosofical", right?

    "An example of the former is Russian Roulette...in scenarios where there are multiple steps which include the creation of knowledge, this poses a barrier to forming useful predictions, even if the process is deterministic. This is because the possible outcomes would be unknown to us at the time. So, the application of probability is invalid in these cases, despite the fact that we almost universally under estimate it's invalidity in practice."

    But why this is true only for ID predictions and not for the ET fancies?

    But if this is true, why ID predicted that investigations of the properties of ribozymes (RNA catalysts) would reveal insufficent for a validation of the RNA hyps?

    Do you know about ID predictions on the significant role of centrosomes in cancer, rather than just a negative mutations effect?

    The front-loading predictions consistent on the recent findings of epigenetics information activated by antibiotic resistance in microbiome never selected or mutated from the synthetic molecules pressure?

    All the dysteleological "science stopper" argument debunked, consistent with ID?

    What do you think about the evidence of discrete infusions of information into biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms?

    Why the extreme (using an euphemism) rarity of amino acids functional sequence within all the possible sequence?

    These are interesting args, IMHO..

    ReplyDelete
  57. Scott:

    "You even said so yourself when you said it's because of WHAT WE KNOW that we infer the design paradigm! So, this is a parochial argument in that it's narrow in scope."

    I repeat: WHAT WE KNOW from OUR CURRENT and uniform, repeated experience of cause-and-effect in OUR LIFE!

    Not based on what God we do worship!!!

    You see carvings or painting on a wall?????????

    WHAT THE HYPE THIS FACT SUGGEST TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PAINTINGS / CARVINGS??

    NATURAL FORCES? HEARTQUAKES?

    NO, CAVEMEN!

    Do you comprehend the depth and simplicity of the point?

    Did you ever take a look in WHAT WE SEE in ANY CELL???

    Have you ever look at the kinesin?

    The mechanical similarity between centrioles and pumps, MOTOR pumps???

    The similarities between informatics and biology? Logical, functional similarities!

    The problem is just one: the deliberate exclusion of the "God-variable", that CAN'T BE USED, hiding this ideological choice behind a "scientific" mantle, just as you can't do goo science if you believe in God..

    Yes, sure, tell this to Newton..

    Scott:
    "In other words, it's not clear that not having conjectured a good explanation for something necessitates it being complex, because it's not evidence that is scarce, but good conjectures that explains that evidence. In addition, in many cases, progress takes the form of integrating two or more complex theories into a single, simpler theory.

    What part of in other words, it's not clear that not having conjectured a good explanation for something necessitates it being complex do you not understand?"

    The evidence are subjected to the way you interpret them, sadly..

    Especially, like in the case of the article above, you present them alway with "bowing down" to the darwinian "religion" writing, for example, "..it evolved [so and so]" WITHOUT EVEN HAVING A LITTLE GRASP ON HOW IT WORKS!!!

    But, hey, you better do it 'cause if you write on a pr article that "it evolved" no problem, the paper is checked and the funds arrive in a bolt..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Winkler

      You see carvings or painting on a wall?????????

      WHAT THE HYPE THIS FACT SUGGEST TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PAINTINGS / CARVINGS??

      NATURAL FORCES? HEARTQUAKES?

      NO, CAVEMEN!

      Do you comprehend the depth and simplicity of the point?


      Sounds to me like you're admitting we have to know the identity and capabilities of the designer before we identify the designer's work.

      Do you know the identity and capability of your hypothesized Intelligent Designer?

      Did you ever take a look in WHAT WE SEE in ANY CELL???

      Have you ever look at the kinesin?

      The mechanical similarity between centrioles and pumps, MOTOR pumps???


      That's called the argument from incredulity. Because things are superficially similar doesn't mean they must have the same origin.

      A garden sprinkler doesn't mean that rain clouds were designed, even though both water my lawn.

      An airplane wing doesn't mean that bird wings were designed, even though both provide lift for flight.

      Due to the laws of physics there are only a finite number of solutions to mechanical problems. It is not surprising at all that natural processes like evolution (which has been doing trial-and-error "testing" for 3+ billion years) and conscious-designing humans often converge on the same general solutions.

      Delete
    2. Me:

      You see carvings or painting on a wall?????????

      WHAT THE HYPE THIS FACT SUGGEST TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PAINTINGS / CARVINGS??

      NATURAL FORCES? HEARTQUAKES?

      NO, CAVEMEN!

      Do you comprehend the depth and simplicity of the point?

      Thorton:

      "Sounds to me like you're admitting we have to know the identity and capabilities of the designer before we identify the designer's work."

      No, the capabilities are deducible from the work in each instance, exactly when you deduce the capability of a supposed Cro Magnon man when you find an artifact.

      Or you apply your inference only when it comes favorable?

      "Do you know the identity and capability of your hypothesized Intelligent Designer?"

      Many of them, yes.

      And you can tell them even looking around you or in a lab..

      But if you don't want to, you can invent new terms, obviously widely accepted in the scientific mainstream, just to 'excuse' phenomena..

      ME:
      Did you ever take a look in WHAT WE SEE in ANY CELL???

      Have you ever look at the kinesin?

      The mechanical similarity between centrioles and pumps, MOTOR pumps???

      Thorton:
      "That's called the argument from incredulity. Because things are superficially similar doesn't mean they must have the same origin."

      WHAAAT? You've just denied one of the fundamental pillars of evolutionary thinking!!!!

      I can't believe it!!!!!!

      Thank you Thorn, I owe you a focaccia with onion slices!!!! :)

      Thorton:
      "A garden sprinkler doesn't mean that rain clouds were designed, even though both water my lawn.

      An airplane wing doesn't mean that bird wings were designed, even though both provide lift for flight."

      You've just unintentionally centered the whole point, Thorn: you simply cannot maintain that the garden sprinkler jumped out of a blast furnace exactly as you can't say that an airplane wing can be found in a junkyard after a tornado...INFORMATION, Thorn, that has a necessary and sufficient condition: i.e. intelligent.

      Your analogy garden sprinkler / cloud is wrong, whereas airplane wing / bird wing is perfect..

      Thorn:
      "Due to the laws of physics there are only a finite number of solutions to mechanical problems. It is not surprising at all that natural processes like evolution (which has been doing trial-and-error "testing" for 3+ billion years) and conscious-designing humans often converge on the same general solutions."

      But this is dogmatic, cause you can't simply show such a level of trial-and-error target.

      You need an enormous quantity of information specifically defined in every simple protein of the several thousands cell's proteome, with intermediate step so long to be achieved in evolutionary times that you simply don't have enough time, enough organisms, enough selection.

      Every time we can look at the genome of fossiles we find conserved sequence with striking similarity with the present day organisms.

      Every time.

      It can't be always stasis!!!

      Delete
    3. The Winkler

      "Do you know the identity and capability of your hypothesized Intelligent Designer?"

      Many of them, yes.


      Then please list them. Be sure not to use circular logic, like "I claim the Designer made that tree, so I know the Designer is capable of making trees!"

      "That's called the argument from incredulity. Because things are superficially similar doesn't mean they must have the same origin."

      WHAAAT? You've just denied one of the fundamental pillars of evolutionary thinking!!!!


      No. Look up the meaning of superficial. Homologies aren't merely superficial similarities.

      INFORMATION, Thorn, that has a necessary and sufficient condition: i.e. intelligent.

      The spectral components of starlight carry information about the physical composition of the star. Which intelligence put the INFORMATION in starlight?

      You need an enormous quantity of information specifically defined in every simple protein of the several thousands cell's proteome, with intermediate step so long to be achieved in evolutionary times that you simply don't have enough time, enough organisms, enough selection.

      Empty assertion. Please provide your evidence there wasn't "enough time, enough organisms, enough selection" to account for the biological diversity we now observe.

      Every time we can look at the genome of fossiles we find conserved sequence with striking similarity with the present day organisms

      The oldest bit of DNA ever recovered are around 400k years old, and that tiny bit was preserved under extraordinary circumstances. Virtually all DNA degrades in less than 100K years. How do you look at the genome of a fossil???

      Delete
  58. Pedant:

    ">Winkler:

    >Do you want that we start to talk about the ID predictions fulfilled and >the >evo-disaster like junk DNA?

    No, of course not. I'd like you to stick to the point and provide independent evidence of the existence of an intelligent agent capable of creating all of the forms of life on our planet.

    Without independent verifiable evidence that such an intelligent agent exists, your claim that such an agent explains the diversity of life is a pile of mortadella."

    In 2012 there still are evotist that demand for an identification of the "designer"..

    Incredible..

    15 years ago I understood clearly that THIS is not the clue of ID but you guys are perpetrating every time this objections..

    I'm tired of these tactics..

    Why don't you talk about cellular communication system and provide a serious hyp about it's evolution?

    Have you ever tried the true mortadella, but the good one?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ok, now I'll take another rest, enjoying the match Italy-Spain..:)

    ReplyDelete
  60. I see your point,it is much easier to play offense if you don't have to worry about defending your own goal.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Winkler,

    I'm not asking you "who" or "what" the designer/creator is. I already know that you think it's Jesus.

    I'm asking why you can't come up with direct evidence that the designer/creator exists.

    And mortadella is a very tasty and Italian baloney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant:

      "Winkler,

      I'm not asking you "who" or "what" the designer/creator is. I already know that you think it's Jesus."

      I'm sorry but you're still wrong..

      Jesus is the son of God, not who created all things..

      "I'm asking why you can't come up with direct evidence that the designer/creator exists."

      You can't have direct evidence if you don't want to see them; and besides, you can't have direct evidence of the opposite..

      Delete
    2. That Trinity stuff is confusing even to religious scholars, but Pedant would be correct that Jesus is the Designer if he was referring to Jesus,the being, not Jesus ,the person. I mean a" possible Designer" since ID doesn't say anything about the designer except he designs like us,has an intelligence like us,and has goals.

      Delete
    3. You can't have direct evidence if you don't want to see them; and besides, you can't have direct evidence of the opposite..

      I'm looking forward to seeing your direct evidence.

      But remember: God will not be tested.

      And remember also, that if God explains everything, God explains nothing.

      Delete
    4. "God will not be tested"

      In some extent I agrre with you on this.

      But I would add that it depends essentially on what is the method you want to use and how do you use it; moreover, it depends on how you "filter" the result and how you do interpret them, as evolution theory clearly (and sadly) demonstrate.

      Delete
  62. In adult organisms, stem cells and progenitor cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing adult tissues.stem cell therapy india

    ReplyDelete
  63. TheWinkler: The fact that such a complicated communication system is almost totally unknown implies an intellectual serious and prudent analisys of the initial results, not dogmatic or rethorical appeal to the evolution creed.

    Why is this like pulling teeth?

    I know that's what both you and CH are trying to imply. I'm asking you to connect the dots and show your work. It's as if you think this the reason is so obvious that no explanation is needed. And I when I ask for an explanation, you seem to think that I'm being unreasonable.

    For example, why isn't it neutral, rather than an indication that it didn't evolve? Again, when we unify one or more theories, we can end up with something significantly simpler that either one of them put together. So, it's unclear how you can say that the lack of an explanation for X is an indication that X was or was not designed.

    TheWinkler: Can someone please explain how not knowing how something works, in detail, indicates it was EVOLVED???????????

    It doesn't. Nor is that the argument being made. See above.

    TheWinkler: "You cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. As such, you mistakenly include me, when you say, " WHAT WE KNOW" about designers.

    TheWinkler: Scott, first the design inference is based on sound and conventional scientific methodology. It utilizes the historical or abductive method and infers to the best explanation from multiple competing hypotheses.

    And what we supposedly know about designers is a function of your particular conception of human knowledge. Whether design is simpler depends on the role knowledge plays in designer, whiter it was created or has always existed, etc.

    Again, when I point this out, you completely ignore it as if it's so obviously inconsequential that it doesn't even need to be acknowledged, let alone addressed. Why might that be the case?

    TheWinker: Several sciences use this method, it's not a "creationist" trick: I hope you will admit this..

    Again, you cannot recognize your conception of on of human knowledge as an idea. As such, you assume that your conception is somehow built into science.

    TheWinkler: I'm happy to see that you smart guys, in your fanatic cherry picking, didn't say nothing about the fact that Darwin and his scientific mentor Lyell used the same scientific method of the best explanation, i.e. citing causes that are known from present experience to be capable, indeed uniquely capable, of producing the effect in question.

    That's odd, Karl Popper, who had a huge impact on science though his criteria of falsification, hadn't even been born yet. As such, how could Darwin have used the same method? Let me guess, the ability of human beings to make progress isn't an idea that is subject to criticism? But that too would be part of any conception of human knowledge.

    TheWinkler: Second, that intelligence is a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of novel complex and functionally specified information it's alway been true from the perspective of an intellgent human being.

    That the earth didn't move had always been true from the perspective of a intelligent human being - until heliocentric theory came along. Funny how that works, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  64. TheWinkler: Imagine you or your great-grandfather or your great-great-great-grandfather or a roman countryman or a babylonian scribe debunking unearthing a woman-like statue: would one of these different guys not think of an intelligent artifact?

    There are significant differences between statues are not biological organisms. Your disingenuous attempt to conflate the two is duly noted.

    TheWinkler: And yet they don't share the "same conception of human knowledge", don't you think?

    Again, I'm suggesting there are specific aspects of your claims and beliefs that indicate you hold a pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist, conception of human knowledge. Should they have made the same sort of claims and held the same sort of beliefs then I would conclude they shared the same conception of human knowledge.

    TheWinkler: That's the core concept of ID.

    As such, ID is parochial (it's narrow in scope).

    Scott: "Of course you don't. You cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea, that would be subject to criticism. So, talking about it is just a waste of time. Right?"

    TheWinkler: No, simply I'm not interested in a semantical-logical-philosophical diatribe in this context.

    That's like saying you recognize you might not reach your destination because you might have the wrong directions, but you're not interested in any criticism that your directions might be wrong. Your contradicting yourself.

    TheWinkler: Let's talk about molecular biology, if you want, and if it confirm or disprove ET.

    The assumption that observations confirm anything represents justificationism. However, I'm a critical rationalist. That's what I'm trying to point out. From the above link...

    William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.

    According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are naïve rationalists, and thinking that their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational.

    Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false.

    By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The Winkler: However, Knowledge it was created from the same intelligent >being that created everything, space, time and 4 fundamental force included.

    Scott: So, there can be no better expiation for the adaptations we observe, other than "That's just what God must have wanted"

    The Winkler: No, this is theistic evolution, which is in clear contrast with the bible words on the subject..

    Is that a yes, in that can be a better explanation than "that's just what God must have wanted."? Or is that a No? I can't tell. Nor is it clear what the Bible has to do with anything. Or that's right. you think the human being obtain knowledge from the Bible because it's the word of God, which is authoritative. This sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?

    Scott: "Which is another concrete example of your pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge. It's from this framework which you've concluded that design is the most simple explanation for the biological complexity we observe."

    The Winkler: No, it's from the commmon logical framework of the human beings, based on our uniform and repeated experience of cause-and-effect. There's no escape, Scott, I'm sorry..

    Are you sure about that? For example, doesn't our uniform and repeated experience indicate that designers have complex material nervous systems? Why isn't there any escape from this?

    Scott: "For example, given your conception, any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex that "That's just what God must have wanted" since there's supposedly no need to add the complication of a complex material nervous system. Also, there is supposedly no need to explain the means by with God created the knowledge of how to build complex proteins, etc. Right?"

    The Winkler: The life is irreducibly complex: there's no way to make it simplier or even better, I'm sorry.

    You still seem to be confused. I'm not referring to the complexity of life. I'm referring to the complexity of "design" as a hypothesis verses other theories. You yourself referred to this when you stated it's a "occam's razor type of logical reasoning"

    But, again, the level of complexity of the "design" hypothesis is based on your particular conception of human knowledge.

    Scott: "However, a designer, that just was, complete with the knowledge of how to build proteins, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms, "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build proteins, already present."

    The Winkler: This would be more "economical", but God has preferred to create the life in the best way that is physically possible.

    I'm referring to economical in the sense of serving an explanatory purpose regarding the knowledge found in the genome, not economy of building things. These are two different things.

    The Winkler: There are limits to our understanding, and these limits will probably never be passed, despite our attempt to solve them with ideologically-religiously-driven pseudo-scientific theories.

    Again, this is what I meant when I suggested you thought there can be no better explanation other than "That's just what God must have wanted". Your response suggests that this is indeed the case.

    ReplyDelete
  66. TheWinkler: The front-loading predictions consistent on the recent findings of epigenetics information activated by antibiotic resistance in microbiome never selected or mutated from the synthetic molecules pressure?

    It seems that you've confused as to the role ET plays in explaining the complexity of the biosphere. Specifically, evolutionary processes create the knowledge used to build specific biological adaptations. This is because organisms build themselves using the instructions found in the genome, which I'm referring to here as knowledge.

    Specifically, biological features, including cellular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, represent adaptations. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. Transformations occur in when the requisite knowledge of how perform that transformation is present, along with the necessary energy, etc.

    Right? Or is there something about the above you disagree with? if so, please be specific.

    If not, the question is: how was the knowledge this designer supposedly put in the genome, created?

    Again, some designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build a system of antibiotic resistance, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because we could more economically reformulate this as: organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build a system of antibiotic resistance, already present.

    In other words, unless you explain the origin of this knowledge, you have't explained anything. All you've done is push the problem into some unexplainable realm.

    TheWinkler: What do you think about the evidence of discrete infusions of information into biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms?

    References please.

    TheWinker: Why the extreme (using an euphemism) rarity of amino acids functional sequence within all the possible sequence?

    How do you know there are no other amino acids that might be functional? How do you know they wouldn't be function in some other form of life that didn't form?.

    For example, recent research has shown that synthetic base pairs (NaM and 5SICS) can be copied by DNA polymerase, which arranges them in the same Watson-Crick arrangement of base pairs current found in nature - even though these synthetic base pairs do not form hydrogen bonds.

    From this article

    Romesberg said this unexpected finding has major implications for evolutionary theory. The ability of DNA polymerase to place NaM and 5SICS together (and presumably other base pairs held together by hydrophobic forces), doesn't seem likely to be just a coincidence. It may be possible that early life actually started out using such "artificial" base pairs, then discarded them for the four familiar ones found in living things today.

    Testing that hypothesis would be extremely difficult, Romesberg said. There's unlikely to be any direct evidence of this transition, only indirect evidence such as this hitherto unknown capacity of DNA polymerase.


    In other words, this sort of flexibility strongly collaborates the theory that other forms of genetic material can be interchanged and still replicated.

    How do we know something similar isn't the case with other amino acids?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Scott: "Again, the results (the numbers) are based on your particular concept of human knowledge. You even said so yourself when you said it's because of WHAT WE KNOW that we infer the design paradigm! So, this is a parochial argument in that it's narrow in scope."

    TheWinkler: I repeat: WHAT WE KNOW from OUR CURRENT and uniform, repeated experience of cause-and-effect in OUR LIFE!

    Then you should have no problem explaining what role knowledge plays in this uniform, repeated experience of cause-and-effect in our life, and we should be in perfect agreement on that role, right?

    If so, remind me again how knowledge is created? Remind me how ET doesn't fit that explanation. Oh, that's right. *You* don't like philosophy. So much for agreement.

    TheWinkler: Not based on what God we do worship!!!

    Assuming a particular bloodline of kings should rule is an pre-enlightenment, justificationist, authoritative conception of human knowledge. So is the assumption that we know what's wrong and right because some authoritative, supernatural being dictated it to us or wrote it in our hearts. It matters not if this God is Mohammed, Yahweh, Zeus or one or more deities.

    Apparently any other conception of knowledge is so foreign to you that's unfathomable.

    ReplyDelete
  68. TheWinkler: You see carvings or painting on a wall????????? NATURAL FORCES? HEARTQUAKES? NO, CAVEMEN! Do you comprehend the depth and simplicity of the point?

    Again, cave paintings are not biological organisms. Apparently, you fail to grasp exactly what it is about biological features that need to be explained.

    It wasn't until William Paley make his argument for design that the issue was clarified. Specifically, he argued the sort of account that could explain a rock, or the raw materials a watch was assembled from, was not the same sort of account that could explain the watch itself. A watch couldn't have spontaneously appeared. Nor could it have been laying there forever or be a raw material itself.

    Paley asked, "Why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as the stone; why is it not admissible in the second case as in the first?" Paley knew why. The watch not only serves a purpose, but is adapted to that purpose. Specifically, the aspect that needs explaining is that if a watch (or eye) was slightly altered it would serve that purpose less well, or not even at all. That is, the design is hard to vary.

    So, merely being useful for a purpose, without being hard to vary, is not a sign of adaptation or design.

    For example, the sun can be used to tell time. However, it could be varied significantly without impacting how well it serves that purpose. The knowledge of how to use the sun to tell time is within us, and our sundials, rather than in the sun itself. But the knowledge of how to tell time is embodied in the watch, just as the knowledge of how to build an organism's features are embedded into an organism's genome.

    So how did Paley "solve" this problem? He could think of only one explanation: the watch had to have a maker. There cannot be design without a designer; purpose without a purpose giver, etc. However, while Paley is to be credited with clarifying what needs to be explained, he failed to realize his solution didn't actually solve the problem. His ultimate designer would be, by Paley's own criteria, a well adapted, purposeful entity - no less than a watch or living organism.

    In other words, if we substitute Paley's 'ultimate designer' for the watch in Paley's own argument, we force him to "the [inevitable] inference… that the ultimate designer must have had a maker."

    However, as I pointed out in my earlier comment, we have an explanation for these adaptations: evolutionary processes create the knowledge of how to build these adaptations using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

    It appears *as if* it was designed because, as people, we use a form of conjecture and refutation to create the knowledge that is embedded in watches, computers, vehicle assembly robots, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  69. 1/2

    Thorton:

    "Do you know the identity and capability of your hypothesized Intelligent Designer?"

    Me:
    Many of them, yes.

    Thorton:
    "Then please list them. Be sure not to use circular logic.."

    Why did you snip my answer?

    I wrote:

    "..And you can tell them even looking around you or in a lab..

    But if you don't want to, you can invent new terms, obviously widely accepted in the scientific mainstream, just to 'excuse' phenomena.."

    IMHO (I'm in good company), the designer is God.

    And God has every capabilities that you can conceive.

    Can I, just for example, cite the Bible, hopefully without reading your replies like "..Oh, those creationists! They always go to the point in which they try to reply with their bible.."?

    Acts 17:24-28 24: "The God that made the world and all the things in it, being, as this One is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples, 25 neither is he attended to by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all [persons] life and breath and all things. 26 And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men], 27 for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28 For by him we have life and move and exist.."

    He's even near to YOU, Thorn, but you don't want to stretch yor hand..


    Thorn:
    "That's called the argument from incredulity. Because things are superficially similar doesn't mean they must have the same origin."

    Me:
    WHAAAT? You've just denied one of the fundamental pillars of evolutionary thinking!!!!

    Thorn:
    No. Look up the meaning of superficial. Homologies aren't merely superficial similarities.

    But phylogenies and clades are weekly made up just by looking at the "superficial" appearence of a bone!

    So?

    ReplyDelete
  70. The Winkler

    Thorton: "Do you know the identity and capability of your hypothesized Intelligent Designer?"

    Me: Many of them, yes.

    Thorton: "Then please list them. Be sure not to use circular logic.."

    Me: Why did you snip my answer? I wrote:

    "..And you can tell them even looking around you or in a lab..


    That's not an answer. That's an evasive non-answer.

    Thorton: "Then please list them. Be sure not to use circular logic, like "I claim the Designer made that tree, so I know the Designer is capable of making trees!"

    IMHO (I'm in good company), the designer is God.

    And God has every capabilities that you can conceive.


    ...so of course we get circular logic. God designed everything, so everything you see can be designed by God.

    Which of course is just fine for a personal belief. Just don't try to pretend that it's supported by any scientific findings.

    Can I, just for example, cite the Bible, hopefully without reading your replies like "..Oh, those creationists! They always go to the point in which they try to reply with their bible.."?

    Not as scientific evidence you can't, no.

    But it's nice to see you finally admit all the ID talk about FSCI, no new information, ID "predictions" etc. was just a smoke screen.

    But phylogenies and clades are weekly made up just by looking at the "superficial" appearence of a bone!

    Empty rhetoric. Back it up with evidence please.

    And God has every capabilities that you can conceive.

    Is that so? OK, I conceive that God used unguided evolution over the last 3+ billion years to produce the diversity of life we see now. Prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete