Friday, June 8, 2012

Here’s the Tip of the Iceberg on Cellular Regulation and it Has Evolutionists Drinking Alone Again

A recent study of how phosphate groups regulate proteins uncovered a complex network of interactions. Kinases are proteins that add a phosphate group to a molecule, such as another protein, and phosphatases are proteins that remove the phosphate group. A protein is phosphorylated when a phosphate group is attached to a hydroxyl group in the side chain of a specific and particular amino acid out of the hundreds in the protein. Such phosphorylation controls the protein’s activity, for instance by altering the protein’s shape or attracting another molecule to bind to the protein. Furthermore, the kinase and phosphatase proteins themselves are regulated. It’s just a small bit, as the study helped demonstrate, of the cell’s immensely complex regulation network. Of course this complexity was a surprise to evolutionists who expected the usual “just-add-water” version of biology. As one of the authors explained: “Our studies have revealed an intricate network of proteins within cells that is much more complex than we previously thought.” Or as one writer explained:

Scientists studying interactions between cell proteins -- which enable the cells in our bodies to function -- have shown that proteins communicate not by a series of simple one-to-one communications, but by a complex network of chemical messages. …

Researchers, including scientists from the University of Edinburgh, used advanced technology to identify hundreds of different proteins, and then used statistical analysis to identify the more important links between them, mapping almost 2000 connections in all.

Scientists expected to find simple links between individual proteins but were surprised to find that proteins were inter-connected in a complex web.

A complex web? And how did evolution create such a complex web of regulation where  proteins control other proteins by adding or removing small chemical tags such as phosphate groups?

Well first there is the problem of how random change could create a protein of any kind, let alone one that performs a needed function. Then there is the problem of how evolution could stumble upon the incredibly fine-tuned functionality of adding phosphate groups to the right hydroxyl group on the right side chain of the right amino acid in the right protein. Oh and there had to be just luckily some spare phosphate groups floating around and available.

And of course after having achieved such a miracle evolution would only have progressed a tiny step in a million mile journey. For this incredible phosphorylation capability would accomplish precisely nothing. In fact without the ability to remove the phosphate group, from the right hydroxyl group on the right side chain of the right amino acid in the right protein at the right time, the phosphorylation could be disastrous. And if not disastrous it would be an incredible stroke of luck if it accomplished anything useful. It would be a miracle if it were done at the right time, and even if it was, who knows what effect it would have on whatever function the target protein just happened to have bequeathed to it by the random actions of evolution.

You see this is all a joke. A very, very, very bad joke. And we couldn’t help but be reminded of a certain letter that touched on the topic of such bad jokes:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

It’s not too late.

68 comments:

  1. Yup, it's all about the science. No silly religion stuff to see at all, just move along now. Ignore the quote from Corinthians, the injunctions to be "saved" (from what?), the happy & relentless kowtowing to your imaginary magic man.

    Creationists crack me up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeffrey Shallit you state:

      'Yup, it's all about the science. No silly religion stuff to see at all'

      Perhaps you would care to show us how it is even possible to ground 'science' within a atheistic/materialistic worldview before you so quickly dismiss Theism as 'silly':

      The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site
      Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. 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

      This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

      Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website
      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

      THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010
      Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
      http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

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

      Delete
    2. Shallit:

      Yup, it's all about the science. No silly religion stuff to see at all, just move along now. Ignore the quote from Corinthians, the injunctions to be "saved" (from what?), the happy & relentless kowtowing to your imaginary magic man.

      Is it me or do you have bone to pick with Christians? The quoted passage speaks of wisdom and knowledge, not magic. And if you really had a clue, you would know that those who are saved are saved from death, i.e., they will receive eternal life. The others? Well, they will reap eternal death. But not before the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, though.

      As for me, I'll be watching from the bleachers with a smile on my face and a bag of Cheetos. :D

      Creationists crack me up.

      Dirt worshipers are weird and funny looking.

      Delete
  2. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

    Remember that Paul was an apocalyptic thinker. When the end of the world is nigh, holding on to any part of it is foolish.

    We, however, are stuck with a future world that we must cope with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Remember that Paul was an apocalyptic thinker"

      Speaking of apocalyptic thinking, Have you looked at the world lately? Especially the Middle East? Especially the turmoil surrounding Israel? Or is all that just another fluke of chance in your book?

      Delete
    2. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

      Pedant: Remember that Paul was an apocalyptic thinker.

      Exactly. Here's a concrete example of Cornelius appealing to the pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge as found in the Bible.

      The funny thing is, not only hasn't Cornelius come out and explicitly denied he holds this conception, but he keeps making arguments that appeal to it.

      The wisdom of this world (which includes woordly human knowledge) has been made foolish by God. So, it would seem this aspect is actually part of Cornelius' conception of human knowledge. He really does think God does have at least some effect on human wisdom, in reality.

      Otherwise, why would he quote and appeal to it in his OP?

      Delete
    3. Cornelius,

      Do you or do you not hold a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge?

      If not, then what other conclusion do you expect us to reach? Please be specific.

      Delete
    4. Scott,

      Do you or do you not believe that there are 10^500 versions of yourself simply because you have no other option since you deny consciousness any role in quantum wave collapse??

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

      And thus Scott since you deny that you have a conscious mind, going to the absurd extreme of believing that you exist in 10^500 versions of yourself to do so, is it not completely fair of us to think that you have completely 'lost your mind'?

      If not, then what other conclusion do you expect us to reach? Please be specific.

      notes:

      God Versus Science: A Futile Struggle By J Roy Singham - May 2012
      Excerpt: Materialists believe that matter is unconscious, a tenable opinion. But they also believe that consciousness is an illusion. That belief is absurd, almost madness.
      http://ezinearticles.com/?God-Versus-Science:-A-Futile-Struggle&id=6940055

      It is interesting to note that there is a very strong tradition in philosophy that holds that the most concrete thing that a person can know about reality is the fact that they are indeed conscious:

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

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

      Moreover thanks to modern science we now have extensive evidence,,,

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

      Whereas the evidence that consciousness 'emerges' from unconscious matter (the 'hard problem'), as the atheist hold, is non-existent.

      Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem"
      Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.'
      David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html

      Delete
    5. BA: Do you or do you not believe that there are 10^500 versions of yourself simply because you have no other option since you deny consciousness any role in quantum wave collapse??

      I've repeatedly pointed out that other interpretations of quantum mechanics have less explanatory power, represent bad explanations when criticized and leave a number of unresolved paradoxes.

      So, I tentatively accept the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics as the best explanation. And, in doing so, I accept the consequences that I too would be a multiversial object, just like protons, electrons, photos, etc. However, should some better explanation come long with equal or more explanatory power, then I would tentatively accept it as well.

      This is a far cry from what you continually attempt to project.

      Nor do I think you tentatively accept the idea that consciousness plays a role in quantum wave collapse.

      Again, we've been over this several times. Yet you keep making the same mistake. Are you still having problems forming short term memories?

      If not, then how else do you explain making the same mistake over and over and over again? What else do you expect to conclude?

      More importantly, why should I bother correcting you if you're just going to ignore it?

      Delete
    6. So Scott, you do not deny that you have completely 'lost your mind' in order to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself. Thanks for the update, I just wanted to be sure.

      Delete
    7. If you're not blatantly attempting to misrepresent me, then it would seem things are getting progressively much worse.

      Not only do you appear to have problems forming short term memories, but now you it seems you're having significant problems with reading comprehension, and possibility hallucinating entire sentences and paragraphs as well.

      For example, it's unclear why you think consciousness causing wave collapse is any more sane than the MWT.

      In fact, the MWT theory merely says that observers "go along for the ride", since they to are quantized just like photons, electrons and other particles. The term "multiple universes" is used because the quantized aspect of both observers and particles follows the same classical laws of physics and can only interact in very specific, limited ways - known as quantum interference - which prevents information transfer between them.

      In other worlds, the end result of this highly limited interaction between quantized both observers and particles is that we end up with effectively separate instances of what we traditionally consider a single universe. So, no, it's not crazy. it's a logical theory that takes Erwin Schrödinger's wave function seriously, in that it's true in reality.

      I'd also note that even Schrödinger initially reached essentially the same concision. Was he crazy too? And there was a pre 1988 poll where 58% of the 72 top physicists, which included Richard Feynman, though the MWI was true. Does this mean they were/are they crazy as well? If not, how else do you explain their acceptance?

      I'd say that you're ignorant on the subject, but I've pointed this out several times in the past, as well.

      So, if we've confirmed anything, it that you're either having significant problems with reading comprehension and/or forming short term memories, or you're still intentionally and knowingly presenting falsehoods, by attempting to misrepresent what I wrote.

      What other conclusion do you expect us to reach? Why else would you exhibit this same beahvior over and over again?

      Again, why should I bother correcting you if you're just going to ignore it, as you just did yet again?

      Delete
    8. Correction: In other worlds, the end result of this highly limited interaction between quantized sets of observers and particles is that we end up with effectively separate instances of what we traditionally consider a single universe. So, no, it's not crazy. it's a logical theory that takes Erwin Schrödinger's wave function seriously, in that it's true in reality.

      Delete
    9. "For example, it's unclear why you think consciousness causing wave collapse is any more sane than the MWT."

      Well Scott, you deny the reality of consciousness even though you experience consciousness/mind first hand, and yet you claim that to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself even though you have no way of knowing if 10^500 versions of yourself exist. Thus, my simple, truthful, to the point remark,,, 'You have 'lost your mind' in order to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself.'

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

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

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

      of note:

      Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
      Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1

      Delete
    10. Well Scott, you deny the reality of consciousness even though you experience consciousness/mind first hand, and yet you claim that to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself even though you have no way of knowing if 10^500 versions of yourself exist.

      Huh? Exactly how acceptance my of the MWTfQM indicates I "deny the reality of consciousness".

      For example, if I truly am a quantized, multiversial object, just like photons and electrons, and I do experience consciousness and mind, then why wouldn't aspects of that consciousness be quantized as well?

      Furthermore, how could all of the other 10^500 versions of the same researcher performing the same double-spit interference experiment actually perform that experiment unless they too are conscious? If anything would be "absurd" it would be the assumption that they *could* perform the experiment, despite *not* being conscious.

      Our of curiosity, how else did you think they did it, if not by being conscious?

      Perhaps you mean that I deny what *you* think consciousness is, in reality? But then your denial of the MWT would indicate you "deny the reality of consciousness" because you think it causes the wave function collapse, and that's conflicts with what *I* think what's happening, in reality, too, right?

      Also, a least I'm spiting the consciousness that I directly experience. Compare that to acting as if other people exist, despite the fact that we cannot directly experience any part of their other consciousness at all.

      Following your illogic, wouldn't that make accepting the existence of other people more crazy than the MWT?

      Delete
    11. Cornelius,

      In case you missed it due to another one of BA's C&P flurries, I'll directly ask again.

      Do you or do you not hold a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge?

      If not, then what other conclusion do you expect us to reach? Please be specific.

      Delete
    12. Like I said Scott, you have 'lost your mind' in order to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself. But to be more precise as to the timing when you lost your mind,, You actually lost your mind when you first started believing in atheistic materialism.

      If not, then what other conclusion do you expect us to reach? Please be specific as to when you lost your mind.

      Delete
    13. BA: Like I said Scott, you have 'lost your mind' in order to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself.

      Then I guess it must be true, right? I mean, if you said it... then surely that's the case.

      What on earth was I thinking?

      BA: But to be more precise as to the timing when you lost your mind,, You actually lost your mind when you first started believing in atheistic materialism.

      And this is crazy, how exactly?

      Let me guess, you cannot recognize your authoritative, pre-enligtenment conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. As such, anyone who thinks it is an idea that would be subject to criticism must be crazy?

      Delete
    14. Scott, you are the one who is denying the reality of your own mind. I am merely trying to be figure out exactly when you 'lost your mind'. Please be specific.

      Delete
    15. That's a pretty tall claim coming from someone who cannot even acknowledge or recognize when they habitually misrepresent what other people write, don't you think?

      For example, your continued implication that I've lost my mind is based on misrepresenting my position on the MWT itself, as you keep omitting the details of the theory and the reasons why I accept it.

      So, if anyone's in denial here, it appears to be you, not me.

      But, by all mean, go ahead and deny this as well. You'll only be making my point for me.

      Delete
    16. Scott, you say I misrepresent your position. But I beg to differ. Are you or are you not a materialist who holds that your mind, all 10^500 versions of your mind, is not really real but is merely an illusion. An illusion that somehow 'emerges' from a material base in your brain? Thus, unless you deny you are a materialist, I have faithfully represented your position to say that you have 'lost your mind' somewhere in your beliefs of atheistic materialism.,, Moreover, you have bought into this absurd notion that consciousness/mind emerges from a material basis without one shred of substantiating evidence it is even possible:

      Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem"
      Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.'
      David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html

      And you have also ignored many lines of evidence to the contrary pointing to the fact that you have a mind,,,

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

      But Scott don't be so offended at me pointing out that you have 'lost your mind', far smarter people than you have bought into this delusion that mind/consciousness, something they experience first hand, is not really real:

      A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011
      Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-a-neurosurgeon-confronts-the-non-material-nature-of-consciousness/

      Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander’s Near-Death Experience Defies Medical Model of Consciousness - audio interview
      http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-154-eben-alexander.mp3

      Near death, explained - By Dr. Mario Beauregard research professor Neuroscience Research Center at the University of Montreal. - April 2012
      Excerpt: These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies.
      NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality.
      http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/singleton/

      Delete
    17. BA: Scott, you say I misrepresent your position. But I beg to differ. Are you or are you not a materialist who holds that your mind, all 10^500 versions of your mind, is not really real but is merely an illusion.

      No. I do not think my own consciousness is an illusion. Rather we do not agree on what consciousness is, the level in which it's expressed and the role is plays in quantum mechanics.

      Again, you're simply making my point for me.

      Here's a hit: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

      Delete
    18. 'No. I do not think my own consciousness is an illusion.'

      So you hold, contrary to neo-Darwinian thought, that consciousness/mind does not 'emerge' from a material basis, and is thus merely a illusion, but you hold that mind is its own independent entity that lives past the death of your brain? Well then Scott you are in radical departure from basic neo-Darwinian, materialistic, thought. In fact you are very close to mainline Theistic thinking. (Better hope Thorton doesn't catch wind of this!)

      Before you backpedal to materialistic rationalizations, I remind you that mind/consciousness is something you experience first hand, and indeed the fact that you have a mind is the most solid thing that you can know for sure about reality:

      "Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body."

      notes:

      Neuroscientist: “The Most Seamless Illusions Ever Created” - April 2012
      Excerpt: We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.
      Matthew D. Lieberman - neuroscientist - materialist - UCLA professor
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html

      God Versus Science: A Futile Struggle By J Roy Singham - May 2012
      Excerpt: Materialists believe that matter is unconscious, a tenable opinion. But they also believe that consciousness is an illusion. That belief is absurd, almost madness.
      http://ezinearticles.com/?God-Versus-Science:-A-Futile-Struggle&id=6940055

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

      Delete
  3. oh I see, when you the scientist/naturalist embrace an infinite chain of chances it´s only because you consider absolutely ridiculous that an Intelligence it´s behind the multiverse.
    You don´t need to be saved from nothing OK, I understood fine.
    The evolution makes nothing magic , atheist are the product of some fluctuation of the space vacuum , and that from nothing.
    Atheist make me laugh

    ReplyDelete
  4. It never fails. IDCer will tell you all day long how they're just about the science, but let them talk long enough and they'll always revert back to "but my GAWDDIDIT". Always.

    This little bit of preaching by CH wasn't near as bad as back in 2010, where he told us that evolutionists have given up their souls by supporting ToE.

    All science so far!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton but you claim that you don't really have a mind or soul to lose! i.e. You have 'lost your mind' somewhere in your atheistic beliefs! :)

      Delete
    2. IDers: GAWDDIDIT.
      Evolutionists: DIRTDIDIT.

      Delete
    3. Thorton:

      It appears that Dr. Hunter has reached the very same place I have: the idea of Darwinian evolution is a complete absurdity. Further, any proposed materialistic mechanism for the formation of life is completely unintelligible.

      IOW, it's a waste of time to even confront Darwinists so silly has this whole notion become. Dr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest, wrote the book: Savior of Science which has as its theme that it is the very Christian notion of God--i.e., the "Logos" becoming Flesh--that inspired Christian scientists to see the world as "rational," and then to explore it in a rational fashion. And it will be Christianity that will once again "save" Scienctism from its materialistic excesses.

      In the meantime, let's talk about Darwinism.......yawn. Oh, let's not waste the time and energy.

      Delete
    4. Lino: It appears that Dr. Hunter has reached the very same place I have: the idea of Darwinian evolution is a complete absurdity.

      Of course you have. That's because Dr. Hunter shares the very same pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge that you hold.

      Specifically, your conception of knowledge represents ideas about the level of complexity involved in how designers create knowledge, the role knowledge plays in designing things, whether knowledge is actually created or has always existed, etc. And it's a conception of human knowledge, because the same designer is supposedly the source of human knowledge, such as morality, the origins of the cosmos, etc.

      And it's this conception that forms the framework from which you extrapolate observations.

      For example, God is supposedly non-material, so he couldn't have a complex nervous system. Nor would you think we'd need the complication of explaining how God obtained the knowledge of how to do anything. This is because he supposedly "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, right?

      So, it comes as no surprise that, given this particular conception, you find "That's just what God must have wanted" the best expiation for the biosphere.

      However, this is a parochial argument as it ignores other forms of epistemology.

      Lino: IOW, it's a waste of time to even confront Darwinists so silly has this whole notion become.

      Of course you think it's a wast of time. That's because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. You simply cannot conceive of any other form of reason or rationality unless it's justified by some "higher" authoritative source.

      But, by all means, feel free to correct anything above, by providing an alternative explanation. Please be specific.

      Delete
    5. Lino,

      Perhaps you can answer my question. If you think that "That's what God must have wanted" is the best explanation not only because it represents a good explanation, but a simpler explanation that evolutionary theory, then why isn't "God did it" the best explanation for everything?

      Given your conception of human knowledge, why isn't "That's what God must have wanted" the best explanation for absolutely anything and everything?

      Any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex then "That's just what God must have wanted", since there's supposedly no need to add the complication of a complex material nervous system, how God created the knowledge of how to build complex proteins, etc.

      If we do exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in a universe of inexplicability, the inside cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm.

      Any assumption that any part of the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given that beings from this inexplicability realm can supposedly reach inside to effect things here, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well.

      In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable if one carefully avoids asking specific questions. Otherwise, you'd follow your own claims to the conclusion that "That's just what God must have wanted" was the best explanation for everything, rendering everything just as inexplicable as everything else.

      For example, how was the knowledge of how to build proteins, as found in the genome, created? If God put it there and God "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to create proteins, already present, then the origin of this knowledge would be inexplicable, right?

      There could be be no better explanation for the adaptations we observe in the biosphere other than "That's what God must have wanted". So, my questions is, why isn't "That's what God must have wanted" the best explanation for everything else.

      Delete
    6. Scott:

      That's because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

      Apply this to yourself. What about your preconceptions? (And, of course, your pigeon-holing of my thinking process is way off the mark.)

      For example, how was the knowledge of how to build proteins, as found in the genome, created? If God put it there and God "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to create proteins, already present, then the origin of this knowledge would be inexplicable, right?

      Where did the Kitty Hawk come from? Did a tornado rip through a junkyard and it just appeared?

      IOW, what are the material antecedents to the Kitty Hawk, and are those material antecedents "explicable"?

      As to the "inexplicable," the "Logos" became "Flesh". But, outside of the created order, the "Logos" eternally existed as Uncreated Rationality.

      Delete
    7. Scott: That's because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

      Lino: Apply this to yourself. What about your preconceptions? (And, of course, your pigeon-holing of my thinking process is way off the mark.)

      So, you're not denying it? But I'm way of the mark? Why don't you point out the differences, in detail.

      Also, are you asking if I can recognize my conception of human knowledge as an idea? If so, the answer is "Yes."

      For example, if you can provide or point me to a "Principle of induction" that actually works, both in detail and in practice, I'm all ears. Furthermore, given the problem of induction, I assume that all theories contain errors to some degree, including my conception of human knowledge. Improvements will be made by others, etc. So, yes, I do recognize my conception of human knowledge is as an idea that would be subject to criticism. That's because criticism is how we make progress.

      Now that I've charitably answered the very same question I asked you, where is your answer? Do you also recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that is subject to criticism?

      Scott: For example, how was the knowledge of how to build proteins, as found in the genome, created? If God put it there and God "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to create proteins, already present, then the origin of this knowledge would be inexplicable, right?

      Lino: Where did the Kitty Hawk come from? Did a tornado rip through a junkyard and it just appeared?

      I'm having problem following you here. Is that a "Yes", in that the origin of the knowledge God used to build proteins be inexplicable, or a "No"? Or are you trying to doge the question?

      Lino: As to the "inexplicable," the "Logos" became "Flesh". But, outside of the created order, the "Logos" eternally existed as Uncreated Rationality.

      And the origin of this uncreated rationally is explicable? Yes? No?

      Delete
    8. Lino: Lino: Where did the Kitty Hawk come from? Did a tornado rip through a junkyard and it just appeared?

      The Kitty Hawk represents transformations of raw materials that were marginally well adapted to the purpose of flight. These transformations take place when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them is present. Human beings created the explanatory knowledge of how to build the Kitty Hawk though the error correcting process of conjecture and refutation.

      See Popper's The logic of scientific discovery

      Lino: IOW, what are the material antecedents to the Kitty Hawk, and are those material antecedents "explicable"?

      But this is precisely the problem I'm referring to. You cannot see your authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge as an idea that is subject to criticism. As such, you're projecting your conception of knowledge on me as if your problem is somehow my problem. But it's not.

      Delete
    9. Asking me to explain everything all the way down is your problem not mine. I'm a critical rationalist.

      From the essay found here….

      Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism

      In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief and critical rationalism

      Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.

      True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.

      According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticized, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.


      In other words, we're not concerned with the same thing. I'm concerned with the way that positions are adopted, criticized, defended and relinquished. You, on the other hand, want to fix on a particular position because you hold a static conception of human knowledge.

      To quote you, As to the "inexplicable," the "Logos" became "Flesh". But, outside of the created order, the "Logos" eternally existed as Uncreated Rationality.

      God has always had the knowledge of how to build anything logically possible. This includes things he decided not to make. This choice is inexplicable beyond "That's just what God must have wanted" As such, there can be be no better explanation for the adaptations we observe in the biosphere other than "That's what God must have wanted".

      Delete
    10. So, returning to my original question, any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex then "That's just what God must have wanted", since there's supposedly no need to add the complication of a complex material nervous system. There is no need to explain the means by with God created the knowledge of how to build complex proteins, etc. Right?

      And, given that you claim "That's just what God must have wanted" really is a "good" explanation, and that it's so much simpler than the supposed "epicycles" of evolutionary processes, such as HGT, hybridization, etc., then why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best expansion for absolutely everything and everything?

      Or maybe I've got it wrong, in that you think God is complex, not simple? Or maybe you don't actually think "That's just what God must have wanted", is a good explanation after all?

      Or perhaps "That's just what God must have wanted" is the explanation for the biosphere because you think the Bible is authoritative because it represents God's word. God said he did it, so he must have.

      But we're back to where we started, as this represents, a pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge.

      Delete
    11. "That's just what God must have wanted"

      Psalm 115:2-3
      Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

      Note:

      What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

      George Strait - I Saw God Today -
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q06AvQF5NOw

      Delete
  5. Networks can grow incrementally, and are a common example of the evolution of complexity, so not sure why you consider this a problem for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolution is all powerful and omniscient. Nothing is a problem for evolution. What's wrong with you?

      Delete
    2. Well, no. Evolution is not all-powerful, and certainly not omniscient, but myopic.

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

      Delete
    4. Zachriel:

      Networks can grow incrementally, and are a common example of the evolution of complexity, so not sure why you consider this a problem for evolution.

      Give us an example.

      Delete
    5. A common example is the web. Each person linking on the web does it for their own parochial purposes, but it has the effect of creating a global structure that no one envisioned.

      Delete
    6. Zach since you are making a drastic claim for instant polyfunctional complexity for novel proteins, perhaps you can show us a actual example of a polyfunctional protein arising spontaneously by neo-Darwinian processes?

      notes:

      Meet Mycoplasma, a parasitic bare-bones bacterium, with 484 genes - schematic representation of integrated enzyme cycles
      http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/526262_214092155366456_182588468516825_354683_222332123_n.jpg

      First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009
      Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
      "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,"
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm

      There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism - November 2009
      Excerpt: In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function.
      http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-of-life/

      Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009
      Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes."
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a

      Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
      "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?"
      http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf

      Delete
    7. bornagain77: since you are making a drastic claim for instant polyfunctional complexity for novel proteins,

      It's incremental, no instantaneous. We have discussed luciferase on a previous thread, and you may want to consider that a single mutation of a protoluciferases can cause bioluminescence while still preserving its previous synthetase function.

      Delete
    8. Oh goody a single point mutation finally did something. Hmmm, and I click on and off my computer with a single button, there my computer evolved :)

      Delete
    9. You asked for something you thought couldn't happen. It's a novel protein. It has a new function while retaining the old function. Your response is to wave your hands.

      Delete
  6. Zachriel said "Networks can grow incrementally". This is a half truth and therefore essentially false. A network is a communications system. It is more than simply a pipe. You can't just dumb it down to fit evolutionary thinking.

    As Claude Shannon detailed in his work, specifically about communications systems, you need a source of information for the message, a transmitter, a signal, a communication channel, a receiver and a destination. The message needs to be encoded by the transmitter and decoded by the receiver.

    There is no selection advantage to having these network components until they are functional within the whole integrated system. These sysetms are necessary for survival, so how does the organism survive without it? You need more than willy nilly stories of co-opting and such, you need strong evidence. The only known means of creating a genuine communications system as described above is by intelligent design.

    Here again, you have no means or metric to determine what evolution is capable of or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal Tedford: A network is a communications system.

      A network is a mathematical model of the relationships between objects.

      Neal Tedford:
      As Claude Shannon detailed in his work, specifically about communications systems, you need a source of information for the message, a transmitter, a signal, a communication channel, a receiver and a destination. The message needs to be encoded by the transmitter and decoded by the receiver.


      In Shannon information, the message doesn't have to encode meaning, and could just be random bits. Your example would be represented by a single edge of a network, though in biology, it's just an interaction between molecules.

      Neal Tedford: Here again, you have no means or metric to determine what evolution is capable of or not.

      If connections are available, then a network can grow incrementally.

      Delete
    2. Zach, the message is encoded and decoded, so you missed the point. Besides, in these bio networks, the messages do have meaning.

      Delete
    3. Neal Tedford: the message is encoded and decoded, so you missed the point.

      The message can be random bits.

      Neal Tedford: Besides, in these bio networks, the messages do have meaning.

      They have an effect, if that is what you mean.

      Delete
  7. An honest look at the data shows us that the best explanation of its origin is intelligent design, while evolution is completely inadequate on several levels as a viable explanation. There is positive evidence for design. And negative evidence against purely unguided natural processes. It is not a argument from ignorance, but from the knowledge of knowing the capablity of guided vs unguided processes. That's the scientific part.

    The inferences from this is either to dig in with subbornness and deny the existence of a creator despite the scientific evidence, or open ones mind to seeking the creator because a reasonable inference points to God. Ultimately it is by faith, but it's the difference between reasonable faith in a creator or blind faith in superstition and evolution. Evolution simply can't keep up with what is being discovered in these highly advanced and technically sophisticated integrated biosystems. The future belongs to intelligent design. All the patents being issued by biologists manipulating DNA and proteins and such is in thoroughly intelligent and thoroughly designed. The "just add water" stories from evolutionists are becoming increasingly silly. Their version of science doesn't belong in a lab, but in a tent between the voodoo doctors and fortune tellers at a Ripley's Believe it or not show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An honest look at the data shows us that the best explanation of its origin is intelligent design

      Yes, creationists are known for their scrupulous honesty, and all evolutionists are liars.

      There is positive evidence for design

      Which, oddly enough, is never published in scientific journals.

      And negative evidence against purely unguided natural processes

      But, oddly enough, nearly every biologist accepts the sufficiency of the known mechanisms.

      That's the scientific part

      Ooh! It's scientific!

      blind faith in superstition

      which is why many scientists aren't Christians....

      Evolution simply can't keep up with what is being discovered in these highly advanced and technically sophisticated integrated biosystems

      ...discovered, of course, by all those hundreds and thousands of creation scientists who publish in Nature.

      Their version of science doesn't belong in a lab, but in a tent between the voodoo doctors and fortune tellers at a Ripley's Believe it or not show.

      Sorry, tent revivals are for theists.

      Delete
    2. Neal,

      Well said, but alas futile. Trying to reason with evolutionists is for the most part like trying to reason with a rock. I would expect you will receive nothing but ad hominem responses to your post,that is all people like Thorton and Shallit are capable of producing.

      Keep up the good fight though, despite the frustration it is worth it if only to show how bankrupt evolutionist reasoning is.

      Delete
    3. Neal,

      If "Thats just what God must have wanted" is the best expiation for the biosphere, then why isn't "Thats just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for everything?

      See my comment, here.

      Delete
    4. Shallit you state:

      "Yes, creationists are known for their scrupulous honesty, and all evolutionists are liars."

      No to both (all men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God), but at least Theists believe that absolute truth exists whereas in a materialistic/atheistic worldview truth is relative.

      You then state:

      "positive evidence for design is never published in scientific journals."

      thus you are either ignorant or dishonest (which would be ironic considering what you just said) for the fact is over 50 papers have now been published in peer-review:

      Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) - updated regularly
      http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

      Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Building a Compelling Case for ID - podcast - February 2012
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-06T17_08_55-08_00

      Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Main Publications
      http://evoinfo.org/publications/

      Bio-Complexity Publication Archive
      http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/issue/archive

      Shallit you then state;

      'nearly every biologist accepts the sufficiency of the known mechanisms.'

      Which is an 'appeal to authority' for 'known mechanisms' are shown to be NOT sufficient for what neo-Darwinists claim:

      “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 (overview of 4 decades of lab work)
      http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

      you then mock the evidence for ID,

      'Ooh! It's scientific!'

      Which is interesting since it is impossible for atheism/materialism to ground 'science' in the first place,,

      Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012
      Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
      http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

      Delete
    5. Shallit you then retort in regards to the fact that Darwinism boils down to superstition,,

      'which is why many scientists aren't Christians....'

      Yet ironically science itself says atheists/materialists are more superstitious than Christians,,

      Look Who's Irrational Now
      Excerpt: "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

      Shallit you then state,,,

      "...discovered, of course, by all those hundreds and thousands of creation scientists who publish in Nature."

      And yet, out of those hundreds and thousands of scientists and articles, there is not Even one article in Nature that has ever shown empirical evidence for the primary claim of neo-Darwinism. i.e. that purely material, neo-Darwinian, processes can generate functional information over and above what is already present in life and nature:

      The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010
      Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
      http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

      You then state;

      'Sorry, tent revivals are for theists.'

      Apparently not;

      Reason Rally - photo
      http://unitedcor.org/national/page/unitedcor-reason-rally-scrapbook

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. CH: Well first there is the problem of how random change could create a protein of any kind, let alone one that performs a needed function.

    From the article located here...

    Scientists have applied genetic engineering to create proteins that can be used to create electronics. They've used the tools of molecular biology and principles of evolution to find proteins that can make new structures of silicon dioxide, commonly found in computer chips, and titanium dioxide, often used in solar cells.

    [...]

    ... Daniel Morse, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his colleagues looked to another protein making strategy: synthetic cells with a tiny plastic bead nucleus surrounded by a bubble of oil that acts as a cell membrane.

    The scientists attached a piece of DNA to each of the beads, encoding a unique silica-forming protein, or silicatein. This DNA is a random combination of genes from two related silicateins, interspersed with random mutations.

    [...]

    From the cells that survived the selection process, the scientists randomly picked 30 genes from either the silicon or titanium dioxide-forming proteins and sequenced them. Not surprisingly, the researchers found sequences common to the two original silicateins. But in each group, they also found a gene completely different from the starting proteins.

    The scientists synthesized the proteins coded for by these new genes and studied the minerals produced by each one. The standard protein, silicatein α, makes clumps of silica particles. Both new proteins, however, produced dispersed nanoparticles containing the metal oxides. And the new silica-forming protein, named silicatein X1, could even make folded sheets of silica-protein fibers.


    So, while it's not starting complexly from scratch, new proteins were found that were completely different from either of the two starting proteins. Nor does evolutionary theory suggest any modern day protein was formed from scratch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cue the clueless Creationist usual pathetic hand-wave:

      "But the experiment was intelligently designed by the scientists! That proves the Intelligent Designer created the whole world!!!"

      They're all thinking it, and you know at least one of them will be dumb enough to say it.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps Thorton and Scott, since you guys are so convinced that new functional genes/proteins (functional Information) can be formed without any intelligent intervention whatsoever, you would be kind enough to show us novel functional proteins being formed by purely material, neo-Darwinian, processes??? without any intelligent intervention??? i.e. If neo-Darwinism is as well established a fact as Gravity, as you guys dogmatically claim it is, exactly why are you guys forced to use this example, where intelligent intervention was clearly used throughout the experiment from beginning to end to get a desired result??? This is certainly very embarrassing for you guys since, after years of debate, you guys still cannot even point to a single example of a novel protein being formed by purely neo-Darwinian processes!! and that you guys are forced by such a stunning lack of evidence for neo-Darwinism to use this example from biomimetics, where the evolution was 'directed' by intelligent agents, to try to prove your point that purely material neo-Darwinian processes are capable of generating novel functional proteins is certainly, no matter how 'dumb' Thorton may claim it to be, begging the question!

      notes:

      Intelligent Design Implications Disclaimed as Biomimicry Are Increasingly Discussed in Scientific Literature - Casey Luskin
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/intelligent_design_implication024431.html

      Also of note: There is a fairly substantial economic payoff to be had for presupposing superior 'Intelligent Design' in life, as is testified to by the burgeoning field of Biomimicry:

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

      Biomimicry - Superior Designs That Were Found In Life
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNDBkZ3Nwcnd0Yw&hl=en

      Delete
    3. as to:

      "Not surprisingly, the researchers found sequences common to the two original silicateins. But in each group, they also found a gene completely different from the starting proteins."

      Exactly how were the new sequences arrived at? did the proteins use 'natural genetic engineering' (Shapiro) to modify the DNA sequences? or did the 'random entropic noise' of the environment generate the new sequences? If 'natural genetic engineering' by the proteins generated the new sequences, then this certainly is very antagonistic to the 'central dogma' of neo-Darwinism, and indicates that more information was put into the initial conditions of the experiment than they realized. i.e. exactly how much information did they put into the experiment at the beginning? and how do they know??? Genes are certainly far more complex, and are loaded with far more functional information, than was originally envisioned by neo-Darwinian thought. (i.e. Central Dogma)

      The Extreme Complexity Of Genes - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

      as to: "The scientists synthesized the proteins coded for by these new genes"

      even the final step of generating a novel functional protein had to be accomplished by Intelligence??? Scott, I know how you love all things Darwinian and such love is blind and can see no faults in the beloved, but can you please show me JUST ONE functional protein being generated by PURELY neo-Darwinian processes that did not require intelligent intervention???

      Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

      of somewhat related note:

      The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

      Delete
    4. Thorton:

      "Cue the clueless Creationist usual pathetic hand-wave:

      "But the experiment was intelligently designed by the scientists! That proves the Intelligent Designer created the whole world!!!"

      They're all thinking it, and you know at least one of them will be dumb enough to say it."


      batspit77, right on cue :

      "If 'natural genetic engineering' by the proteins generated the new sequences, then this certainly is very antagonistic to the 'central dogma' of neo-Darwinism, and indicates that more information was put into the initial conditions of the experiment than they realized. i.e. exactly how much information did they put into the experiment at the beginning?"

      Q.E.D.

      I know, I know - predicting that a Creationist will say something stupid is like predicting the sun will rise in the East. ;)

      Delete
    5. So Thorton instead of honestly addressing the questions I put forth and trying to get at the truth of the matter (i.e. exactly how was 'natural genetic engineering' involved? i.e. exactly how much was random entropic noise involved?) You resort to a ad hominem attack once again?

      Argument Ad Hominem ? (William Lane Craig) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg

      William Lane Craig and the Meaning of Ad Hominem Attacks - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrVGuUsL2PM

      Thorton, needless to say, ad hominem does not reflect honest scientific inquiry on your part, but reflects instead that you can't honestly defend the question raised! As well Thorton, is your view of neo-Darwinian science that it is not even allowed to be questioned that neo-Darwinism was the mechanism? If you truly believe this is so, please tell me any other discipline of science where the results are not subject to rigid scrutiny. Frankly science is all about finding out exactly what is going on and not accepting fuzzy explanations such as the explanations presented in this article referenced by Scott! As well Thorton, despite neo-Darwinists refusal to even question the boundaries for what neo-Darwinian processes can actually be shown to do in reality, Dr. Behe points out, in this following video, that it is very advantageous to know exactly what the limits of neo-Darwinian evolution actually are. (Limits that turned out to be far more severe than even what Dr. Behe had first thought for Darwinian processes).

      The Edge Of Evolution - Michael Behe - Video Lecture
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199326-1

      The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
      "The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). - M. Behe

      Delete
    6. BA: Scott, I know how you love all things Darwinian and such love is blind and can see no faults in the beloved, but can you please show me JUST ONE functional protein being generated by PURELY neo-Darwinian processes that did not require intelligent intervention???

      It seems you're confused as to what particular aspect of evolutionary theory this experiment represents.

      The goal of the research was to allow marine sponges to build new proteins for the purpose of creating semiconductors. However, they didn't have an explanatory theory as to exactly which way to mutate the genome of a marine sponge to get the proteins they wanted. In fact, they didn't know exactly which kinds of proteins a marine sponge could build. All they knew is that they wanted proteins related to creating semiconductors and thought that a marine sponge could build them based on the background knowledge that they currently build other minerals.

      So, in the absence of an explanatory theory, they employed a useful rule of thumb: randomly mutating a strand of DNA could result in a sequence that builds some form of new protein that, when synthesized, could be useful in building semiconductors. Since the researchers wouldn't have know exactly why mutating those particular aspects of the DNA strand in that particular way ended up with that particular protein, this would represent non-explanatory knowledge.

      If we do X, we get Y. But we lack an explanatory theory as to why specifically doing X results specifically in Y. It's simply a useful rule of thumb, since we can plug this sequence into a marine sponge and get semiconductor related proteins.

      Again, this is in contrast to conjecturing exactly which aspects of a strand of DNA to mutate to build a preselected, specific protein for use in a specific aspect of building semiconductors. If these researchers had an explanatory theory of how to build the particular protein that they wanted, they wouldn't have used a rule of thumb based on background knowledge. Rather, they would have tested that particular theory because it would have represented an explanatory theory about how specific genes results in specific proteins. Had they ended up with the exact protein they wanted, the results would have been much more significant than merely employing a rule of thumb.

      So, not only can we create non-explanatory knowledge, but we can create explanatory knowledge. On the other hand, evolutionary processes are not people. They can only create non-explanatory knowledge.

      Specifically, what makes people unique is that we're universal explainers, which is how we explain our relatedly recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge.

      So, the experiment represents an example of creating a protein as a form of non-explantory knowledge, rather than explanatory knowledge.

      Delete
    7. To use another example, imagine I had a genetic disease. One option would be to develop a treatment based on the non-explanatory knowledge that randomly mutating some sequence of my DNA might end up having a positive effect on my symptoms. Again, this would represent a treatment based merely on a useful rule of thumb.

      Another option would be to develop a treatment based on a conjectured explanatory theory of exactly which genes to mutate, exactly how to mutate them resulting in a specific physiological change in my symptoms. This would represent explanatory knowledge.

      Assuming both your doctor had both forms of knowledge available to him, which form of treatment do you think he would use? Which form of treatment would you prefer?

      In other words, you seem to think that God, who is supposedly a significantly more intelligent person, deigned the biosphere. And he did it using a useful rule of thumb, rather than employing explanatory knowledge.

      This suggest that, as designers, we know more about how to make progress than God would.

      How do you explain this discrepancy?

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

      Delete
    9. Needless to say Scott, the fuzziness as to exactly how the sequence was arrived at, (random entropic noise or 'natural genetic engineering), between the many instances of intelligent intervention, is not cleared up one iota by your heavy dose of philosophy.

      Delete
    10. So, if I understand you correctly, God used a rule of thumb because, "That's just what God must have wanted", right?

      Delete