Thursday, July 5, 2012

Evolutionists Surprised Again: The Evolutionary Principle “Does Not Appear to Apply” to RNase P

According to Sidney Altman it makes sense that there are enzymes, such as RNase P, which include RNA components in addition to proteins. After all, the mother of all such ribonucleoproteins, the ribosome, is too complex to have evolved by itself. Surely less complex ribonucleoproteins must have evolved in the process:

Ribosomes are also ribonucleoproteins (RNPs), but they are much more complicated than RNase P. It seems unreasonable that ribosomes, with three RNAs and about 50 proteins, would exist without less complex RNPs having come into existence first and having persisted throughout evolution.

Such reasoning is more dangerous than evolutionists such as Altman realize. For if the lack of evolutionary stepping stones to biology’s astronomical complexity is “unreasonable” then evolution must be the most unreasonable hypothesis in the history of science.

But that’s not the only problem with Altman’s reasoning. New research is showing that RNase P makes no sense in evolution’s preconceived role. The problem is that not all flavors of RNase P are ribonucleoproteins. In Trypanosoma brucei, the pathogen that causes headaches in evolutionists, RNase P consists merely of a single protein. But when that simple version of RNase P was transplanted into yeast—replacing the more complex ribonucleoprotein version—everything worked fine.

In other words, there is no apparent evolutionary fitness advantage of implementing the far more complex version of the enzyme, which evolutionists cannot explain anyway even if there were such an advantage.

So evolution requires the construction of a complex structure which (a) they cannot explain and (b) shouldn’t have occurred in the first place.

Of course none of this harms evolution, because evolution never was about science in the first place. It is what happens when religious fundamentalism controls the science.

80 comments:

  1. Hunter:

    It is what happens when religious fundamentalism controls the science.

    They hate this part the most. That's the reason you should continue to hammer it in as often as possible. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, it's so ironic when Cornelius bad-mouths religious fundamentalism. He is employed at Biola, the very place where Christian fundamentalism got its start.

      Delete
    2. ...Biola, the very place where Christian fundamentalism got its start.

      Is this phrase an accurate description? Even if so why not engage the main points of the post?

      Delete
    3. MSEE, here is a New York Times Magazine article: All God's Children discussing the (not-so-hidden) connection between Biola and Christian fundamentalism.

      And it's not me who constantly brings up religious fundamentalism, it's Hunter himself. He never ceases to amaze me with this lack of self-awareness. Or denial. Or something.

      Delete
    4. Isn't that always the point of the posts? Dogma trumps evidence?

      Delete
    5. You don't get it, oleg. Hunter does not have to make excuses for his religious fundamentalism, if such fundamentalism in fact exists. The embarrassment belongs to evolutionists because they go to great lengths deny their religious roots.

      But nobody's fooled by the lady's vehement protestations unless, of course, you are an oleg or a Thorton. The religious fundamentalism of evolutionists is there for everyone to see. LOL.

      Delete
    6. I do get it, Louis. Hunter is a one-trick pony. His model can be described in one line: I'm rubber, you're glue.

      Delete
    7. oleg:

      I do get it, Louis. Hunter is a one-trick pony.

      Your problem is that his pony kicks your pony's ass, day in and day out. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here defending it. LOL.

      Delete
    8. Oh, I am not defending anything. Just having fun at the blog owner's expense.

      And if his pony is so successful, how come creationism is still in the doldrums?

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

      Delete
    10. oleg:

      And if his pony is so successful, how come creationism is still in the doldrums?

      Only in the schools where the teaching of evolution is enforced by totalitarian forces not subject to democracy. But that, too, will come to an end. Why? Because, in spite of the prolonged indoctrination, the population at large is still not convinced. And it's not a matter of being anti-science since the same population has nothing against Newtonian or Einsteinian physics or Maxwell's electromagnetism, or the physics of gases and liquids, or what have you.

      Delete
    11. Louis,

      The population at large is for the most part ignorant of science. (It's a safe bet that you, in particular, don't understand theory of relativity or, say, the physics of liquids.) So pointing to Joe Sixpack and saying that he doesn't accept evolution is not a very convincing argument. Try again?

      Delete
    12. oleg,

      Actually, the strongest opponents of the doctrine of evolution are some of the most educated people around. Joe Sixpack does not care one way or another. Furthermore, I do understand the theory of relativity better than even some PhD physicists who should know better. For example, I understand that nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime, an inconvenient fact that most physicists are not even aware of. Nevertheless it moved Sir Karl Popper to compare Einstein's spacetime to the block universe of Parmenides of Elea. The latter was, of course, Zeno's teacher and a fervent advocate of the idea that change is an illusion. Source: Conjectures and Refutations.

      Did you know that nothing can move in spacetime and why, oleg? Never mind. I know you don't. At any rate, evolution is a trivial theory compared to physics. You people give yourselves way too much importance.

      Delete
    13. Hahaha, Louis! If you guessed that I would be shocked—shocked!—that particles are represented by time-like worldlines in relativity, you should guess again.

      I don't care much for Karl Popper's opinion about relativity, or about any other branch of physics, for that matter. I generally find philosophers insufferable when they pontificate about science.

      As to theory of evolution, its validity should be judged by professional biologists, and there are precious few of those among them who find creationism palatable. The opinion of engineers on the subject (or astronomers, for that matter) does not carry much weight.

      Delete
    14. Oleg:

      Dr. Hunter doesn't have a problem with religious fundamentalists. He just doesn't like it when evolutionists claim that religious fundamentalists are stupid, while evolutionists are the smart people.

      Delete
    15. oleg:

      As to theory of evolution, its validity should be judged by professional biologists, and there are precious few of those among them who find creationism palatable. The opinion of engineers on the subject (or astronomers, for that matter) does not carry much weight.

      ahahaha... The insufferable pomposity of evolutionists strikes again. If a scientific theory cannot be explained in simple language that the average intelligent layperson can understand, one can rest assured that it's a pile of unmitigated elitist crap.

      Delete
    16. As to 'religious fundamentalists'. Has it ever occurred to the atheists who rail against religious fundamentalists to remember that it was the 'religious fundamentalists' of Jesus' day who had Jesus crucified.,, Jesus primary enemies on earth, as testified throughout the gospels, were the self righteous religious hypocrites who thought they were better than everybody else. So when you atheists rail against 'religious fundamentalists' you would do well to remember that He who died to give us eternal life was right there with you doing the very same thing as you are doing now 2000 years ago! (Save for the Darwinism part of course :) )

      Verse & Music:

      Matthew 23:13-15
      “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

      Carrie Underwood – Jesus, Take The Wheel
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU

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

      Delete
    18. Nat -

      He just doesn't like it when evolutionists claim that religious fundamentalists are stupid, while evolutionists are the smart people.


      And exactly who is making that claim? I mean I'm not saynig it's incorrect, but you seem to be implying that scientists from every biological field have totally abandoned the scientific method and the rules of rational debate and are now advancing their theories through nothing more than name-calling.

      Is that really the claim you are making?

      Delete
    19. Louis Savain -

      Actually, the strongest opponents of the doctrine of evolution are some of the most educated people around.

      Really? Let's examine that claim, shall we?

      The Discovery Institute has a petition form asking everyone who doubts the validity of the theory of evolution. And yet, the otherwhelming majority of signatories work in fields which have little or nothing to do with evolution.

      Still, as for May 2009, there were 146 biologists on a list of 754. Now et us consideer the total number of biologists who DO accept evolution, for which I present, Project Steve.

      The National Centre for Science Education put together their own survey - for scientists who support ToE and oppose Intelligent Design with just one catch - they only accepted signatures from scientists whose name was a derivation of Steve (Stephen, Stephanie, etc).

      Again as of May 2009, Project Steve turned up over a thousand and, unlike the DI's survey, more than half the signatories were indeed biologists.

      For purposes of comparison, the DI's list had only 10 Steves, only 1 of whom was a biologist.

      If you want to see some cold number-crunching, see http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/05/cfac-steve-statistics.html

      The point? While there may be a few scientists - even biologists - who challenge evolution (having a Ph.D is no guarantee of being rational), the VAST majority of them accept it. These are the people in the know - the people whose job it is to study and understand biology. These are the people whose opinion on this topic really matters - and they are overwhelmingly on the side of evolution.

      Delete
    20. So Ritchie, in your opinion what is the strongest piece of empirical evidence that shows the materialistic/atheistic form of neo-Darwinism is true? Lenski? Bird Beaks? Peppered moths? Which one is the one piece of evidence that seals the deal for you? I've looked for substantiating evidence and can find none!

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

      Ritchie, perhaps you would care to point Dr. Behe to the evidence he missed in his survey of 4 decades worth of lab work?

      “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

      And Ritchie, another problem, can you please point me to the materialistic beyond space and time 'cause' for quantum non-locality in molecular biology? Theists already have a beyond space and time cause whereas materialists generally deny that anything exists if it is not material:

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

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

      Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video
      https://vimeo.com/39982578

      Delete
    21. Louis: If a scientific theory cannot be explained in simple language that the average intelligent layperson can understand, one can rest assured that it's a pile of unmitigated elitist crap.

      Explaining a theory in simple terms is one thing, verifying its predictions is an entirely different one. One is suitable for laymen, the other isn't. I am sure a layman can follow the news about the Higgs boson to some degree, but he or she cannot make heads or tails of the data.

      Delete
    22. Born -

      I've looked for substantiating evidence and can find none!

      Okay, let's start by addressing this first and formost. No, you have not looked. I don't believe this for a second. You have not made the slightest effort to understand or find supporting evidence for any evolutionary claim, because the evidence is both abundant and freely available. What you actually do is listen to the ID bots and other religious loons saying there is no evidence, and then parrot their propaganda - along with a load of Bible quotes while hilariously denying ID is religiously motivated, of course.

      in your opinion what is the strongest piece of empirical evidence that shows the materialistic/atheistic form of neo-Darwinism is true?

      I'm only guessing what you mean by neo-Darwinism. I'm guessing you mean The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection (or just ToE for short). In which case, why don't you just say so? And if not, what is the distinction?

      And just for the record, ToE is neither strictly atheistic nor materialistic. Like every other scientific theory, it does demand methodological naturalism. But that is not the same thing.

      Lenski? Bird Beaks? Peppered moths? Which one is the one piece of evidence that seals the deal for you?

      Well, there is no single piece of evidence which absolutely PROVES ToE is true. Just like no single piece of evidence absolutely PROVES the holocaust happened. It is a conclusion drawn on a convergence of evidence.

      That said, some evidence is stronger than others, and yes I do indeed find Lenski's E.Coli study extremely compelling evidence. How could it not be? It is evolution before our very eyes, monitored and recorded in minute detail.

      As for Behe, I don't understand why you are trumpeting this, particuarly. I admit I only skim-read it, but it seems his whole point 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." And so what? Why is this a problem, exactly? It has been known for years that most mutations are non-advantageous.

      can you please point me to the materialistic beyond space and time 'cause' for quantum non-locality in molecular biology?

      No I can't because I really don't understand what you're talking about here.

      Theists already have a beyond space and time cause...

      No, they have a guess. A guess which is no more an explanation than saying 'Magic fairies did it'.

      "whereas materialists generally deny that anything exists if it is not material"

      Yes, that's why they are materialists. But do not confuse atheists, materialists and people who accept evolution. Though there may be some overlap, they are not the same.

      Delete
    23. Ritchie you claim:

      "You have not made the slightest effort to understand or find supporting evidence for any evolutionary claim, because the evidence is both abundant and freely available."

      Okie Dokie present the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism. You can start by generating a single molecular machine by purely neo-Darwinian processes!

      Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

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

      Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

      “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
      David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

      Delete
    24. Ritchie you claim:

      "Like every other scientific theory, it does demand methodological naturalism."

      No science demands no such thing! For materialists to demand that all answers be materialistic prior to investigation defeats the primary purpose of doing science in the first place. In fact the scientific method itself can be used to falsify methodological naturalism!

      Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

      Ritchie you ask:

      Why is this a problem, exactly? It has been known for years that most mutations are non-advantageous.

      this is the problem:

      Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/35088933

      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
    25. Born -

      You see, this is exactly my point. If you were genuinely interested in finding some supporting evidence for ToE, you would ask me to present some and then go from there - possibly to critically evaluate it.

      But this isn't what you've done. Instead you've provided a lengthy reply of links and quotes asserting that no such evidence exists.

      Your mind is simply closed.

      Delete
    26. "do not confuse atheists, materialists and people who accept evolution. Though there may be some overlap, they are not the same."

      And accepting the primary claim of Darwinism, that undirected processes created all life on earth, supports theism how exactly?

      Here is an atheist professor who openly proselytizes his religion in his classroom:

      Dr. Will Provine - EXPELLED - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJ5dHtmNtU

      "Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom" (from 2008): John G. West - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEajEwzYwHg

      Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
      Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
      Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher
      http://www.icr.org/article/455/

      Southwestern University Law Review: DEALING WITH THE ENTANGLEMENT OF RELIGION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
      Excerpt: But each time we present a theory of life's origin to our schoolchildren, we are showing preference. And by actually looking at the theories and what they represent, as well as looking at what religion provides for people, we can see that the government, even in limiting the teaching to only evolution, is endorsing a religious ideology. A message exists behind this endorsement - the same message people feared would exist if we allowed schools to teach biblical creationism theories or even intelligent design theory. The message itself is an endorsement. Accordingly, the government is endorsing a particular religious belief - the belief that no supernatural being exists. In effect, this endorsement not only advances that particular religious belief and inhibits other religious beliefs, but also it shows an utter failure of maintaining the government's requisite neutrality involving religion and the government.
      https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=37+Sw.+U.+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=90873d971bf3d768563adad5bf41fe28

      Talking Evolution With Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter - December 2011
      Excerpt: "Like the cultist I spoke with, evolutionists are certain even though the facts do not support such certainty.,,," "You can present the facts, you can walk through the logic, you can review the experiments, and you can tally up the findings. It doesn’t matter. It never did matter because, ultimately, evolution never was about the science."
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/12/talking-evolution-with-evolutionists.html

      Delete
    27. Born -

      No science demands no such thing!

      Categorically wrong. Science absolutely demands methodological naturalism. Science is simply impossible without it.

      In fact the scientific method itself can be used to falsify methodological naturalism!

      Who wrote that rubbish? Quite obviously not someone who understands what methodological naturalism actually is.

      this is the problem:

      Born, we've had this before. Stop just regurgitating link after link after link. Your replies resemblenothing more than a shopping list of urls. Do those links you have posted there ACTUALLY have any relation at all to the Behe quotes you took above? If so, what? Please explain it to me in YOUR OWN WORDS.

      Delete
    28. Born -

      And accepting the primary claim of Darwinism, that undirected processes created all life on earth, supports theism how exactly?

      You are flat wrong that the 'primary claim of Darwinism' is that 'undirected processes created all life on Earth'. Darwin said nothing about the CREATION of life. ToE is concerned with how life develops, not begins.

      ToE exlpains how life DEVELOPED without ever calling on un-/sub-/super- natural forces. That is not to say that these forces definitely do not exist, simply that they are not necessary for accout for the vriety we see in life. There are plenty of people who accept evolution and yet still believe in God. The two are not incompatible. Even the Pope officially declare belief in God and acceptance of evolution are not in conflict.

      Delete
    29. Ritchie you speak with forked tongue!! Moreover you did not produce the evidence for the neo-Darwinian origination of a single molecular machine like I asked you for! Perhaps instead of rhetoric you should concentrate on the evidence?

      Here are a few examples of molecular machines:

      Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630

      Bacterial Flagellum - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y

      The ATP Synthase Enzyme - exquisite motor necessary for first life - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4

      Powering the Cell: Mitochondria - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2uROUjK4

      Molecular Machine - Nuclear Pore Complex - Stephen C. Meyer - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4261990

      Kinesin Linear Motor - Video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeJwQ0OXc4

      Ribosome Translation High Quality - video
      http://pubs.acs.org/cen/multimedia/85/ribosome/translation_bacterial.html

      Myosin - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8F5GGPACkQ

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

      The following article has a list of 40 (yes, 40) irreducibly complex molecular machines in the cell:

      Molecular Machines in the Cell -
      http://www.discovery.org/a/14791

      Delete
    30. Born -

      Moreover you did not produce the evidence for the neo-Darwinian origination of a single molecular machine like I asked you for! Perhaps instead of rhetoric you should concentrate on the evidence?

      Because you are not interested in hearing any. You are preaching. You are not acting the role of student, you are acting the role of teacher. Your mind is already closed to the possibility of such evidence.

      You demonstrate this by yet again posting a wall of links. None of which demonstrate what you want them to, but seeing as you've poste so many, it would take me hours to go through each and tell you exactly what was wrong with each of them in turn.

      You do not listen. You just preach. If you stopped your religious ranting and opened your ears for just a moment you might learn a few things inspite of yourself.

      Delete
    31. Because you are not interested in hearing any.

      Really??? A molecular machine produced by material processes would rock the biological world. Of course I would be interested in hearing about it. but alas, you have no evidence to present because none exists i.e. you have bluffed big time and exposed yourself as a liar once again!

      Delete
    32. Born -

      Nonsense. You do not listen. You just preach. That's all you do.

      Now exactly where you've come up with the concept of a 'molecular machine produced by material processes' I've no idea. What exactly are you talking about?

      You were asking for evidence in support of ToE (or, in your parlance, 'neo-Darwinism). Of which there is plenty. Here's a list exlpaining some:

      http://teachthemscience.org/evidence

      Delete
    33. Ritchie

      Because you are not interested in hearing any. You are preaching. You are not acting the role of student, you are acting the role of teacher.


      He's not even doing that, because he certainly doesn't understand or can explain the huge steaming piles of Creationist crap he C&Ps.

      Batspit77 is just a mindless drudge of a messenger, blankly repeating back what he has heard others say without the slightest bit comprehension on the topics. Not unlike the "talking" parrots you can see at the zoo.

      Delete
    34. Ritchie, none of your 'evidence' shows the generation of a molecular machine by material processes. I'm sure it is a oversight on your part. Could you please site the specific experiment where JUST ONE molecular machine was generated by material processes so as to back up your claim???

      Delete
    35. Born - I made no claims about 'molecular machines' at all. Only you used that term. I'm not even totally sure what you mean by the term. Can you define it please? And explain exactly what it has to do with ToE.

      Delete
    36. Since I have already listed several videos of molecular machines, and given you hostile neo-Darwinian position, I'll take that as a concession that you have no evidence for molecular machines arising by material processes!

      Delete
    37. Ritchie, if you are interested, this following article is the closest Darwinists have ever come to generating a molecular machine by material processes:

      A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Michael Behe - January 2012
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/a_blind_man_car055021.html

      Dr. Crocker comments on the preceding article here:

      Dr. Behe Strikes Again
      Excerpt: the article claims that their work shows how a complex machine could have evolved through random mutations.

      But, Dr. Behe, in his incisive way, points out several problems with suggesting that this is evidence for life coming about through an unguided Darwinian process. First, according to the authors themselves, the new machine was more complex, but not more functional, than the original. The mutations and added complexity did not result in a selective advantage; they were neutral in their effect. Darwinian evolution is said to proceed from simple to complex organisms by random mutations that result in a selective advantage. Clearly not happening here.

      Second, the information was already there–that is, the totally functional and highly complex ancestral machine was the starting point. Darwinism suggests that an unguided process is capable of building new information or increasing functional complexity. This thought experiment showed that evolutionary processes result in degradation of, not increasing, information. This is as one would expect from random “typos.”

      Behe points out that the scenario proposed actually requires two minor (and neutral) mutations to occur in the yeast line over a period of a billion years. And since no other mutations are in evidence in animals and plants, that appears to be the only times that mutations in the code for this machine did.
      http://www.americaninstitutetechnologyscienceeducation.com/educational-resources/articles-video/evolution-and-intelligent-design/dr-behe-strikes-again/

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

      Delete
    39. Born -

      I asked you to explain quite clearly what you meant by 'molecular machines', and to explain what they have to do with ToE. You have failed to do either.

      This is probably because you are just parrotting someone else's words with no understanding of what it means yourself, and are thus unable to explain it to others.

      This is exactly how propaganda gets spread. People like you just repeat these assertions with no idea of what they actually mean.

      Delete
  2. ...everything worked fine.

    In other words, there is no apparent evolutionary fitness advantage of implementing the far more complex version of the enzyme, which evolutionists cannot explain anyway even if there were such an advantage.


    Actually, if one reads the paper, which is available in its entirety online, one finds that

    Compared to the RPR1 wild-type, PRORP1 strains gave rise to smaller colonies indicating a slower growth rate (Figure 4D).

    So much for no fitness advantage (in the laboratory, no less). And it turns out that there is more than one way to remove 5' extensions from tRNA precursors. Should we be surprised to learn that this has been known since 1988 (Wang et al., EMBO J. 7, 1567)?

    Following his usual methodology, Dr Hunter creates a straw man caricature of what evolutionary theory might predict and then strains mightily to knock it down.

    In any case, the paper was a good read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In other words, there is no apparent evolutionary fitness advantage of implementing the far more complex version of the enzyme, which evolutionists cannot explain anyway even if there were such an advantage.

    It looks like there actually is an advantage for the more complex enzyme in this case -- Hunter apparently only reads the new articles and riffs off of those rather than getting the details right -- but also: where has it ever been the case that evolutionary theory says (a) systems will be as simple as possible or (b) that optimality should be expected? The "Evolutionary Principle" was made up by a journalist or someone who was not familiar with actual modern evolutionary biology. The whole idea that mutations are random, cooption and borrowing are common, adaptation is local not global, etc., all indicate that suboptimal and messy solutions should not be surprising. It's the *creationists* who think that an intelligent designer did everything with foresight that should expect everything to be optimal, they can't just paste their expectation onto evolutionary theory and get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick, what does evolutionary theory say about the Ribosome of the cell being found to be very similar to a CPU in a electronic computer:

      Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems - 2012
      David J D’Onofrio1*, David L Abel2* and Donald E Johnson3
      Excerpt: The DNA polynucleotide molecule consists of a linear sequence of nucleotides, each representing a biological placeholder of adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and guanine (G). This quaternary system is analogous to the base two binary scheme native to computational systems. As such, the polynucleotide sequence represents the lowest level of coded information expressed as a form of machine code. Since machine code (and/or micro code) is the lowest form of compiled computer programs, it represents the most primitive level of programming language.,,,
      An operational analysis of the ribosome has revealed that this molecular machine with all of its parts follows an order of operations to produce a protein product. This order of operations has been detailed in a step-by-step process that has been observed to be self-executable. The ribosome operation has been proposed to be algorithmic (Ralgorithm) because it has been shown to contain a step-by-step process flow allowing for decision control, iterative branching and halting capability. The R-algorithm contains logical structures of linear sequencing, branch and conditional control. All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.,,,
      The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm.
      It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program’s desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive.
      http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-9-8.pdf

      Delete
    2. NickMJuly 5, 2012 2:38 PM
      “The whole idea that mutations are random, cooption and borrowing are common, adaptation is local not global, etc., all indicate that suboptimal and messy solutions should not be surprising.”

      Nothing is surprising in the light of evolution suboptimal and optimal solution are both predicted and postdicted.

      Delete
    3. Design also encompasses optimal and sub optimal solutions ,accounted for by the whim of the designer.

      Delete
  4. CH: CH: In other words, there is no apparent evolutionary fitness advantage of implementing the far more complex version of the enzyme….

    You seem to have forgotten that we figured out the role deoxyribonucleic acid played in 1953: genes are replicators.

    A replicator represents information which casually effects whether it is copied or not. If the process by which a replicator is copied is imperfect (within limits), variants of the replicator will arise. Some may manage to copy themselves while others will not. New variants might copy themselves better in the same environment or might copy themselves better in new environments. It's though this process that variants become better adapted.

    Genes are biological replicators, which also casually effect whether they are copied or not. Genetic variation produces varies of the same gene. Some of these genes may manage to copy themselves while others will not. New variants of genes might copy themselves better in the same environment or might copy themselves better in new environments where others could not. It's though this process that gene variants become *different* over time, leading to new species.

    Note that the above explanation considers organisms part of the Gene's environment. This means that some genes need not actually provide a fitness advantage to the organism. So, variations need not actually result in a benefit to the organism. All it needs to do is result in copying it self.

    In other words, we now know that "survival of the fittest is a myth". However, if you're a competent biologist, you should already know this.

    BTW, don't you think it's rather odd that you'd need to be reminded of this by a layman and a non-biolgist?

    CH: which evolutionists cannot explain anyway even if there were such an advantage.

    Given that I've repeated provided an explanation, which you have yet to give any detailed criticism of, apparently I'm not an evolutionist.

    So, exactly who are these evolutionists you keep talking about, anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  5. As the link in the article recalls the devastating article about Euglenids and Dinoflagellates...


    "The Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, also share very odd peculiarities at the molecular level in general, such as polycistronic transcription, trans-splicing and intron poverty. And there is more to the molecular similarities. For instance, both these groups have secondary plastids with unique characteristics. But for now, let’s step back even further, and look at the higher level cell morphology.

    In addition to their mitochondria, plastids and protein synthesis details, these distant groups in the evolutionary tree of life share “stunningly similar” cell morphology “although completely different from what is the rule of the eukaryotic cell.” These similarities include:


    Dorsoventral flattening
    Ventral groove/sulcus
    Recurrent flagellum
    Subapical flagellar insertion
    Paraxonemal rods
    Gliding motility
    Thickened cell surface
    Extrusomes
    Photoreceptive eyespots"

    If this didn't give the evolutionists pause, what would? "When Christ comes, will he do more miracles than these which this man has done?"

    How much complexity and convergence is simply too much for evolutionary mechanisms? Evolutionists will not answer this question. They offer no metric, no standard. Evolution is considered Carte Blanche by evolutionsts. Never, never, ever, will you see an evolutionist look at something he is clueless about as to cause and publicly question whether evolution was responsible. Euglenids and Dinoflagellates are not a trivial issue, but no matter. How it evolved? Yes. But never, if. Because Bird beak variation = Evolution = Euglenids and Dinoflagellates = ?whatever? Carte Blanche. Why? Don't know, but they have Urey-Miller, peppered moths, E.Coli, guppies, and mutant fruit fly's (which explain nothing other than what evolution isn't).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Evolutionists suffer from a disease where they are unable and/or unwilling to "think outside the box".

    I sense a lack of innovation on their side.

    Evolutionists simply propagate existing "textbook" ideas that suit their worldview - a worldview which has become the "status quo", not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. computerist29

      Evolutionists suffer from a disease where they are unable and/or unwilling to "think outside the box".

      I sense a lack of innovation on their side.

      Evolutionists simply propagate existing "textbook" ideas that suit their worldview - a worldview which has become the "status quo", not the other way around.


      Evolutionary scientists are working under some pretty tight constraints - they're limited to honest descriptions of empirically verified physical reality.

      That's quite unlike the Intelligent Design Creationists, who can and do 'innovate' with the truth, and get to make up stuff whole cloth as they go along.

      Evolutionary theory wins the day for the simple reason that the honest science works while the Creationist lies don't.

      Delete
    2. Thorton, perhaps you would like to show me the 'honest science' that falsifies this null hypothesis:

      Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors
      Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC).,,, Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,,

      Testable hypotheses about FSC

      What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

      Null hypothesis #1
      Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

      Null hypothesis #2
      Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

      Null hypothesis #3
      Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

      Null hypothesis #4
      Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

      We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
      http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

      Kirk Durston - Functional Information In Biopolymers - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMEjF9ZH0x8

      Delete
    3. And Thorton once you get done showing me how 'honest science' shows material processes can generate immaterial functional information, then you can show me how 'honest science' can be grounded in materialism 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/

      "Nonphysical formalism not only describes, but preceded physicality and the Big Bang
      Formalism prescribed, organized and continues to govern physicodynamics."
      http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/ag

      Delete
    4. ba77,

      Why do you keep quoting this retired horse doctor on a subject he has no understanding of?

      Delete
    5. oleg, and why do you repeatedly use ad hominem instead of addressing the argument? A unbiased person would think that you can't answer the argument!

      In fact, since neo-Darwinists have no substantiating evidence which they can present, character assassination is a fairly common tactic used by neo-Darwinists, and by atheists in general;

      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

      Delete
    6. ba77,

      A while ago a few of us, including Liz, tried to find some sense in Abel's word salad. Here is the relevant thread at TSZ: Chaos and Complexity. Our conclusion was that Abel is completely lost in the technical terms he piles one upon another. Read that thread for yourself if you want to, but Abel's writing is complete post-modernist gibberish. See for yourself.

      Delete
    7. Born -

      Help me to understand Abel's argument then.

      "The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems..."

      So is he saying that, (or are you using his work to assert that...) because language, translation, logic theory, etc, are not physical objects, this somehow disproves materialism?!?!

      Have I read this wrong? Is this the assertion being made? "Language is not physical, therefore materialism is wrong"? Really...?

      Delete
    8. Actually, the claim, to put it in very simple terms that oleg can understand (since he claims to not understand it), is that material processes will NEVER create functional, logical, information. It is really a simple concept to understand. We use logical information all the time, yet logic is immaterial, it does not change. Logic was the same yesterday, and logic will be the same tomorrow. And though functional, logical information can be encoded onto a material basis. as with computers, and even transferred to different material mediums, logical information is not reducible to those material entities. i.e. logic does not emerge from a material basis! Moreover logical information actually 'governs' material processes in a cell and in a computer and tells the material processes what to do, thus we should not a-priori expect that 'which is governed' to produce that which governs. A simple way to falsify this claim is to generate a code by purely material processes! Good luck with that falsification!

      "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107."
      (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.)

      The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532

      Information - The Utter Demise Of Darwinian Evolution - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4914327

      Delete
    9. ba77,

      Define "functional, logical, information."

      Delete
    10. "Define "functional, logical, information."

      to repeat oleg, since you seem to have a very hard time understanding this,,,

      A simple way to falsify this claim is to generate a code by purely material processes!

      i.e. a code is one type of functional, logical, information that is implemented onto a material medium that we should not a-priori expect to 'emerge' from a material basis. Abel calls it, more specifically, 'prescriptive' information. Prescriptive information is further delineated here:

      Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems - 2012
      David J D’Onofrio1*, David L Abel2* and Donald E Johnson3
      Excerpt: The DNA polynucleotide molecule consists of a linear sequence of nucleotides, each representing a biological placeholder of adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and guanine (G). This quaternary system is analogous to the base two binary scheme native to computational systems. As such, the polynucleotide sequence represents the lowest level of coded information expressed as a form of machine code. Since machine code (and/or micro code) is the lowest form of compiled computer programs, it represents the most primitive level of programming language.,,,
      An operational analysis of the ribosome has revealed that this molecular machine with all of its parts follows an order of operations to produce a protein product. This order of operations has been detailed in a step-by-step process that has been observed to be self-executable. The ribosome operation has been proposed to be algorithmic (Ralgorithm) because it has been shown to contain a step-by-step process flow allowing for decision control, iterative branching and halting capability. The R-algorithm contains logical structures of linear sequencing, branch and conditional control. All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.,,,
      The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm.
      It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program’s desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive.
      http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-9-8.pdf

      Delete
    11. ba77,

      Before we proceed with falsification, you should define the terms that you use. Once again, I am asking you to define "functional, logical, information."

      Even without the two qualifiers, information is a tricky concept. Abel, in the paper we discussed at TSZ, conflates two very different, and inequivalent, technical terms: Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about. You probably don't, either, but I may be mistaken. If I am please go ahead and define what you mean by "functional, logical, information."

      Delete
    12. Born -

      Bit logic is an entirely human construct. It does not exist outside of a human brain. It is tied inextricably to our perceptions.

      Delete
    13. ...information about logically arranged matter that provides function...?

      ...information about logic steps matter arrangements have to take to provide function...?

      Depends on context.

      Anyway, something like that.

      Delete
    14. oleg, you play dumb very well! You have me completely convinced that you are! Either that or you are completely dishonest, either one does not bode well for you. Please provide empirical evidence that material processes can generate ANY CODE whatsoever or concede you have no evidence. Noting the dogmatic stance you take in your neo-Darwinism, I will take your failure to provide any requested evidence for a code generated by material processes as a admission on your part that you have no evidence for your claim!

      Ritchie claims that logical information does not really exist outside of the human mind, outside of a material medium, yet, contrary to Ritchies apriori materialistic presumption, it is found that the logical information that is programmed into a computer is a subset of quantum information by the following proof:

      ,,,This following research provides solid falsification for the late Rolf Landauer’s decades old contention that the information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it;

      Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
      Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
      In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

      Delete
    15. and here is evidence that quantum information is 'conserved'. i.e. cannot be created nor destroyed:

      Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
      Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

      Delete
    16. ba77,

      If you can't even define whatever you want me to falsify, how can I falsify it? :)

      Delete
    17. oleg, I'll spell it real slow for you,,

      C

      O

      D

      E

      CODE

      Now you try saying it,,,

      Delete
    18. That isn't a definition, ba77. It seems like you are trying to provide an example of whatever you call "functional, logical, information." Thank you for you effort, but this is not what I asked for. So let me ask you again.

      Define "functional, logical, information." Don't start with examples, start with a definition. We can then look at examples.

      Delete
    19. born -

      Ritchie claims that logical information does not really exist outside of the human mind, outside of a material medium,

      No, I said 'logic does not exist outside of a human mind'. That's logic - as a concept.

      Information can be stored outside of a human mind. If I write a book, I have produced information. Information which is logically coded in the form of language. This book clearly can exist in it's own right.

      And we are still nowhere near challenging materialism...

      Delete
    20. oleg, do not produce evidence so I take that as a concession.

      Ritchie you claim logic does not exist outside of the human mind yet we find that 'logic' governs material reality:

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

      At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation;

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

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

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

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

      Ritchie are you going to deny that the Schrodinger equation is logical information???

      Delete
    21. ba77,

      It's not a concession, so don't put words in my mouth. You have failed to defined what you mean by "functional, logical, information." This is not surprising because you merely copy and paste from other sources, and the source in question (Abel) has no idea what he is talking about.

      Note that I do not paint with a broad brush. Dembski has fairly crisp definitions of concepts he uses. So it is possible to discuss his claims, and we did so at TSZ. With Abel, that is impossible because he simply writes word salad.

      Delete
    22. Born -

      Ritchie you claim logic does not exist outside of the human mind yet we find that 'logic' governs material reality

      No, that is not what we find. The world is run by regular processes, which we may FIND logical, but that is a subjective judgement. Logic is not its own entity - especially one which governs anything.

      Delete
    23. oleg yes it is a concession for I took note of your hostile Darwinian position before you posted without requested evidence. Of course you can present evidence now to show that you are not lying.

      Ritchie so you claim it is not 'really' logic? How special of you. Perhaps you can inform Godel of your conclusion that math is not 'really' based in logic: (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)

      Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012
      Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
      1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
      2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
      3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.
      The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
      Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
      Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#

      The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman
      Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
      http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

      Delete
    24. Ritchie, I see another way out of your dilemma. All you have to do is find an example of the basic atomic particles of the universe not obeying the logic inherent in Schrodinger's equation, or you can show Schrodinger's equation to be a false description of reality. Yet before you set off to try to do as such you may like to know:

      the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;

      An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
      Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf

      Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science!

      Delete
    25. ba77,

      To concede means to "admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting." I of course admitted nothing of the sort, so your victory dance looks a little silly. You are unable to give a definition of "functional, logical, information," so there is nothing to concede on my part.

      Back to you.

      Delete
    26. And yet you still present no evidence.

      Delete
    27. oleg if you are interested, the following is the closest that Darwinists have ever come to generating any sort of code by 'material processes' (although to call this a 'material process' is certainly stretching the definition)


      Origin of Life: Claiming Something for Almost Nothing (RNA)
      Excerpt: It’s the smallest ribozyme yet, with only five nucleotides, and it is able to “catalyze a key reaction that would be needed to synthesize proteins.”,,, Yarus admitted, “the tiny replicator has not been found, and that its existence will be decided by experiments not yet done, perhaps not yet imagined.”
      But does this work support a naturalistic origin of life? A key question is whether the molecule would form under plausible prebiotic conditions. Here’s how the paper described their work in the lab to get this molecule:
      RNA was synthesized by Dharmacon. GUGGC = 5’-GUGGC-30 ; GCCU – 5’P-GCCU-3’ ; 5’OH-GCCU = 5’-GCCU-3’ ; GCCU20dU = 5’-GCC-2’-dU; GCC = 5’-GCC-3’ ; dGdCdCrU = 5’-dGdCdCU-3’ . RNA GCC3’dU was prepared by first synthesizing 5’-O-(4,4’- Dimethoxytrityl)3’-deoxyuridine as follows: 3’-deoxyuridine (MP Biomedicals; 991 mg, 0.434 mmol) was dissolved in 5 mL anhydrous pyridine and pyridine was then removed under vacuum while stirring. Solid was then redissolved in 2 mL pyridine. Dimethoxytrityl chloride (170 mg, 0.499 mmol) was dissolved in 12 mL pyridine and slowly added to 3’-deoxyuridine solution. Solution was stirred at room temperature for 4 h. All solutions were sequestered from exposure to air throughout.
      Reaction was then quenched by addition of 5 mL methanol, and solvent was removed by rotary evaporation. Remaining solvent evaporated overnight in a vacuum chamber. Product was then dissolved in 1 mL acetonitrile and purified through a silica column (acetonitrile elution). Final product fractions (confirmed through TLC, 1.1 hexane:acetonitrile) were pooled and rotary evaporated. Yield was 71%. Dimethoxytrityl-protected 30dU was then sent to Dharmacon for immobilization of 30-dU on glass and synthesis of 5’-GCC-3’-dU.
      PheAMP, PheUMP, and MetAMP were synthesized by the method of Berg (25) with modifications and purification as described in ref. 6. Yield was as follows: PheAMP 85%, PheUMP 67%, and MetAMP 36%.
      Even more purification and isolation steps under controlled conditions, using multiple solvents at various temperatures, were needed to prevent cross-reactions. (and the understatement of the century) It is doubtful such complex lab procedures have analogues in nature.
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm#20100302a

      Delete
    28. Born -

      Ritchie so you claim it is not 'really' logic? How special of you.

      What? I'm claiming what isn't really logic?

      I am not claiming logic doesn't exist. Of course it does. But not independantly of us. It is a subjective judgement. Like beauty. A sunset would still look the same with no-one around to find it beautiful, but that does not mean beauty exists in it's own right. Beauty is subjective - it is a value judgement imposed by the observer. As is logic. These things do not exist independantly of the observer.

      Ritchie, I see another way out of your dilemma. All you have to do is find an example of the basic atomic particles of the universe not obeying the logic inherent in Schrodinger's equation, or you can show Schrodinger's equation to be a false description of reality.

      And again, a swing and a miss.

      I am not saying particles don't obey Schrodinger's equation. And I am not saying Schrodinger's equation is not logic. What I am saying is that logic is a value judgement imposed by us. We FIND the equation logic, just as we FIND a sunset beautiful. But that is a judgement of perception.

      Delete
  7. Baghdad Bob Tedford

    How much complexity and convergence is simply too much for evolutionary mechanisms? Evolutionists will not answer this question.


    You've had the question answered numerous times, but since you're prone to lying every time you post I guess we'll have to go over it again.

    Since evolution is a process that naturally creates complexity, the only limiting factor is going to be the environment - the amount of physical material available to make and maintain the complex structure and the time you have to work with. As long as you have the time and resources the process can keep increasing complexity indefinitely.

    So far no one has demonstrated either a lack of time or resources to account for the complexity we see today.

    Your question is just as stupid as saying

    "How big a number is simply too big for math's "addition" mechanism?"

    Never, never, ever, will you see an evolutionist look at something he is clueless about as to cause and publicly question whether evolution was responsible.

    That's because never, never, ever in the history of science has any facet of biological life that's been explained NOT been due to evolution, and because never, never, ever in the history of science has anyone offered any positive evidence for an alternative mechanism to account for the diversity in life we see today.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "That's because never, never, ever in the history of science has any facet of biological life that's been explained NOT been due to evolution, and because never, never, ever in the history of science has anyone offered any positive evidence for an alternative mechanism to account for the diversity in life we see today."

    Now that is willful ignorance thorton!

    A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Neal: How much complexity and convergence is simply too much for evolutionary mechanisms? Evolutionists will not answer this question.

    Then, apparently, I'm not an evolutionist.

    Neal: They offer no metric, no standard.

    Not all convergence is equal. Convergence in the case of human designed things, such as cars, isn't the same as convergence in the case of evolution. Specifically, the knowledge of how to build convergent adaptations in cars is explanatory, while the knowledge of how to build convergent adaptations in biological organisms is non-explanatory.

    In other words, you've presented an oversimplified version of convergence that doesn't take into account the role that knowledge plays in creating adaptations. This comes as no surprise as it's based on your pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge.

    Neal: Euglenids and Dinoflagellates are not a trivial issue, but no matter. How it evolved? Yes. But never, if. Why? Don't know, but they have Urey-Miller, peppered moths, E.Coli, guppies, and mutant fruit fly's (which explain nothing other than what evolution isn't).

    First, what exact steps were taken? We do not know. Nor it is necessary for us to know.

    Second, like everything else in science, ideas are fallible. We can be wrong. Nor can we positively prove that anything is true. Rather, what we do is use criticism to weed out bad idea. Again, you're merely pushing your problem, based on your conception of human knowledge, on us.

    So, it depends on the type of knowledge behind said convergence, not the amount of convergence.

    ReplyDelete