But it’s a Fact Anyway
For instance, evolutionists have had to resort to the explanation that rather than mutations tweaking the DNA’s protein-coding genes to create or improve protein functions, those mutations must have sometimes tweaked regulatory networks that control the expression of said genes. What Ball doesn’t mention is that this new epicycle relies on the prior existence of those regulatory networks and the protein-coding genes they control.
In other words, we now must believe that evolution first constructed the incredible genes and regulatory networks (for which there is no scientific explanation, but that’s another story) which then enabled evolution to proceed.
Such serendipity is unlikely, to put it kindly, but Ball presents it with a straight face:
In a sense this is still natural selection pulling out the best from a bunch of random mutations, but not at the level of the DNA sequence itself.
This is just silly. It is good that Ball admits that we don’t “fully understand” evolution, and it is a positive step for him to urge evolutionists to acknowledge this. But there is a reason why evolutionists avoid the implications of science.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Neo-Darwinism is not 'science' because it has no rigid mathematical basis in which to make solid predictions so as to verify it as a accurate description of reality,
ReplyDelete“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
(Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
Furthermore neo-Darwinism can have no rigid mathematical basis within science to make accurate predictions with because of the random variable postulate at the base of its formulation:
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8
quote from preceding video:
“John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
Dr. David Berlinski
“No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
Leonardo Da Vinci
Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE
Despite its failure at establishing a rigid mathematical basis in which to make accurate predictions with, there are a few ‘mathematical’ relationships for Darwinists that do seem to hold up quite well:
,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them “creationists” — meaning “crackpots.” As one historian writes, the Darwinists’ attacks “have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory.”
Terry Scambray
DeleteThe reason why neo-Darwinism can have no rigid mathematical basis is best illustrated by Godel’s incompleteness theorem,,,
Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, is shown to apply not only to mathematics but also to material objects in this following video:
Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356
Godel’s theorem has been stated this way
Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century
Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove “mathematically” to be true.”
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/
Godel and Physics – John D. Barrow
Excerpt (page 5-6): “Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.”
Stanley Jaki – Cosmos and Creator – 1980, pg. 49
As to the comment ‘anything you can craw a circle around cannot explain itself’, it is interesting to note something that was discovered after Godel passed on. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) of the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere
Planck satellite unveils the Universe — now and then (w/ Video showing the mapping of the ‘sphere’ of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with the satellite) – 2010
http://phys.org/news197534140.html#nRlv
Proverbs 8:26-27
While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Also of interest is two other places in the universe where ‘unexpected roundness’ is found:
Sun’s Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists – (Aug. 16, 2012) —
Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.
via- Science Daily
Bucky Balls – Andy Gion
Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,,
http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm
Yet if one assumes randomness to be ‘outside the circle’, instead of God, to explain something, then epistemological failure results. This failure is born out by Boltzmann’s Brain,,,
DeleteThe Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
http://vimeo.com/34468027
Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video:
The End Of Materialism?
* In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
* In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
* In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
* Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
God Is the Best Explanation of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMBcc2aTqcE
And this epistemological failure that randomness forces upon science is also clearly illustrated by Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)
Alvin Plantinga – Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8
Philosopher Sticks Up for God
Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
via- NY Times
Even the, ahem, ‘world’s greatest thinker’, Richard Dawkins, agrees with the overall principle that our cognitive faculties are undermined by randomness:
Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True – video
Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs
Thus in conclusion, one must either choose God to be ‘outside the circle’ or randomness to be ‘outside the circle, but if you choose randomness to be ‘outside the circle’ then kiss goodbye to science and your sanity!
Hey bornagain77, I find this video where William Lane Craig explains the Kalam Cosmological Argument compelling. Thanks for all of the links.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg
NEWSFLASH!
ReplyDeleteBiologists do not fully understand yet how evolution works at the molecular level!
And, in further breaking news
Dog bites man!
The situation is hardly limited to biology.
ReplyDeleteTake particle physics. We do not understand why there are three generations of leptons and quarks. That hardly means that we should doubt the Standard Model of particle physics.
Or cosmology. We do not understand what causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Dark energy is still an enigma. That does not mean that the Big Bang cosmology is wrong. Incomplete, yes. Wrong, no.
So don't sulk about evolutionary biology, Cornelius. Go fly a kite.
Oleg:
Delete"We do not understand what causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Dark energy is still an enigma. That does not mean that the Big Bang cosmology is wrong. Incomplete, yes. Wrong, no."
How could the big bang theory be right, if the universe is accelerating? Those two theories contradict each other according to our knowledge of physics. Can you provide and example known to physicists of an explosion such as big bang that would continue to accelerate after its begining? You can't, so why would you believe it's true?
For one thing, Milosh, the Big Bang is not an explosion. You might read that in the popular literature, but this is one of the popular misconceptions. See here for example.
DeleteSince the Bg Bang is not an explosion, analogies with explosions are not particularly helpful.
The theory that led to the prediction of the Big Bang was written by Einstein. (He basically guessed the form of the equations on the basis of symmetry considerations). These equations are compatible with accelerating, decelerating, and stationary universe.
@ Oleg
DeleteI agree with you. I don't think that the "big bang" was an explosion. What was it then? A controlled expansion of energy; conversion of energy into matter? I would love to agree with you but where do we end up?
I would think that rather than sulk, Cornelius is, like myself, enjoying the show. Mainstream evolutionary biologists are not only squirming much these days, but spewing invective as much as ever. And as such revealing much about their psychologies. I love it.
ReplyDeleteI hope it gives you as much enjoyment as you provide.
DeleteReally now. You guys really come here for enjoyment? I thought you guys came here because we are all liars. We lie so much here that you want to come here and have fun? I will admit that it's possible that the "evolutionary biologist" on another blog fantasizing about one of the UD principals fist-f_____g a donkey was having some really perverse fun, in his mind. And in the name of "science" too.
DeleteMSEE,
DeleteReally now. You guys really come here for enjoyment? I thought you guys came here because we are all liars
Being wrong does not make someone a liar, and the accusations of mendacity are not one sided.
We lie so much here that you want to come here and have fun
I admit to having a contrarian view of fun but of course I would never be so arrogant to presume to judge everyone's motivations. Personally I find bad reasoning interesting, hence this blog provides me with an endless supply.
I will admit that it's possible that the "evolutionary biologist" on another blog fantasizing about one of the UD principals fist-f_____g a donkey was having some really perverse fun, in his mind.
I am not in favor of animal cruelity either. On that we agree, but if you are saying that only one side is unimaginative in their arguments remember who you share the canoe with, Louis and Joe G.
LOL! Gee CH, you sure zinged us evil evos with that one!
ReplyDeleteI freely admit we don’t fully understand how evolution works.
We also don’t fully understand how geology works.
We don’t fully understand how genetics works.
We don’t fully understand how meteorology works.
We don’t fully understand how biology works.
There isn't a single field of science where everything is fully known. There are always more details to discover.
Here's the thing CH - science knows it doesn't have all the answers. If it did it would stop investigating. Even though you gave up your science career to be a paid Creationist shill doesn't mean the millions of other science professionals did.
CH: But it’s a Fact Anyway
We don't fully understand how cancer works. Does that make cancer not a fact?
We can watch cancers grow daily. Conversely NOT ONE "random mutation" has been observed and documented as creating novel function or complex structure. Yet such stochastic creative juice is sure as gravity hee hee.
DeleteWrong.
DeleteZ. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, "Genomic analysis of a key Innovation in an experimental E. coli Population," Nature 489, 513 (2012). doi:10.1038/nature11514
And in this can you explain how the authors established that each required mutation arose from strictly stochastic bases? I didn't access the complete article, so a couple of questions. Did they do an in depth statistical study on the mutation probabilities as a function of say temperature, all other variables held constant? As an engineer, I'm very familiar with signals and noise, and the various ways in which functions modeled as random can be often shown to be pseudorandom. I think you guys would need some mathematical help to tease out the proof that all of the mutation events observed in these types of studies show statistical independence in regards to the environmental conditions, possible excepting temperature. You see, since you guys insist on teaching random school children something called random mutation, I think it is fair to discuss what do you REALLY mean by random, and drill down on this, and see if you are really interested in the questions related to stochastic processes, and if you really know this field. I'm not offering anything novel here, plenty of workers such as Barry Hall and James Shapiro have been at this game in addition to scientists from other fields who know more about basic physical processes than the typical "evolutionary biologist". I can remember several years ago on this blog someone heaping ridicule on me for stating that I formally studied in an upper division engineering statistics course. This is the type of non-serious behavior we encounter here.
DeleteShorter MSEE
Delete"Prove that the Intelligent Design magic pixies didn't push the molecules around to direct the mutations!"
Wouldn't be a day without some moron Creationist demanding that science prove a negative.
BTW MSEE, the 'random' part of 'random mutations' refers to their effect on the reproductive fitness of the individual who has the mutations. The probability distribution of the effects of mutations is not uniform but the process is still stochastic. This has been empirically demonstrated.
The Fitness Effects of Random Mutations in Single-Stranded DNA and RNA Bacteriophages
All this time and you still can't be arsed to learn the basics.
MSEE: I can remember several years ago on this blog someone heaping ridicule on me for stating that I formally studied in an upper division engineering statistics course.
Bullcrap. You came in here bragging about what an expert in statistics you were. Then it turned out you had take a single freshman level statistics course. Some "expert."
Thorton,
DeleteHey, how are you doing?
Well my hockey loving buddy, the shooting starts for real in a few days. It should be interesting. It looks quite likely now that my Leafs will be playing Montreal. That will be an absolutely wild series. I'm looking forward to that one. How do you think your Sharks will do? I haven't look for a few days, who are they likely to play?
Hi Nic
DeleteMaple Loafs, er, Leafs made the big dance! Congratulations! I love it when two original 6 teams knock heads in the play-offs!
Sharks Kings are tied for 4th-5th, They play each other tonight, winner will get home ice advantage for the first round. They will face each other regardless.
Hope we meet in the finals (but I'm not holding my breath). :)
MSEE: "You see, since you guys insist on teaching random school children something called random mutation, I think it is fair to discuss what do you REALLY mean by random, and drill down on this, and see if you are really interested in the questions related to stochastic processes, and if you really know this field."
DeleteThorton summed it up pretty well. I'll just add that it is impossible to prove that a process is truly random and not pseudo random. For one thing, there are deterministic processes that produce sequences of digits with a uniform distribution. The number π is a good example.
Furthermore, a process can be deterministic and still unpredictable. An example of that is the Sinai billiard. It's an ergodic system that realizes statistical properties expected of a thermodynamic ensemble. There is no randomness here, yet a statistical-mechanical description (which assumes a random distribution) describes its properties perfectly well.
The Brownian motion of a pollen particle in a fluid is not truly random: if we knew exactly the velocities of all molecules in the fluid, we could predict the exact trajectory of the Brownian motion. But it is not worth the effort. We do not care about the exact trajectory, just interested in its statistics. And in that case the assumption of a particle subject to a random force gives a perfectly serviceable description.
Biological mutations are not truly random. Each mutation has a cause: an X-ray kicking the DNA or some such. A die cast on a table does not fall randomly, either. Maybe God directs how a die falls and maybe He controls very mutation in the Universe. But the burden is on you to establish that. If you maintain that mutations are inherently non-random and indeed directed, track that down. Catch the Designer in action. Provide a smoking gun. So far evolutionary biology seems to be doing fine without that hypothesis.
OK I will quote the article:
Deletethis effect could involve two distinct mechanisms. One possibility is that the rate of mutation, or certain types of mutation, increased such that the required event was likely to occur in later generations. The other possibility is an epistatic interaction such that the expression of a mutation that produced the Cit+ trait required one or more preceding mutations.
Now there goes the certainty of randomness. Biologists themselves admitting the likelihood of inter-event correlation for the various mutations. Now surely that will require a whole new research program to determine the nature and etiology of such correlations of they are verified. But of course it will not require any caveat in the teaching of school children the "100% accidental" story of each mutation and the of course "accidental" story line of how we got here.
MSEE,
DeleteRandomness does not preclude the presence of correlations. Some mutations are more likely than others. Think of nuclear decays. They occur randomly, but not entirely so: there is a characteristic time scale for each type of nucleus. Some decay on the scale of minutes, others over billions of years.
In fact, you can start with a uniform distribution of random numbers, take a function of it, and the resulting new random number sequence will be less random. For instance, take numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1. Half of them are less than 0.5, half greater. But if you take the squares of these numbers, they will tend to be less than 0.5: half of them will be less than 0.25, the other half greater than 0.25.
So you are barking up the wrong tree. Epistasis is a similar effect. Mutations out of some genetic configurations can be more likely than others. That does not indicate a guided nature of the process any more than the above example.
CH was pointing out, you dum-dums, that after their normal delirious mode of 'protesting too much' (Forrest Whitaker: 'Why Moma, evamolution is as certain as the theory of gravity!'), finally, an evamolutionist has simmered down sufficiently to, at least personally, begin the long haul towards acquiring a scientific mindset. Not that that would be guaranteed, evidently.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes it doubly comical is that, by pointing out that scientific knowledge is always a 'work in progress', you have just ridiculed the imbecility of the evamolutionist, crack-head polemicist, who came up that unintentional 'bon mot'.
Paul.
DeleteWhat makes it doubly comical is that, by pointing out that scientific knowledge is always a 'work in progress', you have just ridiculed the imbecility of the evamolutionist, crack-head polemicist, who came up that unintentional 'bon mot'.
Agreeing with some one is ridiculing them as an imbecile? I agree with you.
A question, " evamolutionist" bad spelling or some obscure joke?
Vel, somehow, I don't see 'being able to take the theory of gravity to the bank', to borrow one of Dubya's phrases, as 'a work in progress'.
DeleteReally, what exactly causes gravity?
DeleteThis is not a matter of degrees of understanding. If you don't know how evolution works at the molecular level, any extrapolation to the distant past is voodoo science.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most surprising thing about evolution is the extreme degree of stupidity that it requires from its devotees.
I couldn't agree more. I like to think that the famous evolution picture of a monkey evolving into a human as a sign of low intelligence. Whose to say that any other order is not a better explanation. It proves nothing as evolution is supposed to explain the gap between the species, not existing species explaining the gap. Hence, one of the most famous arguments for evolution is in fact a simple misunderstanding of their own theory. You can't get any stupider than that.
DeleteThe question I would put to Ball and our host is just who is it amongst evolutionary biologists who has been going around claiming that they they do have a complete understanding of all facets of evolution right down to the molecular level. If there aren't any then Ball has been beating up on those poor strawmen again.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get it. If you don't understand a process in living tissue at the molecular level, you have no business extrapolating millions of years into the past. If you do, you are a voodoo scientist, a quack. LOL.
DeleteSo you're saying that unless we have a perfect understanding of the behavior of matter at the molecular level we cannot extrapolate back into the past? Presumably, if this is true of biology it must be true for all the other sciences. So cosmology has no business speculating about billion year old universes or Big Bangs? What about the not-so-distant past? Does it mean we can't say anything about what happened in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago? Is that all voodoo science and quackery?
DeleteAnother pro-evolution writer questioning evolutions ability to create the glory of biology.!
ReplyDeleteIts getting so common as to be suggestive they are keeping a foot in each camp least they be on the dumb side when its over.
Evolutionism is being shaken surely and perhaps sharp science writers smell a fall coming but want to keep their own credibility.
Just speculating.
Yes. Like a true government suck tet.
DeleteThey will follow the trail towards whatever, in order to realize the dream of tax dollar supported relaxation.
Yeah, bpragmatic, that's what we need! More relaxation!
DeleteSo social security explains gravity? Hmm, let's see. Benefits allow relaxation. When you relax you exercise less and eat more. That means you put on weight, in other words, more gravity. It all sense! Liberal government causes gravity!
DeleteRobert ByersApril 27, 2013 at 7:53 PM
DeleteAnother pro-evolution writer questioning evolutions ability to create the glory of biology.!
Not exactly. He seems to be challenging the claim, which may be something of a strawman anyway, that biology has a complete picture of how evolution works at the molecular level.
In any event, it doesn't really matter what journalists or lawyers or philosophers or mathematicians or physicists think. What matters is whether biologists think the theory has outlived its usefulness and needs to be replaced.
If and when that happens it'll be replaced by something that doesn't just explain what evolution does now but a whole lot more - which pretty much rules out any creationist mythology.
If evolution is not explaining then it hints it can't or anyways since it isn't there is room to say it can't.
DeleteIts seems like a rebuke to evolutionary biology as settled fact.
it seems is all.
If evolutionary biology is on the merits then its not just biologists who can decide if its accurate or persuasive as a mechanism in nature.
It wouldn't be biologists either as evolution is not about liviung biology but the origins of biological results and so its about process.
Which is not observed.
thornton:
ReplyDeleteBTW MSEE, the 'random' part of 'random mutations' refers to their effect on the reproductive fitness of the individual who has the mutations. The probability distribution of the effects of mutations is not uniform but the process is still stochastic. This has been empirically demonstrated.
Well now how do you establish the statistical properties of 'effects'? What a mishmash claim. Go check out Walpole and Myers from your library. Go see my last post in the oleg thread and my mention of inter-event correlation. I'm sure you know how to tackle such a problem right? And BTW what's with the foul attitude? Are you like this every day?
Bullcrap. You came in here bragging about what an expert in statistics you were. Then it turned out you had take a single freshman level statistics course. Some "expert."
Now does anyone here remember this contributor claiming to be a statistician? BTW thornton, an "expert in statistics" is called a statistician. And you are welcome to quote me as ever saying that I am such.
Now so far as freshman level courses in statistics, I never took one. The one course I did take introduces on page 138 a proof incorporating the Jacobian to effect a transformation. Hey thornton were you as a freshman comfortable in applying this tool? Can you define for the reader the typical uses of the Jacobian operator?
LOL! Gee MSEE, you're such a fart smella, er, smart fella! Must be tough for a newly graduated genius Ungineer like you to lower yourself and speak to those ignorant ordinary scientists.
DeleteAw now collect yourself. Just because one gets showed up doin little falsehoods about nice people is no reason to use words like "fart" rejoining serious attempts to discuss a controversial topic. I would have hoped the students following this could glean some guidance as they make early choices in direction. Maybe they will take into account the maturity factor of a 48 year old referring to fart aesthetics instead of contributing serious input.
DeleteDouble LOL! Maybe you could explain why boasting about what a genius Ungineer you are and tossing out irrelevant buzzwords from your textbooks constitutes "contributing serious input" to the OP.
DeleteGotta love the arrogance and stupidity of the know-it-all newly graduated Ungineer!