This is Amazing
In order for a biological cell to give birth to daughter cells, its genome must be replicated. And in order to replicate the DNA molecule, its two strands must first be unwound and separated. Enter the so-called helicase enzymes such as those illustrated in this animation (please click above). And how did all of this evolve? It is, of course, a fact that helicases (and everything else in the world) spontaneously arose from nothing. That may sound strange until you realize that something, namely the universe, came from nothing. So obviously helicases must have come from nothing.
The details of how all that evolving actually happened are another thing altogether. In fact, not only is the evolution of helicases a mystery, but the origin of protein synthesis and the genetic code is another “one of the major mysteries of evolution.” Fortunately, one cutting-edge researcher might be able to take care of both these mysteries with one hypothesis:
I propose that protein synthesis appeared as a side product of helicase activity. The first templates for protein synthesis were functional RNAs (ribozymes) that were unwound by the helicase, and the first synthesized proteins were of random or non-sense sequence. I further suggest that genetic code emerged to avoid this randomness.
This is another example of evolutionary science at work. Only from an evolutionary perspective could a researcher gain such keen insight and realize that the genetic code probably emerged to avoid all that randomness in early cells. That randomness was probably terribly difficult to work with, so of course the genetic code evolved. In hindsight, it was practically inevitable.
So we may not understand everything about the helicase enzymes you watch above. But one thing we know for certain, they evolved. That is a fact.
Semi-related animation:
ReplyDeleteDNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video
http://vimeo.com/33882804
Neo-Darwinism isn’t ‘science’ because, besides its stunning failure at establishing empirical validation in the lab, it has no mathematical basis, and furthermore neo-Darwinism can have no mathematical basis because of the atheistic insistence for the ‘random’ variable postulate at the base of its formulation:
DeleteEvolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness
“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.
“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –
“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
“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)
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
Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
To any new reader
DeletePlease be advised of our two resident teen age antagonists that go by the name of Thorton and The Whole Truth (the latter as an anti statement)
Many atheists and opponents of ID on this blog have had and do have worthwhile things to say and express themselves as adults but please be advised in this lightly moderated blog these poster are seldom among them and are given to the most childish of rants and name callings.
Please feel free at your discretion to skip their posts as we often do in responding to them
It is, of course, a fact that helicases (and everything else in the world) spontaneously arose from nothing. That may sound strange until you realize that something, namely the universe, came from nothing. So obviously helicases must have come from nothing.
ReplyDeleteObviously? Not in the least. Even if it were true that the Universe came from nothing it doesn't follow that helicases did. Perhaps they emerged from existing matter long after the Universe went "Bang!"
As for helicases, we have a researcher doing what scientists do, proposing an hypothesis, a tentative explanation whose acceptance depends on passing rigorous tests. Looking at that abstract, for example, we read:
Hypothesis: emergence of translation as a result of RNA helicase evolution.
Zenkin N.
[...]
The hypothesis presented here proposes ... This hypothesis emerges ... I hypothesise ... I propose that protein synthesis appeared ... I further suggest that genetic code emerged ...
I mean, just how much more circumspect and conditional does a researcher have to be? This is not some set of eternal truths vouchsafed from on high to a devoted acolyte at the top of a mountain and brought down engraved on tablets of stone. It's a possible explanation, like the emergence of the Universe from nothing, nothing more. It might even be wrong - an admission you will never hear from those who believe religion drives everything.
Oh except you just happened to forget the Aristotelian part: "... to avoid this randomness."
DeleteIan you state:
Delete"Even if it were true that the Universe came from nothing"
Do you really think that it is possible that a photon could be made of nothing?
a ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:
Wave function
Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1)
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Thus every time we see (observe) a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information known only by the infinite Mind of omniscient God!
Job 38:19-20
“What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?”
Moreover, the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner's Friend – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qCTBygadaM4#t=510s
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
CH: Oh except you just happened to forget the Aristotelian part: "... to avoid this randomness."
DeleteWhat do you think the authors meant by "randomness" in this context?
And why do you call it the "Aristotelian part"?
read "author" for "authors" above.
DeleteAnd in case you don't have access to the whole paper, here is the important relevant sentence:
"However, it is likely that, overall, these molecules of random sequences were mostly harmful for the primordial RNA organism."
"It's a possible explanation, like the emergence of the Universe from nothing, nothing more."
DeleteDon't you just love how the twisted logic just spins in their minds? absolutely nothing giving birth to everything shucks even time and space is just a ho hum possible explanation.
Intelligent design? unscientific way out possible explanation.
All hail to the Blue fairy out of nothing by chance. Bow down and worship.
The thing is, elijah, you and the other creationists are using the dishonest label "Intelligent design" to push your RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL dominionist agenda.
DeleteThe only interest you have in science is to modify it by expelling the parts that challenge or contradict your belief in ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales.
Of course you and other creationists don't hesitate to take advantage of what science provides, even though you cling to and push ancient, barbaric, unscientific, religious dogma.
Why don't you live just like your imaginary hero jesus or his imaginary disciples by getting rid of all your material possessions, wearing nothing but a handmade woolen dress and sandals, and spending all of your time walking around preaching fire and brimstone fairy tales, and mooching food and shelter?
Maybe you can even get someone to crucify you and then you can rise from the dead and become jesus's BFF in heaven. Get crackin', there are souls to be saved!
pretty soon MTOEvolution will claim it predicted YeC, rather then admit it was wishful thinking the whole time and have to admit how foolish MToE is.
ReplyDeleteSpedding said:
ReplyDelete"As for helicases, we have a researcher doing what scientists do, proposing an hypothesis, a tentative explanation whose acceptance depends on passing rigorous tests. Looking at that abstract, for example, we read:"
Spedding, you continue to demostrate your ignorance of your ignorance. And that is pretty much representative of your sympatriots. You have no demonstrated beginning of anything from any kind of realistic perspective that can legitimately claim a material understanding of the "realities" of "origins" and the "progressions" of "matter" to the formations "observable" from consious perspectives, currently. Yet you, and others like you WANT TO MAKE METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS ON REALITY THAT YOU CAN NOT HISTORICALLY EVEN COME CLOSE TO DEMONSTRATING.
What is your problem? Perhaps merely a hair up your ass regarding "religion"?
You have no demonstrated beginning of anything from any kind of realistic perspective that can legitimately claim a material understanding of the "realities" of "origins" and the "progressions" of "matter" to the formations "observable" from consious perspectives, currently.
DeleteIn English, please.
Yet you, and others like you WANT TO MAKE METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS ON REALITY THAT YOU CAN NOT HISTORICALLY EVEN COME CLOSE TO DEMONSTRATING.
Categorically wrong. No scientist is making any METAPHYSICAL claims whatsoever. We are making METHODOLOGICAL ones.
Methodological naturalism is the belief that natural events have natural causes. This is what scientists employ. Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside the natural world. This is NOT a belief that scientists are bound to.
Consider that there are scientists from among virtually every religion on Earth. How could this be if science necessesitated metaphysical naturalism? It doesn't; it merely necessitates methodological naturalism - that they restrict themselves to naturalistic forces for their scientific explanations.
Science does not claim the supernatural world does not exist. It merely prohibits scientists from positing these untestable forces in their theories. Which is a rational, logical and entirely necessary position to take.
Ritchie: Consider that there are scientists from among virtually every religion on Earth. How could this be if science necessesitated metaphysical naturalism? It doesn't; it merely necessitates methodological naturalism - that they restrict themselves to naturalistic forces for their scientific explanations.
DeleteJeff: The problem, is no one HAS explained UCA, naturalistically or otherwise. And the following quotation provided by CH is pure teleological explanation:
" I further suggest that genetic code emerged to avoid this randomness."
Jeff
DeleteThe problem, is no one HAS explained UCA, naturalistically or otherwise.
Have we scientists ever fully explained anything?
As more data is provided, our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution continues to grow, as does our understanding of gravity. But nothing about that suggests that either theory is fundamentally flawed. It just suggests they are incomplete - as is every theory in science. Every conclusion, every theory, every law in science is provisional. That is its nature. And it is all the stronger for it.
And the following quotation provided by CH is pure teleological explanation
It is part of the hypothesis of the researcher. This is all perfectly sceintific.
Jeff: The problem, is no one HAS explained UCA, naturalistically or otherwise. And the following quotation provided by CH is pure teleological explanation:
Delete"I further suggest that genetic code emerged to avoid this randomness."
It is?
Oh, that's right. You think it's purely teleological because you think knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural authoritative sources.
The principle of evolution is that adaptive complexity arrises from variation, which is random *to any particular problem to solve*, and selection. This results in non-explanatory knowledge.
The genetic code made the jump to universality, in that it can represent any carbon based biological organism. It's an emergent property.
This is the same sort of leap made by Arabic number system, which can represent any number, and Universal Turing Machines, which is capable of running any program that can be executed on any other UTM, via emulation. In both cases, the appearance of universality wasn't intentional. Rather, it was part of an incremental set of improvements.
For example, universality in computation wasn't the problem Babbage was trying to solve. He stubbled upon it while trying to solve specific mathematical problems quicker and with less errors. Universality emerged from a specific repertoire of computations. We can say the same about number systems, in that no one tried to actually make one that was universal. In fact, some early number systems seem to be designed to avoid universality, as if the infinite was some kind of taboo. Some of these systems actually introduced aspects that prevented them from being universal.
So, when we look at leaps to universality in cases of designed systems, such as computation and number systems, variations were non-random to other specific problems they were trying to solve, but that problem wasn't universality. IOW, these variations were *were* random in respect to universality.
Universality is an emergent property of adaptive complexity.
"Categorically wrong. No scientist is making any METAPHYSICAL claims whatsoever"
DeleteWOW! give this kid the years perfect liar award. Woah! you are good bro. You and I just had a go round on Krauss ' metaphysics claim where you even linked and gave credence to the idea of everything including the entire universe, time and space coming out of Nada.
what in the world could be more meta physical than that? You do not get any greater outside of the natural world than claiming it. time nd space were created out of nothing
and yet you are here lying through your teeth
" Categorically wrong. No scientist is making any METAPHYSICAL claims whatsoever"
"It merely prohibits scientists from positing these untestable forces in their theories."
ANd what test does Krauss posit for nothing creating time and space. I'd just love to see the test conditions for that without starting with time and space.
You are so full of crap even you must know you are lying now with your "no scientist" claim.
"Oh, that's right. You think it's purely teleological because you think knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural authoritative sources"
Deleteand so the babbling again begins as a preamble about justificationism while Scott cannot explain how he trusts scientists to give him accurate information about data he has never directly verified without himself being a justificationist.
Scott: "Oh, that's right. You think it's purely teleological because you think knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural authoritative sources"
DeleteElijah: and so the babbling again begins as a preamble about justificationism while Scott cannot explain how he trusts scientists to give him accurate information about data he has never directly verified without himself being a justificationist.
Are you really so dense that you can't take yourself out of the equation? Really?
We no longer think of an "authority" on a subject is actually an authoritative source. Rather, they are individuals that present ideas which have withstood the most criticism. In many cases, these very same individuals present the best criticism on the very same ideas they themselves present. IOW, it's the process and the criticism, not the person.
On the other hand, I lack an explanation as to why your views on the subject would actually represent progress on the subject. This isn't due to my mistrust of you, personally, but because you seem opposed to our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge: conjecture and criticism.
Every comment you make indicates a gross misunderstanding about how we progress or if it's even possible to make progress at all. It's as if you're committed to the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources.
IOW, we make progress by criticizing ideas and discarding errors. As such, it's unclear how you can criticize and find errors in a supposedly infallible supernatural authoritative source. These two ideas are in direct opposition to each other.
Elijah
DeleteYou and I just had a go round on Krauss ' metaphysics claim where you even linked and gave credence to the idea of everything including the entire universe, time and space coming out of Nada.
what in the world could be more meta physical than that?
That is not a metaphysical claim.
A metyaphysical claims would be one that states whether or not a realm beyond the material one exists.
The concept of a universe 'from nothing' says absolutely nothing at all about such realms.
So no, the idea of 'a universe from nothing' is not a metaphysical one.
Get it right.
"That is not a metaphysical claim.
DeleteA metyaphysical claims would be one that states whether or not a realm beyond the material one exists.
The concept of a universe 'from nothing' says absolutely nothing at all about such realms."
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Nitwitism at its finest. A law existing before time and space (since it creates it) is not a realm beyond this material one eh?
You can confess it... its ok.. even you know you are in the land of gibberish now. ;)
The land of Gibberish created by the blue fairy out of nothing that creates everything by chance that is.
WHat will Reverend Krauss be preaching today
"We no longer think of an "authority" on a subject is actually an authoritative source."
DeleteRather, they are individuals that present ideas which have withstood the most criticism."
I don't even know how to get sense in your head anymore Scott. You've filled it with so much gibberish. How do they stand criticism - based on what? other ideas? or by evidence? How do you determine the evidence? BY authorities that have actually handled the fossils, studied molecular structures and have equipment and expertise that you do not have.
Not by just referencing "ideas"
Therefore you rely on authority and you are a justificationists. Your utter cluelessness is that you hold that justificationism has some unique application to supernatural authority where if you knew a peep over your endless empty pontification on philosophy you would realize justificationism applies to the acceptance of truth and facts based on authority REGARDLESS of its source.
"In many cases, these very same individuals present the best criticism on the very same ideas they themselves present. IOW, it's the process and the criticism, not the person."
and how do they weigh what is best if not by an appeal to the evidence much of which they and certainly you have not handled. IOWs your pontification is nonsense. YOu rely constantly on authority and are a justificationist.
"Every comment you make indicates a gross misunderstanding about how we progress or if it's even possible to make progress at all. It's as if you're committed to the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources."
Every comment you make is just you blathering trying desperately not to be shown to be foolish. As a software programmer how many fossils have you personally and directly handled? how many much DNA have you studied directly , how many genomes have you mapped how much strata have you dated"
Every other day you appeal to knowledge and every day in ignorance you fail to recognize your own dependence on authorities that you trust in JUST AS A JUSTIFICATIONIST does. why? Because you are what you pontificate againsts - a total card carry justificationist.
[quote]IOW, we make progress by criticizing ideas and discarding errors.[/quote]
and again how do you detwrmine something is even in error if its just idea? LOL.....you do it by appealing to evidence again all of which YOU have never handled your self which again makes you a justificationist.
Does that mean supernatural reliance is correct? No. Does it mean that ID is right? NO. Does it mean that Darwinism is wrong or right? NO
Does it mean that your constant rant in the past weeks against justificationists was hypocritcal blathering and when you denied being one yourself it was rubbish?
Yes in spades.
"As such, it's unclear how you can criticize and find errors in a supposedly infallible supernatural authoritative source"
Simple.... The source supernatural or not can be wrong by saying something that is incorrect and PROVEN to be incorrect not just claimed to be so. Its blathering silliness to claim that ANY source cannot have what it states tested. In fact thats exactly what the debate comes down to.
But at the moment I don't even care about that extra blathering. You've droned on for weeks about justificationist and I have laid out EXACTLY how you are one. Hone your skills of twisting and verbal gymnastics on that for the moment.
Elijah
DeleteNitwitism at its finest. A law existing before time and space (since it creates it) is not a realm beyond this material one eh?
What law? What are you talking about? I never mentioned a law. Is this yet another strawman you are trying to foister off onto me?
The land of Gibberish created by the blue fairy out of nothing that creates everything by chance that is.
I love that you keep using this. Yes, magic beings who create things out of nothing ARE ridiculous aren't they? :)
WHat will Reverend Krauss be preaching today
You tell me. You are the one who is listening to him.
Elijah: I don't even know how to get sense in your head anymore Scott. You've filled it with so much gibberish.
DeleteWhich is yet another empty criticism.
Elijah: How do they stand criticism - based on what? other ideas? or by evidence?
Observations are themselves ideas about what happened in a particular time and place. And we compare ideas to see if they conflict with each other. So criticism consists of both ideas and evidence.
Elijah: How do you determine the evidence? BY authorities that have actually handled the fossils, studied molecular structures and have equipment and expertise that you do not have.
Again, observations are theory laden. So, evidence is "determined" by ideas. Someone who thinks knowledge in a specific sphere comes from an authoritative source could handle fossils all day, every day, and fail to see any evidence.
Furthermore, before we can make and use equipment, we need the knowledge of how to build it and how to set it up to get accurate results. Both of which represent ideas about how the world works. People who work with fossils on a regular basis have the opportunity to conjecture and test more ideas more often. So, people are "authorities" on fossils when they present the best criticisms on ideas about fossils. It's the ideas, not the person. That's the key difference.
Elijah: Therefore you rely on authority and you are a justificationists.
Except I've already presented a significant differentiation between God as a supernatural authoritative source and what one might consider an "authority" on any particular subject. Your continued denial that any differentiation has been made denies that we have made progress in the field of epistemology.
This would come as no surprise as the idea of making progress in this field conflicts with your theological commitment that knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural authoritative sources.
Elijah: and how do they weigh what is best if not by an appeal to the evidence much of which they and certainly you have not handled. IOWs your pontification is nonsense. YOu rely constantly on authority and are a justificationist.
Are you even reading my comments?
Scott: IOW, it's the process and the criticism, not the person.
I lack an explanation as to why your views on the subject would actually represent progress on the subject. This isn't due to my mistrust of you, personally, but because you seem opposed to our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge: conjecture and criticism.
Again, I do not trust people in the sense you're implying any more than we current think any person should rule because they were born to rule. Rather, we elect people based on their ideas about how the world works and what approach we should take in the light of those ideas. This represents progress in the field of epistemology.
This is in contrast to earlier beliefs that Kings that should rule because they were born into a royal bloodline, which is founded on an individual, rather than merit of the ideas they have. The funny thing is, we've rejected this idea when it comes to governments, yet many people sill hold it in the case of a supernatural authoritative "king". Both suffer from the same fatal epistemology flaw.
Elijah: and again how do you detwrmine something is even in error if its just idea? LOL.....you do it by appealing to evidence again all of which YOU have never handled your self which again makes you a justificationist.
DeleteExcept even the supposed authority does not handle any evidence directly, either, because all observations are themselves theory laden. So, the evidence they present is based on ideas. Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them.
If merely using the word evidence in a sentence means I'm a justificationist, then I guess I would qualify. However, keep presenting a very specific epistemology distinction, which you keep ignoring. This ignores or denies that we've made progress in the field of epistemology.
Ritchie: Have we scientists ever fully explained anything?
DeleteAs more data is provided, our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution continues to grow, as does our understanding of gravity. But nothing about that suggests that either theory is fundamentally flawed. It just suggests they are incomplete - as is every theory in science. Every conclusion, every theory, every law in science is provisional. That is its nature. And it is all the stronger for it.
J: The breadth of explanation of mutational effects, frequencies, etc can't even rule out Ken Ham style SA. And yet scientists continually speak as if they have overwhelming evidence for naturalistic UCA. They are either liars or idiots or both. This is all CH is addressing, not WHETHER naturalistic UCA is a historical fact.
Jeff: And the following quotation provided by CH is pure teleological explanation
"It is part of the hypothesis of the researcher. This is all perfectly scientific."
Ritchie: It is part of the hypothesis of the researcher. This is all perfectly sceintific.
J: All ID'ists agree--teleological explanation CAN be scientific when it is not more ad-hoc than naturalistic alternatives. But that's not what you argued elsewhere. So you're contradicting yourself. Or don't you realize that teleological explanation posits libertarian causality?
Scott, you're utterly confused. Emergence, per se, is a purely temporal concept. It doesn't tell us whether what "emerged" did so by purely natural causality, partially by libertarian causality, or a-causally. You've provided no evidence for your view whatsoever. Like all anti-ID'ists, you constantly re-hash the same old lie that CH is arguing against research, when all he's arguing AGAINST is lying in the name of science.
DeleteCH
ReplyDeleteAnd how did all of this evolve? It is, of course, a fact that helicases (and everything else in the world) spontaneously arose from nothing.
You realise that this is a complete non-sequitur, right?
This is another example of evolutionary science at work.
Well yes it is. A scientist, proposing a hypothesis and then testing it. That's pretty much what scientists do. Funny that no ID/Creationist ever has done the same thing...
So we may not understand everything about the helicase enzymes you watch above. But one thing we know for certain, they evolved. That is a fact.
It is in accordance with the best theories that we possess. And unless you have a better one, or a reason why we should believe ours are false, then you are merely whining that scientists are performing science.
But it's easy to see that, as a Creationist, that would upset you, of course.
Maybe the God of the Bible emerged to avoid randomness.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat would certainly expain His existence.
DeleteMaybe we were making things to complicated trying to preach the fact of sin, the penalty of sin, the provision for sin, how to be saved, and the assurance of salvation.
DeleteWe should just use the scientific argument that He emerged to avoid randomness -- believe it.
Awstar,
DeleteMaybe we were making things to complicated trying to preach the fact of sin, the penalty of sin, the provision for sin, how to be saved, and the assurance of salvation
That seems to me that makes life less complicated, a clear set of rules,follow it and be rewarded, fail to follow get punished. No grey areas. Everything is part of a plan. An Ultimate authority.
We should just use the scientific argument that He emerged to avoid randomness -- believe it.
It would not be He,it would be they. Which exact argument is that anyway?
Helicase is A mashina or even B Mashina
ReplyDeleteFrictionless joints, high speed, 100% efficient...cool nano machine.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteIf adaptive complexity of the Helicase did not arise from variation and selection, then how does it arise?
Wouldn't any designer capable of designing the Helicase, protein synthesis and the genetic code itself be well adapted to designing these systems, and therefore also be complex? Wouldn't it therefore also need a designer, etc?
Even, for the sake of argument, assume some being willed the first organisms into existence, the knowledge of how to build all of these systems exists in the genome of each organism. It's right there. As such, if we take ID seriously, for the purpose of criticism, this same designer must have possessed all of that knowledge, and more, it when it supposedly adapted the organisms themselves.
How could such a designer not be complex?
Furthermore, if one were to appeal to induction, all designers we've ever observed are complex and have material brains. Wouldn't that lead us to an inductive inference that all designers are complex, have material brains? Wouldn't that, by the same criteria, indicate that it would also need a designer, etc.?
Scott:Wouldn't any designer capable of designing the Helicase, protein synthesis and the genetic code itself be well adapted to designing these systems, and therefore also be complex? Wouldn't it therefore also need a designer, etc?
DeleteIf from your perspective, my designer (God) needs a creator, why doesn't your designer(Universe) need a creator? I heard this similar question posed by John Lennox and it made sense to me.
Marcus,
DeleteFirst, I'm taking your perspective seriously for the purpose of criticism.
Specifically, It doesn't actually solve the problem it claims to solve because it merely pushes the problem up a level without improving it. Any designer capable of designing organisms would itself be well suited for the purpose of designing organisms, which is the very same attribute that supposedly requires a designer.
Second, in evolutionary theory, adaptive complexity emerges from variation that is random to any specific problem to solve and selection. It's not a reductionist explanation in the sense you're implying.
IOW, the more you point out how complex something is, the more complex the designer would itself need to be.
ReplyDeleteSo, your entire strategy for pointing out how "amazingly complex things are" seems counterproductive unless you're merely appealing to incredulity or presenting an argument as to why the designer would be simple, rather than complex. But you haven't made such an argument.
Note: a theological commitment that God is simple is not an argument for simplicity of the designer. It's dogma.
"Even, for the sake of argument, assume some being willed the first organisms into existence, the knowledge of how to build all of these systems exists in the genome of each organism. It's right there. As such, if we take ID seriously, for the purpose of criticism, this same designer must have possessed all of that knowledge, and more, it when it supposedly adapted the organisms themselves."
DeleteSame bone headed argument made in every other thread. Answered as well in my last discussion with you but you were so off into your philosophical ramblings you confused my reference to "infinite regress" of the universe with infinite regress of knowledge and got permanently lost in your own mind. two issues - first
Complexity is only an issue for things that are or are claimed to have formed by processes. It holds nothing against brute facts. When physicist say vertical particles pop into existence out of nothing the complexity is no issue. Some claim a dragon could too its just not probable. How? thats the way the universe is - brute fact. NO issue of complexity. It could just as well be an engine if that was reality is. There is little to no process
However if you claim that its not a brute fact but that there is a process then complexity becomes an issue. There is a how beyond "thats just the way it is" there are working pieces and working cooperating forces. Its not a brute fact.
Your babbling nonsense is that you swear in your theology that the only side that has to answer the issues you pose are theists when if you considered the problem of infinite regress of the UNIVERSE both sides must deal with some brute facts and yes brute knowledge/information at some point. IT IS INEVITABLE. Things that are with no explanation for why they are is inescapable
and there begins your second problem you assume that complexity and knowledge increases over time when it doesn't. If we say that the universe starts out as a simple rubber ball and proceeds to a ferrari driving on the autobahn you think knowledge has increased and so has complexity.
Universe wide it hasn't
The problem is a rubber ball without other forces and unseen or recognized properties and processes will be a rubber ball for infinity. The fact that even a 100 billion years later we get a Ferrari is because there always was greater complexity and that extends all the way to the brute fact that stands at the beginning of everything.
which again requiring no explanation as an uncaused cause is just a simple brute fact. a position that both theist and thinking atheist must come to. If Atheist were more honest they would admit the only thing that seperates them from the theist is that the theist believes that since the universe is filled with logical even mathematical logic the nature of the entity of the brute fact must be logical and the atheist is left floundering around claiming order is an accident.
So we are free to question complexity with no problems on our side. You proclaim life came by a process where complexity does become an issue where we observe the logic in creation and see the brute fact of logic in life.
#1. If the designer is infinitely complex, isn't it the same as being ultimately simple?
Delete#2. Even if there is a law that says that complexity has to come from more complexity, God isn't subject to the laws of nature.
Elijah: Same bone headed argument made in every other thread. Answered as well in my last discussion with you..
DeleteLet me guess, you "answered" just like you "pointed out" where i lied?
Elijah: Complexity is only an issue for things that are or are claimed to have formed by processes. It holds nothing against brute facts.
Again, a designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficient state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present in their genome.
Both present this knowledge as a brute fact, but the latter does so more efficiently without a designer. Does that mean that biological complexity is no longer an issue and ID is irrelevant?
Elijah: When physicist say vertical particles pop into existence out of nothing the complexity is no issue.
First, we're talking about explaining the biological complexity we observe. It's unclear what the laws of physics are relevant unless you under the mistaken assumption that we cannot make progress on this issue unless we have an exhaustive explanation for everything. That is a particular epistemological position, rather than an obvious truth.
Second, we no longer think empty space is actually empty any more than we think still think atoms are actually indivisible.
Elijah: thats the way the universe is - brute fact. NO issue of complexity. It could just as well be an engine if that was reality is. There is little to no process
We simply lack a good explanation for why the laws of physics are appear to be "tuned". Thats it.
Saying God did it merely pushes the problem up a level without improving it. Nor does anthropic selection in a vast number of universes, each with their own laws of physics. This is because, in the majority of the universes with the properties necessary for us to ask the question, those same properties would be such that we would only just be asking. For example, one such universe could have the sufficient properties for the contents of my office to arise, but due to these same properties, a sphere of heat would collapse at the speed of light, killing me, a moment later. Nor is this a new criticism, as Richard Feynman, among others, pointed this out over a decade ago.
IOW, our universe doesn't have the properties for us to just exist. As such, there is a good explanation for why the laws are the way they are. It's an unsolved problem. However a designer merely pushes the problem up a level without improving it.
Given our best, current expansion for the growth of knowledge, our default state is error and incompleteness. As such, not having all the answers isn't a problem in the sense you're implying.
What is your explanation for the growth of knowledge that leads you to expect us to have all the answers? Please be specific.
Elijah: Your babbling nonsense is that you swear in your theology that the only side that has to answer the issues you pose are theists when if you considered the problem of infinite regress of the UNIVERSE both sides must deal with some brute facts and yes brute knowledge/information at some point. IT IS INEVITABLE. Things that are with no explanation for why they are is inescapable
DeleteApparently, you've confused not yet having a good explanation with assuming one is impossible.
Answers lead to better questions, which lead to even better answers, which lead to even better questions, etc. Given our explanation as to how we make progress, it's unclear what inherently limits this process, in principle. Sure, we could all decide to give up making progress, blow ourselves up, get wiped out by a 5k asteroid or a jet from a super-massive black hole, etc., but that's not the kind of inherent limitation you're implying. Even if there was such a limitation, it's unclear how you would know that limit would be here, rather than there or somewhere else.
Elijah: If we say that the universe starts out as a simple rubber ball and proceeds to a ferrari driving on the autobahn you think knowledge has increased and so has complexity.
First, who says "universe starts out as a simple rubber ball"?
Second, both rubber balls and Ferraris represent the kind of transformations that occur when the requisite knowledge is present. This is in contrast to spontaneous transformations, such as the formation of stars when gas collapse in the presence of gravity. So, you've already started out with a kind of transformation based on knowledge. Nor do I know of anyone who thinks the universe started out as a rubber ball.
Elijah: The problem is a rubber ball without other forces and unseen or recognized properties and processes will be a rubber ball for infinity. The fact that even a 100 billion years later we get a Ferrari is because there always was greater complexity and that extends all the way to the brute fact that stands at the beginning of everything.
I not following you here. The the earth could have been destroyed by an astroid 8,000 years ago, or we could have decided to stop making progress. In either case, the transformations that resulted in Ferraris would have never occurred. Nor is it clear where the knowledge of how to transform raw materials into the components of glass, rubber, aluminum and steel that make up a Ferrari was located at the big bang. How was this knowledge encoded? Furthermore, how did we use induction to find it "out there"?
No one has formulated a "principle of induction" that actually works, in practice.
Elijah: If Atheist were more honest they would admit the only thing that seperates them from the theist is that the theist believes that since the universe is filled with logical even mathematical logic the nature of the entity of the brute fact must be logical and the atheist is left floundering around claiming order is an accident.
Then, apparently, I'm not an atheist, as I'm not "floundering around calming order is an accident." We simply do not yet have a good explanation for the apparent fine tuning of the laws of physics.
If knowledge doesn't grow, how do you know there isn't some good explanation already out there? If we actually use induction, why cant we mechanically induce the an answer that is already "out there" just waiting to be found? Why is the limit here, rather than there?
Elijah: So we are free to question complexity with no problems on our side. You proclaim life came by a process where complexity does become an issue where we observe the logic in creation and see the brute fact of logic in life.
Again, one could just claim that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build their own biological adaptations, already present in their genome. This too would be a brute fact, but not require a designer. Does this render ID irrelevant?
"Let me guess, you "answered" just like you "pointed out" where i lied?"
Deletelet me guess? still think I need the admission of the one lying to claim a lie was told right?
"Again, a designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. "
Sheesh you are dense aren't you. An uncaused cause cannot have an explanation regardless of whether you claim that its was God or not. You could say its energy and it has no further explanation. THATS THE WHOLE POINT and you STILL cannot get it. You are still clueless regarding issues with the infinite regress of causes. I just don't know how to break it down any more simple
"Both present this knowledge as a brute fact, but the latter does so more efficiently without a designer."
More cluelesness. A brute fact is what it is. You cannot talk about whether the brute fact is less or more effcient anymore than you can claim what reality is less or more efficient. Reality is what it is. You are just babbling as you usually do.
"
First, we're talking about explaining the biological complexity we observe."
no you don't get to tell me what "We" are talking about. I am talking beyond biological complexity to the uncaused cause and the certainly of brute facts and brute reality in a universe tht does not have infinite regress. You have yet to address that. Biological complexity is but an off shoot of that reality.
"
Second, we no longer think empty space is actually empty any more than we think still think atoms are actually indivisible."
Stop wasting my time. If you do not know the difference between empty space and nothing then come back when you are ready
"Saying God did it merely pushes the problem up a level without improving it. Nor does anthropic selection in a vast number of universes"
My goodness your density is surprising even me this evening. Theres was nothing about fine tuning or the anthropic principle or multiple universes. I did not even reach there. its becoming transparent that you don't know how to answer so you are trying to hand wave yourself out of it. The utter stupidity of it is that you just finished saying Not having to deal with God is more efficient and now you are off to multiple universes. So all these multiple universes are more efficient right? silly silly silly silly stuff.
You really have no clue how to deal with my arguments against your position.So um when will you start cuing the empty philosophical rhetoric? Oh wait here it comes
"Given our best, current expansion for the growth of knowledge, our default state is error and incompleteness."
Sigh... but wait he's not done. Cue the strawman. ah here it is
"What is your explanation for the growth of knowledge that leads you to expect us to have all the answers? "
Where or where did anyone ever state that anyone expects anyone to have all the answers. Knee deep back into intellectual dishonesty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Apparently, you've confused not yet having a good explanation with assuming one is impossible."
Deleteand there we have it. Point blank indication of total clulessness of what I was talking about. No Scott it is not confusion. By definition an uncaused cause cannot have an explanation. Its the end of the road for explanations. Thats the entire point. You are not confused you are just totally blank on the point.
"First, who says "universe starts out as a simple rubber ball"?"
Sigh.....what game are you now playing by taking the "if" that begins that clause away. Its an analogy scott. Sheeesh how utterly clueless you are. and it has nothing to do with elements being designed it was merely an example of something simple to something more complex being transformed by a series of processes.
It went right over your head and to be honest considering that almost everything is you are boring me no end.
"I not following you here."
you are not following anywhere
"Nor is it clear where the knowledge of how to transform raw materials into the components of glass, rubber, aluminum and steel that make up a Ferrari was located at the big bang."
I'm sorry but I can't take the silliness any longer - It was an analogy and an OBVIOUS analogy . No one believes this universe started out as a rubber ball. You are just too silly to indulge further. I cannot be bothered. jabber on I cannot read your nonsense anymore.
natschuster said:
Delete"#1. If the designer is infinitely complex, isn't it the same as being ultimately simple?"
Well, if a human eye is irreducibly complex, isn't that the same as being simply reducible?
"#2. Even if there is a law that says that complexity has to come from more complexity, God isn't subject to the laws of nature."
How do you know that "God" exists and "isn't subject to the laws of nature"?
And thanks for being another IDiot-creationist who admits that "the designer" is "God" and that the ID agenda is religious.
Hey elijah, does a new born baby have the same knowledge as an adult?
DeleteDid the most knowledgeable adults living 2,000 years ago have the same knowledge as the most knowledgeable adults living today?
Elijah: let me guess? still think I need the admission of the one lying to claim a lie was told right?
DeleteYou still haven't successfully pointed out where I lied.
For example, imagine I claimed "You're an idiot because you're breathing." Did I claim you were an idiot? Yes. Did I just successfully point out you're an idiot? No. I did not explain what your idiocy has to do with breathing. It's a non-sequitur because it lacks context. And I would be hypocritical for not making a distinction in my breathing as well.
However, if I said you were an idiot for intentionally and continually submerging yourself underwater and trying to breath without the assistance of a snorkel, oxygen tank, etc., the term "idiot" would qualify in this context. Nor would I be hypocritical for also breathing because, in this context, I'm breathing above water, rather than below it. I've made a distinction.
In this same sense, you keep ignoring the distinction i've made regarding the origin of knowledge, and it's epistemological implications.
Scott: Again, a designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more [efficiently] state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present in their genome.
Elijah: An uncaused cause cannot have an explanation regardless of whether you claim that its was God or not. You could say its energy and it has no further explanation. THATS THE WHOLE POINT and you STILL cannot get it.
No, I get it. What I'm doing is taking your claim seriously for the purpose of criticism.
Again, why not simply say that the knowledge of how to build adaptations just appeared, uncaused, in organisms is simply a brute fact? As such, no explanation for their complexity is necessary, which would make ID is irrelevant?
Scott: Both present this knowledge as a brute fact, but the latter does so more efficiently without a designer.
Elijah: A brute fact is what it is. You cannot talk about whether the brute fact is less or more effcient anymore than you can claim what reality is less or more efficient.
In isolation? No you can't. But I'm not considering each in isolation. I'm comparing the two, in which we can talk about efficiency. That's criticism.
Furthermore, are you suggesting that someone could claim a computer is a brute fact and therefore prevent us criticizing explanations for computers, including their efficiency? Would that mean that computers cannot be explained by human designers?
How do you know what is or is not a brute fact, and therefore supposedly immune from criticism of efficiency?
Elijah: You cannot talk about whether the brute fact is less or more effcient anymore than you can claim what reality is less or more efficient.
DeleteScott: "First, we're talking about explaining the biological complexity we observe."
Elijah: no you don't get to tell me what "We" are talking about.
Huh? First, the subject of the original post is: Helicase Animation and Why the Genetic Code Evolved. If that isn't regarding an explanation for the biological complexity we observe, then what is? Is the Helicase not complex? Is it non biological?
Second, you get to tell me that *I* can't talk about some explanations, or lack there of, being more or less efficient, but I can't point our the subject of the original post?
Elijah: I am talking beyond biological complexity to the uncaused cause and the certainly of brute facts and brute reality in a universe tht does not have infinite regress. You have yet to address that. Biological complexity is but an off shoot of that reality.
Again, how do you know what is or is not a brute fact? Is it because we currently do not have explanations for things that are brute facts? But why would you expect us to currently have all explanations for things that are not brute facts?
Elijah: When physicist say vertical particles pop into existence out of nothing the complexity is no issue.
Scott: Second, we no longer think empty space is actually empty any more than we think still think atoms are actually indivisible."
Elijah: Stop wasting my time. If you do not know the difference between empty space and nothing then come back when you are ready
Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, not nothing. Nor are they referring to any past time when there might have been nothing. Rather they are referring to now, when there is something. Apparently, you cannot anyone's theory seriously for the purpose of criticism.
And I'm wasting your time?
Scott: "Saying God did it merely pushes the problem up a level without improving it. Nor does anthropic selection in a vast number of universes"
Elijah: Theres was nothing about fine tuning or the anthropic principle or multiple universes. I did not even reach there.
So, you do not consider the apparent fine tuning of the universe a brute fact? And we can criticize explanations regarding these laws, including the criticism of efficiency?
Elijah: Where or where did anyone ever state that anyone expects anyone to have all the answers. Knee deep back into intellectual dishonesty.
Again, how do you determine what phenomenon is or is not a brute fact? Is something a brute fact because we currently lack an expiation for it? If so, why would you expect us to currently have explantations for all phenomena that are not brute facts, so you could tell the difference?
"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, not nothing."
DeleteNO you nitwit. Physicist like Krauss DO Say particles pop out of nothing. For goodness sake go do some reading and educate yourself. I have no idea what you said after that because I just stopped reading again. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If its not pontificating about some philosophy you do not understand you make ridiculously vacant statements.
So, this isn't a video of Krauss saying Empty space is not empty?
DeleteAnd I'm a nitwit that needs educating?
Elijah2012 June 15, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Delete"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, not nothing."
NO you nitwit. Physicist like Krauss DO Say particles pop out of nothing. For goodness sake go do some reading and educate yourself. I have no idea what you said after that because I just stopped reading again. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Neither do you.
Krauss makes it quite simple. If you were to take a volume of space and strip out all the matter and energy, it would be reasonable to assume there was nothing left.
But that's not what is found.
What physicists have inferred is that, at the quantum level, empty space is a seething "quantum foam" of virtual particle-pairs popping in and out of existence much faster than we can see them.
Why do they think that?
Well, for one reason, it has observable and measurable consequences. Try looking up the Casimir Effect.
Now, if you want to interpret that as meaning that empty space is not truly empty, that nothing is not really nothing, then that's fine. Maybe there is no such thing as nothing. All physics is saying is that, as far as they can tell, there is no finer structure underlying the quantum level so those particles are popping into existence from nothing and return to nothing when they pop back again.
This is not your father's Universe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Neither do you.
DeleteKrauss makes it quite simple. If you were to take a volume of space and strip out all the matter and energy, it would be reasonable to assume there was nothing left.
But that's not what is found."
Go read up on Krauss and stop being among the rank of the uneducated. Krauss HAS claimed that nothing created time and space as well. Have we ever stripped out space and found nothing? Can we? You are as bumbling on this as Scott
"What physicists have inferred is that, at the quantum level, empty space is a seething "quantum foam" of virtual particle-pairs popping in and out of existence much faster than we can see them.
Well, for one reason, it has observable and measurable consequences. Try looking up the Casimir Effect.
"
oh spare me your rhetoric of condescension crap. I am very well aware of quantun foam and virtual particles and they do not happen in the abscence of space. You are totally confused
"Now, if you want to interpret that as meaning that empty space is not truly empty, that nothing is not really nothing, then that's fine."
LOL where in all of science is spacetime considered nothing? Or fields? Like most atheists you show a level of idiocy on the definition of nothing. You merely attempt to redefine the meaning
Seriously go learn something more than the cliff notes on a topic before claiming I don't understand when you like Scott are wholly unaware of what physicist like Krauss actually have stated
You will look less clueless
"Now, if you want to interpret that as meaning that empty space is not truly empty, that nothing is not really nothing, then that's fine. Maybe there is no such thing as nothing. All physics is saying is that, as far as they can tell, there is no finer structure underlying the quantum level so those particles are popping into existence from nothing and return to nothing when they pop back again"
DeleteI should have added to my reply to this comment the sheer amount of gibberish included as follows
"Now, if you want to interpret that as meaning that empty space is not truly empty, that nothing is not really nothing,"
Wrong they are not equivalent. we can say that space is not empty quite easily with equating it to nothingness or nothingness not really be nothing.
Good night...Think..engage the brain......especially in light of the fact we can't conclude space in a universe which is a thing is nothing.
"Maybe there is no such thing as nothing"
well if there is no such thing as nothing then it would not be accurate to talk about popping out of nothing so your claiming that real physics makes any claim of anything popping out of nothing would be circular
"All physics is saying is that, as far as they can tell, there is no finer structure underlying the quantum level so those particles are popping into existence from nothing "
As a logical construct total and absolute gibberish "as far as they can tell no finer structure" does not establish nothingness. That would be a total empty assumption
"This is not your father's Universe."
DeleteGood point, Universe seems weirder with every new thing discovered.
Anyway about nothingness business. First, we should rather rename "nothing" as empty space or vacuum. It gets confusing when somebody says "nothing" but means empty space.
Fantastic guy, interesting physicist Frank Wilczek tries to explain what could an empty space be. I read some of his papers, a book and watched lectures online. Basically, an empty space is filled with what he calls the Grid.
Grid has several layers: quantum fields, metric field, condensates and dark energy. It's superconducting, transparent and stable.
The Grid is a primary framework of reality providing the controlled, predictable, superconducting and transparent environment in which the ordinary matter can manifest as a secondary product of the Grid.
Makes sense because we know how little of ordinary matter there is in the Universe. (you wouldn't believe how little, it's almost a joke)
He's not just pulling these ideas out of his (bleep), he carefully explains everything in detail using all the latest from cosmology and quantum physics..
There is much more to an empty space than we could even imagine a decade ago.
Did I hear Krauss? ....oh, no...somebody please stop me...
Eugen, I think you will enter the realm described by Malcolm Muggeridge, that is, you have been educated into imbecility when you start to profess, 'nothing' actually is or contains something. I say this tongue and cheek.
DeleteSeriously though, either the word nothing means nothing or it doesn't.
http://www.rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/education-and-imbecility/
"Eugen, I think you will enter the realm described by Malcolm Muggeridge, that is, you have been educated into imbecility when you start to profess, 'nothing' actually is or contains something."
DeleteThats the thing. The battle on all of this isn't scientific. Its an attempt too change the definition of nothing. Even if you have nothing but laws in place you have something - laws (Which is perilously close to a theistic view particularly Judaic/Christian). Once you add something even quantum laws to nothing you no longer have nothing. You are left with the gibberish that laws govern nothing but are nothing within themselves.
Your post about gibberish a few articles back was an 'A-HA' for me Elijah, thank you for that. :) I know it seems pretty simple but I found it profound.
Delete""This is not your father's Universe."
DeleteGood point, Universe seems weirder with every new thing discovered."
I don't know about it not being our father's universe. depends on the father. IF you go back far enough to the time before we thought we had reality figured out with science those father's would be far less amazed by Quantum physics. The double slit experiment for example would not surprise them at all. They would see reality adjusting to observation/ measurement as a theological confirmation of the universe being made with intelligence in mind. Entanglement also would not phase them.
A great deal of our 20th and 21st century intuition is radically different that theirs was. A lot of what we call weird is just a violation of physical material causality that those father's ultimately never believed in
"So, this isn't a video of Krauss saying Empty space is not empty?
DeleteAnd I'm a nitwit that needs educating?"
No nit. You are a nit that needs educating because You said this
"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"
When Krauss has a whole book
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468
That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing
and has done media interviews and videos stating the same
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Elijah,
Delete( Book) That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing
and has done media interviews and videos stating the same
Um,maybe but
Krauss
"some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ”
Sounds closer to
"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"
Eugen,
DeleteYou might check this out
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing
Feser is always interesting
Elijah2012 June 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Delete[...]
Go read up on Krauss and stop being among the rank of the uneducated. Krauss HAS claimed that nothing created time and space as well. Have we ever stripped out space and found nothing? Can we? You are as bumbling on this as Scott.
As I understand it, Krauss, like others, has hypothesized that the Universe could have emerged from "nothing" much like the virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.
He does admit, however, to not making it clear that by "nothing" he's referring to the physical concept of a perfect vacuum not the philosophical ideal of nothing.
And, no, as far as I'm aware, a perfect vacuum has not been created in the laboratory and there are theoretical reasons why it may not be possible.
[...]
oh spare me your rhetoric of condescension crap. I am very well aware of quantun foam and virtual particles and they do not happen in the abscence of space. You are totally confused
No one is suggesting that they do occur in the absence of space but perhaps it's what makes space space.
And if you are well aware of virtual particles and quantum foam then you can explain where those particles come from when they pop into existence and where they go when they pop out again.
As for condescension, it's what happens when armchair critics, who have read maybe a few popular science books and papers on a subject and never been in a laboratory in their life, feel able to treat scientists, who have spent their entire working lives studying and researching in a given field, as if they have no idea what they're talking about.
[...]
LOL where in all of science is spacetime considered nothing? Or fields? Like most atheists you show a level of idiocy on the definition of nothing. You merely attempt to redefine the meaning
No, but we admit there has been confusion created by an imprecise usage of "nothing".
Seriously go learn something more than the cliff notes on a topic before claiming I don't understand when you like Scott are wholly unaware of what physicist like Krauss actually have stated
I think you're aware some of what Krauss has said and written. You don't seem to be aware of all of it and I'm not sure you understand it
Marcus and Velikovsky
DeleteLinks look interesting, thanks. I'll read them tomorrow.
Sped I understand completely what krauss has said . I just don't buy and neither does the general public your gambit of the emperor with the new clothes which you tirelessly seek to employ. We know that Krauss expertise as a physicist ends at the known universe and space like all of us while you try to perpetuate the utter fraud that
Delete"scientists, who have spent their entire working lives studying and researching in a given field,
"
have the ability to go beyond the universe they can observe and make proclamations as silly as nothing creating both time and space.
This is your religious faith in the blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance. Its also essentially and obviously a logically fallacious appeal to authority.
As long as neither you nor Krauss can give me a test for how nothing creates time and space or for that matter how quantum laws exist prior and therefore without space you have earned and earned well the title of proponents of the gibberish supreme.
Krauss may function as your high priest but no onr else need bow to his metaphysics theology and metaphysics it most certain is.
"Krauss
Delete"some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ”
Sounds closer to
"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING""
vel to you any thing will sound close or far to suit yourself given your intellectual dishonest proclivity. Krauss can massage it anyway he sees fit but when you propose that space and time came from nothing along with everything else you are at nothing by anyones definition and he has not a single test result to prove his assertions.
You can all use the standard atheist prop that the objecters do not understand but if you informed yourselves even a wit more than rhetoric you would read some very notable scientists themselves dissent to Krauss' garbage.
will you educate yourselves? odds are against it. when have you ever beyond your own perspective. That is only something you require of others never yourselves
Elijah,
Delete. Krauss can massage it anyway he sees fit but when you propose that space and time came from nothing along with everything else you are at nothing by anyones definition and he has not a single test result to prove his assertions.
"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"
Elijah
"When Krauss has a whole book
That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing
and has done media interviews and videos stating the same"
You are a never ending source of amusement, I am not arguing that Krauss is correct, just you are wrong about what he considers as nothing, which is empty space. So apparently you are the nit that needs educating
"You are a never ending source of amusement, I am not arguing that Krauss is correct, just you are wrong about what he considers as nothing, which is empty space."
DeleteROFL the pleasure is all mine Vel. Reading you is an adventure in hilarity. Krauss has made it crystal clear what he means by nothing by including space and time among its creations. Did you miss that being stated numerous times? lol. Your confusion on what I said is your own doing
You are trying too hard. If you let reading come more natural you will improve.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteElijah2012: No nit. You are a nit that needs educating because You said this
DeleteScott: Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"
Elijah2012: That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing. and has done media interviews and videos stating the same
The video I posted was a clip from the very same video you referenced. To quote from the same clip.
"Nothing isn't nothing any more in physics. because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relatively, on extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence on a time scale so short, you can't seem them."
Shortly after he displays a slide titled "Empty space is not Empty!", and says...
"… Most of the mass of the proton comes not from the quarks of a proton, but from the empty space between the quarks. These fields, popping in and out of existence, produce about 90% of the mass of a proton. And since protons and neutrons are the dominate stuff in your body, empty space is responsible for 90% of your mass. "
Again, if nothing isn't nothing anymore then he's not saying that virtual particles pop out of nothing in the sense you're implying.
That was, and still is, my original point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteElijah,
DeleteKrauss has made it crystal clear what he means by nothing by including space and time among its creations.
And that would be empty space.
There goes that inability to think your way out of a wet paper bag we all know and love.
DeleteSince I must spell it out for you
If nothing creates SPACE as Krauss has stated more than once then nothing precedes space and therefore "nothing" cannot be just empty space.
Lets face it outside of that one quote you do not know squat what Krauss has said and your inability to think through this issue is obvious.
"Again, if nothing isn't nothing anymore then he's not saying that virtual particles pop out of nothing in the sense you're implying.
DeleteThat was, and still is, my original point."
Scott see my above response to Vel. You are both in the same boat. Krauss goes beyond the empty spaceon many ocassions
"Krause- in fact there are other versions of nothing and in fact, you can imagine no space and no time, which of course I think is a better version of non-being and non-existence. But if we apply the laws of quantum mechanics to gravity, then in that theory, even space itself can pop into existence, spontaneously - space and time, where there were NO TIME AND SPACE before"
http://ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-lawrence-krauss-marcelo-gleiser-something-nothing
eh can't be bothered quoting the multitude of references on such an obvious and so boring point. Google it and get an education on your own
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=krauss+%22nothing%22+%22even+space%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
Elijah2012 June 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM
DeleteSped I understand completely what krauss has said . I just don't buy and neither does the general public your gambit of the emperor with the new clothes which you tirelessly seek to employ.
Krauss is putting forward a hypothesis about how, according to quantum theory, the Universe could have popped into existence from nothing. Whether you and the general public believe it or not doesn't matter. All that matters is does it work? Is it possible? Does it take us another step along the road to understanding why there is something rather than nothing?
We know that Krauss expertise as a physicist ends at the known universe and space like all of us while you try to perpetuate the utter fraud that
"scientists, who have spent their entire working lives studying and researching in a given field,
"
have the ability to go beyond the universe they can observe and make proclamations as silly as nothing creating both time and space.
Krauss's hypothesis is based in the physics that we already know. It may be weird but there's no appeal to occult or supernatural information.
This is your religious faith in the blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance. Its also essentially and obviously a logically fallacious appeal to authority.
If you know fallacies you will know that, in this case, the fallacy lies in appealing to an inappropriate and/or incompetent authority.
Krauss is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist which, in this case, very definitely makes him appropriate and competent. There is no fallacy.
As long as neither you nor Krauss can give me a test for how nothing creates time and space or for that matter how quantum laws exist prior and therefore without space you have earned and earned well the title of proponents of the gibberish supreme.
Fine. You're entitled to your opinion.
Krauss may function as your high priest but no onr else need bow to his metaphysics theology and metaphysics it most certain is.
You're the one who needs priests and devils and gods and theology, not me - or Krauss.
Ian,
Deletewhen I as a layman criticize Krauss it is not just pulled out of thin air. Criticism is produced after reading experts in the field and some own logical thinking. Still I'm at the base of the totem pole of science so my criticism doesn't mean much.
Coincidence is I was reading an interesting book by a cosmologist. Who is the best to criticize Krauss than his colleague cosmologist Neil Turok, man who worked with Hawking and Penrose at Cambridge. He's now at Perimeter Institute not too far from where I live and luckily for me giving free public lectures.
In his book The Universe Within (pg.246,247) Turok seriously disagrees with Kraus's ideas. He says Krauss "misrepresented physics" , made "technical gaffe",has "shallow argument", is "disconnecting science from society". He goes on and disagrees with Dawkins' afterword in Krauss's book.
"Krauss's hypothesis is based in the physics that we already know. It may be weird but there's no appeal to occult or supernatural information."
Deleteheaping and I do mean HEAPING pounds of garbage and nonsense. Krauss knows absolutely nothing outside of physics that operate in this universe and its space. the appeal to the creation of space is quintessential metaphysiccs. You are merely granting a measure of omniscience to your high priest
"If you know fallacies you will know that, in this case, the fallacy lies in appealing to an inappropriate and/or incompetent authority."
Only in your metaphysics believing mind is Krauss a competent authority on physics operating outside of space and time. this is the silliness of your emperor with the new clothes gambit that both you and him try to sell. The fact that you swallow and defend this purely religious concept while mocking religions for relating far less grand claims of miracles proves in spades that your position is rooted and grounded in faith sans any evidence.
Sicence tells us nothing outside of entities and properties that operate within space. It is blithering ignorance to claim knowledge outside and time and space. What test could ever be done to give us such evidence? How do you propose we isolate existing space from the equation to propose ANY kind of experiment. Go ahead we await
Propose one.
"You're the one who needs priests and devils and gods and theology, not me - or Krauss."
Sorry. Cats out the bag and you can thank Krauss and his atheistiv bias for exposing the metaphysics atheist are quite willing to accept. There is no difference between all of those and your blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance theology. You genuflect just like one would to a priest when Krauss proposes himself clear out of all known physics which ARE rooted in space to claim nothing created space.
Its gibberish and it doesn't matter that you will not accept it as gibberish the rest of the world has and will easily see it for what it is.
Its essentially and obviously a logically fallacious appeal to authority for your blue fairy everything out of nothing faith.
The only thing that separates the atheist from the theist now is that the atheists believes in laws operating in the absence of space and time without intelligence and theists believe a law with nothing else would imply an intelligence.
Eugen June 19, 2013 at 8:05 PM
Delete[...]
Who is the best to criticize Krauss than his colleague cosmologist Neil Turok, man who worked with Hawking and Penrose at Cambridge. He's now at Perimeter Institute not too far from where I live and luckily for me giving free public lectures.
In his book The Universe Within (pg.246,247) Turok seriously disagrees with Kraus's ideas. He says Krauss "misrepresented physics" , made "technical gaffe",has "shallow argument", is "disconnecting science from society". He goes on and disagrees with Dawkins' afterword in Krauss's book.
Turok sounds like a good Vulcan name :-) so I'm instinctively sympathetic.
More seriously, it's good that he disagrees with Krauss. That's part of how science works. One scientist comes up with a tentative solution to a really difficult problem. Everyone else pounces on it and tries to tear it to pieces. If it survives then maybe you're on to something. If it doesn't, you're still better off because at least you've eliminated one explanation as wrong, which is something you didn't know before.
And maybe, just maybe, the whole furball over the first explanation might cause a lightbulb to click on in the mind of another researcher who puts together an alternative explanation for the others to get their teeth into. So it goes on.
The problem seems to be that the non-scientific audience, particularly the believers, thinks that scientists are talking about the same sort of Absolute Truths™ that religions deal in. But that's not what science does. It works with tentative explanations - hypotheses and theories - and observations. Even facts in science are only observations that, as Gould put it, are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
When a scientist like Krauss publishes a book explaining how the Universe might have arisen from nothing, he is not writing scripture. His word is not gospel. All he's doing is offering a tentative and speculative explanation. Nobody has to believe it on pain of excommunication. It could be wrong but it's still worth looking at.
Elijah2012 June 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Delete"Krauss's hypothesis is based in the physics that we already know. It may be weird but there's no appeal to occult or supernatural information."
heaping and I do mean HEAPING pounds of garbage and nonsense. Krauss knows absolutely nothing outside of physics that operate in this universe and its space.
And neither he nor anyone else has claimed otherwise. His ideas are based entirely on what we currently know He's not the one that believes the whole thing was created on a whim by some all-knowing, all-powerful Creator who, by definition, had no reason to create anything at all.
the appeal to the creation of space is quintessential metaphysiccs. You are merely granting a measure of omniscience to your high priest
You're the one who believes in omniscient beings, not me or Krauss.
"If you know fallacies you will know that, in this case, the fallacy lies in appealing to an inappropriate and/or incompetent authority."
Only in your metaphysics believing mind is Krauss a competent authority on physics operating outside of space and time. this is the silliness of your emperor with the new clothes gambit that both you and him try to sell.
He's trying to sell a book and the explanation it sets out. He's free to do so. Nobody is saying you have to buy it.
And as I said before, Krauss is not claiming to know anything about the physics that operate outside our Universe. He does, however, know quite a bit about the physics that operate within our Universe - certainly a lot more than you or I - and that makes him a competent authority and appealing to him not a fallacy.
The fact that you swallow and defend this purely religious concept while mocking religions for relating far less grand claims of miracles proves in spades that your position is rooted and grounded in faith sans any evidence.
So you accept that faith - including yours - is belief in something without any evidence or in spite of the evidence?
[...]
"You're the one who needs priests and devils and gods and theology, not me - or Krauss."
Sorry. Cats out the bag and you can thank Krauss and his atheistiv bias for exposing the metaphysics atheist are quite willing to accept. There is no difference between all of those and your blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance theology.
You genuflect just like one would to a priest when Krauss proposes himself clear out of all known physics which ARE rooted in space to claim nothing created space.
Sorry, but beating hard on a strawman doesn't make it any less a strawman. Kraus isn't claiming metaphysical knowledge nor are his ideas based on it, just on what we know now. If you don't like his ideas, fine. Nobody says you have to. If you feel threatened by them in some way, which is what the vehemence of your response suggests, then maybe it's because your own faith is more fragile than you care to admit.
The only thing that separates the atheist from the theist now is that the atheists believes in laws operating in the absence of space and time without intelligence and theists believe a law with nothing else would imply an intelligence.
There's obviously a profound mystery about where the laws or the order or the regularities we observe in this Universe came from. Atheists don't believe in laws operating in the absence of space and time any more than theists. The notion is absurd.
The difference between theists and atheists is that the latter don't find the concept of a Creator useful. It doesn't tell us anything about how or why it happened - the very things you're asking of science - and, in some formulations, the notion of the Creator or God is itself incoherent.
Ian
Delete"Turok sounds like a good Vulcan name :-) "
Son ama gun, totally. Good catch, even my inner clown didn't think of that. Now next time I watch him online I'll think he's a Vulcan agent :)
I agree (and I think everybody here) that the best way for science to work is for one person to promote his ideas and another to criticize them.
It's good to read ideas from both sides, theist and atheist scientists, do some logical thinking and make up your mind.
When we are studying the nature of our reality it's easy to get stuck on philosophical points, ad hominems, prosaic exercises,etc... but I try to filter that out.
I asked my sensei what am I going to study after I get to 20 years of practicing with him. He said:"Basics, Eugen, basics!"
Here is a small illustration of what are we dealing with, what forces are involved at the basics of our reality.
If hydrogen atom is blown up to 1 meter diameter beach ball you still wouldn't be able to see either proton or electron. Force of attraction between proton and neutron would be 230N, same force between like charges but repulsive. To get a feel what that force is lift something about 23kg heavy.
What's going on at basic level is simply fascinating.
Oops, random quantum event made me type "Force of attraction between proton and neutron" it should be "between proton and electron"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete