Sunday, June 23, 2013

Photosynthesis Relies on Quantum Coherence

When Will They Cry Uncle?

It is no secret that nature’s process of photosynthesis—which harnesses the energy in sunlight—is astonishingly efficient. And researchers have known for years that quantum mechanisms play a role in the protein antenna farms deployed in these marvelous molecular machines. Now new research, based on a experimental technique that tracks these proteins at the femtosecond level (there are a million billion femtoseconds in a second), elucidates some of these quantum mechanisms and, as usual, the results are surprising.

Photosynthesis begins with special proteins that capture and transmit the energy from sunlight. The new research shows that these proteins use specific energy-transfer pathways that apparently are adaptive to the current conditions. These pathways are protein-specific and time-varying.

And part of the reason why these energy-transfer processes are so efficient is that they are coordinated. This quantum coherence is long-lived, persisting for hundreds of femtoseconds. As one of the researchers put it:

These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences.

It would be an abuse of science to say the evolution of such systems is a fact, or likely. I don’t care if evolution is true or not, but from a strictly scientific perspective (which is not how the theory is motivated or evaluated), the idea is, to be frank, just silly.

These new results continue to make that clear.

70 comments:

  1. Let's see who's going to be the first Darwinist to say something stupid. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You beat them to the punch. Louis.Congrats.

      Delete
    2. I see you and Norton beat me to it. Darwinian stupidity is now legendary.

      Delete
    3. Your modesty is unbecoming,Louis, there is only one legend , vous.

      Though you seem to be just mailing it in lately,is the colorful use of profanity a thing of the past? The famous catchphrases?

      Delete
  2. Related notes: At the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez explains why photosynthesis needs a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain its effect:

    Nonlocality of Photosynthesis - Antoine Suarez - video - 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMrrmlTXl4&feature=player_detailpage#t=1268s

    The Elaborate Nanoscale Machine Called Photosynthesis: No Vestige of a Beginning - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012
    Excerpt: "The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution. Photosynthetic phyla include the cyanobacteria, proteobacteria (purple bacteria), green sulfur bacteria (GSB), firmicutes (heliobacteria), filamentous anoxygenic phototrophs (FAPs, also often called the green nonsulfur bacteria), and acidobacteria (Raymond, 2008)."
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/elaborate-nanoscale-machine-called.html?showComment=1341739083709#c1202402748048253561

    "Despite its complexity, C4 photosynthesis is one of the best examples of 'convergent evolution', having evolved more than 50 times in at least 18 plant families (Sage 2004; Conway Morris 2006)."
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/8/1909.full.pdf

    The Miracle Of Photosynthesis - electron transport - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj_WKgnL6MI

    Evolutionist Has Another Honest Moment as “Thorny Questions Remain” - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012
    Excerpt: It's a chicken and egg question. Scientists are in disagreement over what came first -- replication, or metabolism. But there is a third part to the equation -- and that is energy. … You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionist-has-another-honest-moment.html

    The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8

    At the 6:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production:

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706

    Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/glycolysis-and-citric-acid-cycle.html

    Miniature Molecular Power Plant: ATP Synthase - January 2013 - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY

    ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell - Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: In manufacturing terms, the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996).
    http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp

    ATP Synthase, an Energy-Generating Rotary Motor Engine - Jonathan M. May 15, 2013
    Excerpt: ATP synthase has been described as "a splendid molecular machine," and "one of the most beautiful" of "all enzymes" .,, "bona fide rotary dynamo machine",,,
    If such a unique and brilliantly engineered nanomachine bears such a strong resemblance to the engineering of manmade hydroelectric generators, and yet so impressively outperforms the best human technology in terms of speed and efficiency, one is led unsurprisingly to the conclusion that such a machine itself is best explained by intelligent design.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/atp_synthase_an_1072101.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Visible light is also incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the "most permitted" portion of the sun's spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere. The tiny amount of harmful UV radiation, which is not visible light, allowed to filter through the atmosphere is needed to keep various populations of single cell bacteria from over-populating the world (Ross; reasons.org). The size of light's wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also seem to be tailor-made for each other. This "tailor-made fit" allows photosynthesis, the miracle of sight, and many other things that are necessary for human life. These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe's entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (Denton; Nature's Destiny).

      Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887

      Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light - Walter Bradley - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552

      Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water - graphs
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ

      Michael Denton: Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis - podcast
      http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/09/michael_denton_remarkable_coin.html

      Delete
    2. "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

      -- Douglas Adams Speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge, UK, (1998)

      Delete
    3. A puddle is a little different than a universe. All puddles are pretty much the same. If the hole had a different, then the puddle would too, but there is no significant difference between one puddle and another. There is a significant difference between a universe without life, and one with life.

      Delete
    4. natschuster June 23, 2013 at 7:16 AM

      A puddle is a little different than a universe. All puddles are pretty much the same. If the hole had a different, then the puddle would too, but there is no significant difference between one puddle and another. There is a significant difference between a universe without life, and one with life.


      The point is we know puddles are commonplace because we have observed many puddles. The puddle in Adams's analogy doesn't know this. It's only aware of itself.

      There might be many other universes in which life is commonplace, so finding life here would not be so remarkable. On the other hand, there might be many other universes none of which have life apart from ours - which would be very odd.

      In other words, yes, this universe might have been fine-tuned to produce life as we know it or the whole thing might be a coincidence. Without knowledge of other universes (if there are any) there's no way to tell. The fine-tuning argument is an intriguing speculation but that's all.

      Delete
    5. natschuster: All puddles are pretty much the same.

      Indeed not! Every puddle is unique with its own indentations and bumps.

      Delete
  3. cornelius, is there anything that quantum mechanisms don't play a role in?

    "I don’t care if evolution is true or not..."

    Liar.

    "but from a strictly scientific perspective..."

    'God-did-it' is NOT a scientific perspective in any way, shape, or form.

    Tell you what, cornelius, describe in detail how, what, when, and where your chosen 'God-did-it', from a "strictly scientific perspective". Here's your opportunity to show that you have a better, strictly scientific 'theory' than the ToE.

    Of course you have that opportunity every day, but all you do is bash evolution, evolutionists, and evolutionary theory. Let's see your better, strictly scientific theory.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "'God-did-it' is NOT a scientific perspective in any way, shape, or form."

      Since you have not shown where he used this term or demonstrated that he is actually resorting to such a claim, you, because you are using such a blatant straw man, are the liar.

      Delete
    2. Stormbringer

      "'God-did-it' is NOT a scientific perspective in any way, shape, or form."

      Since you have not shown where he used this term or demonstrated that he is actually resorting to such a claim, you, because you are using such a blatant straw man, are the liar.


      Sorry Stormbringer but Dr. Hunter teaches at BIOLA University, a private Christian school in LA. All employees are required to sign and swear to the BIOLA University Doctrinal Statement where they indeed say in no uncertain terms "God-did-it".

      "The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind."

      Looks like you owe TWT an apology.

      Delete
    3. looks like you have picked up no sense this week as you didn't last week. There are many scientists and even Darwin fanatics that adhere to their church's doctrinal statement and yet do good science in the lab. Because you believe in God does not mean that you invoke simply God did it on every ocassion.

      and lol funny stuff - the last two people here who have earned anything is you and TWT

      Delete
    4. "you, because you are using such a blatant straw man, are the liar."

      Storm. You need be upset as if anything strange took place TWT isn't even read anymore by a few of us because his -posts are usually nothing more than barnyards filled with straw.

      Delete
    5. Elijah2012

      There are many scientists and even Darwin fanatics that adhere to their church's doctrinal statement and yet do good science in the lab.


      We aren't talking about 'many scientists'. We are talking about one specific person, Dr. Cornelius Hunter, and the oath he swore. Either he lied to BIOLA or he's lying to us. Either way a pretty egregious lie is involved.

      Delete
    6. "'God-did-it' is NOT a scientific perspective in any way, shape, or form."

      Neither is the stupid Darwinian perspective, 'dirt-did-it'. LOL.

      Delete
    7. If given a choice between 'God-did-it' and 'dirt-did-it', Darwinists immediately choose the latter and you know why? They always pick the stupid answer, that's why. :D

      Delete
    8. Let me this straight. A physical process(photosynthesis) relies on another physical process (quantum coherence), and this somehow invalidates the whole of biology. Wow.

      Please illuminate for us then, where the creator or is it creators, fits into this or any physical process. State a hypothesis that includes the creator. Then provide an example of an experiment that demonstrates the direct influence of said creator.

      Finally I'll add, I see the Drizzle Bringer has added nothing to the discussion.

      Delete
    9. You're stupid, Vann Priest. You're a cretin. LOL.

      Delete
    10. louis said:

      "Neither is the stupid Darwinian perspective, 'dirt-did-it'."

      I've never seen nor heard of an evolutionist ("Darwinian" or otherwise) claiming or implying that 'dirt-did-it'. Here's a hint: There's a lot more to natural processes/mechanisms/events/results than dirt or 'dirt-did-it'.

      Speaking of dirt, you creobots believe that 'God' specially created the first human (a man) from dirt, and the second human (a woman) from a rib of the dirt man. And since you also believe that all humans are descended from that dirt man and dirt-man's-rib woman, you must believe that 'God-did-it' with dirt, right?

      I'm curious, what did your imaginary 'God' create animals, plants, and everything else in the universe from, dirt, dirt ribs, or nothing?

      Delete
    11. Louis - Great comeback! However I notice you did not state a hypothesis that includes the creator nor did you provide an example of an experiment that demonstrates the direct influence of said creator. Are you incapable of doing so?

      Delete
  4. What? No music and bible verse? You're slippin', phil.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, Ian, and for some strange reason all that 'fine tuning' of the universe resulted in a universe that is by far mostly a very deadly place.

    Hey phil (ba77), I'd like to see you or any other 'fine tuning' pusher survive a naked walk across an ocean or Antarctica, a naked trip to another planet or galaxy and back without a space ship, a naked fall from a 2,000 foot, sheer cliff onto rocks, a meal of Atropa belladonna, being frozen solid like a wood frog during winter, or a fight with a hungry polar bear.

    If the universe and the Earth were fine tuned, for 'specially created' humans (which is what you god pushers actually believe), all of that and more should and would be a cinch.

    A naked, 'lowly' flea or spider can survive a 2,000 foot fall from a cliff onto rocks. Since you're 'specially created', exceptional, and superior, surely you can do better than a flea or spider. Want to try 3,000 feet, naked?

    And don't forget that your fellow creobot byers says that humans have ape-like bodies because they're the best body design by 'God'. If you and a flea were to fall or jump from the top of a high cliff, which type of body would you rather have, human-ape-like, or flea?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWT:

      Are you proving our point? I understand you to be saying that human life is very unlikely, yet here we are. Could it be a miracle?

      Delete
    2. Hmm, so nat, is this essentially your claim?:

      1. The universe is finely tuned by 'God' to produce and support life.

      2. The Earth or the whole universe is finely tuned by 'God' to especially produce and support human life.

      3. But, living things, especially humans, are really, really, really unlikely to exist and are therefor special, exceptional, and a miracle because the universe and the Earth are really, really, really unlikely to allow, produce, and support living things, especially humans.

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

      How can living things, especially humans, be unlikely, special, exceptional, and a miracle if 'God' finely tuned the Earth and the universe for living things, especially humans?

      If life, especially human life, is unlikely, special, exceptional, and a miracle, then the universe and the Earth can hardly be labeled as finely tuned by 'God' to produce and support life, and especially human life.

      If the universe is finely tuned for life, especially human life, by 'God', there should and would be living things, especially humans, on every planet and moon in the universe.

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. DrHunter,
    DrHunter,
    It would be an abuse of science to say the evolution of such systems is a fact, or likely


    Is the claim that a specific results of billions of years of evolution are likely?

    Does evolution require that purple bacteria have photosynthesis, that there are even purple bacteria?

    I don’t care if evolution is true or not,

    Which definition of evolution would you be willing not to care if it was true or not?And which one would you care if it was true?

    but from a strictly scientific perspective (which is not how the theory is motivated or evaluated),

    If scientists are unable in your opinion to separate their" common religion" ( even in the face of the fact they differ radically in their view of God) , how do you avoid falling into the same trap?

    From your posts you seem to have strong religious beliefs, does your particular religion have no position of the veracity of evolution as well?Agnostic so to speak on man's physical descent from a more primitive kind?

    Again kudos on your light hand on limiting debate and radical departures from the subject of your posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is the claim that a specific results of billions of years of evolution are likely?

      The claim is that the evolution of photosynthesis, and everything else, is a scientific fact. That is a misrepresentation of science, in the extreme.


      Which definition of evolution would you be willing not to care if it was true or not? And which one would you care if it was true?

      The view that the world arose via natural law has been and continues to be widely held by Christians. That’s fine with me. But of course from a scientific perspective that is unlikely. Which is why the claim that evolution is a fact is so curious. That’s where I disagree. I don’t think we should bring our religious axes to grind, into science. Let’s allow the science to speak for itself.


      If scientists are unable in your opinion to separate their" common religion" ( even in the face of the fact they differ radically in their view of God) , how do you avoid falling into the same trap?

      Because my religious beliefs do not mandate the details of the creation story. I do have religious beliefs in other areas that are more specific. I believe Jesus died for us and without Him we have no hope.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter

      The claim is that the evolution of photosynthesis, and everything else, is a scientific fact. That is a misrepresentation of science, in the extreme.


      How so? There are hundreds of scientific papers on the evolution of photosynthesis

      Evolution of photosynthesis
      Hohmann-Marriott MF, Blankenship RE.
      Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2011;62:515-48.

      Abstract: Energy conversion of sunlight by photosynthetic organisms has changed Earth and life on it. Photosynthesis arose early in Earth's history, and the earliest forms of photosynthetic life were almost certainly anoxygenic (non-oxygen evolving). The invention of oxygenic photosynthesis and the subsequent rise of atmospheric oxygen approximately 2.4 billion years ago revolutionized the energetic and enzymatic fundamentals of life. The repercussions of this revolution are manifested in novel biosynthetic pathways of photosynthetic cofactors and the modification of electron carriers, pigments, and existing and alternative modes of photosynthetic carbon fixation. The evolutionary history of photosynthetic organisms is further complicated by lateral gene transfer that involved photosynthetic components as well as by endosymbiotic events. An expanding wealth of genetic information, together with biochemical, biophysical, and physiological data, reveals a mosaic of photosynthetic features. In combination, these data provide an increasingly robust framework to formulate and evaluate hypotheses concerning the origin and evolution of photosynthesis.

      But I imagine just like pretty much everything else associated with evolutionary biology you're just giving your unsupported personal opinion.

      Delete
    3. DrHunter,
      Thanks for the elaboration.I'll give it some thought

      Delete
    4. cornelius said:

      "I don’t think we should bring our religious axes to grind, into science."

      Wow. That a heapin' helpin' of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

      "Because my religious beliefs do not mandate the details of the creation story."

      Which details of which version/interpretation of which "creation story"?

      And aren't you conveniently forgetting your agreement with biola's doctrinal statement and agenda?

      "I do have religious beliefs in other areas that are more specific."

      In other words, like all god pushers you conveniently pick and choose to believe in and push whatever makes you feel good and suits your personal agenda in the christian bible/dogma, and you ignore/discard the rest.

      Delete
  9. V: Which definition of evolution would you be willing not to care if it was true or not?And which one would you care if it was true?

    J: Why would he care if UCA occurred naturalistically? That wouldn't disprove teleology. It would just move the libertarian cause back further for teleology. So it still would not render the well-nigh irresistable inference to design false. This is why CH doesn't care. But he knows there's no "overwhelming evidence" for it.

    The debate to be had against CH, then, is an exegetical one. Genesis seems to indicate that creation of organisms occurred according to SA. Jesus seems to affirm that Genesis is part of an inspired canon. Is there any inductive argument for reading Genesis as either non-informative about creation or non-SA in creational mode for organisms? That's the only question for professing Christians who don't care whether naturalistic UCA is true. There's no inductive science to naturalistic UCA yet TO debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,
      J: Why would he care if UCA occurred naturalistically?


      I didn't ask if he cared,only a clarification of which definition of evolution he wouldn't care about.

      That wouldn't disprove teleology.

      Does telos rule out naturalistic causes, after I touch the first domino completely natural causes take over. But while you mention it how is it possible to falsify teleos?

      It would just move the libertarian cause back further for teleology.

      I agree, so teleos doesn't exclude natural causes.

      So it still would not render the well-nigh irresistable inference to design false.

      I am not sure one could ever prove design false,perhaps not necessary but not false. Now on the other hand you might be able to prove a specific theory of design as false, but design folks would not be so foolish to specify any what, when or hows.

      This is why CH doesn't care. But he knows there's no "overwhelming evidence" for it.

      His lips say he wouldn't care but his actions seem to tell a different story.

      The debate to be had against CH, then, is an exegetical one

      Bible exegesis ? Why? Is Genesis a scientific treatment of the origin of the species

      Genesis seems to indicate that creation of organisms occurred according to SA. Jesus seems to affirm that Genesis is part of an inspired canon. Is there any inductive argument for reading Genesis as either non-informative about creation or non-SA in creational mode for organisms?

      I see this is a debate whether on can be a Christian and not believe in SA? Since the largest group of Christians are free to believe in the ToE, it seems you can. Perhaps they view the bible in a less literal sense.

      Is there any inductive argument for reading Genesis as either non-informative about creation or non-SA in creational mode for organisms

      Is there any inductive argument for reading Genesis as informative about creation ?

      That's the only question for professing Christians who don't care whether naturalistic UCA is true. There's no inductive science to naturalistic UCA yet TO debate.

      I think most biologists feel there is nothing to debate as well

      Delete
    2. jeff said:

      "Why would he care if UCA occurred naturalistically?"

      Hmm, that's a tough one. Let me see.........., I've got it! If there's a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth it means that cornelius isn't 'specially created in God's image' and that he's an ape! Oh the horror!

      "That wouldn't disprove teleology. It would just move the libertarian cause back further for teleology."

      Yeah, I'm sure that you god pushers could still find a wacky way to convince yourselves that you have a magical sky daddy.

      "So it still would not render the well-nigh irresistable inference to design false."

      So, you accept that Fifi the pink unicorn god could be 'the designer'?

      "This is why CH doesn't care."

      You're a very slow learner and very unobservant. cornelius clearly does "care", a LOT, and not just about universal common ancestry but about evolution in any way, shape, or form.

      "But he knows there's no "overwhelming evidence" for it."

      He doesn't "know" anything of the sort.

      Delete
    3. J: Why would he care if UCA occurred naturalistically?

      V: I didn't ask if he cared,only a clarification of which definition of evolution he wouldn't care about.

      J: But he doesn't care about that. He's arguing against lying in the name of science.

      V: Does telos rule out naturalistic causes, after I touch the first domino completely natural causes take over.

      J: Teleology IMPLIES the existence of "natural" means between the libertarian instantiation of the initial conditions and the intended end.

      V: But while you mention it how is it possible to falsify teleos?

      J: No, you can't. Can you think of a way to falsify the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA?

      V: I am not sure one could ever prove design false,perhaps not necessary but not false.

      J: You can't prove it unnecessary. On the other hand, Scott's bankrupt epistemology is all that's left without teleological inductivism.

      V: Now on the other hand you might be able to prove a specific theory of design as false, but design folks would not be so foolish to specify any what, when or hows.

      J: Right, they're not fools like naturalistic UCA'ists. They realize what relations are and aren't evidentiary of a hypothesis.

      J: This is why CH doesn't care. But he knows there's no "overwhelming evidence" for it.

      V: His lips say he wouldn't care but his actions seem to tell a different story.

      J: Once a professing Christian rejects the SA interpretation of Genesis, there's no reason to oppose naturalistic UCA on theological grounds or empirical grounds. Only the literal approach has a clear theodicy. Successive creations, theistic UCA, naturalistic UCA as means to biological ends, etc, all have the exact same theodicy problems. And all the views require more ad-hoc hypotheses than anyone has taken the time to articulate (assuming it's even possible) to generate a bona-fide hypothetico-deductive explanation of the biological data.

      J: The debate to be had against CH, then, is an exegetical one

      V: Bible exegesis ? Why? Is Genesis a scientific treatment of the origin of the species

      J: I only meant that's the only way you could show he's being inconsistent.

      V: Is there any inductive argument for reading Genesis as informative about creation ?

      J: Certainly. It is one of very few accounts of creation even seemingly consistent with the kind of theism that constitutes the necessary and sufficient conditions of a human relative plausibility criteria. And there is non--trivial historical evidence for the miraculous claims in pertinent portions of the OT and NT.

      V: I think most biologists feel there is nothing to debate as well

      J: Yes, well, that's because they're true believers. They don't hold that belief tentatively, like other scientists hold actual scientific hypotheses. What they hold to be tentative, if at all, is HOW naturalistic UCA happened and by what TREE.

      Delete
  10. For the sake of argument, let’s assume photosynthesis actually does utilize quantum effects. How did you calculate the probability of such a system utilizing quantum effects? Please be specific.

    CH: It would be an abuse of science to say the evolution of such systems is a fact, or likely.

    Except, you haven’t explained what you mean by “likely”, let alone if or how we actually use it as a criteria for what ideas should adapt.

    CH: I don’t care if evolution is true or not, but from a strictly scientific perspective (which is not how the theory is motivated or evaluated), the idea is, to be frank, just silly.

    Since when does calling an idea is “silly” represent a scientific perspective?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott: For the sake of argument, let’s assume photosynthesis actually does utilize quantum effects. How did you calculate the probability of such a system utilizing quantum effects? Please be specific.

      CH: It would be an abuse of science to say the evolution of such systems is a fact, or likely.

      Except, you haven’t explained what you mean by “likely”, let alone if or how we actually use it as a criteria for what ideas should adapt.

      Jeff: Except nothing. There is no calculable probability OF naturalistic UCA. There is no hypothetico-deductive explanation OF naturalistic UCA that has ever been articulated. Nor has anyone ever articulated a way to falsify it. IOW, if this hypothesis is scientific, any hypothesis is scientific.


      Scott: CH: I don’t care if evolution is true or not, but from a strictly scientific perspective (which is not how the theory is motivated or evaluated), the idea is, to be frank, just silly.

      Since when does calling an idea is “silly” represent a scientific perspective?

      Jeff: Define "scientific perspective."

      Delete
    2. Your incessant error, Scott, is the same one all your cohorts are making over and over. None of you have explained how to demarcate a scientific "perspective" from an inductive perspective. And none of you have explained how teleological explanation is non-inductive. We make teleological inferences all the time. If those are not inductive inferences (and they're surely not deductive), what KIND of inferences are they?

      You keep saying we make "subtractive" progress. First, that's not progress when you're up against an infinite set. Second, you're never subtracting anything if you turn right around and say NO idea/hypothesis/belief is EVER known to be more or less probable/plausible than another.

      Delete
    3. Jeff: There is no calculable probability OF naturalistic UCA.

      We cannot calculate the probability of anything unless we know all the possible outcomes and the process is completely random. Naturalistic UCA included. So, it’s unclear how Cornelius can assign any kind of likelihood to evolutionary theory. This is just more handwaving.

      Jeff: There is no hypothetico-deductive explanation OF naturalistic UCA that has ever been articulated.

      Then, what is the significance of an organism utilizing quantum effects? Why is this results of this study supposedly surprising?

      Scott: Since when does calling an idea is “silly” represent a scientific perspective?

      Jeff: Define "scientific perspective."

      The mere claim that “X is silly” could be applied to any idea. So, it cannot be used in a critical way. Nor did CH elaborate as to how he calculated the probability of such a system utilizing quantum effects.

      Delete
    4. Jeff: None of you have explained how to demarcate a scientific "perspective" from an inductive perspective. And none of you have explained how teleological explanation is non-inductive.

      No one has formulate a “principle of induction”, that actually works, in practice. So, it’s unclear how anyone, let alone scientists, could use induction to provide guidance in a reliable way. But, by all means, feel free to provide such a principle.

      Jeff: We make teleological inferences all the time. If those are not inductive inferences (and they're surely not deductive), what KIND of inferences are they?

      Again, human beings are good explanations for human designed things because of our limitations. We make trade offs that are due to the growth of knowledge and pick specific tradeoffs due to our preferences.

      What's wrong with induction?

      Theories do not follow from evidence. This is because theories are not "out there" somewhere for us to observe. Furthermore, explanatory theories are about unobserved causes and events, so they do not follow from observed events. For example, no one has observed the core of the sun, yet we use it to explain the behavior of its surface.

      Empirical evidence is comparable with multiple explanatory theories, in addition to an infinite number of logical possibilities that have yet to be conceived. As such, evidence cannot prove a theory or make it more probable. We cannot assign probabilities in the absence of an explanation of where the numbers come from. Any such numbers cannot be the probability of that explanation, but we interpret them as if they are when working with the theory itself. For example, we can calculate the probability between two specific mutations in relation to a common ancestor, but this doesn't mean any such calculation makes the theory itself more probable.

      Conclusions of arguments are always more specific than their premisses, so you can't get out more than you put in, and arguments in the form of modus ponens commit the formal fallacy of affirming the consequences. However, we can always reformulate a modus ponens argument as modus tollens so we can argue to a more specific negation. This is deduction.

      Now, you might argue that we could continue to modify a theory to avoid falsification, which is known as the Duhem Quine problem. However, we can come up with a testable explanation as to why the theory is right, but the observation is wrong. For example, we discovered Neptune by proposing it as an explanation for why the orbit of Uranus conflicted with Newton's laws. This was a testable prediction, which was not ad-hoc. The planet Vulcan was proposed to explain conflicts with the orbit of Mercury, but it was not found. It was only when GR did explain the deviation in the orbit of Mercury that Newton's law became untenable.

      Jeff: First, that's not progress when you're up against an infinite set.

      That's not progress of what? Proving some other theory is true? Where did I suggest this?

      Jeff: Second, you're never subtracting anything if you turn right around and say NO idea/hypothesis/belief is EVER known to be more or less probable/plausible than another.

      In what sense is any theory *known* to be more or less probable/plausible?

      Observations cannot prove a theory is true, but they can conflict with it. This doesn't mean a theory is more probable than another. It just means that it has fewer problems. We should adapt the theory that has withstood the most criticism. That's it.

      You might need a stronger reason to believe, but that's your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    5. jeff said:

      "Define "scientific perspective.""

      How about this:

      The perspective that depends on rational, productive, scientific methodology, which includes evidence, observations, research, results, and explanations, while keeping in mind that new scientific discoveries may affect the aforementioned things.

      Delete
    6. TWT:

      How about this:

      The perspective that depends on rational, productive, scientific methodology, which includes evidence, observations, research, results, and explanations, while keeping in mind that new scientific discoveries may affect the aforementioned things.

      J: Sounds great. Let's look at them one by one.

      1) research - how do you research whether naturalistic UCA is possible? And how are scientists doing that?

      2) observations - what observations imply or indicate that naturalistic UCA is true or plausible? and how so?

      3) results - what "results" have scientists obtained that has any relevance to distinguishing the plausibility of SA and UCA?

      4) explanations - what's the explanation for naturalistic UCA?

      5) new scientific discoveries - what new discoveries could render SA more plausible than UCA to you? and how so?

      Delete
    7. TWT, do you agree with Scott that science never renders any idea/hypothesis/theory more or less plausible/probably than any other? And if so, can you please explain what it means to say that there is overwhelming evidence for naturalistic UCA if that doesn't even mean that naturalistic UCA is more plausible/probable than teleological SA?

      Delete
    8. Jeff, for the umpteenth time, I'm not suggesting we haven't make progress. I'm suggesting that you're confused about how that progress was made.

      Can we calculate the probability that some theory is true or likely? Not unless it's completely random and/or all the possible options are known, which doesn't include the likelihood of any theory itself. Probability is valid in respect to choosing between a fixed number of options inside a theory, not the theory itself.

      So, if we exclude induction and probability, and you're not denying that we've made progress, then how did we make it? We can always reformulate a modus ponens argument as modus tollens so we can argue to a more specific negation.

      IOW, we adopt the theory that has withstood the most criticism.

      But, by all means, please present a principle of induction that actually works, in practice, or a way to show a particular *theory* is more probable than another, rather than a fixed number of options in a theory is more probable.

      Conjecture and refutation, which is a form of deduction, is our current best explanation for the growth of human knowledge, as it has withstood the most criticism.

      Delete
    9. Scott: IOW, we adopt the theory that has withstood the most criticism.

      J: And what criticism has been applied by the consensi to the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA?

      Scott: But, by all means, please present a principle of induction that actually works, in practice, or a way to show a particular *theory* is more probable than another, rather than a fixed number of options in a theory is more probable.

      J: Relative plausibility criteria render certain hypotheses MORE plausible (and, therefore, MORE probable) BY the criteria than others. There is no specific probabilities. Indeed, apart from induction, there is no explanation as to why we question whether apparent memories are actual memories as infrequently as we do. And again, this methodology is only believed to be truth-approximating in the long-term as data sets grow.

      Scott: Conjecture and refutation, which is a form of deduction, is our current best explanation for the growth of human knowledge, as it has withstood the most criticism.

      J: The particular conjectures and refutations that humans do when they are thinking rationally are characterized by inductive and deductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning using arbitrary criteria applied to arbitrary conjectures. Outside of that mode of knowledge growth, there is no conceivable "criticism" that isn't completely arbitrary and, therefore, utterly worthless.

      Delete
    10. For humans to actually use induction, there would need to be a "principle of induction" that can be defined in a way that it can be reliably applied to provide guidance, in practice.

      However, you have yet to provide any such principle. Nor has anyone else, AFAIK.

      How can you use something you cannot define when directly asked to formulate it?

      Delete
  11. The quantum effects described in the OP research are part of the physical operation of our universe and have nothing to do with biology per se.

    Any Creationist want to explain why it's surprising that evolution would end up using the available physical mechanisms when selecting for its energy-transfer pathways? The whole point of evolution through natural selection is that it tends to use what works best out of the available resources.

    It really is the Adams' puddle analogy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. M: The quantum effects described in the OP research are part of the physical operation of our universe and have nothing to do with biology per se.

      J: And that's exactly why it has nothing to do with evolution per se. It's photosynthesis, not evolution.

      Delete
    2. Big dummy Jeff

      And that's exactly why it has nothing to do with evolution per se. It's photosynthesis, not evolution.


      Sorry big dummy, wrong again. Photosynthesis is an evolved process used by some life as an energy source. The mechanisms of photosynthesis make use of the available physical resources.

      You just don't get this science stuff at all. Stick to your philosophical blithering.

      Delete
    3. M: Photosynthesis is an evolved process

      J: Explain it's evolution. Or is pontification all that's needed in what you call "science?"

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

      Delete
    5. Big dummy Jeff

      T: "Photosynthesis is an evolved process"

      Explain it's evolution. Or is pontification all that's needed in what you call "science?"


      Read the scientific literature on the subject. There's lots of it.

      Let us know when you're done, OK?

      For some reason the link broke. Try the Google Scholar search here.

      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+photosynthesis&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

      Delete
    6. M: Read the scientific literature on the subject. There's lots of it.

      J: Yes. They assume naturalistic UCA and that it occurred in such a way that lineages correspond to nested hierarchies of one type or another. It takes millions of ad-hoc assumptions to imply these hypotheses. THere is no explanation of naturalistic UCA that has ever been articulated.

      Delete
    7. Shorter Big Dummy Jeff

      "No way in H-E-double hockey sticks I'm reading any of that scientific stuff. I already know it must be wrong because, well, I just know it has to be. If I learned about the actual scientific research only bad things can happen, like my two working brain cells might overload and short out."

      Gotta love Creationist willful ignorance. Just love it.

      Delete
    8. I've quoted big name scientists to you demonstrating their blind faith approach. You need to believe them. I've showed you where the said the exact opposite of what you assumed. But you're a fideist. You don't think for yourself. You're a moron. You're a cry baby that couldn't muster your own articulation of a defense of your own views if your life depended on it. Believe away cry baby.

      Delete
    9. Here's one in your list:

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5485/1724.short

      "The origin and evolution of photosynthesis have long remained enigmatic due to a lack of sequence information of photosynthesis genes across the entire photosynthetic domain."

      You see, moron, the real problem is that YOU don't read the literature. They literally spell out what they CHOOSE to believe by BLIND FAITH. Rational people couldn't care less what idiots CHOOSE to believe by blind faith.

      Delete
    10. Big dummy Jeff

      Here's one in your list:

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5485/1724.short

      "The origin and evolution of photosynthesis have long remained enigmatic due to a lack of sequence information of photosynthesis genes across the entire photosynthetic domain."


      Here's the parts of the abstract that you conveniently "forgot"

      "Molecular Evidence for the Early Evolution of Photosynthesis

      The origin and evolution of photosynthesis have long remained enigmatic due to a lack of sequence information of photosynthesis genes across the entire photosynthetic domain. To probe early evolutionary history of photosynthesis, we obtained new sequence information of a number of photosynthesis genes from the green sulfur bacterium Chlorobium tepidum and the green nonsulfur bacterium Chloroflexus aurantiacus. A total of 31 open reading frames that encode enzymes involved in bacteriochlorophyll/porphyrin biosynthesis, carotenoid biosynthesis, and photosynthetic electron transfer were identified in about 100 kilobase pairs of genomic sequence. Phylogenetic analyses of multiple magnesium-tetrapyrrole biosynthesis genes using a combination of distance, maximum parsimony, and maximum likelihood methods indicate that heliobacteria are closest to the last common ancestor of all oxygenic photosynthetic lineages and that green sulfur bacteria and green nonsulfur bacteria are each other's closest relatives. Parsimony and distance analyses further identify purple bacteria as the earliest emerging photosynthetic lineage. These results challenge previous conclusions based on 16S ribosomal RNA and Hsp60/Hsp70 analyses that green nonsulfur bacteria or heliobacteria are the earliest phototrophs. The overall consensus of our phylogenetic analysis, that bacteriochlorophyll biosynthesis evolved before chlorophyll biosynthesis, also argues against the long-held Granick hypothesis.

      See Jeff, ignorant Creationist liars like you are exactly why science has to keep fighting against the willful dishonesty and stupidity you keep bringing to the table.

      I'd be willing to bet my house that you didn't bother to read the actual paper even though it's available for free online.

      Right Liar For Jesus Jeff?

      Delete
    11. Bid dummy Jeff

      I've quoted-mined big name scientists to you trying to dishonestly imply they are demonstrating their blind faith approach.


      Fixed if for you Liar For Jesus Jeff.

      You'll have to work harder at hiding tour ignorance and lies.

      Delete
    12. Nope. You're a moron. I didn't "forget" any of it. The whole methodology BLINDLY ASSUMES that certain sequence relationships somehow magically indicate genealogical relationships that occurred in certain tine-frames. Nothing we know about mutational effects or relative frequencies warrant any such inference.

      We know you cry babies NEED to believe that magical thinking is rational. For some reason, you can't sleep well thinking rationally. You just believe away, little cry-baby fideist. I'd hate for you to not sleep like a baby.

      Delete
    13. Big dummy Jeff

      Nope. You're a moron. I didn't "forget" any of it.


      I know, that's why "forget" was in quotes. You deliberately left it out because you're a shameless liar besides being an ignoramus.

      But like all Creationists you think lying for Jesus is somehow a noble act, somehow reflects well on your chosen religious beliefs. You're too stupid to realize all your continued lying does is make you look like a dishonest bottom feeding douche.

      Delete
    14. Moronton, articulate the propositions that imply that any nested hierarchy is the result of non-teleological mutations. You'll be the first to do it.

      Delete
    15. Big dummy Jeff, why did you think you could get away with quote-mining and lying about the evidence for the evolution of photosynthesis?

      Do you really think that just because you're a blindingly ignorant and dishonest typical Creationist that everyone else must be as ignorant and dishonest as you?

      Your childish attempts to change the subject after you got caught lying are pretty amusing though.

      Delete
    16. jeff said:

      "We know you cry babies NEED to believe that magical thinking is rational. For some reason, you can't sleep well thinking rationally. You just believe away, little cry-baby fideist. I'd hate for you to not sleep like a baby."

      That is hilarious coming from someone that irrationally believes in and pushes a magical sky daddy and associated fairy tales.

      Tell me jeff, what is your NEED to believe in ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales? Is it a needed crutch for your fears, especially your fear of mortality? Is it a needed weapon for your arrogance and desire for power? Is it needed to get the chicks in church?

      Delete
    17. Sleep tight, you little fideists. BELIEVE! BELIEVE! BLINDLY!

      Delete
    18. Jeff: Nope. You're a moron. I didn't "forget" any of it. The whole methodology BLINDLY ASSUMES that certain sequence relationships somehow magically indicate genealogical relationships that occurred in certain tine-frames. Nothing we know about mutational effects or relative frequencies warrant any such inference.

      No, Jeff, it doesn't blindly assume.

      That would only be the case if we created knowledge by conjecture, but never bothered subjecting those conjectures to rational criticism, including empirical observations. It's not just conjecture, or just refutation, it's conjecture *and* refutation.

      This is the same sort of straw man presented in regard to evolution. Both represent a refusal to take either theory seriously for the purpose of criticism.

      Delete
    19. Scott, you're confused. Why don't you, for ONE human on the face of the earth, tell us what would cause you to reject the naturalistic UCA hypothesis? And then explain to us how that criteria is "rational" using your own definition of that term. You see, I'm real sure that when you do that, what you call "rational" criticism will not be found in any logic text book on the face of the planet.

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

    ReplyDelete