There simply is no doubt evolution is a fact. Who could ever doubt it?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Here’s an Incredible Electronic Version of the Biochemical Pathways Chart
Even evolutionists admit these biochemical pathway charts are “daunting in their majesty and beauty.” And as you can see, they just have random mutation written all over them.
There simply is no doubt evolution is a fact. Who could ever doubt it?
There simply is no doubt evolution is a fact. Who could ever doubt it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Obviously designed,look at those numbers and letters on the sides.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start my three part apology for my previous comment..but in my defense that was how I was designed.
This is an attempt at a schematic, which can be very helpful in understanding the logic of a biosystem. Electrical system schematics represent logically what is actually physically wired in a building. The physical wiring doesn't actually have all the numbers and letters of the schematic.
DeleteWhat should be fatal for Darwinism is the immense number of logical connections that render this biosystem irreducibly complex. Yes, a few components probably have multiple uses, but this would be like saying the Space Shuttle is not irreducibly complex because the clipboard in the cockpit can be used as a tie clip.
Dr. Hunter, you've probably already seen this chart, but here a chart revealing the highly integrated metabolic pathways:
ReplyDeleteMetabolic Pathways
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf
note on this highly integrated system:
Metabolism: A Cascade of Design
Excerpt: A team of biological and chemical engineers wanted to understand just how robust metabolic pathways are. To gain this insight, the researchers compared how far the errors cascade in pathways found in a variety of single-celled organisms with errors in randomly generated metabolic pathways. They learned that when defects occur in the cell’s metabolic pathways, they cascade much shorter distances than when errors occur in random metabolic routes. Thus, it appears that metabolic pathways in nature are highly optimized and unusually robust, demonstrating that metabolic networks in the protoplasm are not haphazardly arranged but highly organized.
http://www.reasons.org/metabolism-cascade-design
Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust
Excerpt: ,,, In other words, metabolic pathways are optimized to withstand inevitable concentration changes of metabolites.
http://www.reasons.org/making-case-intelligent-design-more-robust
notes of interest:
DeleteScientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010
Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm
Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009
Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html
Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
“No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?”
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf
Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012
Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010
Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by 'Transcendent' Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Dr. Hunter, here is a bit better site for glimpsing some of the staggering complexity of Biochemical Pathways in a 'simple' cell;
ReplyDeleteExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic
http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl
They certainly don't have "Design" written all over them. You haven't progressed past Paley - "Looks designed to me!"
ReplyDeleteAnd yet design, reasoning from presently acting cause known to produce effect in question', is, by far, the most casually adequate explanation for what we find in the cell:
ReplyDeleteStephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video
http://vimeo.com/32148403
Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning - 2007
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25470436?uid=3739744&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698874349827
How does design cause the cell to produce the effect? Thru what means?
Deleteas to 'How does design cause the cell to produce the effect? Thru what means?'
DeleteThe cell does not produce the effect, the cell is the result of the effect, and the cell reflects the effect. Intelligence is the only known cause of the effect that produces the cell. As long as we are into causes and effects, please tell me the beyond space and time cause of the non-local quantum information we find in the cell;
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Again how does intelligence cause the effect?.BA, there are lots that I don't understand,changing the subject isn't an answer. You say intelligence causes the effect? How? Isn't science about how things work?
DeleteVel, I didn't change the subject, you either did not write the question correctly or you don't understand causal relations. Which is it? Moreover since, in the short passage you just posted, your intelligence caused more functional information to appear in the universe than can be reasonably expected to appear from the purely material processes of the universe, over the entire history of the universe, exactly how did your intelligence cause that functional information to appear? Do you need to know exactly how you caused the functional information to appear in the universe to realize that your intelligence caused something to happen that is not explainable by purely material processes? Of course not! So once again your question is either not written correctly or you do not understand the nature of causal relations.
DeleteBook Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.
So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.
What is the causal chain from my intelligence to the expression of functional information? When I design a bowl in my mind it does not just appear, thru my body I cause the bowl to be formed. It is a simple question how does it get from Designer's intelligence to our material world? Remember you claimed it was a causal explanation ,explain it.
DeleteVel, you presuppose that mind has absolutely no causal power over the material realm, yet your presupposition is shown to be false:
DeleteScientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007
I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?"
The Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - (Referenced Notes)
http://vimeo.com/33479544
Moreover, the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
Delete1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
(Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).
Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel - November 2012 (projected publication date)
Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do
See,was that so hard? Intelligence causes the effect of the cell by mind over matter. Or in the more conversational term,magic. Which has more convincing empirical evidence than evolutionary theory. All you have to do is create a new unmeasured and possibly unmeasurable force. Sort of like the Force in Star Wars. Thanks for the answer,really
DeleteVel, I provide empirical evidence that mind does indeed have causal influence over material, you don't understand it so you call it 'magic'? Indeed I provided three intersecting lines of empirical evidence that shows that consciousness precedes material reality. Whereas you provided ZERO empirical evidence that magical 'random' processes can build even one protein of the undreamt levels of complexity in the cell we find. And yet, despite being shown in no uncertain terms that the universe is Theistic in its foundational nature and that mind, even the mere mind of man, can has causal influence over the material realm, you deny the clear evidence just so to cling to your nihilistic materialistic atheism? Ever here the term denialism Vel? Oh well, So be it, regardless of what you would prefer to believe, the truth is, from the best evidence I can gather, is that there is a God, and we each have a eternal soul that has been made by God. Denying reality will never change these hard facts, nor change the fact that one day we each one of us will die and have to give account to God.
DeleteFalsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/29895068
Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video
http://vimeo.com/39982578
BA,
DeleteYou seem to have difficulty believing someone could not find your "evidence " convincing and not be stupid. That could be true or it could be the evidence is weak. Your theory is the human mind can manipulate matter thru the force of thought alone? And for proof, a video of a newscast. Random number generators show an odd result around certain events. Since this is ironclad evidence of mind power,could I ask a couple of questions to clarify? Since the spike on 9/11occured before the planes were hijacked, does this mean the mind power can also anticipate future events? Why do random number generators detect events ? Do people think of more "ones" than "zeros" when a submarine sinks? Are any of these spikes not associated with events? What is the meta analysis of the results consist of and how statistically signifiicant is it? If this force is true why do casinos make tons of money from roulette?
Let's tackle one thing at a time, unless the human mind,intelligence and consciousness are all the same thing in your opinion
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAgain BA try to focus,I am not a nihilist or an atheist. Materialism seems an inadequate explanation. I realize that this is your go to tactic to dismiss another's position but it is possible to believe in God and still think you are incorrect.
DeleteVel you claim to believe in God yet you deny God created life. Go Figure! Let's tackle that first shall we?
DeleteVel, here are the papers:
DeletePrinceton Engineering Anomalies Research
Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
particularly this one:
Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program1 - 1997
Summary
The extensive databases described above, comprising more than 1500 complete experimental series generated over a period of 12 years in rigid tripolar protocols by over 100 unselected human operators using several random digital processors, display the following salient features:
1. Strong statistical correlations between the means of the output distributions and the pre-recorded intentions of the operators appear in virtually all of the experiments using random sources.
2. Such correlations are not found in those experiments using deterministic pseudorandom sources.
3. The overall scale of the anomalous mean shifts are of the order of 10–4 bits per bit processed which, over the full composite database, compounds to a statistical deviation of more than 7s (p » 3.5 ´ 10–13).
4. While characteristic distinctions among individual operator performances are difficult to confirm analytically, a number of significant differences between female and male operator performance are demonstrable.
5. The series score distributions and the count population distributions in both the collective and individual operator data are consistent with chance distributions based on slightly altered binary probabilities.
6. Oscillatory series position patterns in collective and individual operator performance appear in much of the data, complicating the replication criteria. - Jahn, Dunne, Nelson, Dobyns, and Bradish 19
7. Experiments performed by operators far removed from the devices, or exerting their intentions at times other than that of device operation, yield results of comparable scale and character to those of the local, on-time experiments. Such remote, off-time results have been demonstrated on all of the random sources.
8. Appropriate internal consistency, and inter-experiment and inter-laboratory replicability of the generic features of these anomalous results have been established.
9. A much broader range of random-source experiments currently in progress display a similar scale and character of anomalous results.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1997-correlations-random-binary-sequences-12-year-review.pdf
Vel, in this following video,,,
DeleteThe Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - (Referenced Notes) - video
http://vimeo.com/33479544
,,,Rupert Sheldrake talks of a internet site he has set up especially for skeptics so they could do the experiments online for themselves:
Here is the online test site:
Online Tests
Rupert Sheldrake invites you to participate in his ongoing research. No previous experience is necessary, and the online tests can be done immediately. Most of these experiments are suitable for use in schools and colleges, and some make an excellent basis for student projects.
http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/index.html
Here is an interesting video which was loaded recently:
Rupert Sheldrake Lecture: The Science Delusion - video
description: Temenos Academy 6th February 2012 at the Lincoln Centre Dispelling the Ten Dogmas of Materialism and Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry
http://vimeo.com/37792854
further note:
DeleteThe Global Consciousness Project - Meaningful Correlations in Random Data
http://teilhard.global-mind.org/
Sometimes BA,
DeleteDon't remember making any claim on the origin of life , refresh my memory. But for me the existence of God is not contigent on the origin of life.. Love the use of "claim "
So zero answers to my questions about your ironclad evidence ? Now on the PEAR
1. Correlation between the means of output and virtually all predictions. What is the correlation, and is it statistically significant? What is " virtually " in real numbers? The correlation of the human genome and the great apes is around 95%, does this prove common ancestry?
2. PRNG is a mathematical algorithm which approximates random numbers,they are not truly random, why use this as a control? You could easily use the mechanical means as a control,
7. You have the same distribution whether you are local or remote,so this mind power has unlimited range .Or whether at the same time as the experiment or at a different time. So you run the experiment,a week later the subjects write their predictions,this has the same correlation as same time predictions. So mind power apparently is as effective means to effect past events as well as present time.Sweet
8. What exactly is a generic feature?
As per the one link only policy,we can move on to your next batch later. Any backup info of your evidence? I visited the website of PEAR, It sounded pretty new age. It fascinates me how easily you accept what you view as supporting evidence with none of the skepticism you approach evolutionary theory. The enemy of my enemy is my friend ,I guess.
Well Vel, I have provided you a video, you scoffed because it was a 'news reel', I provided you the studies, including a 12 year study from Princeton, you scoffed again. Oh Well Vel, I'm not here to do your research for you, especially when it is clear you already have your mind made up and you arrogantly think you already know the answers and especially when you won't even lift a finger to research to find the relevant papers, and you feel your personal opinion is enough to refute empirical results! Excuse me Vel, but my respect of your personal opinion in these matters, so as to refute empirical results, is not nearly great as you respect apparently is of your own personal opinion!
Deletecorrection: Excuse me Vel, but my respect of your personal opinion in these matters, so as to have the power to refute empirical results, is not nearly as great as your respect apparently is of your own personal opinion is to refute empirical results!
DeleteVel states:
Delete'The correlation of the human genome and the great apes is around 95%, does this prove common ancestry?'
and yet the truth is:
Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education - Casey Luskin - January, 2012
Excerpt: DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html
Vel states:
Delete'So mind power apparently is as effective means to effect past events as well as present time.Sweet'
Yet contrary to Vel's a-priori materialistic assumptions, quantum mechanics reveals that past events are indeed influenced present choices of the mind:
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
"Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"
John A. Wheeler
Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video
http://vimeo.com/38508798
further 'surprise' from quantum mechanics:
DeleteExplaining 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) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
It should be noted in the preceding paper that Duwell, though he never challenges the mathematical definition of a photon qubit as infinite information, tries to refute Bennett's interpretation of infinite information transfer in teleportation because of what he believes are 'time constraints' which would prohibit teleporting 'backwards in time'. Yet Duwell fails to realize that information is its own completely unique transcendent entity, completely separate from any energy-matter, space-time, constraints in the first place.
This following recent paper and experiments, on top of 'conservation of quantum information' papers, pretty much blew a hole in Duwell's objection to Bennett, of teleporting infinite information 'backwards in time', simply because he believed there was no such path, or mechanism, to do as such:
Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox - July 2010
Excerpt: “In the new paper, the scientists explore a particular version of CTCs based on combining quantum teleportation with post-selection, resulting in a theory of post-selected CTCs (P-CTCs). ,,,The formalism of P-CTCs shows that such quantum time travel can be thought of as a kind of quantum tunneling backwards in time, which can take place even in the absence of a classical path from future to past,,,
http://www.physorg.com/news198948917.html
Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011
Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html
BA,
DeleteSo questioning the validity of evidence for your position is personal opinion? You present " evidence" and one must accept it on your personal opinion of its validity? You are never mistaken or incorrect? Funny thing is you don't have the same standards when questioning evolutionary science? And what is it with the personal insults ,for someone who detests " slurs" on his character you seem quick to respond with them.
correction 'the most 'causally' adequate explanation'
ReplyDeleteIt's interestinig how atheists have nothing positive to say about cell's bio machinery. Things are taken for granted.
ReplyDeleteVel, the problem is that your personal opinion counts as empirical evidence in your worldview, whereas, whether you take it as a slur or not, I could care less about your personal opinion, and rank empirical evidence much higher thatn what you would personally prefer. Nothing personal, that's just the way 'real' science works, which apparently you find offensive!
ReplyDeleteBA,
ReplyDeleteIncorrect . Real science does not take evidence just because of authority. I simply asked you to answers questions about your evidence. Just as you do about evolutionary science. I can't give you an opinion until you clarify your proof. This is beginning to look like you can't back up your proof and it really seems like you are evading answering a direct question about evidence you brought up.. That is what an opinion sounds like. Obviously I am interested in your thoughts,why else spend the time.
Actually Vel, from what I've seen of your actions, ignoring the direct evidence, especially direct evidence from quantum mechanics, I'm convinced that you could care less about the truth. As to why you spend so much time being as you are. Well I suppose you can't help being the deceptive atheistic dogmatist you are 24 hours a day!
Delete