Plants use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen while animals use oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. It’s one of nature’s many Huttonian cycles with “no vestige of a beginning—no prospect of an end.” But what James Hutton could not have dreamt of is the literally astonishing magnificence of the invisible machinery working behind the scenes to sustain the carbon cycle. What would the often misunderstood Scottish polymath say today in response to photosynthesis and the electron transport chain? What would the father of the Scottish Enlightenment conclude from “Nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine” which “converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current human-made solar technologies”?
Two centuries later Hutton’s deism is as strong as ever. But the limits of scientific knowledge Hutton warned have been dramatically pushed back. It is no longer “in vain to look” for now we do see. No longer is there no observable vestige of a beginning, rather we now observe there
is no vestige of a beginning. To speak of the spontaneous evolution of the world is now at best a sign of scientific illiteracy. More often it is a religious mandate imposed on science for which there is no excuse.
And so now we have a choice. We can continue to with centuries-old religious dogma or we can follow the science.
We need more studies on molecular paleontology, like the studies of ROBERT ROOT-BERNSTEIN, about the easily oxydized epinephrine with ascorbate.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the magnesium ion has been selected by evolution instead of lithium or calcium, and also the chloriphyll structure, and both aggregated elsewhere, and bout found some protein with a complementar structure to form the photosystems coupled to other enzymes to synthesize eritrulose-phosphate.
The unlucky which were not able (unfitted) to make this died. Only this.
Cornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteTo speak of the spontaneous evolution of the world is now at best a sign of scientific illiteracy.
For once we agree. To continually describe the results of long term evolutionary processes as "luck that just happened to happen spontaneously" is indeed at best a sign of scientific illiteracy. At worst it's a sign of willful dishonesty.
Interestingly enough, there's only one guy around here who keeps misrepresenting the actual science with that silly strawman argument. I wonder who he works for?
Hunter did not misrepresent anything. Spontaneous evolution is exactly what it is. Evolutionists don't like the sound of it because it makes you look rather stupid, and you are. You can choose stagnation and extinction or adaptation and survival. You choose the former. Stupid.
DeleteA few notes on the theistic implications of photosynthesis and of light itself:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uX1w_iUOD3O8F-GvbkfG2GKuAunQuYRssSMb_t5kB8/edit
Theistic implications of photosynthesis? Isn't it a bit early in the day for the crack pipe?
ReplyDeletePlants use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen while animals use oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.
ReplyDeleteA pretty neat arrangement, huh?
But what James Hutton could not have dreamt of is the literally astonishing magnificence of the invisible machinery working behind the scenes to sustain the carbon cycle.
True, he could no more imagine the state of scientific knowledge 250 years in the future than we can. Who knows, there might be a complete Theory of Abiogenesis or we might have found our ancestors came from another galaxy a long time ago and far, far away?
What would the often misunderstood Scottish polymath say today in response to photosynthesis and the electron transport chain?
If he spoke in his native, 18th century Scottish brogue it would probably often be misunderstood today.
What would the father of the Scottish Enlightenment conclude from “Nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine” which “converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current human-made solar technologies”?
It's amazing what you can happen with if you have a few billion years to play with?
We need to do some more work on our solar technologies?
Two centuries later Hutton’s deism is as strong as ever.
I doubt that. He died in 1797. He's probably not believing much of anything now.
No longer is there no observable vestige of a beginning, rather we now observe there is no vestige of a beginning.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. What's the difference?
To speak of the spontaneous evolution of the world is now at best a sign of scientific illiteracy.
So not doing it would be a good idea?
More often it is a religious mandate imposed on science for which there is no excuse.
Remind me, which of the word's great faiths mandates spontaneous evolution?
And so now we have a choice. We can continue to with centuries-old religious dogma or we can follow the science.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Remind me, which of the word's great faiths mandates spontaneous evolution?
DeleteHow about Darwinity? I think it's time to coin a new word.
Hey Louis, How about "Darwinocide"?
Delete" In the beginning, God(s) created heaven and earth" ,
DeleteDarwinsanity
DeleteDirt doesn't talk,Louis. Check the Book,what did God make Man from? Dirt that God put the voodoo to.
DeleteWell, I just had a Darwinlicious ice cream.
DeleteDirt bless America.
Ian Spedding:
DeleteCH; No longer is there no observable vestige of a beginning, rather we now observe there is no vestige of a beginning.
IS: I'm sorry, I don't follow. What's the difference?
Hutton's famous "no vestige of a beginning" was not a historical claim but rather a comment on science's epistemological limits
Are the darwinlicious flavors arranged in a nested hierarchy ?
DeleteOf course, as decreed by the ruling Darwinarchy.
DeleteLouis Savain July 7, 2012 2:03 PM
DeleteIn the beginning, dirt said, "let there be life". Oh, wait. Let's try that one again
Looking at the List of Creation Myths in Wikipedia people having been trying it again for the last few thousand years. What makes you think your pet version is right?
In the beginning, dirt allegedly created life and a few lifeforms evolved into dirt worshipers and formed the world's first dirt worshiping religion. Stupid, really.
I agree. In Christian theology, God created the heavens and Earth and everything in them. Thanks to science, we now have a better idea of just how big a deal that creation event, however it happened, really was. So why should such a deity be bothered in the slightest by whether piffling little creatures like us worship it? According to your beliefs, this god can see into the deepest, darkest corners of your mind. It already knows whether you truly believe or are just going through the motions. If you allow that then worship, certainly in the form of public acts, is a dumb idea.
Hello Cornelius, I have been following your blog for some time now and perhaps the most interesting observation are all these Darwin defenders who continue to frequent your blog! I cant imagine that they are professional Bloggers paid to defend Darwin against any opposing viewpoints. The only conclusions one came summarize from reading their posts is that they either need a job, or need to get a life! But perhaps the most glaring observation is that not once have they countered your articles with any empirical evidence, and have only attacked you personally. That speaks volumes! Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteGreat insight PG, though Thorton is rumored to be an eccentric billionaire who dabbles in biology. What has always confused me is all the academic papers they provide links for,what are they trying to hide?
DeleteAny insight concerning BA77?
PG: But perhaps the most glaring observation is that not once have they countered your articles with any empirical evidence, and have only attacked you personally. That speaks volumes! Keep up the good work!
DeleteWe keep pointing out that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the empirical observations of the biosphere, while "that's just what a designer must have wanted" is a bad explanation that serves no explanatory purpose.
So, "Yes." This does speak volumes. Not just in the way you assume.
Scott, wake up! You and other detractors keep saying that evolution is the best explanation, but you guys never present the empirical evidence to back it up. You just "assume"! Today's Blog post is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Not one single post from an evolutionist here provided any evidence that proves the evolutionary process that evolved Photosynthesis. Just personal attacks! Meanwhile, evolutionary scientist are honest in their assessment that they have absolutely no empirical evidence to support the evolutionary process to account for Photosynthesis, you and defend it anyways while criticizing and outright attacking anyone who simply points it out!Dont you see the problem with that?
DeleteI wonder what would happen if a requirement was that Posters could only post if they provide Peer reviewed papers to support their posts.
I wonder what would happen if Dr Hunter simply blocked all the Trolls who offer nothing to the conversation.
How about this. If You are going to critique Dr Hunter, Provide the empirical evidence that refutes Dr Hunter or, refrain from posting and contemplate how your lack of evidence somehow makes Darwinian evolution a "Better explanation"
BTW, I believe in evolution, just not your antiquated 19th century version of it!
PG: Scott, wake up! You and other detractors keep saying that evolution is the best explanation, but you guys never present the empirical evidence to back it up. You just "assume"!
DeleteWe've provided evidence. Apparently, you're confused about the role that it plays in science.
All observations are based on explanations as to why those observations would be accurate, as opposed to some other explanation. Specifically, we assume that observations are accurate due to having setup the experiment in accordance with said explanation.
For example, our explanations of how a microscope works indicates that you cannot replace a lens with a banana and get an accurate view of a sample. However, our explanation about how microscopes work could be wrong. Or we could have made a mistake when preparing the sample. Or there could be some other factors that we didn't account for when we made the observation, etc.
As such, empirical observations are themselves based on explanations that could be mistaken. They are theory laden.
PG: Today's Blog post is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Not one single post from an evolutionist here provided any evidence that proves the evolutionary process that evolved Photosynthesis. Just personal attacks!
What's missing from this post is an argument as to why complexity indicates design. This isn't supported by any sort of theory neutral data. Nor has Cornelius explained how it's possible to simply "follow the data"
In addition, pointing out that science has evolved beyond naive empiricism isn't a personal attack. Science does not prove anything is true. Rather we criticize theories and discard errors. This is how we make progress.
PG: Meanwhile, evolutionary scientist are honest in their assessment that they have absolutely no empirical evidence to support the evolutionary process to account for Photosynthesis, you and defend it anyways while criticizing and outright attacking anyone who simply points it out! Don't you see the problem with that?
DeleteFirst, I'm merely pointing out ID proponent's haven't formulated a "principle of design detection" that actually works in practice. As such, it seems that they cannot recognize it as an idea that would be subject to criticism.
In the absence of a theory of how to extrapolate it, evidence is neutral. It tells us nothing either way. Nor does the absence of exhaustive knowledge of each step mean that we know nothing.
A replicator represents information which casually effects whether it is copied or not. If the process by which a replicator is copied is imperfect (within limits), variants of the replicator will arise. Some may manage to copy themselves while others will not. New variants might copy themselves better in the same environment or might copy themselves better in new environments. It's though this process that variants become better adapted.
Genes are biological replicators, which also casually effect whether they are copied or not. Genetic variation produces varies of the same gene. Some of these genes may manage to copy themselves while others will not. New variants of genes might copy themselves better in the same environment or might copy themselves better in new environments where others could not. It's though this process that gene variants become *different* over time, leading to new features and new species.
So, we do have an explanation as to how the knowledge of how to build new adaptations, such as photosynthesis, was created. Furthermore, the knowledge found in the genome is a form of non-explanatory knowledge, as opposed to explanatory knowledge, which is created by people.
In other words, Cornelius' arguments are parochial in that they ignore other forms of epistemology and make assumptions about the role of empirical observations in science. We keep pointing this out, yet he keeps making the same assumptions over and over again. It's as if he cannot recognize them as an idea that would be subject to criticism.
PG: I wonder what would happen if a requirement was that Posters could only post if they provide Peer reviewed papers to support their posts.
DeleteWe've provided such papers. Again, see above. You're projecting your problem on us.
PG: I wonder what would happen if Dr Hunter simply blocked all the Trolls who offer nothing to the conversation.
Again, a designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build complex biological machine, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these nanoscale biological machines, already present.
Nothing is actually added to the conversion. All you've done is push the problem into an unexplainable realm. This is like pushing the food around on your plate, then claiming to have ate it. Yet, it's still staring you in the face.
PG: How about this. If You are going to critique Dr Hunter, Provide the empirical evidence that refutes Dr Hunter or, refrain from posting and contemplate how your lack of evidence somehow makes Darwinian evolution a "Better explanation"
"That's just what the designer must have wanted" is a bad explanation because it's shallow and easily varied. The assumption that "All complex things are designed" is an idea that would be subject to criticism. Yet no "principle of design detection" has been proposed that actually works in practice.
PG: BTW, I believe in evolution, just not your antiquated 19th century version of it!
Which means what exactly?
Exactly how does this vague statement, which not only misrepresents my position but fails to clearly state your own, add to the conversation?
PG
DeleteI wonder what would happen if a requirement was that Posters could only post if they provide Peer reviewed papers to support their posts.
Easy. That would immediately end all posting by Intelligent Design Creationists.
velikovskys
DeleteGreat insight PG, though Thorton is rumored to be an eccentric billionaire who dabbles in biology.
Ixsnay on the oneyma!
Do you have any idea what I have to pay to keep all those top notch science magazines like Nature and Science from publishing all the solid scientific research that supports ID?
Why, nothing at all.
:D :D :D
Im sorry Scott,
DeleteI have read your response several times and cannot find any references to any papers that provide empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates the 'materialistic" evolution of what Dr. hunter described “Nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine” or if you cant provide such evidence, than perhaps we can conclude that you didnt find it necessary to dabble with such details when you were formulating your materialist beliefs regarding the origin and evolution of photosynthesis...
PG -
DeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but it sounds very much like you are asking for a paper which demonstrates specifically the evolution of “Nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine” and shows without a doubt that it absolutely was 'materialistic' (by which I assume you mean that no supernatural forces were involved).
And if that is indeed what you are asking for, then it is an impossible request.
As Scott pointed out, all evidence is neutral on the face of it. We need theories to make sense of them and draw conclusions as to what is going on. Theories which are testable and well-supported like ToE are infinitely preferable to ones which fail both these criteria, like ID.
Nor can we even test for 'materialism' itself. By its very nature, the supernatural is untestable. We cannot detect it, observe it or account for it. That is the reason it is dismissed from the lab. Absolutely all science is performed on the assumption of naturalism - it must be. It is an absolutely essential component of science to assume naturalism. Any 'theory' that does not (such as ID) is simply not science.
CH: What would the father of the Scottish Enlightenment conclude from “Nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine” which “converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current human-made solar technologies”?
ReplyDeleteCornelius, I fail to see your point.
In fact, the more efficient something is, the better adapted it would be and the more knowledge it would represent in the genome. What is the origin of this knowledge? How was it created?
Yes. Photosynthesis is well adapted to performing a specific purpose. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. Adaptations occur when the requisite knowledge of how to perform those transformations are present. The knowledge of how to perform those transformations exists in the genome. The more complex any biological feature is, the more knowledge required to built it. Right?
However, this leads us to the being that supposedly designed this complex biological machine. If it actually designed a feature as well adapted as Photosynthesis then it must be well adapted for the purpose of designing biological features. In fact, the better adapted the resulting feature is, the better adapted the designer would be for the purpose of designing those features, right?
So, it's unclear how this is anything more than hand waving on your part.
Or are you suggesting that said designer *isn't* well adapted at designing things? Or is there some option I haven't covered? If so, please outline the argument your actually presenting. Show us your work.
Otherwise, it appears that you think no argument is necessary because the claim that "complex things must have been designed" is "obvious" and not an idea that would be subject to criticism. But this isn't supported by any sort of theory neutral data.
For example, the idea that a designer could be simple, yet contain the knowledge of how to build complex things isn't a neutral scientific assumption that solves any particular problem. Nor is there any "pure data" that tells us some designer just was, complete with the knowledge of how to build complex biological machine already present, or that this knowledge was somehow spontaneous generated (which was part of Lamarck's "explanation" for biological complexity). Worse yet, these are bad explanations which serve no explanatory purpose as one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these nanoscale biological machines.
In other words, is it unclear how one can simply follow the data.
We keep asking you for a detailed explanation as to how this is actually possible, in practice, yet none has been provided. Again, this suggests that you merely think this this is "obviously true" and cannot recognize it an idea that would be subject to criticism.
What's ironic is that you apparently think organisms that are well adapted to serve a specific purpose using knowledge found in DNA needs to be explained, but a designer being well adapted for the purpose of designing things doesn't need to be explained.
Why is one a "problem" but not the other?
Interesting Scott. Apparently you have empirical evidence of how Photosynthesis randomly evolved since you state that its the best explanation.
DeleteHow about simply providing us simpletons the empirical evidence outlining how the origins and evolution of Photosynthesis occurred randomly.
Im looking forward to it! Im waiting...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat is your peer reviewed supported 21st century view of evolution?
DeletePG: Interesting Scott. Apparently you have empirical evidence of how Photosynthesis randomly evolved since you state that its the best explanation.
DeleteAs a critical rationalist, why on earth would I attempt to justify your misrepresentation of evolution using empirical evidence?
PG: How about simply providing us simpletons the empirical evidence outlining how the origins and evolution of Photosynthesis occurred randomly.
Evolution isn't random - that's the misrepresentation.
Of course, given your pre-enlightenment, justiificationsist, authoritative conception of human knowledge, it would come as no surprise that you'd assume it must be random, as the knowledge wasn't justified by some authoritative source. This is the same conception of human knowledge behind claims that morality wouldn't exist without God and that human beings would not know what is morally right or wrong unless he revealed it to us.
Apparently, you cannot recognize this as an idea the would be subject to criticism.
Is that an accurate summation of your position? If not, then please point out where and how your view differs, in detail. I won't be holding my breath.
Again, adaptations represent transformations of matter. Adaptations occur when the requisite knowledge of how to perform those transformations are present. The knowledge of how to perform those transformations exists in the genome. As such, the question is, what is the origin of this knowledge.
The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that this knowledge was created using a form of conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation and refutation, in the form of natural selection.
So, evolutionary theory explains the origin of knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, such as photosynthesis, in that they are created using a form of conjecture and refutation.
Now, it's your turn. Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that explanation. Please be specific.
PG,
ReplyDeleteThere are some clues, see, for example:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~skopf/ESE_Bi168/files/Xiong_2000_Molecular%20Evidence%20for%20the%20Early.pdf
I think Scott was making the point that naturalistic interpretations of whatever empirical evidence is available - at a give point in time - is the only scientific game in town.
But you or anyone is welcome to propose a better scientific game.
Correct.
DeleteSpecifically, in the absence of a good explanation, empirical evidence tells us nothing either way.
"That's just what God must have wanted" is a bad explanation because its shallow and easily varied. Nor has ID formulated a "principle of design detection" that actually works in principle.
So, we're left with a mere possibility. And we discard an infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field of science.
It's unclear why ID's designer should be any different.
PG, here is another, more recent paper on the evolution of photosynthesis
ReplyDeleteEarly Evolution of Photosynthesis
Blankenship
Plant Physiology October 2010 vol. 154 no. 2 434-438
"Abstract: Photosynthesis is the only significant solar energy storage process on Earth and is the source of all of our food and most of our energy resources. An understanding of the origin and evolution of photosynthesis is therefore of substantial interest, as it may help to explain inefficiencies in the process and point the way to attempts to improve various aspects for agricultural and energy applications.
A wealth of evidence indicates that photosynthesis is an ancient process that originated not long after the origin of life and has evolved via a complex path to produce the distribution of types of photosynthetic organisms and metabolisms that are found today (Blankenship, 2002; Björn and Govindjee, 2009). Figure 1 shows an evolutionary tree of life based on small-subunit rRNA analysis. Of the three domains of life, Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya, chlorophyll-based photosynthesis has only been found in the bacterial and eukaryotic domains. 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). In some cases (cyanobacteria and GSB), essentially all members of the phylum are phototrophic, while in the others, in particular the proteobacteria, the vast majority of species are not phototrophic."
While science certainly doesn't have all the answers, there is quite a bit of evidence that points to the evolutionary pathways for the development of photosynthesis. The above paper covers several promising lines of inquiry.
Now, do you think you could provide a reference to all the ID research on photosynthesis? Fair is fair, right?
Thorton:
DeleteNow, do you think you could provide a reference to all the ID research on photosynthesis? Fair is fair, right?
So you think that this paper represents "evolutionary" science, as contrasted with ID?
Well, let's take a look.
This is the only "science" [i.e., knowledge] this paper provides:
(1) Photosynthesis is found early on in the fossil record.
(2) The number and variety of species that are capable of photosynthesis is so great that there is no way of rationally providing an evolutionary mechanism for how this happened ["has evolved via a complex path to produce the distribution of types of photosynthetic organisms and metabolisms that are found today."]
(3) There is no pattern of evolutionary transitions connecting the many forms of life employing photosynthesis ["The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution."]
(4) There is an incredible number of phyla capable of photosynthesis. ["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)."]
So, these wonderful evolutionary scientists, beginning with Darwinian assumptions find:
(a) No transitions;
(b) No patterns;
(c) A sudden beginning;
(d) Complex phylogenetic relationships beyond Darwinian explanations.
So, they have found, upon investigation, that Darwinian presumptions fail to explain anything they've researched. Nevertheless, they conclude assuming that Darwinian evolution exists, and simply couch their findings using Darwinian language ["newspeak"].
To the extent that they discover these findings, they are doing science. To the extent that they couch these discoveries in evolutionary language, they have entered the land of fideism. [That is: "I believe in Darwinism; therefore, I shall report my findings as though it conforms to my Darwinian expectations (even though it doesn't)]
IOW, any ID scientist could replicate their findings. The only difference is that ID scientists would conclude that Darwinian explanations of what they found are not possible. IOW, they'd be more intellectually honest.
So, Thorton, what's your point?
PG, did you know that since 1980 there has been an entire scientific journal dedicated to research on photosynthesis?
ReplyDeletePhotosynthesis Research
Listed there are several hundred articles on various aspects of photosynthesis, many of which are are open source.
Pedant, empirical evidence is requested by PG demonstrating the materialistic evolution of “Nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine” (or any molecular machine for that matter) and yet you show a paper comparing sequences? Pedant, in case this has escaped your notice, showing sequence comparisons is not a empirical demonstration of your claim that Darwinian processes can produce a photosynthetic molecular machine that far outclass, in engineering parameters, any photosynthetic device man has ever built. But the empirical problem is much worse for Darwinists than just the lack of any evidence for any molecular machine being arrived at by material processes. Darwinists have failed to demonstrate the origination of even one novel functional protein by Darwinian processes Pedant!!! For Darwinists to insist that they have proved beyond all doubt that all life on earth, in all its unfathomed complexity, originated by purely unguided processes without the demonstration of the origination of even one novel functional protein, and by appeal solely to sequence comparisons, is to mock the empirical integrity upon which modern science rests!
ReplyDeleteNote:
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway - Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe - April 2011
Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1
Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? - Ann Gauger - October 11, 2011
Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/luck_or_design051801.html
Perhaps Pendant and Thorton, instead of the entire photosynthetic system, you guys can point us to the lab work demonstrating the evolutionary origin of just the ATP molecular machine which is integral to the overall photosynthetic process:
DeleteThe ATP Synthase Enzyme - an exquisite motor necessary for first life - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4
There is a profound chicken and egg problem with the ATP molecular machine:
Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706
Notes:
Photosynthesis is extremely complex.
The Miracle Of Photosynthesis - electron transport - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj_WKgnL6MI
Electron transport and ATP synthesis during photosynthesis - Illustration
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.figgrp.1672
The photosynthetic process is clearly a irreducible complex condition:
"There is no question about photosynthesis being Irreducibly Complex. But it’s worse than that from an evolutionary perspective. There are 17 enzymes alone involved in the synthesis of chlorophyll. Are we to believe that all intermediates had selective value? Not when some of them form triplet states that have the same effect as free radicals like O2. In addition if chlorophyll evolved before antenna proteins, whose function is to bind chlorophyll, then chlorophyll would be toxic to cells. Yet the binding function explains the selective value of antenna proteins. Why would such proteins evolve prior to chlorophyll? and if they did not, how would cells survive chlorophyll until they did?" Uncommon Descent Blogger
Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin:
The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445610a.html
And thank you Thorton for proving PG's point exactly!
DeleteThornton seriously mate that last comment was completely uncalled for.
DeleteYour attitude, behaviour, outbursts and personal attacks clearly show you are emotionally compromised. Its just a theory mate, people object to theories all the time. What is it about this particular theory that gets you all worked up?
Ba77 as well as many on this site object to evolution or at least certain aspects of it. They backup their objections with evidence from a variety of sources. Links provided seem to be on topic and valid.
What's wrong with that? Are they not allowed to question?
* Thorton, apologies for the spelling mistake.
DeleteAre you talking about oxygenic or anoxygenic photosyntesis when saying it's irreducably complex?
DeleteWell for one thing, we now have evidence (a chemical signature) of oxygenic photosynthesis in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth. (i.e. as far as we can tell oxygenic photosynthesis appeared as soon as water appeared on earth!)
DeleteU-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R
The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918
Moreover Fazale Rana, PhD in biochemistry, argues that anoxygenic photosyntesis is a more complex pathway than oxygenic phorosynthesis:
"Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form.";
Early Life Remains Complex
By Fazale R. Rana (FACTS for FAITH Issue 7, 2001)
Moreover, evidence for 'sulfate reducing' bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria:
When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010
Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.
http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth
What is interesting about discovering evidence for sulfate reducing bacteria alongside oxygenic bacteria is that they both form a interdependent web:
DeleteOn the third page of this following site there is a illustration that shows some of the interdependent, ‘life-enabling’, biogeochemical complexity of different types of bacterial life on Earth.,,,
Microbial Mat Ecology – Image on page 92 (third page down)
http://www.dsls.usra.edu/biologycourse/workbook/Unit2.2.pdf
,,,Please note, that if even one type of bacteria group did not exist in this complex cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the third page of the preceding site, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but they must now also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this irreducibly complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive. As well, though not clearly illustrated in the illustration on the preceding site, please note that a long term tectonic cycle, of the turnover the Earth’s crustal rocks, must also be fine-tuned to a certain degree with the bacteria so as allow the gradual 'terra-forming' of the earth's primordial, toxic, crust so as to eventually allow the earth to support higher life forms.
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles - Falkowski 2008
Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers
http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf
Jason:
DeleteIts just a theory mate
For evolutionists, it is not "just a theory":
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-wont-believe-what-evolutionists.html
Jason Kay:
DeleteThe reason for the hostility from certain biologists toward the IDcreationists is due to:
1. blatant misrepresentation of facts and theory by IDCs(even after multiple corrections)
2. subversion of the scientific method by introducing one culture's anthropomorphic deity as though it were a part of external reality rather than a cultural legend
ba77's link tend to be either 1) incorrect, or 2) misinterpreted (anaerobic bacteria survived just fine before aerobes crashed the party), or both.
Jason Kay
DeleteBa77 as well as many on this site object to evolution or at least certain aspects of it. They backup their objections with evidence from a variety of sources. Links provided seem to be on topic and valid.
What's wrong with that? Are they not allowed to question?
It's not that ba77 questioning ToE. It's his damned rude behavior in doing it. ba77 has a long history of just butting into conversations and dumping thousands of words of meaningless C&Ped drivel, effectively killing any meaningful interchanges. He doesn't try to win a discussion by arguing but merely by sheer wall-o-text volume. I've lost track of how many decent, interesting conversations he's ruined by this tactic.
It's no different that if you were at the bar with your friend having a 1-on-1`discussion, and the local bar drunk barged in and started screaming and vomiting all over you. Only now imagine it's been happening every few days for the last three years.
Sorry but ba77 is a rude flaming idiot, and I personally have had enough of his rudeness.
Jason Kay -
DeleteI do understand where you are coming from by I have to back up Thornton here. Yes it's fine to question, yes it's fine to debate, but what Bornagain77 does is extremely disruptive.
Instead of asking on-topic questions or pointing out relevant studies, Bornagain77 simply spams threads with dozens of urls at at time. I've seen him post 5/6 full-length posts at once filled with nothing more than quotes and links. They are usually all irrelevant, or at least not quite making the point he wants them to make, but the sheer volume of nonsense he comes out with makes putting him straight on all of it a herculean task - and when I have tried to do that in the past, he will just respond with another encyclopedia of links.
I have called him out on this and asked him politely to ammend it. I have suggested that he would make his points far more effectively if he kept his posts brief and relevant, but obviously to no avail. 9 times out of 10 his link-bombing merely kills whatever discussion came before it stone dead, and I can't blame people for losing their patience with him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePsssst Thorton, Its You that is the drunk! Everyday we are subjected to you barging into this blog and spewing your vomit!
ReplyDeleteLets see what you vomited up today.
I requested a paper that provided empirical evidence of the materialistic origin of photosynthesis.
Here is what your paper concludes on this subject:
"We know very little about the earliest origins of photosynthesis. There have been numerous suggestions as to where and how the process originated, but there is no direct evidence to support any of the possible origins (Olson and Blankenship, 2004)"
Thorton, please enlighten me on how your papers position that "there is no direct evidence any of the possible origins" is somehow evidence that Dr hunter was incorrect when he stated:
"It’s (Photosynthesis)one of nature’s many Huttonian cycles with “no vestige of a beginning—no prospect of an end.”
BTW, in just one day you have called people illiterate, rude, flaming idiots.
See the problem?
PG
DeleteI requested a paper that provided empirical evidence of the materialistic origin of photosynthesis.
Which is what you got. Not conclusive proof, but lines of empirical evidence that are still being researched.
Here is what your paper concludes on this subject:
"We know very little about the earliest origins of photosynthesis. There have been numerous suggestions as to where and how the process originated, but there is no direct evidence to support any of the possible origins (Olson and Blankenship, 2004)"
That wasn't the conclusion. That was a summary of a paper from 2004. The paper I provided was written in 2010.
Here is the actual conclusion:
"The process of photosynthesis originated early in Earth’s history, and has evolved to its current mechanistic diversity and phylogenetic distribution by a complex, nonlinear process. Current evidence suggests that the earliest photosynthetic organisms were anoxygenic, that all photosynthetic RCs have been derived from a single source, and that antenna systems and carbon fixation pathways have been invented multiple times."
Why do all Creationists have to resort to dishonest quote-mining in discussions?
I bet you didn't even look at the Photosynthesis Research journal I provided, did you?
See the problem?
The biggest problem is the willful ignorance and dishonesty of the Creationists posting here. But that is their problem, not science's.
thorton states:
Delete"The process of photosynthesis originated early in Earth’s history, and has evolved to its current mechanistic diversity and phylogenetic distribution by a complex, nonlinear process."
So Thorton they, by extreme effort, make a imaginary tree of genetic similarities on paper that fits their preconceived Darwinian worldview. Moreover you consider this irrefutable evidence even though Darwinists have not empirically demonstrated that even minor changes in protein sequences are possible! Yet if we ask if the change, which Darwinists just assume can happen, can actually happen we find:
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway - Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe - April 2011
Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1
Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? - Ann Gauger - October 11, 2011
Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/luck_or_design051801.html
Thorton, whether you admit it or not, or whether you get boiling mad or not, you Darwinist simply have not demonstrated what you adamantly claim to be true is actually true.
further note:
DeleteDespite thorton's blind faith in common descent:
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
Genomes of similar species - Cornelius Hunter PhD.
Excerpt: Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins. [8]
Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. [11,12] ,,, etc.. etc…
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of
As alluded to above, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm
New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010
Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract
anaxyrus you claim without citation that:
ReplyDelete"(anaerobic bacteria survived just fine before aerobes crashed the party)"
And yet I provided a paper that gives evidence that oxygenic photosynthesis was present in the oldest sedimentary rocks:
U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R
Perhaps you would like to correct your mistake?
ba77,
ReplyDeleteDid you read the paper, the abstract, or just the title? The evidence provided for oxygenic photosynthesis here is weak and unconvincing. Furthermore, this isolated data point does not fit the bigger picture derived from widely used geochemical, sedimentary, and phylogenetic criteria used to establish the presence of abundant oxygenic photosynthesis.
Buick (2008; When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve? PTRSL:B )"This is a plausible argument, but if it is correct, somewhat similar isotopic patterns should occur in lower grade Archaean sediments deposited after oxygenic photosynthesis evolved but before general oxygenation. However, the Pb isotopic compositions observed in the Isua metasediments are apparently unique (Rosing & Frei 2004), so their significance remains uncertain."
Kopp et al. (2005; The Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth: A climate disaster triggered by the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, PNAS):
"However, all biological C fixation pathways and some abiotic mechanisms can produce light C, and,
just like the Fe(III) in BIFs, U(VI) can
form in the absence of O2."
Localized oxidative conditions do not imply oxygenic photosynthesis (oxygen is not the only oxidizer). There is no good evidence for widespread oxygenation until around 2.5 Ga.
Because you have no background in science and only read to quotemine and build ad hoc, you lack the context in which to interpret an isolated statement.
Hmmm anaxyrus you cite Buick and yet Buick himself admits:
DeleteWhen did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve? - Roger Buick* - 2008
Excerpt: Even at ca 3.2 Ga, thick and widespread kerogenous shales are consistent with aerobic photoautrophic marine plankton, and U–Pb data from ca 3.8 Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1504/2731.abstract?ijkey=ac6e48bf3939604b32170e1377c35c2a832836d1&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
As well Buick states:;
Banded iron formations could have been produced by photoferrotrophic bacteria (Widdel et al. 1993) or ultraviolet photochemistry (Braterman et al. 1986), without requiring environmental oxygen. Uraniferous conglomerates may have been produced by post-depositional hydrothermal activity rather than by detrital sedimentation in anoxic water bodies (Barnicoat et al. 1997). Few Archaean palaeosols show conclusive evidence of deposition under reducing conditions:
Thus anaxyrus your very own citation admits that the evidence for extremely early oxygenic photosynthesis, circa 3.8 bya, 'seems well supported', and the evidence to support his contrary view is filled with 'could haves' and 'may haves'. But you have concluded that his evidence is conclusive for some reason???
Perhaps you should focus more on exactly what the evidence is saying instead of the rhetoric of people trying to cram their worldview into the evidence? You certainly have by no means demonstrated that your view is more plausible!
In fact it is interesting that you would claim I 'lack context' for properly interpreting the evidence for, as I alluded to earlier, bacteria do not live in isolation, but for a interdependent web in which each independent bacteria is dependent on the 'context' of the entire community of different bacteria in order to continue to survive!
On the third page of this following site there is a illustration that shows some of the interdependent, ‘life-enabling’, biogeochemical complexity of different types of bacterial life on Earth.,,,
Microbial Mat Ecology – Image on page 92 (third page down)
http://www.dsls.usra.edu/biologycourse/workbook/Unit2.2.pdf
ba77,
DeleteWhat you cite does NOT strongly support oxygenic photosynthesis. Abiotic processes are the null hypothesis; if you want to prove biologic influence, you have to do so conclusively. Buick describes the evidence Rosing uses as "plausible", but not at all conclusive. You did not apparently understand my second citation, so I will help you out. U(VI) is oxidized uranium, and it does not, as Rosing inferred, require oxygen. Your mat image shows a modern community, and these aerobic communities go back to 2.5 Ga or perhaps late Archaean. But the oldest documented bacterial communities show a sulfur-based ecology. (I didn't say ancient bacteria didn't live in communities, but that oxygenic photosynthesis was not part of the predominant early Archean ecosystem.)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n10/full/ngeo1238.html
By the time we see this first good evidence for bacterial communities, life had been underway for hundreds of millions of years, but widespread oxygenic photosynthesis of aerobic mats was hundreds of millions of years yet to come.
-anaxyrus
further note:
DeleteNewly Discovered Photosynthetic Bacterium Forms Intracellular Minerals - May 11, 2012
Excerpt: A new species of photosynthetic bacterium has come to light: it is able to control the formation of minerals (calcium, magnesium, barium and strontium carbonates) within its own organism. ,, carbonate rocks that date back some 3.5 billion years and are among the earliest traces of life on Earth.
(Calcium carbonate, of which chalk, limestone and marble are made, also makes up corals, shells of snails and other animals, and stromatolites. Strontium Carbonate is used in Ceramics, Pyrotechnics, Electronics and metallurgy. Barium carbonate is widely used in the ceramics industry as an ingredient in glazes. It acts as a flux, a matting and crystallizing agent and combines with certain colouring oxides to produce unique colours not easily attainable by other means. In the brick, tile, earthenware and pottery industries barium carbonate is added to clays to precipitate soluble salts.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101352.htm
It is interesting that you claim that oxygenic photosynthesis was not present early even though your own evidence that you cite is far from conclusive for establishing your point of view. Basically you have allowed your worldview to dictate what the evidence says to you. But to concentrate on what you concede. You, the Darwinist, concede:
Delete"Your mat image shows a modern community, and these aerobic communities go back to 2.5 Ga or perhaps late Archaean."
OK anaxyrus, where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution over 2.5 Ga???
Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330
i.e. If as far back as we can look bacteria look exactly as they did billions of years ago why in blue blazes do you presuppose they evolved in the first place, especially given your lack of any empirical support that EVEN ONE functional protein can arise by material processes?
Further note:
The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes:
“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637
further note:
DeleteNew Wrinkle In Ancient Ocean Chemistry - Oct. 2009
Excerpt: "Our data point to oxygen-producing photosynthesis long before concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere were even a tiny fraction of what they are today, suggesting that oxygen-consuming chemical reactions were offsetting much of the production,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029141217.htm
Ancient Microbes Responsible for Breathing Life Into Ocean 'Deserts' - August 2010
Excerpt: Brian Kendall and Ariel Anbar, together with colleagues at other institutions, show that "oxygen oases" in the surface ocean were sites of significant oxygen production long before the breathing gas began to accumulate in the atmosphere..,, What Kendall discovered was a unique relationship of high rhenium and low molybdenum enrichments in the samples from South Africa, pointing to the presence of dissolved oxygen on the seafloor itself.,,, "It was especially satisfying to see two different geochemical methods -- rhenium and molybdenum abundances and Fe chemistry -- independently tell the same story," Kendall noted. Evidence that the atmosphere contained at most minute amounts of oxygen came from measurements of the relative abundances of sulfur (S) isotopes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100823113436.htm
Breathing new life into Earth: New research shows evidence of early oxygen on our planet - August 2011
Excerpt: Waldbauer and Summons surmise that oxygen production and consumption may have occurred in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years before the atmosphere saw even a trace of the gas. They say that in all likelihood, cyanobacteria, blue-green algae living at the ocean surface, evolved the ability to produce O2 via sunlight in a process known as oxygenic photosynthesis. But instead of building up in the oceans and then seeping into the atmosphere, O2 may have been rapidly consumed by early aerobic organisms. Large oceanic and atmospheric sinks, such as iron and sulfide spewing out of subsea volcanoes, likely consumed whatever O2 was left over.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-life-earth-evidence-early-oxygen.html
bornagain: They say that in all likelihood, cyanobacteria, blue-green algae living at the ocean surface, evolved the ability to produce O2 via sunlight in a process known as oxygenic photosynthesis.
ReplyDeleteSo you say that cyanobacteria evolved oxygenic photosynthesis. Interesting.
I'm certainly not saying that. The authors, because the ID option is unthinkable to them, are saying that. Whereas, the only hard evidence in the paper directly challenges the contention that anaxyrus had put forth. Yet you zero in on the unsupported evolutionary assumption and accuse me of holding that position. Interesting. Why don't you ever personally question the evolutionary assumptions that go unchallenged in these papers? Do you know where the missing evidence is for a molecular machine being generated by evolutionary processes is and you just have not shared it?
DeleteBA,
DeleteYou objected earlier to evidence with "could haves" and now "likelihood" is acceptable to refute anaxyrus. Could you explain this apparent inconsistency without invoking the origin of life or materialistic philosophy?
HUH??? what are you talking about??? I'm not using the 'likelihood' statement to support my position, in fact I classify the likelihood statement they made with the 'could haves' and 'may haves' statements that Darwinists are notorious for making. I am using the empirical evidence they brought forth! But their paper, while interesting, is not even close to the most interesting paper I had cited, which, if you were honest with evidence, would have settled the matter:
DeleteNewly Discovered Photosynthetic Bacterium Forms Intracellular Minerals - May 11, 2012
Excerpt: A new species of photosynthetic bacterium has come to light: it is able to control the formation of minerals (calcium, magnesium, barium and strontium carbonates) within its own organism. ,, carbonate rocks that date back some 3.5 billion years and are among the earliest traces of life on Earth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101352.htm
(Calcium carbonate, of which chalk, limestone and marble are made, also makes up corals, shells of snails and other animals, and stromatolites. Strontium Carbonate is used in Ceramics, Pyrotechnics, Electronics and metallurgy. Barium carbonate is widely used in the ceramics industry as an ingredient in glazes. It acts as a flux, a matting and crystallizing agent and combines with certain colouring oxides to produce unique colours not easily attainable by other means. In the brick, tile, earthenware and pottery industries barium carbonate is added to clays to precipitate soluble salts. Magnesium carbonate also has many important industrial uses for man.)
In fact,,
The Creation of Minerals:
Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization.
http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals
"Today there are about 4,400 known minerals - more than two-thirds of which came into being only because of the way life changed the planet. Some of them were created exclusively by living organisms" - Bob Hazen - Smithsonian - Oct. 2010, pg. 54
To put it mildly, the minimization of poisonous elements, and 'explosion' of useful minerals, is strong evidence for Intelligently Designed terra-forming of the earth that 'just so happens' to be of great benefit to modern man and is certainly not something we would expect from a Darwinian framework!.
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles - Falkowski 2008
Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers
http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf
Apologies then,which empirical evidence did they bring forward, since it was not Zach's quote?
Deletebornagain77: I'm certainly not saying that.
DeleteHard to tell. If we're supposed to ignore what the researchers say, then why cite them?
ba77: From your own first link:
ReplyDelete"Riverside corroborates recent evidence that oxygen production began in Earth's oceans at least 100 million years before the GOE, and goes a step further in demonstrating that even very low concentrations of oxygen can have profound effects on ocean chemistry."
From your second link:
"The evidence suggests that oxygen production in the oceans was vigorous in some locations at least 100 million years before it accumulated in the atmosphere. Photosynthetic production of oxygen by cyanobacteria is the simplest explanation."
100 million years before the GOE is 2.55 billion years ago. Very late in the Archean.
Your third citation lists the GOE as 2.3 Ga and cites evidence of oxygen 300 million years earlier. 2.6 billion years ago is still VERY late in the Archean and a long ways from sulfur bacteria at 3.4 Ga.
If you aren't even familiar with the time scale, how do you expect to use it to "debunk" evolution?
Newly Discovered Photosynthetic Bacterium Forms Intracellular Minerals - May 11, 2012
DeleteExcerpt: A new species of photosynthetic bacterium has come to light: it is able to control the formation of minerals (calcium, magnesium, barium and strontium carbonates) within its own organism. ,, carbonate rocks that date back some 3.5 billion years and are among the earliest traces of life on Earth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101352.htm
I see a 3 not a 2
But anaxyrus that is not even the most crushing thing about all of this. The best evidence we have shows that bacteria have not changed morphologically for billions of years, nor. as far as we can go back, molecularly for 250 million years. This is simply completely contrary to Darwinian thinking. For you to sit here and ignore this crushing evidence against your position shows that your worldview, your religion, is dictating what evidence you will consider and which you will not. Such bias clearly indicates You have left the field of unbiased scientific inquiry and entered full force into the 'Darwinian religion'!
DeleteBA ,
DeleteWhy the ellipse in your quote? It is unlike you, usually you relish the long post. It unintentionally,I am sure, misleads the reader into believing the newly discovered bacteria were the source of carbonate in those 3.5 by old rocks when in fact it was a different type of bacteria .Here is a fun fact, the article says oxygen in the atmosphere began to rise 2.3 by ago. That is a 2 ,not a 3
vel, so what??? First you accuse me of a 'likelihood' position I did have and now you cite a irreverent fact that has been dealt with already. And my confidence in your unbiased judgement in this matter is not suppose to be compromised how???
DeleteCyanobacteria have long attracted scientists' attention. Capable of photosynthesis,[2] these microorganisms have played a major role in Earth's history, in particular by contributing to the oxygenation of the atmosphere. Some cyanobacteria are able to form calcium carbonate[3] outside their cell, especially those associated with stromatolites, carbonate rocks that date back some 3.5 billion years and are among the earliest traces of life on Earth. Fossil cyanobacteria should therefore be present within this type of formation. However, the first fossil cyanobacteria go back a mere 700 million years, well after oxygen levels in Earth's atmosphere started to rise some 2.3 billion years ago.
A French team[1] may have found the reason for this long time lapse. In stromatolites collected in a crater lake in Mexico and cultured in the laboratory, the scientists discovered a new species of cyanobacterium,
and:
Waldbauer and Summons surmise that oxygen production and consumption may have occurred in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years before the atmosphere saw even a trace of the gas.
and:
Brian Kendall and Ariel Anbar, together with colleagues at other institutions, show that "oxygen oases" in the surface ocean were sites of significant oxygen production long before the breathing gas began to accumulate in the atmosphere..,,
i.e. Since oxygen readily reacts and bonds with many of the solid elements making up the earth itself, and since the slow process of tectonic activity controls the turnover of the earth's crust, it took photosynthetic bacteria a few billion years before the earth’s crust was saturated with enough oxygen to allow a sufficient level of oxygen to be built up in the atmosphere as to allow higher life:
The following video is good for seeing just how far back the red banded iron formations really go (3.8 billion years ago). But be warned, Dr. Newman operates from a materialistic worldview and makes many unwarranted allusions of the 'magical' power of evolution to produce photosynthetic bacteria. Although to be fair, she does readily acknowledge the staggering level of complexity being dealt with in photosynthesis, as well as readily admitting that no one really has a clue how photosynthesis 'evolved'.
Exploring the deep connection between bacteria and rocks - Dianne Newman - MIT lecture video
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/496
My confidence in state of your judgement is undiminished. By the way since you brought it up,what were those empirical findings that were not based on likelihood?
DeleteSorry to bring up the link you cited,I assumed it had some relevancy. I just wished to inform you that I,personally,found it unclear to which bacteria it refered to,just as constructive criticism.
try reading slowly,,, "carbonate rocks that date back some 3.5 billion years and are among the earliest traces of life on Earth. Fossil cyanobacteria should therefore be present within this type of formation"
DeleteI understand what you wrote and the point you desired to convey , oxygenic photosynthesis in 3.5 byo rocks. It is your choice of proof which I found strange.
DeleteFrom your bolded quote" a French team MAY have found a reason". Do you see a problem? Is " may" more or less probable than" could have" ? Remember how you dismissed research which used " likelihood " as unsupported evolutionary assumption" ?
This is my confusion, please explain why conjecture in support of your position is allowed ? If possible without invoking the proof of God
vel, though not actual evidence of a micro-fossil, the only way that carbonate rock is known to be produced is by biogeochemical processes. Whereas anaxyrus appealed to a 'could have' non-biological process to explain U–Pb data and BIF's. He has no such appeal in this case! The evidence for extremely early photosynthesis is far stronger than anaxyrus (and apparently you) are willing to let on. In fact yesterday I readily conceded the 'may have' point you are trying to make and stated:
Delete"regardless of what you and other Darwinists consider as good evidence or not for photosynthesis (I consider geological evidence as very good evidence by the way, and Darwinists to be bad scientists), the fact remains that we have conclusive evidence of extreme 'terraforming' of the primordial 'toxic' earth from a barren wasteland to a place suitable for higher complex life from the inception of life on earth."
,,, I go on to cite several lines of evidence for early and persistent 'terra-forming' from both biological processes and geological processes,,
Thus regardless of whether you accept the early photosynthetic evidence or not, the evidence of early and persistent 'terraforming' of the earth, that the earth actually was transformed from a 'toxic' wasteland' to a place suitable for higher life, is conclusive!
This finding of early and persistent terra-forming is certainly not what is expected from the Darwinian worldview where everything is just a matter of luck, but is certainly consistent with the teleological viewpoint that higher life on earth was intended.
And the only biogeochemical means is photosynthetic Cyanobacteria ?
DeleteThe light dawns,I was curious why it mattered to you,now I understand. Pardon if this is a silly question,but if the earth was designed and all fine tuned ,why depend on slime to create the oxygen needed? Just do it in first place.
Deleteba77,
ReplyDeleteyou referenced: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101352.htm
Early Archean stromatolites are not good evidence of cyanobacteria. They merely suggest bacterial mats were present. Geochemical evidence implies these mat communities (like the Strelley Pool in Australia) were composed of anaerobic sulfur bacteria.
From your cited press release: "If the cyanobacteria associated with stromatolites formed carbonates inside their cells rather than outside, they would not have been preserved in the fossil record. This would explain the time lapse between their earliest appearance (at least 2.3 billion years ago) and the oldest fossils discovered (700 million years ago)."
Still no good evidence for cyanobacteria before the latest Archean.
Also, stasis is highly Darwinian. It requires stabilizing selection to counteract the influence of mutation. We expect bacteria with a stable niche to evolve more slowly than eukaryotes, because bacteria do not have the highly junky eukaryote-style genome. There is no mandate in evolution to evolve into eukaryotic or multicellular life. Your conception of evolution is clouded by pre-scientific ideas of "higher" and "lower" organisms.
Early Archean BIFs are rare and represent locally oxidizing conditions that may have nothing to do with oxygenic photosynthesis. (Oxidation is a misleading term for electron stripping.)
ReplyDeleteSee Kopp et al. 2005 cited above.
anaxyrus, regardless of what you and other Darwinists consider as good evidence or not for photosynthesis (I consider geological evidence as good evidence by the way, and Darwinists to be bad scientists), the fact remains that we have conclusive evidence of extreme 'terraforming' of the primordial 'toxic' earth from a barren wasteland to a place suitable for higher complex life from the inception of life on earth. This is simply not expected from a Darwinian perspective! (which seems to be a recurring theme with what is discovered and what Darwinism expected!)
ReplyDeleteFor example:
Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, and minerals, which would all be of benefit to modern man, 'sulfate-reducing' bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man, as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms.
Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems:
Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern.,, Recombinant DNA analysis has been applied to mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper resistance systems.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u1t281704577v8t3/
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/26/m026p203.pdf
The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation:
Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals.
http://www.goldschmidt2009.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/A1161.pdf
Researchers Identify Mysterious Life Forms in the Extreme Deep Sea
Excerpt: Xenophyophores are noteworthy for their size, with individual cells often exceeding 10 centimeters (4 inches), their extreme abundance on the seafloor and their role as hosts for a variety of organisms.,,, The researchers spotted the life forms at depths up to 10,641 meters (6.6 miles) within the Sirena Deep of the Mariana Trench.,,, Scientists say xenophyophores are the largest individual cells in existence. Recent studies indicate that by trapping particles from the water, xenophyophores can concentrate high levels of lead, uranium and mercury,,,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024165037.htm
As well, in conjunction with bacteria, geological processes helped detoxify the earth of dangerous levels of metal:
DeleteThe Concentration of Metals for Humanity's Benefit:
Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth's crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth's crust strongly suggests supernatural design.
http://www.reasons.org/TheConcentrationofMetalsforHumanitysBenefit
The Creation of Minerals:
Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization.
http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals
Clearly many, if not all, of these metal ores and minerals laid down by these sulfate-reducing bacteria, as well as laid down by the biogeochemistry of more complex life, as well as laid down by finely-tuned geological conditions throughout the early history of the earth, have many unique properties which are crucial for technologically advanced life, and are thus indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to the advanced 'space-age' technology of modern civilization.
Metallurgy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy
Minerals and Their Uses
http://www.scienceviews.com/geology/minerals.html
Mineral Uses In Industry
http://www.peterharben.com/industrial_minerals_uses.htm
As well, many types of bacteria in earth's early history lived in what are called cryptogamic colonies on the earth's primeval continents. These colonies dramatically transformed the primeval land into stable nutrient filled soils which were receptive for future advanced vegetation to appear.
DeleteLand organisms from Cambrian found in soil layer under the soil - November 2011
Excerpt: Other evidence of life on land includes quilted spheroids (Erytholus globosus gen. et sp. nov.) and thallose impressions (Farghera sp. indet.), which may have been slime moulds and lichens, respectively. These distinctive fossils in Cambrian palaeosols represent communities comparable with modern biological soil crusts.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/land-organisms-from-cambrian-found-in-soil-layer-under-the-soil/
Cryptobiotic Soils: Holding the Place in Place
Excerpt: Cryptobiotic soil crusts, consisting of soil cyanobacteria, lichens and mosses, play an important ecological roles,,, Cryptobiotic crusts increase the stability of otherwise easily eroded soils, increase water infiltration in regions that receive little precipitation, and increase fertility in soils often limited in essential nutrients such as nitrogen and carbon (Harper and Marble, 1988; Johansen, 1993; Metting, 1991; Belnap and Gardner, 1993; Belnap, 1994; Williams et al., 1995).
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/biology/crypto/
Bacterial 'Ropes' Tie Down Shifting Southwest
Excerpt: In the desert, the initial stabilization of topsoil by rope-builders promotes colonization by a multitude of other microbes. From their interwoven relationships arise complex communities known as "biological soil crusts," important ecological components in the fertility and sustainability of arid ecosystems.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116203140.htm
The Lignin Enigma By Ann Gauger - July 2012
Excerpt: How can one mechanism [Darwinism] have been at the same time so effective and so ineffective? That tension vanishes completely when the design perspective is adopted. Terrestrial animal life is crucially dependent on terrestrial plant life, which is crucially dependent on soil, which is crucially dependent on the gradual photo- and biodegradation of lignin. Fungi accomplish the biodegradation, and the surprising fact that it costs them energy to do so keeps the process gradual. The peculiar properties of lignin therefore make perfect sense when seen as part of a coherent design for the entire ecosystem.
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/26379997641/the-lignin-enigma
Darwinists tried, and failed, to overturn the Lignin egnigma:
Lignin: The Enigma Remains - Ann Gauger - July 2012
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/lignin_the_enig_2061821.html
Materialism simply has no coherent answers for why these different bacterial types, biogeochemical processes, and worms etc.., would start working in precise concert with each other preparing the earth for future life to appear from the very start of their first appearance on earth.
DeleteIn further related note, several different types of bacteria are found to be integral for the nitrogen fixation cycle required for plants:
nitrogen fixation - illustration
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/nitrogencycle.gif
nitrogen fixation - video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVbHIR2xZ0E
Just how crucial, and finely tuned, the nitrogen cycle is is revealed by this following study:
Engineering and Science Magazine - Caltech - March 2010
Excerpt: “Without these microbes, the planet would run out of biologically available nitrogen in less than a month,” Realizations like this are stimulating a flourishing field of “geobiology” – the study of relationships between life and the earth. One member of the Caltech team commented, “If all bacteria and archaea just stopped functioning, life on Earth would come to an abrupt halt.” Microbes are key players in earth’s nutrient cycles. Dr. Orphan added, “...every fifth breath you take, thank a microbe.”
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm#20100316a
Planet's Nitrogen Cycle Overturned - Oct. 2009
Excerpt: "Ammonia is a waste product that can be toxic to animals.,,, archaea can scavenge nitrogen-containing ammonia in the most barren environments of the deep sea, solving a long-running mystery of how the microorganisms can survive in that environment. Archaea therefore not only play a role, but are central to the planetary nitrogen cycles on which all life depends.,,,the organism can survive on a mere whiff of ammonia – 10 nanomolar concentration, equivalent to a teaspoon of ammonia salt in 10 million gallons of water."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930132656.htm
Moreover, The interplay of the biogeochemical (life and earth) processes that produce this balanced. life enabling, oxygen rich, atmosphere are very complex:
The Life and Death of Oxygen - 2008
Excerpt: “The balance between burial of organic matter and its oxidation appears to have been tightly controlled over the past 500 million years.” “The presence of O2 in the atmosphere requires an imbalance between oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic respiration on time scales of millions of years hence, to generate an oxidized atmosphere, more organic matter must be buried (by tectonic activity) than respired.” - Paul Falkowski
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200810.htm#20081024a
Dr. Ross points out that the extremely long amount of time it took to prepare a suitable place for humans to exist in this universe, for the relatively short period of time that we can exist on this planet, is actually a point of evidence that argues strongly for Theism:
DeleteHugh Ross - The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8494065/
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
http://christiangodblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
ba77:
ReplyDeleteDiane Newman, from the talk you listed, 4 minutes in.
"Some of the oldest deposits ... very well may have been made through a completely abiotic mechanism"
Like I said, regardless of what you consider to be good evidence of photosynthesis, the fact is that 'terra-forming' was present from the start:
Deleteof related note; Mars is, regardless of what is popularly believed, still a toxic wasteland:
Early Mars Water Was Salty, Toxic Stew – 2008
Excerpt: But data from the rover Opportunity is already suggesting that water on early Mars billions of years ago may have been fit for pickling—not supporting—life. That’s because the water was thick with salt and other minerals, making it far too briny for life as we know it, according to a new study.
Nicholas Tosca of Harvard University and colleagues studied mineral clues from the surface of Mars sent back by the rover and used computers to turn back the clock.
“Our sense has been that while Mars is a lousy environment for supporting life today, long ago it might have more closely resembled Earth,” said Andrew Knoll, a study co-author also from Harvard. But instead the team found that the soil’s mineral content would have made that liquid a salty, toxic stew. “No matter how far back we peer into Mars’s history, we may never see a point at which the planet really looked like Earth,” Knoll said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080529-mars-salty.html
further note:
Chemical Clues On Formation of Planetary Systems: Earth 'Siblings' Can Be Different - ScienceDaily (Feb. 23, 2012)
Excerpt: An international team of researchers, with the participation of IAC astronomers, has discovered that the chemical structure of Earth-like planets can be very different from the bulk composition of Earth. This may have a dramatic effect on the existence and formation of the biospheres and life on Earth-like planets.,,,'There could be billions of Earth-like planets in the Universe but a great majority of them may have a totally different internal and atmospheric structure.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120223132902.htm
Does the Probability for ETI = 1?
Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054.
http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1
Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is';
Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1333
dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^324
longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^45
Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1054
Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ≈ 10^22
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf
Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
Since "terra forming" means literally making Earth, what else could have possibly taken place?
DeleteI can craft a similar argument that the probability that a human would ever be born with my exact genotype are impossibly great. Therefore, all of human history was clearly just to get the world ready for me.
typo, probability is impossibly small.
DeleteOxygen arose almost 2.5 billion years before humans. Clearly that full span of time was merely to make way for our arrival. I reckon, I dunno.
ReplyDeleteWell if you don't quite feel special enough anaxyrus because God didn't just zap you right into existence, this following ought to cheer you right up:
DeleteCentrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
Psalm 33:13-15
The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
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.
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
Do you feel special now anaxyrus? Actually, knowing that God is intimately aware of everything I do, makes me a bit nervous. Happy but nervous!
Vince Gill - Go Rest High on That Mountain (Live) - Music Videos
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=WLGLZWNX
The God from consciousness argument falls apart after number 1. 2-4 are not valid observations or inferences. "Special" and "central" are undefined.
ReplyDeleteactually anaxyrus it is, despite what you, or other Darwinists (I've learned to ignore what you guys think since you guys ignore the evidence1!), may think, the argument is perfectly valid.
DeleteHere are the three intersecting lines of evidence from quantum mechanics. Wheeler's delayed choice, Leggett's inequalities, and Wigner's symmetries;
Here’s Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, and a variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice;
Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video
http://vimeo.com/38508798
"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
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
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
Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment
Excerpt: The Delayed Choice experiment changes the boundary conditions of the Schrodinger equation after the particle enters the first beamsplitter.
http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/TermPapers/WheelerDelayed.pdf
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012
Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger.
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
Here’s Leggett’s Inequality
Delete“I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.
Preceding quote taken from this following video;
Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video)
http://vimeo.com/37517080
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
Excerpt: They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Nonlocal "realistic" Leggett models can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment - Antoine Suarez Center for Quantum Philosophy,
Excerpt: (page 3) The independence of quantum measurement from the presence of human consciousness has not been proved wrong by any experiment to date.,,, "nonlocal correlations happen from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that tells us how they happen."
http://www.quantumphil.org/SuarezFOOP201R2.pdf
And here’s Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries
Delete"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/
Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,
Eugene Wigner
Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
I think Wigner would be very pleased with what our 'future concepts' hold;
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf
Thus we have at least three different intersecting lines of experimental evidence, from quantum mechanics, which all converge to the one Theistic presupposition which holds that consciousness precedes all of material reality!
Further weight for consciousness to be treated as a separate entity in quantum mechanics, and thus the universe, is also found in the fact that it is impossible to 'geometrically' maintain 3-Dimensional spherical symmetry of the universe, within the sphere of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), for each 3D point of the universe, unless all the 'higher dimensional quantum information waves' actually do collapse to their 'uncertain 3D wave/particle state', universally and instantaneously, for each point of conscious observation in the universe just as the experiments of quantum mechanics are telling us that they do. The 4-D expanding hypersphere of the space-time of general relativity is insufficient to maintain such 3D integrity/symmetry, all by itself, for each different 3D point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for why the 4D space-time, of the 3D universe, is insufficient to maintain 3D symmetry, by itself, is because the universe is shown to have only 10^80 particles. In other words, it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality with finite 3D material resources to work with for each 3D point of observation in the universe. Universal quantum wave collapse of photons, to each point of 'conscious observation' in the universe, is the only answer that has adequate sufficiency to explain the 3D centrality we witness for ourselves in this universe.
DeleteFrom a slightly different point of reasoning this following site, through a fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, acknowledges the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the 'completeness' of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from different points of observation in the universe.
The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski
Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity.
http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf
All of the terra-forming organisms you cite were making a living for THEMSELVES. You read way too much into it.
ReplyDeleteanaxyrus
Deleteyou state:
'All of the terra-forming organisms you cite were making a living for THEMSELVES.'
That's the Darwinian presumption, in fact, if evolution were actually the truth about how life came to be on Earth then the only 'life' that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the 'fittest' are allowed to survive. Yet that is not what we find, we find instead that the bacteria were preparing for higher life, even our, eventual arrival:
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles - Falkowski 2008
Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers
http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf
This is simply not what Darwinism expects!
And that's why Darwinists are a thing of the past. The creationist strawman of evolution ("Darwinism" or "RM + NS") never did explain evolution fully. Modern evolutionary biologists know that there are many causal mechanisms of evolution: mutation, recombination, natural selection, sexual selection, LGT, and genetic drift. Indeed, complexity involves drift away from adaptation in its initial stage. Not an option for the most successful bacteria with the largest population sizes and sexual recombination isolated from reproduction.
ReplyDeleteI am not a Darwinist. I accept the evidence for common descent, and the known plurality of mechanisms that drive evolution.
"never did explain evolution fully. Modern evolutionary biologists know that there are many causal mechanisms of evolution: mutation, recombination, natural selection, sexual selection, LGT, and genetic drift."
ReplyDeleteAll that to work with and you still can't demonstrate the origination of EVEN ONE molecular machine, or even a novel functional protein, by material means. Go Figure! Digging the hole deeper just makes it darker for you IMO?
The past involves not only mechanisms and laws but chance and contingency. There's no guarantee that we should be able to model it perfectly.
ReplyDeleteThere are novel functional proteins that have their origins well explained. MWS and LWS opsins in Catarrhini, for example, arose due to Alu-mediated duplication of the M/LWS precursor and subsequent divergence.
There are novel functional proteins that have their origins well explained.
Deletemerely 'Explained' or actually demonstrated???
Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html
Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
Dennis Venema, a theistic evolutionist, had tried to challenge Doug Axe's work on the extreme rarity of functional proteins, and here is what one of the very papers said, that Venema tried to use to supposedly refute Axe:
Responding to Venema - Casey Luskin - October 2011
Excerpt: However, these experiments do not really model the evolution that occurs through gradual, step-by-step changes, with all intermediates being fully foldable proteins (Blanco et al., 1999). To create such an evolutionarily relevant path from all-a to all-b domains would be the next challenge for protein designers.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/responding_to_venemas_response052061.html
Please feel free to cite the actual demonstration of novel biological protein evolving by purely Darwinian means so that Venema, Matzke, and several others, want be left hanging in such a lurch again!
If by demonstration, you mean reproduction of the historical event, then you are misguided. Explanation is the goal of historical science. You can never recreate precise historical data, which include chance and contingency. Historians of the Civil War learn nothing from reenactments, but rather learn from examining the evidence at hand in light of all that is known.
ReplyDeleteanaxyrus, since Darwinists do not have a actual demonstration of a single novel functional protein originating by material processes then you guys are not even in the field of empirical science. If I wanted good 'story telling' then I would much rather read a Clancy novel than read the science fiction of evolutionary 'explanations'
Deletebornagain77: since Darwinists do not have a actual demonstration of a single novel functional protein originating by material processes
DeletePlease define "novel", "functional", and "material processes".
ba77,
DeleteExplanations of historical processes in science are based upon facts. The processes that explain novel proteins have been empirically demonstrated to occur (duplication, substitution, retrotransposition, etc.). The effects of these empirically demonstrated phenomena bring changes to the sequence that are straightforward. Using your "logic", DNA testing of blood to solve murders is also "story telling" and should be disallowed in court.
Now, if you are truly interested in fictional storytelling, I hear several theology departments have put lectures online. Unlike scientific analysis of historical events, these are unconstrained by fact, and you would probably find them far more entertaining.