The conclusion is that it's impossible to evolve an irreducibly complex structure. Evolutionary biologists have no problem accepting the existence of irreducibly complex structures. They see them all the time. What they object to is the idea that irreducibly complex structures cannot have arisen by evolution. Behe's conclusion has been shown to be false and he has admitted on multiple occasions that irreducibly complex structures can arise by purely natural means (evolution).
So much for that objection to evolution. (Note that ID proponents are incapable of providing positive evidence of intelligent design. The best they can do is to try and discredit the best explanation for the appearance of design; namely, evolution.)
Today I want to talk about Behe's second book since ID proponents are even more confused about that. In The Edge of Evolution, Behe argues that some mutation events are so improbable that they will never occur in any species at any time over the past three billion years. This is the "edge" of evolution.
Behe looks at what he thinks is an example of such an event; namely, the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria parasites (Plasmodium falciparum). He shows that, given the size of the Plasmodium population and the frequency of reproduction, this species can evolve chloroquine resistance by a mechanism involving simultaneous double mutations. His calculation are roughly correct. This mechanism is possible in Plasmodium.
Behe concludes that this kind of event, which he calls a "chloroquine-complexity cluster" (CCC) is well within the edge of evolution, at least for some species. However, if instead of two simultaneous mutations, what if organisms needed FOUR simultaneous mutations? The probability of this event is 10-40! Such a "double CCC" is never going to happen in any lineage. It's the edge of evolution.
Here's how he describes it in The Edge of Evolution (p. 63).
Put more pointedly, a double CCC is a reasonable first place to draw a tentative line marking the edge of evolution for all of life on earth. We would not expect such an event to happen in all of the organisms that have ever lived on this planet. So if we do find features of life that would have required a double CCC or more, then we can infer that they likely did not arise by a Darwinian process.Behe is correct. If an evolutionary event requires that four mutations occur simultaneously then it's never going to happen. If we were ever able to prove that such an event had actually happened multiple times then evolutionary theory would be in trouble.
As we'll see, life is bursting with such features.
Behe assumes that such events have actually happened so he concluded that evolution cannot explain them. The only alternative is Intelligent Design Creationism. Behe is wrong about that. Life is not "bursting" with such features. In fact, none have ever been discovered.
The flaw in the argument is his conclusion that certain events can only be explained by multiple mutations occurring simultaneously. As it turns out, he was wrong about his main example, chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium. Several workers have shown that multiple mutations in the same gene are required (more than two) but these arose one-at-a-time in a stepwise manner. Some of them were neutral and some of them were slightly deleterious but persisted in the population because they escaped negative selection. Thus, chloroquine resistance has arisen mutliple times in Plasmodium because simultaneous multiple mutations were not required.
This is exactly what evolutionary biologists were expecting. No "edge of evolution" has been crossed because mutations can accumulate sequentially even though the effect might not be expressed until several of them have accumulated.
Do Intelligent Design Creationists understand Behe's argument and why it is flawed? The answer, of course, is "no." Intelligent Design Creationists have a great deal of difficulty dealing with complex arguments that require an understanding of evolution. Most of them can't even properly explain the main arguments of their leaders (e.g. Michael Behe) let alone the objections of their critics.
If King really believes science is about continuous corrections and questions, she should be friendlier to teaching the scientific controversy over evolution, which attempts to do just that. A growing number of scientists hold that natural selection acting on random mutations cannot fully account for the diversity of life.The remarkable thing about this excerpt is that she correctly references a small part of Behe's argument. Behe did show that a CCC is possible in malaria parasites and even though a double CCC represents the edge of evolution he does present a convincing argument that a single CCC is highly improbable in humans. He did NOT show that two simultaneous mutations were necessary to develop chloroquine resistance. The scientific evidence shows conclusively that a CCC didn't happen in Plasmodium.
In The Edge of Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe examines mutations necessary to develop chloroquine resistance by malaria parasites, and concludes that two simultaneous mutations is the most evolution can accomplish. Furthermore, based on population sizes and frequency of mutations arising, he says, "No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years."
Engaging with the evidence is important -- and so is freedom to discuss dissenting ideas.
Unfortunately, Sarah Chaffee leaves out the most important part of Behe's argument. There's no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the low probability of simultaneous mutations. They all agree with Behe on that part of his argument. The disagreement is over the second, and most important, part of Behe's argument—the part where he says there are many examples of features that could only be explained by evolution if there were multiple simultaneous mutations.
That's the part that requires "engaging with evidence." I agree with Sarah Chaffee that engaging with evidence is important. There's no evidence that features requiring multiple simultaneous mutations are common in the history of life. Instead, all examples of multiple mutations can be explained by sequential accumulation of a series of mutations. This is well within the edge of evolution.
It would be nice if Intelligent Design Creationists would learn more about their own "theory" and it would be even nicer if they could start to deal with scientific evidence. That's the proper way to engage in discussions about dissenting ideas.
You would think that, after twenty years, ID proponents would have learned how to do this but I guess it's impossible. If they really understood their own arguments and started engaging with the evidence, they wouldn't be Intelligent Design Creationists.
For more information and discussion, check out the links below.
On the irrelevance of Michael Behe
Michael Behe's final thoughts on the edge of evolution
Understanding Michael Behe
CCC's and the edge of evolution
Understanding Mutation Rates and Evolution
The Edge of Evolution
Evolution in Action and Michael Behe's Reaction
Mutations and Complex Adaptations
Blown Out of the Water
Joe Thornton vs Michael Behe
Irreducible Compexity
Defining Irreducible Complexity
Another Bad Review of The Edge of Evolution
1. Sarah Chaffee is the Program Officer in Education and Public Policy at the Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, Washington (USA). She has a B.A. degree in "Government" from Patrick Henry College. Here's what's on the college's website ...
The College is, and shall always remain, a Christian institution dedicated to bringing honor and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ in all of its activities. Each trustee, officer, faculty member, and student of the College, as well as all other employees and agents of the College as may be specified by resolution of the Board of Trustees, shall fully and enthusiastically subscribe to the following Statement of Faith:
There is one God, eternally existent in three Persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh.
The Bible in its entirety (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the inspired Word of God, inerrant in its original autographs, and the only infallible and sufficient authority for faith and Christian living.
Man is by nature sinful and is inherently in need of salvation, which is exclusively found by faith alone in Jesus Christ and His shed blood.
Christ's death provides substitutionary atonement for our sins.
Personal salvation comes to mankind by grace through faith.
Jesus Christ literally rose bodily from the dead.
Jesus Christ literally will come to earth again in the Second Advent.
Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.
365 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 365 of 365hi mikkel,lutesuite, christine and srm. i will answer to mikkel comment but it will refer to all of your points you guys made (to make it short and easy to read. also english isnt my native).
you said:
"this bare single protein will itself react with light and produce an intense green colour, apparently used as a form of signaling between individual organisms. "-
true. but its not a help the species to detect light. its just change his color. so how you can move from this protein to a multi protein system? lets say that we have a system that can change a robot color. how we can move from this system to a vision system that helping the robot move? its impossible step wise. so why do you think its different in evolution?
you said:
"That means if you synthetically remove a component from an existing biological system, you are not creating what evolution says would have been the actual ancestral state of that system."-
see my comment above. we can test it also from bottom up.
another problem is that we know that a video camera is the product of design and not a natural process. so we know the eye isnt evolved because of this fact.
and one last thing: the oldest eye in the fossil record have about 16,000 lenses, when even a complex human eye have only about 1. so for some traits the oldest eye is far more complex then modern one. and again- it isnt fit well with evolution theory.
nice day to all of you.
another problem is that we know that a video camera is the product of design and not a natural process. so we know the eye isnt evolved because of this fact.
Is this your idea of how logic works? Hoo boy.
If you somehow accepted the fact that eyes arose thru evolution, would that mean you'd have to believe that video cameras weren't designed, but also evolved?
and one last thing: the oldest eye in the fossil record have about 16,000 lenses,
Citation, please.
@SRM
"I wouldn't use firefly luciferase as an example, as it neither responds to or emits light directly."
I understand, I tried to end that post by giving a known example of useful bioluminescence. Not trying to argue that fireflies create their light through a simple process. I see my response didn't come across like that at all.
OK, never mind. I found the ancient critter whose eye had "16,000 lenses." It's actually a creature with a compound eyes, Not a single eye with 16,000 lenses, as dcscccc seems to think.
http://www.nature.com/news/an-eye-opening-fossil-1.9586
chris.
how do you claiming that its legs when the article itself say its flippers? :"The recently captured dolphin developed an extra set of flippers"
are you serius?
you said:
"No I'm not kidding. Your "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes" argument is nonsense. "-
where is said this? i just say that those fossils doesnt appear in the right order. its a fact, not a belief. its like to find humans before apes in the fossil record and claiming that apes appeared before humans. its not fit with the fossil data.
you said:
"If a fully aquatic whale fossil was found 20my older than any proto-whale that would be a problem for whale evolution."
not true at all. scientists already found a tetrapod tracks that date about 20 my before its suppose proto-tetrapod ancestor:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html
so the same can be said for a whale and a proto-whale. this claim isnt true.
you said:
"Organic life forms on Earth self replicate (or some with the help of a partner) and you have presented zero evidence that this requires a designer. "
so why do you not ansnwer my question? here it again:do you think that a self replicating watch\robot\car arent evidence for a designer?
yes or no?
you said:
"You still avoided answering my actual question: the broken olfactory receptor genes in cetaceans would be of no use even if they were functional. Why did the designer put a bunch of useless genes in his intelligently designed whales? You can't claim "degeneration" because if they weren't degenerate they would still be useless to the whales."-
so if i will answer to that too. you will consider id as good science?
you said: "And why do the girl whales have little degenerate pelvis/hind limb bones? What is the ID/creationist explanation?"
its actually against evolution model. because if it was indeed a degenerate legs why they different between male and female? they suppose to look the same. of course, if they are a part of the whale reproduction system its make sense.
thanks.
"true. but its not a help the species to detect light. its just change his color.
That's exactly my point, that's exactly how such complex systems we have now could have started out according to evolutionary theory. Instead of just being "simpler eyes" all the way down, they might even have started out as something totally unrelated to sight.
An example of this is the now famous bacterial flagellum, which has many protein components coopted from other cellular functions. Meaning these components did not initially take part in giving the bacteria motility. There is even evidence that some of the flagellum proteins evolved from other, older flagellum proteins (or more correctly, from the proteins in the systems ancestral to the modern flagellum).
"so how you can move from this protein to a multi protein system?"
Add one at a time, then make it necessary. I can give examples from studies where we know things like this have taken place. That a system made of a few components, gradually added more and became more complex over time. Like this: Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine.
Gregory et al 2012 doi:10.1038/nature10724
Of course, returning to GFP specifically, I don't know and wouldn't claim to know that some time in the future, GFP will be part of some elaborate protein complex.
With the GFP example I was responding directly to you asking for references to single, biologically useful, photoactive molecules (you implied it was just something I believed with no evidence):
"Mikkel: Even single molecules can be responsive to light you gimp. No, you really don't need a huge cluster of proteins for light to be of benefit to an organism. "-
Dcscccc: do you have any reference or its just your belief?"
"lets say that we have a system that can change a robot color. how we can move from this system to a vision system that helping the robot move?"
No, let's not say that. What can be done with robots is irrelevant to what can be done with living organisms. Robot limbs made of wood, metal and plastic has no similarity to cellular components made of proteins, lipids and carbohydrates. The world works very differently at the molecular and atomic levels. Things "stick together", vibrate, twist and turn, bind and let go and they do it automatically down there in weird ways that can't really be replicated at the macroscopic level.
That means it is utterly irrelevant what can or can not be done with robots, it bears no analogy to the physics of cellular structures.
Changing the concentration of salt can make two proteins stick together, then mutating one of them in a single place can make them let go again. How would you analogize this to robots? You really can't.
Kk,,, Go ahead.....
El Shamah. Good point. Spot-on.But be adviced the folks here are not reason driven but ideology driven.
But the calculation is wrong, and hence Joe hasn't made a good point. So why not address that, rather than gibbering about how things would be if they were other than what they actually are?
ElShamah777,
We're having a very civil conversation with Joe. Maybe you can learn something about actually reading for comprehension and stop just preaching.
But in these first two mutations for minimal chloroquine resistance there is no latching. Both must be present before selection has something to work with.
That is correct, but is irrelevant to the argument. Behe is trying to determine the odds of such a trait arising in the first place thru evolutionary mechanisms. Once it does arise, then it can spread thru a population thru natural selection, but Behe has no problems accepting that.
Thanks for joining the discussion Dr. Miller.
Summers et al tell us that the mutations are: "N75E and K76T in PfCRTDd2" and "K76T and N326D in PfCRTEcu1110", so because of their close proximity I don't think recombination would be of much help?
However, I now think you're right about the waiting time being less than the square of the number of trials. I wrote a small simulation to see for myself:
https://jsfiddle.net/f0zoyuwc/3/
It uses a population of 30 cells each with a 30 bit genome. At each generation, every cell receives 1 mutation. When a cell has 1 as is first and its last nucleotide, a winner is declared and the simulation stops.
If the waiting time was the square of the number of trails, we should expect (30*30)/2 = 450 trials on average to find a winner. But a winner is almost always found in much fewer than 450 trials.
Before, I was calculating it as if we needed a 1 followed by 28 0's and then another 1. However since the bits in the middle don't have to be specific, the odds of finding a result are much greater. For this reason, my analogy above with cracking cryptographic algorithms does not apply.
Thank you for joining the discussion Dr. Miller.
Summers et al say that in both cases of minimal chloroquine resistance, the mutations are close together: "N75E and K76T in PfCRTDd2" and "K76T and N326D in PfCRTEcu1110", so I don't think recombination would be of much help?
However I now think you are right about the waiting time being less than the square of the number of trials. I wrote a simple simulation to see for myself:
https://jsfiddle.net/f0zoyuwc/2/
It simulates 30 cells, each with a starting genome of 30 zeroed bits. As soon as one cell has a genome with a 1 for the first and the last bits, it is declared the winner and the simulation stops. If the waiting time were the square of the number of trials, we should expect on average it would take 30*30/2 = 450 trials to get a winner. But the simulation almost always finds a winner in much less than 450 trials.
My analogy to cryptographic algorithms above was also incorrect. It assumes that only a 1 followed by 28 0's and then another 1 would be the winner. But because the bits in the middle can vary, the chances of finding a winner are much greater.
Here is a corrected link to my simulation:
https://jsfiddle.net/f0zoyuwc/3/.
Does anyone else here have trouble with posts not appearing or only appertaining erratically? In IE and Firefox I see my above responses to Dr. Miller, but in Chrome (even after clearing cache) I do not see any of my responses.
The first time I submitted my response I came back later and saw that it wasn't here, so I rewrote it from memory and resubmitted.
I can't explain why the browsers would show different things, but I sometimes make the mistake of pressing [Add Comment] or [Reply] instead of [Publish], with the result that the comment I just wrote disappeared and I had to write a new one. Frustrating.
The correct one to press when you want to publish a new reply is the blue one that says "Publish". The other two merely opens a new window that allows you to type in a comment.
"Kk,,, Go ahead....."
Okay, my question is this: If the bible said that reason itself is wrong and not to be used, would you believe that and follow the bible?
"are you serius?"
Of course I'm serious. Here, for the third time, is what the article you cite says:
""Similarly, dolphin embryos pass through a stage in which they have hind limbs that disappear as the embryo develops."
"The recently captured dolphin developed an extra set of flippers from these limbs that are about the size of human hands. ""
Read and comprehend.
"{where is said this? i just say that those fossils doesnt appear in the right order. its a fact, not a belief. its like to find humans before apes in the fossil record and claiming that apes appeared before humans. its not fit with the fossil data."
Wrong again. There is not a problem with the timing of these fossils. I have explained it to you several times, but you just keep repeating your false statements.
"If a fully aquatic whale fossil was found 20my older than any proto-whale that would be a problem for whale evolution."
not true at all. scientists already found a tetrapod tracks that date about 20 my before its suppose proto-tetrapod ancestor:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html"
LOL, this is about the evolution of tetrapods about 400million ya, not whale evolution. Terrible quote mining. Great creationist trick: take any fragment of a statement, google it, and say you found proof for the opposite no matter how irrelevant the material is. You don't understand any of the science, you are just quote mining scientific sources to give your debunked ideas a sciencey appearance. What in that article was about whale evolution?
"so why do you not ansnwer my question? here it again:do you think that a self replicating watch\robot\car arent evidence for a designer?"
I already answered your question, as have other in this thread. You are the one not answering questions. You haven't answered a single one of mine, and failed to provide any positive evidence or explanation of any element of ID/creationist theory.
"so if i will answer to that too. you will consider id as good science?"
More avoidance of actually answering, and obfuscation. You are establishing a pattern here.
"its actually against evolution model. because if it was indeed a degenerate legs why they different between male and female? they suppose to look the same. of course, if they are a part of the whale reproduction system its make sense."
They aren't different between males and females. They both have vestigial pelvis and hind limb bones. That is wonderful evidence for evolution, while it makes zero sense from an 'intelligent design' scenario.
But we have been over this ground before. All of your responses are the same, and just as wrong every time. And you refuse to explain how ID/creationist "theory" explains the observations better. Since you have nothing to offer, I'm done.
"thanks."
You're welcome.
Mikkel
see. At no moment have i preached. But i am being acused of doing so. Why should i answer here any question related to the bible? Just to give photosynthesis fuel to confirm his acusation ?
Allan, you guys are discussing the possibility of two mutations, while the problem is much much bigger, as i posted already, and Larry ( conveniently) deleted. How is the origin de novo of the irreducible Geneset, its informationcontent, proteome, and metabolic network of the first living cell best explained ? Evolution ? Not there yet. Chance? Impossible..... Physical necessity? No. There is no obligation for life to emerge. AIl that plausibly remains, is ID. Seems obvious to me. Why not to you ?
I'm talking about you posting endless bullshit and never caring to understand the answers. That kind of preaching.
Hi Joe,
I don't think recombination would be of much help?
The closer the sites the less it occurs, for sure (though one could hardly hope that all two-mutation sites are close together!).
Still, even when close together, each member of subpopulation A has a chance of a crossover between the sites with a member of subpopulation B. So if there are N members of subpopulation A, adding each single member to B adds N chances for the double to occur. Linear increase has an exponential effect.
Crossover (and the non-crossover mechanism of gene conversion with a boundary between the two) has a significant, and often surprising, effect on chances.
I'm not accusing you of preaching, I'm asking because I'm curious about what you actually believe. So again, If the bible said that reason itself is wrong and not to be used, would you believe that and follow the bible? You don't have to preach, or quote the bible, you can just answer yes or no.
All I want is to understand how you think and my question is intended to help with that.
Seems obvious to me. Why not to you ?
Just doesn't. But why the leap to the OoL anyway, that wasn't the topic. Still, I've a fair grounding in chemistry, and I know that things don't behave 'down there' as they do 'up here'. The intuitions of a lot of people like yourself involve imagining throwing a bunch of non-interacting components around and then expecting things to 'self-organise'. But, in fact, things like nucleic acids really do self-organise. That happens every time someone runs a PCR. Now, I'm not saying that solves the OoL problem. Of course you have to get something like a nucleobase polymer in the first place, non-enzymatically. But this kind of system behaviour does seem to me to offer a more plausible potential start point. On the other hand, I don't see anyone designing, or implementing, working cells, even with the capacity to reverse engineer a known mechanical setup, let alone the harder problem of Design From Scratch. I doubt you appreciate the difficulty of implementing a design using chemistry (instead of magic), but that seems like a huge problem to me, no less so than having something emerge somewhere in a planet-sized test-tube over a few hundred million years. I certainly don't think that Design is 'all that's left'.
Before we can endeavour to understand how Otangelo thinks, we need to first establish that he thinks at all. I remain unconvinced of that. A mindless bot can be programmed to spew out reams of text that is only tangentially related to what it was asked.
On the other hand, I don't see anyone designing, or implementing, working cells, even with the capacity to reverse engineer a known mechanical setup, let alone the harder problem of Design From Scratch.
This is an issue the IDiots never address. In other examples of design, we are able to determine the method by which the object in question was devised. We can recreate the process by which, e.g., stone age arrowheads were designed. So it would seem to me the proponents of intelligent design creationism are obliged to actually describe in detail and replicate the process by which life was "designed." I wonder how much progress they have made in that endeavor.
hi mikkel. i will try do do it short and focus in my main argument.
you said: "No, let's not say that. What can be done with robots is irrelevant to what can be done with living organisms"
i think it very rlevant. for example: if we have an organic video camera its still be a video camera. right? (or organic watch made of wood (by the way- does this kind of watch with a self replicating system isnt evidence for design?). i think we both agree that video camera that can made from any material will need a lots of part for a minimal function. so we actually can compare between an organic camera (eye) and non organic one from ic prespective. are you agree or not?
Mikkel did not say "organic". He said "living organisms." And, sure, you can compare any two things you want. I can compare a grapefruit to a baseball, and say they are both round. That doesn't mean the grapefruit was made in a factory.
"i think it very rlevant."
I don't care. When you say that, all you are showing to me is that you actually don't know much about the subject matter, and rather than a genuine debate about a subject that could go either way, I will have to take on the role of educator to bring you up to speed. And I'm probably a shitty educator, so I won't bother. Sorry, I don't have the patience for that.
You can obsess over robotic camera fantasies to your hearts content, I'd rather discuss actual biology and biochemistry. I will respond if you bring up something of actual relevance, but this robot nuttery I just leave alone.
Mikkel
see. At no moment have i preached. But i am being acused of doing so. Why should i answer here any question related to the bible? Just to give photosynthesis fuel to confirm his acusation ?
Allan
the issue of the op is IC. Sorry,no. There is no evidence that nucleic acids self organize. Don't expecting me to believe unsupportet claims that you sucked out of your thumb. But If you wish tô believe your own nonsense, fine with me.
Lutesuite
I don't think If i start calling you evotard, it Will add something positive to my position. Do you agree ?
Can you explain in detail how a thougtprocess occurs, and how your Will is able to cause a physical reaction, like moving your arm? No ? But you know by experiente that it happens......
Can you explain in detail how a thougtprocess occurs, and how your Will is able to cause a physical reaction, like moving your arm? No ? But you know by experiente that it happens......
"Can you explain in detail how a thougtprocess occurs, and how your Will is able to cause a physical reaction, like moving your arm? No ? But you know by experiente that it happens......"
I don't understand what would be the problem from a purely physical point of view. Since thinking and "willing" are physical processes in a physical brain, the process is directly coupled with the neural network that makes the arm move. It would be a problem if thinking was nonphysical. But being what it is, I truly don't understand what you're aiming for.
Well, maybe I understand. Maybe you think that if we cannot explain the precise processes for thinking (mostly if not completely neuronal processes), and then how that fires those motor neurons, then god-did-it. But, as I explained before, that would be pure volcano-god thinking, and you already understand the problems with that way of thinking, right? I mean, you're not just preaching, you are trying to have a conversation, right?
I don't think If i start calling you evotard, it Will add something positive to my position. Do you agree ?
I really don't care when creationists do that.
As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits...." The term "IDiots" fits ID creationists to a T. I don't mind when someone calls me an "evotard", because I know it's a hollow insult intended to compensate for the failure to provide any substantive argument. You, however, seem quite sensitive about being called an "IDiot". I wonder why that is.
Can you explain in detail how a thougtprocess occurs, and how your Will is able to cause a physical reaction, like moving your arm?
Pretty much, yes. I mean, not me personally. But neurophysiologists will be able to answer your question quite satisfactorily.
Anyway, as is your wont, you completely miss the point. In every single case where we identify the existence of "design" we have a very good idea of the process by which the designed artifact was created. So when can we expect you IDiots to provide this for the living things you believe were designed?
You have "preached" in the sense of posting your nonsense with no intention to understanding if you get some answers. You want to have a say without listening yourself.
the issue of the op is IC
I dare say, but the point you were backslapping joecoder about was an erroneous piece of probability calc. That was what my comment was about.
Sorry,no. There is no evidence that nucleic acids self organize. Don't expecting me to believe unsupportet claims that you sucked out of your thumb. But If you wish tô believe your own nonsense, fine with me.
No need to be such a dick. You asked me a question and I responded civilly and honestly.
Separated DNA strands anneal on complementary sequence. Likewise, RNA probes bind to their complementary sequence with exquisite specificity. That is self organisation in my book, and provides potential clues to the manner in which primitive molecules may also self organise.
"the issue of the op is IC. Sorry,no. There is no evidence that nucleic acids self organize. Don't expecting me to believe unsupportet claims that you sucked out of your thumb. But If you wish tô believe your own nonsense, fine with me."
The most amazing thing here is the conviction with which ElShamah777 presents his ignorance. He must believe that DNA annealing happens because there's little tiny people moving them together, or something like that. Is that it ElShamah? Is it rather some ghosts?
If they're limb-buds, then the dolphin has evolved limb-buds.
If they're flippers, then the dolphin has evolved flippers.
If they're fins, then the dolphin has evolved fins.
There's something there now, on the dolphin, that didn't use to be there on it's immediate ancestors. Why?
If they're leg-remnants that developed because long-degraded developmental pathways for developing legs, have reactivated due to chance accumulation of certain mutations, then they're leg-remnants. Incidentally, this is what they actually are and we know this because we know the genes responsible for limb formation), then this would be evidence for the past evolutionary stages of ancestral whales and dolphins.
Regardless of what kind of rationalization dcscccc comes up with to excuse it away, the simple fact is that in all scenarios they are evidence of evolution. Simply put, if evolution isn't true, they should not suddenly appear on dolphins, whatever he thinks they are.
He has yet to explain why they are there, he's just trying to deny they have anything to do with leg-development in legs and he's attempting to show they're some sort of limb-bud like a fin or flipper instead.
Okay, so they're a fin or flipper (they aren't, but for the sake of argument). Then flippers have evolved where before there were none.
How do you propose to wiggle yourself out of this one? Did your god zap them into existence? Then why do all dolphins have the genes responsible for their development, but only some of them contain the mutations that activate the developmental pathway?
Why are those genes homologous to genes we know are responsible for limb-pattern formation in other species that really do have legs? Why have baleen whales been found with ativistic hind-limbs with actual bones of the same type that are found in actual legs?
There are even pictures of the whale where one of the shrunken, malformed and tube-shaped hind-limbs still attached, can be seen in the original publication, complete with photos of the bones they dug out of the blubber and muscle surrounding them here.
Why does it look in every conceivable way like a degraded evolutionary remnant, coincidentally reactivated by mutations in degraded genes for leg development?
At this stage, why still engage in denial when the truth is so fucking obvious?
Actually, nucleotides can self-organize into RNA. We can all agree that it's a long step from randomly-ordered RNA to functioning cells. But when you write, "There is no evidence that nucleic acids self organize," you make yourself look too ignorant to pay attention to.
This is when he comes back with some sort of irrelevancy, redefinition or moves the goalposts. I've explained this to him at length on other forums. I think altogether I have forum threads of about 100 pages where I explain these things in detail. Same shit, over and over and over again. From all of this, nothing has sunk in. The same trivial to demonstrate false-claims are brainlessly repeated over and over again wherever he goes.
There are many types of conditions under which nucleotides have been observed self-organizing according to various physical and chemical principles. In one recent study, they observed that DNA will spontaneously order itself according to length when subject to thermophoresis. I showed him this, he's still making the claim regardless.
There is no contact, he's just here to god-bot.
You're right, Mikkel. It's frustrating to "converse" with him and others like him, who just move on or, worse, repeat false statements as if one had never spoken. I try to console myself that at least other readers may learn something. Sigh.
I have posted more than once: the RNA world is bunk. Nada. Njet. Its one of the many made- up scenarios without a shred of evidence. Proponents of naturalism think they have a reason- based case, but all they have is just só stories based on wishful thinking and hot air. If someone wishes to claim that RNA can self- organize and produce the at least 200 proteíns required to give Life a First go, alright. The problems is, the evidence shows clearly, the odds are too big. There proteíns must also well fit, well interact, be well interconnected, all be there all together. Doug Axe hás provided excelente scientic material that illustrates the impossibilitou of proteíns to emerge naturally, without design. The irrational proponents and blind believers of evolution would learn a lot by Reading his New book.
But your intention is to understand my viewpoint ? Lol.....
Photosynthesis
no, i don't believe ghosts anneal nucleotídeos together. By subestimating your oponentes intelligentsia in such a grotesque way you make yourself look like a fool.
Mikkel,
either you suffer from cognitive dissonance, or you desire in such a desperate way a creator not to exist, that you dismiss with astonishing insistence all the scietific evidence i provided you só far, that refutes your claims in a absolutely clear manner, that any average intelligent fellow can understand. I suspect you are perfecly following my rationale, but unwilling to admit a creator because of reasons only you know. But insisting that reason is on your side, is trying to deflect from reality. Larry is smarter and wiser and less fanátic than you. He knows the moment to not respond to not making the situation Look worse. But you keep insisting like a "Tratschtante". Its German. I don't know the word in englisch. Look it up.
"no, i don't believe ghosts anneal nucleotídeos together. By subestimating your oponentes intelligentsia in such a grotesque way you make yourself look like a fool."
Me? It's you who said that nucleotides don't organize themselves, not me. What else did you expect me to think about you if you could make such an ignorant claim?
You "conveniently" forgot to read this:
"Can you explain in detail how a thougtprocess occurs, and how your Will is able to cause a physical reaction, like moving your arm? No ? But you know by experiente that it happens......"
I don't understand what would be the problem from a purely physical point of view. Since thinking and "Willing" are physical processes in a physical brain, the process is directly coupled with the neural network that makes the arm move. It would be a problem if thinking was nonphysical. But being what it is, I truly don't understand what you're aiming for.
Well, maybe I understand. Maybe you think that if we cannot explain the precise processes for thinking (mostly if not completely neuronal processes), and then how that fires those motor neurons, then god-did-it. But, as I explained before, that would be pure volcano-god thinking, and you already understand the problems with that way of thinking, right? I mean, you're not just preaching, you are trying to have a conversation, right?
"But your intention is to understand my viewpoint ? Lol....."
So, by your own admission, you come with no intention to read for comprehension, just to preach. Yet you complain that I said you come to preach, even though that;'s exactly what you come to do. Now your excuse for preaching is that you don't think that I read that you write?
" I suspect you are perfecly following my rationale"
I'll just point out that the person saying this to me has yet to even understand the improbable-therefore-impossible fallacy, never mind stop comitting it despite having had it explained to him at least twenty times.
"But insisting that reason is on your side, is trying to deflect from reality."
So, returning to my previous question that you still have refused to answer (which is weird, because it's such a simple yes and no question).
Again:
If the bible said that reason itself is wrong and not to be used, would you believe that and follow the bible?
You don't have to preach, or quote the bible, you can just answer yes or no.
All I want is to understand how you think and my question is intended to help with that.
either you suffer from cognitive dissonance, or you desire in such a desperate way a creator not to exist,
I believe that is an example of what is known as a false dichotomy.
I have posted more than once: the RNA world is bunk. [...]
Our host agrees with you.
If someone wishes to claim that RNA can self- organize and produce the at least 200 proteíns required to give Life a First go,
No-one claims that. 200 proteins required for minimal life? Maybe you are confusing LUCA with the first cell. That's the trouble, your grasp of the material is shaky at best.
Photosynthesis
no, i don't believe ghosts anneal nucleotídeos together. By subestimating your oponentes intelligentsia in such a grotesque way you make yourself look like a fool.
I doubt it is even possible to "subestimate" your "intelligentsia."
So, if not ghosts, then exactly what invisible creature to you think causes RNA nucleotides to self-organize? You've already made your position clear that you deny this can occur thru natural physical and chemical processes. So what causes it, then? Fairies? Elves?
Photosynthesis
so you think now you found a new critiquepoint. Namely that i preach. Sorry, no. My argumentos are not based on religion, nor do i have the job of a preacher or evangelist here. The only point that i make,is, that the original of what we observe in the natural world, is best explained through the creative power of a intelligent agent. I well read and consider what proponents of naturalism claim. The problems is, they do not withstand scrutiny. But you and most others tap their ears, sing lalala, and claim victory. How insane is that ?
Otangelo,
You conveniently forgot to read this for the second time:
"Can you explain in detail how a thougtprocess occurs, and how your Will is able to cause a physical reaction, like moving your arm? No ? But you know by experiente that it happens......"
I don't understand what would be the problem from a purely physical point of view. Since thinking and "Willing" are physical processes in a physical brain, the process is directly coupled with the neural network that makes the arm move. It would be a problem if thinking was nonphysical. But being what it is, I truly don't understand what you're aiming for.
Well, maybe I understand. Maybe you think that if we cannot explain the precise processes for thinking (mostly if not completely neuronal processes), and then how that fires those motor neurons, then god-did-it. But, as I explained before, that would be pure volcano-god thinking, and you already understand the problems with that way of thinking, right? I mean, you're not just preaching, you are trying to have a conversation, right?
Otangelo,
I well read and consider what proponents of naturalism claim.
No, you clearly don't. You post, time and again, stuff that's trivially refuted, and yet you keep repeating the very same stuff. You consider nothing but whatever constructs you can make to feel as if your fantasies about gods were vindicated.
The problems is, they do not withstand scrutiny.
The problem is: you have not even tried to understand anything, and thus you have no basis for making this judgement.
But you and most others tap their ears, sing lalala, and claim victory. How insane is that ?
Curious projection. It's you who doesn't want to understand Otangelo. It's you who repeats claims that have already been dealt with. Your ignorance is painful to witness.
Otangelo wrote:
"that you dismiss with astonishing insistence all the scietific evidence i provided you só far,"
Scientific evidence? You mean the out of context quotes, quote mines and failed logic?
"unwilling to admit a creator"
Which one? Thor? Jupiter? Boudha? Any of these Aztec gods? And what's the evidence only your god/ creator is the one?
hi again.
again- if they both camera and they both ic system (this discussion is all about ic system) then we can compare between them. so according to evolution if we will have a self replicating car it can evolve into an airplane after bilions of years. and if we know its impossible why to believe its possible with evolution?
also- if we will find a robot with dna and a self replicating system, do we need to conclude that this robot was designed or evolved?
"so according to evolution if we will have a self replicating car it can evolve into an airplane after bilions of years"
Do you actually HAVE a self-replicating car so we can see if it undergoes any evolutionary change at all? If not, then what the flying fuck is the use of coming up with this thought-experiment anyway, if you're just going to insist it can't evolve and I might insist the opposite and we have no way of testing if either of us is right?
My suggestion to you is to drop the whole machine analogy and go back to bioloy. Actual biology. Things that actually do exist, are biological organisms that reproduce and so on.
mikkel said:
"Why are those genes homologous to genes we know are responsible for limb-pattern formation in other species that really do have legs?"-
because those genes are actually do other things in the body. according to this logic sharks also have limbs, because they also have those genes:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/sonic-hedgehog-gene-provides-evidence-that-our-limbs-may-have-evolved-from-sharks-gills
you said:
" Why have baleen whales been found with ativistic hind-limbs with actual bones of the same type that are found in actual legs?"-
look at its front flippers and you will know why. its also support tha claim that this traits its actually a part of a degenerate flipper. fipper have an inside stucture that similar to limb one. so its not a surprise.
You gotta love a religion with 400 gods of wine. If I ever become religious again, you know where to find me.
This is a pointless conversation. Materialists had already made up their minds about their belief system and no evidence will persuade them or make them change their view. The obvious designer of DNA could have easily written in the code a direct message, such as "I did it" but because he has an infinite knowledge, the Designer knows well that wouldn't be good enough for the ones who will not change their view no matter what. Instead, the Designer wrote a code nobody can understand but the majority pretends they do, so that they can feel good about themselves and the work they do. It's called nonsense work but some people like to live in a La La Land for one reason or another. It beats me as to why, but I have a few hunches.
This is a pointless conversation. Religionists have already made up their minds about their belief system and no evidence will persuade them or make them change their view.
"The obvious designer of DNA could have easily written in the code a direct message, such as "I did it" but because he has an infinite knowledge, the Designer knows well that wouldn't be good enough for the ones who will not change their view no matter what."
I agree. Those who will not change their views no matter what, will not change their views.
I, however, most certaintly WILL change my view if you can find a message from God in the DNA that says God made living organisms.
"Instead, the Designer wrote a code nobody can understand but the majority pretends they do, so that they can feel good about themselves and the work they do."
If nobody understands it, how do you even know it's a code and how do you know who made it? Wouldn't there have to be a signature for you to assign ownership?
"It's called nonsense work but some people like to live in a La La Land for one reason or another. It beats me as to why, but I have a few hunches."
I know exactly you mean. I could not have said it better myself. Every post you write brings up this experience.
This is an example where materialist thinking fails.
Scientist discover a new planet and on it something resembling a machine made of materials unknown on earth. They bring it to the Earth and the scientist assess the machines's functional features to be beyond anything known on the Earth by science.
There is no doubt in those scientist's minds that the machine was designed, but also designed by intelligence much higher than theirs because it has mesmerizing features that they can't even comprehend but they see the effect of them.
Who in the right frame of mind would chose to believe that the machine was the result of a random, unintelligent process?
Well, the materialists do and their choice is inexcusable and they know it or should know it. If they don't ... who can help them?
Regarding the New York City traffic light scenario, I have a real example in a real city. Not as big as NYC, but with a simolar traffic density. A major switching station went down, leaving 400,000 people without power. No street lights, rush hour.
I was out shopping at the time. What actually happened is that people voluntarily and without police assistance alternated stopping at intersections. Traffic actually went smoother than usual at some major intersections.
As a proponents of intelligent design theory, i do intendente to propose a identity of Who the ID agency is.
If the mind and Will is physical, can you show me exactly where both are located in the brain ? How much do they weight?
I stated that nucleotides can self-organize into RNA. Yes, there is evidence that this is true. Therefore, when you wrote, "There is no evidence that nucleic acids self organize," you were wrong.
Nucleotides do not self-organize into RNA that codes for 200 specific proteins. Nobody said they did.
I think that a form of natural selection working on non-living chemicals including but not limited to self-organized RNA could eventually produce living cells. You don't.
There's still a lot we don't know about how the earliest cells came about, so there's room for us to disagree about that. But where enough is known, get the facts right.
"If the mind and Will is physical, can you show me exactly where both are located in the brain ? How much do they weight?"
Did you know there are atheists who aren't materialists? They also reject the idea that the brain is the seat of consciousness.
You could prove materialism wrong and that still wouldn't mean evolution was false or that gods exist. I think you need to look up what these words mean. Read some actual philosophy, rather than apologetics.
ammm.
there is a problem with the comments. so i cant continue.
are you refer to the sth gene?
You state we don't know, and insert natural selection. Nice evolution of the gaps. I state there was no natural selection prior DNA replication. All you had is chance. The odds to create a first living cell by chance alone are too big. The example of a Jumbo arising by accident through a tornado is well appropriated here. It will never happen. Neither a self assembling cell. Only in the fertile fantasy of atheists.
Really? I wasn't aware of this astonishing discovery, Cruglers. Or, perhaps you are just making up a story to make a point of some sort. If so, I suspect these "materialists" would be smart enough to know the difference between a technological artifact and a living organism, and not make the error of thinking that both arise from the same processes, as you do.
If the mind and Will is physical, can you show me exactly where both are located in the brain ? How much do they weight?
An asinine question, even by Otangelo's standards.
Hey, Otangelo: How much does respiration weigh? Where is it located in the lungs? If you can't answer these question, a guess that means you think the act of breathing is also immaterial. Is that the case?
Or why the hell would God create the nasty little parasite in the first place. Does he hate African children that much?
To his credit, Behe has actually acknowledged this:
http://cliff-martin.blogspot.ca/2009/04/was-malaria-designed.html
Lutesuite
Air has weight, and can be physically detected. Your thoughts cannot. What as stupid counterargument.
"Air" and "respiration" are not the same thing. Do I need to write things more simply, to accommodate your level of comprehension, ElShamahOtangelo?
Show me a thought that occurs in the absence of measurable brain activity. Once you've done that, then maybe we can discuss your claim that thoughts cannot be measured. Until then, we'll just chalk that up as another of your delusional fantasies.
Have you changed your mind lutesuite? If you did, you'd better provide some evidence because few months ago you got caught in the exchange that made you look stupid and professor Gesiarowski like a lay man, which he is.
You just proved my point. You can't explain the origins of DNA. It's a story at best without any evidence. You hang on to it because you BELIEVE it will come true one day. It has't and it won't. This is what I was talking about people like you who will not change their mind no matter what the message is or what impossibility your set of beliefs faces.
You just proved my point. You can't explain the origins of DNA. It's a story at best without any evidence(poof - magic made it). You hang on to it because you BELIEVE it will come true one day. It has't and it won't. This is what I was talking about people like you who will not change their mind no matter what the message is or what impossibility your set of beliefs faces.
So there, right back at you.
There is enough evidence out there that out of body experiences are real. Only wilful ignorants deny it. Thougts and matter are in essence different. Matter cannot produce thoughts. Quantum mechanics helds that the spiritual/mental world precedes the physical world. Even Kaku admitted this recently. Atheists always distort the evidence to fit their fantasy world view, where God shall have no place.q
dcscccc says,
there is a problem with the comments. so i cant continue.
I've also noticed a problem with your comments.
Thank-you for sparing us by not continuing.
"If the mind and Will is physical, can you show me exactly where both are located in the brain ? How much do they weight?"
Do you understand Otangelo, that activities are also physical? Brain activity can be shown to occur and the energy they use can be measured. So what's exactly your problem? Is it, yet again, that because you refuse to understand that thinking and such things are physical activities occurring in a brain, just because you think (what a joke), that they cannot be measured or shown in a static form, then they must be some magical shit?
You still refused to understand my explanation and thus answer my question. What's the problem with "Willing" your arm to move since "Willing" is a physical activity (which I explained from the very beginning, a physical activity.)? What's exactly the problem? It certainly is not my problem. Shouldn't it be your problem, since it's you who proposes that some "immaterial" thing is able to make an arm move just magically?
Think for ince Otangelo. You might believe out-of-body experiences, and all that superstitious crap, but I have seen the scientific studies. I have lived the anaesthesia making one side of my brain sleep, and thus being unable to count. We know that brain injury, and chemicals, can change the mind, the character, etc. I have no problem with any of that. I don't have any needs to hold to fantasies about gods. So I accept what the evidence tells me. The mind is brain activity.
So? What's exactly the problem about my "Will"being able to move my arm given that they're interconnected by neuronal networks and activities? What, other than some nonsensical god-of-the-gaps ideology combined with your inability to understand that activities are also physical. Other than your mistaking activities for non-physicality?
There is enough evidence out there that out of body experiences are real.
Yes, and that they are purely neurological phenomena which can be induced under laboratory conditions thru physical means:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/outofbody
So I ask you again: Do you have any evidence of mental activity occurring in the absence of correlated brain activity? If not, I suggest you show you are not a hypocrite and do what you keep accusing others of not doing: Revise your beliefs in accordance with scientific evidence.
My money's on your remaining a hypocrite.
Quantum mechanics helds that the spiritual/mental world precedes the physical world.
Bullshit. Quote a single standard physics textbook that says this. You can't, can you?
Even Kaku admitted this recently.
I'm calling bullshit on this one, as well. Although Kaku can at times be a bit expansive in his language, so feeble-minded people like yourself can often misunderstand him. Again, provide the quote that you base this on, and maybe we can help correct your confusion.
Maybe if you explain what you're referring to here, then I can answer. As it is, I have no idea.
There is a topic at my library: the mind is not the brain. Look it up.
hi prof moran. i can see that you comment me (in the left side section of the blog). but i cant see the whole comment.
Your "library"? LOL!
So you refuse to provide any of my requested citations. You just try to create more traffic for your website of deranged rantings. That's because you know the citations to support your claims do not exist. Your abject failure is duly noted, as is your hypocritical failure to admit it.
There is a topic at my library: the mind is not the brain. Look it up.
@dcscccc
I don't give a fuck what you call them. I want you to acknowledge that something is there, on the goddamn whale, where nothing was on it's mom or dad.
Why? Why is it there? If they're a reactivated "degenerate flipper", then flippers have re-evolved on the fucking Dolphin. Shouldn't this be impossible?
Mikkel: "Why are those genes homologous to genes we know are responsible for limb-pattern formation in other species that really do have legs?"
dcscccc: "because those genes are actually do other things in the body."
Really, what other thing do they do in the whale body, besides just sitting there accumulating random mutations? And why is it possible for random mutations to suddenly make them develop limbs/fins/flippers/legs/giant dicks?
Your answers are incoherent, in that they don't actually explain the observation.
There's something there now, on the dolphin, that didn't use to be there on it's immediate ancestors. Why?
there is no need to re-evolve flippers. the information for this is already there. some blind fishes can start to see after one generation. this is because the information for vision was already in the fish genome.
"Really, what other thing do they do in the whale body, besides just sitting there accumulating random mutations? "
again- sharks also have them. are you suggesting that sharks also evolved from a land species? of course not. the sth gene have several functions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog
"" SHH has been found to have the most critical roles in development, acting as a morphogen involved in patterning many systems, including the limb[7] and midline structures in the brain,[16][17] spinal cord,[18] the thalamus by the zona limitans intrathalamica[19][20] and the teeth"
"There's something there now, on the dolphin, that didn't use to be there"-
see also the shark example.
Otangelo,
You're just avoiding. What's exactly the problem with the mind and "Will" being physical and being able to make my arm move? Since thinking is brain activity, and those are connected to the motor neurons, what's the problem that you expected to get us quiet and worshipping your fantasy gods after you made that question?
Did you just realize that your question backfired and thus you moved onto claiming that the ming and thoughts aren't physical? Do you really think that your ignorance about how brain activity can be and has been monitored makes thoughts and minds magic immaterial shit? Your ignorance doesn't count. So stop avoiding.
What was the "problem" you thought would make us fall on our knees? Or did you notice that your question backfired?
Be honest Otangelo, if you have the courage, just be honest.
photosynthesis
All Brain, No Mind
http://www.str.org/articles/all-brain-no-mind#.V8UUelsrKUk
You can know for sure just with a moment's reflection that your brain is not your soul.
The headline in the article says, "A memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern." In other words, they are saying that a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern. It is not correlated with a mind state such that the brain cells firing causes your mind or soul to have a memory. It is saying that that's all it is.
That's like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that misses something very obvious. Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? There is a big giant disc spinning, the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light.
Now, what if I were to tell you that that is the movie right there. The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. You'd think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism, the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp, bright light behind it. Rather, the movie is the image that is being projected on the screen, and it's even more than just an image. There is a story, dialogue, characterization. There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation.
When one tries to limit mental activity to the physical processes that I believe produce the mental activity, but isn't the mental activity itself, it is the same as trying to say that a movie is merely the shining of a light through a celluloid strip. You can't capture the movie at all by looking at light shining through celluloid, which shows that a physicalistic explanation of what a movie amounts to falls far short of what the movie really is. What's more, if you look at the light on the celluloid, you will never, ever even see the movie.
You can know for sure just with a moment's reflection that your brain is not your soul.
Well, duh. Since there is no evidence that such a thing as a "soul" exists.
And your argument about the movie completely misses the point. If you want to consider things like thoughts or the plot of a movie "immaterial", I guess you are free to do so. But to make your argument you'd have to demonstrate that the movie can exist without the film, projector, human operator, etc. That if you eliminated all those things, the audience would still be able to sit and watch the movie, without any awareness that there is no camera projecting it. So your argument as actually refutes your own position. Well done!
Oh, and where is the part where you demonstrate that "Quantum mechanics helds (sic) that the spiritual/mental world precedes the physical world"? Or is photosynthesis on the money when he says you are just avoiding?
Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Eugene Wigner, theoretical physicist and mathematician. He received a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963
“It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005) ? He wrote:
“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction.
Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote:
“The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”
Sir Arthur Eddington explained:
“It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.”
Lutesuite
we have scientific evidence that the mind can exist outside of the brain.
Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
you can also check at my library:
Near Death experience , evidence of dualism
@ OtangeloElShamah:
You just quoted a few physicists who expressed the opinion that consciousness precedes material reality. I could quote you many more physicists who do not believe that God exists. The expression of personal opinion does not makes something a principle of quantum mechanics. You have failed to substantiate you point.
we have scientific evidence that the mind can exist outside of the brain.
Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
I'm quite familiar with that paper, thank you. It only recounts the frequency with which NDE's are reported. It does not report a single instance of NDE's occurring in the absence of brain activity. The author's conclusion, "with a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one," only shows why cardiologists should not pretend to be neuroscientists. If a neurologist had observed that not every patient who has a blockage of a coronary artery develops a heart arrhythmia, and concluded from that that heart arrhythmia is caused by invisible immaterial spooks, I think van Lommel would be both amused and offended. That's how neuroscientists respond to his "research":
Towards a Cognitive Neuroscience of the Dying Brain
Otangelo the Ignorant fails yet again.
Doug Axe hás provided excelente scientic material that illustrates the impossibilitou
Does this remind anyone else of Cartman?
Air has weight, and can be physically detected. Your thoughts cannot.
I guess the doctors with fMRI machines are frauds then.
Perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with 20th century technology (fMRI was developed in 1991).
Eugene Wigner, theoretical physicist and mathematician. He received a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963
“It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but what physicists thought decades ago was a requirement for conscious observation to collapse the quantum wave function and reduce probability to certainty turns out, after exploration of scientific topics such as quantum computing, to be simply a requirement for a degree of interaction with some part of the rest of the universe, conscious or not.
So yes, we can formulate the laws of quantum physics just fine without any requirement at all of a conscious observer.
By the way, the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum physics shows Intelligent Design and such associated crap as "front loading" cannot possibly be true. So thanks for raising the topic.
You just quoted a few physicists who expressed the opinion that consciousness precedes material reality. I could quote you many more physicists who do not believe that God exists.///
Nonsequitur.
Can you provide evidence that matter produces something essentially different, namely thoughts, will, conscience ?
Albert Einstein, “Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge,” The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 5 of The Library of Living Philosophers, editor Paul Arthur Schilpp (LaSalle, Illinois, Open Court, 1944), p. 289.
Albert Einstein,undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists of all time, described the "gulf' that logically separates the concrete world of hard objects on the one hand from the abstract world of ideas on the other. He wrote: We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf-logically unbridgeable which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions
On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.
A small part of the materialists problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas.
Nonsequitur.
I'm glad you agree that's what your line of argument was.
Can you provide evidence that matter produces something essentially different, namely thoughts, will, conscience ?
Yes. The brain does. Do you disagree? Then try this experiment. Remove your brain, put it into a food processor, and blend it into a liquid. Now, see if you can continue to type messages to me on the internet. If you are correct, and mental activity exists independently of the brain, you should be able to do so.
I await the results of your experiment.
A small part of the materialists problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas.
LMAO! This is one of the silliest things you've written yet. Is that how you think "materialists" believe thoughts are formed? That little bits of the brain break off and are then transformed into thoughts? Maybe you also think breathing occurs when little bits of our lungs are broken off and transform into breaths. My word, every time I think you couldn't be stupider, you exceed my expectations yet again.
Let's look at materialists' evidence, shall we especially their beliefs and favorite math...
Evidence for the origins of life? Zero=0
Evidence for macroevolution? Zero=0
According to evolutionists that have been convinced by some "evidence" (probably in science fiction movies) zero plus zero equals 2
0+0=2.
So let's wait for the materialists'to provide the evidence for the obvious gaps...
Cruglers,
What exactly makes you think that we need to have answers for all of those things before noticing the absurdities implied by the fantasies called gods? What exactly makes you think that if we had no answers to anything in your list then your fantasies will become reality? be very very clear. You do know that ignorance doesn't make fantasies real, right? Ignorance is just that, ignorance. It's not evidence for magical beings.
"Let's look at materialists' evidence, shall we especially their beliefs and favorite math...
You say "let's look," then you proceed not looking, but, rather, assuming that the bullshit you've learned in creationist propaganda is true. How is that supposed to convince anybody but fantasy-believers like yourself?
"Evidence for the origins of life? Zero=0"
Interesting. So you think that life has always existed, even though the evidence says otherwise? How come?
"Evidence for macroevolution? Zero=0"
Except for all the evidence in genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, morphology, taxonomy, and all over biology, maybe there's no evidence.
"According to evolutionists that have been convinced by some "evidence" (probably in science fiction movies) zero plus zero equals 2"
A rather curious remark, given that you think that your fantasies about gods are vindicated by lack of evidence for answers that do not involve magical beings.
"So let's wait for the materialists'to provide the evidence for the obvious gaps..."
Sure, because for as long as there's gaps, magical fantasy beings must be real. Nice logic there Cruglers. Are you more than five years old? Is that volcano nearby a god too? I mean, if there's no evidence for "macroevolution" there must be no evidence for "macro" plate tectonics, or for "macro" geological phenomena. No answers that you can accept means magic, right? Were you there?
Cruglers,
"Who in the right frame of mind would chose to believe that the machine was the result of a random, unintelligent process?"
This is why people rather investigate, because mere randomness could not possibly do it. This is how we learn about the way crystals grow, or life produces variation, or certain characteristics provide advantages under certain environments, or high pressure under high gravitational fields produce nuclear fusion and heavier elements, etc. By studying phenomena, not by assuming mere randomness.
"Well, the materialists do"
I never heard such a thing proposed by a materialist or by a physicalist or by a naturalist. Maybe you've been fooled by creationist propaganda about all of them. Have you ever asked them what they actually think, rather than coming up with creationist bullshit?
"and their choice is inexcusable and they know it or should know it."
Is your choice to believing what creationist propaganda tells you about "materialists" "excusable"? You could ask, yet you don't. Is that excusable?
"If they don't ... who can help them?"
If you cannot read for comprehension. if you come and tell me what you think I believe, rather than ask me what I think, how can anybody help you?
Photosynthesis
your strawman argument has been noted. Nothing new under the sun. Thats one of the most frequent and boring arguments brought forward by atheists. Namely to assert, the ID theory proponents arguments are based on ignorance.
thats cheap and boring.
Can you point out where the ignorance and gap is in following rationale ?
Observation: Intelligent agents act frequently with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex multipart-machines, and make exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers integrate software/hardware and store high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store large amounts of specified/instructed complex information such as codes and languages, and which are constructed in a interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures that perform specific functions -- indicating high levels of Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome. Additionally, it has been found out, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely Splicing Codes, Metabolic Codes, Signal Transduction Codes, Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes , and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducible complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimal number of parts and complex inter wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A step wise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knock out experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducible complex.
Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and point out a non-intelligent source of Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
Otangelo, asks:
"Can you point out where the ignorance and gap is in following rationale ?"
And in the next sentence you come up with this:
"Observation: Intelligent agents act frequently with an end goal in mind"
Please, do tell which intelligent agent is responsible for the current diversity on this planet. Because you seem to be able to read it's mind. While explaining, do tell which end goal this intelligent agent has in mind?
Everything else you post has been refuted over, over, over and over again in every topic you post this IC stuff in.
"thats cheap and boring. "
Yes, I agree.
Can you point out where the ignorance and gap is in following rationale ?
The flaws in your argument are analogous to those in this one:
Observation: Baseballs are spherical objects that are manufacture in a factory built and operated by human beings.
Hypothesis/prediction: Other objects will be observed that are spherical.
Observation: Grapefruits are spherical. Also, there is no way they could have been produced by any mechanism other than by being manufactured in a factory.
Conclusion: Grapefruits were manufactured in a factory run by human beings, in a manner similar to how baseballs are produced.
Now, can you identify the ignorance and gaps, if any, in that argument?
There are people that refute to recognize reality and the obvious with remarkable persistence and resistence. Dunning Kruger at its best.
That's the first correct thing I've ever seen you post, Otangelo. I wonder where you plagiarized it from?
Otangelo Grasso,
Did you read the comment I was answering? The gaps were mentioned by Cruglers. The comment implies all along gaps in knowledge. So, what damn straw-man are you talking about? I answered to what Crullers wrote herself. If you cannot keep up, or read for comprehension, then you should keep your crap to yourself.
As per your bullshit. The guys above answered quite a bit. I'll add this though. What you're doing is reverse-engineering towards your preferred conclusion, cherry-picking observations, and making analogies for the sake of making your conclusion look reasonable, not for the sake of actually understanding what's going on.
You're observing what humans do, then call us "intelligent agents." You forget to observe that these intelligent agents are a subset of the stuff you're trying to explain in the first place. You're also failing to notice that these "agents" need a lot of sustenance just to be able to move and think. You forget that the intelligence comes about by complex processes, uses a lot of energy. You forget that these agents don't act by intelligence alone, but that there's a need for action. Tools, moving arms, machinery to build machinery. Lots of stuff goes on before we can build any of those marvels you describe in your "observation." You rather not take any of that into consideration.
Then you propose that life forms, some of which, again, are the very intelligent "agents" in your cherry-picked "observations," look analogous to the machines you described. You forget that the analogies come from our own experiences, rather than from the natural phenomena themselves. In other words, you forget that those analogies were imagined by ourselves. That we make those analogies to help ourselves understand the natural phenomena. You forget that our own experiences with machines, and computers, makes our analogies necessarily about machines and computers. You forget that we make those analogies up. Therefore, your description of life as "systems," "computers," "machines," etc, are due to our biased experiences, not to life actually being human-produced-like machinery.
This is like an ant that looks at a mountain and describes it as similar to an ant's nest, then concludes, since it looks like an ant's nest, it must be the nest of a giant ant. The analogy is in the ant's mind, and based on the ant's experience. That doesn't mean that the mountain really is like an ant's nest, except in a very shallow way.
Do you get this? You're arguing in circles of self-imposed deception, that leads you to believe that the mountain is a giant ant's nest. Since you don't see any of what an ant would need to build the nest, it must be a magical ant.
Still, you're just hiding your essentially god-of-the-gaps argument behind all of that rhetoric about machines and information and computers and circuits, as you nicely demonstrated by the end:
Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and point out a non-intelligent source of Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
You see a gap there, "a non-intelligent source of information," therefore god-did-it. It's undeniably god-of-the-gaps through and through.
Now read for comprehension please.
My irony-meter exploded.
Photosynthesis says:
"intelligent agents are a subset of the stuff you're trying to explain in the first place."
Intelligence , the mind, conscience, what you remember , is not made of material substance. So, no, your refutation is invalid.
"You're also failing to notice that these "agents" need a lot of sustenance just to be able to move and think. "
Since i believe in dualism, i don't agree with this either.
" You forget that the intelligence comes about by complex processes "
As i mentioned before, i do not think that matter can transform itself into consciousness. Rather the other way around makes sense. And ,as i posted earlier, quantum physicis backs up my view.
"You forget that the analogies come from our own experiences, rather than from the natural phenomena themselves."
No, the analogy stands by all means. Its not just made up. And for your information, the terms and analogy i use, are not made up terms, but used in mainstream science. You might get your knowledge up to date.....
The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400809228
A Cell is like a Factory
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/
Interdependence of cell growth and gene expression
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097934
The Genetic Code
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html
DNA: hardware and software of life
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10825-014-0570-3
Otangelo,
What about you first apologize for ignoring that the comment I was answering was all about gods-of-the-gaps? That way I might start thinking that you have some honesty left in you.
As per your "answers." It doesn't matter what you believe about intelligence and "dualism," we're among the things you want to explain, yet you're using us as standard to explain the things which include ourselves. You cannot escape this problem. If you're going to propose dualism and souls and etc, then you're arguing in circles. You're arguing for gods by assuming that what these gods supposedly produce, souls and such shit, exists. Weren't you saying that your stance was scientific? The truth always comes to the surface. You're arguing on the basis of religion. Thanks for the admission.
"No, the analogy stands by all means. Its not just made up."
Of course it is made up by people themselves, as you were so nice to demonstrate.
"And for your information, the terms and analogy i use, are not made up terms, but used in mainstream science."
So scientists don't use analogies? Everything you cited was not written by people? All the stuff you cited is analogies made up by people exactly as I said. You just confirmed my point!
You're argument is therefore religious, circular, and a god-of-the-gaps argument disguised behind a load of distracting rhetoric based on biased observations, proposed intelligences divested of anything that makes intelligence and its products possible, and biased analogies.
I told you: read for comprehension!
Photosynthesis
it seems hard for you to grasp that we start from scientific observation:
namely:
- the cell IS a factory
- proteins ARE machines
- DNA IS hardware and software
- DNA stores literally coded information.
the inference of design is based on the KNOWLEDGE OF THESE FACTS.
Thats why it is not a gaps argument.
capiche ?
- the cell IS a factory
- proteins ARE machines
- DNA IS hardware and software
- DNA stores literally coded information.
Wrong on every count. Analogy is not equivalence.
I wonder why you are not pointing out the flaws in my argument that grapefruit are produced by factories. Is it perhaps that my question was too difficult for you? I can try make a simpler example if that will help you.
Lutesuite:
"Wrong on every count."
Do you ever science ? scratching head.......
No Otangelo, the claim for design is not based on knowledge about any facts. It's based on cherry-picked "observations," mere analogies, and god-of-the-gaps, since you think that no natural process, other than the phenomena of intelligence (which is a natural phenomenon itself), can account for what you see in nature, or whatever.
You put the cart before the horse, you rely heavily on your religious beliefs, and you try desperately to discount evolutionary processes (or any natural process, except for intelligence, which you try not to count as a natural phenomenon) to leave a gap right there, a gap that you proceed to fill with a god.
Otangelo Grasso: "Do you ever science ? scratching head......."
Can you, if possible, look up "metaphor"?
Will then adding "analogy" to that cause a brain-overload for you?
@Otangelo Grasso
I would like to return to the question that you still have not answered. And I don't understand why, it's like you are afraid of what will happen if you answer it. Are you afraid of telling us what you believe? Are you embarassed of what you will answer?
If not, why not just answer?
If the bible said that reason itself is wrong and not to be used, would you accept that, believe it and follow the bible?
You don't have to preach, or quote the bible, you can just answer "yes I would" or "no I would not".
Okay? This shouldn't be hard to answer.
Beginning to suspect I have actually convinced Otangelo that grapefruit are made in factories. Certainly my faux argumenst is every bit as strong as the one he makes in earnest for "design."
Mikkel
the bible urges us in Romans 12 to a " reasonable service ". logikên latreian in greek can also be translated in a " logical service". Evidently, if God has given us rationality, it is to use it.
But there is another part as well, where the bible says in 1. Corinthians 2.14:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Spiritually discerned means, there are expressions of the spirit of God, which cannot be discerned and understood rationally , as they go beyond that.
So the bible must be understood rather pragmatically and practical, rather than theoretically.
So, Otangelo, are you
a) too stupid to understand Mikkel's question? Or,
b) too dishonest to answer it directly?
Just an "a" or "b response will suffice. ("Both" is also an option.)
Christ, but that Dembki is an ignorant blowhard. I pity the IDiots who feel obliged to read his stuff. Though, TBH, I doubt many of them do. They just mindlessly cut and paste quotations from it, heedless of the fact that these quotations are vapid nonsense. Can you believe someone could have studied evolution as well as Dembski claims to have, and yet not even understand the concept of natural selection?
Otangelo,
Please refrain from quoting idiots. I could not care less. Try and make your own points, and, while you're at it, make sure that you show that you understand what you were supposed to read. Otherwise I have no option but to assume that you cannot understand anything I'm saying.
Dembski is involved in exactly the same kind of poor philosophy, accompanied by poor biology and poor scientific understanding, to make his "case." Same cherry picking of "observations," same putting the cart before the horse, same reliance on mere analogies, and same claim that no known process can do what's supposed to be explained (gods-of-the-gaps), even though part of what's to be explained is intelligence itself. So, quoting from another religious circularist god-of-the-gaps idiot, like yourself, won't make me fall on my knees. It will only come to confirm what I explained to you and you refuse to even try and understand.
Learn to read for comprehension you fool!
I'm just curious as to how many of the critics of Behe's work on this blog have done the actual experiments to prove his experimental work wrong. I'm going to take a guess and I will say nobody!!!!
Please tell me that not everyone here has put his faith in Lenski's so call break thru experiment with e-coli...
That would be really, really, really bad...
*sigh*
I try again:
IF the bible said that reason itself is wrong and not to be used, would you accept that, believe it and follow the bible?
I know you do not believe the bible says that. Fine, but IF it did, would you then still follow it?
Do you understand the question?
"I'm just curious as to how many of the critics of Behe's work on this blog have done the actual experiments to prove his experimental work wrong. "
Behe has done experimental work?
Of course not.
So, Cruglers, let's hear about the experiments you have performed personally to disprove Lenski's E. coli study, which has now been ongoing for over 25 years.
Obviously you must have done such experiments. You couldn't possibly be so clueless and unashamedly hypocritical to otherwise insist that critics of Behe must have done experiments themselves to refute his work, and then turn around and deny Lenski's work in the next sentence.
Could you?
LOL! Freud would have loved your slips of the tongue, Otangelo.
Dembsky has provided a phenomenal groundbreaking theoretical framework for ID theory. Instructed/specified complexity is one of the pillars, and no proponent of naturalism has been able so far to debunk the prediction that the coded information stored in dna comes only from intelligence. No wonder, all that blinded desperate atheists have left in the end, is insults, rather than rational evidence that gives credence to their beliefs. Nothing new under the sun. Pfff.....
I explained very clearly the problems that you and Dembski have Otangelo. The insults are just what you win after refusing to even try and understand what I'm explaining.
It doesn't matter how much Dembski twists and bends over backwards about information, information has never been a mystery to science, let alone a magical one only explainable by magical "intelligent agents." Dembsk'si thinking has the very same problems I described.
Dembsky has provided a phenomenal groundbreaking theoretical framework for ID theory. Instructed/specified complexity is one of the pillars, and no proponent of naturalism has been able so far to debunk the prediction that the coded information stored in dna comes only from intelligence.
I know you believe that. You also believe killer whales used to eat only grass until a talking snake made a rib woman eat an apple. So why should anyone give a fuck what you believe?
Funny thing with Dembski: Someone once challenged the IDiots on Uncommon Descent to use his CSI concept to calculate the "information" produced in a number of real-life scenarios, and show how this indicated it could only arise thru "intelligence." Not a single one was able to do so. Most of them didn't even know how to calculate CSI, though they insisted it was a very important and valuable concept, just as you do. So why don't you give it a shot, Otangelo, and try answering the questions yoursel? Or admit you're full of shit, yet again:
http://www.softwarematters.org/mathgrrl.html
Oh, one more thing. Dembski's not only an idiot, he's an anti-vaxxer as well. Just more evidence this moron can't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
Typical creationist. Doesn't even know what their own guy, Behe, does. Behe hasn't done any experimental work; analogies are not experiments.
To paraphrase Hitchins, "That which has no experimental work can be refuted with no experimental work."
lutesuite,
Why would I disprove something that has already been disproved? Unlike Darwinists, I will not get funding for nonsense experiments and I will not burn my own money to satisfy people who who can't be satisfied.
However, there are some areas of interest that could get funding, not great, but each step gets funded depending on the results of the preliminary experiments.
1. Origins of life - initial funding $50-250 thousand based on the application and an interview with OOL experts. Once you pass the first stage, the follow up funding could be low, moderate or high. I don't know the numbers but my colleague got through the second stage of another experiment and though it was too much. I hope that some organizations begin to sponsor the Macro-evolution experiments because so far they are proving what everyone already knows for thousands of years; change is inevitable to happen but what constitutes the leap change?
Lutesuite wrote:
"Funny thing with Dembski: Someone once challenged the IDiots on Uncommon Descent to use his CSI concept to calculate the "information" produced in a number of real-life scenarios"
Why would that even be required ? The concept is not hard to understand:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-its-not-that-hard-to-understand/
Start with a standard deck of 52 playing cards. You are told that it has been shuffled thoroughly. Upon examination you find that the deck is perfectly ordered by suit and rank. Will you still believe it was shuffled? Probably not.
Let’s dissect this with a bit of arithmetic. Any arrangement of 52 cards is as statistically likely as any other. A random shuffle has no preferred order as an outcome. One arrangement is just as likely as any other. My windows calculator says there are 8.0658175170943878571660636856404e+67 possible arrangements. That’s 8 followed by 67 zeroes and is calculated by entering 52 and then pressing the n! button which performs the calculation 52x51x50x49x48…x5x4x3x2. That is the complexity part – the number of possible arrangments is huge and there is no physical law that prefers one arrangement over another. Most people intuitively know the number of possible arrangements is a huge number without knowing precisely how huge.
If any one arrangement is as likely as any other why do we conclude the deck was not shuffled if we find it perfectly ordered by rank and suit? Because we intuitively employ the concept of specified/instructed complexity. The perfect ordering is a specification/instruction . Specification/Instruction can be defined as an independently given pattern.
Now apply the concept to the first cell. You need a minimal gen set, proteome, and metabolic network. You need to get it right without evolution, aka you have only chance left.
The task would be far far more challenging than assemble a Jumbojet by chance.
So who helds moronic views here ?
Why would that even be required ? The concept is not hard to understand:
Here's why your example of the deck of cards fails: You are correct that a randomly shuffled deck of card being perfecly arranged by rank and suit would be highly improbable. But so is any other arrangement The only reason we would be shocked if we found such a deck is that we can easily recognize this arrangement. Plus, we know cards are customarily packaged this way when shipped from the manufacturer, so that would be a far more probable explanation than that they arose that way randomly.
However, if you were to memorize any random sequence of all 52 cards, this would be equally improbable, and you should be just as astonished if you ever found a deck that had been randomly shuffled into that precise order. It's just that almost no one ever does memorize random arrangements of cards.
So there is nothing "specified" about a deck of cards arranged by rank and suit. It is only for arbitrary reasons that people recognize this particular arrangmen out the large number of possibilities.
I can't help notice that you not-so-deftly tried to avoid answering the MathGrrl questions. So join the ranks of every single IDiot, including Dembski himself, who have failed to do so. If CSI really was a valid means of detecting "design", answering those questions should be simple.
Oh no! Otangelo fails yet again!
BTW, I should clarify that VJ Torley did answer one of the questions, but that answer revealed that common evolutionary processes are easily able to generate CSI. Once he realized what he had done, he tried to desperately back track on that, but too late. His answer is preserved for posterity as one of the greatest of the many embarrassments suffered by the ID creationist movement. Up there with the time Ann Gauger admitted to a conference that a beneficial mutation had evolved right under her nose in her own lab.
Lutesuite wrote:
"Here's why your example of the deck of cards fails: You are correct that a randomly shuffled deck of card being perfecly arranged by rank and suit would be highly improbable. But so is any other arrangement "
Thats true, but functional proteins in sequental space are EXTREMELY rare. And even IF right handed amino acids would arrange themself by natural mechanisms into functional proteins, as long as they are not interconnected in a functional way, no life.....
Get over it, lutesuite, your world view is bunk.
And as said previously, you do not have evolution at hand prior to dna replication. Only chance.....
Thats true, but functional proteins in sequental space are EXTREMELY rare.
As is each particular arrangement of 52 cards in the deck. You did the math yourself. Yet every time you shuffle the cards, one of them comes up.
The calculation you need to do is of what percentage of potential sequences is "functional" and calculate the odds of these coming up thru random mutations. No IDiot seems interested in doing this. They're only interested in calculating the odds of a specific predetermined sequence arising from that of a related protein, thru a process completely unlike that which occurs in evolution. This is what your fellow IDiot Doug Axe has done, as was recently admitted by another, slightly less idiotic IDiot, VJ Torley. For his efforts, Torley had his article redacted by the head IDiot, Barry Arrington.
Don't you find that interesting? Why would the creationists have to suppress the opinion of one of their own, just because it questions the findings of one of the more prominent members of the movement? Is that how "peer review" works in IDiot-land?
And, needless to say, MathGrrl's questions remain unanswered. I'm beginning to suspect no IDiot can answer them, or that they are all afraid to admit what the answers reveal. Is that it, Otangelo?
Lutesuite wrote
"The calculation you need to do is of what percentage of potential sequences is "functional" and calculate the odds of these coming up thru random mutations."
You are stuck to evolution , not matter how many times its told to you that there was no evolution prior to DNA replication.
A short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45.
Now multiply that with the minimal number of proteins required for the first cell.
And even IF you get the right protein set, they will not be functional, unless the metabolic pathways and interconnection between them is setup as well. And this, all by luck alone. No evolution crutches there.....
You can call me an IDiot how many times as you wish. That does not supress the fact that the irrational viewpoint is all on your side.
Dude still thinks the "first cell" came together all at once from constituent components, rather than evolving. And still thinks evolution can only occur if DNA exists. Then he wonders why he's considered an IDiot.
How are things coming with the MathGrrl questions, Otangelo?
Lutesuite
chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"
If you think evolution can exist without replication, you should maybe go back to college and start with the very basics of biology. Name calling is the reduct of atheists that have no rational arguments left.
That is your case.
Otangelo,
How many times should people tell you that modern cells cannot be stupidly takes as representatives of what a primitive cell might have been like? Do you understand this point at all? If so, then stop quoting mindlessly. Nobody thinks that the first cells were as complex and had as many requirements as current cells. That would be nonsensical.
Then, how many times do we have to explain to you that life didn't have to start with DNA as the genetic material? There's a whole hypothesis about a more primitive life that used RNA as genetic material, and also as catalytic molecules. But even then, if there was an "RNA world" that would not necessarily mean that RNA was the very first replicator. Tons of molecules do a lot of stuff. Your comments only come to show that you have no idea.
Have some self respect and allow yourself to understand the points. We don't think that the first cell was exactly like a modern cell. We don't think that DNA was the very first replicator.
Sure, we don't have a whole understanding about how life started. So what? In no way humanity's ignorance about how life started validates your fantasies. Your fantasies will remain fantasies regardless of what we know or not about life's origins. Stop ridiculing yourself. Stop thinking about gods-of-the-gaps. It will never work. Ignorance is neither excuse, nor validation for your fantasies.
chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"
Oh, look at that. Otangelo Grasso is a lying little shitbag who quote mines scientists and misrepresents their views:
http://www.ru.nl/english/@893712/protocells-formed/
I am shocked - shocked! - to find a good Christian gentleman like yourself lying so blatantly. Shocked, I say!
If you think evolution can exist without replication, you should maybe go back to college and start with the very basics of biology.
And I wonder if Otangelo Grasso The Lying Little Shitbag could quote exactly where I said this. I didn't, of course. He's just a lying little shitbag who likes to tell lies.
What I did say was that reproduction does not require the existence of DNA. Which is true. And even a lying little shitbag like Otangelo Grasso (or ElShamah77, or whatever he's calling himself today) should know that, if he had the first clue about evolution and current thinking on OOL. But I guess he doesn't.
Photosynthesis wrote:
" How many times should people tell you that modern cells cannot be stupidly takes as representatives of what a primitive cell might have been like? "
How many times should i tell you that modern cells ARE representatives of the first cells ?
Recent comparative genomic studies support the latter model and propose that the urancestor was similar to modern organisms in terms of gene content.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic635406.files/Becerra%20et%20al%202007.pdf
Theoretical estimates of the gene content of the Last Common Ansestor’s genome suggest that it was not a progenote or a protocell, but an entity similar to extant prokaryotes.
http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/1005LUCA_ManfredoSeufferheld_JamesWhitfield_Caetano_Anolles.html
New evidence suggests that LUCA was a sophisticated organism after all, with a complex structure recognizable as a cell, researchers report. Their study appears in the journal Biology Direct. The study lends support to a hypothesis that LUCA may have been more complex even than the simplest organisms alive today, said James Whitfield, a professor of entomology at Illinois and a co-author on the study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16431085
the estimate of LUCA's gene content appears to be substantially higher than that proposed previously, with a typical number of over 1000 gene families, of which more than 90% are also functionally characterized.a fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth?
Photosynthesis wrote:
" There's a whole hypothesis about a more primitive life that used RNA as genetic material, and also as catalytic molecules. "
The RNA world is bunk, as many times posted here before. I recommend you educate yourself. I have two topics at my library which treat the issue indepth:
THE RNA WORLD, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
and:
No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities
look it up.
"Tons of molecules do a lot of stuff "
Wow !! That is your science ? are you serious ? blind baseless faith at work here ?!! pfff.. haha.
" Sure, we don't have a whole understanding about how life started. So what? "
therefore naturalism is true ? haha.
btw:
"stop quoting mindlessly, how many times do we have to explain to you , Have some self respect , Stop ridiculing yourself. "
Do you think that kind of answers make yourself looking smarter, or make your worldvice become more true ??!!
And: We still know that jumbos do not self assemble. Neither do so cells.
Otangelo,
Again, that we don't know how life started doesn't mean that your fantasies are true. Get this clearly in your head. Peoples without much knowledge have attributed personalities, desires, anger, and purposes to whatever in nature that they didn't understand. Your fantasy is no better than any volcano god, or thunder god. It's exactly the very same. Hey, that's exactly what your god is even to yourself. A mere filler for whatever we happen not to know. You come and demonstrate so each and every time. You demand explanations for anything you think we won't understand and presto: god-did-it!
I don't conclude that naturalism is true because of what we know or ignore about early events. Nature is right here and now. Undeniably. Gods, on the other hand, have always been fantasies. So nature wins whether we have all the answers or not. Do you get this at all? Try and not be an idiot for a second and imagine that they come to you with some fantasy, and they tell you that such fantasy is the answer. If you don't know an answer, then their fantasy must be true. How seriously would you take them? I would not take them seriously at all. Well, you're exactly like any of them. You come here wth fantasies.
"How many times should i tell you that modern cells ARE representatives of the first cells ?"
No Otangelo. They simply cannot be representatives of the first cells. They can only tell us about their common ancestor, not about the very first life forms.
"Recent comparative genomic studies support the latter model and propose that the urancestor was similar to modern organisms in terms of gene content."
You're mistaking studies about modern cells with studies about first cells. Whatever the ancestor to modern cells might have been like, doesn't mean that no other kinds of cells could have existed previous to those cells. Not even at the same time as those cells. You're been fooled by your lack of understanding. It doesn't matter what LUCA, if there was such a thing, might have been like Otangelo. It doesn't matter because LUCA is not the first life form. LUCA is just the ancestor where all current life would coalesce to.
This has been explained to you ad nauseam. Again, have some self-respect, and read for understanding. You're just ridiculing yourself.
Bill!
Why don't you try to write in English, so that at least some people UNDERSAND and hopefully some of them might respond to your ....
I've just had a long "discussion" with my brother in law who is a very respected intellectual and an agnostic. He warned about people like himself and worst, pure atheists. They need evidence that they themselves do not possess to back up their beliefs ...
Hey Andre, I think you should tell the men in white coats you forgot to take your meds and have been using the computer beyond your weekly alloted time.
Photosynthesis wrote
" Again, that we don't know how life started doesn't mean that your fantasies are true. "
Ah. It means naturalism is true ??!!
But again: A Jumbojet is extremely unlikely to emerge from a Junkyard. The cell is composed of thousands of complex parts that all work together to enable it to perform a multitude of functions and biological processes. Even the first one. Individually, the proteins cannot do anything. Only, after they are interconnected, and collectively, they can. And there is a minimal set, that is NECESSARY. And so is the interconnection. It is just illogical to think that such a sophisticated organism could assemble by chance. It gets even more absurd to think that this living cell would also form by chance and have the capability to reproduce. Life cannot come from non-life even if given infinite time and chance. Hence the Law of Biogenesis: The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from non-living material.
You wrote : " Nature is right here and now. Undeniably.So nature wins whether we have all the answers or not. "
What is, has nothing to do with the question of how it came about to be.....
Again:
Do you get this at all? Try and not be an idiot for a second, You're been fooled by your lack of understanding. have some self-respect, and read for understanding. You're just ridiculing yourself.
Are you THAT in despair that you are unable to get off your adhom crutches ? This is tiresome, and does not add anything to a healthy debate.
@ Otangelo:
How many times should i tell you that modern cells ARE representatives of the first cells ?
Recent comparative genomic studies support the latter model and propose that the urancestor was similar to modern organisms in terms of gene content.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic635406.files/Becerra%20et%20al%202007.pdf
Theoretical estimates of the gene content of the Last Common Ansestor’s genome suggest that it was not a progenote or a protocell, but an entity similar to extant prokaryotes.
How many times do you need to be told that the LUCA is not the same thing as the "first cell"? It did not exist until millions of years after the origin of life. This is really basic knowledge, but somehow you have failed to grasp it in all your "study" of biology. It makes me wonder what that "study" has involved.
Are you THAT in despair that you are unable to get off your adhom crutches ? This is tiresome, and does not add anything to a healthy debate.
"Healthy debate" requires that all participants have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject, as well as the ability the think critically and the willingness to actually understand the opposing point of view. You fail on all accounts, so all that is left is to ridicule and insult you, since that is all you deserve. I think it is doing them a disservice if we allow creationists to form the impression that they have anything to contribute to a meaningful debate. Their role in the study of biology is the equivalent of that of Holocaust deniers in the study of 20th century history. They have no place at the table. They only deserve to be marginalized and, to the extent possible, ignored.
Otangelo,
"Ah. It means naturalism is true ??!!"
No you idiot. It means that we don't know how life started. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that god-did-it. It doesn't mean that fantasies will suddenly become real. Do you get it now?
"And there is a minimal set, that is NECESSARY. And so is the interconnection."
Necessary, perhaps, for a nowadays cell Otangelo. That doesn't tell you what would be necessary for a primitive life form. This is so simple I'm amazed that you refuse to even recognize that you've been told this so many times.
"It is just illogical to think that such a sophisticated organism could assemble by chance"
I agree. Now who believes that organisms assemble by chance?
"It gets even more absurd to think that this living cell would also form by chance and have the capability to reproduce."
Agreed again. Who thinks in such a way? Do you think I think that organisms assemble by chance? Why would you think such a stupid thing? Are you that much of an idiot?
"Life cannot come from non-life"
Of course life can come from non-life. It happens all the fucking time. Do you think everything your mother ate was alive when you were in gestation?
"... What is, has nothing to do with the question of how it came about to be....."
Yet you keep quoting analyses of nowadays cells to argue that the first cells must have been exactly like today's cells. Wouldn't that make yo a hypocrite? It works when it suits you, it doesn't work when it doesn't suit you?
But you're missing the point. The point is that nature is right here and now. Gods are fantasies. I'm therefore pretty much inclined towards nature as having the answers. Do you get it?
Feel as offended as you wish, nature will still be there, and gods will remain fantasies. That's all it takes to notice the futility of your position.
The irony of it all, is that while Otangelo comes up with this gem:
"And there is a minimal set, that is NECESSARY."
the professor Otangelo quote mines, prof. Huck, actually is doing experiments how these first cells came to be. The link Luitsuite posted is really interesting for two reasons: the experimental setup Huck is using and it also shows the quote mine and obvious lie by Otangelo.
Ed wrote:
" it also shows the quote mine and obvious lie by Otangelo."
Is it? So a minimal set of genes, proteins, and metabolic network is not necessary ? LOL
So are following papers also lying ?
COMPARATIVE GENOMICS, MINIMAL GENE-SETS AND THE LAST UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/CBS/courses/brazilworkshop/files/koonin_NRM_2003.pdf
There seems to be a limited number of indispensable cellular functions, but the number of unique realizations of the minimal gene-set for cellular life is likely to be astronomically large.
The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
Following metabolic pathways are required and indispensable:
Sphingolipid metabolism
Pantothenate and CoA biosynthesis
Galactose metabolism
Drug metabolism - other enzymes
Starch and sucrose metabolism
fructose and mannose metabolism
pentose and glucuronate interconversions
Lipopolysaccaride biosynthesis
cyanoamino acid metabolism
Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm
A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
DNA polymerase capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
Ribosomes capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
An enzyme that can build cell walls
An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes
ElShamah777,
Simple and direct question you little fool: do you understand the difference between a LUCA and the first cells?
Please do look it up. It's getting tiresome that you refuse to even check this concept. LUCA stands for last universal common ancestor, not first life form. The word "last" is there to clarify that there's previous ancestors to the last one. The word "last" means "more recent." LUCA refers to the life form where all current life would coalesce. That doesn't mean that it is the first cell ever to exist. That doesn't even mean that it was the only cell existing at the time.
Even the first paragraph in the wikipedia says: "Thus, it is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all current life on Earth"
Look it up and stop being so stubborn at your stupidity!
"Following metabolic pathways are required and indispensable"
Then the poor idiot lists a bunch of stuff that deals with molecules produced by other life forms! Why the hell would an incipient life form have any need to deal with molecules that are not being produced yet!?
Otangelo you're too much of an idiot. But really too much of an idiot. An uneducable idiot.
Otangelo, you are such a sniveling little liar. And you're so stupid you don't even understand the articles you quote mine. You write:
Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm
A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell....
Yet the article you quoted earlier to support your point clearly says:
In a solution containing the biomolecules that are normally locked in a cell (like DNA, RNA, enzymes, proteins) these large biomolecules clustered together spontaneously when the salt concentration was increased. This indicates that a cell wall is not a prerequisite for a cell-like structure.
Did you not understand what the part I put in bold means? Are your really so stupid?
Post a Comment