Key prediction of Darwinian evolution falsified?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 29, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Biological life requires thousands of different protein families, about 70% of which are ‘globular’ proteins, each with a 3-dimensional shape that is unique to each family of proteins. An example is shown in the picture at the top of this post. This 3D shape is necessary for a particular biological function and is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries. Instead, they use information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins.

Indeed, our 21st century supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures. Nonetheless, a foundational prediction of neo-Darwinian theory is that a ploddingly slow evolutionary process consisting of genetic drift, mutations, insertions and deletions must be able to ‘find’ not just one, but thousands of sequences pre-determined by physics that will have different stable, functional 3D structures. So how does this falsifiable prediction hold up when tested against real data? As ought to be the case in science, I have made available my program so that you can run your own data and verify for yourself the kinds of probabilities these protein families represent. More.

Readers? Sensible responses wanted. (It’s getting so Darwin’s tenured trolls have nothing to offer but sneers, persecution, and—in the case of those afflicted with religiosity—Jesus-hollers in response.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Mohammadnursyamsu @166 In answer to your “counter-questions”:
1 do you accept that beauty is real but not a scientific fact?
Beauty is real, but subjective. There is a statistical truth that certain things are most likely to be considered “beautiful” by humans, but that is merely an observation about a subjective determination.
2 if so, then acknowledging there are real things outside of science, why cannot God be outside of science?
Definitely some God COULD exist. I’ve never denied that. And if any God does exist, that God is most definitely outside of science. But that being the case, attempts to “prove” God, or to use God in a scientific explanation are improper: whatever God exists is OUTSIDE science.
3 if not, then what is the worth of a human being mathematically?
This is a meaningless question. Whether or not a God exists, human “worth” is not a quantity; it is a quality. Qualities have no “mathematical value”.
4 is freedom real and relevant in the universe?
Yes.
5 if so what is that freedom doing in the universe, what are the results of the decisions
Freedom is not “something doing something in the universe”; freedom is a term we use to refer to the ability of sentient beings to make choices based on information and reason. Freedom is not a thing, it is an attribute of some things.
6 if not then why are using logic in common discourse which says that freedom is real and relevant?
I don’t know what this question is asking, but I think my answer to #5 and the “if not” mean you don’t expect an answer to this one. sean s.sean samis_{August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PST}

Silver Asiatic @163 Regarding my statement that existence means having properties:
It’s not reasonable because it’s arbitrary. Should we expect 10 properties and 25 relationships? Or should we expect a million different properties and relationships? How many would we expect.
It’s no more arbitrary than any other definition; this is just what “existence” means. There is no specific number of properties or relationships required except that it be strictly more than zero. Considering all the arbitrary claims you make about your God, this complaint is hypocritical.
What happens is we have a specific number of relationships, ordered processes and properties. These things, for no reason, work together to produce other things. But that’s a question that remains unanswered.
Actually, there’s no question in that statement. Things do work together, producing other things. That is observable. There is a reason (a cause) for their behavior: the forces of nature act when these things come in contact or even in proximity to each other; and they come in contact or proximity to each other constantly.
Instead of saying that “we just started with exactly that number of physical processes and forces and properties for some unknown reason”, the idea that God who possesses all being and power to create forces and properties is less arbitrary.
Claiming that some unproven and unprovable deity just happens to exist and just happens to possess all the requisite properties is the height of ‘arbitrary’. arbitrary: adjective: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. A claim that “we just started with a deity having exactly the right number of properties for some unknown reason” is pure arbitrariness.
That way, any number that are created are explained as coming from the fullness of Being,...
“Fullness of being” is a meaningless expression. It’s just words strung together; pretty but vacuous.
...rather than “that specific result is just what happened for no reason”.
We do know the cause, we just don’t know about any purpose or intent. But we really don’t need to know those things anyway. We know the ‘how’; the ‘what for’ is for philosophers and theologians.
We couldn’t expect something like that at all.
This is an arbitrary claim demanding some evidence. What we expect has little bearing on what actually happens. Regarding my 10 questions:
1. Where did you God come from? Did He just “pop into existence”?
No, God is existence. Non-contingent being. God is the source and cause of the intelligent design we observe – the order we observe. The alternative is that Nothing created it, as you have chosen to believe.
The alternative is a non-contingent multiverse (or something along those lines) which would be the root and source and cause of all that we observe. This is what I suspect exists; and it is far, far from nothing.
2. Why would that be an acceptable explanation?
It’s acceptable because it’s logical. We know intelligence creates order. It’s the only known source of it. Therefore, the order in the universe came from intelligence outside the universe. That’s God and that’s logical. Saying it came from Nothing is not logical.
My alternative is logical too, and simpler. We know intelligence creates order, but we don’t know that all order is created by intelligence.. Intelligence is NOT the “only known source of” order. Snow flakes, the human mind, life on Earth; these examples of order are things we don’t know were created by any intelligence. They appear to be quite natural.
3. What is the origin of the properties you claim your God has?
God is the self-existing source of those properties from the fullness of being that is God. God is the actualization of all potential being, and non-dependent on any other being. God is the permanent, uncreated being — the first cause and creator of the contingent, created world. This is necessary if you want a cause for everything that exists. If you don’t want a cause, then you say everything came from Nothing. But that’s not logical since some prior potential is required to make anything actual. But Nothing has no potential, thus it cannot create being.
The multiverse of which I’ve written could be a self-existing source of its own properties. It could be a permanent, uncreated thing; it could be the first cause and creator of any contingent, created thing. It could be the prior potential for all that is actual.
4. Where did His order and regularity come from?
Order and regularity are aspects of the perfection of goodness that is God. Since God is perfect fullness of being, God is perfect goodness. Since God is perfect goodness, He is lacking nothing. Disorder is a lack of perfection, order is a completion of perfection. Thus, God is the source of order since He is the source of all Being, and He is complete in Himself.
Order and regularity would be aspects of the multiverse’s existence. It would be the source of order and all that exists. All that Platonic stuff about perfection is irrelevant.
5. Where did His intelligence come from?
As with everything in God, there is no prior cause. God is uncaused Being. As I said, when you say something “just exists” that’s what we say about God. But we know about characteristics of God from what we oberve in creation. We observe imperfect, ocntingent intelligence, so the cause must be perfect, non-contingent intelligence. We observe imperfect lesser powers, the cause must be maxium, perfect power. That’s the scale of values we find in the universe – it leads to God.
Intelligence is just one of the contingent things that exists as a result of the singular creation event that resulted in us. Intelligence is no more a fundamental property of reality than “leafiness” or “creepiness”. Your Platonic ideal (the contingent being imperfect examples of perfect forms) has no rational basis. It’s a fine religion, but rationally, it is irrelevant and has been obsolete for millennia.
6. Name for me an example of a “self-existing intelligence” other than your God.
There can only be one self-existing entity. You are claiming that the universe is self-existing, that it was caused by Nothing and it just started to exist.
This is false; I’ve never said anything like that. The multiverse could be self-existing, which means it never “started to exist”; it would exist eternally.
But this doesn’t explain any of the contingent features of the universe. Why is it dependent on other things? How could there be a moment when the universe started when there was Nothing for an infinite eternity?
You have not been paying attention. Our universe is only a temporary thing in a small corner of something larger and permanent. You cannot make valid inferences about a multiverse from our universe, less even than you could make inferences about the ocean from the pebbles on an island beach.
7. Name for me an example of any “self-existing” thing we know of other than your God.
Everything we observe is dependent on other things for its existence. The universe itself is dependent. Since tracing dependencies back would lead to an infinite regress — and thus no universe — God must be the self-existing, non-dependent First Reality which explains the contingent universe.
The multiverse can fill the role of self-existing, non-dependent, First Reality; fully explaining our tiny, insignificant, contingent universe. No deity is required.
8. If we don’t know of any other “self-existing” thing, why would your God be a reasonable idea?
It’s reasonable because we observe that things exist. The only way to explain them is as you said: 1. The popped into existence from Nothing or 2. They were created by something that is self-existent.
Exactly. But item 2 does not need to be a deity. A permanent, eternal multiverse fills that bill nicely; and is far simpler than a deity; thus satisfying Ockham’s Razor.
If they were created by something not self-existent, then we still have to ask where that came from and what caused it. That leads to an infinite regress. An infinite sequence back never has a starting point. Instead, the idea that there is a self-existent Being is logically consistent since it explains the beginning and source of all the being we observe without having an infinite regress.
Exactly. A permanent, eternal multiverse can explain the beginning and source of all being we observe without an infinite regress and without a deity.
9. If something is “self-existing” please explain why it must be an intelligence.
This is an inference based on what we observe. First, we observe being and to trace its origin, we discover that a self-existing being is necessary. We observe intelligence, therefore the fullness of intelligence is necessary.
Again the Platonic fallacy. There’s zero evidence that Platonic forms are anything more than an outdated idea. Contingent zebras do not prove the existence of a Perfect Zebra. Contingent intelligence does not prove the existence of a Perfect intelligence. As with Platonic “forms” likewise for Aristotelian “essences”; these are concepts ancient people came up with in an effort to explain certain things, concepts that have been overtaken by time and the evidence.
Intelligence is a power of being. We know this from beings we observe.
We observe many things that “have being” which have no observable intelligence.
The capacity to know something is a greater power than not-having that capacity. The self-existing being must necessarily have the greatest capabilities and powers of being and therefoe must have intelligence and must be the source of intelligence.
Human beings have intelligence. Lightning does not. Lightning fries humans without a thought, it is far more powerful than any human, and yet it has no observable mind. The ability to have an effect on something else does not require intelligence, nor does it require “greater power”.
...it’s more logical to say that a self-existent being created it all and sustains it in existence.
A permanent, eternal multiverse can explain the creation and sustenance of all in existence, without resorting to religion and deities. sean s.sean samis_{August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PST}

@Sean Samis 1 God is in the creator category, not in the creation category. 2 Subjectivity is logically valid. 3 see 1 4 see 1 5 see 1 6 the human soul 7 see 6 8 see 6 9 because all in the creation category choose 10 a lack of love counterquestions 1 do you accept that beauty is real but not a scientific fact? 2 if so, then acknowledging there are real things outside of science, why cannot God be outside of science? 3 if not, then what is the worth of a human being mathematically? 4 is freedom real and relevant in the universe? 5 if so what is that freedom doing in the universe, what are the results of the decisions 6 if not then why are using logic in common discourse which says that freedom is real and relevant?mohammadnursyamsu_{August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PST}

Zachriel, "It’s not supported. It’s simply your chosen default position for what you don’t know." It is overwhelmingly supported from what we do know as to the activity of intelligence. Whereas, no one has EVER seen unguided material processes produce comparable systems of integrated complexity.bornagain77_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: The proposal that the order we perceive in our universe ultimately came from intelligence remains the best supported explanation. It's not supported. It's simply your chosen default position for what you don't know.Zachriel_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PST}

sean s
Whatever exists has properties; that is what existence means. In our universe, the creation of everything in a singular creation event pretty clearly makes it quite reasonable to expect properties allowing things to interact and relate to many other things.
It's not reasonable because it's arbitrary. Should we expect 10 properties and 25 relationships? Or should we expect a million different properties and relationships? How many would we expect. What happens is we have a specific number of relationships, ordered processes and properties. These things, for no reason, work together to produce other things. But that's a question that remains unanswered. Instead of saying that "we just started with exactly that number of physical processes and forces and properties for some unknown reason", the idea that God who possesses all being and power to create forces and properties is less arbitrary. That way, any number that are created are explained as coming from the fullness of Being, rather than "that specific result is just what happened for no reason". We couldn't expect something like that at all.
1. Where did you God come from? Did He just “pop into existence”?
No, God is existence. Non-contingent being. God is the source and cause of the intelligent design we observe - the order we observe. The alternative is that Nothing created it, as you have chosen to believe.
2. Why would that be an acceptable explanation?
It's acceptable because it's logical. We know intelligence creates order. It's the only known source of it. Therefore, the order in the universe came from intelligence outside the universe. That's God and that's logical. Saying it came from Nothing is not logical.
3. What is the origin of the properties you claim your God has?
God is the self-existing source of those properties from the fullness of being that is God. God is the actualization of all potential being, and non-dependent on any other being. God is the permanent, uncreated being -- the first cause and creator of the contingent, created world. This is necessary if you want a cause for everything that exists. If you don't want a cause, then you say everything came from Nothing. But that's not logical since some prior potential is required to make anything actual. But Nothing has no potential, thus it cannot create being.
4. Where did His order and regularity come from?
Order and regularity are aspects of the perfection of goodness that is God. Since God is perfect fullness of being, God is perfect goodness. Since God is perfect goodness, He is lacking nothing. Disorder is a lack of perfection, order is a completion of perfection. Thus, God is the source of order since He is the source of all Being, and He is complete in Himself.
5. Where did His intelligence come from?
As with everything in God, there is no prior cause. God is uncaused Being. As I said, when you say something "just exists" that's what we say about God. But we know about characteristics of God from what we oberve in creation. We observe imperfect, ocntingent intelligence, so the cause must be perfect, non-contingent intelligence. We observe imperfect lesser powers, the cause must be maxium, perfect power. That's the scale of values we find in the universe - it leads to God.
6. Name for me an example of a “self-existing intelligence” other than your God.
There can only be one self-existing entity. You are claiming that the universe is self-existing, that it was caused by Nothing and it just started to exist. But this doesn't explain any of the contingent features of the universe. Why is it dependent on other things? How could there be a moment when the universe started when there was Nothing for an infinite eternity?
7. Name for me an example of any “self-existing” thing we know of other than your God.
Everything we observe is dependent on other things for its existence. The universe itself is dependent. Since tracing dependencies back would lead to an infinite regress -- and thus no universe -- God must be the self-existing, non-dependent First Reality which explains the contingent universe.
8. If we don’t know of any other “self-existing” thing, why would your God be a reasonable idea?
It's reasonable because we observe that things exist. The only way to explain them is as you said: 1. The popped into existence from Nothing or 2. They were created by something that is self-existent. If they were created by something not self-existent, then we still have to ask where that came from and what caused it. That leads to an infinite regress. An infinite sequence back never has a starting point. Instead, the idea that there is a self-existent Being is logically consistent since it explains the beginning and source of all the being we observe without having an infinite regress.
9. If something is “self-existing” please explain why it must be an intelligence.
This is an inference based on what we observe. First, we observe being and to trace its origin, we discover that a self-existing being is necessary. We observe intelligence, therefore the fullness of intelligence is necessary. Intelligence is a power of being. We know this from beings we observe. The capacity to know something is a greater power than not-having that capacity. The self-existing being must necessarily have the greatest capabilities and powers of being and therefoe must have intelligence and must be the source of intelligence. We observe creatures that know things, but only imperfectly. They gain knowledge from other things over time. Their knowledge is dependent on other things. A self-existing being is not dependent on anything else. If something is self-existing it is not dependent on anything else for its existence. A self-existing being would possess the fullness of all the powers of being (since it cannot get any more being elsewhere) and intelligence is one of those powers.
10. You claim that apart from a designer, disorder (“chaos”) reigns. Where did this chaos come from
You're right to quesiton this. Since Chaos is a kind of Being, it can only come from self-existing being. So, even to say "we started with Chaos" does not explain the origin of things. It's starting with something that already has properties -- which Chaos does have properties. Also, Chaos cannot exist unless there is some kind of order to create chaos. A truly random bunch of things would have no limits -- so it would have every possible property, including the property of destroying everything. In the end, that would leave us with Nothing. But the alternative is to say that Being and Order "just exist". But instead of saying that imperfect, depending things which could all disappear over an infinite period of time, just exist, it's more logical to say that a self-existent being created it all and sustains it in existence.Silver Asiatic_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PST}

Silver Asiatic; In #157 you continue the pattern. You demand explanations but provide none. Saying “that’s the way it is” is nowhere near saying “God just exists”. Some things just exist; that’s a given. No specific thing (like your God) necessarily exists just because some other things do “just exist”. Existence does not need or require your God. In fact, the whole point of this entire conversation is your attempt to make your God seem necessary. You have yet to explain the origin of your God, or the origin of your God’s order, regularity, and intelligence. You wrote that if I “could explain the origin of those properties and interactions, you would have to start from a state of Non-Order and Non-Relationships and show how Chaos (essentailly) created those ordered aspects.” I need explain the origins of these properties NO MORE than you need to explain the origin of non-order or disorder. Whatever exists has properties; that is what existence means. In our universe, the creation of everything in a singular creation event pretty clearly makes it quite reasonable to expect properties allowing things to interact and relate to many other things. Why would we expect otherwise when a Universe is created? Like every other claim you make, you’ve never explained it. You make bold assertions but provide no explanations. Time for you to step up. 1. Where did you God come from? Did He just “pop into existence”? 2. Why would that be an acceptable explanation? 3. What is the origin of the properties you claim your God has? 4. Where did His order and regularity come from? 5. Where did His intelligence come from? 6. Name for me an example of a “self-existing intelligence” other than your God. 7. Name for me an example of any “self-existing” thing we know of other than your God. 8. If we don’t know of any other “self-existing” thing, why would your God be a reasonable idea? 9. If something is “self-existing” please explain why it must be an intelligence. 10. You claim that apart from a designer, disorder (“chaos”) reigns. Where did this chaos come from? sean s.sean samis_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PST}

sean s
Order can be explained by the creation of everything in a singular creation event.
Order is much more difficult to explain than disorder. Sure, you can say that complex arrangements, relationships, properties and forces "just started to exist". But the idea of reductionism is to go back to initial conditions in the attempt to uncover the origin of things. If you have to start with complex order, then that's an assertion not an explanation. It's the same as saying "everything just started to exist".
If order needs an explanation, then so does disorder. If we can accept one then we can accept both UNLESS YOU GIVE A REASON WHY WE CANNOT ACCEPT BOTH.
There are several answers here. First, we see approximations of chaos in nature -- although even that always contains order. But from what we know of disorder, it's a simpler state to explain than complex order. For example, we could try to explain the movement of every molecule. However, it's enough to say "they're random". Secondly, the question is "where did this come from"? Your answer is that "it just did", or things just popped into existence. Again, that doesn't explain the origin of anything, but even still, the more order and systemic-processing we see in an initial state, the more questions have to go unanswered. Disorder is a simpler state. If no order, then disorder. But we know disorder cannot create the order we see. So then what? You're saying the order just came into existence on its own. If no order, then disorder. As you said elsewhere, if no disorder - then Nothing. If no properties, then Nothing. Once you have Nothing, then you will always have Nothing. So, even disorder, if that was the initial state, has to be explained. Where did the disorder come from? Again, intelligence is the only reasonable solution. You claim to have explained order, but all you've said is that things started and they had certain complex properties. So far, these properties and combinations came from nowhere. If you said it was Chaos at the beginning, at least that would align with the idea of No-Intelligence to some degree. But not really. The more complex, specified order we observe, the more likely it is an Intelligent cause.
What you have not explained is why you ASSUME everything had to start from disorder absent a designer.
Moving from a state where there is absolutely Nothing, to a state where there is Order or Disorder, is impossible to explain scientifically or philosophically. But that's what you're saying. There was Nothing, then there was Order. But it's far more reasonable to assert that God exists as the source of Being and Intelligence. There is far more evidence for God than for things just popping up from Nothing. So, if you look at the two options 1. -- things appear from Nothing complete with Order 2. -- an Intelligence designed the order we observe The second option is more reasonable because we know Intelligence can design things, but we have no way to even explain how Nothing can create anything at all.
Now please give a reason why—absent a designer—we’d have to start with an initial state of disorder.
Absent a designer, we start with Nothing. You're saying that everything came from Nothing. You accept that as a better solution than that God does exist.
Like Zachriel @ 153, I don’t deny your God exists; I deny having any reason to believe your God does exist.
I gave you the choices. You can choose that everything came from Nothing, for which we cannot possibly have evidence to support -- or that God exists, for which we have abundant evidence in support.
You propose an imaginary set of requirements to force your deity (conveniently possessing everything you can’t explain) into this question, and then you criticize me for supposedly doing what you are doing?
No, I criticize you for accepting that complex ordered relationships, systems, processes, forces and properties came into existence from Nothing as a better explanation than God, as the source of being, order and intelligence crated them. But there is some equivalency. There is an imaginary multiverse with things coming from nothing, or God with a rational basis for understanding the origin of intelligence, morality, purpose and the inter-relatedness of things.
Neither can your designer explain it’s order or existence. If we are going to assume that SOMETHING exists which does not need to be explained, there’s no reason to ASSUME it has intelligence or purpose.
Now we're back to Chaos as the origin of things. We know Intelligence can create order. That's why Intelligence is the best explanation for the order we see. What can purposelessness produce?
A spontaneously-acting, mindless multiverse works just fine for that purpose.
That's not your explanation. What you're saying works is "There was Nothing. Then a complex universe with ordered relationships appeared out of nothing". For you, it seems that explanation works very well. I don't think you're being reasonable though.Silver Asiatic_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PST}

sean samis- Evolutionism doesn't have any predictions beyond change and stasis.Virgil Cain_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PST}

sean samis claims that:
And to get back to the OP (remember the OP?) no key prediction of evolution has been falsified. sean s.
Actually contrary to what sean samis wants to believe philosophically in spite of the evidence (i.e. atheistic materialism), and in spite of the fact that Darwinism is a pseudo-science with no rigid mathematical demarcation criteria that would allow one to falsify it by experimentation, Darwinism has been falsified experimentally in perhaps its most fundamental prediction. Specifically, Darwinism is falsified in its prediction that information is reducible to a material basis: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/key-prediction-of-darwinian-evolution-falsified/#comment-573880 Besides that falsification of a fundamental prediction of Darwinian/Materialistic claims, here are many more fundamental predictions of Darwinism that have been falsified:
Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
bornagain77_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic @152
It’s not that disorder is expected, but that something has to explain the order we observe.
Then you have to explain why an explanation is required. If disorder is not expected (as you wrote) then order is not surprising. Order can be explained by the creation of everything in a singular creation event.
It’s not that order is expected, it’s merely that something other than the order we observe has to explain it.
If order needs an explanation, then so does disorder. If we can accept one then we can accept both UNLESS YOU GIVE A REASON WHY WE CANNOT ACCEPT BOTH.
The reason you have to start there is because you’re trying to explain order.
And I have. Done. What you have not explained is why you ASSUME everything had to start from disorder absent a designer.
...you’d have to give a reason for starting with an initial state that possesses ordered laws, processes and properties.
Done. Now please give a reason why—absent a designer—we’d have to start with an initial state of disorder.
Why is everything embued with order and consistency? Where did that come from?
Answered. Where would informal chaos come from?
So, we’re back to the question. The way you answered it is this:
It doesn’t need to have come “from” anything apart from the initial creation event. It’s just part of the Universe’s initial conditions.
In other words, “it just is”.
Which is no different than your claim that—absent your God—“disorder just is”. Why need to explain order but just assume disorder?
With this, you have no basis to deny that God exists.
Like Zachriel @ 153, I don’t deny your God exists; I deny having any reason to believe your God does exist. Those are two very different positions.
...God is by far the much more reasonable explanation for what we observe.
Except of course that these “reasonable explanations” are built on unreasonable expectations and assumptions. Pull them out and your “reasonable explanations” become irrelevant.
You can only propose an imaginary concept that possesses everything that you can’t explain.
Chuckle. You propose an imaginary set of requirements to force your deity (conveniently possessing everything you can’t explain) into this question, and then you criticize me for supposedly doing what you are doing? @156:
A multiverse, even though it can explain our universe, does not explain it’s own order or existence.
Neither can your designer explain it’s order or existence. If we are going to assume that SOMETHING exists which does not need to be explained, there’s no reason to ASSUME it has intelligence or purpose. A spontaneously-acting, mindless multiverse works just fine for that purpose. sean s.sean samis_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PST}

sean s. That was a pretty good analysis of the questions, although you continue to miss something that I've repeated.
Something to remember is that if something—anything—exists, it necessarily has certain intrinsic properties. What those properties are depends on the thing in question, but a thing without intrinsic properties is what NOTHING is. Since our universe exists, it must have intrinsic properties.
This brings us a step closer. But notice that this is not an explanation for the origin of things. You're just saying "that's the way it is". It's the same as saying "God just exists". You're saying that if anything exists, it comes ready-made with properties which allow it to interact and relate to many other things. Why? If you could explain the origin of those properties and interactions, you would have to start from a state of Non-Order and Non-Relationships and show how Chaos (essentailly) created those ordered aspects. However, failing that, it's just saying "that's the way it is". But that's not different from saying "God made it that way". In fact, saying God made it is better, since God is an explanation for why we see all these ordered properties and relationships. Without God, the explanation just has Nothingness. It's just "things popped into existence with all those features already in place". So, the conclusion that a self-existing intelligence designed those properties is far better.
When we say our universe is ordered, we mean the matter and forces in our universe have a relationship to each other. When we say our universe is regular we mean events and interactions occur in patterned ways.
Exactly - that's a good description. There's quite a lot of complexity in all of that -- properties, forces, relationships and one thing causing another ... all of that either came from somewhere or "it just is". But if it "just is", that's not an explanation for it's origin. There's no basis to then claim "I need evidence for God" since you'd accept that things just exist which have no evidence at all for their origin.
Since it is believed that everything in our universe was created by a singular creation event, then it is not surprising that everything created in that singular event shares properties; everything is related to everything else. Our order and regularity traces back to this shared creation event. Everything is related to everything else by a common origin.
That works well as evidence for the existence of God. The properties are shared because they come from a single intelligence. Without God, the creation event just created properties out of nothing. So, it's still Chaos producing order. The proposal that intelligence produced order is stronger because we know that Intelligence can create things.
But this conclusion does absolutely rule out any NEED for a designer.
The conclusion that "things pop into existence with ordered properties and relationships" does eliminate the need for a designer. But it's not an explanation, so the origin of those things remains unknown. The proposal that there is a Designer is far more reasonable.
proponents of a designed universe need to explain why a rational, reasonable person would not expect order or regularity to arise from a singular creation event, even if completely spontaneous and unguided.
As said, we have zero evidence that an unguided, accidental event, lacking order can create order. This could be tested. We do have evidence that intelligence can create order. So, intelligence is the better explanation. The alternative to that is that everything just came into existence already with order and relationships with no idea on their origin except "that's just the way it was". But we never see spontaneous combustions, for example, explosions, creating complex ordered relationships among particles. They actually break apart order.Silver Asiatic_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST}

Z If the multiverse is a proposal you'd accept, then you have no basis to deny that God exists. You agreed with this. Thus we have two possible explanations for the order we observe in the universe.
However, just because we don’t know the reason the universe exhibits order doesn’t constitute evidence of a designer.
Right. There are two explanations for the order we observe, so we judge which is more reasonable. One, it was created by a multiverse. Or, it was created by an initial, self-existing intelligence (God). We know that intelligence can create order. A multiverse, even though it can explain our universe, does not explain it's own order or existence. The proposal that the order we perceive in our universe ultimately came from intelligence remains the best supported explanation.Silver Asiatic_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PST}

This conversation has wandered far away from the OP. (Remember the OP?) We’re no longer discussing the origin of terrestrial life, but a much different topic: does order and regularity in our universe need a special explanation apart from it being just a product of our universe’s creation? On one side is the idea that, short of the action of an intelligent designer, our universe should have no order or regularity because (lacking an intelligent designer) its creation would have been accidental and necessarily without any “design features”. An intelligent designer would be needed. On the other side is the idea that if any properties are described as fundamental or intrinsic to our universe, there’s no special problem with including order and regularity among them. No special explanation is needed. No intelligent designer is needed. How does a reasonable, rational person decide between these two points of view? Something to remember is that if something—anything—exists, it necessarily has certain intrinsic properties. What those properties are depends on the thing in question, but a thing without intrinsic properties is what NOTHING is. Since our universe exists, it must have intrinsic properties. When we say our universe is ordered, we mean the matter and forces in our universe have a relationship to each other. When we say our universe is regular we mean events and interactions occur in patterned ways. Since it is believed that everything in our universe was created by a singular creation event, then it is not surprising that everything created in that singular event shares properties; everything is related to everything else. Our order and regularity traces back to this shared creation event. Everything is related to everything else by a common origin. This conclusion does not rule out a designer for our universe; in fact nothing ever can. But this conclusion does absolutely rule out any NEED for a designer. It’s possible our universe was designed by the “FSM”; but there’s no reason to think so. Likewise for any other cosmological designer. Rather than needing a special explanation for order and regularity, proponents of a designed universe need to explain why a rational, reasonable person would not expect order or regularity to arise from a singular creation event, even if completely spontaneous and unguided. And to get back to the OP (remember the OP?) no key prediction of evolution has been falsified. sean s.sean samis_{August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST}

Zachriel:
That was not the context, which was “We know intelligence can produce such things,” that is “ordered, regular properties and systemic-processes”.
And once we eliminate necessity and/ or chance as possibilities we infer intelligent design.
However, just because we don’t know the reason the universe exhibits order doesn’t constitute evidence of a designer.
The last cause standing. Even Richard Dawkins admits science can allow for only so much luck. And without intelligent design all you have left is luck. Sheer. Dumb. Luck.Virgil Cain_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PST}

Box: Nope. You are conflating design and instantiation. That was not the context, which was "We know intelligence can produce such things," that is "ordered, regular properties and systemic-processes". Silver Asiatic: you’d have no basis to deny that God exists. We don't. However, just because we don't know the reason the universe exhibits order doesn't constitute evidence of a designer. As you said, it's just an analogy, and a flawed analogy at that.Zachriel_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PST}

sean s
They have yet to demonstrate why pure disorder would be expected.
It's not that disorder is expected, but that something has to explain the order we observe. The only options available are chance (non-order) or design. It's not that order is expected, it's merely that something other than the order we observe has to explain it. It does not explain itself. You can say it just popped into existence -- but that's order from chaos, randomness.
Because pure disorder (informal chaos) is maximally complex, it is less likely.
If there was no order (the state prior to order), then it would be pure disorder or chaos. The reason you have to start there is because you're trying to explain order. As I've said many times, you'd have to give a reason for starting with an initial state that possesses ordered laws, processes and properties. Merely saying "that's the way it is" is not different than saying "that's the way God made it". Except we know something more about God than we do about "things popping into existence from chaos". So, God is the more reasonable solution there.
In fact, as Silver Asiatic argued previously, informally chaotic processes probably don’t even exist.
But if true, this is a problem you'd need to explain. Why is everything embued with order and consistency? Where did that come from? So, we're back to the question. The way you answered it is this:
It doesn’t need to have come “from” anything apart from the initial creation event. It’s just part of the Universe’s initial conditions.
In other words, "it just is". The universe just popped into existence containing ordered properties, forces and processes. With this, you have no basis to deny that God exists. And since the existence of God has much more rational support than universes that just come into existence, ready-made with all the properties they need to be fine-tuned for life (and we know chaos cannot produce such things), then God is by far the much more reasonable explanation for what we observe. But I think that's all you have. You can only propose an imaginary concept that possesses everything that you can't explain. But with God as an explanation, we start with intelligence and we already know that intelligence can design the kind of order we observe. It remains the best explanation.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PST}

Following Box @ 149, the designing idea is irreducible. It is an immaterial ordering agency, capable of creating systems and processes.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST}

Zach
There could conceivably be properties of a meta-verse.
That's an imaginary concept with no scientific justification. Since you propose an imaginary entity as an explanation for the origins of the systemic-order we observe, then you cannot require any evidence at all for belief in the existence of God -- and you'd have no basis to deny that God exists.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PST}

Zach: All human artifacts depend on preexisting regularities and properties of nature. An internal combustion engine or a hula hoop just harness known physical properties.
Instantiating a design in matter depends on the availability of ... matter. Great point Zach! However a design — the concept; the idea — itself doesn't depend on matter. The design/concept/idea behind this post doesn't depend on matter or characters or even language. Only it's instantiation does.
Zach: If the cosmic designer worked like human designers, it would depend on preexisting properties of the universe.
Nope. You are conflating design and instantiation.Box_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PST}

bornagain77 tried to respond @137 seeing as bornagain77 did not author @137 I guess that would be you that is guilty of a huge non sequitur. Actually, what 'does not follow', i.e. non sequitur, is your entire line of argumentation. Denial of the huge challenges presented to unguided, chaotic, materialistic explanations, for both the origin of the universe and of biological life does not constitute a 'rational' scientific explanation in the least. It constitutes another proof of the mental illness inherent to the atheistic mindset. Specifically, it is proof of the mental illness, prevalent in drug addicts and alcoholics, commonly known as denialism.
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth
And No, denial is NOT a river in Egypt!bornagain77_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PST}

Box @133 asked a question which Silver Asiatic @136 repeated:
So where does the initial order come from? Why is it that order is “expected and consistent with a spontaneous Universe” — as you claim?
It doesn’t need to have come “from” anything apart from the initial creation event. It’s just part of the Universe’s initial conditions. Box assumes (as does Silver Asiatic and others) that order needs a special explanation, but it does not. They have yet to demonstrate why pure disorder would be expected. Because pure disorder (informal chaos) is maximally complex, it is less likely. In fact, as Silver Asiatic argued previously, informally chaotic processes probably don’t even exist. Silver Asiatic added,
...you can’t merely claim order, organization, processes as part of No Design. Something has to produce them.
Likewise, SA can’t merely claim that “no design” would produce pure chaos; that claim needs evidence; currently all SA has is Personal Incredulity. The problem for all of us is that we only have experience with one Universe. No one can claim that we’ve collected enough information from our vast store of experience to say what is expected when a new universe is created. We only know of one universe, and we are not even sure what happened when it was created. As Zachriel answered this question (@137)
There’s a few speculative ideas, but no one has a well-supported scientific explanation.
And I would add that there is no well-supported scientific or logical reason to treat initial order as unexpected. Order and regular processes were created by the same event that created the universe. Is this evidence of design? No. Since we don’t know how to distinguish a designed universe from a natural one, and because Ockham’s Razor still applies, the rational position is that our universe is natural until independent evidence of a capable designer is discovered. bornagain77 tried to respond @137; but as usual, BA’s response was a non sequitur. sean s.sean samis_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: The designer of the universe cannot depend on properties of the universe. There could conceivably be properties of a meta-verse. Silver Asiatic: Given we can’t model the cosmic designer’s intelligence, we have to use analogies and comparatives. So, it's just an analogy, lacking scientific justification. We already pointed out the problem with the analogy.Zachriel_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PST}

Zach
If the cosmic designer worked like human designers, it would depend on preexisting properties of the universe.
The designer of the universe cannot depend on properties of the universe. Given we can't model the cosmic designer's intelligence, we have to use analogies and comparatives. We observe the power of human intelligence to create ordered, regular systems and processes. We observe ordered, regular systems and processes in the universe. The most reasonable explanation for the systemic order we observe is intelligence. Science offers no other alternative.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST}

We know that infinite intelligence/consciousness precedes/sustains material reality: a few notes: an ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Thus every time we see (consciously observe) a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information known only by the infinite Mind of omniscient God!
Job 38:19-20 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?” Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible. Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness - January 18, 2012 Excerpt: (Proof # 2) If you believe in the theory of Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true. http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/01/18/logical-proofs-of-infinite-external-consciousness/ Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
bornagain77_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: Known intelligence creates new regularities, new ordered processes, new systems and new properties to things. All human artifacts depend on preexisting regularities and properties of nature. An internal combustion engine or a hula hoop just harness known physical properties. If the cosmic designer worked like human designers, it would depend on preexisting properties of the universe.Zachriel_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PST}

Zach
Known intelligence only manipulates existing regularities.
Known intelligence creates new regularities, new ordered processes, new systems and new properties to things.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PST}

BA77
“but no one has a clue how chaotic material processes can possibly create a well ordered universe that is fine tuned for life”
That's really the fullness of the ID argument. It's not just problems with evolution because it has to start with a universe finely-tuned for life. Some explanation for that is required. If the origin is Unguided, with No-Design, then ordered processes cannot be the starting point. Order has to originate from non-order, unless it can be shown that ordered, consistent properties and forces can emerge from a purely stochastic, chaotic state.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: We know intelligence can produce such things. Known intelligence only manipulates existing regularities.Zachriel_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PST}

We observe ordered, regular properties and systemic-processes. We know intelligence can produce such things.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply