Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sean Carroll and Brute Facts

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 

Thank you News for pointing us to the Sean Carroll/Luke Barnes exchange.  Here are some of highlights:

 

There was an extremely interesting discussion about whether Carroll’s explanation of the existing of the universe (i.e., it’s a brute fact; we have no explanation) is tenable.  Here are the highlights:

Carroll starting at 30:13:

I don’t think that I am especially bothered by the existence of brute facts in a physicalist or naturalist account of a universe with a beginning.

Then Carroll starting at 36:10:

there’s this temptation, there’s this feeling like, you know, there must be explanations for things.  And I think that in the context of modern science, modern physics, that’s not the right way to think.  I think that we need to think about what you mean by an explanation; there’s different kinds of explanations.  When we get into things like the causes of things and so forth, there is a very very different picture we have in modern physics than sort of the folk understanding of explaining why your car died.  Well, because it ran out of gas, right?  And I think that there’s a different way of thinking about things at the deepest level that has been very very successful to modern science, and in some sense, it’s a much more straightforward simple demand – it’s find the laws of physics, find the patterns that nature seems to obey and ask what things could happen that are consistent with those patterns and what things would not happen that are not consistent with those patterns.  The language of causes and explanations is inappropriate when we are talking about the fundamental nature of reality.  So . . . from that perspective there is zero bother or worry in my mind that the universe can exist.  Things are going to exist.  The question is, do things obey the laws of nature?

Then Carroll starting at 38:02:

There’s always the very very real possibility that we don’t understand everything about the universe.  Maybe what we see as the universe is part of some much larger framework, whether it’s a multiverse or something even beyond that, and within that framework one can talk about causes.  But, uh, if the universe is the whole of physical reality, then talking about causes, looking for causes, would be inappropriate.  And I think that it is exactly parallel to the idea of, you know, “could the universe have had a first moment of time.”  When I was debating William Lane Craig, he was incredulous that I could imagine both that the universe had a first moment and that it was uncaused, and his argument was basically like “if universes can just pop into existence, then why don’t bicycles pop into existence.”  And the point is well we have perfectly good explanations for that:  “bicycles popping into existence would violate the laws of physics.  It would violate laws of conservation of energy and momentum and things like that.”  The question to ask is would a universe having a first moment of time violate the laws of physics?  To the best of our current understanding the answer is no.

Barnes calls him on this.  First, he confirms Carroll’s view that the laws of nature are merely observed regularities – “patterns” is the word Carroll uses.  The word “law” is confusing; the laws of nature do not govern nature in any meaningful sense.  They are mere descriptions of what happens.  To say that a bicycle popping into existence in London means one and only one thing – a bicycle popping into existence in London has never happened before.  It does not mean that it never will.  In fact, if a bicycle were to pop into existence on the 10th of October, then “bicycles popping into existence” would from that point be perfectly consistent with the laws of nature in Carroll’s view.

At 40:49 Carroll concedes this point:  “Yeah, that’s right and that’s completely plausible if that were what the evidence demanded.  Happily, we have a much simpler theory, which is “here the laws of nature and that’s it,” and I think that’s what our burden is as scientists to find the best possible theory to explain what we see in nature.  I don’t feel the need to grant the laws of nature any coercive properties.  They’re a description of what happened.

Barnes hold’s Carroll’s feet to the fire at 42:05:

Right, but remember the question.  The question was . . . if there are brute facts – like the existence of the universe — why aren’t there more brute facts?   That was the question.  The question was, what, for example, “why don’t bicycles appear in this room right now?”  And it sounded like the answer you gave ultimately was, “well thankfully in our universe that doesn’t happen.”  But that’s not an explanation.  If brute facts are allowed, why aren’t there more of them? . . . the real problem is if you allow brute facts, they don’t have reasons, and so there can’t be a reason why there aren’t more brute facts or less brute facts or only universe is a brute fact rather than bicycles being brute facts.  So the objection here is that once you’ve allowed – once you’ve opened the door to brute facts – you can’t then stop, you know, the whole party piling in.  It’s a clown car; everything’s going to come flying out.  Why aren’t there more brute facts?  The fact that there aren’t more brute facts, the fact that there is a simple way of describing a universe in which there are no bicycles that pop into existence, is the thing to be explained.

In response Carroll explicitly gives up on the law of sufficient reason at 43:07:

Yeah, but it may not be an explanation.  I don’t think we have a right to demand an explanation for that.  I think that the fact that there a very few brute facts is a brute fact.

Then, at 43:47 Carroll makes an astonishing assertion.  The moderator keys off Carroll’s statement that we don’t have a right to demand and explanation and asks when do we a right to demand an explanation.  Carroll responds:

Well, in the context of some bigger picture, right?  So . . . we explain why bicycles don’t pop into existence.  Because there’s something called conservation of energy and momentum.  And you say, well, why is there conservation of energy and momentum?  Well, because the laws of physics have this property that there’s certain symmetries.  Why do they have that property?  Well, I don’t know.  That’s just it.  That, that’s the bottom, right.  I think that there’s absolutely no way out of hitting a bottom of these chains of explanations.

I find it remarkable that a prominent cosmologist is so incurious and irrational at the same time.  The laws of physics and the existence of space-time are just brute facts that cannot be explained.  He does not argue that they are in any sense necessary.  He just thinks he can get his contingency free.  Wow.

At 1:14:36 Carroll takes exactly the same tack to handwave fine turning away:

Why is it that way?  And I’m just really happy with saying that eventually we find that that’s the way it is.  I’m not gonna rely or be in on the idea that someday we’ll find that’s the only way it could have been.  I’m just really happy with – and comfortable with – brute facts.  I don’t think that there is any way around that.

I did agree with one of his observations.  Carroll starting at 21:50:

There’s this idea called methodological naturalism, which . . . is usually defined as the idea that when science tackles a question, science is only allowed to suggest naturalistic explanations, that the way that science moves forward is by assuming that naturalism is true, whether or not it is true, but what science does is look for the natural explanations.  Now I think number one this is false; that’s not actually what science does; I think that science looks for the true explanations.  And number two I think that this is a attempt to do something politically savvy, especially here in the United States, but failing even on that score . . . This idea of methodological naturalism as much, as anything else, grew out of the idea that we shouldn’t be teaching creationism in schools.  So it was an attempt to define what you teach in science class to preclude supernatural explanations from the start.  So I think it was sort of bad politics and bad philosophy at the same time.

Who would have thought that I would be in whole-hearted agreement with a prominent atheist?

Comments
I came to this thread very late and read through a sizable portion. It reminded me of Samuel Clemens' advise to "Never argue with a fool, because people passing by might not be able to tell the difference" JVL would be the biblical version of Doubting Thomas.willspeaks
November 23, 2017
November
11
Nov
23
23
2017
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
ET I have to admit, the issues we are discussing have much more subtle aspects than I had realised but after reading a couple of reviews of Evolution: a view from the 21st century my understanding of the issues has been increased. If you are supporting everything Dr Shapiro is saying then your position is much clearer to me now. I will be changing some of my 'views'. I think the most informative review was the following (written by a personal friend of Dr Shapiro's): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342868/ I also looked over these: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273335226_Evolution_a_view_from_the_21st_century http://www.molevol.org/evolution-a-view-from-the-21st-century-book-review/ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/1746-5354-7-1-65.pdf All the reviews were complimentary about much of what is present. But there are some clear disagreements with some of the conclusions. While it is clear that some organisms do seem to react to stressful situations with higher mutation rates there is still some questions of how 'targeted' those mutations are, whether or not they are passed on to following generations (not the same thing as epigenetics) and, particularly, if any of this can be interpreted as 'natural genetic engineering'. But it is very interesting. I also note a query about the evolvability of any kind of directing process. I aslo note that all the reviewers said Dr Shapiro's book should be read and discussed. But no one thinks that there is some undiscovered built-in stuff. Sorry.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
We have the map of the human genome and yet we can't read beyond seeing where the gene are. We are ignorant with respect to reading genomes. We have no idea why mutations occur except that they do. There isn't any mathematical model that says they are accidents, errors and mistakes. Transposable elements, aka transposons, are complex entities, even the simple type. They are more complex than the other protein coding genes. Genes that your position still can't account for. The problem, Jerad, is you are demanding details from ID when your position, the position which requires details, has none. Right now the evidence supports directed mutations and epi-genetics supports built-in responses to environmental cues. And given the unscientific of "they just happen, man", ID appears to be very safe.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
What evidence says the modern synthesis is a scientific theory? It isn't even gathered together in one place. It is just ideas gleaned from a few book written in the 20s and 30s. It isn't coherent and it changes depending on who you talk to. What the modern synthesis did is force evolutionists to unpack all of the anatomy and physiology at the genetic level. There was no more looking at structures, postulating engineering-type changes to the structure- meaning at the structural level- and moving on. Evolutionists have to unpack that at the genetic level- thanks to the modern synthesis- and they have never been able to. The modern synthesis doesn't have a mechanism that will allow prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes. The modern synthesis doesn't say how to test the claim, let alone test the claim that natural selection did it. As I said all of the alleged evidence for Common Descent is absent a mechanism. That wouldn't be so if the modern synthesis was a scientific theory that explained something more than a mere change in allele frequency over time. The modern synthesis doesn't say how to test the claim that protein machines evolved by means of natural selection or any other blind, mindless processes. In 2004 geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti wrote that there wasn't a scientific theory of evolution. Before that he was at a conference that had other biologists who didn't argue the point when another biologist said there wasn't any scientific theory of evolution. Blind and mindless processes can't even cobble together something as relatively simple as Stonehenge. You want calculations? Your position doesn't deserve the time. It is all sheer dumb luck. There is nothing else besides Intelligent Design of some sort. Do some science instead of just blowing off ID. Come up with a testable alternative. You list of Steve's have failed. Do you understand why transposons are called "jumping genes"? Do you even know what they are? Transposon:
Transposons are DNA segments that are mobile. They can replicate and insert copies at sites within the same or a different chromosome. They can therefore alter the genetic constitution of an organism. Transposons have two types according to the genes they code for: (1) simple transposons and (2) complex transposons. The simple transposons consist of genes needed for insertion, particularly the gene coding for transposases, which are enzymes that catalyze their insertion. The complex transposons are those consisting of other genes apart from those needed for insertion. Transposons are the genetic elements associated with antibiotic resistance in certain bacteria. For instance, the Tn5 that codes for transposase Tn5 as well as those for antibiotic resistance to kanamycin.1 In eukaryotes, there are two classes of transposons. The first class is a group of transposons that are bacterial-like in a way that the DNA sequences move directly. The second class, called retrotransposons, move by producing RNA that is transcribed by reverse transcriptase into DNA that is then inserted at a new site.
There is evidence for directed mutations and built-in responses to environmental cues- read "Evolution: a view from the 21st century"; "The Evolution Revolution"; Evolution 2.0". And genetic algorithms model it. Nothing models unguided evolution.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
ET --The modern synthesis is not a scientific theory of evolution. It was the name of a book and the modern synthesis is a collection of ideas from a number of books. All evidence to the contrary. You are clearly a scientifically ignorant troll. Possibly. Until you can link to the alleged scientific theory of unguided evolution it is clear you aren’t serious. It's easy to find if you look. The support for your built-in process of gene influence is not so easy to find. Which is why I asked you to provide it. But you won't. Or can't. Too bad for those who come across this conversation and like what you are saying but can't find the evidence you say exists. Yes, it does. No, you really are incorrect. They are only partially predictable because we understand the language. So, they aren't random. Glad you agree. With genomics wit are ignorant What? and that is the only reason why mutations appear random. But even random in a mathematical sense doesn’t mean they are accidents, errors and mistakes. Well then you have to find the process that guides them. Where is it? How does it work? How does it avoid degradation? How does it detect the right environmental moment? How does it know what mutation to trigger? How is it reproduced in cell duplication? After millions and millions of years how can it still know what beneficial mutation to trigger in millions of different life forms? We don’t have to have the answers. That is what science is for. Sorry, I thought you were doing science. My apologies What we have is evidence for ID and evidence for ID means that living organisms are not reducible to matter and energy or their interactions. And you have said that there are built-in processes in cells that guide mutations and life development. I just want to know where that stuff is, how it works, how it avoids degradation, how it gets duplicated in cell division, how it reads environmental conditions, how it affects mutations, etc. That means there is something more to life and ID says that is information, at the very least. Information in not material. We can only see its effects. And from that we make more inferences. We observe genetic changes and we observe that some happen only in certain circumstances. We see transposons and see that they carry within their coding regions the codes for two of the enzymes required for them to move around. We understand that blind and mindless processes couldn’t put something like that together if given double the time available. Really? What calculations have you done to come to that conclusion? What mathematical models have you used? Which transposons are you talking about? Not all of them clearly. Enzymes are required for 'them' to move around. What is moving around? So we move on. We see the efficacy of genetic algorithms and how they mimic directed evolution. So we infer the organisms have some internal programming that sifts through environmental cues and makes genetic changes if possible. Look, you said there was evidence of built-in processes in cells that affect mutations. I just want to know where those processes are. You said they exist so you must know. If you know they exist then you should be able to tell me how they detect environmental conditions which you said trigger mutations. You should be able to tell me how those built-in processes direct mutations. Maybe you can't yet say how those built-in processes know what particular mutations to trigger, that is a big issue. But it's not expensive or time consuming or resource dependent to do a search in cells for a structure that fulfils the thing you say exists. A fairly decent microscope and some examples should be a decent start. And, you really need to be able to explain how those built-in processes avoid degradation over millions of years. And how are they reproduced? You said there were books that explained all this but now you say you don't have to have the answers. Which is it? You seem to be backing down from what you said before. We know the programming is there because there isn’t any alternatives to explain life. Now it will take further research to flesh it all out. Oh, so you don't know where it is or how it works. Okay, I got it. But that won’t matter to you because you don’t understand science and hide behind your delusions and lies. Yet if there were any truth to what you post then ID would be in serious trouble. Yet as it is ID isn’t worried. I'm not worried either. But at least now I know what you were really saying: you think those built-in processes exist but you haven't found them yet. So you can't say how they work, how they detect environmental conditions, how they affect mutations, how they know what mutations to trigger, how they are duplicated during cell division or how they avoid degradation over millions of years. At least that's clear now.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
You are making statements about the existence of some biological structures and processes and I am asking you some questions about them which you haven’t been able to answer or provide references to answers.
We don't have to have the answers. That is what science is for. What we have is evidence for ID and evidence for ID means that living organisms are not reducible to matter and energy or their interactions. That means there is something more to life and ID says that is information, at the very least. Information in not material. We can only see its effects. And from that we make more inferences. We observe genetic changes and we observe that some happen only in certain circumstances. We see transposons and see that they carry within their coding regions the codes for two of the enzymes required for them to move around. We understand that blind and mindless processes couldn't put something like that together if given double the time available. So we move on. We see the efficacy of genetic algorithms and how they mimic directed evolution. So we infer the organisms have some internal programming that sifts through environmental cues and makes genetic changes if possible. We know the programming is there because there isn't any alternatives to explain life. Now it will take further research to flesh it all out. But that won't matter to you because you don't understand science and hide behind your delusions and lies. Yet if there were any truth to what you post then ID would be in serious trouble. Yet as it is ID isn't worried.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Mathematics does not say that the letters on a page are random.
Yes, it does.
If they are even partially predictable (which they are) then they are not random.
They are only partially predictable because we understand the language. With genomics wit are ignorant and that is the only reason why mutations appear random. But even random in a mathematical sense doesn't mean they are accidents, errors and mistakes.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
The modern synthesis is not a scientific theory of evolution. It was the name of a book and the modern synthesis is a collection of ideas from a number of books. You are clearly a scientifically ignorant troll. Until you can link to the alleged scientific theory of unguided evolution it is clear you aren't serious.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
ET -- Wikipedia does not reference any scientific theory of unguided evolution. I mean an actual reference in which we can all see the alleged theory and read it. Here's Wikipedia's first BRIEF explanation of the modern synthesis:
n the 1920s and 1930s the so-called modern synthesis connected natural selection and population genetics, based on Mendelian inheritance, into a unified theory that applied generally to any branch of biology. The modern synthesis explained patterns observed across species in populations, through fossil transitions in palaeontology, and complex cellular mechanisms in developmental biology.
I don’t have to support that which is already supported. Your refusal to read the relevant literature proves that you are willfully ignorant. Give a link to the relevant literature then. Project Steve- not one Steve can find evidence to support the claims of unguided evolution. And not one member of project Steve can find a scientific theory of unguided evolution. That's not why I referenced Project Steve. I don’t care what you say about that as it is all true. Too bad you can't even link to references which back up what you say. And you can't seem to answer the questions yourself. You can continue to lie and bluff. I will continue to expose you are a liar and loser. Modern evolutionary theory does not depend on my ability to convince you. So, it doesn't matter. You are making statements about the existence of some biological structures and processes and I am asking you some questions about them which you haven't been able to answer or provide references to answers. I know what you say isn’t true at all. My support is in the books that you refuse to read. And your willful ignorance is not a refutation. Which books discuss the built-in processes you are referring to? Which books or papers explain how those processes are stored and encoded? Which sources can say how those processes respond to environmental conditions and then dictate mutations? Which of the things you have read address how those built-in processes know what mutations to trigger? Where it is mentioned how those built-in processes are duplicated during cell division? Just give your references if you can't answer the questions yourself that is.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
ET -- Unbelievable- mathematics does not understand languages, duh. The same mathematics that says mutations are random would also say the letters on a page of text are random. No one said mathematics can 'understand' language. Mathematics can analyse letter and letter combination frequencies and distributions. You can draw up tables of likely next letter combinations or even words. You can even modify the tables on an existing device based on that particular users past usage. You change the probabilities depending on how often the user has used letter combinations compared to the basic table. Mathematics does not say that the letters on a page are random. If they are even partially predictable (which they are) then they are not random. Surely you've heard of author text analysis wherein researchers try and figure out if a particular author wrote a particular piece of work based on the probabilities and patterns in known works by that author. You use mathematics to do the frequency analysis, not the interpretation or meaning.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Perhaps the things you say aren’t true at all.
I know what you say isn't true at all. My support is in the books that you refuse to read. And your willful ignorance is not a refutation.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Wikipedia does not reference any scientific theory of unguided evolution. I mean an actual reference in which we can all see the alleged theory and read it. I don't have to support that which is already supported. Your refusal to read the relevant literature proves that you are willfully ignorant. Project Steve- not one Steve can find evidence to support the claims of unguided evolution. And not one member of project Steve can find a scientific theory of unguided evolution. I don't care what you say about that as it is all true. You can continue to lie and bluff. I will continue to expose you are a liar and loser.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Unbelievable- mathematics does not understand languages, duh. The same mathematics that says mutations are random would also say the letters on a page of text are random.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
ET -- Still no link to the alleged scientific theory of unguided evolution. Clearly JVL is just a bluffing liar. Look in Wikipedia. And you have yet to explain how your built-in processes are stored, coded, how they response to environmental conditions, how they influence mutations, how they know what mutations will bring about which results, etc, etc, etc. Nor have you been able to provide a link to discussions of such things. I know more than you ever will, JVL. So if I can’t figure it out there is no hope for you. But then again all you are doing is lying and bluffing. I have that figured out. I guess you're just not going to support the ideas you've said are true and documented. Mathematics would say the letters on a page are random. mathematics doesn’t care about meaning. No, it would not say that. I don’t care about answering your questions. That is because you are a proven obtuse bluffing liar who couldn’t figure it out if it was spelled out for you. Perhaps you can't then. Perhaps the things you say aren't true at all. Project Steve- not one Steve can find evidence to support the claims of unguided evolution. And not one member of project Steve can find a scientific theory of unguided evolution. There are more Steves who support modern evolutionary theory than have signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin petition. That's why I'm sure a vast majority of biologists disagree with you.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
ET -- That doesn’t follow. Your text function is programmed to understand the language. Which is not random!! Languages have spelling and grammatical patterns and probabilities. You don't just randomly put letters together. Predictive text works because some letter combinations or word orders are more likely than others. The opposite of random wherein everything is equally likely or unlikely. Randomness is lack of pattern or predictability. Granted, you might not know for absolute certainty what letter is coming next but IF you're writing in a specific language then the letters on a page are not random. Certain letters and letter combinations are more likely.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Still no link to the alleged scientific theory of unguided evolution. Clearly JVL is just a bluffing liar. I know more than you ever will, JVL. So if I can't figure it out there is no hope for you. But then again all you are doing is lying and bluffing. I have that figured out. Mathematics would say the letters on a page are random. mathematics doesn't care about meaning. I don't care about answering your questions. That is because you are a proven obtuse bluffing liar who couldn't figure it out if it was spelled out for you. Project Steve- not one Steve can find evidence to support the claims of unguided evolution. And not one member of project Steve can find a scientific theory of unguided evolution.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
If letters on a page were random then the predictive text function on my phone wouldn’t work.
That doesn't follow. Your text function is programmed to understand the language.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
If letters on a page were random then the predictive text function on my phone wouldn't work. It can even sometimes make a good guess as to what word I want to input next. Not random at all!!!JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
ET -- Other people have too. And they have written about it. Read what they wrote as I am not going to waste my time trying to educate a bluffing liar and scientifically illiterate troll like you. Specifically where have such processes been written about? Some online references would be nice, cheaper that way.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
ET -- JVL is not a biologist. He thinks he is their spokesperson. Talk about desperation. hahahahahahahah No way I think I am their spokesperson. But I do know a vast majority of them disagree with you. Remember project Steve? :-) Now JVL chokes on the meaning of randomness with respect to mathematics. I haven't choked at all; letters on a page are not random. JVL insists there is a scientific theory of unguided evolution. And yet he cannot link to it. You are a LIAR, JVL. No one can find it. No one knows who wrote it. No one knows what journal published it nor when it was published. Well, we know you can't figure it out anyway. You are a pathetic little troll, Jerad. Someday you may grow up and find a clue. Meanwhile . . . you are still avoiding answering some basic questions about your built-in response process: How is it stored? How does it interpret and respond to environmental conditions? How does it 'guide' mutations? (That's the most confusing part to me . . . how does you built-in mechanism know which specific site to change and what to change it too? Does it have a vast library of DNA sequences and their effects? How does it know how to 'guide' in a way so that functionality is conserved at every step?) How is the process protected against degradation? How are the built-in processes copied during cell division? It's not DNA so . . I'm only asking because of what you say exists. If it does then these are fair questions. And it wouldn't take a huge amount of money or time or resources to search a cell and find such a molecular configuration or structure. Considering the 'library' of DNA sequences it would have to draw on it might even be pretty big.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
You claimed there are some built-in processes in cells that guide mutations.
Other people have too. And they have written about it. Read what they wrote as I am not going to waste my time trying to educate a bluffing liar and scientifically illiterate troll like you.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Darwin's wasn't a scientific theory. And in his book "Why is a fly not a horse?" geneticist and former peer-reviewed journal editor said there isn't a scientific theory of evolution. All the biologists at a conference he attended concurred.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
ET -- Yes, you can read about people talking about it. Yes you can read in textbooks that they want to discuss it. However you will never get a reference to it. Who wrote it? When was it published? What journal was it published in? Darwin had the first go; it's been modified as different processes come to life. Evolutionists are a pathetic lot. They ask their opposition for things they cannot provide. You claimed there are some built-in processes in cells that guide mutations. How do they work? Where are they specifically? How are they protected from degradation? How are they duplicated during cell division? How do they detect and respond to environmental input? I wouldn't ask for details if you didn't claim such a thing is known to exist.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
JVL is not a biologist. He thinks he is their spokesperson. Talk about desperation. Now JVL chokes on the meaning of randomness with respect to mathematics. JVL insists there is a scientific theory of unguided evolution. And yet he cannot link to it. You are a LIAR, JVL. No one can find it. No one knows who wrote it. No one knows what journal published it nor when it was published. You are a pathetic little troll, Jerad. Someday you may grow up and find a clue.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
ET -- JVL is proving it has not read the relevant literature. No one says that ATP synthase is not IC- no one with an education, anyway. What evolutionary biologists say is IC is not a problem. That is because they rely on magic. I disagree with you. Yes the mathematics would say the letters on a page in a book are random. How could they convey meaning if they were random? I have looked for the scientific theory of unguided evolution. It doesn’t exist. You are pathetic. Oh well. Talking about the alleged theory and even writing about it doesn’t mean one exists. No one can find it. Guess it's just you then. And if you had evidence to the contrary you would post it. that alone would change my mind. Evidence always wins. But you are just a lying bluffer who doesn’t know what evidence is. I rather suspect you would just claim it's not evidence. The history of life? Are you obtuse? You can’t even get beyond populations of prokaryotes! And the best evidence for the alleged history does not support unguided evolution. Unguided evolution cannot be modelled. It doesn’t make any predictions- well not beyond mere change, genetic disease and deformities. Oh, that reminds me: you haven't explained how mutations are guided. Are duplications and such also guided? How? How does the guiding work? As I told you- via built-in responses to environmental cues. Just because you are too stupid to understand that doesn’t mean anything to me. It is all explained in the books you refuse to read. Where are the built-in responses? How are they stored? Are they protected from degradation? How? How do they work? There isn’t any scientific theory for unguided evolution. All claims to the contrary are desperate lies made by desperate bluffers. Well, you're going to save a lot of money not buying books you think are full of lies! And no one is using blind watchmaker evolution to try to figure out how ATP synthase evolved. JVL is deluded. All “work” is really just speculation. Are you sure you're built-in guidance system isn't just speculation? You have yet to provide and details of how it works, where it is stored, how it avoids degradation, etc.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
If there was a scientific theory of unguided evolution then someone should be able to link to it. And the fact that no one can proves that it doesn't exist. Yes, you can read about people talking about it. Yes you can read in textbooks that they want to discuss it. However you will never get a reference to it. Who wrote it? When was it published? What journal was it published in? Evolutionists are a pathetic lot. They ask their opposition for things they cannot provide.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
JVL is proving it has not read the relevant literature. No one says that ATP synthase is not IC- no one with an education, anyway. What evolutionary biologists say is IC is not a problem. That is because they rely on magic. Yes the mathematics would say the letters on a page in a book are random. I have looked for the scientific theory of unguided evolution. It doesn't exist. You are pathetic. Talking about the alleged theory and even writing about it doesn't mean one exists. No one can find it. And if you had evidence to the contrary you would post it. that alone would change my mind. Evidence always wins. But you are just a lying bluffer who doesn't know what evidence is. The history of life? Are you obtuse? You can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes! And the best evidence for the alleged history does not support unguided evolution. Unguided evolution cannot be modelled. It doesn't make any predictions- well not beyond mere change, genetic disease and deformities. How does the guiding work? As I told you- via built-in responses to environmental cues. Just because you are too stupid to understand that doesn't mean anything to me. It is all explained in the books you refuse to read. There isn't any scientific theory for unguided evolution. All claims to the contrary are desperate lies made by desperate bluffers. And no one is using blind watchmaker evolution to try to figure out how ATP synthase evolved. JVL is deluded. All "work" is really just speculation.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
ET -- We have evidence that at least some mutations are directed. You don’t have anything. You said before you can tell they are directed by observation; is that your evidence? How are they directed? Read about ATP synthase. it is IC. It has a part that has nothing to do with the function of either subunit but without it there isn’t any ATP synthase. So even if unguided evolution could produce the subunits, and it can’t, there is still the HUGE problem of getting and keeping the two subunits together. Most biologists disagree with you that it is IC and research is being done to try and figure out how it might have evolved. ike I said the math does NOT support unguided evolution. math would show that letters on a page of any book were random. You are obviously obtuse. No, the mathematics would not say that. And you can’t even find your alleged scientific theory of unguided evolution. How sad is that? It easy to find if you look. But since you've said you've read a lot of books and papers about evolutionary theory but you still think it doesn't exist then I'm not going to bother rehashing stuff. Just admit that you are bluffing and leave it at that. Why should I bring up things you've already made up your mind about? Show us unguided evolution producing something other than genetic diseases and deformities. Show us someone modelling unguided evolution producing a protein machine. I think the history of life on earth is an excellent example. If you think it's all guided then explain how the guiding works. Show us something besides your lies, bluffs and scientific illiteracy. You keep NOT explaining how the guiding works. Does that mean you can't?JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
We have evidence that at least some mutations are directed. You don't have anything. Read about ATP synthase. it is IC. It has a part that has nothing to do with the function of either subunit but without it there isn't any ATP synthase. So even if unguided evolution could produce the subunits, and it can't, there is still the HUGE problem of getting and keeping the two subunits together. Like I said the math does NOT support unguided evolution. math would show that letters on a page of any book were random. You are obviously obtuse. And you can't even find your alleged scientific theory of unguided evolution. How sad is that? Just admit that you are bluffing and leave it at that. Show us unguided evolution producing something other than genetic diseases and deformities. Show us someone modelling unguided evolution producing a protein machine. Show us something besides your lies, bluffs and scientific illiteracy.ET
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
ET -- JVL cannot find any scientific theory of unguided evolution! JVL is a bluffing liar and scientifically illiterate troll. Without evidence of some kind of guiding process then . . . IC is elucidated in many peer-reviewed articles. JVL’s lies and bluffs will never change that. I don't think that's true at all. But I'm happy to look at them. Because you cannot make a case that they support evolution by means of blind, mindless processes. So of course we are going to expose you as a lying bluffer and scientifically illiterate troll. Like I said: the mathematical models for evolutionary processes that match what is observed are based on random mutations. If you want to show some of those mutations are guided then you need to show how the guiding is done. If the guiding is done within the cell then please spell it out. Since you agree that genomes can be degraded by non-guided mutations then you'll also have to explain how your guiding process avoids becoming degraded itself. Show us the guiding process and explain how it works.JVL
November 17, 2017
November
11
Nov
17
17
2017
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply