Irrational reasons for refusing to consider design …
| November 12, 2011 | Posted by News under Biology, Design inference, Intelligent Design, News |
From our moral and intellectual superiors, no less.
From Granville Sewell’s In the Beginning:
A recent (November 10, 2008) article in News at Princeton entitled “Evolution’s New Wrinkle: Proteins with Cruise Control Provide New Perspective,” reports on research by four Princeton scientists, published in a Physical Review Letters article:”
The experiments, conducted in Princeton’s Frick Laboratory, focused on a complex of proteins located in the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell. … Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins’ behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. …
he authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. …
Chakrabarti said. “Control theory offers a direct explanation for an otherwise perplexing observation and indicates that evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows.”
The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design,…
Oh, why not?
6 Responses to Irrational reasons for refusing to consider design …
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Notes:
Proteins have now been shown to have a ‘Cruise Control’ mechanism, which works to ‘self-correct’ the integrity of the protein structure from any random mutations imposed on them.
Cruise Control permeating the whole of the protein structure??? This is an absolutely fascinating discovery. The equations of calculus involved in achieving even a simple process control loop, such as a dynamic cruise control loop, are very complex. In fact it seems readily apparent to me that highly advanced mathematical information must reside along the entirety of the protein structure, in order to achieve such control. This fact gives us clear evidence that there is far more functional information residing in proteins than meets the eye. Moreover this ‘oneness’ of cruise control, within the protein structure, can only be achieved through quantum computation/entanglement principles, and is inexplicable to the reductive materialistic approach of neo-Darwinism! For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop like cruise control for a single protein, please see this following site:
It is in realizing the staggering level of engineering that must be dealt with to achieve ‘cruise control’ for each individual protein that it becomes apparent even Axe’s 1 in 10^77 estimate for finding specific functional proteins within sequence space is far, far too generous. Here is corroborating evidence that ‘protein specific’ quantum information/entanglement resides in functional proteins:
In fact since quantum entanglement falsified reductive materialism/local realism (Alain Aspect) then finding quantum entanglement/information to be ‘protein specific’ is absolutely shattering to any hope that materialists had in what slim probabilities there were, since a ‘transcendent’ cause must be supplied which is specific to each unique protein structure. Materialism is simply at a complete loss to supply such a ‘non-local’ transcendent cause!
Though the authors of the ‘cruise control’ paper tried to put a evolution friendly spin on the ‘cruise control’ evidence, for finding a highly advanced ‘Process Control Loop’ at such a base molecular level, before natural selection even has a chance to select for any morphological novelty of a protein, this limit to variability is very much to be expected as a Intelligent Design/Genetic Entropy feature, and is in fact a very constraining thing to the amount of variation we should reasonably expect from any ‘kind’ of species in the first place.
Interesting references to Wallace, given that Wallace was essentially an ID proponent .
Correction: the Wallace link should be this . (Can’t seem to figure out how to edit my own comments now.)
OT: William Lane Craig – Oxford Q&A during a lunchtime gathering of students (Unbelievable Christian Radio)
http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
First rule of politics: Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.
-Sir Humphrey Appleby
Granville Sewell:
“The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. …”
“The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design,…”
====
“Cellular Machinery” and stop right there. The question of just how blind pointless indifferent purposeless forces accomplish any of this has never once been satisfactorily answered EVER! But there’s also a WHY ??? Question. Clearly we can look and observe a why, but not according to blind undirected forces that couldn’t give a rat’s rear end one way or another.
Instead of coming clean on any of this, the arguements always seem to start halfway into the ballgame and we get debates about directed and guided evolution. And that would be fine if they only stop the avoidance of just how those blind undirected purposeless forces at the beginning developed coded informational systems running complex nano-machinery. Until that happens all we are treated to is continued cheating and rigging of experiments with loads of intelligent designed fingerprints of biased goals from any number of Lab Coats and then listening to them proceeding to lie about it later in their analysis or summation of a paper. And they accuse ID of fabricating stories, fables and myths.
On the point of self correction mechanisms. Yes of course, but not only how, but why would evolution do that. We can intelligently look and observe the why, but evolution is incapable of displaying any conscientious emotion for doing so according it’s very number one on that list of articles of faith held so dear by it’s believers – “No Intelligence Allowed” And how about those kill switch mechanisms ??? Why ??? We observe and know the why as we are intelligent and see the logic in it. But how does something blind and incapable of caring less one way or another even remotely give a doggie doo ??? Hello!