Vox offers three “unexplainable” mysteries of life on Earth

Casey Luskin follows up on his article from yesterday,

Peer-Reviewed Paper Cites Stephen Meyer to Critique Darwinian Evolution Casey Luskin - March 16, 2023 Excerpt: Others Calling for New Models The paper further notes that many sources are calling for new models of evolution, as it quotes Corning (2020) stating that there is no valid replacement paradigm for the Modern Synthesis: "Many theorists in recent years have been calling for evolutionary biology to move beyond the Modern Synthesis — the paradigm that has long provided the theoretical backbone for the discipline. Terms like ‘postmodern synthesis’, ‘integrative synthesis’, and ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’ have been invoked by various critics in connection with the many recent developments that pose deep challenges — even contradictions — to the traditional model and underscore the need for an update, or makeover. However, none of these critics, to this author’s knowledge, has to date offered an explicit alternative that could provide a unifying theoretical paradigm for our vastly increased knowledge about living systems and the history of life on earth." Similarly they quote Noble (2021): "The illusions of the modern synthesis … something has gone deeply wrong in biology … [there is] the difficulty of trying to ‘break out of its attractive simplicity’ as it is still routinely taught in schools and universities … This is a serious and unnecessary situation that urgently needs rectifying … We have reached a critical turning point in evolutionary biology." https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/peer-reviewed-paper-cites-stephen-meyer-to-critique-darwinian-evolution/

bornagain77

As to probability calculations and Darwinian evolution, here is an interesting article from ENV that just came out today,

Peer-Reviewed Paper: “Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive” Casey Luskin - March 15, 2023 Excerpt: A peer-reviewed paper published towards the end of last year in the Elsevier journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology has a provocative title: “Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive.” The paper’s abstract opens with points that few would dispute: "Darwinian evolution is a nineteenth century descriptive concept that itself has evolved. Selection by survival of the fittest was a captivating idea. Microevolution was biologically and empirically verified by discovery of mutations." However, there then comes a major “but”: "There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution." And according to authors Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender, just what is the basis for saying this? It’s calculations showing that the likelihood of microevolutionary processes adding up to macroevolutionary changes is highly improbable: "Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10-50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms." They go on to state, “We are critical, as previously explained, of the position that macroevolution is sufficiently explained by the processes useful for microevolution — in particular that mutations and survival of the fittest are adequate to the task,” and argue that “Microevolution does not explain speciation — only smaller changes.”,,, They then perform a probability calculation which shows that the likelihood of producing a necessary pathway would require such multi-step processes leading to probabilities below the plausibility bound they had previously set. Origin of the Krebs Cycle They use a case study of the origin of the Krebs cycle — a metabolic pathway involving 12 enzymes that is necessary for life. They believe that this is a useful test for evolution. They assume that the genome is “ripe” to produce each enzyme where a minimal number of mutations is needed for a gene to suddenly become functional. They therefore choose an incredibly generous value of 0.00001 as the probability that a given enzyme can be created by a single mutation. They calculate the likelihood of producing all 12 enzymes needed to produce a selectable function as 10-51. They note this is below 10-50, a probability that was called “negligible” by Émile Borel, the French mathematician, who stated “this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.” They also reject co-option and exaptation as possible explanations for the origin of the Krebs cycle: "The idea that the complete, functioning Krebs cycle arose by purloining each intermediate step from other uses (Meléndez-Hevia, 1996) lacks empirical support. The discoveries that genes can be switched on and off, that codes read forward and backward, gene duplication, and the homeobox, are helpful but inadequate to save evolutionary theory without modification." In the end, producing a complex feature like the Krebs cycle is just too improbable because “Selection based on survival of the fittest, for anything beyond single mutational changes in a genome, is insufficient scientifically and biologically.” They conclude, “there is something besides mutations and survival of the fittest needed to explain evolution.” https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/peer-reviewed-paper-neo-darwinism-must-mutate-to-survive/

bornagain77

JVL, I do not need to repeat myself, especially in an era of the politically correct mob and censorship as growing, dangerous trends. Enough has long since been documented that the invitation to blaming the victim and shaming those who express concern becomes part of the problem. Actually, this is but one slice of a much wider and highly dangerous phenomenon in our time; the unravelling of the party line view on CV19 and how those who dissented were treated is an obvious comparison. KF kairosfocus

Seeing as I have completely lost trust in anything you have to say, I really could care less which articles, or YouTube videos, you approve or disapprove that I link to. JVL: "I guess you’re just a jerk." Pot calling kettle black? I have a few choice words for you myself by decency restrains me to just calling you what you actually are. i.e. A pathetic and shallow Darwinian troll. bornagain77

Bornagain77: JVL immediately links to an article telling a just-so story from “approximately 450–500 million years ago.” As I said: you'll have to look at the individual bits of research to see how each stage was verified in the lab. You won't do that because you're lazy. Also, you seem to have missed or chosen to ignore, the fact that I upheld one of the bits of research you linked to as being significant and supportive of ID. So, thanks for that. Seriously, I'm not sure why I bother. I guess you're just a jerk. JVL

Me: "Remember JVL, real-time empirical evidence of a molecular machine being created in a lab, not the usual Darwinian ‘just so stories’ as to how molecular machines might have come about in the remote past." JVL immediately links to an article telling a just-so story from "approximately 450–500 million years ago." Pathetic. Why should I, or anyone else, take anything you have to say seriously? You have proven yourself to be untrustworthy, and deceitful, time and time again, bornagain77

Kairosfocus: JVL, do you realise how callous and vindictive your dismissiveness to people who have indeed suffered academic persecution is? How many? Like I said I saw one particular case I thought was pretty awful. But some have been self-inflicted. And, let's remember: Dr Behe has never had any major academic problems being a highly visible ID supporter. He hasn't lost his tenure, he hasn't faced any academic fallout. JVL

Origenes: And we are discussing the input of “natural selection”, that, in my view, should be named “natural elimination.” What you call it doesn't change what it does. A common mistake, it is not part of natural selection’s job description. Yes, it is part of natural selection. Note that the Berkeley example does not mention beetles with congenital conditions. Gosh, they left that out. It's still part of natural selection: the favouring of more viable variation. If so, why exactly would that be a problem? Sigh. I thought you understood all this. You say you understand it. I guess you don't. If there is no selection then the allele frequency stays the same. It's not a 'problem', it just means you're not getting to significant shifts in phenotypes. JVL

JVL, do you realise how callous and vindictive your dismissiveness to people who have indeed suffered academic persecution is? And, blame the victim games will not make it any better. I suggest, you would be well advised to rethink. KF kairosfocus

PS, Walker and Davies:

In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

more on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507 kairosfocus

FP, you seem unaware of the empirical foundations of science. When we have trillions of observations of a phenomenon and a consistent cause, that is a strong sign indeed. How many observations of FSCO/I arising by blind chance and/or blind mechanical necessity? Precisely, nil. Another clue. Then, as we observe the need for multiple, well matched parts, properly oriented, arranged and coupled to achieve configuration based function, that invites configuration space analysis, basically a cut down phase space. When complexity goes beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, the number of configs the atoms of the sol system or the cosmos could go through in 10^17 s, becomes a negligible fraction of the abstract space of possibilities. As a concrete comparison try a first example from L K Nash or Mandl in introducing statistical mechanics: 500 - 1,000 coins or paramagnetic domains, where we see readily 3.27*10^150 possibilities for the 500 case, where that includes every possible 500 bit string. So, every possible description is captured by the space. But, chance, random based processes or blind mechanical mechanisms or a blend of the two are maximally implausible to express FSCO/I, as the relative statistical weight of gibberish is utterly overwhelming. Not that such is likely to give you pause. Though, it should. KF kairosfocus

JVL @

Unguided evolution is (partly) a combination of inheritable variation and cumulative natural selection.

And we are discussing specifically the input of natural selection a.k.a. "natural elimination.”

Natural selection includes embryos that die in the womb, ‘children’ that die young because they have a congenital problem.

This a common mistake, actually, this is not part of natural selection’s job description. “Death” takes care of organisms that are not viable. Note that the Berkeley example (#177) does not mention beetles with congenital conditions.

Evolution means change in allele frequency, without selection you’d get no measurable (i.e. average) change in allele frequency.

If so, why exactly would that be a problem for evolution? Origenes

Sandy, yes, we already have serious fine tuning issues to get to a cosmos merely compatible with cell based life. The onward invitation that physics and chemistry acting in a darwin pond or the like, are even more biased towards spontaneous origin of cell based life, if it were demonstrated -- and such simply is nowhere near likely! -- would be a strong sign indeed that somebody monkeyed with physics and chemistry, echoing Sir Fred Hoyle. KF kairosfocus

Bornagain77: One of the links in your last copy-and-paste diatribe linked to a website called Creation Evolution headlines. That's what you consider to be a scientific reference? Really? Then there are the usual links to The Discovery Institute's blog. Hardly an accepted, objective source. Now, the other link is to a paper that I would accept as being roughly in support of your stance on design. If you just stick to things like that people will take you more seriously. That one IS problematic from my point of view. Find more things like that. (I'm going to try and find the time to peruse that paper a bit more to make sure I understand it better. ) I will also note that the paper I'm taking seriously (The waiting time problem in a model hominin population: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/) includes the following statement at the end:

To the extent that waiting time is a serious problem for classic neo-Darwinian theory, it is only reasonable that we begin to examine alternative models [39, 40] regarding how biological information arises.

Reference 40 is to Marks II RJ, Behe MJ, Dembski WA, Gordon BL, Sanford JC, editors. Biological Information – New Perspectives. London: World Scientific; 2013. p. 1–563. So, yes, I will take this work seriously as being (at least on the face of it) in support of ID. Again, that's the kind of thing you should be bringing forward. JVL

FP, you have invited cognitive dissonance, confession by projection analysis, and not to your advantage. Meanwhile, blind needle in haystack search is a readily understood though perhaps imperfect metaphor. Blind, here of course echoes one certain Clinton Richard Dawkins in the title of one of his popularising books: The Blind Watchmaker, a history you should have been aware of, even as it would be quite helpful if one and all were to ponder Paley's ch 2 on the self replicating, time keeping watch, yes almost 50 years before Darwin wrote and just shy of 150 before von Neumann's kinematic self replicator with its coded tape. Where, no one suggested by using such terms, that the evolutionary materialist concept of origin of life was purpose-driven, just the opposite, you are tilting at a strawman. The point is, in a darwin pond or the like, only blind physics and chemistry would be at work, through statistical thermodynamics constrained interactions. Such physical factors are consistent with the molecular nanotech of cell based life, as they are with advanced computers and a world of technology, but the FSCO/I in such is -- just on blind search challenge -- maximally implausible as the result of a blind process. KF kairosfocus

Relatd: Quit squirming around. So, you are saying human beings and apes did not have a common ancestor? Yes or no. Human beings and the other great apes definitely had a common ancestor. As far as people losing their jobs, are you in charge of the acceptable losses? Are you the one who gets to say: “Oh, 10 or a hundred, that’s nothing.”? How many people actually lost their jobs because they publicly stated a belief in intelligent design? If it was only one or two then it's not as much a problem as it would be if it were a thousand. Last time someone gave me a list I admit there was one case which sounded pretty s***ty to me, that is it sounded like someone was really being discriminated against explicitly because of their support for ID. But, to be fair, a lot of the other famous cases aren't because (like Dr Behe, who never lost his tenure by the way) the person in question publicly supported ID, it's because the person in question did something else which made their position less solid. That is when they lost their job at all. JVL

Bornagain77: take your pick, A lot of those are NOT molecular machines but here's a bit on the origin of haemoglobin:

Scientists agree that the event that separated myoglobin from hemoglobin occurred after lampreys diverged from jawed vertebrates. This separation of myoglobin and hemoglobin allowed for the different functions of the two molecules to arise and develop: myoglobin has more to do with oxygen storage while hemoglobin is tasked with oxygen transport. The ?- and ?-like globin genes encode the individual subunits of the protein. The predecessors of these genes arose through another duplication event also after the gnathosome common ancestor derived from jawless fish, approximately 450–500 million years ago. Ancestral reconstruction studies suggest that the preduplication ancestor of the ? and ? genes was a dimer made up of identical globin subunits, which then evolved to assemble into a tetrameric architecture after the duplication. The development of ? and ? genes created the potential for hemoglobin to be composed of multiple distinct subunits, a physical composition central to hemoglobin's ability to transport oxygen. Having multiple subunits contributes to hemoglobin's ability to bind oxygen cooperatively as well as be regulated allosterically. Subsequently, the ? gene also underwent a duplication event to form the HBA1 and HBA2 genes. These further duplications and divergences have created a diverse range of ?- and ?-like globin genes that are regulated so that certain forms occur at different stages of development.

And, in case you want to categorise the above as another 'just so story' you would first have to consider all the research articles which verify or justify all the individual steps involved to check and see the lab work done to establish that step. Of course you're not going to actually take the time to look at the research behind the history so I'm wondering what exactly you would consider as evidence of unguided processes having developed haemoglobin? You're never, ever going to get a single lab-based experiment which can recreate millions of years of evolution. If you think that you should be able to get that then what you are really talking about is one of your miracles. Remember JVL, real-time empirical evidence of a molecular machine being created in a lab, not the usual Darwinian ‘just so stories’ as to how molecular machines might have come about in the remote past. This is the usual trope: if you can't show a process that took millions of years happening in a few years then you're wrong. What you can get is the individual steps being shown to happen but that would mean you'd have to first go and look at all the research behind the big picture. Which is why I asked you to narrow down your request. But you couldn't handle that. JVL, unsurprisingly, hand waves off quantum critical proteins as if their extreme rarity is no big problem for Darwinian theory. Typical trollish behavior. A bunch of hand-waving, chest puffing, and flat out lying to cover his sheer lack of any real-time empirical evidence.. Nothing new. I just note that none of the researchers involved suggested that their results brought unguided evolution into question. And I did note that it was a question that should be and is being looked at. Made any progress with those very simple probability questions I asked you? I could explain the technique for solving them to a 10-year old. (I know that because I have done so.) JVL

Natural selection is shown to be grossly inadequate as the supposed 'designer substitute':

The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ Why All Critiques of the Waiting Time Problem Fail - Günter Bechly - September 30, 2022, https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/fossil-friday-walking-whales-and-why-all-critiques-of-the-waiting-time-problem-fail/

Of related note:

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller - September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: "Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument." Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 (2009) To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/ Evolutionary Fitness Is Not Measurable - November 20, 2021 The central concept of natural selection cannot be measured. This means it has no scientific value. Excerpt:,, to measure something, it needs units. How is fitness to be measured? What are the units? Physicists have degrees Kelvin, ergs and Joules of energy and Faradays of electricity, but do 100 Spencers on a Haeckl-o-meter equal 10 Darwins of fitness? ,,, The term “fitness” becomes nebulous when you try to pin it down. Five evolutionists attempted to nail this jello to the wall, and wrote up their results in a preprint on bioRxiv by Alif et al. that asked, “What is the best fitness measure in wild populations?” (One might wonder why this question is being asked 162 years after Darwin presented his theory to the world.) ,,, The authors admit that their results do not necessarily apply to all living things. (they state), "A universal definition of fitness in mathematical terms that applies to all population structures and dynamics is however not agreed on." Remember that this statement comes over 162 years after evolutionists began talking about fitness. If you cannot define something, how can you measure it? And if you can’t measure it, is it really scientific?,,, https://crev.info/2021/11/evolutionary-fitness-is-not-measurable/

bornagain77

Origenes: If viable (capable of living) organisms are not eliminated — if there would be no natural selection — why exactly would unguided evolution not happen? Unguided evolution is (partly) a combination of inheritable variation and cumulative natural selection. Natural selection includes embryos that die in the womb, 'children' that die young because they have a congenital problem. If unviable variations are not eliminated and passed on their genetics the population would be a huge mess of strong and weak variations all of which would be interbreeding. You'd never get a sufficient number of 'strong' variations to skew the entire population in a direction. Evolution means change in allele frequency, without selection you'd get no measurable (i.e. average) change in allele frequency. (Yes, I know there are also other kinds of selection and there is also genetic drift but, by most measures, natural selection seems to have much more effect.) JVL

JVL at 195, Quit squirming around. So, you are saying human beings and apes did not have a common ancestor? Yes or no. As far as people losing their jobs, are you in charge of the acceptable losses? Are you the one who gets to say: "Oh, 10 or a hundred, that's nothing."? relatd

JVL, take your pick,

Molecular Machines (links on site) What are Molecular Machines? Selected List of Molecular Machines I. Molecular Machines that Scientists Have Argued Show Irreducible Complexity 1. Bacterial Flagellum 2. Eukaryotic Cilium 3. Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases (aaRS) 4. Blood clotting cascade 5. Ribosome 6. Antibodies and the Adaptive Immune System II. Additional Molecular Machines 7. Spliceosome 8. F0F1 ATP Synthase 9. Bacteriorhdopsin 10. Myosin 11. Kinesin Motor 12. Tim/Tom Systems 13. Calcium Pump 14. Cytochrome C Oxidase 15. Proteosome 16. Cohesin 17. Condensin 18. ClpX 19. Immunological Synapse 20. Glideosome 21. Kex2 22. Hsp70 23. Hsp60 24. Protein Kinase C 25. SecYEG PreProtein Translocation Channel 26. Hemoglobin 27. T4 DNA Packaging Motor 28. Smc5/Smc6 29. Cytplasmic Dynein 30. Mitotic Spindle Machine 31. DNA Polymerase 32. RNA Polymerase 33. Kinetochore 34. MRX Complex 35. Apoptosome / Caspase 36. Type III Secretory System 37. Type II Secretion Apparatus 38. Helicase/Topoisomerase Machine 39. RNA degradasome 40. Photosynthetic system References Cited Contributors https://evolutionnews.org/i/molecular-machines/

Remember JVL, real-time empirical evidence of a molecular machine being created in a lab, not the usual Darwinian 'just so stories' as to how molecular machines might have come about in the remote past. JVL, unsurprisingly, hand waves off quantum critical proteins as if their extreme rarity is no big problem for Darwinian theory. Typical trollish behavior. A bunch of hand-waving, chest puffing, and flat out lying to cover his sheer lack of any real-time empirical evidence.. Nothing new. JVL is a pathetic and shallow Darwinian troll. bornagain77

JVL @

To say that natural selection hampers a process it is itself a required part of is nonsensical. Unguided evolution wouldn’t happen at all without natural selection!

If viable (capable of living) organisms are not eliminated — if there would be no natural selection — why exactly would unguided evolution not happen? Origenes

Relatd: he scientific community is thoroughly infected with the idea that unguided accidents No, inheritable variation and cumulative selection which is NOT random or accidental. How many years have you been told that over and over and over again but you still intentionally (I guess) misrepresent the actual theory? And the evidence for that is people losing their positions and coming under fire for thinking exactly that. How many people actually lost their jobs? Go on. A thousand? A hundred? Ten? Less? JVL

Origenes: That is good to know. Now, please, answer the question, so we can all be clear about the fact that natural selection hampers evolution in the context of finding biological information. Too funny. You've already decided on your conclusion. Unguided evolution has no problems at all finding new phenotypes to better exploit environmental niches. Evolution is the combination (partly) of inheritable variation and cumulative natural selection. To say that natural selection hampers a process it is itself a required part of is nonsensical. Unguided evolution wouldn't happen at all without natural selection! Here's a question for you: what life form that could have been wildly successful are you thinking natural selection eliminated from consideration? You think it happened, give me an example. JVL

Bornagain77: JVL STILL has yet to list ANY real-time empirical evidence for any molecular machine being created by Darwinian processes. I will ask you FOR THE THIRD TIME: narrow down your question to a particular step or transition in whatever . . . progression you think there is no evidence of it having come around by natural processes. I want real-time empirical evidence of Darwinian processes creating ANY molecular machine! Pick one then. JVL wants to claim that I don’t have the capacity to understand the sheer mathematical impossibility of Darwinian evolution since I am not as proficient in mathematical probability as he supposedly is. I don't think you understand the probabilistic arguments made. Whether or not the arguments are sensible is a different topic. First let's see if you can grasp the math. Can you answer the extremely basic probability questions I asked, yes or no? exactly where is his peer-reviewed work proving Darwinian evolution to be a mathematical feasible theory? Others have done work along those lines when it's necessary. And at post 169 I did indeed listed an Oxford job description where they were looking for someone, anyone, to straighten out the mathematical mess that lies at the foundation of Darwinian theory. Let's be clear: you linked to an article by The Biologic Institute which posted excerpts from an Oxford job listing retrieved in 2011. That listing no longer exists so it's impossible to even verify it existed or to put the excerpts in context. I can't see it being that serious of a request since it's clear that unguided evolutionary theory comprises a conglomeration of many processes and influences. I can't imagine anyone thinking there would be a single, unifying theory thus my skepticism. in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” Amusingly enough, if you click on that link (which is to an article and NOT the actual research paper) and scroll down you will find an article entitled: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing. Lovely. Here's the actual abstract from Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life:

Why life persists at the edge of chaos is a question at the very heart of evolution. Here we show that molecules taking part in biochemical processes from small molecules to proteins are critical quantum mechanically. Electronic Hamiltonians of biomolecules are tuned exactly to the critical point of the metal-insulator transition separating the Anderson localized insulator phase from the conducting disordered metal phase. Using tools from Random Matrix Theory we confirm that the energy level statistics of these biomolecules show the universal transitional distribution of the metal-insulator critical point and the wave functions are multifractals in accordance with the theory of Anderson transitions. The findings point to the existence of a universal mechanism of charge transport in living matter. The revealed bio-conductor material is neither a metal nor an insulator but a new quantum critical material which can exist only in highly evolved systems and has unique material properties.

Gosh, that doesn't sound quite so amazing as you seem to indicate. Do you know what electronic Hamiltonians are? Do you know about Random Matrix Theory? Multifractals? Anderson transitions? Does any of that make sense to you? Assuming you haven't got a clue what any of that means what makes you think you can then say it's evidence for design? Hopefully you can see JVL where someone who does not have your mathematical acumen, such as myself, could be led astray by “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, and “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”. Sure, it's curious and interesting and hard to understand which is why people are doing research on the issue. (Again, you're quoting from a blog post not the actual paper in question.) But they're NOT throwing up their hands and deciding it all must be designed however. You choose to be 'led astray'. For some reason. So JVL, perhaps after you straighten me, and everybody else here on UD, out on mathematical probability, you might find a little time to straighten those guys out on the mathematical probability of quantum critical proteins? Or is that beyond your job description of being a Darwinian troll? First you have to say whether or not you can even grasp the extremely easy problems I already gave you. Can you? JVL

Ba77, It should be obvious to anyone that the problem is not just JVL. The scientific community is thoroughly infected with the idea that unguided accidents led to the things they look at under microscopes and in fossils. The idea that what they see was engineered to be the way it is is clouded by this "narrative gloss" which amounts to a filter and camouflage. It amounts to a little voice that says: "No, this was not designed. This living thing came about through unguided processes. And woe unto anyone who even thinks otherwise." And the evidence for that is people losing their positions and coming under fire for thinking exactly that. relatd

JVL

Ori: How does the elimination of variety (in this example green beetles) assist evolution in finding biological information?

JVL: Evolution doesn’t search for information. That’s not the goal.

That is good to know. Now, please, answer the question, so we can all be clear about the fact that natural selection hampers evolution in the context of finding biological information. Origenes

Ford Prefect

I cringe every time I hear an IDist try to use probability or terms like “search”.

There is no need for you to do so. Darwinians claim that unguided evolution is up to the job of producing the biological information we encounter in life. This claim can only be checked if evolution is modeled as a search for biological information. Origenes

Origenes: Perhaps, but I ask you to answer the question regardless of its quality. Evolution doesn't search for information. That's not the goal. So, asking how this or that helps it find information is non-sensical. You seem to think that, say, the 'information' in the human DNA had to exist before humans so that evolution could 'find' it. That just doesn't make sense. That implies a target or a goal which is not the case. JVL

JVL STILL has yet to list ANY real-time empirical evidence for any molecular machine being created by Darwinian processes. What is the problem? He claims to have hundreds and/or thousands of papers that he can pick and choose from in order to prove that Darwinian processes can create molecular machines. Where are they? He claims he wants me to specify exactly what I want? I want real-time empirical evidence of Darwinian processes creating ANY molecular machine! The fact is that JVL is flat out lying about having ANY real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating even one molecular machine, (much less hundreds and/or thousands of papers demonstrating as such). and JVL simply refuses to honestly admit it. And he has been flat out lying about having any evidence ever since post 137 when I called his bluff on having any real-time evidence for bacteria producing anything other than more bacteria. JVL wants to claim that I don't have the capacity to understand the sheer mathematical impossibility of Darwinian evolution since I am not as proficient in mathematical probability as he supposedly is. I have a question for JVL. Since JVL fancies himself to be so much more gifted at accurately surmising the impossibility/possibility of Darwinian evolution than Kairosfocus, Winston Ewert, William Dembski, Robert Marks, Murray Eden, Harold Horowitz, Wolfgang Paul, etc.. etc.., are, exactly where is his peer-reviewed work proving Darwinian evolution to be a mathematically feasible theory? After all, he has been fairly boastful as to his mastery of the subject. And at post 169 I did indeed list an Oxford job description where they were looking for someone, anyone, to straighten out the mathematical mess that lies at the foundation of Darwinian theory. So it is not as if there is not a big mathematical need for someone, anyone, of JVL's supposed mathematical caliber to step forward and rescue Darwinists from all these nagging mathematical doubts about its feasibility that keep cropping up. But anyways, JVL is only human, and I guess he is just too busy, so I guess JVL will just have to settle for trying to straighten out little ole me on mathematical probability first. So JVL, in order to please you, and not offend your mathematical sensibilities any more, should I now send all my references on probability through you first before I post them? How about this following one? Is this one OK with you if I post it? or does it also fail to meet with your 'probabilistic' approval? :) in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

To drive this point home, this follow up 2018 article stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”

Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)

Hopefully you can see JVL where someone who does not have your mathematical acumen, such as myself, could be led astray by “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, and “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”. So JVL, perhaps after you straighten me, and everybody else here on UD, out on mathematical probability, you might find a little time to straighten those guys out on the mathematical probability of quantum critical proteins? Or is that beyond your job description of being a Darwinian troll? bornagain77