Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Limits of Darwinism hinted at


From “For certain orchids, relatives more important than pollinators in shaping floral attractants (Eurekalert, October 26, 2011
Public Release: 26-Oct-2011),

Bees, bats, and moths follow their noses in search of food from flowers. Plants that rely on such animals for pollination often produce particular chemical scents that attract specific pollinators. However, the ability to produce certain chemicals is also determined by a plant’s genetics, or phylogenetic history, which can potentially limit its ability to respond to pollinator pressures. So which is more important in the evolution of floral scents: pollinator-induced natural selection or phylogenetic constraints?

“While the results of natural selection, or pollinator-mediated selection, generally produce the most fascinating examples of evolution — such as the extraordinarily long spurs of the Angraecum orchid (Darwin’s orchid) and the equally extraordinarily long proboscis of its hawkmoth pollinator — many characteristics are shared between closely related species simply as the result of their common ancestry, and it is important to be aware that this common ancestry can have a strong influence on the outcome of natural selection,” Steiner says.

Which is as much as to say Darwinism cannot do what lobbyists claim, no matter how many profs set up a pack bark in the lecture room. No matter now many Darwin lawyers go to court, no matter how many politicians pledge their faith in Darwin.

What on earth are you on about? Chas D
Thus the question to be asked, instead of avoided, is where does the mass-energy space-time of this universe come from? Clearly the cause has to be beyond space, time, mass, energy!
In the cyclic model proposed by Steinhardt and Turok, there is no before, no beginning - like God, an eternal reality. My comment here refers to other exceptions. rhampton7
Moreover dmullenix, not only did the 'non-local', beyond space and time, 'infinite transcendent information' realm create this universe, within finely-tuned parameters that defy human comprehension, but it is also now shown that this same 'infinite transcendent information' realm, which created this universe, sustains 'material' reality! But atheistic materialists, instead of facing up to the facts, presented by quantum wave collpase, squarely, invented a infinity of imaginary parallel universes in order to ignore the elephant in the living room presented by quantum wave collapse. notes:
Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/ Quantum mechanics Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not 'physically real' but was merely 'abstract'. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract? Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
Clearly atheists, with their postulated multiverse and infinite parallel universes, are completely ignoring the scientific evidence when it suits their atheistic dogmatism. Of note: since Atheists have already 'played their ace' of infinite parallel universes' dealing with quantum wave collapse, exactly what are atheists going to appeal to to deal with non-local quantum entanglement and teleportation??? Are they going to invent still more imaginary infinities??? bornagain77
dmullenix, materialism, particularly the 'randomness/chaos' inherent within the construct of materialism, you simply have no way to prevent absurdities from the 'multiverse', such as the Boltzmann Brain problem, from swamping your atheistic theory for the origin of the universe,,,
Random Infinite Multiverse vs. Uniformity Of Nature - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139
Here are a bit more formal proofs refuting the atheistic conjecture of the multiverse:
Bayesian considerations on the multiverse explanation of cosmic fine-tuning - V. Palonen Conclusions: The four most viable approaches for inference in a possible multiverse and in the presence of an observer selection effect were reviewed. Concerning the ‘assume the observation’ (AO) approach advocated by Sober, Ikeda, and Jefferys, it was shown that this kind of an observer selection effect is justified if and only if the observation is conditionally independent of the hypothesis. In the case of cosmic fine-tuning the observation would be a child of the hypothesis and the two are not independent. It follows that one should use the observation as data and not as a background condition. Hence, the AO approach for cosmic fine-tuning is incorrect. The self-sampling assumption approach by Bostrom was shown to be inconsistent with probability theory. Several reasons were then given for favoring the ‘this universe’ (TU) approach and main criticisms against TU were answered. A formal argument for TU was given based on our present knowledge. The main result is that even under a multiverse we should use the proposition “this universe is fine-tuned” as data, even if we do not know the ‘true index’ 14 of our universe. It follows that because multiverse hypotheses do not predict fine-tuning for this particular universe any better than a single universe hypothesis, multiverse hypotheses are not adequate explanations for fine-tuning. Conversely, our data on cosmic fine-tuning does not lend support to the multiverse hypotheses. For physics in general, irrespective of whether there really is a multiverse or not, the common-sense result of the above discussion is that we should prefer those theories which best predict (for this or any universe) the phenomena we observe in our universe. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.4013.pdf The Effect of Infinite Probabilistic Resources on ID and Science (Part 2) - Eric Holloway - July 2011 Excerpt:,, since orderly configurations drop off so quickly as our space of configurations approach infinity, then this shows that infinite resources actually make it extremely easy to discriminate in favor of ID (Intelligent Design) when faced with an orderly configuration. Thus, intelligent design detection becomes more effective as the probabilistic resources increase. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/the-effect-of-infinite-probabilistic-resources-on-id-and-science-part-2/
But another thing that is completely illogical about your atheistic multiverse conjecture is this:
Are Many Worlds and the Multiverse the Same Idea? - Sean Carroll Excerpt: When cosmologists talk about “the multiverse,” it’s a slightly poetic term. We really just mean different regions of spacetime, far away so that we can’t observe them, but nevertheless still part of what one might reasonably want to call “the universe.” In inflationary cosmology, however, these different regions can be relatively self-contained — “pocket universes,” as Alan Guth calls them. http://unitedgeorgians.blogspot.com/2011/08/are-many-worlds-and-multiverse-same.html
This atheistic conjecture of the multiverse CLEARLY does not deal with the 'problem' of the origin of the universe since atheists have just pushed to issue of the origination of space-time & mass-energy back a step:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 'Now' cannot exist if Time is Infinite Into The Past - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0pdUvQdi4 "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970
Thus the question to be asked, instead of avoided, is where does the mass-energy space-time of this universe come from? Clearly the cause has to be beyond space, time, mass, energy! When we ask this specific question we find our answer! Transcendent, and Dominant, Information, as revealed by quantum entanglement, and quantum teleportation experiments, is the only known entity within science with sufficient causality to bring about the origination of the space-time mass-energy of the universe;
‘Pure transcendent information’ is now shown to be ‘conserved’. (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent quantum information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical/material events, past, present, and future, already must exist.) This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of the foundational ‘material’ entity of this universe, energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known ‘material’ means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics. Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of quantum information in this universe must be complete and instantaneous.) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
These following studies should, for all practical purposes, shut the multiverse argument down completely:
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation: Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/
Sorry, 3 above should have been posted in the Whale Evolution vs the Fossil Record thread. dmullenix
BA77, thanks for the information on Drs. Sheldon, Craig and company. I especially enjoyed the ontological arguments, but haven’t time to go into them at length. It is fascinating to see the existence of God tied to human conception though. Who’d a thunk it? Dr. Craig’s musings on Roger Penrose, on the other hand, are less interesting. Penrose seems to think that the possibility of our solar system forming instantly by the random collision of particles is worth thinking about, which would explain his weird math, but frankly his argument doesn’t come close to having the panache of the ontological argument. I do agree, however, that Dr. Craig is the world’s greatest living Christian philosopher, which would worry me if I was a Christian. But no matter, the possibility that THIS universe exists does happen to be 1 or at least it’s within a Descartes of 1. So do you really think that you personally are a Boltzmann brain? Personally, I doubt it. I’m pretty sure that your brain came into existence in the old-fashioned way, like everybody else’s. Which makes Dr. Gordon’s argument look pretty silly. Maybe he has his own private physics too? dmullenix
ChasD: "So, you pick a specific case reliant on common ancestry and extrapolate it out to attack natural selection in toto? Just to point out, both of those are “Darwinist” concepts." ==== Here's a clip from the link given: "natural selection, or pollinator-mediated selection" And funny enough there is no argument here. Pollenators(bats, birds, bess, etc) bringing about through chance other grains of pollen with their own unique bits of information which just by luck might create newer information for a new variety of the same KIND of plant. This doesn't even disagree with the biblical admission of such things as luck and chance existing and influencing life itself. Ecclesiastes 9:11 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) Time and Unpredictable Events(Luck and Chance) (11) "I saw something else under the sun. The race isn’t won by fast runners, or the battle by heroes. Wise people don’t necessarily have food. Intelligent people don’t necessarily have riches, and skilled people don’t necessarily receive special treatment. But time and unpredictable events overtake all of them." Or one could even reference what Jesus gave in the Parable about the chanced circumstances surrounding the sower of seed. Differing environmental factors caused difference circumstances for different seed. In any case no one argues the role of environmental unpredictability. It's the part where Natural Selection is used as a blind intelligent agent or force(animistic omnipresent god) when it magically creates organs, wings, eyes, etc. And the only explanation we get in a paper is basically = "Lordy Lordy, Praised Be Darwin" Look at the amazing complexity that our omnipresent god has given us. We don't actually know how it did it, but it never the less did it. Therefore our metaphysically inserting as a euphemism the term 'Natural Selection' should suffice to cover the bases of what we are incapable of rationally and logically explaining in detail" Anyone who questions their authority by demanding further details of a matter will therefore be branded as heretic and have the description Anti-Science tatooed onto his/her reputation. Of course then there is always this precautionary warning in the scriptures. 1 Timothy 6:20 Amplified Bible (AMP) (20) "O Timothy, guard and keep the deposit entrusted [to you]! Turn away from the irreverent babble and godless chatter, with the vain and empty and worldly phrases, and the subtleties and the contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge and spiritual illumination." Eocene
Petrushka: "It’s why human genetic engineering can be distinguished from natural selection. Humans do horizontal transfers of genes that are not observed in nature." ==== Ah yes, like Monsanto and Syngenta who break those purposed Natural Laws of species barriers and boundaries of kinds of organisms limited to replicating acording to their own kinds for which to maintain order in the natural world as opposed instead of the present genetically polluted environmental chaos brought about by disrespect for those Natural Laws by scientists who couldn't give a Rat's rear end of the consequences of breaking such Natural Laws for the selfish and greedy profiteering demands of their Masters who pimp their wares ??? Beautiful! Hasn't scientific achievement been wonderful ??? ---- Petrushka: "One wonders why the Designer didn’t think of that." ==== I love it. The uncanny spiritistic ability of a Medium to channel into the mind of a nonexistant entity and then proceeds to story us a fable of just what such a mythological god character would or worldn't behave like. Another scientific metaphysical observation opted for instead of naturalistic explanations. Why would or wouldn't a Creator do such and such, doesn't make sense to me, therefore evolution must be true! Eocene
But that's one of the strongest evidences of common descent, the fact that evolution is constrained by descent. It's why human genetic engineering can be distinguished from natural selection. Humans do horizontal transfers of genes that are not observed in nature. One wonders why the Designer didn't think of that. Petrushka
So, you pick a specific case reliant on common ancestry and extrapolate it out to attack natural selection in toto? Just to point out, both of those are "Darwinist" concepts. Chas D

Leave a Reply