At Access Research Network: Art Battson on keeping evolution in context

Martin_r: And how the existing ones came to be ? :))) Everyone admits that the origin of life is still a mystery. obviously he does not, perhaps he will one day… Nice person your designer. But i would like to drop the debate about any punishment. It is too philosophical. It was a mistake to mention this, but i do understand, that you Darwinists like to debate this. Okay. Again, I am an engineer, so i would like to stick to technical things: 1. population regulators (e.g. bacteriophages) 2. genome update (retro-viruses) Any discussion of technical things and their effects bring up the point of why and therefore who and when. Lets assume, that humans were created by an engineer. Would it be so surprising, if the engineer also created some tools how to control / regulate / advance / update/ change or even kill humans? Would that be so surprising ? Please short answer: YES / NO Not like those though. a virus killed its host. In what way was it beneficial for the virus ? First it reproduced, a lot. Then, before it dies, the host spreads it around. Clearly the strategy works. JVL

JVL, and, one more question, i never understood the following: a virus killed its host. In what way was it beneficial for the virus ? martin_r

JVL, i said i would like to drop the debate about any punishment, but i can't resist to ask you the following: Lets assume, that humans were created by an engineer. Would it be so surprising, if the engineer also created some tools how to control / regulate / advance / update/ change or even kill humans? Would that be so surprising ? Please short answer: YES / NO martin_r

JVL " How does the designer direct who gets ill and who doesn’t?" i was thinking of punishing humans as a whole. It is clear, that most humans misbehave (just look at the human history), so the punishment is pretty targeted anyway. But i would like to drop the debate about any punishment. It is too philosophical. It was a mistake to mention this, but i do understand, that you Darwinists like to debate this. Again, I am an engineer, so i would like to stick to technical things: 1. population regulators (e.g. bacteriophages) 2. genome update (retro-viruses) martin_r

JVL "How species ‘originate’ from existing ones. " WHAT? from existing ones? And how the existing ones came to be ? :))) JVL "So, the designer doesn’t care that they now attack humans?" obviously he does not, perhaps he will one day... martin_r

Natural selection is nonrandom in the most trivial way- that being not all variations have the same odds of being eliminated. It is still nothing more than contingent serendipity. NS has NEVER been observed to be the designer mimic Darwin posited. Darwin's ideas have been a total bust. And yet evos cling to them because their faith requires it. ET

Again, for the learning impaired: How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. An intelligently design OoL means that living organisms were so designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. It is only if blind and mindless processes produced the OoL can we say the subsequent evolution occurred via blind and mindless processes. Evos ALWAYS ignore that fact as if their willful ignorance is an argument. Pathetic, really. ET

Earth to JVL- There isn't any theory of unguided evolution. The concept is incoherent and untestable. ET

Earth to seversky- without Intelligent Design all you have is sheer dumb luck. ET

Martin_r: are you saying, that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not supposed to explain ‘the origin of species’ How species 'originate' from existing ones. Perhaps he should have said the origin of new species. Anyway, his intent is clear in his writing. first, ‘the deadliest pathogens know to man’ werent supposed to attack / kill humans. In time these pathogens devolved to also kill humans. So, the designer doesn't care that they now attack humans? Second, ‘the deadliest pathogens know to man’ could be Creator’s demonstration of his power over humans and other species, this also can’t be ruled out. If i created you, Seversky, and you misbehave, i am pretty sure i will have a tool to show you whats right. Morever, i know you will misbehave, because i created you. So the designer sometimes spanks us for being naughty by infecting us with a virus? How does the designer direct who gets ill and who doesn't? Third, ‘the deadliest pathogens know to man’ could be population regulators, we see that when you look at bacteria ecology, bacteria are regulated/killed by bacteriophages. Tell me Seversky, why should a non-living biological entity (a virus), kill bacteria ? What is the reason ? A virus has no metabolism (it does not eat), he does not live, he does not compete, because it does not live and does not eat, so why does a virus kill bacteria ? A bacteriophage is a population regulator, no doubt. Non-living nano-machine, to regulate bacteria population. A killing machine. Why should some viruses kill bacteria? For the same reason they kill humans, it's how they reproduce and propagate. The ones who are good at it leave more offspring than those who aren't so good. Finally, not all humans get killed, obviously, our immune system was designed with foresight, to fight pathogens. Of course, you atheists BELIEVE, that immune system evolved in time, but this is just another Darwinian just-so story. You atheists BELIEVE something, and then, in time, it always turns out to be wrong… always …. :))))) So, we have an immune system to fight off infections but the ever observant designer sometimes bypasses that to inflict directed punishment? Let me get this right . . . we have an immune system which we would only need to fight off infections we weren't meant to get so the designer is not in complete control of our environmental pathogens. BUT they can still sometimes design a particular infection to punish some of us for being naughty? Is that about right? If i would be a skilled designer, skilled enough to create humans, i would definitely have a tool how to ‘update’ my engineering masterpiece. (The tool = e.g. retro-viruses ). So i can update you whenever i want to, even remotely. I don’t need to be on Earth, also, no abduction needed :))) All what i have to do is to deliver a retro-virus near to you, wait till you get infected, the retro-virus will add new data-set to your DNA, wait for your kids, and then i will have a new ‘updated’ generation of Seversky … Perhaps this is exactly what happened in the past, perhaps that is why 5-8% of human genome is made of retro-viruses. So, when the designer is not sitting back letting our immune systems handle a bunch of degraded pathogens OR punishing some of us by bypassing our gifted immune system 'cause we were bad they might later decide to upgrade our software by the hideously unpredictable method of sending around retro-viruses to move those of us lucky enough to get infected to version 2.1? Wow. JVL

and Seversky, one more thing in regards to viruses. I am mechanical engineer with strong IT background. There are so called endogenous retro-viruses, perhaps you heard this term before. These types of viruses can change /add new data to your DNA, update your DNA. If i would be a skilled designer, skilled enough to create humans, i would definitely have a tool how to 'update' my engineering masterpiece. (The tool = e.g. retro-viruses ). So i can update you whenever i want to, even remotely. I don't need to be on Earth, also, no abduction needed :))) All what i have to do is to deliver a retro-virus near to you, wait till you get infected, the retro-virus will add new data-set to your DNA, wait for your kids, and then i will have a new 'updated' generation of Seversky ... Perhaps this is exactly what happened in the past, perhaps that is why 5-8% of human genome is made of retro-viruses. PS: one more note. Seversky, did you know, that according to Darwinists, 'blind unguided natural process' solved the incompatibility issue ? Retroviruses are RNA based. So, in order to infect humans, first, RNA needs to be converted to DNA :))))) So, this blind unguided natural process invented a molecular machine, so called reverse-transcriptase. Yes, the retro-virus somehow figured it out, to convert RNA to DNA was a piece of cake :)))) martin_r

Seversky "If that is true then all of the deadliest pathogens known to Man were designed by the God in which you believe. So how do you square that with a wise and benign Creator" there could be at least 3 explanations: first, 'the deadliest pathogens know to man' werent supposed to attack / kill humans. In time these pathogens devolved to also kill humans. Second, 'the deadliest pathogens know to man' could be Creator's demonstration of his power over humans and other species, this also can't be ruled out. If i created you, Seversky, and you misbehave, i am pretty sure i will have a tool to show you whats right. Morever, i know you will misbehave, because i created you. Third, 'the deadliest pathogens know to man' could be population regulators, we see that when you look at bacteria ecology, bacteria are regulated/killed by bacteriophages. Tell me Seversky, why should a non-living biological entity (a virus), kill bacteria ? What is the reason ? A virus has no metabolism (it does not eat), he does not live, he does not compete, because it does not live and does not eat, so why does a virus kill bacteria ? A bacteriophage is a population regulator, no doubt. Non-living nano-machine, to regulate bacteria population. A killing machine. Finally, not all humans get killed, obviously, our immune system was designed with foresight, to fight pathogens. Of course, you atheists BELIEVE, that immune system evolved in time, but this is just another Darwinian just-so story. You atheists BELIEVE something, and then, in time, it always turns out to be wrong... always .... :))))) martin_r

JVL "You wouldn’t expect the theory of gravity to explain the origination of life forms so why do you expect the theory of evolution to do so since it’s not about that?" why do i expect the theory of evolution to explain the origination of life forms ? :))))) WHAT ??? WHAT ??????? are you saying, that Darwin's theory of evolution is not supposed to explain 'the origin of species' ??? :)))) i debated lots of evolutionists, i heard lots of very ridiculous things from evolutionists, but what you just said beats everything :))))) martin_r

Serversky states, "If that is true then all of the deadliest pathogens known to Man were designed by the God in which you believe. So how do you square that with a wise and benign Creator who supposedly loves humanity as the pinnacle of His creation?" Actually viruses, in their original state, and as I referenced in my post, serve essential and beneficial purposes. It is only in rare instances where bacteria and/or viruses deviate from the original state and/or purpose, via degradative mutations, or via what have you, where they wind up being pathogenic in their character. This 'observation' is perfectly consistent with the Judeo-Christian belief that we live in a fallen world where death and disease are present. bornagain77

Seversky states,"So it’s lucky we don’t believe that everything arose from chaos or randomness." Really? And what exactly, other than chaos and/or randomness, is generating those infinitude of multiverses that atheists have postulated to explain away the fine tuning of the universe?

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory Excerpt: On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator-the-multiverse-theory The Fine-Tuning of the Universe - Dr. Craig video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0

Sev goes on " We observe the Universe in which we exist to display order and regularities. That order and those regularities demand explanation. " Shoot, even prior to the discovery of the fine tuning of the universe, Eddington himself said that purpose or design is equivalent to believing in 'anti-chance', and that 'anti-chance', i.e. design, comes screaming back at us at the beginning of time,

,,, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. I am simply stating the dilemma to which our present fundamental conception of physical law leads us. I see no way round it; but whether future developments of science will find an escape I cannot predict. The dilemma is this: Surveying our surroundings, we find them to be far from a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”. The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories shows arrangements of the individual elements for which the odds are multillions to 1 against an origin by chance.,,, ,,, Some people would like to call this non-random feature of the world purpose or design; but I will call it non-committally anti-chance. We are unwilling in physics that anti-chance plays any part in the reactions between the systems of billions of atoms and quanta that we study; and indeed all our experimental evidence goes to show that these are governed by the laws of chance. Accordingly, we sweep anti-chance out of the laws of physics–out of the differential equations. Naturally, therefore, it reappears in the boundary conditions, for it must be got into the scheme somewhere. By sweeping it far enough away from the sphere of our current physical problems, we fancy we have got rid of it. It is only when some of us are so misguided as to try to get back billions of years into the past that we find the sweepings all piled up like a high wall and forming a boundary–a beginning of time–which we cannot climb over." - Eddington https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/arthur-stanley-eddington-darwinists-and-repugnant-notions/

Sev: then states: "Science starts, as has been noted many times before, from observation." Well actually, we are talking about the Atheist's philosophical presupposition of chance, chaos, and/or randomness as the ultimate creator of all things, not what the scientific method itself starts with, but anyways, even if science starts from 'observation' (and I would argue that science 'starts' from asking the right questions), but anyways even if science starts from 'observation' and if Darwinian evolution were true, then, as Donald Hoffman and others have pointed out, we could not trust our observations of the world.,,, In other words, our 'observations of the world would be unreliable and therefore, since 'reliable' observation is indeed a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method, then, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, that would undermine science itself. Luckily, science itself could care less what Darwinists are forced to believe because of their theory, and quantum mechanics has now proven, (via Leggett's Inequality and Wheeler's Deleayed choice experiment), that our observations play a integral part in bringing physical reality into existence and therefore our 'observations' are far more reliable of physical reality than Darwinists are forced to believe because of their theory. Sev than states, " We have constructed various “languages”, such as logic and mathematics, with which to both model that observed reality and to try and explain it." And yet both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding as a miracle that we can model the universe with mathematics. Last time I checked, miracles are the sole province of God. Therefore, argue with Einstein and Wigner, not me. Sev goes on to ask "The question is how can we determine which, if any, of them (explanations for the universe) is the right one?" Well, I would stick with the only one that does not wind up in catastrophic epistemological failure, i.e. God!

Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo

bornagain77

Bornagain77/20

Viruses, in spite of pathogenic viruses, give us abundant evidence of having being designed from the outset,

If that is true then all of the deadliest pathogens known to Man were designed by the God in which you believe. So how do you square that with a wise and benign Creator who supposedly loves humanity as the pinnacle of His creation? Seversky

Martin_r/15

Darwin’s theory of evolution is the biggest fail in the history of science. The only reason why it lasted for so long (150 years), it is because the subject is politically very sensitive.

So your alternative is just another conspiracy theory?

Anyway, it is very disturbing, that so many smart people (after all the discoveries made in 21st century) still support it.

Or maybe it's indicative that the theory has merit if so any smart people believe it?

The whole theory is absurd to the highest possible degree. Viruses – the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth, and your theory can’t explain where viruses come from :)))) Especially in COVID-19 era. So absurd it is :))))

When Darwin published his theory in 1859 viruses were unknown, so it's hardly surprising he didn't mention them. The evolutionary origins of viruses is still unclear but that doesn't make the theory absurd, just incomplete. Seversky

Bornagain77/5

Seversky, in order to even argue in a rationally coherent manner in the first place you are forced to adopt a Theological worldview. i.e. If you believe that the universe, and therefore your thoughts, are ultimately the result of chaos and/or randomness, then all rationality is lost

So it's lucky we don't believe that everything arose from chaos or randomness. Science starts, as has been noted many times before, from observation. We observe the Universe in which we exist to display order and regularities. That order and those regularities demand explanation. We have constructed various "languages", such as logic and mathematics, with which to both model that observed reality and to try and explain it. One option is some sort of supremely knowledgeable and powerful intelligent agency or Creator but it is not necessarily the only one. So we do not need a theological worldview to explain it all. Science is necessarily "grounded" in what we can observe not what we can imagine. We can imagine any number of creator explanations not just the Christian one. The question is how can we determine which, if any, of them is the right one? Seversky

Martin_r: ONCE AGAIN, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN’T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE MOST ABUNDANT LIFE FORM ON EARTH. SO MY QUESTION AGAIN, HOW ABSURD IS THIS THEORY ? Sorry you're disappointed. You wouldn't expect the theory of gravity to explain the origination of life forms so why do you expect the theory of evolution to do so since it's not about that? Anyway, if you've got an explanation for the origination of viruses I'd be very interested to hear it. JVL

JVL: "... and the origination of some particular life forms. " some particular life forms ???? :))) A typical Darwinist. Trying to downplay the fact, that Darwinian theory of evolution can't explain the origin of the MOST ABUNDANT!!!! biological entity on Earth. some particular life forms ???? :))) ONCE AGAIN, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE MOST ABUNDANT LIFE FORM ON EARTH. SO MY QUESTION AGAIN, HOW ABSURD IS THIS THEORY ? PS: what you did read about the origin of viruses, it is only a hypothesis, there are several hypothesis on viruses' origin. Hypothesis = JUST-SO STORY, but the fact is, Darwinists are very talented story tellers... Why don't they shows us in the lab, how bacteria degenerate into a virus :))))))) martin_r

Martin_r: nevermind… So, you can't or won't tell us where you think viruses came from. Why not? You Darwinists developed a theory on how Earth’s species came to be, but, the theory has a pretty huge problem – it can’t explain the existence of the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses). The theory of unguided evolution applies to the arrival of new species on the backs of existing ones. Clearly there are some vast unknown areas having to do with the origin of life in general and the origination of some particular life forms. No one is denying that. I did read somewhere that there is some notion that viruses arose from degenerated bacteria but I haven't looked into that. JVL

JVL, nevermind... The theory is absurd and ridiculous, don't matter whether JVL agree or not :))) You Darwinists developed a theory on how Earth's species came to be, but, the theory has a pretty huge problem - it can't explain the existence of the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses). If this is not absurd in the highest possible degree, then i don't know. (don't matter whether you agree to) martin_r

Martin_r: i will explain where the viruses come from, before i continue, you have to agree with my claim, that it is really absurd, that the Darwinian theory of evolution can’t explain (using scientific evidence) where the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses) come from. Why do I have to agree to that first? JVL

JVL, i will explain where the viruses come from, before i continue, you have to agree with my claim, that it is really absurd, that the Darwinian theory of evolution can't explain (using scientific evidence) where the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses) come from. martin_r

Bornagain77: (Lots of football to enjoy today if you are a fan!) ? I bet. Not in the UK though. I followed the Sea Hawks during the Dave Krieg and Steve Largent years. Chuck Knox was the coach during part of that time; Ground Chuck. Their special teams were fabulous then. JVL

In fact, we would not exist were it not for the beneficial effects of viruses

What if all viruses disappeared? - June 17 2020 The vast majority of viruses are not pathogenic to humans, and many play integral roles in propping up ecosystems. Others maintain the health of individual organisms – everything from fungi and plants to insects and humans. “We live in a balance, in a perfect equilibrium”, and viruses are a part of that, says Susana Lopez Charretón, a virologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “I think we’d be done without viruses.”,,, What scientists know for sure is that without viruses, life and the planet as we know it would cease to exist. And even if we wanted to, it would probably be impossible to annihilate every virus on Earth. But by imagining what the world would be like without viruses, we can better understand not only how integral they are to our survival, but also how much we still have to learn about them.,,, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared Trillions Upon Trillions of Viruses Fall From the Sky Each Day - Jim Robbins - April 13, 2018 Excerpt: Whatever the case, viruses are the most abundant entities on the planet by far. While Dr. Suttle’s team found hundreds of millions of viruses in a square meter, they counted tens of millions of bacteria in the same space. Mostly thought of as infectious agents, viruses are much more than that. It’s hard to overstate the central role that viruses play in the world: They’re essential to everything from our immune system to our gut microbiome, to the ecosystems on land and sea, to climate regulation,,,. Viruses contain a vast diverse array of unknown genes — and spread them to other species.,,, In laboratory experiments, he has filtered viruses out of seawater but left their prey, bacteria. When that happens, plankton in the water stop growing. That’s because when preying viruses infect and take out one species of microbe — they are very specific predators — they liberate nutrients in them, such as nitrogen, that feed other species of bacteria.,,, Viruses help keep ecosystems in balance by changing the composition of microbial communities. As toxic algae blooms spread in the ocean, for example, they are brought to heel by a virus that attacks the algae and causes it to explode and die, ending the outbreak in as little as a day.,,, The beneficial effects of viruses are much less known, especially among plants. “There are huge questions in wild systems about what viruses are doing there,” said Marilyn Roossinck, who studies viral ecology in plants at Pennsylvania State University. “We have never found deleterious effects from a virus in the wild.” A grass found in the high-temperature soils of Yellowstone’s geothermal areas, for example, needs a fungus to grow in the extreme environment. In turn, the fungus needs a virus.,,, Tiny spots of virus on the plant that yields quinoa is also important for the plant’s survival. “Little spots of virus confer drought tolerance but don’t cause disease,” she said. “It changes the whole plant physiology.” “Viruses aren’t our enemies,” Dr. Suttle said. “Certain nasty viruses can make you sick, but it’s important to recognize that viruses and other microbes out there are absolutely integral for the ecosystem.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/science/virosphere-evolution.html Viruses: You've heard the bad; here's the good - April 30, 2015 Excerpt: "The word, virus, connotes morbidity and mortality, but that bad reputation is not universally deserved," said Marilyn Roossinck, PhD, Professor of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology and Biology at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park. "Viruses, like bacteria, can be important beneficial microbes in human health and in agriculture," she said. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430170750.htm

As well, the genetic sequences of Viruses do not conform to what Darwinists had predicted for them,,

Viruses and the tree of life Excerpt: Viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages.,,, No single gene has been identified that is shared by all viruses.,,, It cannot be proven that early viruses appeared along with the first cells.,,, Viral genomes encode many genes that have no homologues in cells.,,, https://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/

bornagain77

Viruses, in spite of pathogenic viruses, give us abundant evidence of having being designed from the outset, All you have to do is look at them to know for a fact that they were designed

Michael Behe - 2020 - Bacteriophage - 11:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/6Pi5UoZkn4g?t=700 Bacteriophage T4 - landing - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY

The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. And although most people think of viruses as being very harmful to humans, the fact is that the Bacteriophage (Bacteria Eater) virus, in the preceding video, is actually a very beneficial virus to man.

Bacteriophage Excerpt: Bacteriophages are among the most common biological entities on Earth,,,They have been used for over 60 years as an alternative to antibiotics in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.[5] They are seen as a possible therapy against multi drug resistant strains of many bacteria.,,,development of phage therapy was largely abandoned in the West, but continued throughout 1940s in the former Soviet Union for treating bacterial infections, with widespread use including the soldiers in the Red Army—much of the literature was published in Russian or Georgian, and unavailable for many years in the West. Their use has continued since the end of the Cold War in Georgia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.,,,In August, 2006 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved using bacteriophages on cheese to kill the Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, giving them GRAS status (Generally Recognized As Safe).[10] In July 2007, the same bacteriophages were approved for use on all food products.[11] Government agencies in the West have for several years been looking to Georgia and the Former Soviet Union for help with exploiting phages for counteracting bioweapons and toxins, e.g., Anthrax, Botulism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage (Bacteriophage) Viruses in the gut protect from infection - 20 May 2013 Excerpt: Barr and his colleagues,, show that animal mucus — whether from humans, fish or corals — is loaded with bacteria-killing viruses called phages. These protect their hosts from infection by destroying incoming bacteria. In return, the phages are exposed to a steady torrent of microbes in which to reproduce. “It’s a unique form of symbiosis, between animals and viruses,” says Rotem Sorek, a microbial geneticist ,, “It’s groundbreaking,” adds Frederic Bushman, a microbiologist ,, “The idea that phage can be viewed as part of the innate immune system is original and exciting. http://www.nature.com/news/viruses-in-the-gut-protect-from-infection-1.13023 Not All Viruses Are Bad For You. Here Are Some That Can Have a Protective Effect - CYNTHIA MATHEW - AUGUST 2019 Excerpt: Some viruses can actually kill bacteria, while others can fight against more dangerous viruses. So like protective bacteria (probiotics), we have several protective viruses in our body. Protective 'phages' Bacteriophages (or "phages") are viruses that infect and destroy specific bacteria. They're found in the mucus membrane lining in the digestive, respiratory and reproductive tracts.,,, Recent research suggests the phages present in the mucus are part of our natural immune system, protecting the human body from invading bacteria. Phages have actually been used to treat dysentery, sepsis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, salmonella infections and skin infections for nearly a century. Early sources of phages for therapy included local water bodies, dirt, air, sewage and even body fluids from infected patients. The viruses were isolated from these sources, purified, and then used for treatment. https://www.sciencealert.com/not-all-viruses-are-bad-for-you-here-are-some-that-can-have-a-protective-effect

bornagain77

Whatever JVL, you are just throwing stuff at the wall now to see if anything will stick. Since I am quite comfortable that unbiased readers can see that I have made my case, and that you are blowing smoke, I am done. I have other things to do today. Enjoy your afternoon. (Lots of football to enjoy today if you are a fan!) :) bornagain77

Bornagain77: And yet, “But that assumption is now known to be false.” But the mutation rate is NOT the same thing as the mutations themselves. Just speeding up the rate doesn't make them more predictable. Just more common. Obviously duplicated chunks of DNA have less selective pressure and are more likely to survive infancy and get passed on if they change. I have read about certain segments being pushed to mutate faster but, again, that's just increasing the rate; it's not specifying which mutations occur. If I flip a coin once every second I get a lot more heads in a couple of minutes than if I flip it once every 5 seconds. That's the difference between the rate and randomness. The coin flip is random in both cases. JVL

Martin_r: Darwin’s theory of evolution is the biggest fail in the history of science. The only reason why it lasted for so long (150 years), it is because the whole thing is politically very sensitive. Obviously I disagree but I don't think we're likely to find much common ground so I won't push the point. The whole theory is absurd to the highest possible degree. Viruses – the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth, and your theory can’t explain where viruses come from :)))) Especially in COVID-19 era. So absurd it is :)))) Can you explain where viruses come from? I'd be very interested to hear your thinking on that. JVL

JVL: "You think mutations are not random with respect to fitness? I guess you can believe that if you want to." And yet, "But that assumption is now known to be false."

In the twentieth century, the theory of evolution predicted that mutations are not adaptive or directed. In other words, mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual. As Julian Huxley put it, “Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.” (Huxley, 36) Or as Jacques Monod explained: "chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised." (Monod, 112) Ronald Fisher wrote that mutations are “random with respect to the organism’s need” (Orr). This fundamental prediction persisted for decades as a recent paper explained: “mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) But that assumption is now known to be false. The first problem is that the mutation rate is adaptive. For instance, when a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. It is as though a signal has been sent saying, “It is time to adapt.” Also, a small fraction of the population increases its mutation rates even higher yet. These hypermutators ensure that an even greater variety of adaptive change is explored. (Foster) Experiments have also discovered that duplicated DNA segments may be subject to higher mutation rates. Since the segment is a duplicate it is less important to preserve and, like a test bed, appears to be used to experiment with new designs. (Wright) The second problem is that organisms use strategies to direct the mutations according to the threat. Adaptive mutations have been extensively studied in bacteria. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress. (Burkala, et. al.; Moxon, et. al; Wright) Adaptive mutations have also been observed in yeast (Fidalgo, et. al.; David, et. al.) and flax plants. (Johnson, Moss and Cullis) One experiment found repeatable mutations in flax in response to fertilizer levels. (Chen, Schneeberger and Cullis) Another exposed the flax to four different growth conditions and found that environmental stress can induce mutations that result in “sizeable, rapid, adaptive evolutionary responses.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) In response to this failed prediction some evolutionists now are saying that evolution somehow created the mechanisms that cause mutations to be adaptive. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/mutations-are-not-adaptive

JVL goes on to state "I’m trying to explain what a vast majority of working scientists actually believe to be true based on empirical evidence." And yet a 'vast majority of working scientists', according to JVL, and in direct contradiction to empirical evidence, apparently believe 'mutations are random with respect to fitness',,, Go figure! bornagain77

Seversky, JVL... Darwin's theory of evolution is the biggest fail in the history of science. The only reason why it lasted for so long (150 years), it is because the subject is politically very sensitive. Anyway, it is very disturbing, that so many smart people (after all the discoveries made in 21st century) still support it. The whole theory is absurd to the highest possible degree. Viruses - the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth, and your theory can't explain where viruses come from :)))) Especially in COVID-19 era. So absurd it is :)))) martin_r

Bornagain77: Well JVL,,,, whatever,,, The randomness postulate of Darwinian evolution is what it is, and that postulate has been falsified by empirical observation. PERIOD! You think mutations are not random with respect to fitness? I guess you can believe that if you want to. I am more than satisfied that unbiased readers can see that I have made my case against that primary postulate of Darwinian evolution, and that you are, once again, just trying to blow smoke to CYA, rather than ever honestly admitting the truth. I'm trying to explain what a vast majority of working scientists actually believe to be true based on empirical evidence. You're allowed to disagree of course. You're not a working scientist are you? I'm not being snarky, just asking a question. JVL

Well JVL,,,, whatever,,, The randomness postulate of Darwinian evolution is what it is, and that postulate has been falsified by empirical observation. PERIOD! I am more than satisfied that unbiased readers can see that I have made my case against that primary postulate of Darwinian evolution, and that you are, once again, just trying to blow smoke to CYA, rather than ever honestly admitting the truth. bornagain77

Bornagain77: The fact that we ‘do not observe randomness in all natural things or events or situations’ is a empirical observation that goes directly against the Darwinian presupposition of randomness. It is not an argument that is in favor of the truthfulness of Darwinism. The presupposition of randomness only applies to mutations with respect to health and things like rocks falling, the interactions between individual atoms and molecules and such. But not to classes of objects like molecules in cells. Over the last several decades, Darwinists, because of their reductive materialistic framework, have presupposed there to be far more ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ of atoms and molecules in molecular biology than there is actually turning out to be. That level of randomness is not hypothesised to affect things on a larger scale. For example: even if the position of the electrons in the atoms in your body is undeterminable at some level it doesn't mean your whole body is likely to fly apart at any given moment. Another example: Brownian motion does not apply to multi-cellular organisms; it just doesn't come in the picture. The same can be said for most quantum effects and the weak and strong nuclear force. We don't have to accommodate those things at our level of existence. In the example of the cell . . . the interactions between groups of atoms and molecules is NOT random, there may be some uncertainty exactly when some particular interaction will happen but step back a stage or two and the trends are clear. I think of it like radioactive decay: you can't say when a particular atom will decay but the general flow is predictable and clear. And it's NOT random. And even though Dr. Alberts wrote that article 23 years ago in 1998, Darwinists, because of the ‘randomness’ presupposition held within their reductive materialistic framework, are still very much reluctant to let go of their belief that the cell is “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”. Again, step back from looking at the individual molecules and look at general trends. That is predictable. This is why drugs work: you can't say when or if a dose of antibiotics will kill a particular bacterium but you know the general trend. And it works. JVL

Moreover, as if all that was not bad enough for Darwinists, Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. Yet, the vast majority of mutations to the genome are now found to not be random but are instead found to be ‘directed’.

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations - Kevin Kelly - 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it. On the contrary, there's much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism's predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern. http://edge.org/response-detail/25264 Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112) http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

And yet, in spite of these empirical findings that show randomness to be far less prevalent than Darwinists had presupposed,, Darwinists, because of the 'waiting time problem', have cast natural selection itself under the bus, and Darwinists are now more reliant on chance and/or randomness than they ever were before,, i.e. " It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance."

Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory - Laurence A. Moran - June 19, 2017 Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/austin-hughes-and-neutral-theory.html 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/

If Darwinian evolution were a normal science, instead of basically being a religion for atheists, these falsifications of both natural selection and 'randomness' should count as complete falsifications of their theory.,,, and Darwin's theory should be forever relegated to the dustbin of failed scientific theories. But alas, as has been pointed out in the preceding posts, Darwinian evolution is a religion, not a science! Of supplemental note:

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

bornagain77

Yet, regardless of their overt bias against anyone daring to see Intelligent Design in the cell, the fact of the matter is that we now have several lines of evidence firmly establishing the fact that the cell is not nearly as random and haphazard in its makeup as Darwinists would prefer people to believe For instance, in the following article from 2014, Dr Jonathan Wells takes direct issue with Carl Zimmer's claim that biological molecules are 'flailing blindly in the crowd' and states,, But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another,,,

Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer – Jonathan Wells - April 17, 2014 Excerpt: The new animation (like the old) also includes a kinesin molecule hauling a vesicle, but this time the kinesin’s movements are characterized (in Zimmer’s words) by “barely constrained randomness. Every now and then, a tiny molecule loaded with fuel binds to one of the kinesin “feet.” It delivers a jolt of energy, causing that foot to leap off the molecular cable and flail wildly, pulling hard on the foot that’s still anchored. Eventually, the gyrating foot stumbles into contact again with the cable, locking on once more — and advancing the vesicle a tiny step forward. This updated movie offers a better way to picture our most intricate inner workings…. In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd.” But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another. A kinesin molecule takes one 8-nanometer "step" along a microtubule for every high-energy ATP molecule it uses, and it uses about 80 ATPs per second. On the scale of a living cell, this movement is very fast. To visualize it on a macroscopic scale, imagine a microtubule as a one-lane road and the kinesin molecule as an automobile. The kinesin would be traveling over 200 miles per hour! https://iconsofevolution.com/flailing-blindly/

Moreover, in the following 2016 paper, it was found that “crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.” In fact, finding a lack of ‘collisions’ in the crowded cell was a ‘counterintuitive surprise’ for the researchers: Specifically one of the researchers stated: “This was a surprise,” “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”

Proteins put up with the roar of the crowd – June 23, 2016 Excerpt: It gets mighty crowded around your DNA, but don’t worry: According to Rice University researchers, your proteins are nimble enough to find what they need. Rice theoretical scientists studying the mechanisms of protein-DNA interactions in live cells showed that crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.,,, If DNA can be likened to a library, it surely is a busy one. Molecules roam everywhere, floating in the cytoplasm and sticking to the tightly wound double helix. “People know that almost 90 percent of DNA is covered with proteins, such as polymerases, nucleosomes that compact two meters into one micron, and other protein molecules,” Kolomeisky said.,,, That makes it seem that proteins sliding along the strand would have a tough time binding, and it’s possible they sometimes get blocked. But the Rice team’s theory and simulations indicated that crowding agents usually move just as rapidly, sprinting out of the way. “If they move at the same speed, the molecules don’t bother each other,” Kolomeisky said. “Even if they’re covering a region, the blockers move away quickly so your protein can bind.” In previous research, the team determined that stationary obstacles sometimes help quicken a protein’s search for its target by limiting options. This time, the researchers sought to define how crowding both along DNA and in the cytoplasm influenced the process. “We may think everything’s fixed and frozen in cells, but it’s not,” Kolomeisky said. “Everything is moving.”,,, Floating proteins appear to find their targets quickly as well. “This was a surprise,” he said. “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.” http://phys.org/news/2016-06-proteins-roar-crowd.html

In fact, instead of a biological systems being “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”, the fact of the matter is that biological systems are now shown to be extremely resistant to random background noise. As the following article on photosynthesis stated, 'These biological systems can direct a quantum process,,, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments.'

Unlocking nature's quantum engineering for efficient solar energy - January 7, 2013 Excerpt: Certain biological systems living in low light environments have unique protein structures for photosynthesis that use quantum dynamics to convert 100% of absorbed light into electrical charge,,, "Some of the key issues in current solar cell technologies appear to have been elegantly and rigorously solved by the molecular architecture of these PPCs – namely the rapid, lossless transfer of excitons to reaction centres.",,, These biological systems can direct a quantum process, in this case energy transport, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments. "This new understanding of how to maintain coherence in excitons, and even regenerate it through molecular vibrations, provides a fascinating glimpse into the intricate design solutions – seemingly including quantum engineering – ,,, and which could provide the inspiration for new types of room temperature quantum devices." http://phys.org/news/2013-01-nature-quantum-efficient-solar-energy.html

Likewise the following article on human vision stated that, “Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light”.,,, “it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,”,, and the researched added, “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,, “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?”

Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016 Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,, it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,, The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance. “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?” http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html

Moreover, instead of proteins randomly colliding into each other, as the Harvard Biovisions video falsely portrayed them, proteins instead are found to be “analogous to the way wine glasses tremble”,,, "If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave,"

Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life - Jan. 16, 2014 Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz' team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb. This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies. So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed. This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions. "If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave," Markelz said. "Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don't get any sustained sound." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116084838.htm

Moreover, in direct contradiction to Carl Zimmer’s claim of molecules flailing blindly in a crowd, in the following article subtitled 'how bio-molecular machines can generate nontrivial quantum states', the authors state that entanglement can be maintained even in the presence of very intense noise,

Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: how bio-molecular machines can generate nontrivial quantum states Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Jianming Cai1, Sandu Popescu and Hans J Briegel Published 29 May 2012 Excerpt: Very recently (Cai et al 2010 Phys. Rev. E 82 021921), a simple mechanism was presented by which a molecule subjected to forced oscillations, out of thermal equilibrium, can maintain quantum entanglement between two of its quantum degrees of freedom. Crucially, entanglement can be maintained even in the presence of very intense noise, so intense that no entanglement is possible when the forced oscillations cease. This mechanism may allow for the presence of nontrivial quantum entanglement in biological systems. Here we significantly enlarge the study of this model. In particular, we show that the persistent generation of dynamic entanglement is not restricted to the bosonic heat bath model, but can also be observed in other decoherence models, e.g. the spin gas model, and in non-Markovian scenarios. We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/053043/meta

And in the following article, the authors even go on to state that 'this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems',,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.

Quantum entanglement in hot systems Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement. http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quantum-entanglement-hot-systems/

Thus instead of the molecular machines of the cell being dominated by random noise in the cell, as Carl Zimmer had falsely claimed in his New York Times article, the molecular machines of the cell are instead shown to have ‘remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments.’ Moreover, molecular machines are apparently designed in such an ingenious way so as to feed off the noise in the cell. Quote unquote, “Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.” bornagain77

JVL,

I don’t agree with the argument you posted. We do not observe randomness in all natural things or events or situations.

The fact that we 'do not observe randomness in all natural things or events or situations' is a empirical observation that goes directly against the Darwinian presupposition of randomness. It is not an argument that is in favor of the truthfulness of Darwinism. Over the last several decades, Darwinists, because of their reductive materialistic framework, have presupposed there to be far more ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ of atoms and molecules in molecular biology than there is actually turning out to be. For instance, in the following 1998 article, Bruce Alberts, who was a two time president of the National Academy of Sciences, stated that “We have always underestimated cells.”,,, “But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s.”,,, “instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules.”

“We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB — and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme’s active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second. But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.” – Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294) https://brucealberts.ucsf.edu/publications/BAPub157.pdf Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013). Dr Alberts served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences

And even though Dr. Alberts wrote that article 23 years ago in 1998, Darwinists, because of the ‘randomness’ presupposition held within their reductive materialistic framework, are still very much reluctant to let go of their belief that the cell is “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”. For a prime example of this fact, In 2006 Harvard University, via a production company called “BioVisions”, made a video entitled The Inner Life of the Cell

The Inner Life of the Cell http://www.xvivo.net/animation/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/

The video by Harvard BioVisions was one of the first videos on the web that animated some of the amazing molecular machines that are now being found in cells. As you can see, the overwhelming impression of the intelligent design of the cell literally leaps out of the video at you. Since the Intelligent Design of the cell is readily apparent for all to see, Dr. William Dembski, one of the pioneers of the Intelligent Design movement, would, circa 2007, show the video in some of his talks to students on Intelligent Design:

Inner Life of a Cell w William Dembski commentary – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNs5kBE66Xo

When Harvard BioVisions found out about Dr. Dembski using the video in his lectures to his students they 'warned him’ not to use the video anymore.

William A. Dembski Excerpt: The Inner Life of the Cell copyright controversy,, David Bolinsky, creator of the video, wrote that Dembski was warned about using the video without permission,,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

Their effort to stop Dembski was futile since the video soon went viral on the web and anyone with access to a computer could download the video and watch it whenever they wanted to, and see for themselves the amazing design that is readily apparent in the cell. The Darwinists at Harvard Biovisions who had originally made the video apparently did not like this development one bit. And in 2013, apparently trying to undo the damage that was done to Darwinian thinking by their original video, Harvard BioVisions then made a subsequent video entitled 'Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing'.

In 2013, we released The Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing, which illustrates the crowded molecular environment present in cells. http://www.xvivo.net/animation/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/

In the 2013 video, as you can see, Harvard Biovisions tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random, chaotic, and haphazard as possible so as to try to dispel any impression of design in the cell that they had inadvertently created in their first video.

Inner Life of a Cell | Protein Packing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeTQLNFTgU

In fact, in 2014 New York Times itself ran an article on the 'Protein Packing' video. I’m sure many ID advocates wish they could get such free promotion for their videos on intelligent design in the New York Times. But anyways, in the article Carl Zimmer stated that ' “In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules” but of the 2013 video he said that the molecules of the cell 'flail blindly in the crowd.” And that “Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.'

Watch Proteins Do the Jitterbug - Carl Zimmer - APRIL 10, 2014 Excerpt: In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd. Our cells work almost in spite of themselves. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/science/watch-proteins-do-the-jitterbug.html

Thus, even though Bruce Alberts himself. all the way back in 1998, had largely dispelled the myth that the cell was “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”, none-the-less, Darwinists as late as 2014, motivated primarily by their bias against Intelligent Design, were still widely disseminating the false claim that the cell was “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”. bornagain77

Bornagain77: Well that is the oft repeated argument, but it is a argument that does not pass the smell test, ,,, as was referenced earlier and you apparently did not bother to read,,, I don't agree with the argument you posted. We do not observe randomness in all natural things or events or situations. In fact, your argument is circular; you assume that the argument is that everything is random including the generation of the universe therefore it's all random. But no one is saying that. The reason that science works at all is because certain situations and material configurations give dependable, predictable results NOT random results. It's NOT random all the way down, no one thinks it is. JVL

JVL, "Natural selection is NOT totally random.",,, Well that is the oft repeated argument, but it is a argument that does not pass the smell test, ,,, as was referenced earlier and you apparently did not bother to read,,,

Assuming Naturalism to be true, Darwin’s god-of-the gaps becomes even less plausible when one realizes that random variations are processed by Naturalism’s randomly generated universe and its randomly generated filter of natural selection making the entire process random all the way down. While there is nothing like a good scientific theory, “everything just happened randomly” is nothing like a good scientific theory. - Art Battson http://www.arn.org/eic/eic/Welcome.html

bornagain77

Bornagain77: rationality can only be grounded within the Theistic worldview and cannot possibly be based on chaos and/or randomness as Darwinists presuppose to be the ultimate source of all things,, (of both physical and mental things). Is that what they really claim though? I don't think so. As far as unguided evolution goes the only part that is claimed to be random is the occurrence of mutations with respect to health. Natural selection is NOT totally random. Certainly some life forms and individuals are snuffed out because of random events like rock falls or some such. But even there, many natural phenomena are not totally random: floods depend on climatic conditions and geography to some extent. Monsoons don't happen everywhere on the planet. You don't find permafrost in Australia. I don't think most physicists think the universe arose out of chaos randomly. It seems to me they are trying to find the most basic building blocks of our universe and the ways those blocks can be put together suggest certain kinds of structures and arrangements; like atoms and molecules. IF there is such a basis to reality (kind of like everything being reduced to a few kinds of Lego bricks) then what happens cannot be completely random as only certain configurations can occur. JVL

Seversky, in order to even argue in a rationally coherent manner in the first place you are forced to adopt a Theological worldview. i.e. If you believe that the universe, and therefore your thoughts, are ultimately the result of chaos and/or randomness, then all rationality is lost. Only in Theism can rationality, and therefore science itself, be coherently grounded:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” - J B S Haldane -“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C. S. Lewis - The Case for Christianity

Thus Seversky, if you were to truly "strip out all the theological references" that are in 'Origin of Species' then you would necessarily have to strip out rationality itself since rationality can only be grounded within the Theistic worldview and cannot possibly be based upon the chaos and/or randomness that Darwinists presuppose to be the ultimate source of all things,, (of both physical and mental things). bornagain77

Bornagain77/3

And indeed, in Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” you will not find one mathematical equation, nor will you find one laboratory experiment. What you will find in abundance in Darwin’s book is “one long (theological) argument’.

He did, however, compile a great deal of data from observations in the field, which is a perfectly legitimate part of science, as is constructing theories to explain that data. Far more so than relying on holy texts and testaments written long after the events they purport to describe. And, if you wanted, you could do with Origins something like Jefferson did with the Bible, strip out all the theological references and just leave the pure, unadulterated theory behind.

Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty theological presuppositions, instead of on any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, much like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.

The theory of evolution has no need of theological presuppositions, faulty or otherwise. Come to think of it, how do you actually decide if a theological presupposition is faulty or not? As for Van Til's cute little analogy, it's more like the child who gets off Santa's knee at Christmas and walks away shaking his or her head that they were still expected to believe comforting myths about their presents being delivered by a fat old man who comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve. Sooner or later, most people grow out of that sort of belief. Seversky

It is interesting to note that, since all of science is based on presuppositions that can only be grounded within a Theistic worldview,,,

Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

,,, since all of science is based on presuppositions that can only be grounded within a Theistic worldview, then it is very interesting to note that Darwinian evolution itself is inextricably wedded to (faulty) Theistic presuppositions, In fact, Darwin's college degree, believe it or not, was in Theology. His degree was not in mathematics, nor was it in any other field that would be conducive to the founding of a new theory in science.

Charles Darwin - Education Charles Darwin entered Shrewsbury School as a boarding student in 1822. He left three years later, at the age of 16, called by his father to study medicine with his elder brother, Erasmus, at Edinburgh University. Repelled by the horror of early 19th century surgery, Darwin dropped out of Edinburgh in 1827 and enrolled in Christ College, Cambridge University, studying to be a clergyman in the Church of England. Charles earned his Bachelor's Degree in Theology in 1831.,,, https://www.allaboutscience.org/charles-darwin.htm

In fact, Darwin himself said that he found mathematics to be quote unquote, 'repugnant',,,

"I attempted mathematics [at Cambridge University ], and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps of algebra. This impatience was foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade." - Darwin - Autobiography (p. 58 of the 1958 Norton edition)

And indeed, in Darwin's book "Origin of Species" you will not find one mathematical equation, nor will you find one laboratory experiment. What you will find in abundance in Darwin's book is "one long (theological) argument'.

CHARLES DARWIN: VICTORIAN MYTHMAKER By A.N. Wilson (Book Review By Jonathan Wells) - - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Darwin called “The Origin of Species” “one long argument,” and it was a theology-laden argument against creation by design. Many people have the mistaken impression that Darwin’s theory was accepted because he provided so much scientific evidence for it (he didn’t). Instead, his theory was accepted because it fit the increasingly secular spirit of the times.,,, So Darwinian evolution is not so much a scientific theory as it is a secular creation myth. According to Mr. Wilson, “Darwinism, as is shown by the current state of debate, is resistant to argument because it is resistant to fact. The worship of Darwin as a man, the attribution to him of insights and discoveries which were either part of the common scientific store of knowledge or were the discoveries of others, this is all necessary to bolster the religion of Darwinism.” Mr. Wilson’s book is not flawless, but on this point he’s right. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/book-review-charles-darwin-by-an-wilson/ Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): ?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

To this day Darwinists are still inextricably bound to (faulty) Theological argumentation,

Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't - Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02 The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty theological presuppositions, instead of on any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, much like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.

“The ultimate source of truth in any field rests in him. The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as Truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth. Nevertheless, if the universe were not created and redeemed by Christ no man could give himself an intelligible account of anything. It follows that in order to perform their task aright the scientist and the philosopher as well as the theologian need Christ.” – Cornelius Van Til, The Case for Calvinism p.147-148 “In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

In short, Darwinian atheists need God even to be able to have the capacity to argue against Him in the first place. It would be a very comical state of affairs were not the consequences for their own souls, in their rejection of God, not so terrifying.

The Uncomfortable Subject Jesus Addressed More than Anyone Else - MAY 11, 2017 Excerpt: A friend once challenged me to show her where Jesus talks about hell in the Gospels. Even a cursory read-through shows Jesus talked about it plenty. In fact, Jesus talked about hell more than any other person in the Bible. In Luke 16, he describes a great chasm over which “none may cross from there to us.” In Matthew 25, Jesus tells of a time when people will be separated into two groups, one entering into his presence, the other banished to “eternal fire.”,,, "Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned against the absolute reality of hell." https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-uncomfortable-subject-jesus-addressed-more-than-anyone-else/

bornagain77

Evolution; a 'non-theistic' religion which is "nothing like a good scientific theory'

KEEP EVOLUTION IN CONTEXT Excerpt: He (Pierre-Paul Grasse) goes on to say, "Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how. ... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy (pp. 97, 98)." Grasse in several different places in his book provides devastating evidence to show that "chance" cannot account for evolution. He correctly evaluates the attitude of Darwinists toward "chance" when he says: "Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)." Assuming Naturalism to be true, Darwin's god-of-the gaps becomes even less plausible when one realizes that random variations are processed by Naturalism's randomly generated universe and its randomly generated filter of natural selection making the entire process random all the way down. While there is nothing like a good scientific theory, "everything just happened randomly" is nothing like a good scientific theory. Evolution as a secular religion?* Grasse is not alone. Even Michael Ruse recognizes a secular religion when he sees one. "...And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may." - Ruse - "Nonliteralist Antievolution" - AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February 13, 1993, Boston, MA - National Center for Science Education,,,, Bottom line? Always keep "evolution" in context and beware of secular religions. Creation preceded evolution and Mind preceded matter. It matters. * Author's Note: John Calvert has pointed out that "Like Michael Ruse, I refer to materialistic evolution/origins science as a 'secular religion.'" He goes on to state that "I believe that is an oxymoron as 'secular' means 'not religious.' 'Not religious religion' = an oxymoron. So, I would suggest you change 'secular' to 'non-theistic.' ... http://www.arn.org/eic/eic/Welcome.html

bornagain77

the article above quotes Bill Gates... Let me add another, very interesting quote of Bill Gates (all atheists should see this), it is from an interview for RollingStones magazine (from 2014) Bill Gates: "I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm – not all – that religion used to fill. But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there's no scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs]. I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know." This is another example, where a very smart guy (an engineer) doesn't buy materialistic explanation on how all what we see came to be ... martin_r