Culture Darwinism Evolution

Key prediction of Darwinian evolution falsified?

Spread the love

Kirk Durston writes

Biological life requires thousands of different protein families, about 70% of which are ‘globular’ proteins, each with a 3-dimensional shape that is unique to each family of proteins. An example is shown in the picture at the top of this post. This 3D shape is necessary for a particular biological function and is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries. Instead, they use information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins.

Indeed, our 21st century supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures. Nonetheless, a foundational prediction of neo-Darwinian theory is that a ploddingly slow evolutionary process consisting of genetic drift, mutations, insertions and deletions must be able to ‘find’ not just one, but thousands of sequences pre-determined by physics that will have different stable, functional 3D structures. So how does this falsifiable prediction hold up when tested against real data? As ought to be the case in science, I have made available my program so that you can run your own data and verify for yourself the kinds of probabilities these protein families represent. More.

Readers? Sensible responses wanted. (It’s getting so Darwin’s tenured trolls have nothing to offer but sneers, persecution, and—in the case of those afflicted with religiosity—Jesus-hollers in response.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

168 Replies to “Key prediction of Darwinian evolution falsified?

  1. 1
    sean samis says:

    Question 1: are all variant 3D shapes equally likely to occur in nature? Are some energetically disfavored or favored?

    Question 2: The protein produced by the desired structure: does it necessarily have the same biological functions in all conceivable biological systems?

    Question 3: regarding “Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries.” By this do you mean that stable sequences producing useful proteins are so rare… or that stable sequences themselves are very rare regardless of the protein they produce?

    sean s.

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    Question 2: The protein produced by the desired structure: does it necessarily have the same biological functions in all conceivable biological systems?

    It has absolutely no function in any conceivable biological system.

  3. 3
    ppolish says:

    Kirk Durston writes “In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. ”

    Leave it to Physics to reveal just how incredibly fine tuned Biology is. Makes sense really.

    “Unguided” and “Purposeless” is not real science.

  4. 4
    steveh says:

    Your link doesn’t work.

    However, the comments you quoted make no sense to me. Our most powerful 21st century computers struggle to simulate the weather conditions we will experience in any part of the world with any accuracy more than a few days into the future, but the weather just happens continuously without doing any computations.

    Similarly a protein may fold in a fraction of a second, but a supercomputer may take several weeks to simulate it. It seems to me that billions of replicators may achieve in a few hours something that multiple designers using multiple supercomputers may take centuries to approximate — and still get totally wrong. Furthermore, the billions of replicators are not just working out how the folding will happen, they are actually playing out how they will interact with the all of the other trillions of replicators out there, which no Designer, even with a gazillion supercomputers, is ever ever going to match. That’s why, AIUI, intelligent designers today use “information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins” – they can’t do what nature did, they can only tweak the results and hope that existing Darwinian mechanisms will work out the precise details for them.

    You have only falsified design?.

  5. 5

    fyi the “more” link is broken

    As before:there “obviously” exists a 3d dna world (like a 3d computersimulation), and a holographic representation of the adult organism in the dna world, serves as guidance for development of the physical organism to adulthood.

    “Obvious”, when considering the mathematical ordering of the dna system and the physical universe, is exactly the same.

    page 13
    http://www.scienceoflife.nl/VH.....s_Code.pdf

    Theory by Peter Rowlands mainly, Vanessa Hill and others.

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Yeah, I tried it too. No go.

    Darwinism cannot be falsified because it’s a paradigm, a philosophy and the assumption of necessity and chance. Just because something is all-but-impossible mathematically, doesn’t matter here. There are always rationalizations such as we haven’t found enough fossils yet, there must be other genetic mechanisms in play, and “You don’t understand evolution” (my favorite).

    As Sean indicated, it’s all physical chemistry and origami controlled by physics.

    But we’re told that there’s a vast body of knowledge in support of evolution. Apparently, we just need “more monkeys and more typewriters.”

    -Q

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    As stunning as this falsification of neo-Darwinism is,,,

    Computing the “Best Case” Probability of Proteins from Actual Data, and Falsifying a Prediction of Darwinism – Kirk Durston – July 28, 2015
    Excerpt: If we assume 10^30 life forms with a fast replication rate of 30 minutes and a huge genome with a very high mutation rate over a period of 10 billion years, an extreme upper limit for the total number of mutations for all of life’s history would be around 10^43. Unfortunately, a protein domain such as Ribosomal S7 would require a minimum average of 10^100 trials, about 10^57 trials more than the entire theoretical history of life could provide — and this is only for one domain. Forget about “finding” an average sized protein, not to mention thousands.
    As we all know from probabilities, you can get lucky once, but not thousands of times. This definitively falsifies the fundamental prediction of Darwinian theory that evolutionary processes can “find” functional protein families.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....98101.html

    As stunning as that falsification of neo-Darwinism is, there is another falsification of neo-Darwinian claims that goes even one better.
    Neo-Darwinism is based upon a reductive materialistic framework. A framework that holds that all the information, (as well as all consciousness), in life is merely ’emergent’ from a material, i.e. matter-energy, basis.
    Yet quantum entanglement, which ‘is a physical resource, like energy’, and which is also used as a ‘quantum information channel’ in quantum computation,,,

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    Yet quantum entanglement, which is used as a ‘quantum information channel’ in quantum computation, in now found in molecular biology on a massive scale.
    Specifically, quantum entanglement/information is now found in every DNA and protein molecule.

    Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain – Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija – 2006
    Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural – amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy – classical and quantum state, and (3) information – classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system.
    http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491

    Coherent intrachain energy migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature. – 2009
    ABSTRACT The intermediate coupling regime for electronic energy transfer is of particular interest because excitation moves in space, as in a classical hopping mechanism, but quantum phase information is conserved. We conducted an ultrafast polarization experiment specifically designed to observe quantum coherent dynamics in this regime. Conjugated polymer samples with different chain conformations were examined as model multichromophoric systems. The data, recorded at room temperature, reveal coherent intrachain, (intra – within, on the inside), electronic energy transfer. Our results suggest that quantum transport effects occur at room temperature when chemical donor-acceptor bonds help to correlate dephasing perturbations.
    http://www.researchgate.net/pu.....emperature

    That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims.
    There is simply no way that the ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology can possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place!
    Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

    etc.. etc..

    In other words, to give an explanation for quantum entanglement in biology, (which is a ‘non-local’ effect that is consistently shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints), one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space.
    Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain.
    Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments that have been used against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the ‘non-local’ cause is not within the material particles in the first place.

    And although Naturalists/Atheists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D
    Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is directly falsified in its claim that all the information in life is merely ‘emergent’ from a reductive material basis.

    Of related note: Classical ‘digital’ information, such as what Dembski and Marks have demonstrated the conservation of, is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    Also of note: Quantum information is ‘conserved’, i.e. quantum information cannot be created or destroyed:

    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.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    Black holes don’t erase information, scientists say – April 2, 2015
    Excerpt: The “information loss paradox” in black holes—a problem that has plagued physics for nearly 40 years—may not exist.,,,
    This is an important discovery, Stojkovic says, because even physicists who believed information was not lost in black holes have struggled to show, mathematically, how this happens. His new paper presents explicit calculations demonstrating how information is preserved, he says.
    The research marks a significant step toward solving the “information loss paradox,” a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared—a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-04-b.....sts.html+/

    Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information from a material basis, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyEjh6ef_8

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw

  9. 9
    Peter says:

    Bornagain77, 8

    I too find quantum entanglement fascinating. Your argument sounds very rigorous. However, it is a little more difficult to visualize than crunching statistics. Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave a couple of examples of how quantum entanglement supply information necessary for a moluecule, and how it is unrelated to energy and matter.

    Also, is it also independent of other natural laws and forces? IOW, could this information be derived from other laws instead of energy and matter?

  10. 10
    tjguy says:

    Actually, it is even worse than this for Materialists. It’s a 4D world!

    Human Nucleome Reveals Amazing 4D World

    A new study investigating the three-dimensional human genome (the nucleome) in the context of time and gene expression revealed unimaginable complexity and precision. The authors of the research paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote at the beginning of their report, “The human genome is a beautiful example of a dynamical system in three dimensions.”1 The results of their research spectacularly vindicated this opening statement.

    ….

    As if three dimensions were not enough, the researchers repeated these experiments across multiple time points in response to the body’s day/night time-keeping system—called a circadian clock—adding the fourth dimension of time to the study.

    Amazingly, they discovered thousands of genes across the genome dynamically and precisely regulated by the body’s internal clock. This stunning orchestration of complex genetic activity occurs across the 3D genome. The researchers wrote, “Genomic movements in 3D space provide a geometric picture of gene regulation in the context of circadian clocks, one that may give insight into the mechanisms regulating biological time.”1

    Not only are thousands of genes coordinately regulated together in 3D space in a precise manner according to cell type and relevant physiological processes, but they also function within the context of time, the fourth dimension, in a wondrously precise genetic dance. These types of biological systems are incredibly complicated and our understanding of them is only beginning.

    http://www.icr.org/article/8840

    At what point will the Materialists admit defeat and begin to think rationally?

    Is there no data/no discovery that can get them to question their commitment to their worldview and a priori beliefs?

    How much complexity can their faith in Material processes tolerate? Is there NO limit to what they think material processes can produce?

    Is there NO data that will convince them the effect in question is just not possible to be explained by blind, random, purposeless, undirected material processes – their proposed cause?

    It doesn’t seem like it.

    Nano molecular machines, 3D genome, interdependent codes some of which can be read backwards and forwards, information, self-correcting software, irreducibly complex systems and machines, now a 4D world coordinated by internal clocks, GPS systems, sonar, fantastically complicated and effective information processing, storage, and retrieval systems, magnets, amazing design, transportation systems, quality control systems, flight, computer, temperature control systems, etc etc etc.

    But so what?! Add anything you want to the list and it still won’t change their minds.

    It really doesn’t matter how complex, how well designed, how efficient, or how novel something is. It doesn’t matter if something violates homology? They simply use convergence to explain it.

    It doesn’t matter if some genes are novel and violate the evolutionary rules of common descent. Enter HGT to the rescue.

    In the end, none of this matters to Materialists.

    When new complexity is found, they just suck in their gut and ratchet up their faith, and claim with fingers crossed that some day we will figure it out.

    They are so used to doing this they don’t even know they are doing it. It is second nature to them.

    This has been the pattern since Darwin’s time as more and more complexity, design, information, technology, etc. have been found. And there is no sign of this pattern changing any time soon.

    Sure, we figure out things as we study, research, experiment, etc., but mostly what we discover is more design, more complexity, more information, more fine tuning, more wonder and efficiency, etc.

    With hard work, we can discover how things work. That is real science. But what we don’t figure out is how any of those could have evolved by natural processes. Discoveries such as the OP brought to light and the 4D thing may temporarily surprise the Materialists because they never expected such complexity, but it doesn’t seem to phase their faith.

    And each week the amount of new things/discoveries needing concrete explanations keeps increasing! And, just like the materialist’s faith, this pattern shows no signs of subsiding either.

  11. 11
    Virgil Cain says:

    In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics.

    Not exactly as chaperonins help determine the shape of large polypeptide chains. And that brings us to another chicken and egg problem- proteins need chaperones and chaperonins which are built from proteins.

  12. 12
    sean samis says:

    Steveh @4

    Our most powerful 21st century computers struggle to simulate the weather conditions we will experience in any part of the world with any accuracy more than a few days into the future, but the weather just happens continuously without doing any computations.

    Oh Thank You for this! You put into words a point I’ve been missing! I am going to totally reuse this!

    Imagine a computer simulation of all the earth’s weather for just 2 seconds; a simulation right down to the smallest breeze and mist.
    How long would it take to generate such a simulation? Probably several days. How long would it take to happen in the real world? Well: 2 seconds.

    Just because something takes forever to simulate on a computer, that same event can happen in a heartbeat in the real world.

    sean s.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    tjguy #10

    ‘At what point will the Materialists admit defeat and begin to think rationally?’ – tj

    When hell freezes over? Or maybe when Robert Jastrow goes after them with a whip, like Jesus did with the money-changers in the temple? Or mystically, if he’s passed on.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    sean samis as to:

    Just because something takes forever to simulate on a computer, that same event can happen in a heartbeat in the real world.

    And, as an atheistic materialist, just what ‘real world’ are you referring to?

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms –
    Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/re.....t-confirms

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The full article link is here:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....98101.html

    ss

    … a simulation right down to the smallest breeze and mist … How long would it take to generate such a simulation? Probably several days.

    The difficulty in modelling something like that is based on the unpredictable, highly random nature of the weather and it’s massive scope.

    If you’re saying that’s the same problem in modelling sequences that build protein families, then you’ll be supporting an ID argument with that example.

    steveh

    It seems to me that billions of replicators may achieve in a few hours something that multiple designers using multiple supercomputers may take centuries to approximate — and still get totally wrong.

    That says something about the intelligent power of those replicators – and therefore something about their origin. To cite unintelligent, accidental events as having the creative power to build powerful system-mechanisms doesn’t follow. Protein folds are precise, specific and highly functional towards equally precise functions. So a comparison with weather patterns doesn’t work.

    Furthermore, the billions of replicators are not just working out how the folding will happen, they are actually playing out how they will interact with the all of the other trillions of replicators out there,

    That’s a pro-ID argument. You have to explain the origin of that interactive system somehow – starting from chaos and randomness. Randomness is not a mechanism that can produce ordered systems-mechanisms. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be random. So, this is all evidence of design, not chance.

    …which no Designer, even with a gazillion supercomputers, is ever ever going to match.

    All that is required is a very simple version of the total reality. Start with a random generator (which already a design artifact, so start with something as purely random as you can get). Then see if it produces an integrated functional system. We can do that with design, but the challenge is to create it without design.

    That’s why, AIUI, intelligent designers today use “information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins” – they can’t do what nature did,

    You’re assuming that nature didn’t use a designed mechanism. Because otherwise, today’s designers are using the design found in nature. They do that because a random search doesn’t work at all.

    they can only tweak the results and hope that existing Darwinian mechanisms will work out the precise details for them.

    But Darwinian mechanisms (which are essentially random and therefore cannot be accurately modeled) do not work out details. Evolution is not goal-oriented anyway so whatever details are worked out, have been decided in advance. Again, to replicate what is found in nature by Darwinian means would be similiar to modelling every whisp of air and every raindrop in a weather pattern.

    But the difference is, we can simulate the origin of rain clouds and lightning and wind in lab conditions. But we can’t simulate the evolution of protein folding processes.

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: The difficulty in modelling something like that is based on the unpredictable, highly random nature of the weather and it’s massive scope.

    Chaotic, not random. In any case, you’re conflating two things. Once we have all the data, as per the original scenario, it still takes far longer to compute than it takes nature to go through the same changes. That’s because of the huge number of individual interactions involved in the simulation. In nature, every particle can interact with every nearby particle simultaneously; not so with computers, which have to cycle through the individual interactions.

    Similarly with simulations of protein folding, which is due to the interaction of the many various parts of the folding molecule.

  17. 17
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: But Darwinian mechanisms (which are essentially random and therefore cannot be accurately modeled) do not work out details.

    A gas will fill the nooks and crannies of an enclosure even though the molecular movement is random. Indeed, the gas acts as if it were flowing into the empty spaces.

  18. 18
    Virgil Cain says:

    Yes, Zachriel, evolutionism is all gas and no substance.

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Z

    A gas will fill the nooks and crannies of an enclosure even though the molecular movement is random. Indeed, the gas acts as if it were flowing into the empty spaces.

    In a pure sense, the molecular movement is also bounded, ordered by certain properties and therefore predictable. The gas fills nooks and crannies because of ordered, non-random physical forces. Ordered, predictable systems are evidence of design.

    But beyond that, even calling the molecules random, the nooks and crannies are observable and definable. The gas does not change the boundaries of the nook. The gas doesn’t shape it’s own niche.

    Biological niches are imaginary, in the first place – they could be a physical space or a relationship or a process (bees fill the niche of organisms that use pollen) or something else.

    But they also cannot be modeled because the variables cannot be defined – they’re continually changing by entry or exit of organisms in or out of the niche and the full range of environmental conditions that create and destroy the niche.

    The organisms themselves create and shape the niche in unpredictable ways.

    http://www.nature.com/news/doe.....nk-1.16080

    Volcanic eruptions are idiosyncratic events, independent of organisms’ actions. By contrast, termites construct and regulate their homes in a repeatable, directional manner that is shaped by past selection and that instigates future selection. Similarly, mammals, birds and insects defend, maintain and improve their nests — adaptive responses to nest building that have evolved again and again7. This ‘niche construction’, like developmental bias, means that organisms co-direct their own evolution by systematically changing environments and thereby biasing selection7.

  20. 20
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: The gas fills nooks and crannies because of ordered, non-random physical forces.

    No. The movement of molecules is random. It’s the law of large numbers that results in the gas acting as if it were moving methodically to fill the nooks and crannies of the chamber.

    Silver Asiatic: The gas does not change the boundaries of the nook. The gas doesn’t shape it’s own niche.

    Sure it can.

    Silver Asiatic: But they also cannot be modeled because the variables cannot be defined – they’re continually changing by entry or exit of organisms in or out of the niche and the full range of environmental conditions that create and destroy the niche.

    There are plenty of simple examples, even in nature, such as exposure of a bacteria to antibiotics.

  21. 21
    bFast says:

    BA77 (8), thanks for the link: Eugene Wigner Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist

    This is profound! He is not saying that “materialism is not enough to explain it”, he is saying “materialism doesn’t exist at all.” Without mind, without consciousness, well, nothing.

  22. 22
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    The movement of molecules is random.

    In what way are they “random”?

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    ppolish #3

    ‘“Unguided” and “Purposeless” is not real science.’

    The best it can be is a blotting pad.

  24. 24
    Axel says:

    BA77 #14

    “It proves that measurement is everything.

    … which means the person, the observer is everything.

  25. 25
    ppolish says:

    Zachriel, the motion of atoms is most definitely guided. Guided by many Laws. It’s why spilt milk doesn’t jump back in the bowl.

    In fact, guided motion gives the impression that “time is passing”. But time is an illusion – guided motion is real. Guidance with a capital G.

  26. 26
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: It’s why spilt milk doesn’t jump back in the bowl.

    Thought that was due to gravity.

  27. 27
    ppolish says:

    Law of Gravity, Zach. Along with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Unless you spill on the International Space Station. Then it’s mostly 2nd Law. Atoms guided through the void. Guided.

  28. 28
    steveh says:

    But the difference is, we can simulate the origin of rain clouds and lightning and wind in lab conditions. But we can’t simulate the evolution of protein folding processes.

    So how can you design the protein sequences needed to achieve a novel new function if you can’t simulate the evolution of protein folding sequences? And even if you could, how would you simulate all of the difficult to predict knock-on effects? Biology, Chemistry and Physics just get on with it in real time but designers using universe-sized computers – if such a thing were possible – would be doomed to an eternity of waiting and error (See also: “Waterloo”).

  29. 29
    ppolish says:

    “The movement of molecules is random.”
    Funny, Zachriel, real funny:)

    • F=ma
    • Newton’s law of gravity
    • The Maxwell equations
    • The laws of thermodynamics
    • Entropy and state-counting
    • Black body formula
    • Lorentz transformation
    • Mass energy conversion
    • Einstein’s field law
    • Expansion of the universe (homogeneous cosmology)
    • Schr ?odinger equation
    • Commutation relations and uncertainty principle
    • Born rule
    • Dirac equation
    • Yang-Mills equation
    • Renormalization group; running of couplings
    • Band Structure
    • Gap equation
    • Josephson effects
    • Bell’s inequality
    • Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula
    http://frankwilczek.com/2015/p.....osal08.pdf

  30. 30
    daveS says:

    Are you familiar with the meanings of all those equations and their derivations, ppolish?

  31. 31
    daveS says:

    PS: I’d like to know your rationale for including the Born Rule to support your argument.

  32. 32
  33. 33
    ppolish says:

    No, DaveS, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. And that makes me smart enough to realize the shape of 3D Protein Folds are about as random as the shape of the free breakfast waffles. Although turning molecules into waffles is much simpler than folding 3D Proteins.

  34. 34
    ppolish says:

    KF, Feynman’s 1965 “Messenger Series” lectures are up on YouTube. I’ve been listening to them as I fall asleep at night. Wonderful stuff. One of these days I’ll watch them to see what he’s writing on the blackboard:) And thanks for that link.

  35. 35
    Silver Asiatic says:

    steveh

    So how can you design the protein sequences needed to achieve a novel new function if you can’t simulate the evolution of protein folding sequences?

    If you’re designing something, then it’s not evolution. You don’t need evolutionary mechanisms to create new designs. As mentioned, evolution searches random sequence libraries, but a design approach can reverse engineer to extract and use information.

    designers using universe-sized computers – if such a thing were possible – would be doomed to an eternity of waiting and error (See also: “Waterloo”).

    If the evolution of protein folds could be observed in real-time then you’d have something here. But nobody has observed such a thing.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: 90 Minutes In Heaven – In Theaters September 11 – trailer
    http://90minutesinheaventhemovie.com/

  37. 37
    Box says:

    Steveh: However, the comments you quoted make no sense to me. Our most powerful 21st century computers struggle to simulate the weather conditions we will experience in any part of the world with any accuracy more than a few days into the future, but the weather just happens continuously without doing any computations.

    Proteins cannot come into existence without “computations”.

    Steveh: Similarly a protein may fold in a fraction of a second, but a supercomputer may take several weeks to simulate it.

    We all know that there is nothing random about protein folding, so your weather analogy fails miserably.

  38. 38
    Silver Asiatic says:

    daveS

    Are you familiar with the meanings of all those equations and their derivations, ppolish?

    It’s not the outputs of those equations that is important, but their origin and why supposed chance elements are measurable by such things.

    The point to that listing is that it’s abundant evidence of Design.

  39. 39
    jerry says:

    For those interested in the actual discussion by Durston go here

    http://p2c.com/students/blogs/.....sification

    http://p2c.com/sites/default/f.....Myers_.pdf

    Apparently all the storms from the beginning of the universe would not have enough resources to form one significant protein let alone the thousands of protein families needed for life if the elements of the storm were amino acids.

    Of course they’re not. But that is the debate, the origin of proteins or new alleles.

    If they arose naturally, then there should be evidence in the genomes of existing organisms and this is testable with the ever diminishing cost of sequencing a genome and analyzing them.

  40. 40
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Box

    We all know that there is nothing random about protein folding, so your weather analogy fails miserably.

    That’s it, simply put. Weather has somewhat random inputs and therefore produces hard to predict, non-functional outputs.

    Protein-folds are systems that produce specific, functional outputs.

    Non-ordered, chaotic, randomness supposedly created an ordered, functional system.

    You have to start with no-process, non-system, nothing-ordered (because processes, systems and ordered elements are evidence of Design) and produce the fully precise, specified system.

    This can’t even be done with a pseudo-random (designed) simulations trying to produce the most primitive level of order.

    No, wait … I just gave away far too much.

    It can’t be done at all. Theoretically it’s impossible.

    If randomness produces ordered systems, then it wasn’t randomness. That’s just true by definition. So, materialism fails before it can even evaluate anything.

    To claim that chaos produced processes and ordered systems is to say something contradictory – intellectually incoherent.

    It’s in the nature of randomness that it cannot produce systemic processes. Keeping in mind that the nature of the variables (molecules, forces) have to be non-ordered (therefore no evidence of having been designed) in their properties, motions, powers.

  41. 41
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: Along with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    Which is due to the law of large numbers, not guided by a conscious agent.

    ppolish: “The movement of molecules is random.

    Perhaps we should have included the definite article. “The movement of the molecules is random, like the roll of dice are random,” but it was clear from context that we were referring to a gas filling a chamber.

    Box: We all know that there is nothing random about protein folding, so your weather analogy fails miserably.

    Weather isn’t random either.

    jerry: But that is the debate, the origin of proteins or new alleles.

    Yes. There is evidence that new proteins have evolved. And there is evidence that random sequences can fold into simple functional proteins.

  42. 42
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    Yes. There is evidence that new proteins have evolved

    No, there isn’t any evidence any proteins evolved by natural selection and/ or drift

    And there is evidence that random sequences can fold into simple functional proteins.

    Yet there isn’t any evidence that natural selection and/ or drift can produce those random sequences

  43. 43
    jerry says:

    Yes. There is evidence that new proteins have evolved. And there is evidence that random sequences can fold into simple functional proteins.

    But I understand it all minimal. Even Brosius, the main one pushing new usable sequences, provides only simple changes. If not, provide the evidence for the origin of a new protein family.

  44. 44
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The options are:

    Random
    Non-Random (Design)

    “We don’t know” is not an option when it comes to arriving at the best explanation with the evidence we have.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    as to Zach at 41:

    “ppolish: Along with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    Zach: Which is due to the law of large numbers, not guided by a conscious agent.”

    HUH? If anything ever gave overwhelming evidence as being the product of intelligent design, specifically God in this case, it is the second law of thermodynamics. The second law, i.e. entropy, is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:

    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    How special was the big bang? – Roger Penrose
    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....n-argument

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe – drcraigvideos – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

    A Matter of Considerable Gravity: On the Purported Detection of Gravitational Waves and Cosmic Inflation – Bruce Gordon – April 4, 2014
    Excerpt: Thirdly, at least two paradoxes result from the inflationary multiverse proposal that suggest our place in such a multiverse must be very special: the “Boltzmann Brain Paradox” and the “Youngness Paradox.” In brief, if the inflationary mechanism is autonomously operative in a way that generates a multiverse, then with probability indistinguishable from one (i.e., virtual necessity) the typical observer in such a multiverse is an evanescent thermal fluctuation with memories of a past that never existed (a Boltzmann brain) rather than an observer of the sort we take ourselves to be. Alternatively, by a second measure, post-inflationary universes should overwhelmingly have just been formed, which means that our existence in an old universe like our own has a probability that is effectively zero (i.e., it’s nigh impossible). So if our universe existed as part of such a multiverse, it would not be at all typical, but rather infinitely improbable (fine-tuned) with respect to its age and compatibility with stable life-forms.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84001.html

    Moreover, in regards to establishing the relation of agent causality to thermodynamics, there is the quantum zeno effect:

    Quantum Zeno Effect
    The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

    Quantum Zeno effect
    “It has been experimentally confirmed,, that unstable particles will not decay, or will decay less rapidly, if they are observed. Somehow, observation changes the quantum system. We’re talking pure observation, not interacting with the system in any way.”
    Douglas Ell – Counting to God – pg. 189 – 2014 – Douglas Ell graduated early from MIT, where he double majored in math and physics. He then obtained a masters in theoretical mathematics from the University of Maryland. After graduating from law school, magna cum laude, he became a prominent attorney.

    Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015
    Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....S-20150415

    This is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should conscious observation put a freeze on entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than entropy is? And seeing as how entropy is VERY foundational to reality, then I think the Theistic implications of all this are fairly obvious:

    Verses, Quote, and Music:

    Romans 8:18-21
    I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video)
    http://www.vevo.com/watch/evan.....tantsearch

  46. 46
    daveS says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    Well, ppolish was responding specifically to Zachriel’s statement that the movement of molecules is random, and from context it’s clear that the list of equations/phenomena that he posted was meant to contradict Zachriel.

    The Born Rule tells you, given a quantum system (such as a molecule) and an observable (for example position or momentum), what the possible outcomes and corresponding probabilities are for measurements of this observable. Under the Copenhagen interpretation, the outcomes are determined randomly by the above data.

  47. 47
    Zachriel says:

    jerry: But that is the debate, the origin of proteins or new alleles.

    jerry: provide the evidence for the origin of a new protein family.

    Is there a reason you moved the goalposts?

    Silver Asiatic: Random, Non-Random (Design)

    Non-random Design, so that’s a false dichotomy.

  48. 48
    Silver Asiatic says:

    daveS

    given a quantum system (such as a molecule)

    If I give you a system then you’ll be starting with something that shows evidence of design – and therefore non-randomness – as all systems do.

    As I said elsewhere, you can’t start with a system and then claim no-design. There needs to be evidence that chaos can produce a quantum system. Failing that, we have indisputable evidence of Design.

  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – video (The problem of deriving the Born rule at the 4:30 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/_42skzOHjtA?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&t=271

    i.e. the Born rule is evidence of intelligent design!

  50. 50
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Z

    Non-random Design, so that’s a false dichotomy.

    Randomness does not produce non-random. Only Design does.

  51. 51
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Randomness does not produce non-random.

    That wasn’t your original claim, which was that Design and Randomness form a valid dichotomy.

    As for randomness producing non-random effect, the law of large numbers shows that particles moving randomly can act in non-random ways (such as a gas filling a chamber).

  52. 52
    daveS says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    If I give you a system then you’ll be starting with something that shows evidence of design – and therefore non-randomness – as all systems do.

    As I said elsewhere, you can’t start with a system and then claim no-design. There needs to be evidence that chaos can produce a quantum system. Failing that, we have indisputable evidence of Design.

    Design or lack of design is a separate argument. ppolish is saying that molecules do not move randomly, while the Born Rule, under the most orthodox interpretation, says they do. That’s why I thought it strange that he would include it in the list he posted.

  53. 53
    Silver Asiatic says:

    daveS

    In these discussions, randomness is a synonym for unguided and therefore, for non-design.

    To claim the molecules move randomly you have to show that randomness produces quantum systems. Otherwise, we have a designed system and therefore non-random movement.

  54. 54
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Z

    As for randomness producing non-random effect, the law of large numbers shows that particles moving randomly can act in non-random ways (such as a gas filling a chamber).

    As mentioned elsewhere, you’re starting with a system of consistent, repeated, ordered properties and laws and claiming that as random.

    In the question of origins, the dichotomy is correct. It’s either random or design.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    The present conversation reminds me of this:

    It is interesting to note that Ludwig Boltzmann, an atheist, when he linked entropy and probability, did not, as Max Planck a Christian Theist points out in the following link, think to look for a constant for entropy:

    The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said:This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann’s constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant. Nothing can better illustrate the positive and hectic pace of progress which the art of experimenters has made over the past twenty years, than the fact that since that time, not only one, but a great number of methods have been discovered for measuring the mass of a molecule with practically the same accuracy as that attained for a planet.
    http://www.daviddarling.info/e.....ation.html

    I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out, or even propose, a precise measurement for the constant on entropy is that he, as an atheist, had thought he had arrived at the ultimate ‘random’ explanation for how everything in the universe operates when he had link probability with entropy. i.e. In linking entropy with probability, Boltzmann, again an atheist, thought he had explained everything that happens in the universe to a ‘random’ chance basis. To him, as an atheist, I hold that it would simply be unfathomable for him to conceive that the ‘random chance’ (probabilistic) events of entropy in the universe should ever be constrained by a constant that would limit the effects of ‘random’ entropic events of the universe. Whereas on the contrary, to a Christian Theist such as Planck, it is expected that even these seemingly random entropic events of the universe should be bounded by a constant. In fact modern science was born out of such thinking:

    ‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true.’
    Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

  56. 56
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: you’re starting with a system of consistent, repeated, ordered properties and laws …

    Yes, we observe regularities in nature.

    Silver Asiatic: and claiming that as random.

    Um, no.

    Silver Asiatic: In the question of origins, the dichotomy is correct. It’s either random or design.

    Repeating your assertion doesn’t argue for it. In this case, it appears you are assuming that if there are regularities in nature that it is due to design.

    With regard to biological evolution, you can express it thusly: Given the observed regularities in nature, biological organisms have evolved and diversified from common ancestors. Of course, every scientific theory has the same precept, so it’s rather redundant to repeat it for every scientific claim.

  57. 57
    daveS says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    In these discussions, randomness is a synonym for unguided and therefore, for non-design.

    What sort of experiment could in principle demonstrate random motion of molecules then? I would think the statement “the motion of molecules is nonrandom (i.e., guided)” is unfalsifiable under this interpretation.

    I think we’re moving toward the discussion you and Zachriel are having, so I’ll bow out.

  58. 58
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    In this case, it appears you are assuming that if there are regularities in nature that it is due to design.

    It’s more than mere regularities. It’s ordered systemic processes and the laws that govern them. We know that design can produce ordered systems built on laws and consistent properties. So far, we know that non-design, chaos or randomness (equivalent terms in this context) do not.

    You’d need to show that chaos can produce integrated systems.

    Given the observed regularities in nature,

    Those regularities are unexplained however, so they shouldn’t be given in the context of a question on origins.

    Again, you can’t start with systems and then claim evidence for No Design. Ordered systems that produce consistent outputs are evidence of Design – not chaos.

    The challenge is to show how chaos can produce systems of laws and consistent properties. Failing that, we have indisputable evidence of Design.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    “Given the observed regularities in nature, biological organisms have evolved and diversified from common ancestors”

    As is usual for Zach’s claim, that claim is pure balderdash!

    The one thing Darwinian evolution cannot do is call upon the regularities in nature:

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    The messiness of biology has made it relatively hard to discern the mathematical fundamentals of evolution. Perhaps the laws of biology are deductive consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry. Perhaps natural selection is not a statistical consequence of physics, but a new and fundamental physical law. Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

  60. 60
    Silver Asiatic says:

    daveS

    What sort of experiment could in principle demonstrate random motion of molecules then?

    It’s not a question of demonstrating random outputs in certain contexts. A roulette wheel produces what we’d consider ‘randomness’. But it’s obviously a designed system and the outputs are not random (they occur within defined limits at defined frequencies and are built with intelligence to create an impression of chance outcomes).

    So, the problem is not claiming some aspect of a designed system is random.

    The problem is in mistaking random occurrences in the sub-set of a process and declaring that this is evidence of Unguidedness. It’s like saying that the Roulette wheel itself came together randomly because the numbers it produces cannot be predicted.

  61. 61
    leodp says:

    This has ben a most entertaining (and informative) thread, thanks to all who contributed!

    tiguy @ 10 — well said!

    ppolish @ 33 — hilarious. I will never look at waffles the same
    BA77 @ everywhere. I don’t know how you do it. And quantum physics is as spooky as it gets. Gimmee Newton.

    I’ve just been reading about bacteria that eat electrons and nothing but, not needing the intermediate of food/glucose. Stick electrodes into the muck and let ’em have nothing else and they thrive. They can form into chains up to centimeters long relaying electrons one to another like a hyper-conductive wire. These are machines; elaborate, elegant, pure but not simple. Remarkably the author assumes that ‘evolution’ whatever that means did it. But it’s so incredibly apparent that life is designed by a mind far beyond our own, why can’t we muster the humility to admit it?
    electron-eating bacteria

    We are mist
    (password: praise)

  62. 62
    daveS says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    It’s not a question of demonstrating random outputs in certain contexts. A roulette wheel produces what we’d consider ‘randomness’.

    Maybe we’re talking past each other then. That’s all I’m saying about the motion of molecules—it literally is random, without the quotes, according to the dominant viewpoint (and so is the roulette wheel, since it does comprise a quantum system, although I believe the quantum randomness would be undetectable). Even if the larger universe is designed.

    Edit: Here’s an interesting paper showing interference patterns generated by large organic molecules. This doesn’t prove anything about “unguidedness” of the molecules certainly, but I found it interesting.

  63. 63
    jerry says:

    jerry: But that is the debate, the origin of proteins or new alleles.

    jerry: provide the evidence for the origin of a new protein family.

    Is there a reason you moved the goalposts?

    It is just clarifying. No goal post moving. You as well as anyone should know what the actual goal posts are. Actually it is much more complicated than new protein families.

    But your answer speaks volumes. For someone who has been around the debate for years and has no answer, all that is essentially available is meaningless nitpicking.

    No substance.

  64. 64
    jerry says:

    Remarkably the author assumes that ‘evolution’ whatever that means did it.

    They have no definition they stick with. They assume naturalistic processes but cannot support any of the processes they suppose did it.

  65. 65
    ppolish says:

    DaveS, the motion of the molecules folding into a 3D protein structure is literally not random motion. Literally and figuratively NOT random motion.

    Random coil do not a 3D protein fold make. If the protein folding happening in your body at this moment became literally random – you would not be long for this world.

  66. 66
    Zachriel says:

    jerry: For someone who has been around the debate for years and has no answer

    You asked. We answered. Then you moved the goal posts.

    jerry: It is just clarifying.

    Fair enough. Proteins and protein families usually form phylogenies, supporting common descent. You might want to move the goal posts a little farther.

  67. 67
    daveS says:

    ppolish,

    DaveS, the motion of the molecules folding into a 3D protein structure is literally not random motion. Literally and figuratively NOT random motion.

    Random coil do not a 3D protein fold make. If the protein folding happening in your body at this moment became literally random – you would not be long for this world.

    Not all outcomes are equiprobable, certainly. That’s totally consistent with the Born Rule and the Copenhagen interpretation.

    Edit: Let me add that I am not claiming that this quantum randomness we are discussing plays any significant role in protein folding. Just that the Born Rule does not support your position on the non-randomness of molecule motion (in the context specifically of a gas filling a container).

  68. 68
    ppolish says:

    “Not all outcomes are equiprobable, certainly. That’s totally consistent with the Born Rule and the Copenhagen interpretation.”

    Like I said, the motion of molecules are guided by Laws. Add some Omniscience to the Copenhagen Interpretation – and “Many Worlds” become impossible. God knows if the cat is alive or dead – One World. But God lets us choose. Omniscience + Free Will.

  69. 69
    daveS says:

    ppolish,

    Like I said, the motion of molecules are guided by Laws.

    Sure, I agree with that.*

    Add some Omniscience to the Copenhagen Interpretation – and “Many Worlds” become impossible.

    In fact, I believe the Copenhagen interpretation already conflicts with MWI, no?

    *Edit: I would quibble with the word “guided”. I agree that the motion of particles can be modeled by laws/equations, although there is going to be some stochastic component.

  70. 70
    ppolish says:

    Yes, Copenhagen conflicts with MWI. Omniscience renders it impossible.

    Human Science is better when the scientist believes in Omniscience BTW. Planck vs Everett in this case.

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    as to agent causality vs. the blind, i.e. ‘it just happened for no particular reason whatsoever’, causality of atheists:

    Non local, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum actions provide solid support for the argument from motion. Also known as Aquinas’ First way.
    (Of note, St Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 7 March 1274.)

    Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As

    Aquinas’ First Way
    1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act.
    2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually.
    3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act.
    4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature.
    5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency.
    6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series.
    7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God.
    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/.....t-way.html

    Or to put it much more simply:

    “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”
    Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....first.html

    The following video is also very helpful in understanding the “First Mover” argument:

    The Laws of Nature (Have Never ‘Caused’ Anything) by C.S. Lewis – doodle video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

    And in confirmation of this ancient ‘first mover’ argument, in the following video Anton Zeilinger, whose group is arguably the best group of experimentalists in quantum physics today, ‘tries’ to explain the double slit experiment to Morgan Freeman:

    Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

    Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video that meshes perfectly with the ‘first mover argument’::

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
    Anton Zeilinger

    If that was not enough to get his point across, at the 4:12 minute mark in this following video,,,

    Prof Anton Zeilinger Shows the Double-slit Experiment – video
    http://www.dailymotion.com/vid.....iment_tech

    Professor Zeilinger states,,,

    “We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between.”
    Anton Zeilinger

    Moreover, Dean Radin, who spent many years at Princeton studying different aspects of consciousness, recently performed an experiment on the double slit trying to see if consciousness played any role in the collapse of the wave function. Not so surprisingly, he found evidence ‘consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem’.

    Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
    Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6•10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
    http://www.deanradin.com/paper.....0final.pdf

    …the “paradox” is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.”
    Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III, p. 18-9 (1965)

    supplemental notes:

    The Agent causality of God was presupposed as true by the Christian founders of modern science.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-566184

    Moreover, the denial of agent causality by atheists leads to the epistemological failure of science:

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

  72. 72
    bpragmatic says:

    “Zachriel:

    Yes. There is evidence that new proteins have evolved

    No, there isn’t any evidence any proteins evolved by natural selection and/ or drift

    And there is evidence that random sequences can fold into simple functional proteins.

    Yet there isn’t any evidence that natural selection and/ or drift can produce those random sequences”

    Hey Zachriel. Why don’t you put an end to this discussion and give the guy the evidence needed to answer his objections? Why wouldn’t you want similar evidence before you proclaim that you know or even can estimate the capabilities of the alleged “mechanisms” you allege have the capabilities required?

  73. 73
    Zachriel says:

    bpragmatic: No, there isn’t any evidence any proteins evolved by natural selection and/ or drift

    Let’s start with, they descended through incremental change from common ancestors.

    bpragmatic: And there is evidence that random sequences can fold into simple functional proteins.

    That’s right.

    bpragmatic: Yet there isn’t any evidence that natural selection and/ or drift can produce those random sequences

    There’s evidence, albeit tentative. Most available evidence concerns evolution of life, not the origin of the first replicators. ETA: However, experiments with random sequneces shows that sequence space isn’t that barren.

  74. 74
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    Let’s start with, they descended through incremental change from common ancestors.

    Then start with the evidence for such a thing.

  75. 75
    Popperian says:

    News seems to be at it again: posting stories thinking they support ID when the really do not.

    Again, I would suggest the current crop of ID is a form of inductivism that assumes the unseen, the designer of the biosphere, resembles the seen, human designers, but is just “better” in some inexplicable sense. Namely, when pressed to qualify in what sense the designer is “better”, no elaboration is provided in any significant sense. It’s a naive as suggesting God is just like us, but infinitely better in some inexplicable sense.

    For example, scientists who want to create new proteins are intelligent designers, right? Furthermore, wouldn’t scientists exhibit what you consider free will, intent, etc.? Yet, despite checking all the boxes that ID appeals to as an explanation for biological features, scientists simply cannot create new proteins from scratch, even when using tools such as supercomputers. So, as I’ve pointed out over and over again, merely being an intelligent designer with intent, etc. simply isn’t sufficient as an explanation.

    Furthermore, this is an example of how ID proponents grossly underestimate the role that knowledge plays. Proteins, and the biological features they result in, are the kind of transformations of matter that occur when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them is present. Knowledge is independent of a knowing subject and anyone’s belief.

    Example? If I accidentally receive plans to build a boat, rather than the car I intended to build, my intent or belief doesn’t somehow magically prevent me from ending up with a boat if I follow the instructions. Right? I’d end up with a boat regardless. It’s unclear how the biosphere is any different. Nor does ID explain the knowledge found in biological organisms. As such, it’s an explanation-less theory that can be boiled down to “That’s just what the designer must have wanted”. Yet, the OP unwittingly points out that a designer just wanting something is itself insufficient.

    In addition, any such designer would itself be well adapted to serve the purpose of designing organisms. And being well adapted to serve a purpose is what it means for something to exhibit the appearance of design. As such, any such designer itself cannot itself be an explanation for the appearance of design. That just pushes the problem up a level without improvising it.

    Finally, neo-darwinism doesn’t suggest that modern day proteins were randomly created from scratch, all at once. That’s a strawman.

    And it’s a mystery why ID hasn’t been adopted by science?

  76. 76
    Mung says:

    Popperian: Again, I would suggest the current crop of ID is a form of inductivism that assumes the unseen…

    Sort of like knowledge then?

    Popperian: And it’s a mystery why ID hasn’t been adopted by science?

    No mystery. It has been adopted.

  77. 77
    Popperian says:

    ppolish

    Like I said, the motion of molecules are guided by Laws. Add some Omniscience to the Copenhagen Interpretation – and “Many Worlds” become impossible. God knows if the cat is alive or dead – One World. But God lets us choose. Omniscience + Free Will.

    Apparently, you do not understand the Many Worlds Interpretation. Each instance of what we consider a classical universe is an emergent property of the a greater scope of reality known as the multiverse, which represent histories in which each version of the cat is alive, while others are dead or never born.

    God, if he exists, could know of the outcome in each of these histories. Nothing about his supposed omniscience would prevent this. However, the multiverse does conflict with the idea of a God that judges a single instance of us based on a single history of our choices and actions and sends us to a single afterlife of reward or punishment. In other words, if you believe the Bible is sufficient to tell us what we need to know, the MWI must be false because it’s absent. But the belief that the Bible is sufficient is itself a Biblical claim about the Bible.

    daves:

    In fact, I believe the Copenhagen interpretation already conflicts with MWI, no?

    The Copenhagen interpretation is an instrumentalist theory in that it doesn’t claim to describe reality. It’s about what we will experience, not what reality is actually like. Those two things are not the same. As far as the Copenhagen interpretation is concerned, the wave function in QM could just as well be a useful fiction to predict outcomes.

  78. 78
    Popperian says:

    @mung

    I wrote:

    Again, I would suggest the current crop of ID is a form of inductivism that assumes the unseen, the designer of the biosphere, resembles the seen, human designers, but is just “better” in some inexplicable sense.

    Mung:

    Sort of like knowledge then?

    Not sort of. It’s an example of a bad philosophy in respect to knowledge.

    Mung:

    No mystery. It has been adopted.

    So, Uncommon Decent can close up shop? What will News have to complain about?

  79. 79

    @Popperian

    Theories in science are stated in general form. So creationism stated generally merely describes the mechanism of creation, irrespective of who created what and when.

    The mechanism of creation is choosing. Creationism divides into 2 components the creator category, which does the choosing, and the creation category, which is chosen.

    All questions about what is in the creator category are neccessarily subjective. This is simply how all subjectivity works. That the existence of God is a matter of faith, meaning that the conclusion God exists, is equally valid to saying God does not exist, is the same rule by which it is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is valid to say the painting is ugly. So the creator category is never going to be any part of science.

    But still we can acknowledge the facts about how things are chosen, without referencing who made the decisions turn out the way they did.

    And how organisms are chosen, intelligent design theory says they are chosen as a whole, with a reasoned and informed decision as to their functioning. What such a decision actually looks like, is that first the possible adult organisms are in the future, anticipated from the present. And of course, there may also be “rubbish” configurations in the future.

    But immediately you can see the efficiency of how this logic works. Rubbish configurations simply do not have a future. So they simply do not show as options to choose from. Like “death” is not really a thing in itself, it is merely the absence of life.

    See how straightforward intelligent design theory is? And if you weren’t such an evil person, you would theorize along these lines, which lines of enquiry are immediately productive, in providing good hypothesis, like the DNA worlds theory.

  80. 80
    daveS says:

    Popperian @ 77: Thanks for that correction.

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    as to Popperian at 77

    Apparently, you do not understand the Many Worlds Interpretation. Each instance of what we consider a classical universe is an emergent property of the a greater scope of reality known as the multiverse, which represent histories in which each version of the cat is alive, while others are dead or never born.

    Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is falsified. MWI ‘removes the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet’:

    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:
    per wikipedia

    Yet, contrary to the MWI, the following experiment demonstrated that the non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, collapse of a single particles wave function is real:

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    i.e. MWI is dependent on the wave function being merely an abstract description of reality. In fact as stated previously, the MWI gets rid of the axiom of wave function collapse altogether and gives primary consideration to the particle.
    IMHO, MWI truly exposes materialism in all its full blown absurdity in doing so.
    The particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone tries to observe a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes.
    In other words, the MWI is basically saying that, instead of God, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to.
    To say MWI is an idiotic conjecture would be an insult to idiots.

    Here are a few more notes falsifying the MWI:

    The inevitable nonlinearity of quantum gravity falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics – T. P. Singh – 2007
    Excerpt:,,, This nonlinearity is responsible for a dynamically induced collapse of the wave-function, during a quantum measurement, and it hence falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We illustrate this conclusion using a mathematical model based on a generalized Doebner-Goldin equation. The non-Hermitian part of the Hamiltonian in this norm-preserving, nonlinear, Schrodinger equation dominates during a quantum measurement, and leads to a breakdown of linear superposition.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2357

    Empty waves, many worlds, parallel lives, and nonlocal decision at detection – Antoine Suarez – 2012
    Abstract: I discuss an experiment demonstrating nonlocality and conservation of energy under the assumption that the decision of the outcome happens at detection. The experiment does not require Bell’s inequalities and is loophole-free. I further argue that the local hidden variables assumed in Bell’s theorem involve de Broglie’s “empty waves”, and therefore “many worlds” achieves to reconcile locality with the violation of Bell’s inequalities. Accordingly, the discussed experiment may be the first loophole-free demonstration of nonlocality.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1732v1

    Nonlocality and free will vs. many-worlds and determinism: The material world emerges from outside space-time – Antoine Suarez – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....Bs#t=2469s

    Besides the empirical falsifications of the MWI listed, the problems with MWI interpretation are profound and deep.
    Here is, in my view, a excellent mini-overview of the many profound problems with the Many Worlds Interpretation:

    The Parallel Universes of David Deutsch
    (As argued for in Deutsch’s book The Fabric of Reality) – A Critque by Henry R. Sturman
    Excerpt: 1. The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch’s argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.
    2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.
    3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.
    4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.
    5. Deutsch’s argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.
    http://henrysturman.com/englis.....verse.html

    In the following excellent video is a bit deeper look at the many irreconcilable fallacies inherent within the Many Worlds Interpretation:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

    David Deutsch’s claim that Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation is dealt with here

    Is Shor’s algorithm a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation?
    Excerpt: David Deutsch is very fond of pointing out Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation. As he often asked, where else did all the exponentially many combinations happen?
    Are there any other alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which can explain Shor’s algorithm, and the Deutsch-Jozsa and Simon’s algorithm?
    ,,, this argument is totally wrong for a simple reason: the real Universe – our Universe – is a quantum system, not a classical system. So it is normal for quantum systems in a single Universe to behave just like the quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm. On the contrary, if we only use the classical computers, we exponentially slow down the computer relatively to what it could do. In this sense, Deutsch’s “argument” shows that the many-worlds interpretation is just another psychological aid for the people who can’t resist to incorrectly think about our world as being a classical world of a sort.,,,
    There is one more lethal conceptual problem with the “many worlds” explanation of the Shor’s algorithm’s speed: the whole quantum computer’s calculation has to proceed in a completely coherent way and you’re not allowed to imagine that the world splits into “many worlds” as long as things are coherent i.e. before the qubits are measured. Only when the measurement is completed – e.g. at the end of the Shor’s algorithm calculation – you’re allowed to imagine that the worlds split. But it’s too late because by that moment, the whole calculation has already been done in a single (quantum) world, without any help from the parallel worlds.
    (Many more excellent answers are on the site)
    http://physics.stackexchange.c.....rpretation

    Deutsch also claimed that the ‘particle interfering with itself’ is another proof for many worlds, but the notion that particles interfere with themselves in the double slit was proven to be wrong by Henry Stapp decades ago when he was just a Jr. in college:

    A Conversation with Henry Stapp, Ryan Cochrane – March 2014
    Excerpt: As a junior in college, at the University of Michigan, (around 1950), I carried out, during Easter vacation a double-slit experiment where the photons were, on average, 1 km apart, and verified that effect was not due (to) different photons interfering with one another.
    Henry Stapp – Physicist
    http://social-epistemology.com.....-cochrane/

    If anyone is interested in how Dr. Stapp accomplished the preceding experiment, this was his reponse to my e-mail to him asking him how he did it,

    The experiment was meant only to inform myself, and there was never any thought of publication, although I saved for many years the glass slides with the two photographic images, one below the other, of the two double-slit patterns.
    The U of M optics lab featured a double slit experiment. My modified version was not very ingenious: the lab had some calibrated color filters. I merely placed a stack of filters between the light source and the rest of the experiment, so that, using the stated absorption coefficients of the filters, the light was attenuated to an intensity that amounted to an average distance of 1km between photons, whose coherence length was supposed to be about a meter.
    The run lasted ten days. The two interference patterns, one just above the other, were, to my eye, indistinguishable. The “crazy” quantum mechanical prediction was apparently correct! Something very, very interesting was afoot.
    – Henry Stapp – Physicist

    Of related interest to that double slit falsification of the many world’s interpretation, (i.e. falsification of a ‘particle interfering with itself’), is this following double slit experiment which found, completely contrary to materialistic thought, consciousness to be integral to the double slit experiment:

    Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
    Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6•10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
    http://www.deanradin.com/paper.....0final.pdf

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian also claims that:

    the belief that the Bible is sufficient is itself a Biblical claim about the Bible.

    The Bible, contrary to what Popperian believes, has stunning outside evidence tesitifying to the veracity of its claims.
    Perhaps the most stunning example being the verification that the entire universe, all space-time matter-energy, was created a finite time ago and that the universe has not always existed as was always believed by atheists/materialists.

    “The Bible is frequently dismissed as being anti-scientific because it makes no predictions. Oh no, that is incorrect. It makes a brilliant prediction. For centuries it has been saying there was a beginning. And if scientists had taken that a bit more seriously they might have discovered evidence for a beginning a lot earlier than they did.”
    John Lennox

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation

    “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
    George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
    Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

    Moreover, not only did the Bible correctly predict the beginning of the entire material universe and therefore falsify materialism, but also, among all the ‘holy’ books of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the entire universe.
    Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

    The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among ‘holy books’ and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y

    A few more notes on the veracity of the Bible:

    Joseph Holden – Archaeology and the Bible: What Stones Tell Us About the Reliability of Scripture – video
    http://vimeo.com/24514152

    Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven?
    Excerpt: Many archaeologists, Bible scholars and historians continue to conclude from the evidence that the Exodus did indeed occur, among them the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks
    (Ha’aretz Magazine, Nov. 5, 1999).

    “In Extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New testaments – corroborating key points of the stories of Israel’s patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus.”
    Jeffery Sheler – ‘Is The Bible True’, U.S. News and World Report, Oct. 25th, 1999, pg.52

    Here is a gem of a quote from a Bible skeptic who thought it unfair to use the Bible as a guide in archeology since,,,::

    ‘he knew immediately that, proceeding in this way (using the Bible as a guide), “she would certainly find that building”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-it-makes/

    LOL, no bias there huh? 🙂

    Isaiah 53 and the Dead Sea Scrolls – verified prophecy before the birth of Christ
    http://www.allaboutarchaeology.....olls-2.htm

    Outside the Bible (external) historical evidence for Jesus is listed on the following site:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....t-mindset/

    And my favorite outside evidence for the veracity of the Holy Bible, since it gives actual empirical evidence for Jesus Christ defeating death, is this

    Shroud Of Turin – Photographic Negative – 3D Hologram – The Lamb – video
    http://www.tunesbaby.com/watch/?x=5664213

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 Test Proven False –
    – Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford – video
    (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Verse and Music:

    2 Peter 1:16
    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    “Alive” – By Natalie Grant – With Lyrics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFpgzjRD44

  83. 83
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is falsified.

    I know we’ve discussed this before, but has anyone else acknowledged this? It’s been several months, and you would think there would at least be a mention of it in a major journal.

  84. 84
  85. 85
    Popperian says:

    @BA

    I wrote:

    But the belief that the Bible is sufficient is itself a Biblical claim about the Bible.

    BA

    The Bible, contrary to what Popperian believes, has stunning outside evidence tesitifying to the veracity of its claims.

    Evasive much?

    I’ll ask you directly: Does the Bible itself claim the Bible contains all you should need to know about one’s eternal salvation? Is this true or false?

    To elaborate, would you agree with the following from Are the Scriptures Sufficient

    We can then see that we are equipped for every good work. Every good work is explained in the previous verse as teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. This means that the Bible is sufficient for all of these things. This naturally includes the teaching of doctrine because teaching correct doctrine is a good work by which we reprove, correct, and train. Furthermore, this means that we don’t need sacred tradition to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness because the Scriptures are what is sufficient for this.

    I’m asking because, should you hold such a belief….

    P1. The MWI indicates there are more than one “copy” of us in each universe which makes different choices and takes mutually exclusive actions.
    P2. The Bible says God will judge based on our actions, resulting in being eternally rewarded or punished.
    P3. The Bible claims the Bible contains everything we need to know about our eternal salvation.

    C1. The MWI conflicts with P2, is not described anywhere in the Bible and, so, according to P3 must be false.

    So, if you hold the theological belief that the scriptures are sufficient [p3], then you must believe the MWI is false on theological grounds.

    BA:

    Perhaps the most stunning example being the verification that the entire universe, all space-time matter-energy, was created a finite time ago and that the universe has not always existed as was always believed by atheists/materialists.

    First, you do realize that at one point in the past there were theists and non-theists alike though the universe was eternal, right? So, was the Bible somehow less “verified” then? No. They though Genesis agreed with their belief back then as well. Nor does the existence of a singularity at the big bang necessitate the conclusions you’ve drawn from it. So, apparently, you think we must life in some very special time in history. Yet, I’m guessing those theists in the past thought they lived in a special time as well. IOW, you conclusion is very short sighted.

    The funny thing is, you think that evolution is short sighed and will be superseded, but apparently cannot conceive of your interpretation as being short sighted and superseded, despite the fact that applying induction to it would suggest it would be superseded as well. I guess that’s just another example of where you selectively apply induction when it coincides with your theological commitments.

    Second, the theological belief that the scriptures are sufficient is itself circular. At best, you might try to appeal to inductivism by trying to claiming that the Bible has always been right in the past, and the future resembles the past, so we are justified in believing that the scriptures are sufficient. But that’s bad philosophy, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere.

    The idea that inductivism as always worked for us in the past, so it will probably work for us in the future, despite anyone actually being unable to formulate a principle of induction that works in practice, is itself circular.

    The fact that you appeal to verse and music at the end of your comment is an example of appealing to an authoritative source of knowledge.

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian, you claim I’m evasive and then turn right around and are yourself evasive to the fact that the Bible has stunning outside empirical confirmation.

    You ignoring the evidence provided refuting many worlds and testifying to the veracity of the Bible is all the more peculiar since you have chosen the handle Popperian.

    i.e. Karl Popper called and he wants his good name, which you have now sullied beyond recognition, back! 🙂

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

    The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
    Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.
    I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.
    – Dr Michael Behe

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

  87. 87

    @popperiain wrote: “P2. The Bible says God will judge based on our actions, resulting in being eternally rewarded or punished.”

    The soul chooses, the soul is judged, not the action. Based on the decisions the soul makes, God looks at the soul. He does not look at the action to preserve it!

    God let’s the whole life and universe be destroyed, from dust to dust.

  88. 88
    Daniel King says:

    God let’s the whole life and universe be destroyed, from dust to dust.

    That is wisdom.

    I, for one, am not making any more long-term plans.

  89. 89
    Popperian says:

    @daves

    BA would need to actually understand the MWI to know any particular experiment falsified it. Yet, his references in these thread indicate he lacks such an understanding of QM and the MWI. For example..

    BA

    Yet, contrary to the MWI, the following experiment demonstrated that the non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, collapse of a single particles wave function is real:

    Yet, from the referenced article….

    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.

    IOW, non-locality in the context of this experiment is in contrast to specific to Einstein’s view that there are hidden variables at play that are not described in QM. However, Einstein’s view is not the MWI. So, finding Einstein’s view wrong does not equate to finding the MWI wrong. Namely, what we experience isn’t the same as the unseen expiation for seen phenomena, including the non-local result obtained by the experiment.

    BA

    i.e. MWI is dependent on the wave function being merely an abstract description of reality. In fact as stated previously, the MWI gets rid of the axiom of wave function collapse altogether and gives primary consideration to the particle.

    This is false.

    You can think of the wave function operating at a more fundamental level as multiverse in the MWI, which manifests itself as particles in each universe. So, it’s both a particle and a wave in that the deeper level of understanding being explained by the wave function of the multiverse, which is comparable with the same observations.

    IOW, the wave function not collapsing is not the same as getting rid of it completely.

    BA

    The particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone tries to observe a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes. In other words, the MWI is basically saying that, instead of God, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to.

    Which is also false. See above. It’s unclear how BA can criticize a theory he does not understand.

    From the article on quantum gravity…

    This nonlinearity is responsible for a dynamically induced collapse of the wave-function, during a quantum measurement, and it hence falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    Yet, the MWI doesn’t suggest the wave function actually collapses. Something here doesn’t add up.

    As for the article on the “loophole-free demonstration of non-locality”, it reinforces my point about Einstein’s non-locality.

    But why cannot “many worlds” and “parallel lives” be rejected, if one assumes “empty waves”?
    Because all these pictures share a rejection of the following basic principle:
    Principle A: Any entity in space-time is in principle accessible to a human observer unless both (the entity and the observer) are spacelike separated. Or in other words, the only way to have inaccessibility within space-time is through space-like separation.
    I think Principle A is the reasonable way of characterizing the contents of space-time, and it should be assumed by any sound scientific theory. In fact Principle A is at the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and in particular of Bohr’s view. And it seems to be shared by Einstein as well, who in fact disqualified the “empty waves” terming them as ghost fields. Therefore, for reasons of scientific coherence one should reject “empty waves”, “many worlds” and “parallel lives”. And in any case one cannot say that “many worlds” reconciles quantum mechanics and Einstein’s local realism because in fact it is at odds with both

    Here, rejecting the MWI is based on accepting a principle of how to define space-time based on its popularity with Einstein, Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation?

    Couldn’t get past the first 30 seconds of Antoine Suarez’s video. Summary?

    Your link for Sturman’s critique is broken. Looking at this version instead

    Sturman:

    Excerpt: 1. The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch’s argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.

    Not presenting an argument in that section for the purpose of presenting the MWI in a way that laymen can understand does not mean no such arguments exist. For example, relativity says changes to a physical system cannot propagate faster than c.

    Sturman:

    2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.

    No, it’s not evidence against the existence of shadow photons. Again, Deutsch is presenting the MWI theory in a way that is deigned to prevent people from jumping to conclusions about the role that observations play in QM. For example, he explicitly addresses this later and explains why it wasn’t presented earlier….

    “For example, in all the experiments I have described, the interfering universes differ only in the position of one photon. If a photon affects other particles in its travels, and in particular if it is observed, then those particles or the observer will also become differentiated in different universes. If so, subsequent interference involving that photon will be undetectable in practice because the requisite interaction  {49}  between all the affected particles is too complicated to arrange. I must mention here that the standard phrase for describing this fact, namely ‘observation destroys interference’, is very misleading in three ways. First, it suggests some sort of psychokinetic effect of the conscious ‘observer’ on basic physical phenomena, though there is no such effect. Second, the interference is not ‘destroyed’: it is just (much!) harder to observe because doing “so involves controlling the precise behaviour of many more particles. And third, it is not just ‘observation’, but any effect of the photon on its surroundings that depends on which path the photon has taken, that does this. For the benefit of readers who may have seen other accounts of quantum physics, I must briefly make contact between the argument I have given in this chapter and the way the subject is usually presented. Perhaps because the debate began among theoretical physicists, the traditional starting-point has been quantum theory itself. One states the theory as carefully as possible, and then one tries to understand what it tells us about reality. That is the only possible approach if one wants to understand the finer details of quantum phenomena. But as regards the issue of whether reality consists of one universe or many, it is an unnecessarily complicated approach. That is why I have not followed it in this chapter. I have not even stated any of the postulates of quantum theory — I have merely described some physical phenomena and drawn inescapable conclusions.”

    So, this is simply false, as it it addressed by Deutsch.

    Sturman:

    Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.

    Deutsch’s criticism is not presented in that chapter because it is based on the concept of a bad explanation, which is expanded on at great length elsewhere in the book.

    4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.

    That’s an incredibly vague criticism.

    5. Deutsch’s argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.

    Again, this is addressed elsewhere. The entire point of the book is to show how what appear to be unrelated subjects are actually related and represent the strands in the fabric of reality indicated by the title of the book. Ponting out the author doesn’t explain everything at once isn’t a good criticism.

    An example I’ve presented elsewhere is a science fiction plot where a crew member on a space ship is somehow shifted out of phase with the rest of the ship during an event, such as a transporter accident, and the rest of the crew must detect and shift him back into phase.

    What air is the crew member breathing? If he is breathing the same air as the rest of the crew, then he could simply speak to them. Yet, he cannot. Why doesn’t the crew member fall though the floor out into space? Walking on same floor as the rest of the crew would also cause vibrations that the could hear. Yet, the crew they cannot detect that either. So, apparently, not just the crew member exists out of phase, but an entire ship, with life support, etc. And the same argument can be made beyond the ship, etc.

    As for the video, what it fails to address is that universes only interfere with each other to the degree that they are separated. The act of observation causes an increase in the degree in which universes are different from each other, which prevents interference. More specifically, the observer’s measurement represents a significant change in the form of information about a specific location for the particle, which increases the difference between other parallel counterparts and prevents interference. However, this differentiation could occur in other ways, such as moving a block of wood, or even one’s hand in front of the slits. The observer doesn’t play a special role.

    BA:

    Deutsch also claimed that the ‘particle interfering with itself’ is another proof for many worlds, but the notion that particles interfere with themselves in the double slit was proven to be wrong by Henry Stapp decades ago when he was just a Jr. in college:

    Wow, BA. Are you just being disingenuous or are you really that clueless about the subject at hand?

    The experiment in question was to rule out that other photons edited by the emitter, not the shadows of the emitted photos Deutsch was referring to, were interfering with the photons going though the slit. Again, are you just pretending to be disingenuously or ?

    As for the paper: “Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern”, it’s unclear how any such variation in probably would actually be caused by directing one’s attention in some vague way, vs actually attempting to measure the particle, as described in the classic QM experiment. One could assume such a variation via some kind of psychokinesis, however it should be observed in other classical systems just as well as quantum, which similar results.

    IOW, appealing to “some psychokinesis” effect, as apposed to measurement, wouldn’t be specific to quantum mechanics. So, some kind of general psychokinesis theory should be developed to explain it in a general sense, and also tested in a general sense. Otherwise, you’re appealing to what appears to be what is commonly known as “quantum woo woo”. Since observations are themselves theory laden, as illustrated by supposed observation of neutrons traveling faster than the speed of light, in the OPERA experiment, some psychokinesis theory should be developed to explain why indirect psychokinesis works on quantum probably, but not anything else, which explains the differences in outcomes, or shows psychokinesis works in classical scenerios as well.

  90. 90
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian, logic is not your strong suit.

    MWI denies wavefunction collapse:

    The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

    The experiment demonstrated that, contrary to MWI, the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    As I said before, Karl Popper called and he wants his good name back. You certainly are not deserving of it!

    As to the world splitting every time an observation is made of a particle, please pray tell what is the exact mechanism by which an entirely new parallel universe is created by observation of a single particle? That is a VERY extraordinary claim that demands VERY extraordinary evidence.

    By the way, if you truly believe it happens, I have some swamp land in Florida for you to look at! 🙂

    You subsequent ramblings are incoherent as well. I am firmly convinced you have no firm clue what as to you are talking about in either QM or relativity.

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

  91. 91
    Popperian says:

    As for Popper, from What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution?

    It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]

    In an earlier work, Popper discussed the historical sciences in which the scientific method of theoretical sciences is used:

    This view is perfectly compatible with the analysis of scientific method, and especially of causal explanation given in the preceding section. The situation is simply this: while the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements. [Popper, 1957, p. 143ff]

    What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.

    A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth’s surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.

    However, I’ve quoted this to you before. And I’m the one trying to “Sully Popper’s name sullied beyond recognition”?

    Michael Behe:

    Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

    Again, we cannot go back in time. So, even if we could produce that in the lab, it doesn’t rule out the logical possibility that some designer designed our particular biosphere. Or that some designer wanted it to appear as if it evolved, but didn’t. Since your designer is abstract and has no limitations, you can’t claim the designer wouldn’t try to fool us because the designer is good, etc. You’d have to smuggle in the idea that the designer is God, which isn’t part of the “scientific theory”.

    Rather, what we’re looking for is a principle or theory for how biological complexity, in the universal sense, arises. ID doesn’t explain that beyond “that’s just what the designer wanted” because what drives biological complexity is the set of instructions for transformation of matter that build those features. Wanting it to turn out that way, simply is insufficient, as I’ve pointed out above. Again, you’d have to smuggle in the idea that the designer has a special property that obtains what it intents, via some inexplicable means.

    This is the same sort of idea that the designer is like us, merely better, in some inexplicable way, so it obtains what it wants by some inexplicable means. This tells us nothing beyond the fact that it’s the knowledge in organisms cells that result in those features. IOW, ID doesn’t explain that knowledge.

    As for falsifying darwinism, I’ve discussed this as well. So, it’s unclear why you keep rehashing the same mistake. Not having been falsified is not the same as being unfalsifiable.

    For example, an organism cannot build features before the knowledge of how to build those features was created. As such, organisms should not appear in the order or most complex to least complex. Nor should the appear all at once.

    On the other hand, there is no order in which to falsify ID’s designer because it doesn’t have any limitations, such as what it knows, when it knew it, etc. For a designer always knew how to build any organism that has, does or could exist, it would be possible to organisms in any order, including from most complex to least complex, or even all at once. IOW, ID’s designer has no limitation that have consequences for the current state of the system that we could test. Neo-Darwinism does.

  92. 92
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian, it is clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.

    ID can easily be falsified whereas, as I cited elsewhere tonight, evolution cannot.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-574343

    That you refuse to see this is more a testimony to how biased and blind you are than it is to the evidence at hand.

    As I said, Popper called and he wants his good name back. You certainly do not deserve it! 🙂 Especially with your MWI tripe!

  93. 93
    daveS says:

    Popperian @ 89: Thanks for the further explanation.

    BA77: I stand corrected. The Singh papers from ~2008 do claim to have falsified MWI. I will be interested to see if his ideas gain traction.

  94. 94
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, ” I will be interested to see if his ideas gain traction.”

    I firmly believe that anyone who is willing to dogmatically defend, just so to avoid an inference to God, the notion that unguided material processes can produce the unfathomed integrated complexity we see in life, will not be dissuaded in the least from believing in infinite parallel universes splitting off from each other upon observation no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

    Some measure of good old fashioned common sense has to be present to begin with in order for what is overwhelmingly reasonable to be accepted and override the deeply held philosophical biases of atheists.

    At least that has been my experience over years of debating dogmatic atheists. Evidence simply is of little concern to them!

  95. 95
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    I think I’ve stated several times that I don’t “believe in” MWI or the multiverse in general. Mostly because it’s a minority position among experts, but also because it seems quite far-fetched.

  96. 96
    Popperian says:

    @BA

    What you’re presenting is a false dilemma in that we either have Einstein’s version of locality or “spooky action at a distance” non-locality. However, the MWI isn’t either of those two things.

    Einstein’s locality was based on the idea there were hidden variables at play and that QM was incomplete. Yes. The experiment indicates there are no hidden variables and that QM is complete and that Einstein’s locality is false.

    However, the MWI’s is not the same as Einstein’s locality, in that it doesn’t assume there are any hidden variables and considers QM to be complete complete, while still being local in it’s own way . In fact, one of the references you thought supported your position explicitly points out Einstein’s locality is not the same as the MWI. So, apparently, you’re posting articles that you just don’t understand.

    Furthermore, the specific observations of “spooky action at a distance” in the experiment are compatible with the MWI, yet incompatible with what it describes as actually happening in reality to produce them. If you actually understood the theory you were criticizing, you’d know this.

    The MWI is simply the theory of quantum mechanics taken seriously. It literarily comes right out of the theory automatically. Einstein’s locality or adding special roles for observers are examples of trying to add to the theory.

    From this article: Why the Many-Worlds Formulation of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably Correct

    The conclusion, therefore, is that multiple worlds automatically occur in quantum mechanics. They are an inevitable part of the formalism. The only remaining question is: what are you going to do about it? There are three popular strategies on the market: anger, denial, and acceptance.

    The “anger” strategy says “I hate the idea of multiple worlds with such a white-hot passion that I will change the rules of quantum mechanics in order to avoid them.” And people do this! In the four options listed here, both dynamical-collapse theories and hidden-variable theories are straightforward alterations of the conventional picture of quantum mechanics. In dynamical collapse, we change the evolution equation, by adding some explicitly stochastic probability of collapse. In hidden variables, we keep the Schrödinger equation intact, but add new variables — hidden ones, which we know must be explicitly non-local. Of course there is currently zero empirical evidence for these rather ad hoc modifications of the formalism, but hey, you never know.

    The “denial” strategy says “The idea of multiple worlds is so profoundly upsetting to me that I will deny the existence of reality in order to escape having to think about it.” Advocates of this approach don’t actually put it that way, but I’m being polemical rather than conciliatory in this particular post. And I don’t think it’s an unfair characterization. This is the quantum Bayesianism approach, or more generally “psi-epistemic” approaches. The idea is to simply deny that the quantum state represents anything about reality; it is merely a way of keeping track of the probability of future measurement outcomes. Is the particle spin-up, or spin-down, or both? Neither! There is no particle, there is no spoon, nor is there the state of the particle’s spin; there is only the probability of seeing the spin in different conditions once one performs a measurement. I advocate listening to David Albert’s take at our WSF panel.

    The final strategy is acceptance. That is the Everettian approach. The formalism of quantum mechanics, in this view, consists of quantum states as described above and nothing more, which evolve according to the usual Schrödinger equation and nothing more. The formalism predicts that there are many worlds, so we choose to accept that. This means that the part of reality we experience is an indescribably thin slice of the entire picture, but so be it. Our job as scientists is to formulate the best possible description of the world as it is, not to force the world to bend to our pre-conceptions.

  97. 97
    Popperian says:

    BA

    ID can easily be falsified whereas, as I cited elsewhere tonight, evolution cannot.

    So, a designer couldn’t intend to make everything appear that it evolved? Is that what you’re claiming? Otherwise, we’d have no way to falsify that. Right?

    Let me guess. You think the designer is God and, by definition, God cannot mislead us? But that’s not ID, the supposedly scientific theory, which you’re claiming can be falsified. You’re smuggling in theological assumptions.

    Even then, it’s not clear how we could falsify the idea that God is perfectly good and wouldn’t mislead us.

    Furthermore, you still haven’t addressed my point of confusing not yet being falsified with being unfalsifiable.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  98. 98
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian, again, logic is not your strong suit.

    MWI denies the reality of wave function collapse. Yet the reality of wave function collapse is now experimentally established.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-574350

    It is not rocket science.

    as to empirically falsifying Darwinism (although Darwinists themselves do not accept falsification), is this post from earlier:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-573880

    Anyways, you have wasted enough of my time and you are now getting into my sleep time with your incoherent/insane ramblings, and I, given my years dealing with dogmatic atheists, certainly do not think you will ever be reasonable. Thus the last word is all yours. I will reply no further to your delusions.

    Any further imagined refutations that you have of the actual empirical science at hand can be addressed directly to the hand 🙂

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28

    Good night and good bye!

  99. 99
    anthropic says:

    “@popperiain wrote: “P2. The Bible says God will judge based on our actions, resulting in being eternally rewarded or punished.”

    If by eternally rewarded you mean go to heaven, this is false. The Bible says that all have sinned & fall short, so our actions condemn all of us. God’s standard of righteousness is not met by even the best of people.

    But those who believe in Jesus’ sacrifice & payment for our sin go to heaven because we are judged by His actions & righteousness, rather than our own.

  100. 100
    sean samis says:

    The long discussion about randomness and design has been interesting in a twisted sort of way; mostly because it’s been predicated on the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity: commentators asserting that processes creating complex outcomes must have been guided BECAUSE! It doesn’t work that way.

    But getting back to the OP (remember the OP?) the argument against evolution in the OP is the tried and truly failed Computational Argument:

    …our 21st century supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures. Nonetheless, a foundational prediction of neo-Darwinian theory is that a ploddingly slow evolutionary process consisting of genetic drift, mutations, insertions and deletions must be able to ‘find’ not just one, but thousands of sequences pre-determined by physics that will have different stable, functional 3D structures. So how does this falsifiable prediction hold up when tested against real data?

    The defect of this argument is that it asserts that the time it takes to simulate events in a process is proportional to the time it takes for those events to happen in the real world. As the example of weather simulations demonstrates, vastly complex events happen very quickly in the real world even though a merely-adequate simulation will take much longer to run. Similar examples are simulations of air traffic accidents or automobile accidents, which may take hours to weeks to simulate at a high level but occur in seconds in the real world.

    Comments about “search space” and one event needing to “find” the next one are malformed analogies. Computer simulations need to “find” the next step, but in real life events flow from one to the next; no “finding” is involved.

    Related to this is the implicit claim that all combinations must be “searched” even though some combinations are energetically disfavored and might never occur. Simulations may need to be exhaustive, but events merely unfold according to the forces and objects affecting them.

    Some have complained that the computational delay is because we don’t know how to properly model some events, that we don’t know all the variables. Although there surely are deficiencies in our knowledge of these events, this problem does not explain the failure of the Computational Argument.

    The real problem is that the time it takes to simulate events in a process is proportional to the COMPLEXITY of the process; adding variables and driving the simulation to higher levels of detail only increase complexity and will make the time-disconnect longer. At the highest level of detail, brief periods of weather or accidents will take months or years to model even though the events were over in seconds.

    The Computational argument fails, and fails worse as we try to model at better and better levels of detail. Nature does in a moment what we cannot comprehend in a year, and there’s no evidence that any guiding hand ever was involved.

    sean s.

  101. 101
    Upright BiPed says:

    The folding of prescribed amino acid strings is determined in great part by local dynamics. The process of prescribing the order of those amino acid strings is not determined by local dynamics. How long does it take to simulate the rise of a process that is not determined by the parameters of the simulation?

  102. 102
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ss

    processes creating complex outcomes must have been guided BECAUSE

    Because we know intelligent-guidance can build such systems and chaos has never been shown to build any ordered processes or systems.

    It does work that way.

  103. 103
    Silver Asiatic says:

    UB

    How long does it take to simulate the rise of a process that is not determined by the parameters of the simulation?

    And just to add … starting with a non-process, non-ordered system.

  104. 104
    Axel says:

    Here is a gem of a quote from a Bible skeptic who thought it unfair to use the Bible as a guide in archeology since,,,::

    ‘he knew immediately that, proceeding in this way (using the Bible as a guide), “she would certainly find that building”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com…..-it-makes/

    LOL, no bias there huh? 🙂

    Beyond laughable, eh? Like a little child. No awareness of the absurdity of his complaint. And how many atheist youngsters equally in their thinking. No Dawkins is the doyen of Alice in Wonderland thinking and far too aged for inclusion.

    I don’t have a sufficiently scholarly cast of mind to have read all your posts BA77, but I think you’ve really starred in this thread – even more than usual.

    That ‘non-locality’ one, ‘shooting down’ materialism ‘in flames’ is so fundamental to the utter destruction of materialism, exposing the illogic of even its most basic foundation in principle renders writing to this very board a totally vain exercise. But we know that truth has to be hammered into their skulls.

    Sorry about my stating the obvious so tritely at #24. I hadn’t seen your more specific reference to it.

  105. 105
    Popperian says:

    @anthropic

    You are correct. I did not make a distinction between belief in Jesus and “works”. However, even if we make such a distinction, the problem remains.

    Specifically, just as there would be versions of myself that take some actions, while others do not, there would be versions of myself that do believe in Jesus and others that do not.

  106. 106
    sean samis says:

    Silver Asiatic @102

    There are many, many natural, complex systems which have never been shown to have been designed.

    You might reply that these systems have never been shown to be the products of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural process.

    Seems a draw, EXCEPT that we can demonstrate the existence of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural processes. Whatever remains unknown between the processes and the outcomes can eventually be verified or falsified.

    You on the other hand CANNOT demonstrate the existence of a designer, and have no hope of verifying or falsifying any of your claims.

    Your argument is AT BEST circular: “complex systems must be designed, therefore there is a designer; and since there is a designer, therefore complex systems can be designed.” Illogical AT BEST.

    Upright BiPed @101 and Silver Asiatic @103

    Regarding:

    How long does it take to simulate the rise of a process that is not determined by the parameters of the simulation? … starting with a non-process, non-ordered system.

    It doesn’t matter how long it takes to simulate it; that length of time has no significance. The time it takes to simulate event X has nothing to say about how long event X takes to occur. This has been amply demonstrated here.

    It’s akin to the “mapping problem”: the map is not the place mapped. The simulation is not the think simulated.

    sean s.

  107. 107
    Popperian says:

    BA:

    MWI denies the reality of wave function collapse. Yet the reality of wave function collapse is now experimentally established.

    From the article:

    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.”

    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.

    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways,. thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.

    Note how, in the first part, they explicitly state Einstein’s hypothesis that “that the particle is only ever at one point ” and contrast that with “the wave function [collapsing] in different ways.“.

    Specially, the MWI says something very different is happening in reality, yet is comparable with the same experimental observations, which are interpreted as the collapse of the wave function in other theories. On the other hand, Einstein’s hypothesis suggests something very different is happening in reality, but is not compatible with the experimental observations which can be interpreted as a collapse of the wave function in other theories.

    So, falsification of Einstein’s hypothesis is not the same as falsifying the MWI.

  108. 108
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ss

    There are many, many natural, complex systems which have never been shown to have been designed.

    We can build similiar, artificial systems with intelligence. Chaos has never built one.

    You might reply that these systems have never been shown to be the products of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural process.

    No, I wouldn’t reply that way. I would say chaos has never produced a single system – ever. Not even in artificial conditions. That’s why ID wins.

    Seems a draw, EXCEPT that we can demonstrate the existence of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural processes.

    That statement is totally jumbled.
    First: The problem is not “demonstrating the existence” of things, it’s “demonstrating the origin”.
    Second: No, you can’t show any process or system, natural or artificial that originated from chaos. You can’t start from order and system-processing and then claim no design. Because you haven’t explained the system-order that you started with. You have to start with chaos. Then show me an ordered system that arises out of it. No bringing in order or processing first and then claiming there is no design.

    You on the other hand CANNOT demonstrate the existence of a designer,

    I’m a designer. I’m designing things now. I can build processing-systems of many varieties.
    Designers exist, they build systems.

    Now show me what chaos can do. If you fail, then the most reasonable conclusion is that Designers build systems, not Chaos.

    We see systems, we conclude Designer – not chaos.

    Your argument is AT BEST circular: “complex systems must be designed, therefore there is a designer; and since there is a designer, therefore complex systems can be designed.” Illogical AT BEST.

    No again. Complex systems are designed. Intelligent guidance can and does design and build them. Chaos does not build systems. Never has.

    You’ve got every opportunity to prove that wrong. Show what chaos can do – no order or system-processing smuggled in unexplained. Failing that, it stands — when we see an ordered system, the best and most reasonable explanation is that it was designed by intelligence, because we know intelligence can design systems and chaos cannot.

    You really have nowhere to go, nowhere to hide on this.

  109. 109
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian, since I have much better things to do than read your imaginary tripe, I suggest you no longer address your responses to me, but address them to my sock puppet alias, i.e. ‘The Hand’:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28

  110. 110
    bornagain77 says:

    Excellent response at 108 SA! Common sense just oozes out of it! 🙂

    To go back to another comment by steveh at 4 that sean samis, being a dogmatic atheist bent on denying God, thought was particularly profound:

    Our most powerful 21st century computers struggle to simulate the weather conditions we will experience in any part of the world with any accuracy more than a few days into the future, but the weather just happens continuously without doing any computations.

    Similarly a protein may fold in a fraction of a second, but a supercomputer may take several weeks to simulate it. It seems to me that billions of replicators may achieve in a few hours something that multiple designers using multiple supercomputers may take centuries to approximate — and still get totally wrong. Furthermore, the billions of replicators are not just working out how the folding will happen, they are actually playing out how they will interact with the all of the other trillions of replicators out there, which no Designer, even with a gazillion supercomputers, is ever ever going to match. ,,,

    Contrary to what steveh and sean samis may believe, we have very strong evidence that protein folding is not accomplished via some classical, i.e. ‘random’, means but is accomplished via some method of quantum computation.

    The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications – Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012
    Excerpt: Anyone who has studied the protein folding problem will have met the famous Levinthal paradox, formulated in 1969 by the molecular biologist Cyrus Levinthal. Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65521.html

    As mentioned previously in this thread,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-573880
    As mentioned previously in this thread, quantum entanglement is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale. Specifically, quantum entanglement is found in every DNA and Protein molecule. And as also mentioned previously, quantum entanglement, ‘is a physical resource, like energy’, and can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’ in quantum computation.

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    The reason we have very strong reason to suspect quantum computation is involved in protein folding is the nature of the computational problem being dealt with in protein folding.
    Specifically, the nature of the computational problem involved in protein folding is known as the ‘traveling salesman problem’. Which is just about the meanest problem you can set a computer on:

    Confronting Science’s Logical Limits – John L. Casti – 1996
    Excerpt: It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10^127 years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids. (The universe is 13.7 x 10^9 years old). In fact, in 1993 Aviezri S. Fraenkel of the University of Pennsylvania showed that the mathematical formulation of the protein-folding problem is computationally “hard” in the same way that the traveling-salesman problem is hard.
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~ro.....Limits.pdf

    DNA computer helps traveling salesman – Philip Ball – 2000
    Excerpt: Just about the meanest problems you can set a computer belong to the class called ‘NP-complete’. The number of possible answers to these conundrums, and so the time required to find the correct solution, increases exponentially as the problem is scaled up in size. A famous example is the ‘travelling salesman’ puzzle, which involves finding the shortest route connecting all of a certain number of cities.,,,
    Solving the traveling-salesman problem is a little like finding the most stable folded shape of a protein’s chain-like molecular structure — in which the number of ‘cities’ can run to hundreds or even thousands.
    http://www.nature.com/news/200.....13-10.html

    And protein folding is found to be ‘NP-complete’

    Combinatorial Algorithms for Protein Folding in Lattice
    Models: A Survey of Mathematical Results – 2009
    Excerpt: Protein Folding: Computational Complexity
    4.1
    NP-completeness: from 10^300 to 2 Amino Acid Types
    4.2
    NP-completeness: Protein Folding in Ad-Hoc Models
    4.3
    NP-completeness: Protein Folding in the HP-Model
    http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sorin.....survey.pdf

    And yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at:

    Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins – May 8, 2013
    Excerpt: quantum computing is, “in some cases, really, really fast.”
    McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous “travelling salesperson” problem that’s been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,,
    “This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast,” McGeoch says. “There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it’s built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it’s thousands of times faster than anything I’m aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes — it does as well as some of the best things I’ve looked at. At this point it’s merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....122828.htm

    Scientists achieve critical steps to building first practical quantum computer – April 30, 2015
    Excerpt: If a quantum computer could be built with just 50 quantum bits (qubits), no combination of today’s TOP500 supercomputers could successfully outperform it (for certain tasks).
    http://phys.org/news/2015-04-s.....antum.html

    And indeed, it is now verified that protein folding belongs to the world of quantum mechanics. It does not belong to the world of classical mechanics:

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

  111. 111
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus, putting all the lines of evidence together, we now have very strong reasons to believe that protein folding is accomplished via quantum computation.

    steveh went on to comment:

    the billions of replicators are not just working out how the folding will happen, they are actually playing out how they will interact with the all of the other trillions of replicators out there, which no Designer, even with a gazillion supercomputers, is ever ever going to match.

    Contrary to what steveh may want to believe as an atheist, the fact that such extraordinary coordination exist between ‘trillions of replicators’ is not a point of evidence that life is not designed but is powerful evidence that life is indeed designed.
    For instance, the human body has approximately a billion trillion protein molecules that are all involved in the single task of keeping a person alive. Just how all those billion trillion molecules know how to do that trick, no one has a firm clue. Talbott puts the situation like this:

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,,
    Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling… and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained.
    The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
    “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)”,,,
    And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

    Moreover, as with protein folding, we now know that these billion trillion protein molecules are not coordinating with each other in a random manner as was originally presupposed in neo-Darwinism

    “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)

    In fact, we now know that proteins, instead of ‘randomly colliding with each other’, communicate with each other by a sophisticated menas of biophotonic communication:

    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/re.....084838.htm

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

    The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain – Dec. 17, 2010
    Excerpt: In recent years, a growing body of evidence shows that photons play an important role in the basic functioning of cells. Most of this evidence comes from turning the lights off and counting the number of photons that cells produce. It turns out, much to many people’s surprise, that many cells, perhaps even most, emit light as they work.
    In fact, it looks very much as if many cells use light to communicate. There’s certainly evidence that bacteria, plants and even kidney cells communicate in this way. Various groups have even shown that rats brains are literally alight thanks to the photons produced by neurons as they work.,,,
    ,,, earlier this year, one group showed that spinal neurons in rats can actually conduct light.
    ,, Rahnama and co point out that neurons contain many light sensitive molecules, such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores and aromatic amino acids. In particular, mitochondria, the machines inside cells which produce energy, contain several prominent chromophores.
    The presence of light sensitive molecules makes it hard to imagine how they might not be not influenced by biophotons.,,,
    They go on to suggest that the light channelled by microtubules can help to co-ordinate activities in different parts of the brain. It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,,
    (So) It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....the-brain/

    Are humans really beings of light?
    Excerpt: Dr. Popp exclaims, “We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.”,,, “There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon… Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions… We are swimming in an ocean of light.”
    http://viewzone2.com/dna.html

    Thus contrary to whatever steveh and sean samis, as atheists, may prefer to believe, protein folding, as well as the finely tuned way in which proteins communicate with each other, gives us overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design!

  112. 112
    Popperian says:

    @BA

    Again, your own responses indicate you do not understand the theory you’re criticizing. As such, it’s unclear how you know my “imaginary tripe” is imaginary.

    Let me guess, the Bible says it is sufficient and doesn’t say anything about the MWI, so you know it’s false without needing to actually understand it in the least?

  113. 113
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian, talk to the hand as requested please:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28

  114. 114
    Popperian says:

    BA:

    Contrary to what steveh and sean samis may believe, we have very strong evidence that protein folding is not accomplished via some classical, i.e. ‘random’, means but is accomplished via some method of quantum computation.

    Except, if this were true, it wouldn’t actually support your position, either. Apparently, you don’t realize this as well.

    For example, how would it be possible for protein folding to be driven by quantum computation? Because computation is universal in the sense that it’s independent of the medium it’s running on. This includes transistors, vacuum tubes or even wooden cogs and qubits. In fact, the very principle you’re appealing to implies that any physical object can be simulated to an arbitrary accuracy using the universality of quantum computation. Like all forms of computation, quantum computation is a physical theory. That’s why the field of quantum computation was formed as a way to test the MWI.

    However, you seem to think that anything becomes magical when you add the word “quantum” to it, including computation. But then it’s not computation any more. It’s just quantum woo woo which strips it of any kind of explanatory principle to cause folding, or anything else. In doing so, you might as well have said protein folding is “magic”.

    So, again, it seems that you’re merely appealing to articles that you think support your position without actually understanding their implications.

  115. 115
    bornagain77 says:

    Popperian, is it that hard for you to follow instructions?

    i.e. talk to the hand as requested please:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28

    as to:

    “computation is universal in the sense that it’s independent of the medium it’s running on.”

    actually no. The final answer is read off by the state of the particles at the end of the computation. i.e. the computation determines the final state of the particles. If the computation did not effect the final state of the particles, and the particles remained unaffected by the quantum computation, there would be no way for us to read off the answer.

    But alas, certainly you knew this, or at least one of your gazillion other quantum woo selves in MWI already knew this. 🙂

    Finally, upon termination of the algorithm, the result needs to be read off. In the case of a classical computer, we sample from the probability distribution on the three-bit register to obtain one definite three-bit string, say 000. Quantum mechanically, we measure the three-qubit state, which is equivalent to collapsing the quantum state down to a classical distribution,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Operation

    Popperian, question, are there fluffy pink unicorns dancing on rainbows in your gazillions of parallel universes? Or, since you pretty much are just making the whole thing up as you go along, do they not exist simply because you don’t want them too?

    Pink Fluffy Unicorns Dancing On Rainbows
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xWhG4UU_Y

    supplemental notes:

    Many Worlds also carries some ‘heavy baggage’ to put it mildly.

    10 Mind-Bending Implications of the Many Worlds Theory – February 2013
    http://listverse.com/2013/02/2.....ds-theory/

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

    Rob Sheldon on the Many Worlds thesis: what about Eugene Wigner? February 19, 2015
    Excerpt: What I find so contradictory about Many Worlds Interpretation (the QM interpretation that Ball unloads his frustration on), is that it assumes that the wavefunction splits at every “decision”, without taking into account that a wavefunction is non-local and global. This was the view of Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner, which didn’t get a mention in Ball’s list. Wigner said that the final outcome is fixed, not because of parallel universes, but because the universe is being observed by an outside observer. For all Ball knows (and that includes physicists too), the wavefunction is completely determined elsewhere in the universe, and the “split” we calculate here was completely determined and hence not a split at all, and MWI collapses down to ordinary reality.
    “Oh no, that was Einstein’s “hidden variable” theory which was disproven in the 70?s!”, a true believer is likely to object. No, because the “hidden variable” theory replaces an observer with static existence.
    Wigner didn’t promote some sort of “Einstein locality”, he promoted a person observing the Universe. And that makes all the difference.
    Which is probably why his theory didn’t get even an honorable mention.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ne-wigner/

    Now Popperian, I know you think you are smarter than anybody who dares question your belief that there are a gazillion copies of you constantly splitting off from each other, but I must really re-request that you direct your responses to my hand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28

    i.e. translation, I think it is a monumental waste of my, and your, time to even have to try to convince you, that there are not a gazillion copies of you in gazillions of parallel universes.

    The absurdity of the belief, and the gullibility required for you to swallow it hook, line ,and sinker, as you apparently have done, simply beggars my imagination!

    Certainly anyone who would be gullible to believe in such tripe is, IMHO, gullible beyond any amount of reason that little ole me can bring to bear on the subject.

    And yet here you sit, adamantly defending the belief as if it were not in fact the stark raving madness that it truly is!

    In my honest opinion you need not one, but a team of highly trained psychologists! 🙂

    Verse:

    Romans 1:22
    Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

  116. 116
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Thanks BA77 @ 110. I hope our opponents will see it the same way … someday. 🙂

  117. 117
    Virgil Cain says:

    sean samis:

    There are many, many natural, complex systems which have never been shown to have been designed.

    Such as?

  118. 118
    sean samis says:

    Silver Asiatic @108

    Regarding:

    I’m a designer. I’m designing things now. I can build processing-systems of many varieties. Designers exist, they build systems.

    Are you actually going to argue for a Non-Theistic Intelligent Designer? You should realize that you’re flogging a dead horse.

    Every designer you KNOW OF is a living thing; the origin of the living things is the issue; remember?

    The problem is not “demonstrating the existence” of things, it’s “demonstrating the origin”.

    So every designer you KNOW OF is an example of the problem, not an example of the solution.

    You could claim that we were designed by some extraterrestrial intelligence, but since all designers that you know of are living things, even extraterrestrial intelligences would be living things, and they would need to be designed (if we need to be). Your “solution” to this problem is to invoke an INFINITE REGRESSION of designers, none of whom is THE DESIGNER because all are themselves designed by someone/something else. This is not a solution, it’s just kicking the can further down the road. It is illogical.

    You could claim that we were designed by some extraterrestrial intelligence whose biology is so different from ours that it can be natural and undesigned. But if any life can be the product of spontaneous, random or chaotic processes, then you argument that ours MUST BE DESIGNED collapses.

    After all; no serious person thinks our biology started as complex as it is now; the first truly living thing must have been simpler. But once it existed, evolution took over and made life as complex as it is now. If life can arise spontaneously ANYWHERE, it could do so on Earth.

    So no extraterrestrial intelligence can be our designer without being unnecessary.

    IF WE ACTUALLY NEED AN ID, only a Deity can suffice.

    So the problem for you is this: can you demonstrate for us how GOD created us? Can you demonstrate the Existence of your GOD? If you can’t then you don’t have any candidate ID that you can demonstrate to us. You got nothing but religion.

    On the other hand, science long ago demonstrated the existence of spontaneous, random or chaotic processes. They might not be much, but they’re a whole lot more than nothing!

    I CANNOT DEMONSTRATE TO ANYONE HOW THESE PROCESSES BROUGHT LIFE ABOUT ON EARTH, but I can demonstrate that these processes exist.

    YOU CANNOT DEMONSTRATE TO ANYONE HOW YOUR GOD BROUGHT LIFE ABOUT ON EARTH, AND YOU CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT YOUR GOD EVEN EXISTS. And if you want to pursue the dead end of a non-theistic ID, both problems still exist. You cannot demonstrate either the ‘how’ or the ‘who’.

    Assuming I am right, it is reasonable to expect that eventually we will discover HOW life originated from spontaneous, random or chaotic processes.

    But even assuming you are right, there is no reasonable expectation that someone will discover proof of your God.

    sean s.

  119. 119
    sean samis says:

    Virgil Cain @117 August 4, 2015 at 6:17 am

    There are many, many natural, complex systems which have never been shown to have been designed.

    Such as?

    Life on Earth. No one has ever shown that it was designed.

    sean s.

  120. 120
    Box says:

    Sean S: Are you actually going to argue for a Non-Theistic Intelligent Designer?

    ID doesn’t argue for a specific designer. The designer(s) may very well be alien(s)

    Sean S: You should realize that you’re flogging a dead horse.

    How so?

    Sean S: Every designer you KNOW OF is a living thing; the origin of the living things is the issue; remember? So every designer you KNOW OF is an example of the problem, not an example of the solution.

    Why can living things on earth not be created by a living designer? What the heck are you talking about?

    ** BTW under materialism, there is no distinction between living and dead things.

  121. 121
    Box says:

    follow up #120

    Sean S: You could claim that we were designed by some extraterrestrial intelligence, but since all designers that you know of are living things, even extraterrestrial intelligences would be living things, and they would need to be designed (if we need to be). Your “solution” to this problem is to invoke an INFINITE REGRESSION of designers, none of whom is THE DESIGNER because all are themselves designed by someone/something else. This is not a solution, it’s just kicking the can further down the road.

    Those are philosophical problems. ID is science and one of its research questions is: what is the best explanation for the origin of certain features of life (on earth) — law, chance or design? ID isn’t concerned with philosophical implications of the answer to that question.

    ** BTW materialism doesn’t offer any coherent explanation for the origin of anything.

  122. 122
    Virgil Cain says:

    sean samis:

    Life on Earth.

    Life on earth has all of the criteria for being intelligently designed. All includes the fact that there aren’t any viable nor plausible materialistic explanations for life.

    There is a higher probability for a purely geological explanation for Stonehenge than there is for a purely materialistic origin of life.

  123. 123
    Virgil Cain says:

    sean samis:

    Are you actually going to argue for a Non-Theistic Intelligent Designer?

    That was argued in Court. That has been sated by many IDists.

    You should realize that you’re flogging a dead horse.

    Cuz you say so? That isn’t an argument.

    IF WE ACTUALLY NEED AN ID,…

    There aren’t any other alternatives

    …only a Deity can suffice.

    Only in your limited mind.

  124. 124
    Box says:

    Sean S, you hold that ID is obligated to provide ultimate answers to questions about the origin of life.

    Sean S.: You could claim that we were designed by some extraterrestrial intelligence, but since all designers that you know of are living things, even extraterrestrial intelligences would be living things, and they would need to be designed (if we need to be). Your “solution” to this problem is to invoke an INFINITE REGRESSION of designers, none of whom is THE DESIGNER because all are themselves designed by someone/something else. This is not a solution, it’s just kicking the can further down the road. It is illogical.

    You simply overlook the fact that ID cannot determine whether extraterrestrial life forms are the result of law, chance or design without actually examining this extraterrestrial life. So, contrary to your claim, ID isn’t forced to assume that extraterrestrial life must be designed. In fact, ID is forced to remain neutral on this question.

    Second, an infinite regress of causes is a philosophical problem rather than a scientific one. Materialism typically offers an infinite regress of causes wrt questions of origin. Here we have A. Rosenberg, an atheist philosopher, who is very annoyed with people who point that out:

    The multiverse theory seems to provide an opportunity seized upon by wishful thinkers, theologians, and their fellow travelers among the physicists and philosophers. First they ask, “If our universe is just one of many in a multiverse, where did the multiverse come from? And where did the multiverse’s cause come from, and where did its cause come from?” And so on, ad infinitum. Once they have convinced themselves and others that this series of questions has no stopping point in physics, they play what they imagine is a trump card, a question whose only answer they think has to be the God hypothesis.

    Yes, A. Rosenberg acknowledges that they have a point:

    It is certainly true that if physics has to move back farther and farther in the regress from universe to multiverse to something that gave rise to the multiverse, to something even more basic than that, it will never reach any point labeled “last stop, all off” (or rather “starting point” for all destinations).

    He also acknowledges that the infinite regress problem is foundational to materialism:

    By the same token, if it has to move down to smaller and more fundamental components of reality than even fermions or bosons, it won’t ever know whether it has reached the “basement level” of reality. At this point, the theologians and mystery-mongering physicists play their trump card. It doesn’t matter whether there are infinite regresses in these two lines of inquiry or finite ones. Either way, they insist, physics can’t answer the question, Why is there anything at all? or as the question is famously put, Why is there something rather than nothing?

  125. 125
    Silver Asiatic says:

    sean

    You’ve got other points to answer from Box and Virgil … but this is one additional area where you tried to address my argument @ 108.

    On the other hand, science long ago demonstrated the existence of spontaneous, random or chaotic processes. They might not be much, but they’re a whole lot more than nothing!

    No, they are not more than nothing — they are absolutely nothing at all. Such things don’t exist. All you have to do is show me one process or system that emerged from chaos – without some pre-existing process to support it. Even a simple process. You could demonstrate it with a random number generator — show one system or process that arises from that. You have absolutely nothing. Science has nothing – zero. We know intelligent design can build processes. Chaos cannot. You claim it can — but claiming some unidentified thing is not enough. What system or process was empirically shown to emerge from chaos? I don’t mean in someone’s imagination, but by starting with chaos a system emerges.

    I CANNOT DEMONSTRATE TO ANYONE HOW THESE PROCESSES BROUGHT LIFE ABOUT ON EARTH, but I can demonstrate that these processes exist.

    Demonstrate just one. Even a simple process or system. All we need is some consistent processing system with repeated results that emerges from chaos.

    We know a designer does such things. Thus, the best explanation is Intelligent Design, not Chaos.

    We see systems and processes. Therefore we know that Intelligent Design is the best explanation.

    Assuming I am right, it is reasonable to expect that eventually we will discover HOW life originated from spontaneous, random or chaotic processes.

    It’s not reasonable because you can’t show even one extremely simple system that emerges from chaos — and you’re claiming that the highly complex, integrated systems of life actually did.

    But even assuming you are right, there is no reasonable expectation that someone will discover proof of your God.

    We know for certain I am right about Design. It can produce processes – even quite complex integrated processes. Chaos cannot.

    You have to accept that. ID is the only reasonable conclusion you can make. Moving to the existence of God from that starting point is the next step in your journey.

  126. 126
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, I suggest that the unanswered issue is — and has long been — FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits coming from blind chance and mechanical necessity as per actual observation. KF

  127. 127
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    Good point. However, I’ll offer this, when we give our opponents something like “mechanical necessity”, we gave them something they don’t deserve.

    No, they need to show functional specified (we don’t even need Complex) order, in any kind of process. Information goes far beyond what is needed to be shown. We don’t even need ‘functional’. Just some kind of repeated, relational sequence. Like a moon orbiting a planet.

    Start with Chaos. Then show how “mechanics” emerge out of it. Show me some regular, consistent properties, laws and forces that Chaos produces. Some consistent interactions causing sequences of repeated events. Even a simulated, designed random generator of some kind can be the starting point. Just run it until you get a system or process. A regular, consistent, repeated sequence is all Chaos has to show for now.

    What happens is, we give away an enormous quantity of Design so we can give our opponents a running start at it. Like evolution – start with self-replication and a system of inheritance and adaptability and reason for survival already existing.

    Ok — if the claim is “No evidence of design”, then the goalposts are not set within a biosphere that already has a nearly infinite quantity of functional system processes in place.

    Here’s the goal: Start with Chaos. Then show me what you get out of it.

    The argument is this:

    Chance

    or

    Design

    Take a look at RDFish’s approach to this, as we know, which is one of the most laughable. He sees the two options and then says “I don’t know”.

    Sorry – that’s not an option.

    We do know what Chaos produces.
    We also know what Design can produce.

    Which one better explains the existence of Any system we observe anywhere?

    The conclusion “I don’t know” means that it’s possible for Chaos to produce what we observe.

    “Yes, in some imaginary universe where pink unicorns are flying, there might be magic things that produce integrated systems like what we see around us.”

    Ok, great. But that’s not the choice “I don’t know”. It is, instead the choice, “I am not capable of participating in a serious discussion so I am going to go home and try to hide from the Truth that I had to face today.”

    We can see this with 100% certainty.

    It’s Chance, with no “gimme some functional ordered processes first” — No, just Chaos.

    or

    Design

  128. 128
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, I am acknowledging that in essentially every physical process involving atomic matter or the like, we see dynamic-stochastic combinations. I highlight a reasonable threshold of complexity as it brings out the limits of atomic matter. And it avoids the distraction of trivial, toy cases. KF

  129. 129
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    Yes, in every physical process of any kind, we see dynamic combinations, consistent, ordered arrangements and properties acted on by regularity of forces which create what we call “processes” themselves.

    So, we’re starting with systemic order. There is a stochastic element, but the goal for the No-Design-ist is to start with a purely stochastic state and then show how consistent, ordered arrangements of properties and regular combinations, and forces emerge.

    In other words, No Design means the starting point is entirely stochastic. Otherwise, it is importing various ordered states into the no-design proposal — without explaining the origin of those ordered states.

    One can’t merely say “that’s the way it is”.

    The starting point has to be purely stochastic. Even a trivial, toy state has never been shown to emerge from that kind of chaos.

  130. 130
    sean samis says:

    Silver Asiatic @125

    On the other hand, science long ago demonstrated the existence of spontaneous, random or chaotic processes. They might not be much, but they’re a whole lot more than nothing!

    No, they are not more than nothing — they are absolutely nothing at all. Such things don’t exist.

    Really?
    So Brownian motion does not exist?
    Collisions do not exist?
    Combustion does not exist?
    Dissolution does not exist?
    Decomposition does not exist?
    Deposition does not exist?
    Erosion does not exist?
    Eruptions do not exist?
    Fission does not exist?
    Flooding does not exist?
    Fossilization does not exist?
    Fracturing does not exist?
    Freeze-thaw does not exist?
    Fusion does not exist?
    Glaciation does not exist?
    Insolation does not exist?
    Landslides do not exist?
    Molecular bonding does not exist?
    Oxidation does not exist?
    Orbital motion does not exist?
    Radioactive decay does not exist?
    Sedimentation does not exist?
    Thermal heating does not exist?
    Tectonics do not exist?
    Vibrations do not exist?

    Really?
    My list is nowhere near complete, but none of those processes exist?
    Search a dictionary for anything defined as a ‘natural process’; they are all imaginary?
    Really?

    Now demonstrate a non-living designer. Just one. Just one.

    sean s.

  131. 131
    Silver Asiatic says:

    sean s

    The challenge was — show a process or system that emerged from a state of chaos.

    Every item on your list requires pre-existing order, regularity, forces and properties to exist. You haven’t explained anything at all. You could claim a Lamborghini shows no evidence of design. When I ask to show me the origin of it, you could just claim that you start after it was manufactured. It’s just sitting in the parking lot — no evidence of design. No – that’s not it. You have to go to a pre-existing state, and you cannot borrow Design features and claim Non-Design. Even if a robot made the car, you’re borrowing Design in the robot.

    You claim something like glaciers or erosion. But those don’t emerge from a pure stochastic state. You’re not starting from chaos – but you’re using regular, ordered, predictable systems (gravity, water, ice) without explaining their origin. You have to start from Chaos and show how the consistent forces of gravity, acting on regular chemical relationships that create water, actually emerge.

    Brownian motion and Collisions are not systems or processes, but even still, start from a pre-existing state of chaos and show me how protons, neutrons and electrons randomly combine to form particles.

    Try Orbital motion as one of several of your examples.

    Starting from a state of chaos, show me how orbital motion emerges.

    As with all the other examples you offer, start from a state of chaos, prior to the effect you observe and explain its origin.

    Oxidation for example. Show me chaos, without pre-existing chemical reaction/relationships (processes) creates the process of oxidation.

  132. 132
    sean samis says:

    Silver Asiatic @131

    The challenge was — show a process or system that emerged from a state of chaos.

    I don’t care what you thought your challenge was; I only know what you wrote: that all spontaneous/random/chaotic processes were non-existent. But these processes (and more) all exist.

    Every item on your list requires pre-existing order, regularity, forces and properties to exist. … You have to go to a pre-existing state, and you cannot borrow Design features and claim Non-Design.

    A “pre-existing state” is not evidence of design. Preexistent forces and properties and regular behavior are not an issue. Of course they are needed. But they are not evidence of design no matter how often you declare them to be “design features”.

    You’re not starting from chaos …

    I am starting from chaos theory:

    Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions…

    I think you are trapped by using the informal meaning of chaos: “a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order; the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe

    That is not what I and others have been referring to. If that’s what you assumed we meant, the error is yours. Chaotic behavior and random behavior appear (superficially) alike, but they do not imply a totally disordered universe.

    …you’re using regular, ordered, predictable systems (gravity, water, ice) without explaining their origin.

    Their origin is neither here nor there because their origin does not imply much less prove Design.

    If you think it does, you need to demonstrate that with more than just your Personal Incredulity; with more than just your blanket assertive claims.

    The principle of parsimony implies we should expect the spontaneous creation of our Universe (i.e. The Big Bang) to create a relatively simple Universe. Since a chaotic universe (in the informal meaning of the term) would be maximally complex, parsimony weighs against it. Our Universe is relatively simple: for the most part it consists of only two elements (hydrogen and helium), each atom of which is composed of just three kinds of particles, and there are to the best of our knowledge only four forces, three of which are actually different manifestations of just one force. Most of the other kinds of things are just trace materials or very short lived particles. Ironically, it may be that after protons, electrons and neutrons, the most abundant particle in the universe is neutrinos, which are practically inert.

    You have to start from Chaos and …

    No, I don’t. At least not from your “informal” chaos which is irrelevant.

    Show me chaos, without pre-existing chemical reaction/relationships (processes) creates the process of oxidation.

    Since your “informal” chaos is not what I’m talking about, there’s no need to show you this. Preexisting chemical properties are not evidence of design, they are expected and consistent with a spontaneous Universe.

    sean s.

  133. 133
    Box says:

    Sean S, the second law tells us that the universe is headed to complete disorder. For the universe as a whole, the only end state is its heat death. It will be a flat, energyless jumble of patternlessness, at which everything will be a uniform temperature—probably somewhere near 273 degrees below zero Celsius.
    So where does the initial order come from? Why is it that order is “expected and consistent with a spontaneous Universe” — as you claim?

  134. 134
    bornagain77 says:

    sean samis states:

    On the other hand, science long ago demonstrated the existence of spontaneous, random or chaotic processes. They might not be much, but they’re a whole lot more than nothing!

    Funny, that phrase, ‘a whole lot more than nothing’, is the exact same phrase that many Theists said when Krauss wrote his book, ‘A Universe from Nothing’.
    So I take it that you were also thoroughly disgusted with Krauss’s book ‘A Universe from Nothing’ when he tried to redefine something as nothing?

    On the Origin of Everything – ‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss
    By DAVID ALBERT – MARCH 23, 2012
    Excerpt: “Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-¬quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
    “But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-¬theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.”
    He goes on to sum up the situation with the following sentence:
    “But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right”
    David Albert has a doctorate in Quantum Physics and he teaches at Columbia
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03......html?_r=1

    Moreover sean samis, pretty much all the processes/reactions, etc.., that you listed in 130 are associated with the working out of entropic space-time:

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    Yet entropic space-time was created.

    “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

    Big Bang Theory – An Overview of the main evidence
    Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.”3
    Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
    Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
    http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

    Thus, as Box and SA are repeatedly asking you, just where does the extreme initial order come from that allows entropic space time to exist in the first place?
    Unlike you, at least Eddington was honest enough to admit the enormity of the problem:

    “I have no “philosophical axe to grind” in this discussion. 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.
    A way out of the dilemma has been proposed which seems to have found favour with a number of scientific workers. I oppose it because I think it is untenable, not because of any desire to retain the present dilemma, I should like to find a genuine loophole. But that does not alter my conviction that the loophole that is at present being advocated is a blind alley.
    Eddington AS. 1931. The end of the world: from the standpoint of mathematical physics. Nature 127:447-453.

    The origin of ‘space-time/entropy’ is a far, far, more difficult problem for you than you seem to realize.
    As mentioned previously in post 45, entropy is, by far, the most finely tuned of initial conditions.

    If anything ever gave overwhelming evidence as being the product of intelligent design, specifically God in this case, it is the second law of thermodynamics. The second law, i.e. entropy, is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:
    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    How special was the big bang? – Roger Penrose
    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-574043

    The events we should be witnessing if chaos indeed created entropy, as you are claiming sean, would truly be bizarre:

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....n-argument

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe – drcraigvideos – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

    A Matter of Considerable Gravity: On the Purported Detection of Gravitational Waves and Cosmic Inflation – Bruce Gordon – April 4, 2014
    Excerpt: Thirdly, at least two paradoxes result from the inflationary multiverse proposal that suggest our place in such a multiverse must be very special: the “Boltzmann Brain Paradox” and the “Youngness Paradox.” In brief, if the inflationary mechanism is autonomously operative in a way that generates a multiverse, then with probability indistinguishable from one (i.e., virtual necessity) the typical observer in such a multiverse is an evanescent thermal fluctuation with memories of a past that never existed (a Boltzmann brain) rather than an observer of the sort we take ourselves to be. Alternatively, by a second measure, post-inflationary universes should overwhelmingly have just been formed, which means that our existence in an old universe like our own has a probability that is effectively zero (i.e., it’s nigh impossible). So if our universe existed as part of such a multiverse, it would not be at all typical, but rather infinitely improbable (fine-tuned) with respect to its age and compatibility with stable life-forms.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84001.html

    As well sean samis, all the processes/reactions, etc.., that you listed in 130 are associated, as ppolish pointed out at post 29, with various equations that allow us to quantify the working out of that randomness/entropy. In other words, all your examples are all ‘governed randomness/chaos’ and are not ‘pure randomness/chaos’. Science simply could not exist if it were otherwise!

    Your situation reminds me of Boltzmann’s gaff.
    It is very interesting to note that Ludwig Boltzmann, an atheist, when he linked entropy and probability, did not, as Max Planck a Christian Theist points out in the following link, think to look for a constant for entropy:

    The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said:This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann’s constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant. Nothing can better illustrate the positive and hectic pace of progress which the art of experimenters has made over the past twenty years, than the fact that since that time, not only one, but a great number of methods have been discovered for measuring the mass of a molecule with practically the same accuracy as that attained for a planet.
    http://www.daviddarling.info/e.....ation.html

    I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out, or even propose, a precise measurement for the constant on entropy is that he, as an atheist, had thought he had arrived at the ultimate ‘random’ explanation for how everything in the universe operates when he had link probability with entropy. i.e. In linking entropy with probability, Boltzmann, again an atheist, thought he had explained everything that happens in the universe to a ‘random’ chance basis. To him, as an atheist, I hold that it would simply be unfathomable for him to conceive that the ‘random chance’ (probabilistic) events of entropy in the universe should ever be constrained by a constant that would limit the effects of ‘random’ entropic events of the universe. Whereas on the contrary, to a Christian Theist such as Planck, it is expected that even these seemingly random entropic events of the universe should be bounded by a constant. In fact modern science was born out of such thinking:

    ‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true.’
    Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

  135. 135
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest: Black holes are the largest contributor to the increasing entropy of this universe:

    Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010
    Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.
    http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476

    Space-Time of a Black hole – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8

    Moreover, if there were ever a entropy defying event in this universe, it is the existence of life itself in this universe:
    Professor Harold Morowitz has shown the Origin of Life problem escalates dramatically over the oft quoted 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a thermodynamic perspective:

    “The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!”
    (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

    Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html

    As well, Dr Andy C. McIntosh, who is the Professor of Thermodynamics at the University of Leeds, holds that it must be information that is constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium:

    Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems – Andy C. McIntosh – May 2013
    Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system.
    As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,,
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0008

    Yet, entropy is almost completely antithetical to information generation:

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

    Talbott comments here:

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
    Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?” picture
    http://cdn-4.spiritscienceandm…..ardd-2.jpg

    In other words, although entropic processes cannot explain the origin of the information that is keeping us alive and preventing the billion trillion protein molecules of our material bodies from collapsing into thermodynamic equilibrium, entropic processes are excellent at explaining the decay of our temporal bodies into dust once the our soul leaves the temporal/material body:

    I can even demonstrate the process in real time.

    Rabbit decomposition time-lapse (higher resolution)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6sFP_7Vezg

    No sir sean samis, entropy/chaos, contrary to what you believe, is not your friend either scientifically in Darwinism or personally in your own life.

    In fact, if nothing else gets you first, there is no escaping the ‘hangman of entropy’ no matter what you do.
    i.e. Entropy will, no matter what you do, eventually be your final hangman that ushers your soul beyond the gate of death to see what’s on the other side:

    Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007
    Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,,
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.0030220

    Quote, verse, and music:

    GILBERT NEWTON LEWIS: AMERICAN CHEMIST (1875-1946)
    “I have attempted to give you a glimpse…of what there may be of soul in chemistry. But it may have been in vain. Perchance the chemist is already damned and the guardian the blackest. But if the chemist has lost his soul, he will not have lost his courage and as he descends into the inferno, sees the rows of glowing furnaces and sniffs the homey fumes of brimstone, he will call out-: ‘Asmodeus, hand me a test-tube.’”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis

    Romans 8:20-21
    For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    Creed – One Last Breath
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnkuBUAwfe0

  136. 136
    Silver Asiatic says:

    sean s

    There’s a lot that I could say, but I’ll just repeat Box’s question …

    So where does the initial order come from? Why is it that order is “expected and consistent with a spontaneous Universe” — as you claim?

    An answer is needed – you can’t merely claim order, organization, processes as part of No Design. Something has to produce them.

  137. 137
    Zachriel says:

    Box: So where does the initial order come from?

    There’s a few speculative ideas, but no one has a well-supported scientific explanation.

  138. 138
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “but no one has a well-supported scientific explanation”

    here let me fix that for you zach:

    “but no one has a clue how chaotic material processes can possibly create a well ordered universe that is fine tuned for life”

    There all better! 🙂

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
    – Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

  139. 139
    Silver Asiatic says:

    We observe ordered, regular properties and systemic-processes.

    We know intelligence can produce such things.

  140. 140
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: We know intelligence can produce such things.

    Known intelligence only manipulates existing regularities.

  141. 141
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77

    “but no one has a clue how chaotic material processes can possibly create a well ordered universe that is fine tuned for life”

    That’s really the fullness of the ID argument. It’s not just problems with evolution because it has to start with a universe finely-tuned for life. Some explanation for that is required.

    If the origin is Unguided, with No-Design, then ordered processes cannot be the starting point. Order has to originate from non-order, unless it can be shown that ordered, consistent properties and forces can emerge from a purely stochastic, chaotic state.

  142. 142
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    Known intelligence only manipulates existing regularities.

    Known intelligence creates new regularities, new ordered processes, new systems and new properties to things.

  143. 143
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Known intelligence creates new regularities, new ordered processes, new systems and new properties to things.

    All human artifacts depend on preexisting regularities and properties of nature. An internal combustion engine or a hula hoop just harness known physical properties. If the cosmic designer worked like human designers, it would depend on preexisting properties of the universe.

  144. 144
    bornagain77 says:

    We know that infinite intelligence/consciousness precedes/sustains material reality:

    a few notes:

    an ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    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/W.....ctor_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/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    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

    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/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Thus every time we see (consciously observe) a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information known only by the infinite Mind of omniscient God!

    Job 38:19-20
    “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?”

    Hebrews 11:3
    By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

    Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness – January 18, 2012
    Excerpt: (Proof # 2) If you believe in the theory of Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true.
    http://www.libertariannews.org.....ciousness/

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

  145. 145
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    If the cosmic designer worked like human designers, it would depend on preexisting properties of the universe.

    The designer of the universe cannot depend on properties of the universe.
    Given we can’t model the cosmic designer’s intelligence, we have to use analogies and comparatives.

    We observe the power of human intelligence to create ordered, regular systems and processes.

    We observe ordered, regular systems and processes in the universe.

    The most reasonable explanation for the systemic order we observe is intelligence.

    Science offers no other alternative.

  146. 146
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: The designer of the universe cannot depend on properties of the universe.

    There could conceivably be properties of a meta-verse.

    Silver Asiatic: Given we can’t model the cosmic designer’s intelligence, we have to use analogies and comparatives.

    So, it’s just an analogy, lacking scientific justification. We already pointed out the problem with the analogy.

  147. 147
    sean samis says:

    Box @133 asked a question which Silver Asiatic @136 repeated:

    So where does the initial order come from? Why is it that order is “expected and consistent with a spontaneous Universe” — as you claim?

    It doesn’t need to have come “from” anything apart from the initial creation event. It’s just part of the Universe’s initial conditions.

    Box assumes (as does Silver Asiatic and others) that order needs a special explanation, but it does not. They have yet to demonstrate why pure disorder would be expected. Because pure disorder (informal chaos) is maximally complex, it is less likely. In fact, as Silver Asiatic argued previously, informally chaotic processes probably don’t even exist.

    Silver Asiatic added,

    …you can’t merely claim order, organization, processes as part of No Design. Something has to produce them.

    Likewise, SA can’t merely claim that “no design” would produce pure chaos; that claim needs evidence; currently all SA has is Personal Incredulity.

    The problem for all of us is that we only have experience with one Universe. No one can claim that we’ve collected enough information from our vast store of experience to say what is expected when a new universe is created. We only know of one universe, and we are not even sure what happened when it was created.

    As Zachriel answered this question (@137)

    There’s a few speculative ideas, but no one has a well-supported scientific explanation.

    And I would add that there is no well-supported scientific or logical reason to treat initial order as unexpected.

    Order and regular processes were created by the same event that created the universe.

    Is this evidence of design? No. Since we don’t know how to distinguish a designed universe from a natural one, and because Ockham’s Razor still applies, the rational position is that our universe is natural until independent evidence of a capable designer is discovered.

    bornagain77 tried to respond @137; but as usual, BA’s response was a non sequitur.

    sean s.

  148. 148
    bornagain77 says:

    bornagain77 tried to respond @137

    seeing as bornagain77 did not author @137 I guess that would be you that is guilty of a huge non sequitur.

    Actually, what ‘does not follow’, i.e. non sequitur, is your entire line of argumentation.

    Denial of the huge challenges presented to unguided, chaotic, materialistic explanations, for both the origin of the universe and of biological life does not constitute a ‘rational’ scientific explanation in the least.

    It constitutes another proof of the mental illness inherent to the atheistic mindset. Specifically, it is proof of the mental illness, prevalent in drug addicts and alcoholics, commonly known as denialism.

    In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth

    And No, denial is NOT a river in Egypt!

  149. 149
    Box says:

    Zach: All human artifacts depend on preexisting regularities and properties of nature. An internal combustion engine or a hula hoop just harness known physical properties.

    Instantiating a design in matter depends on the availability of … matter. Great point Zach!
    However a design — the concept; the idea — itself doesn’t depend on matter. The design/concept/idea behind this post doesn’t depend on matter or characters or even language. Only it’s instantiation does.

    Zach: If the cosmic designer worked like human designers, it would depend on preexisting properties of the universe.

    Nope. You are conflating design and instantiation.

  150. 150
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    There could conceivably be properties of a meta-verse.

    That’s an imaginary concept with no scientific justification.

    Since you propose an imaginary entity as an explanation for the origins of the systemic-order we observe, then you cannot require any evidence at all for belief in the existence of God — and you’d have no basis to deny that God exists.

  151. 151
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Following Box @ 149, the designing idea is irreducible. It is an immaterial ordering agency, capable of creating systems and processes.

  152. 152
    Silver Asiatic says:

    sean s

    They have yet to demonstrate why pure disorder would be expected.

    It’s not that disorder is expected, but that something has to explain the order we observe. The only options available are chance (non-order) or design.

    It’s not that order is expected, it’s merely that something other than the order we observe has to explain it.
    It does not explain itself. You can say it just popped into existence — but that’s order from chaos, randomness.

    Because pure disorder (informal chaos) is maximally complex, it is less likely.

    If there was no order (the state prior to order), then it would be pure disorder or chaos. The reason you have to start there is because you’re trying to explain order.

    As I’ve said many times, you’d have to give a reason for starting with an initial state that possesses ordered laws, processes and properties. Merely saying “that’s the way it is” is not different than saying “that’s the way God made it”. Except we know something more about God than we do about “things popping into existence from chaos”.

    So, God is the more reasonable solution there.

    In fact, as Silver Asiatic argued previously, informally chaotic processes probably don’t even exist.

    But if true, this is a problem you’d need to explain. Why is everything embued with order and consistency? Where did that come from?

    So, we’re back to the question. The way you answered it is this:

    It doesn’t need to have come “from” anything apart from the initial creation event. It’s just part of the Universe’s initial conditions.

    In other words, “it just is”. The universe just popped into existence containing ordered properties, forces and processes.

    With this, you have no basis to deny that God exists. And since the existence of God has much more rational support than universes that just come into existence, ready-made with all the properties they need to be fine-tuned for life (and we know chaos cannot produce such things), then God is by far the much more reasonable explanation for what we observe.

    But I think that’s all you have. You can only propose an imaginary concept that possesses everything that you can’t explain.

    But with God as an explanation, we start with intelligence and we already know that intelligence can design the kind of order we observe. It remains the best explanation.

  153. 153
    Zachriel says:

    Box: Nope. You are conflating design and instantiation.

    That was not the context, which was “We know intelligence can produce such things,” that is “ordered, regular properties and systemic-processes”.

    Silver Asiatic: you’d have no basis to deny that God exists.

    We don’t. However, just because we don’t know the reason the universe exhibits order doesn’t constitute evidence of a designer. As you said, it’s just an analogy, and a flawed analogy at that.

  154. 154
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    That was not the context, which was “We know intelligence can produce such things,” that is “ordered, regular properties and systemic-processes”.

    And once we eliminate necessity and/ or chance as possibilities we infer intelligent design.

    However, just because we don’t know the reason the universe exhibits order doesn’t constitute evidence of a designer.

    The last cause standing. Even Richard Dawkins admits science can allow for only so much luck. And without intelligent design all you have left is luck. Sheer. Dumb. Luck.

  155. 155
    sean samis says:

    This conversation has wandered far away from the OP. (Remember the OP?) We’re no longer discussing the origin of terrestrial life, but a much different topic: does order and regularity in our universe need a special explanation apart from it being just a product of our universe’s creation?

    On one side is the idea that, short of the action of an intelligent designer, our universe should have no order or regularity because (lacking an intelligent designer) its creation would have been accidental and necessarily without any “design features”. An intelligent designer would be needed.

    On the other side is the idea that if any properties are described as fundamental or intrinsic to our universe, there’s no special problem with including order and regularity among them. No special explanation is needed. No intelligent designer is needed.

    How does a reasonable, rational person decide between these two points of view?

    Something to remember is that if something—anything—exists, it necessarily has certain intrinsic properties. What those properties are depends on the thing in question, but a thing without intrinsic properties is what NOTHING is. Since our universe exists, it must have intrinsic properties.

    When we say our universe is ordered, we mean the matter and forces in our universe have a relationship to each other. When we say our universe is regular we mean events and interactions occur in patterned ways.

    Since it is believed that everything in our universe was created by a singular creation event, then it is not surprising that everything created in that singular event shares properties; everything is related to everything else. Our order and regularity traces back to this shared creation event. Everything is related to everything else by a common origin.

    This conclusion does not rule out a designer for our universe; in fact nothing ever can. But this conclusion does absolutely rule out any NEED for a designer. It’s possible our universe was designed by the “FSM”; but there’s no reason to think so. Likewise for any other cosmological designer.

    Rather than needing a special explanation for order and regularity, proponents of a designed universe need to explain why a rational, reasonable person would not expect order or regularity to arise from a singular creation event, even if completely spontaneous and unguided.

    And to get back to the OP (remember the OP?) no key prediction of evolution has been falsified.

    sean s.

  156. 156
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Z

    If the multiverse is a proposal you’d accept, then you have no basis to deny that God exists. You agreed with this.
    Thus we have two possible explanations for the order we observe in the universe.

    However, just because we don’t know the reason the universe exhibits order doesn’t constitute evidence of a designer.

    Right. There are two explanations for the order we observe, so we judge which is more reasonable.
    One, it was created by a multiverse.
    Or, it was created by an initial, self-existing intelligence (God).

    We know that intelligence can create order.
    A multiverse, even though it can explain our universe, does not explain it’s own order or existence.

    The proposal that the order we perceive in our universe ultimately came from intelligence remains the best supported explanation.

  157. 157
    Silver Asiatic says:

    sean s.

    That was a pretty good analysis of the questions, although you continue to miss something that I’ve repeated.

    Something to remember is that if something—anything—exists, it necessarily has certain intrinsic properties. What those properties are depends on the thing in question, but a thing without intrinsic properties is what NOTHING is. Since our universe exists, it must have intrinsic properties.

    This brings us a step closer. But notice that this is not an explanation for the origin of things. You’re just saying “that’s the way it is”. It’s the same as saying “God just exists”. You’re saying that if anything exists, it comes ready-made with properties which allow it to interact and relate to many other things. Why? If you could explain the origin of those properties and interactions, you would have to start from a state of Non-Order and Non-Relationships and show how Chaos (essentailly) created those ordered aspects.

    However, failing that, it’s just saying “that’s the way it is”. But that’s not different from saying “God made it that way”. In fact, saying God made it is better, since God is an explanation for why we see all these ordered properties and relationships. Without God, the explanation just has Nothingness. It’s just “things popped into existence with all those features already in place”.

    So, the conclusion that a self-existing intelligence designed those properties is far better.

    When we say our universe is ordered, we mean the matter and forces in our universe have a relationship to each other. When we say our universe is regular we mean events and interactions occur in patterned ways.

    Exactly – that’s a good description. There’s quite a lot of complexity in all of that — properties, forces, relationships and one thing causing another … all of that either came from somewhere or “it just is”. But if it “just is”, that’s not an explanation for it’s origin. There’s no basis to then claim “I need evidence for God” since you’d accept that things just exist which have no evidence at all for their origin.

    Since it is believed that everything in our universe was created by a singular creation event, then it is not surprising that everything created in that singular event shares properties; everything is related to everything else. Our order and regularity traces back to this shared creation event. Everything is related to everything else by a common origin.

    That works well as evidence for the existence of God. The properties are shared because they come from a single intelligence. Without God, the creation event just created properties out of nothing. So, it’s still Chaos producing order. The proposal that intelligence produced order is stronger because we know that Intelligence can create things.

    But this conclusion does absolutely rule out any NEED for a designer.

    The conclusion that “things pop into existence with ordered properties and relationships” does eliminate the need for a designer. But it’s not an explanation, so the origin of those things remains unknown. The proposal that there is a Designer is far more reasonable.

    proponents of a designed universe need to explain why a rational, reasonable person would not expect order or regularity to arise from a singular creation event, even if completely spontaneous and unguided.

    As said, we have zero evidence that an unguided, accidental event, lacking order can create order. This could be tested. We do have evidence that intelligence can create order. So, intelligence is the better explanation.

    The alternative to that is that everything just came into existence already with order and relationships with no idea on their origin except “that’s just the way it was”.

    But we never see spontaneous combustions, for example, explosions, creating complex ordered relationships among particles. They actually break apart order.

  158. 158
    sean samis says:

    Silver Asiatic @152

    It’s not that disorder is expected, but that something has to explain the order we observe.

    Then you have to explain why an explanation is required. If disorder is not expected (as you wrote) then order is not surprising. Order can be explained by the creation of everything in a singular creation event.

    It’s not that order is expected, it’s merely that something other than the order we observe has to explain it.

    If order needs an explanation, then so does disorder. If we can accept one then we can accept both UNLESS YOU GIVE A REASON WHY WE CANNOT ACCEPT BOTH.

    The reason you have to start there is because you’re trying to explain order.

    And I have. Done.

    What you have not explained is why you ASSUME everything had to start from disorder absent a designer.

    …you’d have to give a reason for starting with an initial state that possesses ordered laws, processes and properties.

    Done.

    Now please give a reason why—absent a designer—we’d have to start with an initial state of disorder.

    Why is everything embued with order and consistency? Where did that come from?

    Answered.

    Where would informal chaos come from?

    So, we’re back to the question. The way you answered it is this:

    It doesn’t need to have come “from” anything apart from the initial creation event. It’s just part of the Universe’s initial conditions.

    In other words, “it just is”.

    Which is no different than your claim that—absent your God—“disorder just is”. Why need to explain order but just assume disorder?

    With this, you have no basis to deny that God exists.

    Like Zachriel @ 153, I don’t deny your God exists; I deny having any reason to believe your God does exist. Those are two very different positions.

    …God is by far the much more reasonable explanation for what we observe.

    Except of course that these “reasonable explanations” are built on unreasonable expectations and assumptions. Pull them out and your “reasonable explanations” become irrelevant.

    You can only propose an imaginary concept that possesses everything that you can’t explain.

    Chuckle. You propose an imaginary set of requirements to force your deity (conveniently possessing everything you can’t explain) into this question, and then you criticize me for supposedly doing what you are doing?

    @156:

    A multiverse, even though it can explain our universe, does not explain it’s own order or existence.

    Neither can your designer explain it’s order or existence. If we are going to assume that SOMETHING exists which does not need to be explained, there’s no reason to ASSUME it has intelligence or purpose. A spontaneously-acting, mindless multiverse works just fine for that purpose.

    sean s.

  159. 159
    bornagain77 says:

    sean samis claims that:

    And to get back to the OP (remember the OP?) no key prediction of evolution has been falsified.

    sean s.

    Actually contrary to what sean samis wants to believe philosophically in spite of the evidence (i.e. atheistic materialism), and in spite of the fact that Darwinism is a pseudo-science with no rigid mathematical demarcation criteria that would allow one to falsify it by experimentation, Darwinism has been falsified experimentally in perhaps its most fundamental prediction. Specifically, Darwinism is falsified in its prediction that information is reducible to a material basis:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-573880

    Besides that falsification of a fundamental prediction of Darwinian/Materialistic claims, here are many more fundamental predictions of Darwinism that have been falsified:

    Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015
    This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory.

    *Introduction
    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Responses to common objections

    *Early evolution predictions
    The DNA code is not unique
    The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal

    *Evolutionary causes predictions
    Mutations are not adaptive
    Embryology and common descent
    Competition is greatest between neighbors

    *Molecular evolution predictions
    Protein evolution
    Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change
    The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time

    *Common descent predictions
    The pentadactyl pattern and common descent
    Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships
    Biology is not lineage specific
    Similar species share similar genes
    MicroRNA

    *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions
    Genomic features are not sporadically distributed
    Gene and host phylogenies are congruent
    Gene phylogenies are congruent
    The species should form an evolutionary tree

    *Evolutionary pathways predictions
    Complex structures evolved from simpler structures
    Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them
    Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved
    Nature does not make leaps

    *Behavior
    Altruism
    Cell death

    *Conclusions
    What false predictions tell us about evolution
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home

    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

  160. 160
    Virgil Cain says:

    sean samis- Evolutionism doesn’t have any predictions beyond change and stasis.

  161. 161
    Silver Asiatic says:

    sean s

    Order can be explained by the creation of everything in a singular creation event.

    Order is much more difficult to explain than disorder. Sure, you can say that complex arrangements, relationships, properties and forces “just started to exist”. But the idea of reductionism is to go back to initial conditions in the attempt to uncover the origin of things. If you have to start with complex order, then that’s an assertion not an explanation. It’s the same as saying “everything just started to exist”.

    If order needs an explanation, then so does disorder. If we can accept one then we can accept both UNLESS YOU GIVE A REASON WHY WE CANNOT ACCEPT BOTH.

    There are several answers here. First, we see approximations of chaos in nature — although even that always contains order. But from what we know of disorder, it’s a simpler state to explain than complex order.
    For example, we could try to explain the movement of every molecule. However, it’s enough to say “they’re random”.

    Secondly, the question is “where did this come from”? Your answer is that “it just did”, or things just popped into existence. Again, that doesn’t explain the origin of anything, but even still, the more order and systemic-processing we see in an initial state, the more questions have to go unanswered. Disorder is a simpler state. If no order, then disorder. But we know disorder cannot create the order we see. So then what? You’re saying the order just came into existence on its own.

    If no order, then disorder. As you said elsewhere, if no disorder – then Nothing. If no properties, then Nothing.
    Once you have Nothing, then you will always have Nothing.

    So, even disorder, if that was the initial state, has to be explained. Where did the disorder come from? Again, intelligence is the only reasonable solution.

    You claim to have explained order, but all you’ve said is that things started and they had certain complex properties. So far, these properties and combinations came from nowhere. If you said it was Chaos at the beginning, at least that would align with the idea of No-Intelligence to some degree. But not really. The more complex, specified order we observe, the more likely it is an Intelligent cause.

    What you have not explained is why you ASSUME everything had to start from disorder absent a designer.

    Moving from a state where there is absolutely Nothing, to a state where there is Order or Disorder, is impossible to explain scientifically or philosophically. But that’s what you’re saying. There was Nothing, then there was Order.
    But it’s far more reasonable to assert that God exists as the source of Being and Intelligence. There is far more evidence for God than for things just popping up from Nothing. So, if you look at the two options
    1. — things appear from Nothing complete with Order
    2. — an Intelligence designed the order we observe

    The second option is more reasonable because we know Intelligence can design things, but we have no way to even explain how Nothing can create anything at all.

    Now please give a reason why—absent a designer—we’d have to start with an initial state of disorder.

    Absent a designer, we start with Nothing. You’re saying that everything came from Nothing. You accept that as a better solution than that God does exist.

    Like Zachriel @ 153, I don’t deny your God exists; I deny having any reason to believe your God does exist.

    I gave you the choices. You can choose that everything came from Nothing, for which we cannot possibly have evidence to support — or that God exists, for which we have abundant evidence in support.

    You propose an imaginary set of requirements to force your deity (conveniently possessing everything you can’t explain) into this question, and then you criticize me for supposedly doing what you are doing?

    No, I criticize you for accepting that complex ordered relationships, systems, processes, forces and properties came into existence from Nothing as a better explanation than God, as the source of being, order and intelligence crated them.

    But there is some equivalency. There is an imaginary multiverse with things coming from nothing, or God with a rational basis for understanding the origin of intelligence, morality, purpose and the inter-relatedness of things.

    Neither can your designer explain it’s order or existence. If we are going to assume that SOMETHING exists which does not need to be explained, there’s no reason to ASSUME it has intelligence or purpose.

    Now we’re back to Chaos as the origin of things. We know Intelligence can create order. That’s why Intelligence is the best explanation for the order we see. What can purposelessness produce?

    A spontaneously-acting, mindless multiverse works just fine for that purpose.

    That’s not your explanation. What you’re saying works is “There was Nothing. Then a complex universe with ordered relationships appeared out of nothing”.

    For you, it seems that explanation works very well. I don’t think you’re being reasonable though.

  162. 162
    sean samis says:

    Silver Asiatic;

    In #157 you continue the pattern. You demand explanations but provide none.

    Saying “that’s the way it is” is nowhere near saying “God just exists”. Some things just exist; that’s a given. No specific thing (like your God) necessarily exists just because some other things do “just exist”. Existence does not need or require your God.

    In fact, the whole point of this entire conversation is your attempt to make your God seem necessary.

    You have yet to explain the origin of your God, or the origin of your God’s order, regularity, and intelligence.

    You wrote that if I “could explain the origin of those properties and interactions, you would have to start from a state of Non-Order and Non-Relationships and show how Chaos (essentailly) created those ordered aspects.

    I need explain the origins of these properties NO MORE than you need to explain the origin of non-order or disorder. Whatever exists has properties; that is what existence means. In our universe, the creation of everything in a singular creation event pretty clearly makes it quite reasonable to expect properties allowing things to interact and relate to many other things.

    Why would we expect otherwise when a Universe is created? Like every other claim you make, you’ve never explained it.

    You make bold assertions but provide no explanations. Time for you to step up.

    1. Where did you God come from? Did He just “pop into existence”?
    2. Why would that be an acceptable explanation?
    3. What is the origin of the properties you claim your God has?
    4. Where did His order and regularity come from?
    5. Where did His intelligence come from?
    6. Name for me an example of a “self-existing intelligence” other than your God.
    7. Name for me an example of any “self-existing” thing we know of other than your God.
    8. If we don’t know of any other “self-existing” thing, why would your God be a reasonable idea?
    9. If something is “self-existing” please explain why it must be an intelligence.
    10. You claim that apart from a designer, disorder (“chaos”) reigns. Where did this chaos come from?

    sean s.

  163. 163
    Silver Asiatic says:

    sean s

    Whatever exists has properties; that is what existence means. In our universe, the creation of everything in a singular creation event pretty clearly makes it quite reasonable to expect properties allowing things to interact and relate to many other things.

    It’s not reasonable because it’s arbitrary. Should we expect 10 properties and 25 relationships? Or should we expect a million different properties and relationships? How many would we expect. What happens is we have a specific number of relationships, ordered processes and properties. These things, for no reason, work together to produce other things. But that’s a question that remains unanswered. Instead of saying that “we just started with exactly that number of physical processes and forces and properties for some unknown reason”, the idea that God who possesses all being and power to create forces and properties is less arbitrary. That way, any number that are created are explained as coming from the fullness of Being, rather than “that specific result is just what happened for no reason”. We couldn’t expect something like that at all.

    1. Where did you God come from? Did He just “pop into existence”?

    No, God is existence. Non-contingent being. God is the source and cause of the intelligent design we observe – the order we observe. The alternative is that Nothing created it, as you have chosen to believe.

    2. Why would that be an acceptable explanation?

    It’s acceptable because it’s logical. We know intelligence creates order. It’s the only known source of it. Therefore, the order in the universe came from intelligence outside the universe. That’s God and that’s logical. Saying it came from Nothing is not logical.

    3. What is the origin of the properties you claim your God has?

    God is the self-existing source of those properties from the fullness of being that is God. God is the actualization of all potential being, and non-dependent on any other being. God is the permanent, uncreated being — the first cause and creator of the contingent, created world. This is necessary if you want a cause for everything that exists. If you don’t want a cause, then you say everything came from Nothing. But that’s not logical since some prior potential is required to make anything actual. But Nothing has no potential, thus it cannot create being.

    4. Where did His order and regularity come from?

    Order and regularity are aspects of the perfection of goodness that is God. Since God is perfect fullness of being, God is perfect goodness. Since God is perfect goodness, He is lacking nothing. Disorder is a lack of perfection, order is a completion of perfection. Thus, God is the source of order since He is the source of all Being, and He is complete in Himself.

    5. Where did His intelligence come from?

    As with everything in God, there is no prior cause. God is uncaused Being. As I said, when you say something “just exists” that’s what we say about God. But we know about characteristics of God from what we oberve in creation. We observe imperfect, ocntingent intelligence, so the cause must be perfect, non-contingent intelligence. We observe imperfect lesser powers, the cause must be maxium, perfect power. That’s the scale of values we find in the universe – it leads to God.

    6. Name for me an example of a “self-existing intelligence” other than your God.

    There can only be one self-existing entity.
    You are claiming that the universe is self-existing, that it was caused by Nothing and it just started to exist.
    But this doesn’t explain any of the contingent features of the universe. Why is it dependent on other things? How could there be a moment when the universe started when there was Nothing for an infinite eternity?

    7. Name for me an example of any “self-existing” thing we know of other than your God.

    Everything we observe is dependent on other things for its existence. The universe itself is dependent. Since tracing dependencies back would lead to an infinite regress — and thus no universe — God must be the self-existing, non-dependent First Reality which explains the contingent universe.

    8. If we don’t know of any other “self-existing” thing, why would your God be a reasonable idea?

    It’s reasonable because we observe that things exist. The only way to explain them is as you said:
    1. The popped into existence from Nothing
    or
    2. They were created by something that is self-existent.

    If they were created by something not self-existent, then we still have to ask where that came from and what caused it. That leads to an infinite regress. An infinite sequence back never has a starting point. Instead, the idea that there is a self-existent Being is logically consistent since it explains the beginning and source of all the being we observe without having an infinite regress.

    9. If something is “self-existing” please explain why it must be an intelligence.

    This is an inference based on what we observe.
    First, we observe being and to trace its origin, we discover that a self-existing being is necessary. We observe intelligence, therefore the fullness of intelligence is necessary. Intelligence is a power of being. We know this from beings we observe. The capacity to know something is a greater power than not-having that capacity. The self-existing being must necessarily have the greatest capabilities and powers of being and therefoe must have intelligence and must be the source of intelligence.

    We observe creatures that know things, but only imperfectly. They gain knowledge from other things over time. Their knowledge is dependent on other things. A self-existing being is not dependent on anything else. If something is self-existing it is not dependent on anything else for its existence. A self-existing being would possess the fullness of all the powers of being (since it cannot get any more being elsewhere) and intelligence is one of those powers.

    10. You claim that apart from a designer, disorder (“chaos”) reigns. Where did this chaos come from

    You’re right to quesiton this. Since Chaos is a kind of Being, it can only come from self-existing being. So, even to say “we started with Chaos” does not explain the origin of things. It’s starting with something that already has properties — which Chaos does have properties. Also, Chaos cannot exist unless there is some kind of order to create chaos. A truly random bunch of things would have no limits — so it would have every possible property, including the property of destroying everything.
    In the end, that would leave us with Nothing.

    But the alternative is to say that Being and Order “just exist”. But instead of saying that imperfect, depending things which could all disappear over an infinite period of time, just exist, it’s more logical to say that a self-existent being created it all and sustains it in existence.

  164. 164
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: The proposal that the order we perceive in our universe ultimately came from intelligence remains the best supported explanation.

    It’s not supported. It’s simply your chosen default position for what you don’t know.

  165. 165
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel,

    “It’s not supported. It’s simply your chosen default position for what you don’t know.”

    It is overwhelmingly supported from what we do know as to the activity of intelligence. Whereas, no one has EVER seen unguided material processes produce comparable systems of integrated complexity.

  166. 166

    @Sean Samis
    1 God is in the creator category, not in the creation category.
    2 Subjectivity is logically valid.
    3 see 1
    4 see 1
    5 see 1
    6 the human soul
    7 see 6
    8 see 6
    9 because all in the creation category choose
    10 a lack of love

    counterquestions
    1 do you accept that beauty is real but not a scientific fact?
    2 if so, then acknowledging there are real things outside of science, why cannot God be outside of science?
    3 if not, then what is the worth of a human being mathematically?
    4 is freedom real and relevant in the universe?
    5 if so what is that freedom doing in the universe, what are the results of the decisions
    6 if not then why are using logic in common discourse which says that freedom is real and relevant?

  167. 167
    sean samis says:

    Silver Asiatic @163

    Regarding my statement that existence means having properties:

    It’s not reasonable because it’s arbitrary. Should we expect 10 properties and 25 relationships? Or should we expect a million different properties and relationships? How many would we expect.

    It’s no more arbitrary than any other definition; this is just what “existence” means. There is no specific number of properties or relationships required except that it be strictly more than zero.

    Considering all the arbitrary claims you make about your God, this complaint is hypocritical.

    What happens is we have a specific number of relationships, ordered processes and properties. These things, for no reason, work together to produce other things. But that’s a question that remains unanswered.

    Actually, there’s no question in that statement.

    Things do work together, producing other things. That is observable. There is a reason (a cause) for their behavior: the forces of nature act when these things come in contact or even in proximity to each other; and they come in contact or proximity to each other constantly.

    Instead of saying that “we just started with exactly that number of physical processes and forces and properties for some unknown reason”, the idea that God who possesses all being and power to create forces and properties is less arbitrary.

    Claiming that some unproven and unprovable deity just happens to exist and just happens to possess all the requisite properties is the height of ‘arbitrary’.

    arbitrary: adjective: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

    A claim that “we just started with a deity having exactly the right number of properties for some unknown reason” is pure arbitrariness.

    That way, any number that are created are explained as coming from the fullness of Being,…

    “Fullness of being” is a meaningless expression. It’s just words strung together; pretty but vacuous.

    …rather than “that specific result is just what happened for no reason”.

    We do know the cause, we just don’t know about any purpose or intent. But we really don’t need to know those things anyway. We know the ‘how’; the ‘what for’ is for philosophers and theologians.

    We couldn’t expect something like that at all.

    This is an arbitrary claim demanding some evidence. What we expect has little bearing on what actually happens.

    Regarding my 10 questions:

    1. Where did you God come from? Did He just “pop into existence”?

    No, God is existence. Non-contingent being. God is the source and cause of the intelligent design we observe – the order we observe. The alternative is that Nothing created it, as you have chosen to believe.

    The alternative is a non-contingent multiverse (or something along those lines) which would be the root and source and cause of all that we observe. This is what I suspect exists; and it is far, far from nothing.

    2. Why would that be an acceptable explanation?

    It’s acceptable because it’s logical. We know intelligence creates order. It’s the only known source of it. Therefore, the order in the universe came from intelligence outside the universe. That’s God and that’s logical. Saying it came from Nothing is not logical.

    My alternative is logical too, and simpler. We know intelligence creates order, but we don’t know that all order is created by intelligence.. Intelligence is NOT the “only known source of” order. Snow flakes, the human mind, life on Earth; these examples of order are things we don’t know were created by any intelligence. They appear to be quite natural.

    3. What is the origin of the properties you claim your God has?

    God is the self-existing source of those properties from the fullness of being that is God. God is the actualization of all potential being, and non-dependent on any other being. God is the permanent, uncreated being — the first cause and creator of the contingent, created world. This is necessary if you want a cause for everything that exists. If you don’t want a cause, then you say everything came from Nothing. But that’s not logical since some prior potential is required to make anything actual. But Nothing has no potential, thus it cannot create being.

    The multiverse of which I’ve written could be a self-existing source of its own properties. It could be a permanent, uncreated thing; it could be the first cause and creator of any contingent, created thing. It could be the prior potential for all that is actual.

    4. Where did His order and regularity come from?

    Order and regularity are aspects of the perfection of goodness that is God. Since God is perfect fullness of being, God is perfect goodness. Since God is perfect goodness, He is lacking nothing. Disorder is a lack of perfection, order is a completion of perfection. Thus, God is the source of order since He is the source of all Being, and He is complete in Himself.

    Order and regularity would be aspects of the multiverse’s existence. It would be the source of order and all that exists.

    All that Platonic stuff about perfection is irrelevant.

    5. Where did His intelligence come from?

    As with everything in God, there is no prior cause. God is uncaused Being. As I said, when you say something “just exists” that’s what we say about God. But we know about characteristics of God from what we oberve in creation. We observe imperfect, ocntingent intelligence, so the cause must be perfect, non-contingent intelligence. We observe imperfect lesser powers, the cause must be maxium, perfect power. That’s the scale of values we find in the universe – it leads to God.

    Intelligence is just one of the contingent things that exists as a result of the singular creation event that resulted in us. Intelligence is no more a fundamental property of reality than “leafiness” or “creepiness”.

    Your Platonic ideal (the contingent being imperfect examples of perfect forms) has no rational basis. It’s a fine religion, but rationally, it is irrelevant and has been obsolete for millennia.

    6. Name for me an example of a “self-existing intelligence” other than your God.

    There can only be one self-existing entity. You are claiming that the universe is self-existing, that it was caused by Nothing and it just started to exist.

    This is false; I’ve never said anything like that. The multiverse could be self-existing, which means it never “started to exist”; it would exist eternally.

    But this doesn’t explain any of the contingent features of the universe. Why is it dependent on other things? How could there be a moment when the universe started when there was Nothing for an infinite eternity?

    You have not been paying attention. Our universe is only a temporary thing in a small corner of something larger and permanent. You cannot make valid inferences about a multiverse from our universe, less even than you could make inferences about the ocean from the pebbles on an island beach.

    7. Name for me an example of any “self-existing” thing we know of other than your God.

    Everything we observe is dependent on other things for its existence. The universe itself is dependent. Since tracing dependencies back would lead to an infinite regress — and thus no universe — God must be the self-existing, non-dependent First Reality which explains the contingent universe.

    The multiverse can fill the role of self-existing, non-dependent, First Reality; fully explaining our tiny, insignificant, contingent universe. No deity is required.

    8. If we don’t know of any other “self-existing” thing, why would your God be a reasonable idea?

    It’s reasonable because we observe that things exist. The only way to explain them is as you said:
    1. The popped into existence from Nothing
    or
    2. They were created by something that is self-existent.

    Exactly. But item 2 does not need to be a deity. A permanent, eternal multiverse fills that bill nicely; and is far simpler than a deity; thus satisfying Ockham’s Razor.

    If they were created by something not self-existent, then we still have to ask where that came from and what caused it. That leads to an infinite regress. An infinite sequence back never has a starting point. Instead, the idea that there is a self-existent Being is logically consistent since it explains the beginning and source of all the being we observe without having an infinite regress.

    Exactly. A permanent, eternal multiverse can explain the beginning and source of all being we observe without an infinite regress and without a deity.

    9. If something is “self-existing” please explain why it must be an intelligence.

    This is an inference based on what we observe.
    First, we observe being and to trace its origin, we discover that a self-existing being is necessary. We observe intelligence, therefore the fullness of intelligence is necessary.

    Again the Platonic fallacy. There’s zero evidence that Platonic forms are anything more than an outdated idea. Contingent zebras do not prove the existence of a Perfect Zebra. Contingent intelligence does not prove the existence of a Perfect intelligence.

    As with Platonic “forms” likewise for Aristotelian “essences”; these are concepts ancient people came up with in an effort to explain certain things, concepts that have been overtaken by time and the evidence.

    Intelligence is a power of being. We know this from beings we observe.

    We observe many things that “have being” which have no observable intelligence.

    The capacity to know something is a greater power than not-having that capacity. The self-existing being must necessarily have the greatest capabilities and powers of being and therefoe must have intelligence and must be the source of intelligence.

    Human beings have intelligence. Lightning does not. Lightning fries humans without a thought, it is far more powerful than any human, and yet it has no observable mind. The ability to have an effect on something else does not require intelligence, nor does it require “greater power”.

    …it’s more logical to say that a self-existent being created it all and sustains it in existence.

    A permanent, eternal multiverse can explain the creation and sustenance of all in existence, without resorting to religion and deities.

    sean s.

  168. 168
    sean samis says:

    Mohammadnursyamsu @166

    In answer to your “counter-questions”:

    1 do you accept that beauty is real but not a scientific fact?

    Beauty is real, but subjective. There is a statistical truth that certain things are most likely to be considered “beautiful” by humans, but that is merely an observation about a subjective determination.

    2 if so, then acknowledging there are real things outside of science, why cannot God be outside of science?

    Definitely some God COULD exist. I’ve never denied that. And if any God does exist, that God is most definitely outside of science. But that being the case, attempts to “prove” God, or to use God in a scientific explanation are improper: whatever God exists is OUTSIDE science.

    3 if not, then what is the worth of a human being mathematically?

    This is a meaningless question. Whether or not a God exists, human “worth” is not a quantity; it is a quality. Qualities have no “mathematical value”.

    4 is freedom real and relevant in the universe?

    Yes.

    5 if so what is that freedom doing in the universe, what are the results of the decisions

    Freedom is not “something doing something in the universe”; freedom is a term we use to refer to the ability of sentient beings to make choices based on information and reason. Freedom is not a thing, it is an attribute of some things.

    6 if not then why are using logic in common discourse which says that freedom is real and relevant?

    I don’t know what this question is asking, but I think my answer to #5 and the “if not” mean you don’t expect an answer to this one.

    sean s.

Leave a Reply