Key prediction of Darwinian evolution falsified?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 29, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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!

Comments

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
bornagain77_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Box: So where does the initial order come from? There's a few speculative ideas, but no one has a well-supported scientific explanation.Zachriel_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

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/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_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/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-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/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.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
bornagain77_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

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/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.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/shining-light-on-dark-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) https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/key-prediction-of-darwinian-evolution-falsified/#comment-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/multiverse-and-the-design-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/2014/04/a_matter_of_con084001.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/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.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.
bornagain77_{August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

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?Box_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

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.sean samis_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

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.sean samis_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

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 DesignSilver Asiatic_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

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?
Box_{August 5, 2015
August
08
Aug
5
05
2015
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

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.Virgil Cain_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

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.Virgil Cain_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

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.Box_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

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.Box_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

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.sean samis_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

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.sean samis_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

sean samis:
There are many, many natural, complex systems which have never been shown to have been designed.
Such as?Virgil Cain_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Thanks BA77 @ 110. I hope our opponents will see it the same way ... someday. :-)Silver Asiatic_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

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/2013/02/22/10-mind-bending-implications-of-the-many-worlds-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/science/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-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. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rob-sheldon-on-the-many-worlds-thesis-what-about-eugene-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
bornagain77_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

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.Popperian_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Popperian, talk to the hand as requested please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28bornagain77_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

@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?Popperian_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

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/releases/2014/01/140116084838.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.com/view/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-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!bornagain77_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

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/2012/10/a_revolutionary065521.html
As mentioned previously in this thread,,, https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/key-prediction-of-darwinian-evolution-falsified/#comment-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/~robins/Confronting_Sciences_Logical_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/2000/000113/full/news000113-10.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/pdfs/pfoldingsurvey.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/releases/2013/05/130508122828.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-scientists-critical-quantum.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.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/
bornagain77_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

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-QqC9yM28bornagain77_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply