Larry Moran wants Royal Society evo meeting cancelled!

_{News
July 4, 2016

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Evolution}

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

At his blog Sandwalk, one of our favourite commenters, Larry Moran, who has wracked up a ton of loyalty points in terms of free ID literature, points out that various people have made a mistake in writing to Suzan Mazur, author of Paradigm Shifters, complaining about the Royal Society’s go-slow on the new reno (Darwin replacement).

It looks to me like the organizers of this meeting didn’t think very carefully about the can of worms they were opening. When you have speakers like Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro you are just inviting trouble. When you try to lecture Suzan Mazur about paradigm shifting you are bound to regret it.

I’m beginning to think this meeting isn’t going to happen. The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting. More.

I (O’Leary for News ) am beginning to think that this meeting will happen with or without the Royal Society but that it will be better for the Royal Society to host it.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' Institutions get old and die. Is the Royal Society one of them?

See also: Royal Society says quit talking paradigm change Because they are in the midst of one. Hey, I just write the news around here, but all I ever say in these cases is, if nothing happened, why are all the Emergency Services here? Keep talking. Just keep talking. Distract yourself.

Larry Moran gets Suzan Mazur wrong (” When journalists who publish in key venues become interested in an otherwise obscure train wreck, we can reasonably suspect that a shift is taking place. That’ why we call it “news” and not “olds.””)

and

What the fossils told us in their own words

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

bornagain77 @33 Thank you for posting the transcript of professor D. Noble's explanation from the given video. Really appreciate it.Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Also, the social committee is pleased to report that we have secured an excellent deal from Rent-a-Riot. Retired librarians, museum docents, and classics teachers will lead the assembled in a mild deprecation of how long it took to get even this far, then lead us out to high tea and a tour of the Tower of London, with free Union Jack lapel pins thrown in. No soccer yobs or ASBOs under any circumstances. (The event is being organized by Canadians, after all.)
:)Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Noble comments on inheritance apart from DNA here:
A conversation with Denis Noble and Michael J. Joyner at Experimental Biology 2015. Moderated by David J. Paterson, Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology. At around the 4:30 minutes mark the moderator has setup the framework of the conversation and asks the first question to Dennis Noble: “what is a gene?” and professor Noble’s answer couldn’t be funnier, though very serious at the same time: “let’s be clear – nobody knows.”,,, “What we have to remember in opposition to the gene-centric view is that, in order for that to be the case, we inherit much more than our DNA. We inherit, Number 1, the whole of cell structure, which is self templating. It does not need DNA to self template. Many of you probably don't know, cells can actually divide without a nucleus. We inherit many forms of RNA, which determine part of the way that the genome is interpreted. We inherit many forms of epigenetic marking. And I don't need to tell this audience how big the field of epigenetics has now become. We also inherit behavioral marking of the genome. There are examples of all of these. Those are what we necessarily inherit in short term generation, to generation, to generation. In the longer term, even more fundamental changes are inherited in changes in the genome itself with various forms of genome reorganization in response to challenges from the environment. So I think the short answer, David, is that we inherit much more than DNA. DNA is extremely important. Sequencing is very important. But it is not the be all and end all of understanding function in physiological systems.” https://www.youtube.com/embed/A_q_bOWc8i0
bornagain77_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Dionisio at 31, Denyse O'Leary (News at UD) will try to help if possible: In Canadian English, "Your question isn't honest" usually means "Even discussing this is a losing position for me, so I won't." One can draw whatever conclusions one wishes from that. Timaeus at 19 got something right for sure: If the Royal Society did cancel the meet, it would be admitting that Darwin's tenured asshats can shut down anything they want, to prevent an analysis of their claims. Then the Society itself becomes a sort of fossil. Some living institution will have to do the analysis someday. Also, the social committee is pleased to report that we have secured an excellent deal from Rent-a-Riot. Retired librarians, museum docents, and classics teachers will lead the assembled in a mild deprecation of how long it took to get even this far, then lead us out to high tea and a tour of the Tower of London, with free Union Jack lapel pins thrown in. No soccer yobs or ASBOs under any circumstances. (The event is being organized by Canadians, after all.)News_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

Sometime ago, in another thread, I asked professor Moran if he knew exactly how morphogen gradients form. Then he replied simply 'yes'. Later -after answering few more questions I asked- he declined to continue our discussion because I did not ask honest questions. Here's a reference to a recent paper (April 2016) on the same subject: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-612277 As anyone can see, the authors claim they don't know exactly how morphogen gradients form. Professor Moran knew exactly contrary to the conclusions of the referenced paper. I asked Professor Moran to explain why he wrote that my questions were dishonest, but I don't recall seeing his answer to that question. Maybe now he can explain it, before he goes meet with professors Dennis Noble and James Shapiro at the Royal Society in London? If my questions aren't clear enough, maybe Denyse O'Leary can translate them to Canadian English? :) Thank you.Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Anyone is welcome to help with the issue posted @29.Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt @20 @21 Can you help with this?
Given any case of known evolutionary divergence, it could be described as: Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1) Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2) Where Dev(x) is the developmental process of any given biological system x Delta(x) is the whole set of spatiotemporal procedural differences required to produce Dev(x). d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca). Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for the following cases? Case 1: d1 = placental mammals; d2 = marsupials; Case 2: d1 = placental; d2 = monotreme; Case 3: you pick d1 and d2 Just point to the literature that explains this in details. The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.
Thank you.Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

@11
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what they will discuss at that meeting if it takes place. Science research continues to provide more discoveries shedding light on the wonderful molecular and cellular choreographies seen in the biological systems, unveiling an amazing informational complexity that can be explained only one way.
That means it doesn't matter what anyone says. What matters is the evidential information coming out of the serious wet and dry labs everywhere. So far, so good. :)Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt @20 @21 Just curious - your name links to a blog that apparently hasn't been updated since April 2013? Is that observation accurate? Maybe not. If it is, then can you explain why? Again, just curious. In the last 3 years the amount of interesting scientific discoveries related to biology and specifically to RNA has been quite substantial, hasn't it?Dionisio_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

@25
What other mechanism [...]?
I. Is the genome (1) a mechanism or (2) a database used by the biological systems or (4) an informational repository used by the biological organisms or (5) a data repository used by the biological organisms or (6) a combination of the above or (7) none of the above (i.e. something else) or simply don't know?Dionisio_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

"DNA is not the be all and end all when it comes to inheritance." Yes it is! What else is there? What other mechanism expresses proteins that code for various structures and functions? If you, or Noble could find one, you and Noble would be Nobalized. Quantum mathematics was literally a God send for you, wasn't it? Something so utterly impenetrable to only a few gifted mathmaticians on earth, that you could use its vagueness, and seemingly counter intuitive conclusions to argue for God. Here is your argument boiled down; "This is really really complicated, only a few people (and Me) understand it, therefore God." Not even close to being convincing, which is why you publish here and no where else. Quantim mathematics is proof that we don't understand nature, but are trying to understand, because we are human with an evolved curiosity. Infinately more elegant than you garbled yammerings.rvb8_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Of related note, in a short introduction, Dr. Noble quickly lists several methods of inheritance that are independent of DNA
A conversation with Denis Noble and Michael J. Joyner at Experimental Biology 2015. Moderated by David J. Paterson, Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology. At around the 4:30 minutes mark the moderator has setup the framework of the conversation and asks the first question to Dennis Noble: “what is a gene?” and professor Noble’s answer couldn’t be funnier, though very serious at the same time: “let’s be clear – nobody knows.” Then he explains his answer. "DNA is not the be all and end all when it comes to inheritance" https://www.youtube.com/embed/A_q_bOWc8i0
bornagain77_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

as to: "Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution." Actually, biologist have missed the boat big time in regards to quantum mechanics:
Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states, ",,and Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can't build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn't really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it." At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state: “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”. Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater
Moreover, body plans simply are not reducible to DNA sequences as Darwinists dogmatically claim:
“In 2003, MIT Press published a groundbreaking collection of scientific essays titled Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, edited by two distinguished developmental and evolutionary biologists, Gerd Müller, of the University of Vienna, and Stuart Newman, of New York Medical College. In their volume, Müller and Newman included a number of scientific articles describing recent discoveries in genetics and developmental biology—discoveries suggesting that genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. Instead, many of the scientists in their volume reported that so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means “above” or “beyond,” so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. As Müller and Newman explain in their introduction, “Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form.” Instead, as Newman explains, “epigenetic” or “contextual information” plays a crucial role in the formation of animal “body assemblies” during embryological development. Müller and Newman not only highlighted the importance of epigenetic information to the formation of body plans during development; they also argued that it must have played a similarly important role in the origin and evolution of animal body plans in the first place. They concluded that recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all,,,” Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's Doubt pg.11: In Embryo Development, Non-DNA Information Is at Least as Important as DNA - Jonathan Wells - May 2012 Excerpt: Evidence shows that non-DNA developmental information can be inherited in several ways. For example, it can be inherited through chromatin modifications, which affect gene expression without altering underlying DNA sequences. Another example is cytoplasmic inheritance, which involves cytoskeletal patterns and localization of intracellular molecules. Still another example is cortical inheritance, which involves membrane patterns. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/in_embryo_devel060031.html Excerpt: Jonathan Wells has published a new peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal BIO-Complexity, "Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA." With over 400 citations to the technical literature, this well-researched and well-documented article shows that embryogenesis depends on crucial sources of information that exist outside of the DNA. This ontogenetic information guides the development of an organism, but because it is derived from sources outside of the DNA, it cannot be produced by mutations in DNA. Wells concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA. (Read more here:) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/peer-reviewed_p_2086201.html What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean
bornagain77_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Wow ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:), says Larry says something, Larry arrives and says he didn't; who to believe? I'll stick with the honesty of Larry, as he has 'booked my tickets', and Denyse has not! Surely that speaks volumes? And when the meet(ing) has ended will Denyse confidently explain to us exactly what happened, and what Larry said? Perhaps we should wait for the 'big media' reporting on what Larry said, before we jump to conclusions about what Larry said. That is unless you put your faith in Suzan, or 'Denyse for News'(Heh:), to give you an 'unbiased' account. I believe, 'paradigm shift' refers to the way evolutionary biologists study the mechaniams by which evolution took place, and is taking place, it in no way implies they are trying to replace evolution with wand waving.rvb8_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Well, not if those professional biologists are capable of understanding that DNA is simply at the wrong level to explain body plans (see #9 — Stephen Meyer). None of the things Meyer mention can be separated from DNA. Which makes the odd claims of am Meyer, Wells, et al. quite incorrect. Try as they might, development and all it entails cannot be disconnected from DNA, and thus from the inexorable pull of naturally-occurring heritable genetic variation. How wrong are the anti-evolutionists? It compels them (Meyer, specifically*) to claim that there cannot be viable mutations in genes encoding cytoskeleton proteins. This claim is ludicrous and wrong, and the reality of the matter dooms one of the IDists favorite delusions. (*Actually happened when Steve Matheson and I debated Meyer back in 2010.)Arthur Hunt_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

All of chemistry, including biochemistry, is, at bottom, quantum physics. Long stretches of bases, with only a small amount of them ‘linking’ to other RNA bases, doesn’t mean that the remaining bases, representing the majority of the sequence, doesn’t serve a vital function, as its “purpose” might simply be to provide the right amount of binding power, along with the ability to modulate this bond strength when needed. This attempt to explain RNA biochemistry is painful. It ignores all we know about RNA structure and function, and about the numbers and composition of what are being called here "RNA genes". Seriously, PaV, whatever you are trying to say, it seems to have no connection with anything we know about what RNA and how it works in the cell. Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution.Arthur Hunt_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Larry: It would look very bad for the Royal Society to cancel one of their own events. Think how it would play out: "World's Oldest Scientific Society Cancels Evolution Conference Featuring Darwin Critics" That would be like a neon sign, shouting: "Royal Society Fears that Darwinian Evolutionary Mechanism Can't Withstand Scientific Criticism." It would be a very, very dumb move. Far better to run the conference and attempt to "spin" the results than to back out for fear that the results won't be good.Timaeus_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

In fact, in quantum mechanics it is quantum information that is primarily conserved, not matter and energy:
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/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.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/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
Moreover, quantum information requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its existence:
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/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Thus, since the materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution holds that information, like consciousness, is simply 'emergent' from a material basis, and yet quantum mechanics shows that information is its own distinct entity that is separate from matter and energy, and also shows that this information needs a 'non-local' cause to explain its existence in biology, then Darwinian evolution is directly falsified in its primary claim that the information life is emergent from a material basis. Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims that say information is emergent from a material basis, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, or course, being the fact that we now have strong physical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that lives beyond the death of our material bodies.
Scientific (physical) evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul - (Quantum DNA and proteins) video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1116313858381546/?type=2&theater Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyEjh6ef_8
supplemental note:
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater
Verses and Music:
Mark 8:37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnh4V7fcnZ0
bornagain77_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

In this discussion of junk DNA, it is important to lay the proper groundwork for the debate and note that Darwinists have no right whatsoever to claim ANY functionality for the genome, much less do they have a right to claim whether it is 10% or 100%. That is to say, Darwinists have yet to empirically demonstrate the origin of even a single functional protein and/or gene by unguided material processes, and as such, scientifically speaking, they forfeit any right to make any claims as to any percent functionality in the genome.
Yockey and a Calculator Versus Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter PhD - September 25, 2015 Excerpt: In a 1977 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Hubert Yockey used information theory to evaluate the likelihood of the evolution of a relatively simple protein.,,, Yockey found that the probability of evolution finding the cytochrome c protein sequence is about one in 10^64. That is a one followed by 64 zeros—an astronomically large number. He concluded in the peer-reviewed paper that the belief that proteins appeared spontaneously “is based on faith.” Indeed, Yockey’s early findings are in line with, though a bit more conservative than, later findings. A 1990 study of a small, simple protein found that 10^63 attempts would be required for evolution to find the protein. A 2004 study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and a 2006 study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. These requirements dwarf the resources evolution has at its disposal. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/09/yockey-and-calculator-versus.html What is the maximum number of trials evolution could have performed? Kirk Durston - April 2016 Excerpt: Extreme upper limit for the total number of possible gene families sampled for all of life over 4 billion years = 2.2 x 10^45 trials. I have been extremely generous – by two orders of magnitude in comparison to a peer reviewed estimate for ‘an extreme upper limit’ of 4 x 10^43 trials (3). Since Dryden estimates 10^43 as his ‘extreme upper limit’, and it is peer reviewed, we will use his estimate instead of mine.,,, With 10^43 trials, one would think there would be no problem. Unfortunately, there are virtually no sequences that will produce stable, functional 3D structures. For example, RS7 is a universal protein required for all life forms, yet only 1 in 10^100 sequences will produce a functional RS7 protein domain. Obviously, in order for evolution to find any RS7 sequences, 10^43 trials is woefully inadequate – by 57 orders of magnitude. http://p2c.com/students/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-trials-evolution-could-have-performed/
And although there are a few different methods that empirically demonstrate that the genome is not nearly as worthless as die hard Darwinists have theoretically presupposed, (90% according to Moran), this following method of empirically demonstrating widespread functionality in the genome is my favorite since it uproots Darwinian evolution from its philosophical, i.e. from its reductive materialistic, roots. Namely, the falsification of the materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution has to do with the astonishing process of DNA repair.
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm
Of note: DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.
NP-hard problem – Examples Excerpt: Another example of an NP-hard problem is the optimization problem of finding the least-cost cyclic route through all nodes of a weighted graph. This is commonly known as the traveling salesman problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard#Examples
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
It is also interesting to note that man has yet to build a quantum computer of any significant size
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
Moreover, since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster 'every pothole in America' logistic problem, in a purely ‘classical’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster 'every pothole in America' traveling salesman problem, for DNA repair, is somehow being accomplished by ‘non-local’ quantum computation. That DNA is capable of carrying out such a high level of quantum computation is revealed in the following lecture:
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
Moreover, it is important to note that quantum information is its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.
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/
bornagain77_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Of related interest: It should be noted that these two following studies came out at just about the same time as the severely biased 8.2%, theoretical, 'conservation of sequences' study from die-hard Darwinists which had assumed that evolution true from the outset. i.e. "if it ain't conserved it ain't functional" These empirical, rather than theoretical, studies had drastically different conclusions than the Darwinists did as to the functionality of supposed ‘junk’ DNA.
Junk DNA not as worthless as once thought – 07/24/2014 Excerpt: As early as 2007,, Hackermüller, together with a number of colleagues, was able to demonstrate,, practically the entire genome (is transcribed into RNA—a template which normally serves the production of proteins), even those areas which are completely neglected when looking at blueprints for proteins. Hackermüller: “This finding gave rise to a lively discussion as to whether this could be caused by chance events or mistakes in the regulation of cellular processes. However, I doubt that nature is so wasteful with resources that it would produce such masses of RNA for no specific reason.” In their latest study,, Hackermüller and his team,, were able to bridge yet another knowledge gap. The transcription of non-coding regions in the genome is precisely regulated by cellular signaling pathways—and on a grand scale: up to 80% of the RNA copies were non-coding. “We did not expect such a magnitude,” says Hackermüller. “This is not indicative of a chance product—it is highly likely that the non-coding RNAs perform a similarly important functions to that of protein-coding RNA.” http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/07/junk-dna-not-worthless-once-thought?et_cid=4064233&et_rid=653535995&location=top Illuminating the dark side of the genome – July 29, 2014 Excerpt: “Almost 50 percent of our genome is made up of highly repetitive DNA, which makes it very difficult to be analysed. In fact, repeats are discarded in most genome-wide studies and thus, insights into this part of the genome remained limited. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics (MPI-IE) in Freiburg now succeeded in examining this dark side of the genome. Their analyses revealed that repeat-associated heterochromatin is essential to repress retrotransposons and thereby protects the genomic integrity of stem cells. This work opens the way for future genome-wide analyses of repetitive regions in the genome and is in line with newly emerging functions for heterochromatin.” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-illuminating-dark-side-genome.html
bornagain77_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran,
LM:
Origenes: If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?
Surely you can agree that professional biologists are interested in such questions, right? If those experts accept the evidence that 90% of our genome is junk, which most of them do, then this seems to be a paradox, right?
Well, not if those professional biologists are capable of understanding that DNA is simply at the wrong level to explain body plans (see #9 — Stephen Meyer).
LM: The apparent paradox can be resolved in two ways. Either these experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome OR the evidence for junk DNA is wrong.
Well, assuming that these experts don’t offer any other storage medium, the first option is clearly absurd, so, unfortunately for you, that leaves us with option two.
LM: Which do you think is more likely? Here’s a hint. The pufferfish genome is only about 12% of the size of our genome but pufferfish have bodies and brains. Clearly, they don’t need a lot of extra DNA to make their bodies. Humans don’t need it either.
Are you pulling my leg? There is not enough storage space to encode for a body plan in the pufferfish genome, so this information is somehow not necessary? Information is necessary to build proteins, but information is not necessary to build brains, because such things *somehow* self-organize without information and instructions? Is that how ‘experts’ reason? Doesn’t logic inform them that information for body plans must be stored somewhere else?Origenes_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran: I read your linked post. I think you overdid it. The writer of the press release simply added information to provide context for the actual results, and, I think she was rather clear in pointing out, more than once, that what the authors were doing was presenting a technique they used that provided them fairly reliable results, and, hence, could be used in elucidating function for non-characterized RNA---you know, the true "RNA-world." All of chemistry, including biochemistry, is, at bottom, quantum physics. Long stretches of bases, with only a small amount of them 'linking' to other RNA bases, doesn't mean that the remaining bases, representing the majority of the sequence, doesn't serve a vital function, as its "purpose" might simply be to provide the right amount of binding power, along with the ability to modulate this bond strength when needed. So, time will tell here. And solid state physics might pave the way for understanding what is taking place in the cell. In the meantime, let's not take a very restrictive view of all of this. As to the twenty thousand, now twenty-five thousand, genes in human DNA, I think it is supremely silly to call functional segments of RNA "RNA genes." What confusion this will bring about. But, perhaps, this is exactly what evo's are trying to do. You know, it's all about genes. So, even though the whole understanding of the genome is changing, the language remains the same. How convenient! And deceptive.PaV_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

@bornagain77 I'm very familiar with the work of my colleagues at the University of Toronto. If you want to know what they did and what they think of junk DNA then you should read their paper. Don't rely on press releases for your scientific information. University of Toronto press release distorts conclusions of RNA paperLarry Moran_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Origenes asks, If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this? Those are difficult, and loaded, questions. It would take a long time to explain why the questions have no meaning. Let's try another approach. Surely you can agree that professional biologists are interested in such questions, right? If those experts accept the evidence that 90% of our genome is junk, which most of them do, then this seems to be a paradox, right? The apparent paradox can be resolved in two ways. Either these experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome OR the evidence for junk DNA is wrong. Which do you think is more likely? Here's a hint. The pufferfish genome is only about 12% of the size of our genome but pufferfish have bodies and brains. Clearly, they don't need a lot of extra DNA to make their bodies. Humans don't need it either.Larry Moran_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Interesting to see two fellow Canadians on opposite ends of the ongoing argument. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what they will discuss at that meeting if it takes place. Science research continues to provide more discoveries shedding light on the wonderful molecular and cellular choreographies seen in the biological systems, unveiling an amazing informational complexity that can be explained only one way.Dionisio_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran, it seems that some researcher(s) at your own university disagree with you about junk DNA.
Shedding light on the 'dark matter' of the genome - May 19, 2016 - University of Toronto Excerpt: What used to be dismissed by many as “junk DNA” is back with a vengeance as growing data points to the importance of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) — genome’s messages that do not code for proteins — in development and disease.,, ncRNAs come in multiple flavours: there’s rRNA, tRNA, snRNA, snoRNA, piRNA, miRNA, and lncRNA, to name a few, where prefixes reflect the RNA’s place in the cell or some aspect of its function. But the truth is that no one really knows the extent to which these ncRNAs control what goes on in the cell, nor how they do this. The new technology developed by Blencowe’s group has been able to pick up new interactions involving all classes of RNAs and has already revealed some unexpected findings. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160519120935.htm
Moreover, the story behind the so-called retraction of ENCODE is interesting. The main response of Darwinian die-hards, to the ENCODE findings of widespread functionality in the genome, was to assume that Darwinian evolution was true. In other words, the die hards smuggled in the assumption of evolution by arguing that the 'conservation of sequences' between organisms, which assumes evolution as true from the outset, is what determines true functionality in the genome, instead of the actual empirically demonstrated functionality of a sequences determining true functionality as ENCODE did in its research in looking for actual biochemical function. To call this tactic of 'assuming your conclusion' unscientific and dishonest is to put it mildly!
The ENCODE Embroilment, - part 3 Excerpt: Very Little DNA Is "Conserved" After raising the C-value paradox, ENCODE critics often follow with a logical argument. "Only about 10 percent of our DNA is 'conserved,' or has a similar sequence, compared to the genomes of other mammals," they point out. "This means that only about 10 percent of our genome is under selection to preserve the DNA sequence." They then reason: "Since natural selection is the only force that creates and preserves functional elements in our genome, it's impossible that more than about 10 percent of our genome is functional." This argument was on display in a 2014 paper claiming that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional because only that percentage of our genome is "conserved" between humans and other mammals like mice and pandas.7 But there's a glaring problem with this thinking: it assumes that all DNA sequences are the result of undirected mutation and selection to begin with, and that biological function only comes from natural selection. Throw out the assumption of an evolutionary origin of species and there's no reason to believe that only conserved DNA can be functional. After all, an intelligent agent could independently design functional genetic elements with widely divergent DNA sequences in the genomes of different species—no "conservation" required. Only if we assume that strictly unguided evolutionary mechanisms produced our genome can we infer that such a small fraction of our genome is functional. Under this logic, when evolutionists cite the preponderance of junk DNA as evidence for evolution, they engage in circular reasoning. Junk proponents seem blind to these flaws. A co-author of the 8.2-percent paper boasted, "our approach is largely free from assumptions or hypotheses."8 Apparently he was forgetting about assumptions and hypotheses like evolution. Even worse, ENCODE critic Dan Graur called it "'idiotic' to suggest that a part of the genome could be functional if it didn't respond to pressure from natural selection."9 He further charges that "what ENCODE researchers did not take into account . . . is that everything is shaped by evolution."10 In Graur's Darwinian world, the possibility that some important functional genetic element arose from a cause other than natural selection is simply inconceivable.... In any case, ENCODE provides a nice empirical test of the evolutionary assumption that only conserved DNA can be functional: It finds evidence of mass functionality in "non-conserved" (i.e., unique) DNA sequences. As one lead ENCODE researcher explains: "Most elements defined by biochemical signatures lacked strong evolutionary conservation."12 Other ENCODE defenders argue that the research shows that "absence of conservation cannot be interpreted as evidence for the lack of function."13 - They conclude that ENCODE's empirical evidence for functionality is the ultimate test: "differential expression (including extensive alternative splicing) of RNAs is a far more accurate guide to the functional content of the human genome than logically circular assessments of sequence conservation."21 Bottom line: good evidence trumps bad theory.,,, A Great Divorce Critics like Dan Graur charge that ENCODE is guilty of "divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context"22—and that's exactly right. ENCODE's empirically based finding that the vast majority of our genome is functional has withstood theoretical, evolution-based objections from critics. Maybe a divorce from evolutionary thinking is exactly what we need to liberate biology from bad evolutionary assumptions and explain what's happening inside our cells.,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo33/the-encode-embroilment-part-III.php
Much more detail on the fallacious reasoning of Darwinists in response to ENCODE research is discussed in the following lecture video:
Biological Information – (The Dan Graur incident) Criticizing ENCODE 12-13-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlFJO1WqVk
Moreover, the Darwinian assumption that conservation of sequence equals important functionality is now known, empirically, to be wrong
(ORFan genes) evolutionists thought that these rapidly-evolving unique genes must not code for functional or important proteins. But again, many of the unique proteins were in fact found to play essential roles. (Chen, Zhang and Long 1010; Daubin and Ochman; Pilcher) As one researcher explained, “This goes against the textbooks, which say the genes encoding essential functions were created in ancient times.” (Pilcher) https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/similar-species-share-similar-genes Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved ,,,This prediction has been falsified in the many examples of functionally-unconstrained, highly similar stretches of DNA that have been discovered in otherwise distant species. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/functionally-unconstrained-dna-is-not-conserved Protracted Unrest Between ENCODE Researchers and Junk-DNA Advocates Goes On - November 26, 2014 Excerpt: It's not exactly Fergusson, Mo., but the battle between ENCODE researchers and junk-DNA holdouts goes on.,,, ,,,"Evolutionary conservation of primary sequence is typically considered synonymous with conserved function, but this finding suggests that this concept should be reinterpreted, because insertions of retrotransposon elements in new genomic regions are not conserved between species." In short, the Mouse ENCODE group takes direct aim at the arguments of Dan Graur and the other junk-DNA faithful, who say that everything evolution did not conserve is junk.,,, ,,,much of what Darwinian evolutionists had dismissed as junk appears functional. Non-coding regions of the mouse genome are transcribed, and appear to function in previously unimagined ways, such as regulation of gene expression, chromosomal stability, and maintenance of species identity. Carninci offers further thoughts: ,,,"we should rethink the relationship between genomic function and evolutionary conservation. Regulatory regions and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are not subject to the evolutionary constraints of protein-coding genes, which may help to explain the sequence drifts reported in these papers. However, it is striking that transcription-factor networks are conserved despite low conservation of their binding positions in the genome." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/protracted_unre091501.html
Of related note: ENCODE also discovered "highly non-random patterns of RNA production--patterns which indicate that these vast quantities of RNA transcripts aren't junk"
Toppling Another Evolutionary Icon, ENCODE Suggests Endogenous Retroviruses Are Functional - Casey Luskin - September 7, 2015 Excerpt: ENCODE didn't merely study the genome to determine which DNA elements are biochemically active and making RNA. It also studied patterns of biochemical activity, uncovering highly non-random patterns of RNA production--patterns which indicate that these vast quantities of RNA transcripts aren't junk.... ENCODE's results suggest that a cell's type and functional role in an organism are critically influenced by complex and carefully orchestrated patterns of expression of RNAs inside that cell. As Stamatoyannopoulos observes, ENCODE found that "the majority of regulatory DNA regions are highly cell type-selective," and "the genomic landscape rapidly becomes crowded with regulatory DNA as the number of cell types" studied increases. Thus, as two pro-ENCODE biochemists explain, "Assertions that the observed transcription represents random noise . . . is more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/toppling_anothe099111.html
bornagain77_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran @7, If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this? Stephen Meyer:
Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form. [Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video]
Origenes_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran at 6, Denyse O'Leary would be happy to be there but will do no travelling while certain persons in their nineties are still with us. Do however, save me a beer. However, I am negotiating for a cheaper riot. We want something comparatively genteel. We need not employ persons known to the authorities. Added; We absolutely would not want property damage or inconvenience to persons. But someone above had suggested there might be a riot and we felt it our duty to provide a genteel one.News_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 whines, Indeed, he, and few other crogidy old Darwinists, came across to most onlookers looking like grumpy old die-hards who refused to admit they were wrong even when faced of tremendous empirical evidence to the contrary. The ENCODE leaders retracted their claim in 2014. They say their views about the demise of junk DNA were misinterpreted by the media. A huge majority of knowledgeable evolutionary biologists and molecular biologists now agree that most of our genome is junk. bornagain77 and his diehard friends are the ones who refuse to admit they were wrong. Many ID proponents have conceded that there's a lot of junk DNA in our genome.Larry Moran_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I've already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay. I'm really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights. However, I do think the Royal Society is going to regret its decision to host the meeting. This is not a group that enjoys negative publicity and there's going to be a lot of negative publicity. I'm predicting that they may cancel the meeting because the IDiots and the kooks are gloating about destroying evolution. It will be interesting to see how many ID people show up. I'm betting that Denyse O'Leary won't be there. I'll buy her a beer if she comes.Larry Moran_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply