A succinct case for Intelligent Design

_{Vincent Torley

May 10, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

Recently, I’ve been reading Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s excellent book, Darwin’s Doubt (Harper One, 2013). Towards the end of the book, I came across a paragraph that struck me as the best case I’ve ever seen for Intelligent Design, in 200 words or less.

“This book has presented four separate scientific critiques demonstrating the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the mechanism that Dawkins assumes can produce the appearance of design without intelligent guidance. It has shown that the neo-Darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan.” (pp. 410-411)

For the benefit of readers who may be unfamiliar with the concept of epigenetic information, Dr. Meyer provides a helpful, concise explanation in an earlier chapter:

“In addition to the information stored in individual genes and the information present in the integrated networks of genes and proteins in dGRNs [developmental gene regulatory networks – VJT], animal forms exemplify hierarchical arrangements or layers of information-rich molecules, systems, and structures. For example, developing embryos require epigenetic information in the form of specifically arranged (a) membrane targets and patterns, (b) cytoskeletal arrays, (c) ion channels, and (d) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code)… Much of this information resides in the structure of the maternal egg and is inherited directly from membrane to membrane independently of DNA…

“…This information at a higher structural level in the maternal egg helps to determine the function of both whole networks of genes and proteins (dGRNs) and individual molecules (gene products) at a lower level within a developing animal.” (pp. 364-365)

Finally, in his earlier book, Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer provides an in-depth treatment of the difficulties attending the modern scientific view that life arose via an unguided process. Here, the cardinal difficulty, in Meyer’s own words, is that “explaining the origin of life requires – first and foremost – explaining the origin of the information or digital code present in DNA and RNA.” Contemporary naturalistic theories, which rule out Intelligent Design, all “fail to account for the origin of the genetic information necessary to produce the first selfreplicating organism.” Once again, Dr. Meyer’s summary of his case is admirably succinct.

So, here are two questions for my readers.

First, a challenge: can anyone locate an even more succinct (but no less comprehensive) statement of the case for Intelligent Design in the literature?

And for skeptics of Intelligent Design: how would you attempt to rebut Dr. Meyer’s case, in 200 words or less?

Comments

...each of the features of the Cambrian animals and the Cambrian fossil record that constitute negative clues - clues that render neo-Darwinism and other materialistic theories inadequate as causal explanations - also happen to be features of systems known from experience to have arisen as the result of intelligent activity. In other words, standard materialistic evolutionary theories have failed to identify an adequate mechanism or cause for precisely those attributes of living forms that we know from experience only intelligence - conscious rational activity - is capable of producing. That suggests, in accord with the method of historical scientific reasoning elucidated in the previous chapter, the possibility of making a strong historical inference to intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of those attributes. - Darwin's Doubt, p. 358
We can't know it but we can't doubt it either! (HT: Barry) A mechanistic theory without a mechanism. An objective truth.Mung_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

MF said:
Intelligent design without any description of the designer’s powers and motivations is causally adequate for everything and becomes nothing more than a god of the gaps. It is no more an explanation than saying an unknown chance mechanism did it.
This is one of those places where self-deception manifests as an obfuscation of the obvious and an attempt to obscure a simple definition; ID theorizes the same thing that SETI theorizes as that which can be inferred to be a necessary cause for some phenomena: intelligence. ID theorizes the same thing that other sciences employ: intelligence. If SETI finds it's narrow-beam transmission, will they suspend a finding of "most likely caused by ETI" until they examine aliens for mental capacity, interrogate them to find out their motives, and insist they explain exactly how they did it? Is it MF's position that a finding of "causation by intelligence" is irrelevant to the kind of investigation that is conducted after such a finding? What unmitigated, blithering, obvious nonsense. It is only when their ideological commitments are in peril do they start babbling on about definitions of intelligence, god of the gaps arguments and start insisting that intelligences be identified and interrogated before any finding of "causation by intelligence" is logged into the books. It's really not much of a step up from the prior "no real scientists believes in ID" and "ID produces no peer-reviewed, published papers" nonsense that reflected sheer denialism in the past. Perhaps we feel victorious that the argument and evidence for ID has pushed them from being able to con themselves via sheer denialism and ad hominem to having to construct such elaborate webs of semantics and sophistry to hide behind.William J Murray_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

His understanding is weak is just another way that the materialist tries to tell us that they are somehow more intellectual.Andre_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

The succinct case against intelligent design is as follows: First, if it is just the proposition that an unspecified intelligent agent was responsible for the creation of life on Earth, as I've argued before, it is a claim about 'who' not an explanation of 'how' so it is not in direct competition with the theory of evolution. It is comparing apples and oranges. Second, if ID is held to be a research program whose purpose is to discover evidence of the involvement of unspecified intelligent agents in the emergence and evolution of life on Earth, it still tells us nothing about origins. Even if we find such evidence, how can we tell whether they created all life or just life on Earth or just seeded the planet it with pre-existing life or just intervened in the course of life that was already present here?Seversky_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Barry @19 Well, I hope Lizzie will give a sincere reply on whether she believes she has a strong understanding of the theory, or if not her, then who?phoodoo_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Mark, this “I’m just so weary of it all” response has become all too typical of your comments here at UD. Your #6, Barry. I understand Mark, Barry. I used to feel just the same until I grasped how to do quadratic equations. Then the other day I found out on here that there are much more difficult types of quadratic equations, which was even more dispiriting. It's a hard row Mark and I are hoeing. Isn't that right, Mark? Marks says he's going to show Elizabeth how to do them, once he's grasped this business about what I think he (and Dickie D) would prefer to call, 'Chimerical Design'. If it turns out it really is 'chimerical design', imagine all the expensive recalls they'll have to implement for all the biomimetic designs they thought they'd managed to adopt!Axel_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

phoodoo, As I demonstrated in this post, no one has a strong understanding of evolutionary theory; nor can anyone, in principle, have a strong understanding of evolutionary theory in the sense one can have a strong understanding of the theory of general relativity. Why? Because there is no such theory. There are lots of competing speculations, and the speculators in each camp believe the speculators in all the other camps are wrong. But there is no central core to the theory about which there is general agreement. Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

#16 Mung Wonderful knock-about stuff, Mung. This is one of the funniest, LOL threads for a while. Wait till Joe ways in on your question! Finally BA77 comes along to blind them with long screeds of actual, unanswerable, quantum-mechanical science!Axel_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

6 Elizabeth LiddleMay 10, 2015 at 4:03 am Mark Frank wrote: He explains perceived weaknesses in his understanding of evolutionary theory but gives no reason why design is a better alternative. Exactly. His understanding of evolutionary theory is weak, and actual evolutionary theory is a better alternative. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lizzie, Can you name one person whose understanding of evolutionary theory is strong? Is your understanding of evolutionary theory strong?phoodoo_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
His understanding of evolutionary theory is weak...
LoL. Even if this were true, which we shall not grant even for the sake of argument, it's irrelevant. He was looking at the evidence, not the theory. p.s. which evolutionary theory?Mung_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

supplemental note:
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
bornagain77_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Verses and Music:
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Mark 8:36-37 “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? “For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? Building 429: “Where I Belong” – Official Music Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he32vwlKQPY
bornagain77_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

In regards what is organizing the billion, trillion, protein molecules of the human body into a single cohesive whole (form/shape) for precisely a lifetime, Talbott asks this very important question about the sudden loss of cohesiveness at death for an organism. Specifically he asks, “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
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.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/harvardd-2.jpg
Well, where does the biological information, specifically the quantum information, that was keeping the organism alive for ‘precisely a lifetime’, suddenly go upon the death of an organism? Neo-Darwinists would hold that the biological information simply completely disappears from reality upon the death of an organism (since they hold information to be 'emergent' from a material basis). But the fact of the matter is that the quantum information, the information that was in fact ‘holding life together’ for precisely a life time, is ‘conserved’ and does not simply disappear from reality:
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 Information Conservation and the Unitarity of Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: “In more technical terms, information conservation is related to the unitarity of quantum mechanics. In this article, I will explain what unitarity is and how it’s related to information conservation.” http://youngsubyoon.com/QMunitarity.htm Black holes don't erase information, scientists say - April 2, 2015 Excerpt: The research marks a significant step toward solving the "information loss paradox," a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared—a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-black-holes-dont-erase-scientists.html+/
Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication being the strong validation of the Theist's contention that we, as distinct 'persons', are 'souls' that merely live in a material body and that we are not 'persons' who are co-terminus with our material bodies:
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892 Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
As to specifically where this ‘conserved’ quantum information goes, well there are ‘theories’ in that regards as well. ‘Theories’ that are much more well supported than these evidence free ‘bottom up’ conjectures of atheistic materialists as to how body plans are formed in the first place:
Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit John 8:23-24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
bornagain77_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Another method of determinging that 'form/shape' is not reducible to 'bottom up' Darwinian explanations is by noting that the 'form/shape' of many proteins is determined, not by its sequential information but, by the overall context in which the protein is residing:
The Gene Myth, Part II – August 2010 Excerpt: “It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, (intrinsically disoredered proteins), taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions. ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html Biology’s Quiet Revolution – Jonathan Wells – September 8, 2014 Excerpt: In 1996, biologists discovered a protein that does not fold into a unique shape but can assume different shapes when it interacts with other molecules. Since then, many such proteins have been found; they are called “intrinsically disordered proteins,” or IDPs. IDPs are surprisingly common, and their disordered regions play important functional roles.,,, So it is not true that biologists know all the basic features of living cells and are merely filling in the details. Nor is it true that Darwinian evolution is a settled scientific “fact,” as its defenders claim. Huge unanswered questions remain, and they will only be answered by going beyond the discredited myth that “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/biologys_quiet_089651.html podcast – Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution – September 17, 2014 “We are talking about 1/3 of the proteins in our body, (could be Intrinsically Disordered Proteins)” – Jonathan Wells http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2014/09/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/
Another method to demonstrate that form/shape is not reducible to ‘bottom up’ neo-Darwinian processes is by noting that it is the ‘bioelectric code’, not the genetic code, that dictates what the basic 'form/shape' an organism will be during embryological development:
podcast – Jonathan Wells: Is There Biological Information Outside of the DNA?, pt. 3 – Bioelectric code http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-06-11T16_35_52-07_00 An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – Cornelius Hunter – September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM The face of a frog: Time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen bioelectric pattern – July 2011 Excerpt: For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, “When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,”,,, “We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It’s a jaw dropper.”,,, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-before-seen.html
Here is another facsinating method by which it was clearly demonstrated that form/shape is not reducible to ‘bottom up’ neo-Darwinian processes:
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
But perhaps the clearest demonstration that 'form/shape' is not reducible to the 'bottom up' material explanations of neo-Darwinism is the fact that the 'form/shape' of an organism is almost immediately lost upon the death of an organism:
Rabbit decomposition time-lapse (higher resolution) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6sFP_7Vezg
bornagain77_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Dr. Torley as to:
"For example, developing embryos require epigenetic information in the form of specifically arranged (a) membrane targets and patterns, (b) cytoskeletal arrays, (c) ion channels, and (d) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code)… Much of this information resides in the structure of the maternal egg and is inherited directly from membrane to membrane independently of DNA…"
Ontogenetic/Epigenetic information is a much more of a devastating problem for 'bottom up' neo-Darwinian explanations than even that succinct excerpt from Meyer's book indicates. The fact that 'form/shape' is not directly reducible to sequences of biological information was recently admitted in the following evolution friendly article:
The Strange Inevitability of Evolution - Philip Ball - Jan. 2015 Excerpt: Naively, you might expect RNAs with a similar shape, and thus presumably phenotype, to share a similar sequence, so that a map of the possible sequences—the sequence space, which can be represented as a many-dimensional space where each grid point corresponds to a particular sequence—is divided up into various “shape kingdoms” (See Not a Patch, a). But that wasn’t what Schuster found. Instead, RNAs with the same shape could vary very widely in sequence: You could get the same shape, and therefore potentially the same kind of catalytic function, from very different sequences. http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution
The insurmountable problem of ‘form/shape’ for neo-Darwinian explanations has now been demonstrated by a couple of different methods. That proteins have 'non-sequential' quantum information determining the 'form/shape' of a protein, residing along the entirety of the protein chain, is demonstrated by the following:
Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective: Excerpt: “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.” http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/
The preceding is solid confirmation that far more complex information resides along the entire protein chain than meets the eye. The calculus equations used for ‘cruise control’, that must somehow reside along the entire protein chain/structure is anything but ‘simple' classical information. For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop, like the 'cruise control loop' found to be along a entire protein structure, please see this following site:
PID controller Excerpt: A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
As well, here is a paper that found 'quantum information' along the entire protein structure:
Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain - Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija - 2006 Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural - amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy - classical and quantum state, and (3) information - classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system. http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491
Moreover, to further highlight the fact that form/shape of a protein is not reducible to sequential classical information, the profound mystery of how a protein folds so quickly is now found to belong to the world of quantum information, not to the world of classical information. (of note: I personally hold that quantum computation is heavily implicated in protein folding).
Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. 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/
As well, it is found that the 'form/shape' of DNA itself is determined, in large measure, by quantum information, not by sequential classical information:
Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html etc.. etc..
In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!bornagain77_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Lizzie: His [Stephen Meyer's] understanding of evolutionary theory is weak, and actual evolutionary theory is a better alternative.
Admittedly, my understanding of evolutionary theory is also weak. Moreover I don't understand how an 'actual evolutionary theory' could be a better alternative. Could you please enlighten me?Box_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @ 7: Mark, this "I'm just so weary of it all" response has become all too typical of your comments here at UD. Desist. If you are so weary of the debate, by all means move along to something you find more refreshing.Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank
Intelligent design without any description of the designer’s powers and motivations is causally adequate for everything and becomes nothing more than a god of the gaps. It is no more an explanation than saying an unknown chance mechanism did it.
It doesn't even require Gaps. Intelligent Design by an omnipotent and omniscient power could also adequately explain a universe for which we also had a complete and consistent non-design account. In fact "Intelligent Design", where the Designer can be omniscient and omnipotent is not an explanation at all, because it does not explain "why this and not that", which is what renders scientific hypotheses testable.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

VJ 4 and 5 This is old and much disputed territory. I think you know the standard responses: * Intelligent design without any description of the designer's powers and motivations is causally adequate for everything and becomes nothing more than a god of the gaps. It is no more an explanation than saying an unknown chance mechanism did it. * The supposed features are actually hidden ways of describing that certain chance hypotheses are not adequate. They are not signs of design. But hey - let's not do that all over again.Mark Frank_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank wrote:
He explains perceived weaknesses in his understanding of evolutionary theory but gives no reason why design is a better alternative.
Exactly. His understanding of evolutionary theory is weak, and actual evolutionary theory is a better alternative.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

While we're talking about the explanatory superiority of Intelligent Design, I might also add that living things exhibit certain features (such as digital code, functional specified information and top-down organization) which are the hallmark traits of intelligent agency.vjtorley_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Hi Mark Frank and Jim Smith: You both correctly point out that in the short paragraph I quoted, Dr. Meyer doesn't explain why Intelligent Design is a better alternative. Actually, Dr. Meyer explains this elsewhere in his book, but I can sum it up in two words: causal adequacy. Intelligent Design can do the job; all the unguided mechanisms that we know of cannot.vjtorley_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

As JS says I think it is possible to rebut Meyer's 200 words in 20 words: He explains perceived weaknesses in his understanding of evolutionary theory but gives no reason why design is a better alternative.Mark Frank_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

It's succinct but it requires a lot of background to understand in depth. I don't think it will convince the average person who believes in evolution to change his mind. It also doesn't say why ID is the best explanation, it only says why Neo-Darwinism is inadequate. I don't think succinctness is as important as understandability to the layperson. The best one can hope for is to help those who are open minded to understand the issues or at least investigate whether the evidence really supports Darwinist claims. Explanations I like are: In the fossil record we see the exact opposite of what neo-Darwinism predicts: Many phyla appeared in a brief period of time. The phyla arose without ancestors. There were very few species at that time. No phylum has ever diversified enough to form another phylum. Yet all of these phenomenon are predicted by intelligent design. An evolutionary tree can be made by comparing the same gene in different organisms, but different genes produce widely divergent trees. This is better explained by designed reusable components than by common descent. Homologous genes that regulate the development of analogous structures are also better explained by designed reusable components. The evidence claimed to prove macroevolution is either misleading or false, at best it demonstrates microevolution (like the differences between breeds of dogs) which is not in dispute. Theories of intelligent design are based on an analysis of scientific evidence and they try to show that intelligent design is a better explanation of the evidence than natural explanations. It is not necessary to identify the designer or explain how the designer arose. Just as the gravity of an unseen mass can be inferred as the cause of observed perturbations of the orbits of planets, an unknown intelligence can be inferred as a cause of information, cybernetic systems, irreducibly complex systems, and mathematical fine-tuning in nature. The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution by Casey Luskin. No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup ... Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code ... Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures ... Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations ... Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution ... Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life" ... Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry ... Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species ... Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA" ... Bonus Problem: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage It would take more than 100 million years for a small functional change involving two mutations to occur naturally in humans. The entire primate line has existed for less than that length of time and there are many more mutations that separate humans from apes. Naturalism is an extraordinary claim. The laws of nature seem to be relatively simple mathematical relationships. How is it that just by chance simple natural laws working alone would include or produce all the factors necessary for life: the 20 or 30 cosmological fine tuning factors, at least 15 factors needed to produce habitable planets, at least 20 chemical factors needed for complex life? How is it possible that simple undesigned natural laws could produce the complex machinery of cells and the information needed for simple life and macroevolution? How could such finely-tuned complexity arise at every scale from the atomic to the cosmic from simple undesigned unguided natural laws? If you wanted to design such a complicated system from simple mathematical relationships, it would require a huge amount of intellectual effort. How could it happen just by chance? (A multiverse, for which there is no evidence, couldn't explain it.) The genetic code is finely tuned for efficiency (it is not random) and it is unlikely this efficiency could have arisen through evolution because any change in the code would affect every protein in the cell which would be catastrophically fatal. Differences in early embryonic development provide evidence that the animal phyla did not share a multicellular common ancestor. http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html Natural processes that produce biomolecules don't produce proteins and RNA or DNA, they produce tar. Simple self-replicating systems mutate toward simplicity not complexity because competition for resources favors reduced resource requirements.3 A self-replicating molecule would not lead to the development of metabolism, it "would self-optimize its self-replicative function to the exclusion of other potentially metabolic functions and consume all resources." http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/09/information-theory-chance-and-natural.html DNA codes for proteins yet proteins are needed for their own production. How could such a system arise naturally? "It evolved from something simpler through mutation and selection" is a nice story but there is no good explanation of how it happened.Jim Smith_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

VJ
And for skeptics of Intelligent Design: how would you attempt to rebut Dr. Meyer’s case, in 200 words or less?
I hope you see the irony of you, of all people, asking for a concise response :-)Mark Frank_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply