horizontal gene transfer Intelligent Design

Animal DNA modifier captured from bacteria 60 million years ago

Spread the love

By the bdelloid rotifer:

Epigenetic marks are modifications to DNA bases that don’t change the underlying genetic code, but “write” extra information on top of it that can be inherited along with your genome. Epigenetic marks usually regulate gene expression — turn genes on or off — particularly during early development or when your body is under stress. They can also suppress “jumping genes” — transposable elements that threaten the integrity of your genome.

In humans and other eukaryotes, two principal epigenetic marks are known. A team from the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) has discovered a third, novel epigenetic mark — one formerly known only in bacteria — in bdelloid rotifers, small freshwater animals. This fundamental and surprising discovery is reported this week in Nature Communications.

“We discovered back in 2008 that bdelloid rotifers are very good at capturing foreign genes,” said senior author Irina Arkhipova, senior scientist in the MBL’s Josephine Bay Paul Center. “What we’ve found here is that rotifers, about 60 million years ago, accidentally captured a bacterial gene that allowed them to introduce a new epigenetic mark that was not there before.” This is the first time that a horizontally transferred gene has been shown to reshape the gene regulatory system in a eukaryote.

“This is very unusual and has not been previously reported,” Arkhipova said. “Horizontally transferred genes are thought to preferentially be operational genes, not regulatory genes. It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system, because the existing regulatory systems are already very complicated.”

“It’s almost unbelievable,” said co-first author Irina Yushenova, a research scientist in Arkhipova’s lab. “Just try to picture, somewhere back in time, a piece of bacterial DNA happened to be fused to a piece of eukaryotic DNA. Both of them became joined in the rotifer’s genome and they formed a functional enzyme. That’s not so easy to do, even in the lab, and it happened naturally. And then this composite enzyme created this amazing regulatory system, and bdelloid rotifers were able to start using it to control all these jumping transposons. It’s like magic.”

Marine Biological Laboratory, “New DNA modification system discovered in animals, captured from bacteria more than 60 MYA” at ScienceDaily (February 28, 2022)

The obvious question this raises is, what about all the detailed Darwinian narratives that a horizontal gene transfer could obviate?

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more.

88 Replies to “Animal DNA modifier captured from bacteria 60 million years ago

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Accidentally captured? Perhaps some animals have a special system for capturing genes, and a ‘smell organ’ to detect genes worth consuming.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    “It’s almost unbelievable,” said co-first author Irina Yushenova, a research scientist in Arkhipova’s lab. “Just try to picture, somewhere back in time, a piece of bacterial DNA happened to be fused to a piece of eukaryotic DNA. Both of them became joined in the rotifer’s genome and they formed a functional enzyme. That’s not so easy to do, even in the lab, and it happened naturally. And then this composite enzyme created this amazing regulatory system, and bdelloid rotifers were able to start using it to control all these jumping transposons. It’s like magic.”

    So they believe something “not so easy to do, even in the lab” “happened naturally” and they admit “It’s like magic”?

    And so there you have it in their own words. Darwinists believe in magic, not science! 🙂

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    BA77

    in many of my previous UD posts, i have claimed, that Darwinists believe in miracles (magic).

    Also, let me add the following (from the above article):

    It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system, because the existing regulatory systems are already very complicated.

    it is not easy to understand, how a Darwinist think …
    ” It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system” but obviously, it is NOT hard to imagine, how many other /existing regulatory systems emerged …
    When you listen to a Darwinist, it is like to listen to a mentally ill person …

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Martin_r

    in many of my previous UD posts, i have claimed, that Darwinists believe in miracles (magic).

    I could not agree more. Darwinists do indeed wholeheartedly believe in miracles and/or magic.

    Even though Darwinists often like to claim that ‘miracles’ are strictly forbidden in scientific explanations, i.e. “To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen” (Lewontin)

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
    Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. ”
    – Richard Lewontin

    ,,, even though Darwinists often like to claim that ‘miracles’ are strictly forbidden in scientific explanations, it turns out that miracles, (i.e. magic), are central in the supposedly ‘scientific’ explanations of Darwinists.

    As I noted the other day, (via Wolfgang Pauli and Stephen Talbott), when Darwinists say something happened randomly, or that it happened by ‘chance’, they are not referring to some realistically defined mathematical probability of something happening by chance in the universe, but are instead claiming that ‘chance’ is, basically, a cause unto itself. And yet, in this untethering of the word ‘chance’ from any realistically defined mathematical probability, Darwinists make the word ‘chance’ ‘very irrational’ and, more of less, make the word ‘chance’ virtually synonymous with the word ‘miracle’.

    As Wolfgang (not even wrong) Pauli himself noted, “While they (Darwinists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf

    Moreover, even Charles Darwin himself honestly admitted that this is a wholly inadequate way to treat the word ‘chance’.

    “I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.”
    Charles Darwin – Origin – Chapter V
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/Va.....-1859.html

    Yet this “wholly incorrect expression” of “chance”, which “serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation”, has, in the minds of Darwinists, become a cause unto itself. As Nobel laureate Jacques Monod himself stated, “It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution”,,,

    “It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition – or the hope – that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.”
    – Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology

    Yet, as biophysicist Donald M. MacKay pointed out, to speak of chance as a cause unto itself, without it being anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”

    What Is Chance? – Nicholas Nurston
    Excerpt: “The vague word ‘chance’ is used as a substitute for a more precise word such as ’cause’. “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent,” notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”
    Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’” Others who reasoned in this fashion, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod, for one, used this chance equals cause line of reasoning. “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, (is) at the root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,”…
    https://books.google.com/books?id=bQ5OAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT25&lpg=PT25

    In short, and as Wolfgang Pauli observed, speaking of “chance” as a cause unto itself, without any anchor to any realistically defined mathematical probability, is make chance, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with the word “miracle”.

    Stephen Talbott’s following illustration, (which plays off the old joke “and then a miracle occurs’), gets this “chance is synonymous with the word miracle” point across very clearly.

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    Moreover, as Dr. Egnor pointed out in the following article, there simply can be no realistic mathematical definition for ‘chance’ unless it is defined against a backdrop of purposeful, i.e. teleogical, events. (For instance, the chance of drawing a Royal Flush presupposes the existence of a ‘intelligently designed’ deck of cards). As Egnor succinctly put it, “Chance presupposes design.”, (at least if ‘chance’ is to be anchored to a realistically defined mathematical probability in order to make it scientifically useful).

    Evolution Presupposes Intelligent Design: Case of the Coronavirus – Michael Egnor – April 7, 2020
    Excerpt: Aristotle saw this in his definition of chance in nature — chance is the accidental conjunction of purposeful events. Without purpose there can be no chance. His example is instructive: he considered a farmer who ploughs his field and by chance discovers a treasure buried by someone else. The treasure is discovered by chance, but everything else — the farmer’s ownership of the field, his decision to plough it, the accumulation and burial of the treasure by the other man — is purposeful, and in fact the only reason the accident of discovery happened is because it is embedded in a world of purpose. Chance can’t happen — the word has no meaning — in an entirely accidental world. Chance presupposes design.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/04/evolution-presupposes-design-the-case-of-covid-19/

    Thus when Darwinists claim that “chance alone is at the source of every innovation” (Monod),
    Darwinists are ‘very irrationally’, (as Pauli put it), using the word “chance” in such a way as to make virtually synonymous with the word “miracle”.

    Moreover, since ‘chance’ does not even exist as a known cause for anything, but ‘chance’ is actually ‘our ignorance’, (C. Darwin), of the actual cause, then Darwinian Atheists actually believe in magic minus any magician to perform their magic. (And/or believe in miracles without any God to perform miracles).

    A magic show without any magician to actually perform the magic? Now that is certainly one hell of a magic show for Darwinists to believe in. i.e. It is, to put it very mildly, “very irrational” (Pauli).

    And this ‘very irrational’ belief in ‘random miracles’ as an explanatory principle in science, that is at the core of Darwinian explanations, has now apparently infected theoretical physics as well.

    As Dr. Bruce Gordon noted in his critique of the Atheistic Naturalist’s appeal to the multiverse to try to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, “the (Atheistic) materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle.” which, “makes scientific rationality impossible”

    * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
    * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle.
    * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
    – Contemporary Physics and God – Part 2 – Dr Bruce Gordon – video (25:17 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=1517

    Verses:

    Psalm 77:14
    You are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples.

    John 3:2
    The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

  5. 5
    Silver Asiatic says:

    martin_r and BA77 – agreed. They’re telling us that their own theory requires magic and impossible to believe scenarios.

    When you listen to a Darwinist, it is like to listen to a mentally ill person …

    I don’t see that as an insult, but just a true statement. It’s evidenced in the quotes.
    She says it’s “almost unbelievable” and then asks us to “try to picture” a blind, unintelligent material chance occurrence causing the development of a new regulatory system. Something that is difficult to do in an optimized lab environment just supposedly happened “in nature”.
    She knows it’s insane, and so does everyone involved. She says “it’s hard to imagine” – but the fact is, they’re demanding that everybody has to imagine it or else you’re subject to their ridicule.
    The people who mock the idea of God or even that there is evidence of intelligence conclude “it’s like magic”.

    Then after all of that, the reason they’re like mentally ill people is they say these insane things and nobody says anything else. They just leave it hanging out there.
    “There’s a 5000 ton pink elephant in my living room.” And the scientists can’t think of one follow-up question. The paper just leaves it. “That’s just the way it is, folks. It’s just impossible to imagine, but true – just like magic”.
    That’s what they think science is. Just idiotic statements that we all have to believe.
    Nobody can even ask: “Wait, you’re saying it’s difficult in an intelligently-designed experiment with controlled variables, but random, mindless nature just did it? Can we question whether this is even possible?”
    The fall-back they always use: “We observe it, therefore evolution did it”.
    The mentally ill have an excuse. It’s a terrible illness that deserves care and treatment.
    But people who are willfully stupid or who make themselves blind from their own arrogance and belief in the authority of their own academic credentials are a different category in the causes.

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: As I noted the other day, (via Wolfgang Pauli and Stephen Talbott), when Darwinists say something happened randomly, or that it happened by ‘chance’, they are not referring to some realistically defined mathematical probability of something happening by chance in the universe, but are instead claiming that ‘chance’ is, basically, a cause unto itself. And yet, in this untethering of the word ‘chance’ from any realistically defined mathematical probability, Darwinists make the word ‘chance’ ‘very irrational’ and, more of less, make the word ‘chance’ virtually synonymous with the word ‘miracle’.

    No, when they say something happened ‘by chance’ they mean it was unpredicted or unpredictable. Chance is not a cause in any sense and no one says it is. It certainly does not mean miracle either.

    Perhaps if you understood the mathematics better you’d understand the way it’s used better.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL (who believes his own brain was an unforeseen Darwinian accident, and that his brain was not Intelligently Designed,), tries to clarify the ‘smoke and mirrors’ of Darwinian explanations, and states, “when they (Darwinists) say something happened ‘by chance’ they mean it was unpredicted or unpredictable.”

    So JVL, (charitably assuming that you really exist as a real person and not as a meat robot (J. Coyne)), how is an event, (say the ‘by chance’ appearance of a Butterfly Wing), being completely unpredictable within Darwinian theory as you are holding, (i.e. not anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability of it happening in a predictable fashion), NOT to be considered anything less than a miracle?

    Bernard d’Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist – October 5, 2011?
    Excerpt: renowned butterfly scholar and photographer Bernard d’Abrera considers the mystery of mimicry.,,,
    For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51571.html

    Moreover JVL, since you believe that you firmly understand the math of Darwinian evolution, and ID advocates don’t understand it, perhaps you would like to school Kurt Gödel, Murray Eden, Gregory Chaitin, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II on the precise mathematical formulation of Darwinian evolution?

    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
    – Kurt Gödel

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

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

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
    Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5]
    – per wikipedia

  8. 8
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Bornagain77
    but ‘chance’ is actually ‘our ignorance’, (C. Darwin)

    😆 Darwin completely blew it with evolution but is closer to truth with this one. I’m glad he admited that he was totally ignorant when he talked about his warm pond fable. I give him the pressumption of innocence because he didn’t know the complexity of a single cell “blob” but I can’t give a pass to clowns that today repeat same idiocy from 1859. I’m laughing when some say that you don’t understand a idiocy because you don’t understand math .

    Bornagain77
    So JVL, (charitably assuming that you really exist as a real person and not as a meat robot (J. Coyne)), how is an event, (say the ‘by chance’ appearance of a Butterfly Wing), being completely unpredictable within Darwinian theory as you are holding, (i.e. not anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability of it happening in a predictable fashion), NOT to be considered anything less than a miracle?

    They can’t explain a single cell that have to be with all processes in place in order “to boot” (metabolism- nutrition and excretion, external movement , internal active transport-diffusion, osmosis , respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction)let alone a Butterfly Wing. Too complicated.

  9. 9
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: So JVL, (charitably assuming that you really exist as a real person and not as a meat robot (J. Coyne)), how is an event, (say the ‘by chance’ appearance of a Butterfly Wing), being completely unpredictable within Darwinian theory as you are holding, (i.e. not anchored to any realistically defined mathematical probability of it happening in a predictable fashion), NOT to be considered anything less than a miracle?

    I do really exist. There was no way ahead of time to predict the emergence of a butterfly wing, especially at a particular place or time. Considering the physical pressures and constraints the emergence of certain kinds of biological structures and functions seem to be very likely.

    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”

    I guess Mr Godel didn’t quite understand the actual arguments. Oh well.

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    Strange they didn’t deal with the fact that selection is NOT random. Oh well, maybe, back in 1967, non-biologists hadn’t really come to terms with what the actual theory of evolution was saying.

    “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.

    Too funny. You don’t have ‘proofs’ in science as any scientist can tell you. Are these your best refutations?

    “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    Oh, gosh, biology isn’t the same as physics and chemistry and mathematics. What a revelation!! Who would have thought! Could it be that a science which depends on messy variables like climate, proximity, existing resources, etc might be harder to codify mathematically. And that means it’s not a science? Really?

    I tell you what: why don’t you propose a mathematically sound theory of intelligent design? You say it’s a science so let’s see the mathematically sound and rigorous model. Go ahead . . . whenever you’re ready . . . what are you waiting for? . . . Is there a problem? . . .

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, (who claims that he really exists as a real person despite the fact that Darwinian materialism denies his existence as a real person and states that his sense of self is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne)) among many other fallacious comments, JVL also claims, “I guess Mr Godel didn’t quite understand the actual (mathematical) arguments. Oh well.”

    So JVL now apparently considers himself a better mathematician than Kurt Godel?

    Nothing else really needs to be said after that.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: So JVL now apparently considers himself a better mathematician than Kurt Godel?

    A typical intentional (?) misunderstanding. I’m suggesting that IF your quote is correct considering the context from which it was taken then, perhaps, Godel didn’t understand the biology despite the fact that you FALSELY tossed in the word ‘mathematical’. Shame on you.

    You really should try harder to actually pay attention. And to be honest.

    AND you really should provide a rigorous, mathematically sound model of intelligent design if that’s what it takes to be a science.

    But you won’t. That’s easy to predict.

  12. 12
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Could it be that a science which depends on messy variables like climate, proximity, existing resources, etc might be harder to codify mathematically. And that means it’s not a science?

    If you want to play to a draw between ID and evolution, then ID wins a major victory with that.
    I think most of us would accept that as a starting point: ID is as much of a science as evolution is, given messy variables and difficulty of modelling.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever JVL, I am satisfied to let my comments stand as stated and see nothing within your responses that would mitigate the devastating (mathematical 🙂 ) criticisms of Darwin’s theory by Godel and company.

    And without a solid mathematical foundation, Darwinian evolution simply does not even qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place (R. Marks).

    As to ID being based on a solid mathematical footing.

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

    Of related note:

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: If you want to play to a draw between ID and evolution, then ID wins a major victory with that. I think most of us would accept that as a starting point: ID is as much of a science as evolution is, given messy variables and difficulty of modelling.

    What I would like to see is ID proponents holding ID to the same standards they insist unguided evolutionary theory match. But no one is even suggesting any kind of variables or models for ID. Nothing.

    But I am told over and over and over again that unguided evolution is not even science but ID is when no one can give me any kind of model or variables for ID. Can you?

  15. 15
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: And without a solid mathematical foundation, Darwinian evolution simply does not even qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place (R. Marks).

    What is the solid mathematical foundation of ID? Go on, stop dodging the issue, stop running away from questions you can’t answer. Be an adult and address that issue.

    Or not. Which is what I expect. You never, ever even attempt to hold ID to the same standard you insist unguided evolution has to uphold.

    So, by your standards, is ID a science?

    William Dembski and Robert Marks have (mathematically) shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing.

    Please explain this mathematical proof. In your own words. If you can’t, how do you know it’s valid? Or are you just accepting in on faith?

    “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,

    Again, can you explain this in your own terms? Or is it just mystical sounding stuff that you agree with even though you don’t understand it?

    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,

    Again, please explain their proof.

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    What I would like to see is ID proponents holding ID to the same standards they insist unguided evolutionary theory match.

    I just applied the same standards you used for evolution. You said that it’s a science even though it is non-predictive and virtually impossible to model mathematically because of messy variables. You insist, as with the evolutionary science community (99% of biologists) that this does not disqualify evolution as a science. So, the same standard holds for ID.

    But no one is even suggesting any kind of variables or models for ID.

    We had G Puccio on here for years with all sorts of mathematical models. UprightBiPed did that. There are peer reviewed papers by Axe and Thurston. Dembski did that thing decades ago. Information theory and statistical modelling.
    You can research and study quite a lot of it. Start with the peer reviewed ID papers.

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    Please show us “scientifically” how “unguided” results in something like the human hand, not once, but billions+ of times.

    I got some snacks ready.

    Andrew

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Please explain this mathematical proof. In your own words. If you can’t, how do you know it’s valid? Or are you just accepting in on faith?

    You’ve never studied Marks or Dembski on this but you claim there is no mathematical modelling for ID. So, you’ve been proven wrong, and I hope the information you’ve been given will help you learn about the topic.

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77:

    Perhaps you’d like to start encompassing these kinds of results:

    How Mathematicians Make Sense of Chaos: Dynamical systems can be chaotic and impossible to predict, but mathematicians have discovered tools to help understand them.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-mathematicians-make-sense-of-chaos-20220302/

  20. 20
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I gave JVL a test for ID at least two times on this blog. He never responded but then came back later making the same claims that there’s no way to test the power of unguided, random mutations.
    Third time: Take the first sentence I wrote here. Scramble it with a randomizer. Then use the same randomization process to put it back together again. Your belief in blind, unintelligent powers will be equivalent to the amount of money you’re willing to wager on having that sentence appear again. But supposedly, materialism did something much more difficult than this many times.

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: You said that it’s a science even though it is non-predictive and virtually impossible to model mathematically because of messy variables.

    I didn’t actually say that.

    You insist, as with the evolutionary science community (99% of biologists) that this does not disqualify evolution as a science. So, the same standard holds for ID.

    Actually, there are a lot of mathematical models and unmessy variables in unguided evolutionary theory. But ID has no variables and no mathematical models. Go figure.

    We had G Puccio on here for years with all sorts of mathematical models. UprightBiPed did that. There are peer reviewed papers by Axe and Thurston. Dembski did that thing decades ago. Information theory and statistical modelling. You can research and study quite a lot of it. Start with the peer reviewed ID papers.

    Why don’t you pick one of those mathematical models for ID and explain it to us here. Show us your theory.

    You’ve never studied Marks or Dembski on this but you claim there is no mathematical modelling for ID. So, you’ve been proven wrong, and I hope the information you’ve been given will help you learn about the topic.

    Firstly, you don’t know that your statement is true. Secondly, you should be able to present those models to us and explain how they work.

    So . . . go ahead.

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Please show us “scientifically” how “unguided” results in something like the human hand, not once, but billions+ of times. I got some snacks ready.

    Ah but right now the topic is: what mathematical models are there for ID? Let’s decide on that first shall we?

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: I gave JVL a test for ID at least two times on this blog. He never responded but then came back later making the same claims that there’s no way to test the power of unguided, random mutations.

    Um, a mathematical test for ID is not the same as a mathematical model for ID is it? Are you sure you really understand how this all works?

    Third time: Take the first sentence I wrote here. Scramble it with a randomizer. Then use the same randomization process to put it back together again. Your belief in blind, unintelligent powers will be equivalent to the amount of money you’re willing to wager on having that sentence appear again. But supposedly, materialism did something much more difficult than this many times.

    Sigh, you really don’t understand the basic concepts do you?

    You are making a (flawed) argument for somethings being intelligently designed. That is not the same as a mathematical model for how ID works is it?

    Over and over and over again I hear: unguided evolution is not a science, you don’t have a mathematical model for it. I am asking: do you have a mathematical model for ID? NOT do you have a mathematical argument for the existence of ID.

    The difference is really pretty simple but I guess you don’t get it.

    And if you don’t get the difference then why do you think you’re right?

  24. 24
    asauber says:

    “Ah but right now the topic is: what mathematical models are there for ID? Let’s decide on that first shall we?”

    JVL,

    Sure. I’ll wait. I’ve been waiting for most of my life already for such a demonstration. What’s a few more years?

    Andrew

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Sure. I’ll wait. I’ve been waiting for most of my life already for such a demonstration. What’s a few more years?

    So, Asauber can’t provide a mathematical model for how ID works. Noted.

  26. 26
    asauber says:

    “So, Asauber can’t provide a mathematical model for how ID works. Noted.”

    JVL,

    Of course I can’t. And you can’t present an “unguided” process that results in the human hand.

    Andrew

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Of course I can’t.

    Well done for admitting that.

    And you can’t provide an “unguided” process that results in the human hand.

    What kind of evidence would you accept?

  28. 28
    asauber says:

    “What kind of evidence would you accept?”

    JVL,

    I accept all evidence. I don’t consider just-so stories as “scientific”.

    Andrew

    PS All these years of waiting, it’s finally going to happen! lol 😉

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I accept all evidence. I don’t consider just-so stories as “scientific”.

    So, if a transition takes a few million years, what kind of evidence would convince you?

  30. 30
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Firstly, you don’t know that your statement is true.

    Give me a detailed explanation of their teachings, if you’re claiming to have studied them.
    If not, you haven’t even looked at the evidence of the mathematical models given but claimed there are none.

  31. 31
    asauber says:

    “So, if a transition takes a few million years, what kind of evidence would convince you?”

    JVL,

    This is not a thought project for me to answer a series of hypotheticals. If you have what you consider robust evidence, let’s have it.

    Andrew

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    So, if a transition takes a few million years, what kind of evidence would convince you?

    Show me what new features appeared in the equivalent of a million human years time (40,000 generations) in Lenski’s bacteria.

  33. 33
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Give me a detailed explanation of their teachings, if you’re claiming to have studied them. If not, you haven’t even looked at the evidence of the mathematical models given but claimed there are none.

    I have looked at Dr Dembski’s mathematics regarding ID and it’s purely a justification that ID exists not how it works. If I am wrong then provide an explanation or link regarding any and all work explaining how ID works. And I will concede if I am incorrect.

    Show me what new features appeared in the equivalent of a million human years time (40,000 generations) in Lenski’s bacteria.

    Not the same thing though is it? That’s like saying dog years count as human years.

    You tell me: what evidence would you accept that human hands arose through a process of unguided evolution and then we’ll go from there.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL at 22: “Ah but right now the topic is: what mathematical models are there for ID? Let’s decide on that first shall we?”

    Well actually the topic is that the way that Darwinists mathematically use the word ‘chance’ is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with the word miracle.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748314

    JVL’s subsequent claim that, “when they (Darwinists) say something happened ‘by chance’ they mean it was unpredicted or unpredictable”, did nothing whatsoever to mitigate the devastating criticism against Darwin’s theory in that the way in which Darwinists mathematically use the word ‘chance ‘is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with the word miracle. (Pauli)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748325

    JVL, realizing that he could not refute the “chance’ equals miracle’ criticism, shifted from trying to defend Darwinism to denying that ID had a mathematical basis.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748333

    JVL was then shown to be wrong in his claim that ID had no mathematical basis.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748336

    Now, after being shown to be wrong in his claim about ID, JVL refuses to accept the mathematical models for ID as being valid. And refuses to tell us why he doesn’t believe them to be valid, and demand that we personally explain the math of ‘conservation of information ‘to him in our own words.

    To spell it all out for you JVL, this is ‘desperation’ on your part, not a reasoned debate.

    Well whatever. You can’t force someone to be reasonable if they don’t want to be reasonable.

    Anyways JVL, if you ever want to be reasonable, and even dive into the math of ‘conservation of information’ yourself, here is their website and papers. Read through them at your leisure. I am sure one or more of the authors will be more than willing to explain any mathematical details to you that you don’t understand

    Evoinfo
    https://www.evoinfo.org/index.html

    The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search
    William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information
    William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success
    William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search
    William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism
    Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information
    George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle
    Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II
    Biological Information – New Perspectives,
    Cornell University (World Scientific, Singapore, 2013) R.J. Marks II, M.J. Behe, W.A. Dembski, B.L. Gordon, J.C. Sanford, Editors
    Climbing the Steiner Tree—Sources of Active Information in a Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Euclidean Steiner Tree Problem
    Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II
    Time and Information in Evolution
    Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, and Robert J. Marks II
    Time and Information in Evolution
    Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, and Robert J. Marks II
    Conservation of Information in Relative Search Performance
    Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations
    William F. Basener and John C. Sanford
    Conservation of Information in Coevolutionary Searches
    Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II
    Observation of Unbounded Novelty in Evolutionary Algorithms is Unknowable
    Eric Holloway and Robert J. Marks II
    Mode hunting through active information
    Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón, Juan Pablo Sáenz, J. Sunil Rao, and Jean-Eudes Dazard
    https://www.evoinfo.org/publications.html

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    Asauber: This is not a thought project for me to answer a series of hypotheticals. If you have what you consider robust evidence, let’s have it.

    If you can’t answer my queries then so be it.

    Okay, so Asauber cannot provide a mathematical model for how ID works. AND he cannot specify what kind of evidence he would find convincing that unguided evolutionary processes are adequate. Noted.

  36. 36
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Over and over and over again I hear: unguided evolution is not a science, you don’t have a mathematical model for it. I am asking: do you have a mathematical model for ID?

    What’s good to see here is that you’re saying: “Yes, you’re right. Unguided science does not have a mathematical model to support it.” — you then turn that around and attack ID.
    That’s ok. You’re illustrating the poverty of evolutionary theory but trying to defend it by attacking ID instead.
    You may say, “you’re attacking evolution because ID theory is weak and cannot be defended” – but no. We attack evolution because if that worldview falls, then there’s a level playing field so we can match the claims of ID vs evolution against each other. As it stands, the evolutionary world claims the higher scientific value.
    Thankfully, you’re pointing out that it’s not the case.

  37. 37
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    I’m shocked and dismayed that you are evading presenting what I asked for. 😉

    Andrew

  38. 38
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77

    Good lord, you just don’t get it do you? I’m not asking for a mathematical justification for ID existing, I’m asking for a mathematical model for how ID works regarding the development of life on Earth!!

    I do not understand why you keep on arguing about something you clearly do not understand.

    Here is their website and papers. Read through them at your leisure. I am sure one or more of the authors will be willing to explain any mathematical details to you that you don’t understand

    No, you pick one that mathematically models how ID works. Give it your best shot.

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I’m shocked and dismayed that you are evading presenting what I asked for. ?

    I asked my question first and you haven’t been able to answer it. Funny that. Not so funny that you can’t even admit it.

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: What’s good to see here is that you’re saying: “Yes, you’re right. Unguided science does not have a mathematical model to support it.” — you then turn that around and attack ID.

    No, I did not say unguided evolution does not have some mathematical models to support it. You are deflecting your inability to provide mathematical models for how ID works. But we can see what you are doing.

    You may say, “you’re attacking evolution because ID theory is weak and cannot be defended” – but no. We attack evolution because if that worldview falls, then there’s a level playing field so we can match the claims of ID vs evolution against each other. As it stands, the evolutionary world claims the higher scientific value.

    hahahahahahhaahh You still haven’t provided a mathematical model for how ID works in the development of life on Earth. You are trying really hard to dance away from that but it’s pretty clear that there is a gaping hole in your ‘better’ explanation.

    Why don’t you just admit that there is no clear and objective mathematical model for how ID works? Isn’t that the honest and mature thing to do?

  41. 41
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    Since you are representative of the Evolutionist Community’s Finest, I thought for sure you could and would present your community’s finest science on the development of the human hand. Alas…

    Andrew

  42. 42
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    We can create irreducibly complex structures through the use of intelligent design. So, now it needs to be shown that blind, unintelligent forces can produce the same.
    Mathematical simulations were studied and the claim falsified. So the ID inference stands.

    Winston Ewert, “Complexity in Computer Simulations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2014 (1).
    Computer scientist Winston Ewert reviews the literature claiming to evolve irreducible
    complexity through evolutionary computer simulations and finds that “Behe’s concept
    of irreducible complexity has not been falsified by computer models.” After reviewing
    the models, including Avida, Ev, Steiner trees, geometric model, digital ears, and Tierra,
    Ewert finds that in many cases, the “parts” that compose the irreducibly complex
    systems are “too simple,” in that the programs are designed such that systems which
    the programs deem “functional” are very likely to evolve. “Almost all of the cases of
    proposed irreducible complexity consist of parts simple enough that a system of several
    components could be produced by chance, acting without selection. As such, they fail to
    demonstrate that their models can evolve irreducibly complex systems, especially on
    the scale of biological complexity,” he writes. This leads to a conundrum for
    evolutionary theorists. Since “Darwinian evolution is an ateleological process,” this
    means that “If a model is designed to assist the evolution of an irreducibly complex
    system, it is not a model of Darwinian evolution” and “Any decision in the construction
    of a model made with an eye towards enabling the evolution of irreducible complexity
    invalidates the model.” Ewert finds that this is precisely where many of these models
    fail. In the one case that a truly irreducibly complex system was found in a program, he
    found it was “designed as part of the ancestor used to seed the … simulation,” and thus
    did not actually evolve. According to Ewert’s analysis, computational attempts to explain
    the evolution of irreducible complexity have “failed on a number of fronts”

  43. 43
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bibliographic and Annotated List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design

    Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the
    functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical
    Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
    This article devises a method of measuring the functional sequence complexity of
    proteins, which in turn permits “distinguishing between order, randomness, and
    biological function.” The authors suggest that “If genes can be thought of as information
    processing subroutines, then proteins can be analyzed in terms of the products of
    information interacting with laws of physics.” The metric of functional sequence
    complexity advanced by these authors is highly similar to the notion of complex and
    specified information.

  44. 44
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Why don’t you just admit that there is no clear and objective mathematical model for how ID works?

    You said “But ID has no variables and no mathematical models. Go figure.”
    In the three words you added above to adjust that, can you see how we helped you change your mind?
    It’s good, JVL – you’re learning something.

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Since you are representative of the Evolutionist Community’s Finest, I thought for sure you could and would present your community’s finest science on the development of the human hand. Alas…

    And I thought you could do a simple thing and provide a mathematical model for how ID works in the development of life on Earth. But you can’t.

    By the way, if you are really interested in the mathematical models for unguided evolution they are not that hard to find:

    Mathematical modeling of evolution. Solved and open problems

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20809365/

    Mathematical Modeling of Evolution: Volume 1: One-Locus and Multi-Locus Theory and Recombination

    https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110615456/html

    This article develops a general mathematical stochastic model of lineage evolution and provides a method for testing its adequacy as an explanation of the number of lineages or clans found in a particular social unit.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249732189_A_mathematical_model_of_lineage_evolution

    A mathematical model of marine bacteriophage evolution

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171661

    Oh, sorry, I’m making you look foolish. My apologies.

  46. 46
    asauber says:

    “And I thought you could do a simple thing and provide a mathematical model”

    JVL,

    Why would you think I know about mathematical models?

    I guess I am mistaken that you know anything about the “unguided” evolution of the human hand.

    I’ll ask someone else.

    Andrew

  47. 47
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: We can create irreducibly complex structures through the use of intelligent design. So, now it needs to be shown that blind, unintelligent forces can produce the same.
    Mathematical simulations were studied and the claim falsified. So the ID inference stands.

    Again and again and again you miss the point. I am not asking for a mathematical justification for the existence of ID; I am asking for a mathematical model for how ID plays out in the development of life on Earth. IF you don’t get the question then stop trying to answer.

    Bibliographic and Annotated List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design

    Stop answering a question I am not asking!!

    In the three words you added above to adjust that, can you see how we helped you change your mind? It’s good, JVL – you’re learning something.

    I haven’t learned anything. You haven’t explain how ID actually works during the development of life, you haven’t provided a mathematical model for how ID works, you keep answering a different question which I haven’t asked.

    If you don’t know something then just say so. You are looking increasingly foolish trying to answer questions that were not asked.

  48. 48
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Why would you think I know about mathematical models?

    I don’t want to assume anything about you and your background or abilities. But you’ve admitted you don’t know of any mathematical model for how ID works and I think you for that admission.

    I guess I am mistaken that you know anything about the “unguided” evolution of the human hand.

    I didn’t say that. I just wanted to finish the first point first. Which we have done: you do not know of a way to mathematically model ID regarding biological development.

    I’ll ask someone else.

    I’ll ask you again: what kind of evidence would you accept? Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind?

  49. 49
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    I’ll ask someone else.

    Andrew

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL “Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind (about Darwinian evolution)?”

    Sure, and you can pocket 10 million dollars in the process, (not to mention a Nobel prize).

    Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – Jan, 2020
    An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.
    ,,, “A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    Seeing that there are multiple overlapping codes in the cell, and you believe that unguided material processes created them all, then proving that unguided material processes can create coded information ought to be a piece of cake for you.

    Or not 🙂

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].

    38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142.
    39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432.
    40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654.
    41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997.
    42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816.
    43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589.

    Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I’ll ask someone else.

    Gosh, I guess you don’t know or won’t say what kind of evidence would change your mind. Which brings up another question: is it possible that any evidence would change your mind?

    Shall we work on that?

    If no evidence would change your mind then are you being scientific?

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information.

    And what kind of proof would you accept? Give me an example of some kind of evidence that you would accept as having established the case.

  53. 53
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    I haven’t learned anything.

    You claimed: “ID has no variables and no mathematical models.”

  54. 54
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Give me an example of some kind of evidence that you would accept as having established the case.

    What do you think Lenski was trying to prove with his 30 year experiment with bacteria?

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL 52:

    HUH? Do you, besides being desperately unreasonable, also have a reading comprehension issue?

    JVL “Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind (about Darwinian evolution)?”

    Sure, and you can pocket 10 million dollars in the process, (not to mention a Nobel prize).

    Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information.,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748377

  56. 56
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: You claimed: “ID has no variables and no mathematical models.”

    I have not seen a mathematical model (including variables) regarding how ID works regarding the development of life on Earth. You, and others, keep waving around arguments for why ID is a valid argument but you’ve provided NOTHING about how it works. But you keep trying and trying to get me to accept something which you have not provided.

    What is the problem? Why do you keep trying to answer a question I’m not asking????

    What do you think Lenski was trying to prove with his 30 year experiment with bacteria?

    What are you saying? Please be clear: what kind of evidence would you accept? Not what don’t you accept, what kind of evidence would you accept? Is that so hard to understand?

  57. 57
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    I am not asking for a mathematical justification for the existence of ID; I am asking for a mathematical model for how ID plays out in the development of life on Earth.

    Ok, fair enough. However, you’re asking for something that ID does not claim to show.
    What ID is attempting is to show that it exists. So, the first part of your statement – yes. If ID exists, then the theory is validated.
    How life played out on earth is not something ID theory has proposed an answer for. So, it’s unreasonable to ask that.

  58. 58
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    You, and others, keep waving around arguments for why ID is a valid argument but you’ve provided NOTHING about how it works.

    You’re right, I was missing your question here. You’re looking for something that ID does not attempt to show. The theory does not propose a solution to that problem. It has a limited focus – only that certain aspects of nature are best described as the product of intelligent design. In other words, we have evidence that intelligence was involved.
    How, when, where and who was the intelligence – those are not part of the theory.
    Scientific theories work that way. They attempt to show one thing, not every possible thing.

  59. 59
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: HUH? Do you, besides being desperately unreasonable, also have a reading comprehension issue?

    I keep asking: do you have a mathematical model for how ID acts in the development of life on Earth. You keep NOT answering that question and posting lots of stuff which has nothing to do with the question.

    Why not just be mature and honest and admit you haven’t got such a model instead of dancing and dodging away?

  60. 60
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Please be clear: what kind of evidence would you accept? Not what don’t you accept, what kind of evidence would you accept?

    I gave you an example with the randomized text. If you could show that, I’d be convinced in the power of blind, unintelligent matter to produce complex, semantic meaning.
    That’s a very minor challenge to meet, given what is claimed for blind material processes.

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, the entire “mathematical” point of ‘conservation of information’ is that immaterial, intelligent, minds, can create functional information at will, WHENEVER they so desire to do so.
    Material processes cannot not do so. PERIOD. Even if given the entire 14 billion year history, and the entire probabilistic resources, of the entire universe.

    If fact, every time you yourself, via your free will, choose to write a simple sentence you are providing direct evidence that ID is true since the probabilistic resources of the entire material universe are grossly inadequate to explain the simple sentence you yourself chose to write

    All it would take to falsify ID and establish Darwinian evolution as a legitimate science, (instead of the pseudoscience that it actually is) would be one counterexample of unguided material processes creating meaningful information.

    You don’t have any such counterexamples.

  62. 62
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    I keep asking: do you have a mathematical model for how ID acts in the development of life on Earth.

    ID theory never proposed a solution for that problem.
    It’s like asking biology to explain how God created the cosmos. Biology doesn’t address that. Nor does ID.

  63. 63
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Ok, fair enough. However, you’re asking for something that ID does not claim to show.

    FINALLY! WHY did that take so long?

    Why cannot ID provide such a thing?

    What ID is attempting is to show that it exists. So, the first part of your statement – yes. If ID exists, then the theory is validated.

    And, if ID is not a science stopper, then it’s fair to ask how it played out in the development of life is it not?

    How life played out on earth is not something ID theory has proposed an answer for. So, it’s unreasonable to ask that.

    But surely that is the point of being a ‘better’ explanation is it not? That it can explain how life developed in a better way?

    You’re right, I was missing your question here. You’re looking for something that ID does not attempt to show. The theory does not propose a solution to that problem. It has a limited focus – only that certain aspects of nature are best described as the product of intelligent design. In other words, we have evidence that intelligence was involved.

    Again, you spent reply after reply after reply missing my point. Sigh. And, again, why is it not fair to ask of ID to explain how it affected the development of life especially if it purports to be a ‘better’ explanation for that?

    How, when, where and who was the intelligence – those are not part of the theory.
    Scientific theories work that way. They attempt to show one thing, not every possible thing.

    But, is ID a ‘better’ explanation if it cannot addressed how it was implemented and how it affected the development of life on Earth? What is it actually explaining then?

  64. 64
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: I gave you an example with the randomized text. If you could show that, I’d be convinced in the power of blind, unintelligent matter to produce complex, semantic meaning.

    Okay, but since no one is proposing that’s the kind of thing that unguided evolution did then why would I work on that?

    That’s a very minor challenge to meet, given what is claimed for blind material processes.

    Again, that sort of thing is NOT what unguided evolutionary theory is saying happened.

  65. 65
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    But you keep trying and trying to get me to accept something which you have not provided.

    We’re trying to get you to accept that there is evidence that intelligence was involved in the creation of life on earth. We can model what an intelligent process produces and match it against what a blind, unintelligent process produces.
    Then we draw an inference from that.
    We’re only asking you to accept that much evidence and that much of a conclusion – not more.

  66. 66
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, the entire “mathematical” point of ‘conservation of information’ is that immaterial, intelligent, minds, can create functional information at will, WHENEVER they so desire to do so.
    Material processes cannot not do so. PERIOD. Even if given the entire 14 billion year history, and the entire probabilistic resources, of the entire universe.

    That is not answering the question of how ID affected the development of life on Earth.

    All it would take to falsify ID and establish Darwinian evolution as a legitimate science, (instead of the pseudoscience that it actually is) would be one counterexample. You don’t have any such counterexamples.

    Be explicit: what kind of counter-example would you accept as clear and unambiguous evidence?

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever, I’ve got better things to do.

  68. 68
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Again, that sort of thing is NOT what unguided evolutionary theory is saying happened.

    Materialists have to say that sort of thing happened at some point.
    But if you want us to give you life forms already, self-replicating organisms, then you could take the simplest of them and show us, over 40,000 generations (a million human years) a significant increase in new functional complexity. Actually, there’s a lot you could show.
    Why not just give us your best evidence and ask why we don’t accept it?

  69. 69
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: ID theory never proposed a solution for that problem. It’s like asking biology to explain how God created the cosmos. Biology doesn’t address that. Nor does ID.

    What is ID good for if it can’t explain how life developed?

    We’re trying to get you to accept that there is evidence that intelligence was involved in the creation of life on earth.

    I know what you’re trying to get me to accept. I’m trying to figure out if I accept that then where do you go from there? And no one can tell me what comes next.

    We’re only asking you to accept that much evidence and that much of a conclusion – not more.

    And then what? What models do you have? What research agenda do you have? What science is there to do after that?

  70. 70
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Whatever, I’ve got better things to do.

    I’m sure you can spend a lot of time not answering questions. As long as you admit you couldn’t answer the question.

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    I ‘explicitly’ answered the question and you have repeatedly, and very unreasonably, refused to accept the answer

    JVL “Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind (about Darwinian evolution)?”

    Sure, and you can pocket 10 million dollars in the process, (not to mention a Nobel prize).

    Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information.,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748377

    Hence my statement, “Whatever, I’ve got better things to do.” (than argue with an unreasonable troll)

  72. 72
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Materialists have to say that sort of thing happened at some point.

    Why don’t ID proponents have to say the same thing? Time exists, life developed in a certain sequence. Why can’t you address those questions?

    But if you want us to give you life forms already, self-replicating organisms, then you could take the simplest of them and show us, over 40,000 generations (a million human years) a significant increase in new functional complexity. Actually, there’s a lot you could show.

    What if it takes longer than that? Are you just going to call it a day after some arbitrary period? Again, what would you accept as evidence?

    Why not just give us your best evidence and ask why we don’t accept it?

    Because I already know the answer to that! I’m not a recent visitor you know. That’s why I’m asking: what would you accept?

    You’re trying to answer the question but most don’t. Either they don’t know or there isn’t any situation that would change their mind. In which case their position is not scientific.

    Is your position scientific? Is there a reasonable, achievable scenario that would change your mind?

  73. 73
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Be explicit: what kind of counter-example would you accept as clear and unambiguous evidence?

    Behe’s proposal is that evolution cannot produce two mutations required to increase functional information.

    In 2010, research published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, and two other biologists provided empirical backing to the claims of Axe and Behe. Their team started by breaking a gene in the bacterium E. coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the bacteria’s genome was broken in just one place, random mutations were capable of “fixing” the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job.

    You can ask KF also about the limits on fCSI – he has the numbers on that. There is a threshold of increase of information that cannot be surpassed, but which is required for evolution.

  74. 74
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: I answered the question and you have repeatedly, and unreasonably, refused to accept it.

    No, you did not answer the question: can you provide a mathematical model explaining how ID affected the development of life on Earth.

    The sad thing is you never even tried to answer that question. It’s like you didn’t actually even understand the question. You just keep grabbing bits from your database of responses but, sadly for you, I’m asking a question for which you do not have a slew of answers already. So you just grabbed stuff that you hoped was close and/or would put me off. That didn’t work. Now you just look foolish and wrong.

    Would you like to try again: what mathematical model can you provide which shows how ID affected the development of life on Earth?

    If you have none then just say: I can’t do that. Easy peasy. The mature and adult thing to do.

  75. 75
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Because I already know the answer to that!

    Ok, but I don’t know what your best evidence is. Please share it and I’ll let you know – maybe it will change my mind.

    Either they don’t know or there isn’t any situation that would change their mind. In which case their position is not scientific.

    That sounds reasonable. One should know what would refute their theory.

    Is there a reasonable, achievable scenario that would change your mind?

    Is it reasonable to expect 3 simultaneous beneficial mutations? Behe is only looking for two. Keeping in mind, you’re trying to explain the development of all life forms on earth – from bacteria evolving to humans. The waiting time for 2 mutations is prohibitive. But that’s a very low expectation. I’d say there had to be situations where more than 3 beneficial mutations were required to develop certain features.
    If so, that can be projected mathematically. Is there enough time in the history of the universe for that many simultaneous mutations to occur?

  76. 76
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Behe’s proposal is that evolution cannot produce two mutations required to increase functional information.

    Sigh. I do not understand why you cannot answer my questions? What evidence would you accept? AND do you have a mathematical model explaining how ID affected the development of life on Earth?

    You’ve already said you haven’t got the later, why can’t you just simply and clearly addressed the former?

    You can ask KF also about the limits on fCSI – he has the numbers on that. There is a threshold of increase of information that cannot be surpassed, but which is required for evolution.

    I’m asking you! Why is that so hard to understand? What evidence would you accept? Is there any evidence you would accept?

    Ok, but I don’t know what your best evidence is. Please share it and I’ll let you know – maybe it will change my mind.

    I want to know what you would accept first; that’s not an unreasonable request. Why waste time?

    That sounds reasonable. One should know what would refute their theory.

    Exactly. This is taking a very long time.

    Is it reasonable to expect 3 simultaneous beneficial mutations? Behe is only looking for two. Keeping in mind, you’re trying to explain the development of all life forms on earth – from bacteria evolving to humans. The waiting time for 2 mutations is prohibitive. But that’s a very low expectation. I’d say there had to be situations where more than 3 beneficial mutations were required to develop certain features.
    If so, that can be projected mathematically. Is there enough time in the history of the universe for that many simultaneous mutations to occur?

    Right, so narrow that down a bit: specifically, what kind of evidence regarding multiple mutations would you accept?

    It’s late where I live, I’ll reply sometime tomorrow but I need to call it a night now. sorry.

  77. 77
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    what mathematical model can you provide which shows how ID affected the development of life on Earth?

    Can you accept the fact that ID does not propose a solution to that problem?
    It’s like asking: “How does ID identify the nature of the designer of life?”
    That’s not a part of the theory.

  78. 78
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Silver Asiatic
    We’re trying to get you to accept that there is evidence that intelligence was involved in the creation of life on earth. We can model what an intelligent process produces and match it against what a blind, unintelligent process produces.
    Then we draw an inference from that.

    😆 Atheists ask to ID proponents to prove the technology used to create life othewise they don’t believe that ID is scientific. You can’t make this stuff up! You don’t need to prove the technology (because is out of reach for human intelligence) you just need to prove that any form of life has a goal/purpose :TO SURVIVE and use very complex feedback loops/systems that are coordonated and comunicate so as the goal of survivability is accomplished. These evidences are already provided by …the very darwinists . They already identified the purpose and the systems (functional information). Now after darwinists themselves proved ID as scientific it’s time to invalidate ID by proving how functional information can emerge from random processes . Good luck! 😆

  79. 79
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Going back to a previous question – let’s just put this to rest:

    [after one accepts the ID inference] And then what? What models do you have? What research agenda do you have? What science is there to do after that?

    As with any syllogism, you have to accept the first premise before going farther. In this case, you have to sign-on to the ID inference. You can’t say “I reject the idea that there is evidence of intelligence in nature” and then ask “but what comes after that”? You have to show good faith. ID is making a case for one thing, not for everything. Accept the ID inference and then we can talk about what comes after. The fact is, if we’re talking about God or some demi-urge or a deist entity, or a pantheistic force – none of these are the subject of physical sciences since they’re immaterial entities. The topic moves to philosophy at that point.
    ID is a physical science project – it’s talking about observed, material evidence.

    AND do you have a mathematical model explaining how ID affected the development of life on Earth?

    You understand that you cannot model an immaterial entity. ID shows that materialism is false in its claim for the origin of life and of the universe (and even the development of life). If God is the designer of the world, as evidence indicates and many accept, then you’re not going to be successful with mathematical models about what God does or has done. That is the realm of philosophy and theology at that point. You cannot do empirical direct observations on immaterial essences.

    Right, so narrow that down a bit: specifically, what kind of evidence regarding multiple mutations would you accept?

    To start, I’d just look at the mathematics. How many mutations are required in the transition of bacteria to human? Of those, how many simultaneous mutations were required? Taking the ordinary calculations for average mutation rates and the length of time needed for the fixation of beneficial mutations I could evaluate if that proposal is reasonable or not. We’d need to determine first how long it will take for bacteria to evolve into eukaryotes.

  80. 80
    Silver Asiatic says:

    LCD

    you just need to prove that any form of life has a goal/purpose :TO SURVIVE and use very complex feedback loops/systems that are coordonated and comunicate

    That is right because blind, mindless nature has no reason to survive. There would be no reason for the fight for survival or the competition for resources, or to have any meaning at all. Living or non-living they both come from the same blind, unintelligent, meaningless source. The fact that living things seek survival and even protect themselves against death and against harmful mutations (fixing their own cells) is all evidence of an intelligent source.

    I read an interesting argument.
    If you found a rock in a forest in Glastonbury England that was etched with the words “King Arthur stayed here”, it could have been caused by accidental formation on the rock (virtually impossible but it could happen).
    If it did happen that way, there would not be any real semantic information on the rock – because there would be no intention to communicate. There were just scratches and bumps on the rock that spelled those words. But there would be no meaning contained. Nobody could think that the rock had anything to do with King Arthur. The rock would provide no evidence about the life of King Arthur or be any kind of memorial to him – it would be just meaningless scratches that happened to spell words.
    If, however, the words were purposely etched in the rock, there would be tremendous value and meaning to the same rock because it would contain an intelligently designed message and may be evidence of King Arthur’s travels.
    The same is true of the human mind. If it was caused (like the rock was etched) by unintelligent, blind nature – then it could not contain meaning. It would just be like those scratch marks, accidentally looking like something meaningful but no more significant than any other set of scratches.
    The fact that the human mind does interpret semantic information means it must have been created by intelligence.
    This argument has nothing to do with the probability that the information was caused randomly but only that non-intelligent forces cannot confer purpose or meaning.

  81. 81
    Seversky says:

    It’s curious that, on the one hand, the theory of evolution is accused of being unscientific because it isn’t modeled mathematically while, on the other hand, string theory or multiverse theory are also accused of being unscientific because they exist only as mathematical models – and accused by the same people. So which is it?

  82. 82
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/61

    JVL, the entire “mathematical” point of ‘conservation of information’ is that immaterial, intelligent, minds, can create functional information at will, WHENEVER they so desire to do so.

    You appeal to the questionable principle of the conservation of information, which implies that information can be neither created nor destroyed, and in the next breath claim that intelligent, immaterial minds can create what you just said could not be created. I believe this is called a contradiction, Only one of those claims can be true, not both.

  83. 83
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Silver Asiatic
    If you found a rock in a forest in Glastonbury England that was etched with the words “King Arthur stayed here”

    There are few levels of perception that would help us to narrow down the concept of information.
    If a rock is found by a rabbit “King Arthur stayed here” is noise/gibberish/invisible.
    If a rock is found by a Chinese that doesn’t know English “King Arthur stayed here” is recognized as information but doesn’t know the code to decode the meaning of the information.
    If a rock is found by a Chinese that started to learn English “King Arthur stayed here” is recognized as information but let’s say there is one word that the Chinese didn’t learn about yet. We have incomplete information and even as incomplete information we have few levels depending of the importance of that specific word in sentence.
    If a rock is found by an Englishman “King Arthur stayed here” is recognized as information and is decoded corectly finding the meaning.
    If a rock is found by an Englishman “Ki g Arthu stay d here” is recognized as information and his intelligence would help him to repair the missing info.

    Therefore a living cell (that is the Englishman) will survive because knows how to decode the MEANING :the alphabet /letter meaning , the word meaning, the sentence meaning . If he doesn’t have all these keys/rules for decoding can’t decode the information.

  84. 84
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 82, “You appeal to the questionable principle of the conservation of information, which implies that information can be neither created nor destroyed, and in the next breath claim that intelligent, immaterial minds can create what you just said could not be created. I believe this is called a contradiction, Only one of those claims can be true, not both.”

    Seversky, as if you have not noticed, the contradiction lies with your Darwinian materialism, not with my Christian Theism.

    Specifically, the reductive materialistic foundation of your atheistic Darwinian worldview denies the existence of immaterial minds, (as well as denying the existence of immaterial souls which are capable of living beyond the death of material bodies).

    Thus when the law of ‘conservation of information’ points out the obvious fact that material processes are incapable of creating functional and/or meaningful (immaterial) information, (and yet immaterial, intelligent, minds are capable of creating functional and/or meaningful (immaterial) information at will), the ‘law of ‘conservation of information’ is merely pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that it is impossible for “stupid atoms (to) spontaneously write their own software,,, there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”

    “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”
    – Paul Davies, Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999

    Yet Darwinian materialists, in direct contradiction to this common sense fact that it is impossible for “stupid atoms (to) spontaneously write their own software”, hold that ‘stupid atoms’ somehow did write their own software, (and somehow write software that is far, far, more advanced than anything man has ever written in computer code thus far I might add)

    Hence the current 10 million dollar challenge to Darwinian materialists, (and via the law of ‘conservation of information’), i.e. show just one example of coded information that comes from ‘stupid atoms’ and that does not come from an intelligent, immaterial, mind.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – Jan, 2020
    An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.
    ,,, “A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    Verse and Quote:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

    Supplemental note:

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: Definition 2: Existence
    If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter).
    This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,,
    Excerpt: page 5: A:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.
    Excerpt page 7:
    The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf

  85. 85
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    It’s curious that, on the one hand, the theory of evolution is accused of being unscientific because it isn’t modeled mathematically while, on the other hand, string theory or multiverse theory are also accused of being unscientific because they exist only as mathematical models – and accused by the same people. So which is it?

    I don’t think the “is science/is not science” argument is that important overall and I don’t get into it very often. If ID is true, then it doesn’t matter what you call it. People call it “pseudo-science” so they can ignore it, supposedly. But the categorization doesn’t eliminate the argument or the evidence.
    But in any case, answering your question – I think it’s “both”. You have to have the rigorous mathematics along with the empirical evidence. Evolution is lacking the one. String theory the other. Science should have both otherwise it’s just observation (empiricism with no math models) or it’s just abstraction (math with no observations).

  86. 86
    Silver Asiatic says:

    LCD

    All of that is true but I think the point of the argument is that if “King Arthur stayed here” was created by an unintelligent, random cause – then it’s not information at all. It’s just random marks on the rock. There’s no intention to communicate anything, even though it looks like English and it looks like it is saying something about King Arthur. The fact is, the scratches on the rock know nothing about King Arthur. It’s the same as what a rabbit would see there – it looks like words, but it isn’t.
    Of course, it’s statistically impossible for those words to form by random cause, but they could in some remote way – and if so, they’re meaningless, even if you speak English. There’s no connection from the words to the person King Arthur or the place “here” – it’s just random scratches.

  87. 87
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    You’ve already said you haven’t got the later, why can’t you just simply and clearly addressed the former?

    I notice that you switched that up a bit. First you asked if “ID” could show detailed modelling of the development of life on earth. I pointed out that ID doesn’t claim to do that.
    But then in the above, you say that “you” (meaning me, personally) haven’t got it. So, you shifted from “ID” which is a scientific project, to “me”.
    Yes, I could give you my arguments and understanding about God and what He did and does on earth, but that is not the science of ID.

  88. 88
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Silver Asiatic
    All of that is true but I think the point of the argument is that if “King Arthur stayed here” was created by an unintelligent, random cause – then it’s not information at all.

    Yes except is not possible for an unintelligent random cause to “compile” a ghost information that would seem a real information except is not information 😆 Square circle or circle square? This is what darwinists try to do.

Leave a Reply