Asked at Reason Magazine: How much science research is fraudulent?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 12, 2021

Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science}

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

A good deal of discouraging data is offered here:

The possibility that fraud may well be responsible for a significant proportion of the false positives reported in the scientific literature is suggested by a couple of new Dutch studies. Both studies are preprints that report the results of surveys of thousands of scientists in the Netherlands aiming to probe the prevalence of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct.
Summarizing their results, an article in Science notes, “More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, such as hiding flaws in their research design or selectively citing literature. And one in 12 [8 percent] admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: the fabrication or falsification of research results.” Daniele Fanelli, a research ethicist at the London School of Economics, tells Science that 51 percent of researchers admitting to questionable research practices “could still be an underestimate.”
In June, a meta-analysis of prior studies on questionable research practices and misconduct published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics reported that more than 15 percent of researchers had witnessed others who had committed at least one instance of research misconduct (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism), while nearly 40 percent were aware of others who had engaged in at least one questionable research practice.
Ronald Bailey, “How Much Scientific Research Is Actually Fraudulent?” at Reason (July 9, 2021)

Here’s the study in Science.

Let’s remember this when we hear science bureaucrats bellyaching that people don’t “trust the science.” In many cases, they just shouldn’t. Increasingly, it is the smarter public that doesn’t trust the science.

Comments

Seversky,
An ancestor species will differ from a descendent species by whatever criteria we use to define species. If there is no difference between ancestral and descendent forms then there is still only one species.
What I meant was that ANY species can be an ancestor species according to Darwin’s theory, including chipmunks and chihuahuas. But to your point, no. Species found in the fossil record that are identical in phenotype with modern ones are routinely assigned a different species classification by Darwinists, because there musta been other genetic changes over millions of years.
Evolution can only work with the genetic resources available.
Exactly. So, a chipmunk can be an ancestor of a chihuahua with enough time, small mutations, and certain changes in the environment. Likewise, the chihuahua can be the ancestor of a chipmunk as well.
If whatever is necessary to specify a chihuahua is not in a chipmunk’s genetic toolkit then the change will not happen.
That’s a good observation, but you’re in disagreement with Darwinism on this point. Any change can happen to a “genetic toolkit” according to Darwinism, even novel body plans by tiny increments.
If the right mutations occur to give the chipmunk the missing pieces then it would become possible although it would still need the right environment to bring them into play.
Yes, exactly. And with exactly the right environment, it would not only be possible, but inevitable according to Darwinism.
Although, if a lot of time has passed before that becomes possible, chances are that the chipmunks and chihuahuas in that distant future will not be the same as our present-day chipmunks and chihuahuas.
Yes, of course. The changes occur over millions of years, tiny increments, and exactly the right environmental changes. But the chipmunk is likely to become extinct (as most species have) and under EXACTLY the right conditions only the fittest survivors will become chihuahuas in the future. Or vice versa, under different conditions.
Like I said, it’s possible, given enough time and the right mutations but not very probable.
No, given EXACTLY the right conditions, evolution of chipmunks into chihuahuas is not just possible but inevitable. In fact, if fossils of chipmunks are found, then Darwinists may well come to the conclusion that chipmunks are “living fossils” and that chihuahuas actually evolved from them. They will claim that the fact no one has actually found transitions between chipmunks and chihuahuas doesn’t mean that such transitional forms won’t be found in the future. But until then, Darwinists will remind us that relatively few species have been found in the fossil record. As I’ve previously noted, Darwinism it extremely flexible—it can be used to explain anything, but it's not been successful at actually predicting anything. This is why I think it's a lousy theory. When you made your point that something (information) needs to be in an organism's genetic toolkit, it brings up the interesting point of genetic entropy. Information is easily lost from genomes and the lack of genetic diversity dooms many species. That observable fact is significant in that it indicates far more genetic diversity in the past than in the present, which is exactly what the fossil record also indicates. -QQuerius_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

In response to the rather devastating falsification of Darwin's theory, as laid out in post 74, by what is ironically called 'convergent evolution', Seversky offers this following defense,
As usual, both BA77 and Luskin both quietly ignore anything that does not fit in with their anti-evolutionary agenda.
Given the devastating empirical and mathematical falsifications of Darwin's theory that have been elucidated on this very thread, (which Seversky has, for the most part, quietly ignored), the irony is literally dripping off of every word that Seversky wrote. Seversky continues,
It is not hard to envisage a successful species radiating outwards from their home environment into new and different ones, gradually adapting to these new homes to the point where they become separate species. In other words, we would see divergent evolution.
Well sure it is not hard imagine 'unlimited plasticity' of species to be feasible. When I was boy I could easily imagine myself jumping to the moon. But scientifically proving that it is possible to transmutate one species into another species is another thing entirely. You simply have no evidence that it is possible,
Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.
Seversky goes on,,
It is also not difficult to imagine different species at different times, when faced with similar environmental challenges, converging on similar solutions, such as the evolution of wings for flight or fins for moving through water.
And "It is also not difficult to imagine" is exactly your problem. Darwinists are master story tellers who can imagine any 'just-so story' they need to imagine in order to explain any biological structure they wish to explain. What they always forget to do when they are constructing their imaginary 'just-so-stories' is to include any actual empirical evidence that what they are imagining to be true has any actual correspondence to reality.
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 “... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES? Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.?Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes:?“Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe - Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
Seversky finishes with this,
I understand that paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, a Christian and theistic evolutionist, is a strong proponent of convergent evolution.
Yes, and it also true that Simon Conway Morris is at least honest enough to admit, unlike you, that 'convergent evolution' presents a major problem for Darwin's theory. Specifically, he stated that the "fossil evidence demands a radical rewriting of evolution.,,,"
"Paleobiologist Professor Simon Conway Morris says that examination of the fossil evidence demands a radical rewriting of evolution.,,, The idea is this: that convergence – the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems – is not just part of evolution, but a driving force. To say this is an unconventional view would be something of an understatement." - Stephen Wilson, “Rethinking evolution,” Cambridge Alumni Magazine. - 2012 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/simon-conway-morris-fossil-evidence-demands-a-radical-rewriting-of-evolution/
But alas for Morris, there will never be a 'radical rewriting of evolution'. And as long as Morris doesn't make too many waves, and points out that widespread 'convergent evolution' actually falsifies Darwinian evolution, Darwinists will be all too willing to tolerate him. (Just like they tolerated Stephen Jay Gould and 'punctuated equilibrium). That's the nature of the game. You are allowed to question certain aspects of Darwin's theory, but you are never allowed to question the validity of Darwin's theory itself. If you dare cross that line you will be, in all likelihood, "Expelled".
Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality. Scott Minnich Richard Sternberg Günter Bechly Eric Hedin Don McDonald David Coppedge Caroline Crocker Bryan Leonard Martin Gaskell Dean Kenyon Roger DeHart Granville Sewell https://freescience.today/stories/ Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/
bornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

seversky is confused as mutations are not the driving force for the evolution of new body plans. It is impossible to get a chipmunk from a chihuahua via genetic modification. Just like you cannot walk to the Moon. If evolution relies on differential accumulations of genetic changes then universal common descent is still born.ET_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Querius/79
There’s no difference between a species and its most recent common ancestor–they are both species that have adapted to their environment. But one of them evolved into the other by tiny steps due to slow changes in its original environment.
An ancestor species will differ from a descendent species by whatever criteria we use to define species. If there is no difference between ancestral and descendent forms then there is still only one species. Separate descendent species might split off from the ancestral line which continues unchanged. One or more separate descendent species might split off and follow their separate evolutionary pathways while the ancestral line goes extinct for some reason.
Since there’s a very broad spectrum of species in our biosphere, what prevents any given species from evolving to any other species given enough time and the necessary changes in environment?
Evolution can only work with the genetic resources available. If whatever is necessary to specify a chihuahua is not in a chipmunk's genetic toolkit then the change will not happen. If the right mutations occur to give the chipmunk the missing pieces then it would become possible although it would still need the right environment to bring them into play. Although, if a lot of time has passed before that becomes possible, chances are that the chipmunks and chihuahuas in that distant future will not be the same as our present-day chipmunks and chihuahuas.
Thus, is it inevitable that starting with chipmunks today, chihuahuas can be made to evolve from them under the right conditions? Or vice versa?
Like I said, it's possible, given enough time and the right mutations but not very probable.Seversky_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/74
Since Seversky left this particular falsification of Darwin’s theory unaddressed,,,,
6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species

As usual, both BA77 and Luskin both quietly ignore anything that does not fit in with their anti-evolutionary agenda. It is not hard to envisage a successful species radiating outwards from their home environment into new and different ones, gradually adapting to these new homes to the point where they become separate species. In other words, we would see divergent evolution. It is also not difficult to imagine different species at different times, when faced with similar environmental challenges, converging on similar solutions, such as the evolution of wings for flight or fins for moving through water. I understand that paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, a Christian and theistic evolutionist, is a strong proponent of convergent evolution.Seversky_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Seversky, This "obsession" is fundamental to Darwinism. There's no difference between a species and its most recent common ancestor--they are both species that have adapted to their environment. But one of them evolved into the other by tiny steps due to slow changes in its original environment. Since there's a very broad spectrum of species in our biosphere, what prevents any given species from evolving to any other species given enough time and the necessary changes in environment? Thus, is it inevitable that starting with chipmunks today, chihuahuas can be made to evolve from them under the right conditions? Or vice versa? -QQuerius_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Querius/77
Oh, and Seversky still hasn’t responded to the question in #72:
Can a chihuahua be selectively bred from a chipmunk, given enough time and mutations?

I have no idea. My guess is that it's highly improbable although, given enough time and mutations, not impossible. So what's this obsession with chipmunks and chihuahuas all about?Seversky_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Oh, and Seversky still hasn't responded to the question in #72:
Can a chihuahua be selectively bred from a chipmunk, given enough time and mutations?
-QQuerius_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Consider the amazing body plan of a sea star for example. Radial symmetry with an open, hydraulic circulatory system that uses sea water for its "blood. It has light sensitive eye spots at the end of each of its arms. It uses its sucker feet in ranks that work or rest to be able to keep up the pressure on its bivalve prey. Where is its body plan and are its behaviors stored? -QQuerius_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Querius- seeing that DNA does not determine biological form, changes to DNA cannot produce different body plans. Evolutionism is still born and evos are too stupid to grasp that fact. They don't have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. So they ignore the facts and prattle on like a bunch of desperate losers.ET_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Since Seversky left this particular falsification of Darwin's theory unaddressed,,,,
6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.
Since Seversky left this particular falsification of Darwin's theory unaddressed, I am forced to defend it minus any input that he may have provided as to why this should not be considered a major falsification of Darwin's theory. As Casey Luskin observed, "the main assumption underlying all phylogenetic trees is that biological similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor.",,, "Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,,"
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry - Casey Luskin - February 9, 2015 Excerpt: In Problem 6 of this series, we saw that the main assumption underlying all phylogenetic trees is that biological similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. The problem for evolutionary biologists faced with conflicting evolutionary trees is that biological similarity often appears in places not predicted by common descent. In other words, everyone recognizes that biological similarities often appear among species in cases where they cannot be explained as the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. This means the main assumption fails. We also saw at the end of Problem 6 that when biologists are unable to construct phylogenetic trees, they often make ad hoc appeals to other processes to explain away data that won’t fit a treelike pattern. One of these explanations is convergent evolution, where evolutionary biologists postulate that organisms acquire the same traits independently, in separate lineages, and not through inheritance from a common ancestor. Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature, but a few will suffice.,,, Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that biological similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And in the many cases where it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption rarely questioned is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. But perhaps the reason why different genes are telling different evolutionary stories is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_7_conve/
And as Günter Bechly noted, "One of the most essential doctrines of Darwinian evolution, apart from universal common descent with modification, is the notion that complex similarities indicate homology and are ordered in a congruent nested pattern that facilitates the hierarchical classification of life.",,, ",,,We can safely conclude: it is an epic myth, willingly perpetuated by evolutionary biologists, that the similarities between organisms mostly fall in a hierarchic pattern of nested groups and thus suggest common ancestry and indicate phylogenetic relationship. In reality this claim is contradicted by a flood of incongruences and reticulate patterns that shed doubt on fundamental paradigms of evolutionary biology like the notions of homology and common descent."
Extinct Four-Eyed Monitor Lizard Busts Myth of a Congruent Nested Hierarchy - Günter Bechly - April 23, 2018 Excerpt: One of the most essential doctrines of Darwinian evolution, apart from universal common descent with modification, is the notion that complex similarities indicate homology and are ordered in a congruent nested pattern that facilitates the hierarchical classification of life. When this pattern is disrupted by incongruent evidence, such conflicting evidence is readily explained away as homoplasies with ad hoc explanations like underlying apomorphies (parallelisms), secondary reductions, evolutionary convergences, long branch attraction, and incomplete lineage sorting. When I studied in the 1980s at the University of Tübingen, where the founder of phylogenetic systematics, Professor Willi Hennig, was teaching a first generation of cladists, we still all thought that such homoplasies are the exceptions to the rule, usually restricted to simple or poorly known characters. Since then the situation has profoundly changed. Homoplasy is now recognized as a ubiquitous phenomenon (e.g., eyes evolved 45 times independently, and bioluminiscence 27 times; hundreds of more examples can be found at Cambridge University’s “Map of Life” website).,,, ,,, We can safely conclude: it is an epic myth, willingly perpetuated by evolutionary biologists, that the similarities between organisms mostly fall in a hierarchic pattern of nested groups and thus suggest common ancestry and indicate phylogenetic relationship. In reality this claim is contradicted by a flood of incongruences and reticulate patterns that shed doubt on fundamental paradigms of evolutionary biology like the notions of homology and common descent. This inconvenient conflicting evidence is explained away with a pile of ad hoc hypotheses, correlated with more and more contrived and implausible evolutionary scenarios. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/extinct-four-eyed-monitor-lizard-busts-myth-of-a-congruent-nested-hierarchy/
And as Bernard d'Abrera bluntly put the situation for Darwinists, "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.,,,"
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/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html?
As Casey Luskin and Gunter Bechly pointed out, 'convergent evolution', far from being a (very) rare occurrence, (as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions), is now found to be a widespread, even a common, occurrence. Here are a few examples of just how widespread this unexpected 'convergent evolution' pattern is.
Claims about convergent evolution are absurd _ Feb. 2017 1. C4 photosynthesis. According to 'science' it has evolved 60 times independently. Scientists have not succeeded in building an autonomous photosynthesis system. But evolution has done this for 60 times! Seems to be easy! 2. Eye 35 times. Think about the complex mechanism and signaling pathways that are connected with brain. And according to 'science' humans and squids evolved same eyes using same genes. What a coincidence! 3. Giving birth, 150 times. Piece of cake for evolution. Very convincing. 4. Carnivorous plants. Nitrogen-deficient plants have in at least 7 distinct times become carnivorous. 5. Hearing. 30 times. Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene. What a surprise! (Do they really think that one gene is sufficient for developing a sonar ability?) 6. Bioluminescence is quite a mystery for science. According to darwinists it has independently evolved even 27 times! 7. Magnetite for orientation, magnetically charged particles of magnetite for directional sensing have been found in unrelated species of salmon, rainbow trout, some butterflies and birds. 8. Electric organ in some fishes. 6 times. Independently from each other. Sure. 9. Parthenogenesis. Some lizards, insects, fishes and rodents are able to reproduce asexually, without males. Etc.. etc.. etc.. http://sciencerefutesevolution.blogspot.fi/2017/02/claims-about-convergent-evolution-are.html
As Gunter Bechly mentioned, convergent evolution directly challenges the 'hierarchical classification of life" which is the main, core, assumption that lies behind the Darwinian belief in universal common descent. And Winston Ewert' used the breakdown in "the hierarchical classification of life" at the genetic level to provide a (very) powerful falsification of Darwin's theory.
The Dependency Graph of Life - Winston Ewert INTRODUCTION Darwin cited the hierarchical classification of life as evi- dence for his theory [1], and the classification has con- tinued to be cited as a central prediction of evolutionary theory [2]. However, modern research, especially in the area of molecular data, has complicated this picture. Prokaryotes do not fit a hierarchical scheme, leading Doolittle [3, p. 2226] to state: “Indeed, for prokaryotes, molecular data have falsified the [tree of life] hypothesis.” Even amongst more complex lifeforms, data exist which are not congruent with the hierarchical pattern [4–8]. Some push for embracing a view of evolution no longer constrained by the tree of life [9]. Those who do not consider the tree of life falsified nevertheless hold to a modified version of it. Mechanisms have been added to explain deviations from the hierarchy such as horizon- tal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, differential gene loss, gene resurrection, gene flow, and convergent evolution.,,, CONCLUSIONS Explaining the approximate nested hierarchy has been a long standing challenge to common design. No account of this pattern has achieved widespread acceptance amongst those holding to common design. We have proposed a novel explanation, the dependency graph. The predic- tions of the dependency graph hypothesis set out in this paper have been shown to be correct. The biological data was a better fit to a dependency graph than to a tree. The data produced by a simulated process of common descent was a better fit to a tree than to a dependency graph. The data produced by a compiler was both a better fit to a dependency graph than a tree, and a better fit to a tree than to the null model. The inferred biological dependency graphs contained were not simply the tree of life with a few additions, but instead contained many additional modules. https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3/BIO-C.2018.3
In the following article, Cornelius Hunter explains, for the lay audience, just how devastating Winston Ewert's results actually are to Darwin's theory,
New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/
Thus in conclusion, although Seversky did not address this particular falsification of Darwin's theory that I had listed, hopefully, (with the defense that I have now provided for the claim that I had made), the general reader can now easily see for himself that this is indeed yet another powerful falsification of a primary, even a core, presupposition of Darwin's theory.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to the good.
bornagain77_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Seversky, I noticed that you did not address this particular falsification of Darwin's theory that I had listed
6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.
Care to try to address it? Of note:
Darwinism vs. Falsification - list and defence of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
bornagain77_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Can a chihuahua be selectively bred from a chipmunk, given enough time and mutations?
Seversky? Hello? -QQuerius_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Seversky, in his response, also pretended as if the illegitimate use of teleological language by Darwinists in their biological research will be resolved one day. I simply note that he is 'not even wrong' in his belief. In fact, it turns out that it is the 'language of evolution' itself that can be readily jettisoned from, and/or replaced in, research papers without negatively effecting the scientific research of the papers. As the late Philip Skell pointed out, "In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core."
"In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005? No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? - December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/
Whereas, on the other hand, teleological language cannot be sacrificed from research papers without negatively effecting the research of the papers. J.B.S. Haldane himself admitted as much, "Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
"Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane
In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, "pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness(i.e. teleology)"
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
Denis Noble also notes that "it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language".
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” - Denis Noble - Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble's assessment and states, "in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them."
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011 Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/
Thus, directly contrary to what Seversky claimed, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas 'evolutionary language' is found to be a superficial narrative gloss that can be readily stripped away from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers. In summary, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are describing their biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
And finally, Seversky finishes his attempt to address all the falsifications of Darwin's theory that I have listed with this summation of his position,
Your problem is that, while there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, none of the objections listed above, especially those of more tangential relevance, taken either singly or together, amount to anything like irrefutable falsification of the theory of evolution.
Actually, the falsifications of Darwin's theory are all quite strong individually. En masse they are simply completely devastating. Moreover, many of the falsifications are from Charles Darwin's own mouth. And many of the falsifications go to the very core of Darwin's theory and falsify Darwin's theory at the very foundation of its naturalistic, theoretical, construct. Your problem Seversky is that there is simply no criteria of falsification for Darwin's theory that you are ever willing to personally accept that would ever falsify your 'beloved' theory in your eyes. i.e. No matter what the empirical evidence says that contradicts your theory, you will always ignore the empirical falsifications of your theory since the alternative, i.e. God, (as you have falsely conceived Him to be an evil tyrant in your imagination), is simply unacceptable in your book. In that sense of refusing to listen to reason, and/or to ever accept any falsifying evidence against your naturalistic theory, you are, for all intents and purposes, far more religious, and far more dogmatic in your beliefs, than the most ardent of fundamentalist Christians. Which is really quite ironic since you rant against fundamentalist Christians quite regularly here on UD. Don't take my word for it. The recently departed Richard Lewontin himself, (Harvard), honestly admitted that Darwinists are far more dogmatic, even religious, in their beliefs than they ought to be, (especially considering that Darwin's theory is a supposedly 'scientific' theory that is suppose to be held only tentatively, not dogmatically),
"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 - "Billions and Billions of Demons" - 1997 “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” - Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Quote and Song
"So numberless a multitude, and so great a variety of birds, beasts, fishes, reptiles, herbs, shrubs, trees, stones, metals, minerals, stars, and everyone of them plentifully furnished and endowed with all the qualifications requisite to the attainment of the respective ends of its creation, are productions of a wisdom too limitless not to be peculiar to God: ... which do all of them deserve that extensive exclamation of the Psalmist, “How manifold are thy works, 0 Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all.”" [Psalm 104:24] - Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), father of experimental chemistry Hillsong United - Lord of Lords - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFkY5-Xp710
bornagain77_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Next Seversky tries to address the falsification of Darwin's theory from the fact that it is impossible for Evolutionary Biologists to do their research without constantly, and illegitimately, invoking words that directly imply teleology, (i.e. goal directed purpose). In other words, it is impossible for Darwinists to do biological research without using words that directly imply Intelligent Design. I claimed,
Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Seversky responded thusly,
The difficulty of explaining scientific concepts in non-teleological terms most probably arises from humans, being social animals, having evolved languages originally to explain and describe the activities of purposive agents like human beings and other animals. The need for non-teleological terminology is a much more recent requirement. While it is possible, with some difficulty, to formulate accounts using a non-teleological vocabulary, it is all to easy to revert to default teleological forms.
There are a few 'small' glitches in Seversky's belief that the 'problem' of Darwinists inadvertently using teleological language is due to humans "having evolved languages originally to explain and describe the activities of purposive agents like human beings and other animals." "Small" glitch number one. If Darwinian evolution were actually true, then there can be no "purposive agents like human beings",,, i.e. if Darwinian evolution were actually true, you are nothing but a 'meat robot', a 'neuronal illusion', suffering from the illusion that you have the free will that is necessary to direct your life in a meaningful and purposeful way. There simply is no such thing as a 'purposive agent' in Darwinian evolution. 'Agent' is a fiction. Agent causality is simply denied altogether in Darwinian thought.
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne - THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3
Besides 'purposive agents' being a fiction in the Darwinian worldview, the second 'small' glitch in Seversky's belief that the 'problem' of Darwinists illegitimately using teleological language is due to humans "having evolved languages originally to explain and describe the activities of purposive agents like human beings and other animals", is that Darwinists have no evidence whatsoever that humans evolved languages gradually. In 2014, a group of leading "Darwinian' experts in this area of language research, (a veritable who's who list of leading Darwinists), authored a paper in which they honestly admitted that they have "essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
In 2019, Noam Chomsky, (Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT), went on to say, "The human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation. There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.5,,, How far back does language go? There is no evidence of significant symbolic activity before the appearance of anatomically modern humans 200 thousand years ago (kya).22,,, There is no evidence that great apes, however sophisticated, have any of the crucial distinguishing features of language and ample evidence that they do not.48 Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong."
The Siege of Paris - Robert Berwick & Noam Chomsky - March 2019 Excerpt: Linguists told themselves many stories about the evolution of language, and so did evolutionary biologists; but stories, as Richard Lewontin rightly notes, are not hypotheses, a term that should be “reserved for assertions that can be tested.”4 The human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation. There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.5,,, How far back does language go? There is no evidence of significant symbolic activity before the appearance of anatomically modern humans 200 thousand years ago (kya).22,,, There is no evidence that great apes, however sophisticated, have any of the crucial distinguishing features of language and ample evidence that they do not.48 Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong. Recent research reveals that the semantic properties of even the simplest words are radically different from anything in animal symbolic systems.49,,, Why only us?,,, We were not, of course, the first to ask them. We echo in modern terms the Cartesian philosophers Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot, seventeenth-century authors of the Port-Royal Grammar, for whom language with its infinite combinatorial capacity wrought from a finite inventory of sounds was uniquely human and the very foundation of thought. It is subtle enough to express all that we can conceive, down to the innermost and “diverse movements of our souls.” https://inference-review.com/article/the-siege-of-paris Robert Berwick is a Professor in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems at MIT. Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT.
The reason why it is impossible for human language to ever evolve gradually is fairly easy to understand. As the following article states, "It is logically impossible even to reverse-engineer anything that would qualify as a proto-language. Every attempt to do so will turn out secretly to rely on the syntactic and semiotic functions of fully developed human language.”,,,
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “So, for Dennett, language must have arisen out of social practices of communication, rooted in basic animal gestures and sounds in an initially accidental association with features of the environment. Only afterward could these elements have become words, spreading and combining and developing into complex structures of reference. There must then, he assumes, have been “proto-languages” that have since died away, liminal systems of communication filling up the interval between animal vocalizations and human semiotic and syntactic capacities. Unfortunately, this simply cannot be. There is no trace in nature even of primitive languages, let alone proto-languages; all languages possess a full hierarchy of grammatical constraints and powers. And this is not merely an argument from absence, like the missing fossils of all those dragons or unicorns that must have once existed. It is logically impossible even to reverse-engineer anything that would qualify as a proto-language. Every attempt to do so will turn out secretly to rely on the syntactic and semiotic functions of fully developed human language.”,,, – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
The following article offers a bit more detail on why it is logically impossible to evolve languages gradually.
New paper suggests speech developed in a now-familiar form - March 31, 2015 Excerpt: "The hierarchical complexity found in present-day language is likely to have been present in human language since its emergence," says Shigeru Miyagawa, Professor of Linguistics,,, "Since we can find syntax within words, there is no reason to consider them as 'linguistic fossils' of a prior, presyntax stage," Miyagawa adds.,,, Nobrega and Miyagawa write that a single word can be "internally complex, often as complex as an entire phrase," making it less likely that words we use today are descended from a presyntax mode of speech.,,, "Hierarchical structure is present not only in single words, but also in compounds, which, contrary to the claims of some, are not the structureless fossilized form of a prior stage," Miyagawa says. In their paper, Nobrega and Miyagawa hold that the same analysis applies to words in Romance languages that have been described elsewhere as remnants of formless proto-languages.,,, Miyagawa's integration hypothesis is connected intellectually to the work of other MIT scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, who have contended that human languages are universally connected and derive from our capacity for using syntax.,,, http://phys.org/news/2015-03-paper-speech-now-familiar.html
What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, (and have even come to ‘master the planet’, not through brute strength, but through our unique ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates), is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. As Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, succinctly summarized it, "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena."
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." - Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’, not because of brute strength, but precisely because of our unique ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
bornagain77_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Next Seversky tries to address the falsification of Darwin's theory from the fact that Darwin's theory cannot ground the abstract, and immaterial, property of truth. i.e. if Darwin's theory cannot ground the concept of 'truth', then it necessarily follows that Darwin's theory cannot be held as a true concept. I claimed,
Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!
Seversky responded thusly,
Science does not deal in “truth” but in explanations. In the correspondence theory of “truth” the truth-value of an explanation lies in the extent to which it is observed to correspond to the phenomena for which it is intended to provide an account. If you are working with a different theory of truth you need to explain it.
Contrary to Seversky's furious hand-waving exercise, trying to distance science from the search for 'the truth', science deals very much in the search for 'the truth'. The decades long search for the quote-unquote 'theory of everything' proves that point in an over the top fashion. But despite Seversky's disingenuous attempt to distance science from the search for 'the truth', my critique of Darwin's theory, in regards to the existence of truth, is more fundamental and specific to the irresolvable problem that the existence of 'truth' presents to Darwin's theory in particular. Specifically, Darwinian evolution is based on the philosophy of reductive materialism. A philosophy which holds that only matter-energy, space-time, are real and that everything in the universe can be explained by reducing them down to their most basic scientific components, i.e., atoms, molecules, photons, etc.. etc.. Yet 'truth' itself is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence and cannot possibly be reduced to atoms, molecules, photons, etc.. etc.. As UD blogger John_a_designer observed,
"Truth claims are propositional. That is, truth claims are stated in the form of a proposition. But what is a proposition? Where do propositions exist? What do they look like? Where are they located? How much space do they take up? How much do they weigh? How long have they existed? How and where did they originate? Obviously, these questions are absurd because propositions are not physical. But if the physical or material is all that exists as the materialist claims, which is by the way a propositional truth claim, how can such a proposition be true? How can something that doesn’t really exist, as the materialist claims, be true? Obviously that is self-refuting." - John_a_designer
"Truth" is clearly an abstract property, and/or definition, of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. i.e. How much does the concept of 'truth' weigh? Can you put the concept of 'truth' in a test tube? Does the concept of 'truth' give off an electromagnetic spectrum? If so, what are its primary colors? Does the concept of 'truth' weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long is the concept of 'truth' in millimeters? How fast does the concept of 'truth' go? Is the concept of 'truth' faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of 'truth' positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?.. That entire line of questioning is simply nonsensical! Clearly truth is not a material object that we can ever hope to subject to physical measurements. Clearly 'truth' is a property that must be ascertained, solely and exclusively, by an immaterial mind ! The entire concept of "Truth" simply can never be grounded within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution. And as such, that, of logical necessity, precludes Darwinian evolution from being a 'true' worldview. As the old joke goes, "You can't get there from here".
1. For a worldview to possibly be true, it must first be able to ground the concept of truth. 2. Darwinian evolution is completely unable to ground the concept of truth within its reductive materialistic framework. 3. Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be a true worldview.
Of related note, since our immaterial minds can discover 'eternal truths' about being, and yet our own immaterial minds came into being and are, therefore, not eternally existent, then it necessary follows that there must exist an eternal mind in which these eternal truths reside. i.e. for 'eternal truth' to exist, God must necessarily exist!
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God – Peter Kreeft 11. The Argument from Truth This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
And please note that the preceding argument from the existence of eternal truth meshes extremely well with the fact that mathematics itself, via Godel, is now shown to be 'incomplete', i.e. the 'eternal truths' of mathematics are now shown to have a contingent existences, not a necessary existence.
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians There is a Hole at the Bottom of Math - video https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-there-a-hole-at-the-bottom-of-math/
Af supplemental note:
KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser - April 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8--eE
Verse:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

What is so devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement, (and/or quantum information), within "a wide range of important biomolecules', is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a 'spooky' non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” clearly stated the situation with quantum non-locality, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
It is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is physically conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/
So again, these recent experimental findings that prove that quantum information is ubiquitous within molecular biology are of no small importance, in so far as falsifying the materialistic claims of Darwinists, and even offering empirical evidence for a immaterial 'soul' that can, very possibly, live beyond the death of our material bodies, Needless to say, this is VERY good news. Verses:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Just how far is life out of thermodynamic equilibrium?, And just how much information is required to be inputed into a 'system of life' by an 'observer to explain why it is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium? Well, the information content that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be around 10 to the 12 bits,,,
Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm
,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.” Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
Thus since Bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small – about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells. https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html
And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells within the average human body,
Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body – 2016 Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533
Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of all the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of information that is needed to explain why life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. And as the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.
In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017 Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,: [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/
On top of all that, in the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, who specializes in embryology, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that during embryological development ‘positional information’ must somehow be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into their multiple different states during embryological development.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484
To back up Dr. Wells claim that information must be coming into a developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, I appeal to the fact that quantum information is now found to be ubiquitous within life. I've already referenced "Quantum DNA" in this post. But besides DNA, quantum effects are now found to be at play in 'a wide range of important biomolecules'. In the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
To drive this point home, this follow up article (2018) stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,” Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014) bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

The easiest way to prove that information is not ‘physical’, i.e. is not reducible to matter and energy as Rolf Landauer held, is with quantum teleportation. As the following teleportation experiment that was done with atoms found, “scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart,,, information,,, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium.”
First Teleportation Between Distant Atoms – 2009 Excerpt: For the first time, scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart – a significant milestone in the global quest for practical quantum information processing. Teleportation may be nature’s most mysterious form of transport: Quantum information, such as the spin of a particle or the polarization of a photon, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium. It has previously been achieved between photons over very large distances, between photons and ensembles of atoms, and between two nearby atoms through the intermediary action of a third. None of those, however, provides a feasible means of holding and managing quantum information over long distances. Now a team from the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the University of Michigan has succeeded in teleporting a quantum state directly from one atom to another over a substantial distance https://jqi.umd.edu/news/first-teleportation-between-distant-atoms
And as the following experiment that was done with photons found, “the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,”
Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. https://www.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR
Thus, Landauer's belief that information cannot have a 'computer independent' existence that is separate from matter and energy is empirically shown to be wrong! Besides these fairly clear cut experiments in quantum teleportation that establish the 'physical' reality of information that is independent of information's representation on a 'physical', i.e. matter energy, substrate, Advances in quantum information theory provide even further evidence that falsifies Landauer’s, (and the Darwinist's), belief that ‘information is physical’, (i.e. 'physical' in the sense that they mean information cannot exist independently of matter-energy). In establishing this fact, it is first important to note that there is a deep connection between entropy and information. In fact, "The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
“Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…” ?Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]
In fact, "Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
"Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.
Yet now this 'most fundamental unsolved problem in biology' appears to finding a successful resolution. Specifically, in 1997 Christopher Jarzynski, (Professor at University of Maryland's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Department of Physics, and Institute for Physical Science and Technology) formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information. (In other words, the equations of information theory and the second law were successfully brought together by Jarzynski).
Christopher Jarzynski Excerpt: In 1997, he derived an equality, now known as the Jarzynski equality, that relates nonequilibrium fluctuations to equilibrium free energy differences, a result that has been verified in numerous experiments and has found applications in biophysics and computational chemistry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Jarzynski
One of the very first experimental verifications of Jarzynski's equation was the following experiment. In the experiment, and based solely on knowledge of the particle's position, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”
Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
As Jarzynski himself stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
Likewise, in the following 2011 paper, “researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011 Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,, No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
As well, the following 2017 article stated that: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
Again to repeat that last sentence, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.,,,” That statement, for anyone involved the Darwin vs. Intelligent Design debate, should send chills down the scientific spine. That statement is simply completely devastating to the materialistic claims of Darwinists who try to claim that immaterial information is not physically real, but is 'just a metaphor'. In short, immaterial information is now shown to have a 'physical' existence apart from matter and energy, and this immaterial information is also shown to have a 'thermodynamic content'. i.e. Information which is the able raise a system out of thermodynamic equilibrium, via an 'observer' imparting 'positional information' into the system.bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Next Seversky tries to address the falsification of Darwin's theory from the fact that immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinctive physical entity that is not 'emergent' from a material, i.e. matter/energy, basis as is presupposed in Darwin's theory. I claimed,
The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.
Seversky responds thusly,
What is meant by “information” here because it sounds very much like you are equivocating between different usages? What version is being used? You also need to explain how information can be both “immaterial” and a “distinctive physical entity” at one and the same time with out it being a contradiction.
I'm am including, via 'quantum information theory', all definitions of classical information that have been put forth. (i.e. Shannon Information, Functional Information (Szostak), CSI, (Dembski), etc...), Specifically, in quantum information theory, ‘classical’ sequential information, (such as what is encoded on a computer program and DNA, and which lies at the basis of Dembski’s definition of Complex Specified Information (CSI),), is held to be a subset of quantum information. On the following site entitled “Quantum Information Science”, (a site where Charles Bennett, of quantum teleportation and reversible computation fame, himself is on the steering committee),,,,
Quantum Information Science Steering Committee C. H. Bennett IBM D. P. DiVincenzo IBM N. Gershenfeld MIT H. M. Gibbs University of Arizona H. J. Kimble Caltech J. Preskill Caltech U. V. Vazirani UC/Berkeley D. J. Wineland NIST C. Yao Princeton University https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm
On the preceding site, (as their very first illustration), they have this following illustration which shows classical information, (i.e. all definitions of classical information), to be a subset of quantum information
Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif
To clearly get their point across, below that illustration they have this caption,
Figure 1: The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.
To establish the fact that the classical information encoded on a computer is actually a subset of quantum information, in the following video entitled "Information is Quantum" Charles Bennet states, “A classical communications channel is a quantum communication channel with an eavesdropper (maybe only the environment)… A classical computer is a quantum computer handicapped by having eavesdroppers on all its wires.”
Information is Quantum – Charles Bennett – video 39:30 minute mark: “Entanglement is ubiquitous: Almost every interaction between two systems creates entanglement between them… Most systems in nature… interact so strongly with the environment as to become entangled with it almost immediately.”… 44:00 minute mark: “A classical communications channel is a quantum communication channel with an eavesdropper (maybe only the environment)… A classical computer is a quantum computer handicapped by having eavesdroppers on all its wires.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-cunningham-offers-information-is-quantum/
The fact that the classical information that is encoded along the spine of DNA is itself a subset Quantum information is a bit more easier to establish than it was/is for computers. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.
“What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.” Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176
It is also interesting to note that Darwinists have a history of denying the 'independent' physical reality of information in life. Right here on UD, just a few short years ago, I myself have debated Darwinists who have denied that life is even based on information, (as it obviously is and as ID advocates hold), but they have instead held, (unreasonably so I might add), that life was based on quote-unquote 'complicated chemistry'. They even claimed that 'information', as it was applied to life, was 'just a metaphor' and that they could get along just as well without even using the word 'information'. Hubert P. Yockey himself, (who worked under Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project), had to defend against the unreasonable Darwinian claim that information, as it is applied to life, is 'just a metaphor'
Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521802932&ss=exc
Likewise, in computer science, we find that Rolf Landauer himself, although he did not claim that information was 'just a metaphor', (like Darwinists unreasonably did), Landauer did claim that 'information is physical'. Which, in my honest opinion, is a misleading definition of information In which he actually meant that information is reducible to matter and energy (which is basically the same exact position that Darwinists hold, i.e. information, Darwinists believe, must somehow be 'emergent' from a matter/energy basis,). And Landauer specifically held information to be 'physical', (i.e. emergent from a matter-energy basis), because it always took energy to erase it from a computer. (i.e. Landauer’s principle). (And while I have issues with that line of reasoning from Landauer, I will leave that aside for the moment). In fact Landauer went so far as to say that Roger Penrose’s contention that information has an existence independent of matter and energy was a quote unquote ‘quaint notion’.
Information is a Physical Entity – Rolf Landauer Excerpt: Information is inevitably inscribed in a physical medium. It is not an abstract entity. It can be denoted by a hole in a punched card, by the orientation of a nuclear spin, or by the pulses transmitted by a neuron. The quaint notion that information has an existence independent of its physical manifestation is still seriously advocated [6],,, [6] R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.192.2928&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Specifically, Roger Penrose holds that, “Those devices (computers) can yield only approximations to a structure (of information) that has a deep and “computer independent” existence of its own.”
“Those devices (computers) can yield only approximations to a structure (of information) that has a deep and “computer independent” existence of its own.” – Roger Penrose – The Emperor’s New Mind – Pg 147
Yet contrary to what Landauer and Darwinian materialists may believe, there is much evidence that now establishes the 'physical', i.e. computer independent, reality of immaterial information,,, i.e. information which is not dependent on matter and energy for its existence.bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, I suspect that Seversky fled the thread in terror when he encountered your reference to “fremddienliche Zweckmäßigkeit,” if not before. As I said
In Darwinism, EVERY organism on earth is potentially a parent species of butterflies, giraffes, redwood trees, and the salt marsh harvest mouse. All you need is time and gullibility.
I restate my challenge to him: Can a chihuahua be selectively bred from a chipmunk, given enough time and mutations? Seversky? Hello? -QQuerius_{July 21, 2021
July
07
Jul
21
21
2021
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Next Seversky tries to address the falsification of Darwin’s theory by the fact that, if Darwin's theory were true, then all of our observations of reality would be illusory, yet reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method. Therefore, via its undermining of the scientific method itself, Darwin's theory disqualifies itself as a being a real 'science'. (i.e. it is a scientific "Own Goal") I claimed,
Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.
Seversky responds thusly
Is a map an illusion? It is certainly not a one-to-one representation of all the features of a landscape but, as a model created from the abstraction of salient features, it is nonetheless a very useful tool for navigating around it. As for the existence of objective reality being observer-dependent, that is but one interpretation. And you still haven’t answered the obvious objection of, if nothing exists before it is observed, what is being observed in the first place? In those terms, the idea is absurd.
Seversky doesn't seem to grasp just how bad his predicament actually is. Hoffman is claiming, via population genetics, that the 'map' has no correspondence whatsoever with the real world. i.e. ALL of our perceptions are illusory! Specifically Hoffman states, "perception of reality goes extinct,,,",,, "the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions ",, and,, "an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”,,,
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? - Video - 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
No matter how much Seversky may try to play this off with his hand waving allusion to 'maps', this finding is simply completely devastating to the claim that Darwinian evolution is based on the scientific method. Simply put, since Darwinian evolution denies ‘reliable observation’, which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, (if fact, it is the very first step of the scientific method)
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
,,, then that, of necessity, precludes Darwinian evolution from ever being based upon the scientific method. Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwin's theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Apparently empirical science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that ALL of their observations of reality are illusory! Of supplemental note: It is also very interesting to note that Hoffman's work meshes extremely well with Alvin Plantings previous work that found that, if Darwinian evolution we true, we would not have reliable cognitive faculties. (which, again, undermines the claim that Darwinian evolution can be based on the scientific method)
The Case Against Reality - May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
Perhaps Seversky may personally think that it is not that big of a deal that, if his Darwinian worldview were actually true, ALL of our perceptions would be illusory, and that we could not trust our ability to reason properly. He could not be more wrong. It IS a VERY big deal, as it prevents his worldview from ever being based on the scientific method in the first place. This is NOT a minor problem for him, (no matter how much he tries to ignore it).bornagain77_{July 21, 2021
July
07
Jul
21
21
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Moreover, it is interesting that Seversky denied that Darwinian evolution says anything "at all about the ontology of mathematics or Platonic realms." Being a dogmatic Darwinist, Seversky should have said that Darwinists hold mathematics to be an abstract invention of man that does not have an objectively real existence. Many prominent Atheistic Naturalists have no problem whatsoever claiming that mathematics is not objectively real but is merely an invention of man. (It is a patently wrong claim, but that is what they claim) But anyways, despite Seversky's denial, and to move on,,, As stated previously, Darwinian evolution is inextricably wedded to reductive materialism, which holds that life, consciousness, and all our thoughts, are reducible to purely materialistic explanations. Yet, as also stated previously, mathematics is profoundly immaterial in its foundational nature. As Dr. Michael Egnor put it, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,”
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Which is to say that mathematics, in its foundational nature, is immaterial, i.e. transcendent of space, time, matter and energy. This immaterial realm of mathematics has traditionally been referred to as the 'Platonic Realm' of mathematics:
Platonic mathematical world – image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif
The existence of this immaterial, beyond space and time, realm of mathematics creates an insurmountable difficultly for Darwinian materialists who, via their theory, are forced to try to reduce everything to purely materialistic explanations. To even do science in the first place, you have to be able to 'do mathematics'. Yet the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution are forever separated from being able to give us an adequate account of our mathematical intuition. As the old joke goes, "You can't get there from here." And hey, you don’t have to take my word for it. In 2014, a group of prominent Darwinists, who are leading experts in this area of research, authored a paper in which they honestly admitted that they have, “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.”
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
Please note that the recently departed Richard C. Lewontin, (July 4, 2021), is also on that list of leading experts. Although that finding by leading Darwinists created quite a shock when it came out in 2014, in reality, and given the profoundly immaterial nature of mathematics, that finding should have surprised no one! Again, "You can't get there from here." As to the materialistic claim that mathematics is merely an abstract invention of man that does not have an objectively real existence, well, that specific atheistic claim is easily disproven. As George Ellis pointed out, non-material 'logical' entities are shown to be objectively real in that they bring about ‘real’ effects in the physical world. This simply would not be possible If mathematics, (and logic), were merely abstract inventions of man that had no ‘real’ and objective existence: As George Ellis himself states, “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.,,, 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.”
Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, 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: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: 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.,,,, Life and the brain: ,,, 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. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf
Indeed, our most stunning, almost ‘miraculous’, modern technological innovations simply would not even be possible if it were not for the ability of ‘immaterial’ mathematics to bring about ‘real’ effects in the material/physical world. (i.e. Mathematics, though being immaterial, must be real is some objectively meaningful sense, for our 'miraculous' modern inventions to even be possible!)
Describing Nature With Math By Peter Tyson – Nov. 2011 Excerpt: Mathematics underlies virtually all of our technology today. James Maxwell’s four equations summarizing electromagnetism led directly to radio and all other forms of telecommunication. E = mc2 led directly to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The equations of quantum mechanics made possible everything from transistors and semiconductors to electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Indeed, many of the technologies you and I enjoy every day simply would not work without mathematics. When you do a Google search, you’re relying on 19th-century algebra, on which the search engine’s algorithms are based. When you watch a movie, you may well be seeing mountains and other natural features that, while appearing as real as rock, arise entirely from mathematical models. When you play your iPod, you’re hearing a mathematical recreation of music that is stored digitally; your cell phone does the same in real time. “When you listen to a mobile phone, you’re not actually hearing the voice of the person speaking,” Devlin told me. “You’re hearing a mathematical recreation of that voice. That voice is reduced to mathematics.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/describing-nature-math.html
Moreover, the fact that man himself has access to, (and can even implement), this transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial world of mathematics, to bring about ‘real’ effects’ in the material world, offers compelling evidence, in and of itself, that man in not a purely material being, as Darwinists dogmatically hold, but that man must, of necessity, also possess a transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial mind and/or soul. We simply could never discover, or use, these ‘eternal’ truths about mathematics unless we ourselves first possessed a transcendent, and ‘eternal’, component to our being,, i.e. a immaterial soul and/or mind that is not reducible to the material constituents of our material bodies, (as Darwinists presuppose). As Charles Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace himself stated, “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910
And again, Darwinists simply have no clue why we should have access to this immaterial realm of mathematics. As Dr. Michael Egnor pointed out, because of our unique ability to think abstractly among all creature on earth, “We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.”
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/
Moreover, since our own immaterial minds came into being and are therefore contingent, and are not eternally existent, and yet we can discover, and think about, eternal mathematical truths with our immaterial minds, then it necessarily follows that “there must exist an eternal mind in which these eternal (mathematical) truths reside.”
11. The Argument from Truth This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
And please note that this argument for our immaterial minds, and for God, from the existence of mathematics is perfectly consistent with what we now know to be true about mathematics from Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Namely, that mathematics itself has a contingent existence and does not have a necessary existence,
There is a hole at the bottom of math (Godel's Incompleteness) https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-there-a-hole-at-the-bottom-of-math/
Thus, mathematics itself offers us compelling proof that we ourselves must possess immaterial minds and/or souls, and also offers us compelling proof that God must exist. And despite to how badly atheists may want God, (and our eternal souls), to not exist (for whatever severely misguided reason), the fact the matter is that, since we are all destined to die here on this earth, the undeniable fact that we must have eternal minds/souls in order to even ‘do mathematics’ in the first place, is extremely good news for us the hear personally,,, I know that I myself am personally very happy to know that it is undeniably true, that I have a immaterial mind/soul, and that therefore death does not have the final say in regards to my own life, and/or in regards to the lives of my loved ones, and that I, and my loved ones, (i.e. our eternal souls and minds), will continue to live, even though our material, temporal, bodies may perish,, Verses:
1 Corinthians 15:54-55 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come to pass: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
bornagain77_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Next Seversky tries to address the falsification of Darwin’s theory by mathematics. I claimed,
Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!
Seversky, shortly and sweetly, responds thusly,
The theory of evolution is about living organisms. It says nothing at all about the ontology of mathematics or Platonic realms. Another red herring.
It is understandable why Seversky would try to distance Darwin's theory from the 'ontology of mathematics or Platonic realms'. (i.e. Mathematics is profoundly immaterial in its foundational nature, and Darwinian evolution is inextricably wedded to reductive materialism). But, it is also interesting to note that Seversky did not even try to dispute the fact that the mathematics of probability, and the mathematics of population genetics itself, have both falsified Darwinian evolution. Which is just as well, for that line of mathematical evidence does not end well for him either.
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY - WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm "In light of Doug Axe's number, and other similar results,, (1 in 10^77), it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the mutation, random selection, mechanism will fail to produce even one gene or protein given the whole multi-billion year history of life on earth. There is not enough opportunities in the whole history of life on earth to search but a tiny fraction of the space of 10^77 possible combinations that correspond to every functional combination. Why? Well just one little number will help you put this in perspective. There have been only 10^40 organisms living in the entire history of life on earth. So if every organism, when it replicated, produced a new sequence of DNA to search that (1 in 10^77) space of possibilities, you would have only searched 10^40th of them. 10^40 over 10^77 is 1 in 10^37. Which is 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. In other words, If every organism in the history of life would have been searching for one those (functional) gene sequences we need, you would have searched 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillionth of the haystack. Which makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail. And if it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail, should we believe that is the way that life arose?" - Stephen Meyer - 46:19 minute mark - Darwin's Doubt - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0&feature=player_detailpage#t=2778 Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf The waiting time problem in a model hominin population - 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/ Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution (neutral theory included),, (via John Sanford and company)?https://www.geneticentropy.org/resources 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/
bornagain77_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Next Seversky tries to address the falsification of Darwin's theory from the existence of consciousness. I claimed,
Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.
Seversky responded thusly,
Red herring. Darwin’s theory was about how living things could have varied and diversified over time through natural processes, it says nothing about the origins of “life, the Universe and everything”. David Chalmers referred to the hard problem of consciousness not the insoluble problem of consciousness. No, we do not have a materialistic explanation for consciousness – yet – but our ignorance does not mean that there isn’t one. Abd the “ugly fact” remains that when the brain stops working the associated consciousness disappears irretrievably.
The existence of consciousness, and/or 'our conscious selves', is hardly a 'red herring'. Seversky himself claimed that "Darwin’s theory was about how living things could have varied and diversified over time through natural processes," And, supposedly, according to Darwin's theory, consciousness came into being at some point in the history of life as living things "varied and diversified over time through natural processes". Yet, consciousness itself simply refuses to ever be reduced to any reductive materialistic explanation of Darwinian evolution. Consciousness is profoundly immaterial in its foundational nature. Thus, as far as materialistic explanations go, and as the old joke goes, 'You can't get there for here". Dr. Michael Egnor, who is a neurosurgeon as well as professor of neurosurgery at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, states six properties of immaterial mind that are irreconcilable to the Darwinian view that the mind is just the material brain. Those six properties are, “Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,”
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
You can read more in-depth definitions of each of the six properties of immaterial mind in Dr. Egnor’s article. Likewise, J. Warner Wallace has a very similar list, (but not an exact match to Dr. Egnor’s list), of six properties of immaterial mind that are irreconcilable with reductive materialism.
Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014 1) First-person access to mental properties 2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies 3) Persistent self-identity through time 4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects 5) Intentionality or About-ness 6) Free will and personal responsibility http://winteryknight.com/2014/01/30/six-reasons-why-you-should-believe-in-non-physical-minds/
The most famous of these defining properties of the immaterial mind, (properties that are irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwin's theory), is 'qualia'.
Qualia Excerpt: Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia “qualia’ is also defined as ‘individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.’
David Chalmers is fairly well known for clearly explaining the 'hard problem of consciousness', i.e. qualia, in an easy to understand manner for the general public.
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem of Consciousness) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
Materialists simply do not have any realistic clue how anything material could ever possibly generate the inner subjective consciousness experience of qualia. Here are a few quotes that make this point clear.
"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness." - Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7. “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.” Sebastian Seung - Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist - “Connectome”: "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." Roger Wolcott Sperry - Nobel neurophysiologist As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian "We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind." - Eugene Wigner - Nobel prize-winner – Quantum Symmetries "Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot." Nick Herbert - Contemporary physicist "No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." Larry Dossey - Physician and author
As Professor of Psychology David Barash honestly admitted in the following article, (an article which happens to be entitled “the hardest problem in science?”), “But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.”
The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011 Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ - David Barash - Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845
Moreover, the Christian Theist does not have to rely solely on the Atheist's complete lack of empirical evidence to support his views, but the Christian Theist can also appeal to positive scientific evidence from quantum mechanics to support his belief that 'Consciousness precedes material reality' and that consciousness is, therefore, forever irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists. First off, quantum mechanics has not been kind to the reductive materialistic presupposition of Darwinists in the least.
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
Secondly, Quantum Mechanics has now falsified realism itself, which is the belief that a material reality can exist apart from our conscious observation of it. Specifically, the following violation of Leggett's inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it.
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
In fact, because of such experiments as the preceding, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed as such,
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff) 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff), then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
And here are eight intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness must precede material reality (Double Slit experiment, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wigner's friend experiment, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect, Advances in Quantum Information theory, Closing of the Free Will loophole.) Thus the Christian Theist, unlike the Darwinian Materialist, can appeal directly to many lines of scientific evidence from quantum mechanics to support his belief that Consciousness must precede material reality. Whereas materialists, such as Seversky are left holding the bag with their vacuous 'materialism of the gaps' excuses, i.e. Seversky himself stated, "No, we do not have a materialistic explanation for consciousness – yet – but our ignorance does not mean that there isn’t one." Of supplemental note: There is now found to be a VERY strong correlation between defining attributes of the immaterial mind, (i.e. free will, and 'the experience of the now'), and many of the 'spooky' actions that we are witnessing in quantum mechanics.
How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Then Seversky tries to address Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig's falsification of Charles Darwin's claim that "any part of the structure of any one species (could not have) been formed for the exclusive good of another species," I claimed,
Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”
Seversky responded thusly,
Do you have any examples of an organ formed by one species that is exclusively for the benefit of another species and confers no benefit whatsoever on the species which evolved it. How does Loennig show that all these plant species generated organs purely for the benefit of other species rather than for themselves?
Perhaps Seversky, besides being incredulous, even gullible, now also has a reading comprehension issue? I specifically stated that, as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Did Seversky really not understand that sentence? Perhaps Seversky just believes that Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is being overly hyperbolic in his claim? Hardly, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig worked for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany, and from 1992 to 2008 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig was group leader and senior scientist at that prestigious institute.
Curriculum Vitae of Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Excerpt:,,, 10. From 1992 to 2008: (Status of) GROUP LEADER and SENIOR SCIENTIST at this institute (MPIZ) and department. Altogether more than 2 million plants evaluated: mutation genetics and transposon tagging and trapping (in experimental fields and greenhouses). Plant species investigated: Pisum sativum, Antirrhinum majus, Misopates orontium, Physalis pubescens, ssp. floridana. http://www.weloennig.de/CurriculumVitae.pdf
Thus, Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is certainly not given to overly hyperbolic claims, especially when it comes to scientific claims about plants. And in his paper Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig specifically claimed, (via the science), that, "galls,,, are formed at the exclusive expense of the plant host, i. e. without any useful return by the animals (“fremddienliche Zweckmäßigkeit” (Erich Becher) – not easy to translate, but something like ‘extrinsic usefulness’, ‘disinterested suitability’, ‘well-directed extraneous utility’, closely akin to altruism; cf. p. 16)." And as Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig further pointed out, this meets the falsification criteria that was laid out by Charles Darin himself for his theory, i.e. “... If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
Plant Galls and Evolution - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - 7 September 2017 How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism Excerpt: In short, entirely new organs (complex, refined, sophisticated, “high tech” galls), consisting of up to seven differentiated layers with diverse positive functions for the guests, are formed at the exclusive expense of the plant host, i. e. without any useful return by the animals (“fremddienliche Zweckmäßigkeit” (Erich Becher) – not easy to translate, but something like ‘extrinsic usefulness’, ‘disinterested suitability’, ‘well-directed extraneous utility’, closely akin to altruism; cf. p. 16). Now, Darwin formulated the following falsification criterium, among others, for his theory of natural selection – fully applicable to the modern neo-Darwinian versions of the theory as well, because: “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; “... If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Also: “Natural selection can produce nothing in one species for the exclusive good or injury of another; though it may well produce parts, organs, and excretions highly useful or even indispensable, or again highly injurious to another species, but in all cases at the same time useful to the possessor.” Inference reached on the basis of the evidence: Because in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
Thus whether Seversky was being stubbornly incredulous, or whether he has a reading comprehension issue, or whether he believes Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig was being overly hyperbolic, the scientific fact remains that Darwin's claim that "any part of the structure of any one species (could not have) been formed for the exclusive good of another species" has been precisely falsified. Moreover, if we were to expand our scope and include altrustic behavior in general, (i.e. self sacrificial behavior, i.e. behavior which is completely antithetical to the central 'survival of the fittest' presupposition of Darwin's theory), this particular altruistic, i.e. 'for the good of others', falsification of Darwin's theory becomes much more widespread and acute for Darwin's theory. Altruistic, 'for the good of others', behavior exist literally everywhere we look in the biological kingdom, from bacterial cells, to multicellular organisms. Altruistic behavior is ubiquitous in biology!bornagain77_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Then Seversky tries to address the falsification of Darwin's theory from Axe's work on the rarity of protein folds. I claimed,
Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
And Seversky responded thusly,
Axe’s case is simply another variant of the argument from incredulity. He can’t imagine genetic or protein fold pathways that could lead to complex organs so they could not have happened. But neither Axe’s knowledge nor that of any other researcher in this field is exhaustive. Put another way our ignorance is not evidence of impossibility.
Axe's argument, which he made in this following video,
Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual – Doug Axe PhD. – video Quote – “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way. – Doug Axe PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
Yet Axe's argument, directly contrary to what Seversky implied, was not an argument that was based on incredulity and ignorance, but was instead an argument based on experimental work and knowledge. i.e. it was based on what we know, not on what we don't know.
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds - Doug Axe - 2004 Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/ The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe – 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: “Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.” http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
Moreover Dr. Axe's experimental work on the rarity of protein folds is not an outlier, but Dr. Axe's work falls in line with all other studies trying to ascertain the rarity of functional proteins.
(Venema's) Adam and the Genome and Doug Axe’s Research on the Evolution of New Protein Folds - March 7, 2018, Excerpt: Douglas Axe, a protein scientist who has published work on the rarity of new protein folds by doing research on beta-lactamase enzymes. Publishing in the Journal of Molecular Biology, Axe found that only about 1 in 10^77 sequences produce the stably folded structure needed for beta lactamase to work.,,, Axe’s generalization of results follows the tradition of many similar papers, which came to similar conclusions about the rarity of functional protein sequences, and applied their results broadly. For example: * Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer 1990 (published in the journal Proteins), mutated the ?-repressor in coli and found that only one in 10^63 sequences yield a functional repressor fold. They generalized the implications of their results for how we predict protein structure in other cases, writing: “The high level of degeneracy involved in protein folding suggests that the most fruitful approaches to structure prediction will concentrate on those residues that are informationally rich.” * Yockey 1977 (published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology) calculated that the likelihood of generating a functional cytochrome c sequence is one in 10^65. He generalized this result to conclude that many proteins are not evolvable, and even concluded that standard mechanisms of abiogenesis could not produce such features on a reasonable timescale. He wrote that “belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.” * Hayashi et al. 2006 (published in PLOS ONE) determined that 10^70 trials would be necessary to acquire the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the fd phage. They generalized their inferred fitness landscape results to other cases, and wrote: “The landscape structure has a number of implications for initial functional evolution of proteins and for molecular evolutionary engineering.” However, because reaching higher fitness levels required scaling much steeper fitness functions (i.e., functional sequences were very rare), thus concludeD, as a general matter: “In molecular evolutionary engineering, larger library size is generally favorable for reaching higher stationary fitness.” https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/adam-and-the-genome-and-doug-axes-research-on-the-evolution-of-new-protein-folds/ Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: Tawfik concedes that if true, this would make “the emergence of sequences with function a highly improbable event, despite considerable redundancy (many sequences giving the same structure and function).”44 In other words, these odds are impossible.,,, Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/
The following article studying the rarity of quantum criticality in proteins, (and other biomolecules), is particularly interesting to look at. In the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
To drive this point home, this follow up 2018 article stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
Thus, although Seversky claimed that Dr. Axe was being incredulous, the fact of the matter is that the shoe is squarely on the other foot. It is the Darwinist himself who is being incredulous towards what the experimental evidence itself is telling us about the rarity of functional proteins. i.e. Darwinists simply refuse to believe that proteins are as rare as all the experimental, (and mathematical), work has thus far indicated.
in·cred·u·lous adjective (of a person or their manner) unwilling or unable to believe something.
Seversky, if he is to remain 'scientific' in his arguments, is free to try to experimentally prove this body of experimental work on the rarity of proteins wrong, but he is not free to be completely incredulous of this body of experimental work. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

seversky:
Evolution is recognized and accepted as a theory in science by those far better qualified than you or I to adjudicate on the matter – biologist themselves.
And yet those very same biologists can't formulate a scientific theory of evolution.
Once again, Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He did not propose that “brand new” species would arise just from mutations. He simply argued that descendent species could arise from natural selection acting on variations in the parent species. That said, plenty of experimental evidence has accumulated subsequently for mutations in DNA having dramatic effects on the phenotype.
DNA doesn't determine biological form. The only thing DNA determines is if the determined biological form will develop properly or not. There aren't any known naturalistic processes capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. The whole problem is that evos have drank the DNA kool-aid. They are all in on DNA being the do-all, magical molecule. Too bad science has refuted that nonsense. Darwin failed. And everyone since Darwin has suffered the same fate. They don't have any idea what produced the diversity of life. They don't know of any mechanism capable of such a feat. They cling to DNA because they have nothing else. Yet DNA can't do what they need. How pathetic is it that they continue with that nonsense?ET_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Seversky wrote:
Once again, Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He did not propose that “brand new” species would arise just from mutations. He simply argued that descendent species could arise from natural selection acting on variations in the parent species. That said, plenty of experimental evidence has accumulated subsequently for mutations in DNA having dramatic effects on the phenotype.
So, the full title of Darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" or just "On the Origin of the Species" for short. You're of course correct that Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He proposed that all new species formed by small increments. In his discussion of the "Tree of Life," Darwin wrote
The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth.
Thus, he believed ALL living organisms (even "brand new" species) resulted from Nature as the ultimate breeder, and certainly believed that chihuahuas could be bred from chipmunks given enough time. This is essentially what Darwinists such as yourself still believe today, although they prefer not to put it into those terms. They prefer to refer to mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection over vast amounts of time to accomplish this miracle. The absence of fossil evidence is convenient--a sort of "Darwin of the gaps," as he admitted. In Darwinism, EVERY organism on earth is potentially a parent species of butterflies, giraffes, redwood trees, and the salt marsh harvest mouse. All you need is time and gullibility. -QQuerius_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Moreover, as if all that was not bad enough for Darwinists, the fossil record itself also turns out to be 'upside down' from what Darwin predicted, Charles Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that 'tree pattern' that Charles Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Jerry Coyne's Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show "Why Evolution is True" - Jonathan M. - December 4, 2012 Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms. Darwin's theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, "The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa." Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html "Most higher taxa were built from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families...the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa."48 and 49,,, 48 D. H. Erwin, J. W. Valentine, and J. J. Sepkowski, "A Comparative Study Of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus The Mesozoic," Evolution 41 (1987): 1177ñ86.
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin himself predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this 'top down', disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design - 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.
Needless to say, this is NOT what Darwin predicted. And finally, Seversky also linked to a TalkOrigins" website claiming that it provided undeniable proof of many transitional fossils. The website lists a few dozen examples of supposed transitional fossils. But as I stated in my claim, "Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils." For instance, here is a website that challenges every single example on Seversky's list from the "TalkOrigins" website,,,
Transitional fossils are lacking http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_fossils_are_lacking_%28Talk.Origins%29
Simply put, and as Colin Patterson himself honestly admitted, "I will lay it on the line—there is not one such (transitional) fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
‘Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’ - Colin Patterson, (former) senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History. https://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils
And still today, there simply is no transitional fossil on which Darwinists can make a watertight argument. All the supposed transitional fossils that Darwinists put forth, (at least all the ones that they have presented to me personally), fall apart upon scrutiny. In short, I have found all purported examples of transitional fossils to be, merely, figments of overactive Darwinian imaginations.bornagain77_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply