Cell biology Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity

Scientists’ reaction to ever more of the cell’s complexity in its own environment

Spread the love

In mind-boggling detail:

For a few weeks in 2017, Wanda Kukulski found herself binge-watching an unusual kind of film: videos of the insides of cells. They were made using a technique called cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) that allows researchers to view the proteins in cells at high resolution. In these videos, she could see all kinds of striking things, such as the inner workings of cells and the compartments inside them, in unprecedented detail. “I was so overwhelmed by the beauty and the complexity that in the evenings I would just watch them like I would watch a documentary,” recalls Kukulski, a biochemist at the University of Bern, Switzerland.

In recent years, imaging techniques such as cryo-ET have started to enable scientists to see biological molecules in their native environments. Unlike older methods that take individual proteins out of their niches to study them, these techniques provide a holistic view of proteins and other molecules together with the cellular landscape. Although they still have limitations — some researchers say that the resolution of cryo-ET, for example, is too low for molecules to be identified with certainty — the techniques are increasing in popularity and sophistication. Researchers who turn to them are not only mesmerized by the beautiful images, but also blown away by some of the secrets that are being revealed — such as the tricks bacteria use to infect cells or how mutated proteins drive neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.

Diana Kwon, “The secret lives of cells — as never seen before” at Nature (October 26, 2021)

No wonder panpsychism is catching on, among those who are forbidden to think in terms of design.

109 Replies to “Scientists’ reaction to ever more of the cell’s complexity in its own environment

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Nobody is forbidden to think in terms of design. There are still plenty of proponents of design and they still publish books and articles and videos. It just doesn’t add anything to science or offer a fruitful alternative to methodological naturalism.

  2. 2
    anthropic says:

    Sev, so the multiverse does?

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    when i watched the DNA replication animation for the first time, i, as an engineer, instantly knew, that Darwinian biologists trying to mislead lay public (politely said), claiming that biology and processes inside the cell are a product of blind unguided natural process. An educated, rational, 21st century person just can’t buy this non-sense… what is wrong with Darwinists, why they claim such absurd things ? Especially in 21st century ?

    For example, during DNA replication, the copy of the lagging strand is being processed way different than the copy of the leading strand. The copy of the lagging strand is being assembled by so called Okazaki fragments – short chucks of DNA. On the other hand, the leading strand is being copied continuously, as it is, a continuous copy – this is exactly what i would expect (more or less) by blind unguided natural process …

    Why would a blind natural unguided process complicate already pretty complicated process by making short chucks of DNA and then join it together piece by piece, when it also can be done by a continuous copy as we can see by leading strand ???

    here is the animation

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKWgcFPHqw

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    It just doesn’t add anything to science or offer a fruitful alternative to methodological naturalism.

    So truth is not part of methodological naturalism. Interesting admission.

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    Ditto re Seversky’s comment. ID spends way more time honing its feigned victimhood and attempts to elbow its way to the table than it does on real science. After 30 some years, the best it can come up with is “God did it” and “Darwin was a racist.” That, my friends, is far cry from a Copernican revolution…

  6. 6
    ET says:

    ChuckDarwin- Your ignorance is not an argument. Your side doesn’t have any science to supports its asinine claims. It is a given that you and yours don’t understand what science entails.

    Your position is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but lies and bluffs.

    It is very telling that the way to refute ID is for you and yours to actually support your claims and yet you have to resort to lying about ID. You are pathetic

  7. 7
    ET says:

    seversky:

    It just doesn’t add anything to science or offer a fruitful alternative to methodological naturalism.

    Seriously? Methodological naturalism is anti-science as it forces you to start with a conclusion. Not only that MN has NOT helped you and yours support your asinine position.

    ID offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.

  8. 8
    zweston says:

    CD, what are you greatest evidences for macroevolution? Have you ever doubted it or tried to disprove it? What are the biggest weaknesses of the theory?

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Zweston/8

    CD, what are you greatest evidences for macroevolution? Have you ever doubted it or tried to disprove it? What are the biggest weaknesses of the theory?

    Something easy for you to start with:

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

    The Scientific Case for Common Descent

    Version 2.89
    Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

    Introduction

    Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the “grand scale” resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

    Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth’s known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the “fact of evolution” by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

    This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Methodological naturalism does not exclude any explanations a priori. The door is open to any who can step over the threshold. That threshold is that if you want your pet explanation to be considered, be it God or gravity, you need to provide good reasons for doing so. As CD pointed out, just complaining you’re not being treated fairly doesn’t cut it. Where’s your evidence that compels ID as a conclusion?

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Seversky: Methodological naturalism does not exclude any explanations a priori. The door is open to any who can step over the threshold.

    Partially that means you have to be able to set up experiments and situations where you can predict that some event will occur. If you can’t do that, if something happens unpredictably and with no discernible cause or effect then . . . . What can you do with that? You can’t come up with a law or rule. You can’t build or construct something.

    Now, some things that most people are pretty sure are natural are still hard or impossible to predict. When and where will lighting strike? What will be the high temperature tomorrow? But scientists are learning more and more about the unguided and purely natural processes that (probably) determine those behaviours. There may be too much noise or unknowns for us ever to be able to predict, precisely, what the high temperature will be tomorrow BUT they are getting better and better. That indicates it’s not being done at will or randomly. Likely to be unguided, natural processes that can be studied and modelled.

    How can you model an undefined, unobserved, unlimited being who can act without leaving a trace violating physical laws which work 99.999 . . . . % of the time?

  12. 12
    jerry says:

    Something easy for you to start with:

    All irrelevant.

    Not one is an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means. My guess is Seversky never read what he linked to. They don’t know how anything happened.

    Which means that common descent which happened has an unknown mechanism.

    It’s essentially an article endorsing ID.

    Case closed.

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Not one is an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means.

    What would an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means look like?

  14. 14
    zweston says:

    Sev @ 9… what is most compelling to you…not an article. I can post a link too, what do you find most compelling? Maybe 3?

    And have you ever doubted the theory?

    Have you ever tried to critique it to falsify it?

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Over related interest:

    Specious Speciation:
    The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change
    A Response to TalkOrigins’ “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ
    (Updated Sept. 9, 2013)
    PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    The TalkOrigins Speciation FAQ, titled “Observed Instances of Speciation”1 (herein “FAQ”), claims it “discusses several instances where speciation has been observed.” For years, this FAQ has been cited by pro-Darwin internet debaters as allegedly demonstrating that neo-Darwinian evolution is capable of producing significant biological change. However, an analysis of the technical literature regarding many of the examples discussed in the FAQ2 reveals that such claims are clearly incorrect. This assessment finds:
    * NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change.
    * The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a “species” is defined according to the standard definition of a “reproductively isolated population.” Only one single example shows the production of a new species of plants via hybridization and polyploidy, but this example does not entail significant biological change.
    * Only one of the examples purports to document the production of a reproductively isolated population of animals—however this example is overturned by a later study not mentioned in the FAQ.
    Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals—e.g., the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population—is given in the FAQ.
    https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/03/Casey-Luskin-Specious-Speciation.pdf

  16. 16
    Seekers says:

    Zweston,

    You might be lucky to get a response to your queries, it has been pointed out fairly regularly that Seversky it particular in his reply’s. With most comments alluding to him either being a troll or simply a bot.
    If it’s a discussion your after perhaps JVL may answer your questions.

  17. 17
    Seekers says:

    ChuckyD,

    As per your latest comment’s I’m unsure whether your being genuine or simply feigning ignorance. As a convinced deist whom has no use of ID science, I have to ask why waste your time here at UD? It’s obvious you have no real intention to engage in any sort of discussion. As such most of your comment’s are simply your opinion or hyperbole. If you want to entice people to understand your position why not simply engage in some form of conversation. It would seem a more fruitful use of one time than to simply stop by for a troll post so to speak.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    At 9 Seversky pulls Douglas Theobald’s old “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” out of cold storage and pretends like it has not already been addressed.

    A Critique of “29 Evidences for Macroevolution ” By Ashby L. Camp
    Excerpt: In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Douglas Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all living organisms descended from “one original living species.” He does so by listing what he claims are 29 potentially falsifiable predictions of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry and presenting the evidence that he believes confirms each of those predictions.,,,
    Prediction 1: The Fundamental Unity of Life,,
    Prediction 2: A “Nested” Hierarchy of Species,,,
    Prediction 3: Convergence of Independent Phylogenies,,,
    Prediction 4: Possible Morphologies of Predicted Common Ancestors,,,
    Prediction 5: Chronological Order of Predicted Common Ancestors,,,
    Prediction 6: Anatomical Vestigal Structures,,,
    Prediction 7: Molecular Vestigial Characters,,,
    Prediction 8: Ontogeny and Development of Organisms,,,
    Prediction 9: Present Biogeography,,,
    Prediction 10: Past Biogeography,,,
    Prediction 11: Anatomical Paralogy,,,
    Prediction 12: Molecular Paralogy,,,
    Prediction 13: Anatomical Convergence,,,
    Prediction 14: Molecular Convergence,,,
    Prediction 15: Suboptimal Anatomical Function,,,
    Prediction 16: Molecular Suboptimal Function,,,
    Prediction 17: Functional Molecular Evidence– Protein Functional Redundancy,,,
    Prediction 18: Functional Molecular Evidence– DNA Coding Redundancy,,,
    Prediction 19: Nonfunctional Molecular Evidence– Transposons,,,
    Prediction 20: Nonfunctional Molecular Evidence– Pseudogenes,,,
    Prediction 21: Nonfunctional Molecular Evidence– Endogenous Retroviruses,,,
    Prediction 22: Genetic Change,,,
    Prediction 23: Morphological Change,,,
    Prediction 24: Functional Change,,,
    Prediction 25: Earth’s Strange Past and the Fossil Record,,,
    Prediction 26: Stages of Speciation,,,
    Prediction 27: Speciations,,,
    Prediction28: Morphological Rates of Change,,,
    Prediction 29: Genetic Rates of Change,,,
    Conclusion
    ,,, I have argued that what he (Theobald) labels falsifiable predictions of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry are in fact mere observations that have been read back into a plastic theory and claimed as predictions. His hypothesis accommodates these observations, but since it could also accommodate contrary ones, that fact has little or no probative value. As Hunter says, “There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory.” (Hunter, 38.)
    I have shown how Dr. Theobald’s evidence can be accommodated by alternative hypotheses. I have also highlighted instances where his interpretation of the evidence is driven by theological assumptions. One who rejects those underlying assumptions is justified in rejecting the conclusions that follow from them.
    http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevo.....itique.htm

    Looking over Theobald’s list of “falsifiable’ predictions, I note that many, if not all, of those predictions have now been falsified. For instance, the fossil record, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, is definitely not to be considered a successful ‘prediction’ for Darwinism in any way, shape, or form.

    But anyways, perhaps the most ‘infamous’ example of one of Theobald’s predictions being falsified was when Winston Ewert falsified Douglas Theobald’s claim, via genetic evidence, that he had found ‘statistically significant’ support for common ancestry.

    Theobald had claimed,,,

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution – Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.?Part 1: – The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree – Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species
    Excerpt: Seventy-five independent studies from different researchers, on different organisms and genes, with high values of CI (P less than 0.01) is an incredible confirmation with an astronomical degree of combined statistical significance (P less than less than 10-300, Bailey and Gribskov 1998; Fisher 1990).
    per Talk Origins
    under ‘Potential Falsification’ section:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq....._hierarchy

    Yet, there was a small problem with Theobald’s claim. As Casey Luskin noted, “The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.” He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good.”

    Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis – Casey Luskin November 29, 2010
    Excerpt: National Geographic notes in a subheadline: “Creationism called ‘absolutely horrible hypothesis’ — statistically speaking.” The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.” He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good.
    Again, if you don’t believe me, consider what reviewers of a critique of Theobald’s paper had to say (approving the critique!):
    Cogniscenti cringed when they saw the Theobald paper, knowing that “it is trivial”. It is trivial because the straw man that Theobald attacks in a text largely formulated in convoluted legalese, is that significant sequence similarity might arise by chance as opposed to descent with modification.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41021.html

    Douglas Theobald’s Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design – December 1, 2010
    Excerpt: Why is common design at least as good an explanation for functional genetic similarities as common descent? It’s simple. As Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells observe, “An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply, intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently” ?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41071.html

    And when Winston Ewert ran the test properly, using a proper null hypothesis, and testing common descent against the intelligent design model, (and using a much larger genetic data set than Theobald used), the results were drastically different from the ‘skewed’ results that Theobald had found.

    In the following article Dr. Cornelius Hunter explains just how badly the common decent model was falsified when the test was run properly by Dr. Ewert.,,, Dr. Hunter stated, “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!”

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.
    Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model.
    Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree.
    Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process.
    Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model.
    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/

    Needless to say, that is by no means to be considered a ‘soft falsification’ of Theobald’s prediction, but is about as ‘hard’ of a falsification of his prediction as can possibly be had.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest to the Darwinist’s complete lack of evidence for ‘observed’ speciation events, Richard Lenski, in his Long Tern Evolution Experiment, had tried to claim that the citrate adaptation was proof of a unique speciation event,

    “The citrate-eaters still eat glucose, but they aren’t quite as successful at competing for that sugar as they were before. As a consequence of that tradeoff, their cousins persist as glucose specialists. So the bacteria in this simple flaskworld have split into two lineages that coexist by exploiting their common environment in different ways. And one of the lineages makes its living by doing something brand-new, something that its ancestor could not do. That sounds a lot like the origin of species to me.”
    – Richard Lenski – “Lenski RE. 2011. Evolution in action: a 50,000-generation salute to Charles Darwin. Microbe 6:30–33.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/misleading-claims-about-a-long-running-evolution-experiment/#comment-733206

    Yet, Dr. Scott Minnich came along and falsified Lenski’s claim that the citrate adaptation was a unique speciation event.

    Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. – Minnich – Feb. 2016
    The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,,
    Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,,
    E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416

    As Michael Behe explained, “they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski’s lab did as easily as falling off a log — within weeks, not decades.,,,”

    Richard Lenski and Citrate Hype — Now Deflated – Michael Behe – May 12, 2016
    Excerpt: ,,, for more than 25 years Lenski’s lab has continuously grown a dozen lines of the bacterium E. coli in small culture flasks, letting them replicate for six or seven generations per day and then transferring a portion to fresh flasks for another round of growth. The carefully monitored cells have now gone through more than 60,000 generations, which is equivalent to over a million years for a large animal such as humans.,,,
    In 2008 Lenski’s group reported that after more than 15 years and 30,000 generations of growth one of the E. coli cell lines suddenly developed the ability to consume citrate,,,
    the authors argued it might be pretty important.,,,
    They also remarked that,,, perhaps the mutation marked the beginning of the evolution of a brand new species.,,
    One scientist who thought the results were seriously overblown was Scott Minnich, professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho ,,,
    So Minnich’s lab re-did the work under conditions he thought would be more effective. The bottom line is that they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski’s lab did as easily as falling off a log — within weeks, not decades.,,,
    Richard Lenski was not pleased.,,,
    In a disgraceful move, Lenski impugned Scott Minnich’s character. Since he’s a “fellow of the Discovery Institute” sympathetic with intelligent design,,,
    (Regardless of the ad hominem) With regard to citrate evolution, the Minnich lab’s results have revealed E. coli to be a one-trick pony.,,,
    The take-home lesson is that,,, (Lenski’s overinflated) hype surrounding the (implications of the citrate adaptation) has seriously misled the public and the scientific community. It’s far past time that a pin was stuck in its (Lenski’s citrate) balloon.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02839.html

    And please note that Lenski did not respond to Minnich’s work as a scientist who is falsified by experimental evidence should have done, i.e. by humbly admitting that he was wrong. No, Lenski responded with hostility and ad hominem towards Minnich. Which is the exact opposite reaction that any responsible scientists, who is more concerned with the truth than with his reputation, should have had when shown to be wrong by experimental evidence itself.

  20. 20
    Querius says:

    Martin_r,
    The video is indeed amazing! Also, you might want to check into the incredible speed at which DNA is rewound.

    I’d also note that the detractors here continue to make their assertions regardless that they have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted! Seekers makes a good point regarding trolls and bots. I’d also note that Chuckdarwin hasn’t responded to his being corrected on his misunderstanding something as basic to botany as transpiration.

    Certainly they will simply dismiss (or more likely, not read) the stunning content in the article in Nature.

    -Q

  21. 21
    AnimatedDust says:

    Methodological naturalism does not exclude any explanations a priori. The door is open to any who can step over the threshold. That threshold is that if you want your pet explanation to be considered, be it God or gravity, you need to provide good reasons for doing so. As CD pointed out, just complaining you’re not being treated fairly doesn’t cut it. Where’s your evidence that compels ID as a conclusion?

    You really are a piece of work, Sev. Read this entire website from beginning to now. There are terabytes of evidence that you ignore on a daily basis.

    Good grief.

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    Querius: Certainly they will simply dismiss (or more likely, not read) the stunning content in the article in Nature.

    Umm . . . there’s nothing to dismiss. I don’t understand. This is great technology, cutting-edge stuff.

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    What would an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means look like?

    It would be part of the Nobel prize nominating letter for the individual who discovered it.

    It would be in every text book on biology and evolution there is.

    But there are no examples in these text books nor nominating letters.

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Jerry: It would be in every text book on biology and evolution there is. But there are none in these text books.

    Sigh.

    I think there are such examples in textbooks but you don’t. What I am really asking is:

    What evidence of macro evolution would you find convincing?

    I don’t want to waste your time with examples you don’t find convincing so if you could give me some idea of what you would find convincing that would be helpful.

  25. 25
  26. 26
    JVL says:

    Jerry: TMS

    If you can’t be specific about what you’d like to see then I don’t understand how you expect anyone to provide it to you.

    Let’s say I show you a sequence of fossils which I say shows the evolution of . . . the otter. Just to pick something. Let’s say I have a sequence of 10 fossils spanning 10 million years or so.

    Is your objection that: you don’t know what the specific mutations were to create that sequence?

    Is your objection that: there are gaps and no proof that those gaps were filled by intermediate species?

    Is your objection that: we don’t know that the mutations which brought about those forms were unguided?

    If I had a better idea of what you were looking for then I might be able to address your concerns a bit better.

  27. 27
    jerry says:

    If I had a better idea of what you were looking for then I might be able to address your concerns a bit better.

    No evolutionary biologist on the planet has addressed my concerns. They are the same for anyone who understands the issues. Otherwise they would have won the Nobel Prize.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/

  28. 28
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    Just out of curiosity, what evidences convinced you of macro-evolution(or not, if that’s the case)

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    Jerry: No evolutionary biologist on the planet has addressed my concerns. Otherwise they would have won the Nobel Prize.

    I believe you. If you could just say, specifically, what those concerns are then I might either be able to address them or go away and leave you alone.

    Clearly you have a line that no one has been able to cross. If you could just draw that line in the sand so we could all see it we might get somewhere.

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    Seekers: Just out of curiosity, what evidences convinced you of macro-evolution(or not, if that’s the case)

    Good question! It was not a single piece of evidence but multiple bits of evidence in multiple areas. So, it wasn’t just fossils or genetics, it was the sum total of fossils and genetics and morphology and bio-geography. And not individual cases in those areas but, again, a large collection of individual cases in each area.

    At one point I came to the realisation that there was so much evidence that the case was still strong even if you took away a whole class of examples. Some people think that the fossil evidence is inconclusive; I can forgo all fossils and still come to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is correct.

    I suppose I find the genetic evidence the strongest and possibly able to make the case on its own. Fortunately that’s not the case; all the threads come together and point to the same conclusion.

    That’s just my personal view, obviously. But that’s what you asked for.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, claims to “find the genetic evidence the strongest”.

    Yet his claimed ‘strongest’ evidence for Darwinism evaporates into thin air and has, in fact, been falsified as an evidence for common descent, turned on its its head, and been shown to support the intelligent design model. (in overwhelming fashion I might add)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-at-your-fingertips-stats-on-human-chimp-similarity/#comment-739134

  32. 32
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    I find the genetic evidence the strongest and possibly able to make the case on its own.

    What do you mean by “the genetic evidence”?

  33. 33
    jerry says:

    the genetic evidence

    JVL has not read the two references I left for him. In these links it essentially says there is no genetic information supporting macro evolution.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    Doug Theobald’s 29+ evidences for macroevolution is pure fiction. The first clue is he starts out saying the evidence is there regardless of the mechanism. Yet mechanisms determine patterns and most of his evidence pertains to patterns. He also chokes on nested hierarchies. Transitional forms are the exact types of organisms one would expect with universal common descent. And they are also the exact type of organisms which prevent descent with modification from producing a nested hierarchy!

    1- There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes.
    2- There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing metazoans given starting populations of prokaryotes and single-cell eukaryotes.
    3-The DNA model is a complete FAILURE with respect to being able to produce the diversity of life.
    4- DNA’s scope is very, very limited
    5- Evolutionary biologists don’t know what determines biological form.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    Earth to JVL:

    Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. But then again, you are hooked on the failed DNA model.

    You talk about fossil evidence without understanding that you don’t have anything capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. If you did then we wouldn’t be having this chat.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    Yes, the genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for a Common Design. And it refutes unguided evolution/ evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Please tell us how to model the idea that blind and mindless processes produced the genes required for developmental biology. How can that claim be tested?

  37. 37
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/18

    At 9 Seversky pulls Douglas Theobald’s old “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” out of cold storage and pretends like it has not already been addressed

    A Critique of “29 Evidences for Macroevolution ” By Ashby L. Camp

    Excerpt: In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Douglas Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all living organisms descended from “one original living species.” He does so by listing what he claims are 29 potentially falsifiable predictions of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry and presenting the evidence that he believes confirms each of those predictions.,,

    And, as usual, you completely fail to mention that Theobald wrote a response to Camp’s critique:

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

    A Response to Ashby Camp’s “Critique”

    Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these “29 Evidences of Macroevolution,” which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp’s critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp’s concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the “29 Evidences,” and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

    My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp’s points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp’s criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp’s words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

    Mr. Camp’s critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

    Straw man arguments
    Red herrings
    Self-contradictions
    Equivocation
    Two wrongs make a right
    Fallacies of accident and converse accident
    Ignoratio elenchi
    Naive theological assumptions
    Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics
    Misunderstanding of the scientific method
    Forwarding of untestable competing “hypotheses”
    Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory
    Misleading mis-quotes
    Fallacies of accent
    Distortion of scientific controversies
    Arguments from authority
    False analogies
    The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp’s “Critique” will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

    Yet, there was a small problem with Theobald’s claim. As Casey Luskin noted, “The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.”

    The not-so-small problem is that there is no testable hypothesis of creationism or intelligent design against which to compare anything else.

    In the following article Dr. Cornelius Hunter explains just how badly the common decent model was falsified when the test was run properly by Dr. Ewert.,,, Dr. Hunter stated, “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!”

    Why don’t you explain to us all – in layman’s terms – what a dependency graph model is and how it can be applied to evolution.

  38. 38
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/19

    And please note that Lenski did not respond to Minnich’s work as a scientist who is falsified by experimental evidence should have done, i.e. by humbly admitting that he was wrong. No, Lenski responded with hostility and ad hominem towards Minnich. Which is the exact opposite reaction that any responsible scientists, who is more concerned with the truth than with his reputation, should have had when shown to be wrong by experimental evidence itself.

    Once again, you fail to provide a link to Lenski and Blount’s response to Minnich’s critique but, for anyone interested in seeing if BA77’s characterization is fair and balanced, it is here:

    On the Evolution of Citrate Use

    Those who follow the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) with E. coli know that the most dramatic change we have observed to date is the origin of the new ability to grow on citrate. It’s dramatic for several reasons including the fact (external to the LTEE) that E. coli has been historically defined as a species based in part on its inability to grow on citrate in oxic environments and the fact (internal to the LTEE) that it was so difficult for the bacteria to evolve this ability that only one of the populations did so, and that it took over 30,000 generations even though an abundance of citrate has been present in the medium throughout the LTEE. Even after 64,000 generations, only the Ara–3 population has evolved that new ability.

    Zachary Blount, formerly a graduate student and now a postdoc in my lab, has spent the last decade studying the evolution of this population and its new ability. His two first-authored papers in PNAS (2008) and Nature (2012) demonstrated, respectively, that (i) the origin of the ability to grow on citrate in the LTEE was contingent on one or more “potentiating” mutations that happened before the “actualizing” mutation that conferred the new function first appeared, and (ii) the actualizing mutation was a physical rearrangement of the DNA that brought together a structural gene, citT, that encodes a transporter and a previously unconnected regulatory region to generate a new module that caused the phenotypic transition to Cit+. These papers presented and discussed much more than these two points, of course, but they are the key findings. More recently, Zack was a coauthor on a paper in eLife (2015) by Erik Quandt, Jeff Barrick, and others that identified two mutations in the gene for citrate synthase—one that potentiated the evolution of citrate utilization, and another that subsequently refined that new function.

    So we were keenly interested when we saw a new paper titled “Rapid evolution of citrate utilization by Escherichia coli by direct selection requires citT and dctA” by Dustin Van Hofwegen, Carolyn Hovde, and Scott Minnich. The paper is posted online as an accepted manuscript by the Journal of Bacteriology. What follows here are some overall impressions of their paper that Zack and I put together. We may follow these impressions later with some further analysis and comments.

    * * * * *

    Let’s begin by saying that it’s great to see other groups working on interesting systems and problems like the evolution of citrate utilization in E. coli.

    Moreover, the actual science that was done and reported looks fine and interesting, though we have a few quibbles with some details that we will overlook for now. By and large, the work confirms many of the findings that were reported in our papers cited above:

    For further reading, here is Larry Moran’s blog post on their reply

    An Intelligent Design Creationist disputes the evolution of citrate utilization in the LTEE … Lenski responds

    Most of you are familiar with the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) run by Richard Lenski. One of the cultures in that experiment evolved the ability to use citrate as a carbon source. Normally, E. coli cannot use this carbon source under aerobic conditions but the new strain not only utilizes citrate but can grow in cultures where citrate is the only source of organic carbon.

    The pathway to this event is complex and requires multiple mutations [see On the unpredictability of evolution and potentiation in Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment and Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment: the evolution of bacteria that can use citrate as a carbon source].

    Intelligent Design Creationists are not happy about this experiment because it not only shows evolution in action but it also illustrates features of the process that ID proponents don’t understand; features like drift, neutral alleles, and contingency that expose the ignorance of the average creationist. However, there are a few ID proponents who actually understand evolution so they are forced to come up with other kinds of criticism to soften the impact of the results coming out of the Lenksi lab. …

  39. 39
    Seversky says:

    JVL/11

    How can you model an undefined, unobserved, unlimited being who can act without leaving a trace violating physical laws which work 99.999 . . . . % of the time?

    Precisely. Such a being would render the whole scientific enterprise futile which, given ID/creationism’s sustained campaign to undermine confidence in science, is exactly what they want.

  40. 40
    Seekers says:

    Seversky,@39

    You state, “ ID/creationism’s sustained campaign to undermine confidence in science, is exactly what they want.”

    Given such a statement I find it prudent to ask, why are you here? What use to you is your participation (reluctant to name it that) here? You have made it obvious you have no use for ID/creationist science, so why stick around? To troll? Surely you have more pressing things that would require your attention. Or are you simply a bot?
    If not then i find it rather peculiar “participating” in something you have no willingness to learn about or debate.

  41. 41
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @18 and ET @34,
    Nicely summarized. Devastating to the tired drivel being put forward all the time.

    Seekers @ 40,
    Exactly! I can’t believe he keeps repeating the lie that ID is the same as Creationism and that somehow they “undermine confidence in science” despite having the difference explained to him numerous times by different people, and that the track record of ID has been demonstrably better than Darwinism! He’s only fooling himself or being a troll or a bot. What a complete waste of time for everyone!

    If not then i find it rather peculiar “participating” in something you have no willingness to learn about or debate.

    Bingo!

    -Q

  42. 42

    That Seversky does not know for a fact that the universe is chosen, a creation, means he doesn’t really understand anything. Same as if you don’t know the fact that people make choices, then you don’t really have any understanding of human beings.

    The creationist conceptual scheme stops social darwinist pseudoscience. That is the main contribution of creationism to science.

    Apart from that, intelligent design science will come to fruition, at the same time that we have the technology to look directly inside of people’s imagination. That is when we would have a better understanding of the decisionmaking processes by which things are created.

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Yet his claimed ‘strongest’ evidence for Darwinism evaporates into thin air and has, in fact, been falsified as an evidence for common descent, turned on its its head, and been shown to support the intelligent design model. (in overwhelming fashion I might add)

    Other views are available.

    Just out of curiosity: what kind of evidence would you accept as strongly supportive of evolution via unguided processes? Not genetic . . . fossils? Morphological? Geographic distributions? Anything?

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    Origenes: What do you mean by “the genetic evidence”?

    The evidence in the genomes of extant and extinct (when it can be accessed) lifeforms.

    Endogenous retroviruses are just one particular example.

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    Jerry: JVL has not read the two references I left for him. In these links it essentially says there is no genetic information supporting macro evolution.

    I disagree but if we lay that aside . . . is there any other kind of evidence that would convince you that evolution proceeded via unguided processes?

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    ET: Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. But then again, you are hooked on the failed DNA model.

    Good thing no one is saying that then.

    You talk about fossil evidence without understanding that you don’t have anything capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. If you did then we wouldn’t be having this chat.

    Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that then.

    Yes, the genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for a Common Design. And it refutes unguided evolution/ evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that then.

    Please tell us how to model the idea that blind and mindless processes produced the genes required for developmental biology. How can that claim be tested?

    Well, obviously, no one can exhibit a complete, plausible, step-by -step narrative. Yet! But there is no strong evidence that it didn’t occur. In fact, the evidence is slowly accumulating which makes it more and more sure.

  47. 47
    Origenes says:

    JVL @45

    … is there any other kind of evidence that would convince you that evolution proceeded via unguided processes?

    Good question. For me, to be open to the concept of unguided evolution, first and foremost a tendency by blind matter to spontaneously form simple systems [such as mobile phones & airplanes] has to be demonstrated. After that I may be somewhat open to the idea that blind matter also has the tendency to form inordinately complex systems, such as organisms.

  48. 48
    ET says:

    Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. But then again, you are hooked on the failed DNA model.

    Good thing no one is saying that then.

    Are you daft? That is all you have.

    Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that then.

    What I said is a fact. Only fools disagree with facts.

    Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that then.

    No one cares. You can’t refute what I posted. That is all that matters.

    Well, obviously, no one can exhibit a complete, plausible, step-by -step narrative.

    Science is about EVIDENCE, not narratives.

    But there is no strong evidence that it didn’t occur.

    There isn’t any evidence that it did or could occur. You lose.

  49. 49
    jerry says:

    But there is no strong evidence that it didn’t occur.

    Yes, there is extremely strong evidence it didn’t occur.

    That’s why ID is the more intellectually superior and intellectually honest position.

    The statement above is an example of the begging the question fallacy.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    Too funny. Neither seversky nor JVL understand science or what it entails. Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. And that is all they have.

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    Origenes: For me, to be open to the concept of unguided evolution, first and foremost a tendency by blind matter to spontaneously form simple systems [such as mobile phones & airplanes] has to be demonstrated. After that I may be somewhat open to the idea that blind matter also has the tendency to form inordinately complex systems, such as organisms.

    I certainly would not consider mobile phones and airplanes as simple systems!! In fact, I bet there are very few, if any, single human beings that could design either of those two on their own.

    Regardless, are you essentially saying that a demonstration along the lines of: putting all the raw materials into a box, letting nature take its course and seeing if a phone or plane comes out? I just want to be sure that’s what you are saying.

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    ET: Are you daft? That is all you have.

    No. Just talking about evolution (past a certain level of basic replicator): inheritable variations creating different morphologies are ‘selected’ by natural forces (at first) creating differential survival rates. The morphologies better able to produce offspring pass their inheritable variations to more offspring than their ‘siblings’ without those variations. Simple.

    Science is about EVIDENCE, not narratives.

    Looking at the genomic, fossil, geo-biologic and morphological evidence it’s all consistent with universal descent via inheritable variation. The ‘concept’ is falsifiable and many steps have been observed and are being tested.

    There isn’t any evidence that it did or could occur. You lose.

    Except for the contested structure (DNA) there is zero evidence that any kind of designer with the necessary abilities was around Earth at the pertinent time.

    A tree fell in the forest, there was no one around to cut it down, therefore it fell due to natural causes.

    PS you still haven’t specified how mutations can be determined to be guided vs unguided. Just a reminder.

  53. 53
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    Regardless, are you essentially saying that a demonstration along the lines of: putting all the raw materials into a box, letting nature take its course and seeing if a phone or plane comes out? I just want to be sure that’s what you are saying.

    Yes, that is what I am saying. If blind matter cannot spontaneously produce relatively simple devices such as mobile phone or planes, then I see no point in contemplating the possibility that it can produce infinitely more complex systems such as organisms.

  54. 54
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Yes, there is extremely strong evidence it didn’t occur.

    I guess we’ll just have to disagree about that.

    That’s why ID is the more intellectually superior and intellectually honest position.

    It certainly is more compelling and convincing for some people!

    The statement above is an example of the begging the question fallacy.

    Are you sure?

    Let’s consider the popular notion in the 70s that our human ancestors could not possibly have built complex and large structures like the pyramids therefore they must have had help from aliens.

    What evidence did the proponents of such ideas present in support? A few bits of misinterpreted art and such but mostly they just said: these structures are too big, too complicated and too difficult to have been made by humans. We ourselves have only recently figured out how to accomplish such feats.

    When evidence showing how ancient human beings learned how to build such things, what kind of tools they used, villages where the workmen lived and even some written records one could still, I suppose, argue that: well, it doesn’t mean there weren’t aliens about supervising the process. BUT there is no real evidence there were aliens about at all!! No landing areas, no living quarters, no workshops, no lavatories, no rubbish pits with alien detritus in them. Nothing. Considering what we now know about the physical difficulties of interstellar travel it all begins to sound extremely physically unlikely as well.

    So, I would say, there is no strong evidence that human beings didn’t build the pyramids. That’s not begging the question; that’s summarising a lot of data.

  55. 55
    JVL says:

    Origenes: Yes, that is what I am saying. If blind matter cannot spontaneously produce relatively simple devices such as mobile phone or planes, then I see no point in contemplating the possibility that it can produce infinitely more complex systems such as organisms.

    Okay, thanks for being clear.

    Of course no one is saying complex organisms like humans or wombats or orchids arose without millions of years of precursors but I do appreciate you being clear about your criteria.

    Because I agree with you that a box of raw materials cannot spontaneous (i.e. without guidance) assemble into a mobile phone I won’t don’t really have anything else to say to you about that matter.

    But, again, I do appreciate you being clear and honest. We can all do that at the very least.

  56. 56
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    Of course no one is saying complex organisms like humans or wombats or orchids arose without millions of years of precursors but I do appreciate you being clear about your criteria.

    Unfortunately for your position, those precursors you hypothesize would have to be far more complex than anything we humans have ever produced, so these “millions of years” that you mention won’t be of any help at all.

    — Thank you for the expressed appreciation for my honesty.

  57. 57
    JVL says:

    Origenes: Unfortunately for your position, those precursors you hypothesize would have to be far more complex than anything we humans have ever produced, so these “millions of years” that you mention won’t be of any help at all.

    Getting into all that would be another huge discussion. I think we’ll just leave it.

    Thank you for the expressed appreciation for my honesty.

    Like I said: the very least we can do is to be honest. But it should still be noted and appreciated.

  58. 58
    Origenes says:

    JVL:

    Getting into all that would be another huge discussion. I think we’ll just leave it.

    Just let me know. Highly relevant would be A Course on Abiogenesis – by James Tour.

  59. 59
    JVL says:

    Origenes: Just let me know

    The issue is the history of life on Earth. Nothing to be entered into lightly.

  60. 60
    jerry says:

    Two things

    1. Evolution happened, some of it, a small amount happened through naturalistic means. That’s why it is important to explain what one means by the term “evolution.”

    2. Most evolution could not happen by naturalistic means. The origin of protein coding sequence is one of the main obstacles for evolution to happen this way. If any protein coding sequences happened through natural process, they are rare and the science shows that they cannot happen but in some extremely rare occasions.

    This is why every evolutionary site/book avoids the question of how macro evolution happened. As one famous evolutionist, Will Provine, said, ” for me, the size of the leap of faith that is required to believe in naturalism is small.” A completely disingenuous remark. Imagine a scientist accepting a religious person’s rationale for their beliefs using a similar phrase.

    Transcript from famous 1994 debate between Phil Johnson and Provine.

    http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm

  61. 61
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Just talking about evolution (past a certain level of basic replicator): inheritable variations creating different morphologies are ‘selected’ by natural forces (at first) creating differential survival rates.

    Right. Some unknown process did something. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. And endosymbiosis doesn’t help.

    Looking at the genomic, fossil, geo-biologic and morphological evidence it’s all consistent with universal descent via inheritable variation.

    There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life starting with populations of prokaryotes. That means there aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the organisms that fossilized.

    Except for the contested structure (DNA) there is zero evidence that any kind of designer with the necessary abilities was around Earth at the pertinent time.

    Clueless. DNA is NOT the genetic code. And you and yours don’t have anything but to deny reality.

    PS you still haven’t specified how mutations can be determined to be guided vs unguided. Just a reminder.

    Others have. And it is moot anyway. But you are ignorant of genetics, biology and science, so it doesn’t matter.

  62. 62
    ET says:

    It is impossible for differential accumulations of genetic change to account for the diversity of life, starting from some populations of prokaryotes. DNA doesn’t have the type of power or influence.

    The thought that when the human genome project was completed they would uncover the instructions for the human body plan, ie the upright biped. They didn’t. Nothing even close. And last year’s paper, On the Problem of Biological Form, finally let the cat out of the bag.

    The DNA model for universal common descent is a failure. Science has refuted it. It is beyond time to admit the failure and move on.

  63. 63
    JVL says:

    <ET: Right. Some unknown process did something. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. And endosymbiosis doesn’t help.

    You seem mostly hung up with the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Are you sure you’re caught up with the latest research on that?

    There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life starting with populations of prokaryotes. That means there aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the organisms that fossilized.

    Well, most of them, especially after the introduction of eukaryotes are due to differential survival because of inheritable variations.

    Clueless. DNA is NOT the genetic code. And you and yours don’t have anything but to deny reality.

    I didn’t say DNA was the genetic code.

    Others have. And it is moot anyway. But you are ignorant of genetics, biology and science, so it doesn’t matter.

    I think it matters a great deal that you a) support your views and b) offer an alternative to modern evolutionary theory. You (seem to) think some mutations are guided and some are not. I’d just like to know what some of the criteria are for deciding which is which. If those criteria have already be developed it should be easy to provide a summary of them.

    The DNA model for universal common descent is a failure. Science has refuted it. It is beyond time to admit the failure and move on.

    There is no DNA model for universal common descent. There is evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent.

  64. 64
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Chuck says “ID spends way more time honing its feigned victimhood and attempts to elbow its way to the table than it does on real science.”

    Chuck, just for a change of pace, why don’t you try engaging in the science instead of the politics? Are you not a “trained biologists”? Here is a question I asked you several days ago. Like all the others I’ve asked, you simply walk away. Put your money were your mouth is.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Oct 17th
    Speaking of predictions, it was predicted that autonomous self-replication would be code-based, and that encoded descriptions of the constraints (required to interpret code) would be among the descriptions encoded.

    Chuck, is the Genetic Code established by description?

  65. 65
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Seversky says: ”There are still plenty of proponents of design and they still publish books and articles and videos. It just doesn’t add anything to science”

    Sev, you wrap yourself in the flag of science, and then run as fast as you can from empirical evidence. You deny the design inference simply because you don’t like it.

    Why do you so obviously avoid this question:

    Sev: Once more, in my view, we are able to infer design on two grounds.

    The first …

    Sev: The phenomenon or entity has not been observed to result from natural processes

    Done. No one has observed a natural process that results in encoded memory containing a set of descriptions of the constraints required to decode that memory … It clearly, unambiguously “has not been observed”. His first criterion is satisfied..

    The second …

    Sev: and (the phenomenon) resembles what human beings design to a degree sufficient to at least raise the possibility of intelligent design.

    Done. The “phenomenon” in question is a completely unique physical system that has been described and identified by physics for the past five decades. It is a self-referent system using rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process, preserving its constraints, just exactly as it was predicted to be. The prediction was confirmed by experimental result. All the necessary parts of the system were found, one by one. All of it abundantly recorded in the literature. Nobel Awards were passed out. And the only other instance where this particular type of system can be found and described (by physics) is in human language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence. It doesn’t merely “raise the possibility” of intelligence; the only other examples are immediate correlates of intelligence.

    So what say you Seversky?

    ***crickets***

  66. 66
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    JVL continues to pepper people with irrelevant questions, constantly trying to get a fingernail under some grist for the mill. JVL’s questions should be kept in context.

    JVL was recently asked by a commenter here about the design inference stemming from presence of a genetic code, and his perpetual denial of that inference.

    Ignoring science and history, JVL responds:

    JVL: Let’s see what the evidence says and go with that.

    This answer is pure deception. On steroids.

    What does JVL know about “what the evidence says”.

    JVL knows that a symbol entails a three-way relationship between a material token (i.e. an arrangement of matter of some kind), a referent, and (in the words of CS Peirce) an “interpretant” to physically establish a relationship between the token and its referent.

    This is what is physically required of the system. Or, to be more precise, even if abiogenesis is true, this is still what is physically required of the system. All claims must therefore meet the same requirement of being an adequate claim. To be an adequate claim, they must all result in this particular physical system being perpetuated over time.

    This system can be perpetuated over time by perpetuating the constraints in the system (i.e. the interpretants). This is implied because the descriptions are dependent on the constraints; until the constraints are stable, the sequences of their descriptions cannot specify them. When the constraints are established and the sequences successfully describe them, the system assumes a functional condition known as “semiotic closure”. In other words, the system must be self-referent in order to function. The way in which the constraints are perpetuated by the system is by specifying them in an inheritable memory. That memory must then be placed in the daughter. JVL knows all this.

    These interdependent requirements are the uniquely identifying physical characteristics of the type of system that enables open-ended replication among living things. It is what Sydney Brenner would tighten his jaw and specifically emphasize as the ”fundamental act” of self-replication — not to mention the fact that these things were specifically (and successfully) predicted by John Von Neumann in 1948, using Alan Turing’s 1936 Machine as a model. JVL knows all this as well.

    JVL also knows that these characteristics (and more) have been documented in the literature (i.e. the rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process, the spatial-orientation of objects within the tokens to distinguish one referent from another, the requirement of complimentary physical descriptions of the system, and so on), including the fact that the only other material system known to science that meets this physical description is in the use of language and mathematics.

    JVL knows all of these things, but will not speak of them. Despite complete coherence and a well-documented history, JVL does not consider them. Very frankly, there is no “ Let’s see what the evidence says and go with that.” That sentiment is rhetorically calculated to portray a rationale openness to evidence. It is delivered in order to deflect away from the fact that the exact opposite is taking place.

    Instead of incorporating the evidence as it actually exists, JVL wants to replace the acknowledgement of that evidence with a different conversation altogether. JVL wants to ignore what is known to be true in favor of what is not known and never seen — which also just so happens to reflect JVL’s personal preferences on the matter. This is an entirely different situation than merely not knowing something; this is nothing less than choosing to disregard what is known because you don’t like it.

    This is the context that JVL’s participation here must be seen in. It has nothing whatsoever to do with either science or reason. When JVL throws out RNA and stereochemistry, he is not reasoning with evidence, he is digging a trench to jump in and hide from the science.

  67. 67

    A propos…
    Biology transcends the limits of computation
    Perry Marshall.
    Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2021 Oct.
    Abstract
    Cognition-sensing and responding to the environment-is the unifying principle behind the genetic code, origin of life, evolution, consciousness, artificial intelligence, and cancer. However, the conventional model of biology seems to mistake cause and effect. According to the reductionist view, the causal chain in biology is chemicals > code > cognition. Despite this prevailing view, there are no examples in the literature to show that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce codes, or that codes produce cognition. Chemicals are just the physical layer of any information system. In contrast, although examples of cognition generating codes and codes controlling chemicals are ubiquitous in biology and technology, cognition remains a mystery. Thus, the central question in biology is: What is the nature and origin of cognition? In order to elucidate this pivotal question, we must cultivate a deeper understanding of information flows. Through this lens, we see that biological cognition is volitional (i.e., deliberate, intentional, or knowing), and while technology is constrained by deductive logic, living things make choices and generate novel information using inductive logic. Information has been called “the hard problem of life” and cannot be fully explained by known physical principles (Walker et al., 2017). The present paper uses information theory (the mathematical foundation of our digital age) and Turing machines (computers) to highlight inaccuracies in prevailing reductionist models of biology, and proposes that the correct causation sequence is cognition > code > chemicals.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33961842/

  68. 68
    JVL says:

    Upright Biped: JVL continues to pepper people with irrelevant questions, constantly trying to get a fingernail under some grist for the mill.

    When someone says they think some mutations are guided and some aren’t I think it’s fair to ask for their criteria.

    Likewise, so as not to waste people’s time, I think it’s fair to ask what they would accept as evidence regarding a particular scientific issue.

    JVL knows all of these things, but will not speak of them.

    That is not quite correct. I asked you for information regarding such issues and I read some of the material you linked to. And then I asked the question: do the researchers that Upright Biped linked to agree with their conclusion regarding intelligent design.

    I didn’t find any such researcher discussing these issues who explicitly stated they supported ID. Granted that doesn’t mean they don’t but they didn’t say they did. One, in fact, (Dr Pattee), criticised ID proponents explicitly.

    Upright BiPed wants to interpret my actions as denying what he says are obvious conclusions from biosemetic work. Not being an expert in that subject myself I looked to see what the experts had to say about ID. I didn’t find any of them supporting ID and I definitely found one who criticised ID.

    Upright BiPed and the researchers he cites seem to disagree on the implications of their work. I’m just observing that, I’m not, myself, saying that.

    I’ve got not other comment to make in this regard. If Upright BiPed has a problem with the opinion of the experts whose work he cites then he should take it up with them. Not me.

  69. 69
    Querius says:

    Upright Biped @64,

    Chuck, just for a change of pace, why don’t you try engaging in the science instead of the politics? Are you not a “trained biologists”? Here is a question I asked you several days ago. Like all the others I’ve asked, you simply walk away. Put your money were your mouth is.

    Indeed–same as my experience.

    Quite frankly, how could Chuckdarwin be a “trained biologist” and not understand how transpiration works? See Chuckdarwin @8 here:
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-and-science-today-why-c-s-lewis-doubted-the-creative-power-of-natural-selection/
    Where he asserts . . .

    Trees get their water and nutrients by transpiration, not by story telling. That is first year botany.

    While there are a few websites that seem to generalize the definition of transpiration to include the process of water transport in the xylem by capillary action involving molecular cohesion and adhesion, the majority of sources define transpiration as the loss of water though leaf surfaces and not involving nutrients typically transported by the phloem.

    -Q

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    I must have pushed one of Seversky’s buttons at posts 18 and 19. At 37 and 38 Seversky seems a bit more animated than he usually is. 🙂

    First, as to Lenski’s claim that he has evidence for Darwinian evolution in his long term evolution experiment with e-coli, (and as to the overall topic of this thread), I think the following reference from a Biomedical engineer is quite relevant, i.e. “Darwinism Flunks Science Criteria (for high confidence evidence), Says Biomedical Engineer”. Particularly, he disagrees with Lenski’s claim and holds that the evidence is evidence for Intelligent Design, not for Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinism Flunks Science Criteria (for high confidence evidence), Says Biomedical Engineer – April 7, 2019
    Excerpt: The commonly cited evidence for evolution (e.g., the fossil record, homology, and vestigial organs) do not meet any of the 6 criteria for high-confidence science.
    For example, the process that produced the life-forms found in the fossil record cannot be repeated, cannot be directly measured, and cannot be studied prospectively.
    Also, interpretations of the fossil record are replete with bias and are based upon many assumptions (for example, we are asked to assume that a life-form that is not found in a given layer of fossils did not exist at that time, yet we also are asked to assume that absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record does not imply that they did not exist).
    Finally, the interpretation of the fossil record (i.e., the effort to explain how the life-forms contained in the fossil record came to exist) extrapolates far from the actual evidence (fossilized bones) to try to explain the process responsible for the origination of the life-forms. The very low confidence provided by this type of evidence cannot provide clarity; it can only provide fuel for endless debate.
    In stark contrast, experimental evolution studies like Richard Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) meet all 6 criteria and provide very high confidence.
    Experimental evolution can be repeated, can be studied prospectively and directly measured, with minimal bias and assumptions, and the results can be summarized with sober judgement.
    The evidence from these high-confidence experimental evolution studies simply must be prioritized over the low-confidence evidence.
    Yet, biology textbooks routinely prioritize the low-confidence evidence over the high-confidence evidence. The high-confidence evidence from experimental evolution studies paint a highly constrained picture of evolution.
    For example, Lenski’s 70,000 generations of E. coli show that evolution is highly constrained – unable to produce the innovations necessary to change body plans over time or to produce new molecular machinery. The orphan genes that are prevalent in all life-forms cannot be explained by the evolution observed in these studies.
    When high-confidence evidence is appropriately prioritized over low-confidence evidence, the result is a profound new view of evolution – one that they did not teach you in biology.
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/darwinism-flunks-science-criteria-says-biomedical-engineer/

  71. 71
    Upright BiPed says:

    .

    JVL: I asked the question: do the researchers that Upright Biped linked to agree with their conclusion regarding intelligent design.

    Three things:

    1) You were told that the author/paper in question did not directly offer any such ultimate conclusions. You were then reminded that the author is a careful researcher who, in his own words, seeks to avoid what he considers “undecidable” questions which are not required in his physical analysis. You were then asked why you thought such a researcher (in such a frame of mind) should be expected to load his papers with undecidable statements. You had no response.

    2) In a comment prior to all this, you stated that you were prepared to accept research from any researcher, regardless of their larger worldview — IF — the research is competent and properly conducted. This indicates that you clearly understand and fully appreciate that a researcher’s personal worldview is properly separate from his/her practice of science. However, then as now, when you are faced with evidence and reasoning that you cannot refute, you immediately throw out your prior words and specifically seek to find solace in the personal worldview of the researcher. This is yet another demonstration of the deception that pervades virtually everything you say on this subject. What you count on is no one noticing, but they do.

    3) It must be pointed out that you, once again, refuse to engage in a conversation about physical evidence (which you obviously cannot spin away) preferring again to change the subject to issues that do not alter, and do not impact, that evidence. You will continue to avoid the physical evidence at all costs.

    (The remainder of your comment follows from the deception)

  72. 72
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    For any onlooker,

    The researcher that JVL refers to in #68 is esteemed physicist Howard Hunt Pattee.

    Dr Pattee’s specific conclusion is that the gene system is a genuine rate-independent symbol system (just as it was predicted to be in 1948 by John Von Neumann) and that the only other physical system that operates like it is in the use of language (i.e. a universal correlate of intelligence).

    This is the actual conclusion that JVL wishes to ignore because it helps to confirm the design inference. This is why JVL wishes to change the subject to the irrelevant topic of Dr Pattee’s own personal worldview. Dr Pattee obviously does not say “Because I am a non-theist, everything I wrote for the past 5 decades is untrue and may be ignored”.

    That is merely what JVL says in his place.

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Seversky’s attempted defense of Theobald,

    in Theobald’s response to Ashby Camp, Theobald honestly admitted that he had to incorporate “new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp’s points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous.”

    What additional material Theobald may have added, I have not the time nor inclination to look into right now. (My bottom dollar bet is that it is, as usual, all bluff and bluster). If Seversky thinks there is a piece of ‘slam dunk’ ‘additional’ empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution in Theobald’s response to Camp, he is more than invited to present it to me and we will weigh its strengths and weaknesses then. But as it sits now, I am certainly not going to try to read Seversky’s mind as to what part of Theobald’s ‘new’ essay he might find particularly compelling.

    But regardless, the main thrust of Theobald’s response to Ashby, (at least the main thrust of the portion that Seversky referenced to me), seems to be that Theobald claimed that Ashby made a number of logical fallacies in his response to Theobald. i.e. Straw man arguments, Red herrings, Self-contradictions, Equivocation , Arguments from authority, etc.. etc..

    My first response to that is that, “You’ve got to be kidding me? A Darwinist appealing to logical fallacies?” 🙂

    You just can’t make this stuff up. The existence of ‘immaterial’ logic, in and of itself, refutes Theobald’s entire naturalistic/atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution.

    To paraphrase Dr. Egnor, “the very logic that Clark (i.e. Theobald) employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.”

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: 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/

    And as C.S. Lewis put it, “In other words, unless Reason is absolute—all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”

    “Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it…. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula … obeys the thought laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory—in other words, unless Reason is absolute—all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare’s nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it.”
    – C. S. Lewis

    Thus, for Theobald to even appeal to logic, (i.e. logical fallacies), in the first place is for him, apparently unbeknownst to himself, to undermine his entire naturalistic/atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution in the process.

    And furthermore, to state the glaringly obvious, if your atheistic/naturalistic worldview can’t possibly ground ‘immaterial’ logic and reasoning in the first place, then your atheistic/naturalistic worldview can’t possibly provide a coherent basis for the inductive logic and reasoning that forms the basis of the scientific method itself. i.e. Methodological Naturalism is a simply non-starter’ as to firmly grounding the scientific method itself.

    And indeed, science can get along quite well without any particular reference to Darwinian ‘narratives’:

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    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?

    Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation
    Brian Miller – September 20, 2021
    Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated:
    “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.”
    Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38
    To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/

    Moreover and personally, my main gripe with Theobald’s list of 29 supposedly ‘falsifiable’ predictions is the fact that Theobald is making a patently false claim.

    Darwinian evolution, (at least how Darwinists treat their theory), is notorious for not being falsifiable by empirical testing.

    No less than Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, himself has noted that Darwin’s theory is ‘so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory’ that it has become, basically, unfalsifiable by empirical observation.

    Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015
    Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
    – Denis Noble
    https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659

    And as Dr. Cornelius Hunter points out, Darwinists are notorious for making up ad hoc ‘just-so’ stories to cover up embarrassing empirical falsifications of their theory,

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    – Cornelius Hunter

    On the following site, Dr. Hunter lists many predictions of Darwin’s theory, predictions that are core to the theory, that have now been falsified by empirical evidence,

    Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015
    This paper evaluates 22 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory.
    *Introduction
    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Responses to common objections
    *Early evolution predictions
    The DNA code is not unique
    The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal
    *Evolutionary causes predictions
    Mutations are not adaptive
    Embryology and common descent
    Competition is greatest between neighbors
    *Molecular evolution predictions
    Protein evolution
    Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change
    The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time
    *Common descent predictions
    The pentadactyl pattern and common descent
    Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships
    Biology is not lineage specific
    Similar species share similar genes
    MicroRNA
    *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions
    Genomic features are not sporadically distributed
    Gene and host phylogenies are congruent
    Gene phylogenies are congruent
    The species should form an evolutionary tree
    *Evolutionary pathways predictions
    Complex structures evolved from simpler structures
    Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them
    Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved
    Nature does not make leaps
    *Behavior
    Altruism
    Cell death
    *Conclusions
    What false predictions tell us about evolution
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home

    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

    Likewise, over the years of debating Darwinists, I have collected my own list of falsifications to Darwin’s theory, falsifications that also go to the core of the theory,,,, and falsifications that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory,

    1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. 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. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    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.

    7. 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.”

    8. 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.”

    9. 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’.

    10. 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!

    11. 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!.

    12. 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.

    13. 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!

    14. 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.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – list and link to defence of each claim
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

    Thus in conclusion, Seversky may take umbrage to my claim that Theobald’s list of 29 ‘falsifiable’ predictions for Darwinian evolution is a patently false claim for Theobald to make. If so, Seversky is more than invited to list any piece of empirical evidence from Theobald’s ‘new’ list that he thinks can stand up to rigid scrutiny.

    Again, it is my bottom dollar bet that Theobald’s entire paper, (as is usual for Darwinists), is nothing but bluff and bluster with no real empirical evidence in it that can stand up to real scrutiny.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to the good.

  74. 74
    Seversky says:

    A Short History of Biosemiotic

    Marcello Barbieri

    Biosemiotics volume 2, pages221–245 (2009)

    […]

    Darwinian Biosemiotics

    According to the Modern Synthesis, life does not require new laws of physics, but does require a new principle of nature because it is based on natural selection, and this is a process that does not exist in the inanimate world. The principle of natural selection is unique to life, and represents something “extra” in respect to the laws of physics. The Modern Synthesis, in short, takes as explanatory principles not the laws of physics alone, but the laws of physics plus the principle of natural selection.

    Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis, has repeatedly emphasized that biology has necessarily a wider framework than physics: “…The explanatory equipment of the physical sciences is insufficient to explain the interplay between historically acquired information and the responses of the genetic program to the physical world…. This is why it is just as impossible to include biology in physics as it is to include physics in geometry.” (Mayr 1982).

    The need to add natural selection to the laws of physics, was accepted by Howard Pattee, and this is a step that amounts to an extended version of his theory. Pattee underlined that there is no contrast between physical biosemiotics and natural selection, and we can therefore put them together. In this way, by adding a mechanism of evolution to physical biosemiotics, this becomes evolutionary physical biosemiotics, and since the mechanism in question is natural selection we can rightly call it Darwinian biosemiotics.

    This view is in complete agreement with the Modern Synthesis because it accepts all its basic concepts, in particular the model that every organism is a duality of genotype and phenotype and the idea that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution. Darwinian biosemiotics, in other words, is physical biosemiotics plus the principle of natural selection, and can be regarded as the evolutionary version of physical biosemiotics.

    In both cases, the Pattee approach introduces semiosis into the Modern Synthesis without changing its defining principles, and represents, to all effects, an updating of the Synthesis itself, an extension that allows it to incorporate the concepts of semiosis and recognize at last the existence of “symbols that control matter” in every cell of the living world.

    […]

    Today there are still differences between the schools, but there is also a ‘minimal unity’ in the field because of two basic principles, or postulates, that are accepted by virtually all biosemioticians.

    (1) The first postulate is Thomas Sebeok’s idea that “life and semioisis are coextensive”. This implies that semiosis appeared at the origin of life, and sharply differentiates biosemiotics from ‘pansemiotics’ and ‘physiosemiotics’, the doctrines that semiosis exists also in inanimate matter and therefore everywhere in the universe. It also differentiates it from the views that semiosis exists only in animals or only in humans beings.

    (2) The second postulate is the idea that signs, meanings and codes are natural entities. This sharply divides biosemiotics from the doctrine of ‘intelligent design’, and from all other doctrines that maintain that the origin of life on Earth was necessarily the product of a supernatural agency.

  75. 75
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Oh wow. I did not see this statement earlier, and I think it should be addressed.

    One, in fact, (Dr Pattee), criticised ID proponents explicitly.

    JVL, if a person says that the gene system is a genuine rate-independent symbol system, do you think HH Pattee would disagree with that statement?

    If a person says that the only other physical system to operate like the gene system is in the use of language and mathematics, do you think HH Pattee would disagree?

    Lets cut to the chase, JVL. If a person correctly repeats any of the central observations about the physical requirements of the gene system, which HH Pattee documented over the course of 50 years, do you think he would disagree with any of those observations?

    Of course not.

    Are you beginning to understand why your comments above are so obvious in their intent, yet so impotent in their impact on the issues?

  76. 76
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Good grief Seversky, did you actually read what you posted?

    This was written several years ago when the different schools of biosemiotics were trying to organize themselves. Tell me where anything in Barbieri’s paper that indicates that 1) the gene system is not a genuine symbol system, or 2) that the only other example of such a physical system is in the use of language.

    Can you do that?

  77. 77
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Seversky, do you want to talk about Barbieri’s two postulates?

    They are both given on the first page of the paper. Then, the remainder of the paper is provided to support of the postulates. Why don’t you dig into the paper and present here what Barbieri uses to support his second postulate.

    I’ll wait.

    – – – – – – – –

    Ps — you might want to review comment #75.

  78. 78
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    …and while you are here Sev, would you also mind addressing this statement you made?

    Sev: Once more, in my view, we are able to infer design on two grounds.

    The first …

    Sev: The phenomenon or entity has not been observed to result from natural processes

    Done. No one has observed a natural process that results in encoded memory containing a set of descriptions of the constraints required to decode that memory … It clearly, unambiguously “has not been observed”. His first criterion is satisfied..

    The second …

    Sev: and (the phenomenon) resembles what human beings design to a degree sufficient to at least raise the possibility of intelligent design.

    Done. The “phenomenon” in question is a completely unique physical system that has been described and identified by physics for the past five decades. It is a self-referent system using rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process, preserving its constraints, just exactly as it was predicted to be. The prediction was confirmed by experimental result. All the necessary parts of the system were found, one by one. All of it abundantly recorded in the literature. Nobel Awards were passed out. And the only other instance where this particular type of system can be found and described (by physics) is in human language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence. It doesn’t merely “raise the possibility” of intelligence; the only other examples are immediate correlates of intelligence.

    So what say you Seversky?

  79. 79
    Origenes says:

    Upright Biped, I am having trouble accessing biosemiosis.org with web.archive.org. Is there another way to look at your work?

  80. 80
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Hello Origenes,

    Sorry, but not at the moment. Later, yes.

    I hope you are well.

    🙂

  81. 81
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You seem mostly hung up with the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Are you sure you’re caught up with the latest research on that?

    Yes. I am caught up. And if you don’t have a mechanism capable of getting beyond the starting point then you lose.

    Well, most of them, especially after the introduction of eukaryotes are due to differential survival because of inheritable variations.

    ‘I know the story. What variations, specifically?

    I didn’t say DNA was the genetic code.

    Right. You said that DNA is a contested structure. That is incorrect. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system.

    I think it matters a great deal that you a) support your views and b) offer an alternative to modern evolutionary theory. You (seem to) think some mutations are guided and some are not. I’d just like to know what some of the criteria are for deciding which is which. If those criteria have already be developed it should be easy to provide a summary of them.

    Gibberish. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any viable scientific alterative to ID. ID still offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.

    And as I said- that living organisms were intelligently designed comes with they were intelligently designed to evolve and adapt. Unguided processes come down to point mutations. Gene duplication, followed by integration and sequence change, isn’t unguided.

    The ONLY way to say that mutations are unguided is to show that such processes can produce living organisms. Other than that all you have is an argument from ignorance. But again, it does not matter. The DNA model has been falsified.

    There is no DNA model for universal common descent. There is evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent.

    Wow! Wrong and wrong. The DNA model states that differential accumulations of (random/ unguided) genetic change produced the diversity of life, starting from some unknown populations of imperfect biologically relevant replicators. And how can there be evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent absent the DNA model?

    You clearly don’t have any idea what you are talking about. The DNA is model is your alleged theory of evolution. That came true with the advent of the modern synthesis. And Mayr supported it until his death.

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky also falsely claimed that “there is no testable hypothesis of creationism or intelligent design against which to compare anything else.”

    That is, once again, a patently false claim for Seversky to make.

    Unlike Darwinian evolution, Intelligent Design does have rigid falsification criteria that demarcates it as a hard and testable science, and not a pseudo-science like Darwinian evolution is:

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: “To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2662469/
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work

    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC).,,,
    Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,,
    Testable hypotheses about FSC
    What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:??

    Null hypothesis #1
    Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
    Null hypothesis #2
    Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
    Null hypothesis #3
    Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
    Null hypothesis #4
    Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

    We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can demonstrate that natural processes can generate a code, (and thus falsify the primary claim of ID that only intelligence can create coded information):

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – 14 Jan, 2020,
    Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.
    The new international competition is intended to speed breakthroughs around the still unknown process of cell communication that organizers predict can turn off cancer, allow robots to think for themselves and even create new plant life to combat climate change.
    The Evolution 2.0 Prize is designed by Chicago engineer-turned-marketer-turned-business consultant Perry Marshall and his A-list team of partners. They include top genetic experts from Harvard and Oxford, plus a diverse group of investors from private banking, healthcare and biotechnology, software, real estate, publishing and more.
    “A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire.
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    Darwinian evolution, in spite of how badly Seversky may want his atheistic religion of Darwinism to qualify as a hard science, simply does not qualify as a hard and testable science like Intelligent Design does:

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,,
    We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,,
    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/

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to the good.

  83. 83
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    It appears that both JVL and Seversky have abandoned ship. This was to be expected.

  84. 84
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Solemn Existence at #67

    Thank you for posting Perry Marshall’s paper.

  85. 85
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: It appears that both JVL and Seversky have abandoned ship. This was to be expected.

    You can be quite a jerk. I live in the UK and I stayed up pretty late participating in the discussion. Then I went to bed. I have things to do today and will consider replying later.

  86. 86
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    JVL, you made a single comment to me yesterday, pushing the ridiculous narrative that a scientist’ personal worldview is more important to scientific questions than his/her scientific measurement. You then ended that comment by telling me you had nothing more to say.

    (Oddly enough, the timestamp on that comment was 2:28p CDT, which if correct, would be 7:28p GMT).

  87. 87
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    If you’ve decided to jump back into the conversation, I am all for it.

    JVL, is the gene system a genuine symbol system, just as it was predicted by John Von Neumann?

    If it is, then the design inference is valid. You can disagree with it, but you cannot say that it is not valid.

  88. 88
    JVL says:

    Upright Biped: JVL, you made a single comment to me yesterday, pushing the ridiculous narrative that a scientist’ personal worldview is more important to scientific questions than his/her scientific measurement. You then ended that comment by telling me you had nothing more to say.

    I didn’t say it was more important, I just noted what I’ve observed. I don’t really have any more to say. I spent some time looking again for comments and statement by semiotic researchers and did find this request for papers about semiotics and the extended synthesis, i.e. as in evolutionary theory.

    http://biosemiosis.blogspot.co.....ended.html

    While the field of biosemiotics is concerned with the origin and development of natural semiotic systems, much of the discussion has been framed in terms of Darwinian frameworks, including the Modern Synthesis. Non-Darwinian views were held by Uexküll and, more recently, Darwinian views have been supplemented in important ways by Kull, Hoffmeyer, and Barbieri. Many biological phenomena, such as transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, have yet to be explained in terms of these evolutionary theories. In the 1980s, biologists aimed to develop an Extended Synthesis to build upon and replace parts of the Modern Synthesis to better accommodate and explain these observed phenomenon.

    And then I found this from a paper published in 2018:

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-018-9322-2

    This paper argues that the Extended Synthesis, ecological information, and biosemiotics are complementary approaches whose engagement will help us explain the organism-environment interaction at the cognitive level. The Extended Synthesis, through niche construction theory, can explain the organism-environment interaction at an evolutionary level because niche construction is a process guided by information. We believe that the best account that defines information at this level is the one offered by biosemiotics and, within all kinds of biosemiotic information available, we believe that ecological information (information for affordances) is the best candidate for making sense of the organism-environment relation at the cognitive level. This entanglement of biosemiotics, ecological information and the Extended Synthesis is promising for understanding the multidimensional character of the organism-environment reciprocity as well as the relation between evolution, cognition, and meaning.

    Which doesn’t sound like the field of semiotics is looking to overthrow the notion of unguided evolutionary theory. In fact, it looks like they are trying to find common ground.

    (Oddly enough, the timestamp on that comment was 2:28p CDT, which if correct, would be 7:28p GMT).

    I published my comment at about 7:30 am London time on Sunday, October 31st. I have no idea how the server time-stamps work.

    JVL, is the gene system a genuine symbol system, just as it was predicted by John Von Neumann?

    Isn’t the real question how it came about? And are you sure that the semiotic researchers think it couldn’t have come about naturally?

    If it is, then the design inference is valid. You can disagree with it, but you cannot say that it is not valid.

    The design hypothesis is valid of course. The question is: is it upheld by the observed data?

    I don’t think you’ll find many biologists or semiotic researchers who think it is. I haven’t found one yet who does.

    Now you may bring up your old objections: they won’t buck the ruling paradigm because they are worried about their jobs. They don’t want to be ridiculed for objecting to the accepted truth. Etc. But I just don’t buy those excuses. Take Dr Pattee for example. He is retired, his pension is at no risk no matter what he says or supports. Plus, he doesn’t impress me as the type of person who cares one bit what people think about him. Anyway, there is zero evidence any of the semiotic researchers have felt that kind of pressure or coercion. You suggest it as a possibility but you can’t back it up with evidence.

    If the actual researchers in the field do not support your interpretation and extension of their work then why should I?

  89. 89
    JVL says:

    ET:

    You still haven’t given a summary of how one can distinguish between guided and unguided mutations. Just saying>

    Yes. I am caught up. And if you don’t have a mechanism capable of getting beyond the starting point then you lose.

    Have you considered all the proposed hypotheses?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin_of_eukaryotes

    ‘I know the story. What variations, specifically?

    It depends on which stage your are talking about clearly.

    Gibberish. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any viable scientific alterative to ID. ID still offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.

    Other opinions, via textbooks and research and lectures and seminars and publications are available.

    And as I said- that living organisms were intelligently designed comes with they were intelligently designed to evolve and adapt. Unguided processes come down to point mutations. Gene duplication, followed by integration and sequence change, isn’t unguided.

    Yes . . . .

    The ONLY way to say that mutations are unguided is to show that such processes can produce living organisms. Other than that all you have is an argument from ignorance. But again, it does not matter. The DNA model has been falsified.

    No, you can look at the rate and location of mutations and consider what effect they have on the physiology of the life form.

    I think you’re losing the plot a bit.

    Wow! Wrong and wrong. The DNA model states that differential accumulations of (random/ unguided) genetic change produced the diversity of life, starting from some unknown populations of imperfect biologically relevant replicators. And how can there be evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent absent the DNA model?

    I don’t understand, the evidence in the genome supports universal common descent and we know how DNA variation can affect phenotypes.

    You clearly don’t have any idea what you are talking about. The DNA is model is your alleged theory of evolution. That came true with the advent of the modern synthesis. And Mayr supported it until his death.

    You seem to be drifting a bit. We know how DNA works and how it can affect a particular life form implementation. We know that replication of DNA has a certain error rate which introduces variations which translate into physical differences, sometimes. And evolutionary theory says that those variations affect survival rates and affect which genes get more copies passed on. Simple.

  90. 90
    ET says:

    JVL- You will just have to read Spetner and Marshall. And yes, I am caught up on the alleged origin of eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis has been around for decades. They can’t duplicate it. It is not reproducible.

    It depends on which stage your are talking about clearly.

    Look, JVL, it is all about changes to DNA. That is it is all about a differential accumulations of (unguided) genetic change. Yet DNA doesn’t have the power you think it does.

    Other opinions, via textbooks and research and lectures and seminars and publications are available.

    I don’t care about opinions. The fact that no one can link to the alleged scientific theory is more than enough to support my claim. And no one has ever presented a viable model for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes

    No, you can look at the rate and location of mutations and consider what effect they have on the physiology of the life form.

    That has absolutely NO bearing on the nature of the mutations.

    I don’t understand, the evidence in the genome supports universal common descent and we know how DNA variation can affect phenotypes.

    No, the evidence in the genome supports a common design. You are stuck with the phenotype of prokaryotes. In metazoans all DNA does is produce slight variations, like color. And it also contributes to deformities. DNA definitely does NOT determine biological form. It just determines if the biological form will develop properly or not.

    You clearly are just another gullible fool. DNA is not the magical molecule you have been led to believe it is.

    You seem to be drifting a bit. We know how DNA works and how it can affect a particular life form implementation. We know that replication of DNA has a certain error rate which introduces variations which translate into physical differences, sometimes. And evolutionary theory says that those variations affect survival rates and affect which genes get more copies passed on. Simple.

    Laughable. I am proving that you don’t have a clue. Yes, we know that DNA does NOT determine biological form. We know that changes to DNA cannot possibly account for the diversity of life. It doesn’t matter how many mutations. It doesn’t matter how they are filtered. It doesn’t matter how they accumulate. A lion that survives and passes its genes on will always have lions as descendants. A better surviving prokaryote is still a prokaryote. It will only give rise to more prokaryotes.

    Contingent serendipity is not a creative force. And the DNA model has been known to be a failure for a few decades. But evos refuse to give up. Desperation, really.

  91. 91
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The design hypothesis is valid of course. The question is: is it upheld by the observed data?

    Absolutely.

    I don’t think you’ll find many biologists or semiotic researchers who think it is. I haven’t found one yet who does.

    I know we won’t find one biologist or semiotic researcher than can demonstrate that nature can do it. So no one cares what they say. It’s what they can demonstrate that matters to science. And they can’t demonstrate that nature did it. And it goes against everything we know about such systems.

    It’s like saying glaciers built Stonehenge.

  92. 92
    Querius says:

    ET @91,
    What??? The glaciers didn’t build Stonehenge, sculpting them by differential erosion millions of years ago?

    Surely if the complexity of a cell could be the result of random processes, the evolution of Stonehenge would be trivial in comparison! (We find many examples of pre-Stonehenge morphologies expressed at successive depths of strata). LOL

    -Q

  93. 93
    davidl1 says:

    Now you may bring up your old objections: they won’t buck the ruling paradigm because they are worried about their jobs. They don’t want to be ridiculed for objecting to the accepted truth. Etc. But I just don’t buy those excuses.

    I think it’s more a matter of a worldview that precludes allowing for intelligent design. It doesn’t have to be something explicit, like an acknowledged threat or concern. I don’t doubt that those are factors in some cases, but in most cases I suspect it’s just a matter of a worldview that says that intelligent design is not an option. There’s no practical way to test the theories of how the code developed, so untested assumptions needed to fill in the blanks are treated as fact.

  94. 94
    Upright BiPed says:

    (returning)

    my oh my

    It appears our ID critic has acknowledged that the design inference is valid. The phrase “of course” was even added as comical relief — as if someone could read any of his or her prior comments on this forum, and would know that the scientific validity of the design inference was an already accepted conclusion.

    Yes JVL, the gene system is a genuine rate-independent symbol system. It is established by a set of non-integrable constraints. It uses the spatial orientation of objects within a finite set of tokens to distinguish one referent from another, enabling it to specify itself among alternatives in a heritable memory, and thus enabling it to perpetuate itself over time — just as it was predicted.

    You quickly couch your admission in the counter-question “is it upheld by the observed data?”

    This question seems a bit detached from reality. It is as if the conversation that led up to your acknowledgment of the design inference hadn’t actually been taking place for the past three years.

    The design inference is directly and wholly based on observation and experiment. It is based on the observations of Charles Sanders Peirce, Alan Turing, John Von Neumann, Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, Mahlon Hoagland, Paul Zamecnik, Marshall Nirenberg, Howard Pattee, and others.

    The question you actually need to ask is this: “Is there a non-design explanation that is upheld by the observed data?”

    The answer to that question is emphatically “No”. But rest assured, this is not a biased, slippery, partisan “No”. This is a concrete, demonstrable, scientific, no-one-even-has-a-damn-clue “No”.

    If you believe otherwise — if you believe that there is experimental data showing the calculable rise of a perpetuating rate-independent symbol system from rate-dependent dynamics, then by all means, post it here. Really, please post it.

    (It doesn’t exist)

    If you are an OoL researcher, you can approach and speak about the subject in different ways. You can start from some unknown physical condition, like say, an unknown dynamic self-replicating RNA, and then move to some other unknown condition, such as an unknown form of metabolism or some other unknown process —OR— You can move from a known condition, like the rate-independent system you must achieve in order to actually explain the origin of life and open-ended potential, and then move to an unknown, such as a precursor condition that is physically capable of bringing that system into being.

    Sit though a lecture by someone like Jack Szostak, or Gerald Joyce, or John Sutherland. You will see that they all pursue the former approach, not the latter. No one has any idea how you get symbols from dynamics. No one can tell you — even conceptually — how that is possible. No one is even discussing it. This is why you cannot do a quick search of papers and find some pithy answer to the problems that semiosis places on the table. It is because (as I suggest in comment #66) the materialists conception of abiogenesis is fundamentally inadequate. Molecule A sticking to molecule B with a higher regularity than molecule C does not mean that molecule A is a description of molecule B. Get real.

    As for the remainder of your comment — whew.

    Is there nothing JVL that can be said to you in order to get you to understand that science is just not conducted by special pleading? You can say “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it” over and over and over again — it still means nothing JVL.

    Can you just not understand that, or what?

  95. 95
    Sandy says:

    If you are an OoL researcher, ..you can start from some unknown physical condition, like say, an unknown dynamic self-replicating RNA, and then move to some other unknown condition, such as an unknown form of metabolism or some other unknown process —OR— You can move from a known condition, like the rate-independent system you must achieve in order to actually explain the origin of life and open-ended potential, and then move to an unknown, such as a precursor condition that is physically capable of bringing that system into being

    Very good. Something something “unknown” is not science is religion, ideology.
    In this way can be summarized all debate (neo)darwinism vs I.D. :The battle of the unknowns one side bring the unknown of random chance the other side bring the unknown technology of a Super-Intelligence. In the middle we have life, cell,brain,embriology. Is not very difficult to choose. Actually even a child with no scientific knowledge can choose the right answer where some PhD scientists fail. 🙂
    ID can’t prove the technology about how life was created because it’s a superior intelligence than theirs (think children of 3 years can’t explain what Einstein has done) but WHY darwinists can’t prove how stupid random chance created life???(think Einstein that can’t prove /understand how a child made something)

  96. 96
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    As an aside…

    I think it should be noted that JVL’s acknowledgement (that the scientific inference to design in biology is valid) the first time — at least to my knowledge — that a materialist critic on this website has made that acknowledgement (others can correct me if I am wrong). For that I am surprised.

    For the design inference to be invalid, it would require a demonstration that non-intelligence can create the system in question. That demonstration does not exist. It is not something about to exist. It is not as if OoL research has the plot, and is just filling in the characters. It doesn’t exist at all.

    Now… I realize that JVL’s acknowledgment will mean nothing, JVL will continue to stay here and pester ID people as if the inference is obviously false. He/she can always find the ubiquitous argument over “evolution” to get involved in (ignoring the fact that the design inference is what makes evolution possible in the first place).

    But still, the admission, however tainted, is there. So, there’s that.

  97. 97
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    #95

    Just so you realize, the design inference in biology does not demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Being. It is limited to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence (albeit, a mighty one). It would be helpful to the discussion if you kept that in mind.

  98. 98
    Sandy says:

    It is limited to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence

    There is the problem of infinite regression of that unknown intelligence that was created by other unknown intelligence that was created by … A single one unknown intelligence postulate An Ultimate Intelligence outside the system.
    But I understand where you’re coming from. 🙂

  99. 99
    JVL says:

    ET: You will just have to read Spetner and Marshall. And yes, I am caught up on the alleged origin of eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis has been around for decades. They can’t duplicate it. It is not reproducible.

    I don’t know why you can’t just give a brief summary. Not sure I want to spend the money . . .

    Look, JVL, it is all about changes to DNA. That is it is all about a differential accumulations of (unguided) genetic change. Yet DNA doesn’t have the power you think it does.

    Well, how do you think significant new body plans came about? Not by being designed to evolve ’cause that would only affect the DNA.

    That has absolutely NO bearing on the nature of the mutations.

    Of course it does. Random means they don’t happen predictably so you need to check if they’re predictable.

    No, the evidence in the genome supports a common design. You are stuck with the phenotype of prokaryotes. In metazoans all DNA does is produce slight variations, like color. And it also contributes to deformities. DNA definitely does NOT determine biological form. It just determines if the biological form will develop properly or not.

    So . . . you’re saying lifeforms are programmed to evolve but DNA isn’t enough . . . so how do new body plans arise in your view?

    Laughable. I am proving that you don’t have a clue. Yes, we know that DNA does NOT determine biological form. We know that changes to DNA cannot possibly account for the diversity of life. It doesn’t matter how many mutations. It doesn’t matter how they are filtered. It doesn’t matter how they accumulate. A lion that survives and passes its genes on will always have lions as descendants. A better surviving prokaryote is still a prokaryote. It will only give rise to more prokaryotes.

    So, you think being programmed to evolve includes something else other than DNA? What would that be then?

  100. 100
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: It appears our ID critic has acknowledged that the design inference is valid.

    No, I said the design hypothesis is valid. But a hypothesis is just a guess, it needs to be validated.

    The phrase “of course” was even added as comical relief — as if someone could read any of his or her prior comments on this forum, and would know that the scientific validity of the design inference was an already accepted conclusion.

    Except, obviously, I didn’t use the word ‘inference’. You are giving the wrong impression.

    Is there nothing JVL that can be said to you in order to get you to understand that science is just not conducted by special pleading? You can say “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it” over and over and over again — it still means nothing JVL.

    Can you just not understand that, or what?

    Expect, I don’t just say that. Again, you are saying I said things I didn’t say.

    I think it should be noted that JVL’s acknowledgement (that the scientific inference to design in biology is valid) the first time — at least to my knowledge — that a materialist critic on this website has made that acknowledgement (others can correct me if I am wrong).

    Except, obviously, I didn’t say that.

    Now… I realize that JVL’s acknowledgment will mean nothing, JVL will continue to stay here and pester ID people as if the inference is obviously false.

    Much of the time I am trying to figure out what ID supporters mean by ‘it was designed’ as in: how was it implemented; over a long period of time or all at once? Surely you can see there there would be much different kinds of evidence supporting a completely front-loaded scenario as opposed to some kind of continuous tinkering.

    I don’t see what is wrong trying to make sure I am clear what ID proponents are proposing.

    Just so you realize, the design inference in biology does not demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Being. It is limited to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence (albeit, a mighty one). It would be helpful to the discussion if you kept that in mind.

    If you would specify some more details of when and how you think design was implemented we might get some more clarity on that issue as well.

  101. 101
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    Ok, so by your admission the design ‘hypothesis’ is valid and awaiting validation. What, in your opinion, would you consider as validating evidence for the design hypothesis?.

  102. 102
    JVL says:

    Seekers: Ok, so by your admission the design ‘hypothesis’ is valid and awaiting validation.

    I’m not holding my breath. Again, you can make lots and lots of hypothesis.

    What, in your opinion, would you consider as validating evidence for the design hypothesis?.

    Well, one of the best and clearest form of evidence would be documentation from the designers regarding how and when and why they implemented design. Expecting that documentation to conform to the physical data we have already discovered. You never know, we might find a secure vault on the moon spelling it all out.

    Any kind of evidence that there were designers around with the abilities required would be helpful.

    You can’t actually prove a negative: i.e. that some ‘design’ could not have been accomplished by unguided processes. But I think some work could be done on a mathematical process or procedure for design detection. The one that Dr Dembski proposed is unusable and unused so it might be worth some time re-examining that.

    Personally I would find it easier to evaluate and potentially accept ID hypotheses if they were more specific regarding when and how. Just saying: we think this is designed says almost nothing. Consider the vast difference between a fully front-loaded scenario and one involving frequent interventions. They are vastly different claims but ID proponents are reluctant to look at the physical evidence and give more weight to one or the other. I find that very surprising and sad to be honest. I think in their desperation to fight the materialists various ID camps have decided to stop proposing different ID models (and stop doing any science) to present a unified front. The unguided camp is always fighting amongst themselves about who is right. That’s the way science works. Except with ID. No one is proposing anything or arguing about anything. It’s weird.

    There SHOULD be multiple design hypotheses but there isn’t. There’s only one and it doesn’t say much of anything and no one is trying to fill in the details.

  103. 103
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    “I’m not holding my breath. Again, you can make lots and lots of hypothesis”

    I’m sensing a slight antipathy towards the design inference.
    Sure you can make lots of hypothesis, but speculating on what someone can think up is irrelevant to the topic at hand. At the end of the day the only two main hypothesis would be between design or unguided, however you want to define both camps.

    “Well, one of the best and clearest form of evidence would be documentation from the designers regarding how and when and why they implemented design. Expecting that documentation to conform to the physical data we have already discovered. You never know, we might find a secure vault on the moon spelling it all out“

    So in order for you to accept the design inference you require documentation of how, when, and why the designing took place. You seem to be holding the design hypothesis to an awfully high standard.

    “Personally I would find it easier to evaluate and potentially accept ID hypotheses if they were more specific regarding when and how. Just saying: we think this is designed says almost nothing”

    As far as I’m aware naturalistic hypothesis offer up guesses and speculation to the hows and when’s but you seem to have no problem accepting that.
    Saying something is designed is a statement which requires further investigation. Just saying something happened by sheer randomness says nothing and hardly offers much opportunity to investigate the how’s and whys.

    “The unguided camp is always fighting amongst themselves about who is right. That’s the way science works. Except with ID. No one is proposing anything or arguing about anything. It’s weird”

    So you believe science works by simply infighting about who is right. Maybe none of them are right and a vault really is awaiting discovery on the moon but they would never know that as they’re infighting would blind them to such a discovery.
    They’re are many within the ID camp whom hold to different views, what I would say they all agree too is that there is evidence of design in the history of life. Simply because they do not argue with one another doesn’t mean that they are not proposing anything at all.

  104. 104
    JVL says:

    Seekers: JBL,

    Um, I think you mean JVL

    I’m sensing a slight antipathy towards the design inference.

    If your data and arguments and results are good then you should be able to overcome that.

    So in order for you to accept the design inference you require documentation of how, when, and why the designing took place. You seem to be holding the design hypothesis to an awfully high standard.

    You asked my opinion. And what I’m asking for is very similar to what ID proponents ask of unguided evolutionary proponents: tell us when, tell us how (very precisely). Why is not an issue since the process is proposed to be unguided. I also listed some other criteria that I would find illuminating so don’t just fixate on one.

    As far as I’m aware naturalistic hypothesis offer up guesses and speculation to the hows and when’s but you seem to have no problem accepting that.

    Informed Guesses and speculations based on data and observed phenomena followed up by experimentation and more data collection. But ID doesn’t even bother to speculate or guess. We infer design and . . . that’s it.

    Saying something is designed is a statement which requires further investigation.

    I completely agree! Thank you. So what investigations are ongoing? What is the research agenda? What major questions are being investigated?

    Just saying something happened by sheer randomness says nothing and hardly offers much opportunity to investigate the how’s and why’s.

    But no one is saying that. Except for people trying to make a straw man argument against the modern evolutionary synthesis.

    So you believe science works by simply infighting about who is right. Maybe none of them are right and a vault really is awaiting discovery on the moon but they would never know that as they’re infighting would blind them to such a discovery.

    I’m saying that a healthy and active area of science has people disagreeing and arguing about what is correct and which way to go. ID doesn’t exhibit any of those features.

    They’re are many within the ID camp whom hold to different views, what I would say they all agree too is that there is evidence of design in the history of life. Simply because they do not argue with one another doesn’t mean that they are not proposing anything at all.

    Well, I see precious little about when design was implemented or how or by who in a general sense; i.e. not a specific individual which I have to say otherwise ET will flag that statement for derision since he thinks any reference to ‘who’ means a particular individual.

    IF ID proponents have some disagreements and some discussions about the when’s, why’s and how’s then I’d love to see that.

  105. 105
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    “If your data and arguments and results are good then you should be able to overcome that.“

    I’m not out to persuade anyone, if you hold antipathy towards the design inference that’s your problem.

    “ Informed Guesses and speculations based on data and observed phenomena followed up by experimentation and more data collection. But ID doesn’t even bother to speculate or guess. We infer design and . . . that’s it.”

    They infer design and investigate how such a design could have been implemented. Perhaps read some of they’re material and you could be better informed.

    “ Well, I see precious little about when design was implemented or how or by who in a general sense”

    Then why are you here.

  106. 106
    JVL says:

    Seekers: They infer design and investigate how such a design could have been implemented. Perhaps read some of they’re material and you could be better informed.

    I have read some of ‘they’re’ material and I see precious little that addresses how or when design was implemented. But I’m happy to change my mind if you can show me some publications which do pursue those goals.

    Then why are you here.

    Two main reasons:

    First, I would very much like to understand what ID proponents are ‘saying’ in that, what are they actually, specifically proposing happened in the history of life on Earth. I keep bumping up against the void that seems to exist after ‘we’ve detected design’. So, what is ID saying past that? Anything? Is it really a scientific endeavour with an actual research agenda and questions to pursue? I don’t think it’s fair to decry a viewpoint until you understand it fully and I’m still trying to figure out what model of the development of life on Earth ID is proposing. Or which models it is proposing. No one will say.

    Secondly, I don’t think one should go through life without testing you own ideas against the best arguments against them. I do think the arguments for unguided evolution is correct but if I haven’t considered the alternative explanations then . . . And, as I’ve mentioned before, my view on some aspects of the issues has changed as a result of conversing with people on this forum.

    But this does bring up my basic frustration again: what is ID actually saying about when and how life arose and developed on Earth? It was designed. Okay? All at once? A bit at a time? In the later case how often did intervention occur? Etc, etc, etc. All questions anyone interested in science would want to address and pursue. So that’s what I’m trying to do.

  107. 107
    Upright BiPed says:

    .

    UB: JVL, is the gene system a genuine symbol system, just as it was predicted by John Von Neumann? If it is, then the design inference is valid.

    JVL: The design hypothesis is valid of course.

    Nauseatingly true to form, there was little doubt that you would use your gratuitous change in terms to con-man your way out.

    Seeker #101, you might consider spitting out the hook, although I obviously understand the attraction to question abject dishonesty. As laid out for JVL on the site, the design inference is based (in part) on John Von Neumann’s successful prediction that open-ended self-replication would depend on a quiescent symbol system, a language structure (a code), and semiotic closure. That prediction has been already validated tens of thousands of times over, as JVL pretends to await for it to take place.

    Sydney Brenner: John Von Neumann the history of DNA

    Sydney Brenner: Schrödinger wrong, von Neumann right

  108. 108
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    … also Seeker:

    JVL has already acknowledged that finding a genuine symbolic code would provide observers with a universal inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence. It would provide this inference without knowing who, what, when, where or how.

    He/she actually loves the logic, and fully agrees with it.

    It’s just that when it interferes with JVL’s personal worldview, he/she becomes irrational and immediately applies a gratuitous double-standard to the evidence. This is done in order to insulate his/her ideology from the documented science and history.

    JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems

    UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be?

    JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.

    UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain.

    Why the double standard?

    JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.

  109. 109
    Seekers says:

    Upright biped,

    I have to admit I do enjoy a good debate every now and then, given that the other party is willing to honestly engage(a rare occurrence now a days I’m afraid).

Leave a Reply