Intelligent Design

Chuan He: Evolution Created Epigenetics

Spread the love

They never predicted it, then they denied it could be heritable, and then they denied it could cause lasting change. “It” in this case is epigenetics and in spite of being wrong, wrong and wrong again, and in spite of the fact that there is no scientific explanation for how epigenetics could have evolved, evolutionists nonetheless insist that it, in fact, must have evolved. Evolution loses every battle but claims to win the war. All of this became abundantly clear this past week when the finding of a new epigenetic signal was announced:  Read  more

72 Replies to “Chuan He: Evolution Created Epigenetics

  1. 1
    Andre says:

    In the materialist world nihil fit ex nihilo means nothing.

  2. 2
    nightlight says:

    evolutionists nonetheless insist that it, in fact, must have evolved.

    Here is Cornelius battling his windmills again. It evolved the same way cars evolved since Model T, or as computers evolved since Eniac, etc.

    It just didn’t evolve via Darwinian random trial and error algorithm. It evolved via much smarter algorithms, just as technologies, sciences, languages, cultures,… did.

    This is precisely what makes the Seattle version of ID anti-scientific and a dead end. It’s a an attempt to resurrect God of gaps via logical fallacy — if Darwinian mechanism is inadequate, then any mechanism must be inadequate (evolution impossible), hence the intelligent agency (from their favorite mideastern shepherd mythology) intervenes every now and then to help the universe figure it out. No Cornelius, it is humans who need to figure it out, not the universe.

    It’s a very common confusion between the map and the territory, typical for Cornelius and Seattle ID.

  3. 3
    Box says:

    Nightlight: It evolved the same way cars evolved since Model T, or as computers evolved since Eniac, etc.

    Aha, so it “evolved” by intelligent design.

    Nightlight: if Darwinian mechanism is inadequate, then any mechanism must be inadequate (evolution impossible)

    With the exception of the mechanism of intelligent design.

  4. 4
    Andre says:

    Nightlight

    Here is Cornelius battling his windmills again. It evolved the same way cars evolved since Model T, or as computers evolved since Eniac, etc.

    These things evolved via artificial selection , aka an intervention now and then by a intelligent mind……..

  5. 5
    nightlight says:

    @Box #3 “With the exception of the mechanism of intelligent design.”

    Intelligent algorithms can run without external (to the universe) intervention by some “agency”.

    Cellular biochemical networks clearly manifest vast intelligence (they execute intelligent algorithms) in the realm of molecular bioengineering which is far beyond anything human technology and science could even dream of.

    They routinely engineer and construct live organisms from scratch (from simple food atoms and molecules). In contrast, human science and technology cannot even engineer one live organelle of a single cell from scratch, let alone whole cell, then trillions of such cells and compose them into functioning organism. For humans, cellular biochemical networks are like advanced technology from aliens billions of years ahead of us.

    The most ridiculous aspect of Cornelius/Seattle ID is that they insist on grasping outside of the universe for their “intelligent agency” to intervene every now and then and design new proteins that result in evolutionary novelties, when the ultimate master bioengineers are in every cell.

    Of course, one can ask how did life with all that built in intelligence arise in the first place? But before you can ask that, concede first that evolutionary novelties do not require intervention from outside of the universe, since intelligence needed is clearly evident exactly where it is needed, in the cells.

    Assuming that the above is conceded, the Origin of Life can be dealt with using the same kind of the bottom up approach as for its evolution — intelligence needed to design it and build it is coming from inside matter-energy i.e. real physical substratum is not just some dumb particles aimlessly bouncing around, but a computational process at Planck scale (pregeometry) which is 10^80 times more powerful than any computer we can even conceive and design using “elementary” particles (as presently understood) for its building blocks.

    This inside-out bottom up approach simultaneously addresses the related problem of fine tuning — the physical laws as we know them today which appear finely tuned are merely tips of the vast iceberg of a sophisticated underlying computational processes. They are like observations of simple regularities in the patterns of Conway’s Game of Life. Our present physical laws merely capture few regularities of the few particles under very simple conditions, or many particles under simple initial & boundary conditions (simple probability distributions).

    The principal advantage of such approach over the alternatives is the economy in the amount of intelligence that needs to be front loaded. There is no need for omnipotent, omniscient being (and its issues with evil, or its own designer). All that is needed are simple building blocks whose networking and interaction results by the simple rules of the game in additive intelligence. Suitable candidates for that kind of building blocks (self-programming distributed computers) are already known to science — neural networks.

    There was a long UD thread couple years ago describing and discussing this approach (Plackian networks, e.g. something like Stephen Wolfram’s pregeometry) — hyperlinked TOC to that thread is in the second half of this post.

  6. 6
    Box says:

    Nightlight: Intelligent algorithms can run without external (to the universe) intervention by some “agency”.

    Sure, e.g. computer software. However algorithms are caused by intelligent design.
    – – –

    edit: There is no bottom-up (additive) explanation of intelligence and consciousness. We have discussed this before.

  7. 7
    nightlight says:

    @Andre #4 These things evolved via artificial selection , aka an intervention now and then by a intelligent mind

    Yes, of course, but not intelligence from outside of the universe. The intelligent agents behind evolution of human cultures, technologies, sciences,… are built in components of those systems.

    That’s all I am saying is the case with the evolution of biological systems — the intelligence needed is coming from the systems, continuously, not every now and then coming down from heavens as Cornelius/Seattle ID are winking at.

  8. 8
    nightlight says:

    @Box #6 Sure, e.g. computer software. However algorithms are caused by intelligent design.

    Any algorithm can be generated by some other algorithm. Human brains conceiving and producing human software are merely one (and not the smartest or most powerful ones at that, either) in the hierarchy of computational processes unfolding in nature at all levels, each level computing (designing) and constructing the next level of computing technologies at the larger scale.

    We ourselves are in the process of making the baby step along this same path with our present technologies spanning already nations and the whole Earth.

    In turn, human bodies are galactic scale computing technologies designed and constructed by the cellular biochemical networks. We’re not anywhere near that level of sophistication in our little clumsy baby steps toward our galactic scale technologies. We don’t even know whether we’re a viable technology or a little temporary dead end, detour or stepping stone, to be superseded and squelched in the future by something much better (e.g. some future digital computers).

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    nightlight, perhaps you would sound more convincing promoting your imaginary version of evolution if you did not lead off with Berra’s Blunder and then end with a false claim that “Any algorithm can be generated by some other algorithm”?

    “But Berra’s analogy actually spotlights the problem of using a sequence of similarities as evidence for Darwin’s theory. We all know that automobiles are manufactured according to archetypes (in this case, plans drawn up by engineers), so it is clear that there can be other explanations for a sequence of similarites besides descent with modification. In fact, most pre-Darwinian biologists would have explained such sequences by something akin to automobile manufacturing – that is, creation by design. So although Berra believed he was defending Darwinian evolution against creationist explanations, he unwittingly showed that the fossil evidence is compatible with either. … Berra’s blunder demonstrates that a mere succession of similar forms does not furnish its own explanation. Something more is needed – a mechanism.”
    J. Wells, Icons of Evolution,2000, pg 69-70.
    http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/berrablunder.html

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt:,,, This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    The mathematical world – James Franklin – 7 April 2014
    Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,,
    James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/world-.....-be-about/

  10. 10
    nightlight says:

    @BA77 #9 Berra’s Blunder

    There are no blunders, Berra’s or any other in my statement. If someone were to look at the Earth from far away with limited resolution, they would see signs of intelligence in the large objects and structures or in EM signals emanating from Earth. But for that far way low-res observer the system would seem to intelligently evolve by virtue of intelligence coming from inside the system, built into the Earth. The best they could do at their level would be to extract some crude statistical patterns of changes, which to them appear random and aimless in detail.

    That’s what I am saying is the situation with our low-res understanding of how nature works. Our present fundamental laws of nature are statistical. In our human hubris, we have declared the individual detail to be aimless bouncing of elementary particles, just as to the above far away observer, movements of individual cars would seem random or aimless and the only lawful part would seem to be statistics of large number of such movements.

    The human organism is designed and constructed from scratch (from simple food molecules & water) by the cellular biochemical networks, which are the same kind of distributed self-programming computers as human brains (networks of neurons).

    These biochemical networks are in turn designed and constructed by the lower level self-programming distributed computers also of networked kind operating at Planck scale. Our present physical laws merely capture the few superficial statistical regularities of this underlying computation. But the biological phenomena are not deducible from such crude laws (our present physics). The real answer for origin of life as well for fine tuning is in the underlying computations, just as the answer for the new car designs is in the computations carried out by the neurons of the human designers.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    nightlight, IMHO, you are living in a fantasy land.
    In my unattached look at your conjectures from ‘far away’, it is clear that unrestrained imagination has overwhelmed any regard you may have had for properly evaluating the evidence and reaching well reasoned, and supported, conclusions.

  12. 12
    Cornelius Hunter says:

    nightlight (2):

    “It’s a an attempt to resurrect God of gaps via logical fallacy — if Darwinian mechanism is inadequate, then any mechanism must be inadequate (evolution impossible), hence the intelligent agency … typical for Cornelius”

    Except that I said no such thing.

  13. 13
    tjguy says:

    nightlight @2

    It evolved the same way cars evolved since Model T, or as computers evolved since Eniac, etc.

    It just didn’t evolve via Darwinian random trial and error algorithm. It evolved via much smarter algorithms, just as technologies, sciences, languages, cultures,… did.

    I am continually amazed at what evolutionists think the KNOW. Truth claims lacking concrete experimental evidence abound and no one blinks an eye.

    How could he possibly know this not having been there and not being able to test/verify his hypothesis?

    But alas, this is the scientific legacy of Darwin. No longer is the scientific method respected. All we need is a good story that sounds plausible.

    How could you ever prove him right or wrong?! You can’t so it comes down to opinion. This is NOT science.

  14. 14
    nightlight says:

    @Cornelius Hunter #12 Except that I said no such thing.

    As always in your posts, you used unqualified generic term evolution, not Darwinian mechanism of evolution (couldn’t have done it).

    What could you possibly have in mind as to how the biological changes (which is what generic term evolution entails) occurred? Did some external hand come down from heavens and build these organisms with new features from scratch out of atoms?

    Or where they born by the parent organism just like all others, but merely had their DNA & epigenetic markers altered by the intelligent mechanisms/algorithms (or what Shapiro calls “Natural Genetic Engineering”) already more than evident in each cell?

    After all, the cellular biochemical networks can and do all the time build live cells and then the whole organisms from scratch, out of simple molecules (food). That’s vastly more masterful in the science & bioengineering than anything all human scientists put together could dream of doing using our technologies.

    Why then do you need (or constantly hint at) external intervention to engineer evolutionary changes when intelligence doing much more complex engineering tasks (such as development) is plainly evident in the cells?

    Designing evolving system requires grater intelligence than designing a static, unchanging system that needs manual tweaks and fixes to adapt to new circumstances. Hence, it always puzzles me when Seattle ID advocates attack “evolution”, as if “intelligent designer” forbid, they are actually creationists.

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    nightlight:

    It just didn’t evolve via Darwinian random trial and error algorithm. It evolved via much smarter algorithms, just as technologies, sciences, languages, cultures,… did.

    Right, organisms were intelligently designed to evolve and evolved by intelligent design. Intelligent Design Evolution as opposed to blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution. “Not By Chance” is a good example of this with its “built-in responses to environmental cues”, however it doesn’t go far enough.

    The questions would then be what were the starting populations and what extent can those intelligently designed evolutionary processes move a population, along with what does make an organism what it is?

    Intelligent Design Evolution- evolution by design.

  16. 16
    ppolish says:

    Interesting talk by anti junk DNA science fiction writer linked in comment section of paper referred to in OP:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr8NcMR_-RU

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    What always amazes me how some people charge into this forum full of sound and fury, assuming that their completely unsupported assertions constitute irrefutable evidence, when all it amounts to is rhetorical flatulence, noisy and amusing.

    I’ll watch your YouTube link, ppolish, and then go to bed. And thank you!

    -Q

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    nightlight

    It just didn’t evolve via Darwinian random trial and error algorithm. It evolved via much smarter algorithms …

    Maybe you can convince all the Darwinists here first, and then the rest of the biological community?

    After all, the cellular biochemical networks can and do all the time build live cells and then the whole organisms from scratch, out of simple molecules (food). That’s vastly more masterful in the science & bioengineering than anything all human scientists put together could dream of doing using our technologies.

    We find intelligence in the cellular networks that is vastly greater than what all human scientists can dream of. ID is a research project on origins … e.g. the origin of that intelligence which you find obvious in the cell. So, for you, the intelligence is built in at the origin of life. Neo-Darwinian trial and error functions (commonly known as ‘evolution’) are obviously refuted. So, the development of life on earth proceeds from intelligence, built into the cell, which produces a vast array of life forms, through a process more masterful than any human intelligence can dream of.

    So, therefore, origins … where did the intelligence come from?

    These biochemical networks are in turn designed and constructed by the lower level self-programming distributed computers also of networked kind operating at Planck scale.

    Self-programmed computations which were part of the universe somehow, and which didn’t require any fine-tuning, created the dynamic intelligence found in cellular life. Ok, you’re just positing intelligently designed algorithms existing in the universe, with no known origin.

    Our present physical laws merely capture the few superficial statistical regularities of this underlying computation. But the biological phenomena are not deducible from such crude laws (our present physics).

    There is not only no evidence of these unintelligent forces which somehow produced intelligence, but you admit we don’t yet have the physics to deduce what they are and how they work.

    In the end, you will need to show a universe coming into existence without a cause, then self-programmed algorithms, self-generated from pre-programmed molecules (or random bouncing molecules) emerging out of a blind, unintelligent process (that irrationally occurred without a prior cause).

    Or, on the other hand, it might be easier to accept a non-material cause possessing the ‘masterful’ intelligence to create the algorithms and pre-load them into the universe and into cellular life.

    not every now and then coming down from heavens as Cornelius/Seattle ID are winking at

    ID just looks at evidence of intelligent design, not how the design was implemented or who the designer is.
    You already accept (as against the entire biological community) that cellular life shows evidence of intelligent design.

    When you move directly to oppose the idea that God had to act “every now and then”, you’re engaging in a theological discussion. Nobody in ID (Seattle or otherwise) claims that God necessarily intervenes ‘every now and then’.

    That’s just a straw-man that doesn’t help you make some otherwise worthwhile (but not very consistent) points elsewhere.

  19. 19
    nightlight says:

    @
    Silver Asiatic #18

    It just didn’t evolve via Darwinian random trial and error algorithm. It evolved via much smarter algorithms.
    Maybe you can convince all the Darwinists here first, and then the rest of the biological community?

    Before they need to be refuted at all, shouldn’t neo-Darwinists first have to show a proof that “random” mutations are the source of evolutionary novelty in biological system? There is no experiment that demonstrates attribute “random” of the mutations behind evolutionary novelties.

    An alternative conjecture is that the mutations resulting in evolutionary novelties are results of cellular biochemical networks continuously innovating by reengineering their DNA and epigenome based on their sensory inputs and knowledge stored in these networks from past experiences. (Of course, it may well be that just like in human innovations, most of these attempted bio-engineering innovations are not useful.)

    Note that all the external evolutionary phenomena (related to change over time, cladistics, population biology, etc) are equally observable in evolution of technologies, sciences, languages etc. In all of these latter cases, the innovations are results of actions of intelligent agents i.e. they are not produced by random copying errors or some such of the previous books or software. Hence, merely pointing to the observation of evolution (or commonality and chronology) cannot by itself discern between the two conjectures.

    Further, in all other instances of evolutionary phenomena in which we understand the mechanism behind evolutionary innovation, we always find them to be result of creative activity by intelligent agents.

    Therefore, it is more plausible that in the one case in which the innovation mechanism is not presently well understood (biological evolution), the innovations are also results of creative actions by intelligent agents.

    Some questions naturally arise from this conclusion — what could these “intelligent agents” be, how do they work, where are they, what is the evidence of their existence?

    It is already plainly evident e.g. from the fact that cellular networks can design and construct live organisms from simple molecules (food), that these cellular biochemical networks are vastly more competent at molecular bio-engineering than all the human scientists and engineers put together. They understand physics and biochemistry at far deeper level and in far more effective way than human scientists.

    If you believe otherwise, show a research paper in which human scientists can approach comparable level of competence on that task? It’s not even close — human scientists cannot even syntesize or construct one live organelle from scratch (from simple molecules), let alone whole live cell combining hundreds or thousands of such organelles, to say nothing of entire live organism with trillions of live cells.

    On the other hand, human scientists can already bio-engineer evolutionary novelties in the organisms (e.g. GMO), hence the task of engineering biological innovations is easier/simpler than the related task of engineering live organisms from scratch.

    Since the cellular biochemical networks already tackle with ease the far more complex bio-engineering task, then the evolutionary innovations which even humans (who are vastly less competent at bio-engineering) can figure out, should be no problem for these networks. This is like “puzzle” of two weight lifters, you are watching lifter A lift 500 pound weight and lifter B who barely lifts 50 pound weight — “puzzle”: can the lifter A also lift 50 pound weight even though you haven’t seen him lift it?

    There is no puzzle in either, of course. It is only through brute force and social scheming that the aging neo-Darwinist priesthood is still upholding (barely) their absurd dogma which is long overdue for the museum of human delusions, in the bin next to the flat earth theory.

  20. 20
    Zachriel says:

    nightlight: shouldn’t neo-Darwinists first have to show a proof that “random” mutations are the source of evolutionary novelty in biological system?

    See Luria & Delbrück, Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance, Genetics 1943.

  21. 21
    Silver Asiatic says:

    More recently, the results of Luria and Delbrück were questioned by Cairns and others, who studied mutations in sugar metabolism as a form of environmental stress.

  22. 22
    nightlight says:

    @20,21 “Luria & Delbrück…”

    Their experiment demonstrates absolutely nothing about the nature (intelligently guided/computed vs “random”, “blind”, “aimless”…) of the process that produced those mutations, at whatever point in time-space they occurred.

    What they have shown was that mutation arose in some bacteria of the colony they grew from the initial culture before the exposure to the phage. That’s all they were trying to prove and then managed to demonstrate experimentally. That experiment sheds no light to how or why it arose.

    You can observe the same kind of evolutionary phenomena (pre-adaptation) in the evolution of sciences and technologies. For example the well known “Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics” is a phenomenon where mathematicians come up with purely abstract formalisms for (intelligent reasons of their own) which turn out decades or centuries later to have perfect fitness for some discoveries in physics or other natural sciences. Similar occurrences are also very common in technologies where innovations often neglected or under-appreciated initially turn out to have major applications later on in the same or other fields (e.g. electricity, EM waves, radioactivity, X-rays, computers etc).

    In all such cases of scientific or technological evolutions, the innovations (mutations) occurred before the need, yet they were also intelligently guided. Since the analogue of Luria & Delbrück finding could be observed in all such intelligently guided instances of evolutionary phenomena, one cannot infer that occurrence of mutations/innovations before they are needed implies that they were “aimless” or “random” (in any sense). They may not always work or be useful later, but the same holds for other forms of evolution as well.

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: More recently, the results of Luria and Delbrück were questioned by Cairns and others, who studied mutations in sugar metabolism as a form of environmental stress.

    Further research shows that the anomaly is probably due to a leaky lac allele, meaning selection is not stringent, followed by replication and mutagenesis of plasmids. Once the plasmid evolves lac+, cell division occurs. See Maisnier-Patin & Roth, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology: Adaptive Mutations, 2015.

  24. 24
    Zachriel says:

    nightlight: What they have shown was that mutation arose in some bacteria of the colony they grew from the initial culture before the exposure to the phage.

    Since Luria & Delbrück, genetic mutation has been subject to extensive study, and the mechanisms of mutation, such as translesion synthesis, are now understood.

    Furthermore, the results have been confirmed by many studies, including Lenski’s E. Coli long-term evolution experiment, which has allowed for the study of billions of mutations.

  25. 25
    Joe says:

    Zachriel:

    Since Luria & Delbrück, genetic mutation has been subject to extensive study, and the mechanisms of mutation, such as translesion synthesis, are now understood.

    Not really. Thanks to evolutionary biology we have no idea why mutations happen.

  26. 26
    nightlight says:

    @24 “Since Luria & Delbrück, genetic mutation has been subject to extensive study, and the mechanisms of mutation are now understood, such as translesion synthesis. “

    How does exactly finding what specific DNA transformation corresponds to given mutation prove that the transformation was “aimless” or “random”? It’s a non sequitur.

    For example, one can point out and describe in full detail specific evolutionary change in the source code of Windows OS between new and old version — such finding certainly does not “prove” that the change was “random” or “aimless”? Similarly, in evolution of science one can describe exactly what changes Einstein introduced in 1905 in his re-interpretation of the Lorenz transformations — does such description imply that Einstein’s changes were result of “aimless” and “random” copying errors or some such of Lorenz’s equations?

    Hence any such finding is perfectly consistent with intelligently guided process (i.e. described change being a step of an intelligent, goal oriented process).

  27. 27
    Zachriel says:

    nightlight: How does exactly finding what specific DNA transformation corresponds to given mutation prove that the transformation was “aimless” or “random”?

    Knowing the mechanism means that “aiming” is scientifically superfluous. In addition, it’s random in the sense that it is random with respect to need, and it’s random in the sense of a probability distribution, something that has been tested over and over again in the Lenski Experiment.

  28. 28
    Joe says:

    Zachriel is a confused fool. Only ignorance sez all mutations are genetic accidents, errors and/ or mistakes. Saying mutations appear to be random does not even address that.

    By Zachriel’s “logic” the ones and zeros on a computer buss are random.

  29. 29
    Mung says:

    Zachriel:

    …and it’s random in the sense of a probability distribution…

    So? If I wanted the highest average information content per symbol what sort of probability distribution would I need?

  30. 30
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: If I wanted the highest average information content per symbol what sort of probability distribution would I need?

    We provided three tests, not one. Do you have evidence to support that mutations represent some sort of compressed message?

    ETA: Maybe lottery numbers represent a message. That $7 winner was trying to tell you something!

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    We provided three tests, not one.

    And they didn’t address the issue, as usual.

  32. 32
    nightlight says:

    @Zachriel #27

    Knowing the mechanism means that “aiming” is scientifically superfluous.

    If a conjecture that transformation is goal directed (‘aimed’) is “scientifically superfluous”, then it is also at least as superfluous to conjecture that it is not goal directed (it’s aimless) i.e. the neo-Darwinist conjecture (evolutionary mutations are random, aimless) is scientifically superfluous, in other words, it is a parasitic add on to the theory of evolution which has no scientific purpose or usefulness.

    Whether the first conjecture (aimed) is “scientifically superfluous” depends on what the scientific objective is with respect to which it is (not) superfluous. It may be superfluous for some scientific objectives, but not for others.

    A) If the objective is to follow up the finding of given DNA transformation and reverse engineer the wider causal chain of related events (i.e. to decode the cellular algorithms) that produced it, then it is not superfluous. Knowing what is the goal of the transformation (what is being optimized, what is the utility function) points research to what processes should be looked into so the steps uncovered so far could fit together into the larger cellular algorithms.

    B) If the “scientific” objective is to declare — stop looking further, this is all there is to it, move on, there is nothing more to see here — then yes, viewing the DNA transformation so far as a step of the larger goal oriented (intelligent, anticipatory) process is superfluous with respect to that kind of “scientific” objective.

    The “scientific” objective of neo-Darwinism squarely fits the pattern (B). It effectively says — we found all there is about it, the rest is aimless, random, hence there is nothing more to see here beyond what we found, we’re the proud gatekeepers to the kingdom and “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light” we are shining on the subject.

    It’s a typical reflex of all priesthoods, going back to ancient Egyptian priests (at least) who figured out few relations between the celestial configurations and Nile cycles, then declared themselves possessors of all the wisdom there is, knowledge of life and death, keepers of the keys to gods and immortality.

    Neo-Darwinism has been the chief science stopper of biological research for many decades and the sooner it is shelved in a museum, right next to the flat Earth theory the better for science.

    In addition, it’s random in the sense that it is random with respect to need,

    It is quite presumptuous to declare oneself omniscient of all needs that may be driving different processes in the universe, and then proclaim which one is random and which one is not random with respect to these divined “needs”.

    Say you are waiting for a taxi, while cars go by. All these other cars are random “with respect to the need” that you know of (your taxi), yet they are all intelligently guided by some other “needs” you are not aware of or don’t care about.

    Whether some action or change is “random with respect to (some specific) need (that you have in mind)” is irrelevant for the question whether it is intelligently guided or aimless.

    As pointed out earlier, in all evolutionary phenomena in which we understand the mechanisms and objectives (at least in hindsight), such as evolutions of sciences or technologies, it is quite common that the most revolutionary innovations are initially neglected or buried as irrelevant. It is also a common phenomenon that most (attempts at) innovations or patents miss the mark, yet each of those was result of intelligently guided, goal driven process.

    In other words, there is nothing in the neo-Darwinian grand “insight” that DNA changes appear (to them) “random with respect to need” (that they had in mind) that excludes the possibility that those DNA changes are also steps of the cellular goal oriented (intelligent, anticipatory) algorithms. Or even more concisely — that “grand insight” of neo-Darwinists is scientifically vapid and sterile.

    Another analogy is a novice chess player watching grandmasters as they evolve chess position move by move. To the novice who knows only that the “need” in chess game is to checkmate the king, nearly all moves seem “random with respect to (that) need” since none of them is checkmating the king, as far as novice can see. In fact, nearly all grandmaster games will end without checkmate appearing on the board at all (they resign well before the checkmate).

    Neo-Darwiniwsts vs cellular biochemical networks are somewhat like that chess novice vs grandmaster, except vastly farther apart. To neo-Darwinists, the goal or need is producing the most offspring, everything else is “aimless” and “random” with respect to that need. To the real super-grandmasters of molecular bioengineering, the cellular biochemical networks, there are myriad of intermediate subgoals pursued via strategies and algorithms toward some final goal the universe is trying to reach/compute (via the finely tuned laws of matter-energy, design, construction and evolution of life, etc), that human science has no clue about.

    So, it’s more like a novice watching the grandmaster chess game, while knowing only the rules for moving rooks (analogous to the natural laws as we understand them presently), while completely ignorant of all other chess rules, of strategies and tactics, and even of the game objective altogether. Neo-Darwinist slogan “random with respect to need” would then be analogous to the novice declaring any move on the board, other than those by the rooks, as being “random with respect to need” (of the rooks).

    and it’s random in the sense of a probability distribution…

    That’s another trivial variation on the same vapid neo-Darwinian riff. Innovations in human evolution can also be seen through the lens of probability distributions e.g. numbers of issued patents or of new apps in the app store, etc.

    Any phenomenon, whether intelligently guided or aimless (as far as one knows) with many unpredictable (by some forecaster) events can be statistically analyzed using probability distributions.

    For example, one can count cars either taking particular turn to some side street or continuing down the main road. One could then derive statistical properties and probability distributions of numbers of cars going one way or the other, then discover how these distributions change with time of day, day of week, etc, i.e. uncover statistical laws of traffic at that locale. Coincidentally, this happens to be how presently our most fundamental natural science (quantum field theory, which is a probabilistic theory) models phenomena in nature.

    Such findings shed no light on question whether the cars are going and turning aimlessly/randomly or whether they are intelligently guided toward some goals (that the probability distributions cannot capture).

    In short, that’s yet another vapid neo-Darwinian non sequitur regarding the Intelligent Design question.

  33. 33
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: …and it’s random in the sense of a probability distribution…

    so. what.

    If you want to maximize avg information per symbol which probability distribution would best serve?

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    nightlight: If a conjecture that transformation is goal directed (‘aimed’) is “scientifically superfluous”, then it is also at least as superfluous to conjecture that it is not goal directed (it’s aimless) i.e. the neo-Darwinist conjecture (evolutionary mutations are random, aimless) is scientifically superfluous, in other words, it is a parasitic add on to the theory of evolution which has no scientific purpose or usefulness.

    The term we used was random with respect to fitness, random distribution, and explanatory mechanisms. You’re the one who introduced the term “aimless” without providing support for the claim.

    nightlight: A) If the objective is to follow up the finding of given DNA transformation and reverse engineer the wider causal chain of related events (i.e. to decode the cellular algorithms) that produced it, then it is not superfluous.

    If you are using the term “aimed” to simply mean there is a direction, then that would be consistent with conventional evolutionary theory. If you are using the term “aimed” to infer the influence of an agent external to biology, then it is unsupported. If you are conflating the two, then you are simply confusing yourself.

    nightlight: B) If the “scientific” objective is to declare — stop looking further, this is all there is to it

    That’s clearly not the case, as evolutionary biologists have continued to try and understand the sources of mutations.

  35. 35
    nightlight says:

    @Zahchriel #34

    In that sense “random with respect to fitness” has no relevance for the question of whether the underlying processes are executing anticipatory, intelligent algorithms or not in order to generate evolutionary novelties.

    Namely, that neo-Darwinian slogan is equally applicable to many evolutionary phenomena in human society, to evolution of sciences, technologies, languages, economies, etc, all of which are intelligently guided processes. There is nothing discriminatory, no quantitative criteria to exclude any of those known intelligently guided evolutionary processes.

    Hence, it’s an empty ideological credo with no usefulness or relevance for natural science.

  36. 36
    Zachriel says:

    nightlight: In that sense “random with respect to fitness” has no relevance for the question of whether the underlying processes are executing anticipatory, intelligent algorithms or not in order to generate evolutionary novelties.

    Well, it certainly has some relevance, but we await the scientific evidence for whether “the underlying processes are executing anticipatory, intelligent algorithms”. Anticipatory of what?

    Maybe lottery numbers represent a message. That $7 winner was trying to tell you something!

  37. 37
    Joe says:

    Zachriel:

    The term we used was random with respect to fitness, random distribution, and explanatory mechanisms.

    Random, wrt evolution, means accidental, errors and/ or mistakes.

    If you are using the term “aimed” to simply mean there is a direction, then that would be consistent with conventional evolutionary theory.

    That’s because conventional evolutionary theory is whatever one says. Everything is consistent with it because it doesn’t exist

  38. 38
    Silver Asiatic says:

    nightlight …

    That seems irrefutable to me. Good examples with the chess game and Einstein’s ideas.

    It’s like saying “I had a random idea today”. How do you measure the source of the idea and conclude it was ‘randomly generated’? There are deeper level, but invisible, design aspects (logical processes) that cause thoughts or ideas.

    Concluding that the symbiotic functional relationships between genetics and epigenetics are “random with respect of fitness” is the same thing.

    Interesting also, by definition you can’t have a ‘random algorithm’. You can have algorithms that model or generate random events, but an algorthim must necessarily be designed (specified) for functions. A ‘random algorithm’ cannot even generate noise. It’s non-functional.

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Interesting also, by definition you can’t have a ‘random algorithm’.

    An algorithm with limited memory can’t create a random number because there are a finite number of available states. If you need pure randomness, it can imported from an external source, such as quantum effects.

    Silver Asiatic: You can have algorithms that model or generate random events, but an algorthim must necessarily be designed (specified) for functions.

    In this discussion, the algorithm is evolution, though it could be the weather or planetary orbits.

  40. 40
    Mung says:

    Zachriel apparently still has no clue how to maximize average information per symbol. Oh well.

  41. 41
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: If you want to maximize avg information per symbol which probability distribution would best serve?

    A highly compressed message may appear random, however, just because a signal appears random doesn’t mean it has a message. In this case, we have three separate measures; a random probability distribution, randomness with respect to fitness, as well as explanatory mechanisms for mutation. Furthermore, you haven’t provided any scientific support for the claim that mutations represent such a message.

    Maybe lottery numbers contain a message. That $7 winner was trying to tell you something!

  42. 42
    Querius says:

    Conelius Hunter noted,

    They never predicted it, then they denied it could be heritable, and then they denied it could cause lasting change. “It” in this case is epigenetics and in spite of being wrong, wrong and wrong again, and in spite of the fact that there is no scientific explanation for how epigenetics could have evolved, evolutionists nonetheless insist that it, in fact, must have evolved.

    Bullwinkle: “Hey, Rocky. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

    Rocky: “But that trick never works!”

    Bullwinkle: “This time for sure!”

    (Audience laughter)

    Bullwinkle: ” . . . Well, I’m gettin’ close.”

    No, Bullwinkle, you’re not getting close. Every one of your evolutionary predictions over the last 150 years has turned out to be a dead end, slowing down scientific progress because your assumptions of evolutionary dynamics are clearly wrong!

    So, how about flipping the whole creaky system upside down?

    Organisms have been devolving over time resulting in genetic impoverishment due to adaptation, mutation, and speciation. As the environment changes over time, the lack of genetic diversity puts many species at risk of extinction.

    These dynamics can be OBSERVED in operation today and also in the fossil record under the alternate interpretation.

    Thus, one would expect the following predictions to continue to produce verifiable data:

    * Many species having gone extinct, perhaps 90%
    * Genetic burden increasing at an unsustainable rate
    * Genetic mechanisms functional but damaged
    * Contemporary organisms found in many surprising strata as “living fossils”

    All of these effects are consistent with the principle of entropy, and has a much, much better track record than Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, neo-neo Darwinism, evolution that’s not-at-all-Darwinism, and anthropomorphic evolutionary explanations of everything from beards to behavior.

    -Q

  43. 43
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: Organisms have been devolving over time resulting in genetic impoverishment due to adaptation, mutation, and speciation.

    Theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds would hardly be considered “devolving”.

  44. 44
    Joe says:

    Theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds would hardly be considered “devolving”.

    It is considered imagination as it isn’t possible.

    Maybe lottery numbers contain a message. That $7 winner was trying to tell you something!

    It tells us that you are a loser.

  45. 45
    Joe says:

    In this discussion, the algorithm is evolution

    That doesn’t even make any sense. Obviously you are just an ignorant fool.

  46. 46
    Mung says:

    Red Herrings and Straw Men. Zachriel’s got a band going and he’s the lead vocalist.

  47. 47
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Silver Asiatic: Interesting also, by definition you can’t have a ‘random algorithm’.

    Zach: An algorithm with limited memory can’t create a random number because there are a finite number of available states.

    Your comment doesn’t follow from what I said, but yes, memory, energy, frequency (speed) limitations limit the capability of algorthims to produce random numbers. That has nothing to do with the point however — the algorthim, by definition is not random. It’s a set of instructions or code. If it was random it would not be an algorithm.

    The challenge is to create an algorithm through a random means.

    Silver Asiatic: … an algorthim must necessarily be designed (specified) for functions.

    Zach: In this discussion, the algorithm is evolution, though it could be the weather or planetary orbits.

    As above, algorthims produce defined outputs. Planetary orbits are not random. Again, you can’t have a ‘random algorithm’ since it’s a contradiction in terms.

    I think you’re agreeing and just adding additional (unrelated) thoughts for consideration?

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: It’s a set of instructions or code.

    More accurately, a step-by-step procedure.

    Silver Asiatic: Planetary orbits are not random.

    No, but algorithms can include random variables as parameters. This is common in the study of complex phenomena.

    Silver Asiatic: The challenge is to create an algorithm through a random means.

    We can model evolution as an algorithm, but biological evolution isn’t properly an algorithm. You seem to be conflating the model with the thing being modeled.

  49. 49
    Joe says:

    Zachriel:

    We can model evolution as an algorithm

    Then you are not modeling unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution. You are a master conflator.

  50. 50
    Mung says:

    Zachriel:

    We can model evolution as an algorithm, but biological evolution isn’t properly an algorithm. You seem to be conflating the model with the thing being modeled.

    Hilarious.

    Evolutionists tell us, repeatedly, that their models of evolution show us evolution is true. Then they criticize us for conflating the model with the thing being modeled.

    That’s truly rich.

    Zachriel. Lead vocalist and comedian. Quite the talented fellow.

  51. 51
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: Evolutionists tell us, repeatedly, that their models of evolution show us evolution is true.

    Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of replicators to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of biological evolution.

  52. 52
    Joe says:

    Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of replicators to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of biological evolution.

    Yes, theories of Intelligent Design in biological evolution.

  53. 53
    Querius says:

    Mung noted

    Red Herrings and Straw Men.

    I love red herrings! With some hot sauce served on a bed of fresh straw men . . . mmmm! 😛

    Zachriel opined,

    Theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds would hardly be considered “devolving”.

    Lol, I said turn the whole thing upside down!

    That means that hummingbird species *devolved* from a common ancestor (perhaps something like the entire Apodidae order) with a profoundly larger gene pool and very few mutations.

    On the other hand, Theropods were really cool lizards that likely speciated themselves to extinction.

    There’s no Santa Claus and there’s no common ancestor between the ruby-throated hummingbird and Tyrannosaurus rex.

    -Q

  54. 54
    Mung says:

    Zachriel:

    Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of replicators to navigate a fitness landscape…

    Indeed. Intelligently designed programs. Intelligently designed replicators. Intelligently designed fitness landscapes.

    Zachriel:

    …consistent with theories of biological evolution.

    Well, no. That would just be false.

    The theories of biological evolution I am familiar with do not allow for intelligent design. You know otherwise?

    p.s. At least you said theories of biological evolution. There is no theory of evolution. Good for you.

  55. 55
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: there’s no common ancestor between the ruby-throated hummingbird and Tyrannosaurus rex.

    We have the nested hierarchy showing the overall pattern, and we have specific intermediate fossils.

    Mung: Intelligently designed programs.

    Sure, intelligently designed, just like weather simulations. That doesn’t mean weather is designed.

    Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of populations to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of natural biological evolution, just like weather simulations show how pressure and moisture cause observed weather patterns, consistent with natural meteorological theories.

  56. 56
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Z

    Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of populations to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of natural biological evolution, just like weather simulations show how pressure and moisture cause observed weather patterns, consistent with natural meteorological theories.

    In the one case (weather) we can test and predict. In the other case, there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past. So the evolutionary algorthims are used as the observations since there are no real observations of what actually happened. Beyond that, it’s virtually impossible to model the development of life on earth starting from the first organisms – given the virtually infinite number of interacting factors (competitors, resources, disease, environmental conditions, extinct-unknown ancestors).

    Modelling today’s weather patterns is one thing. Evolution would require the modelling of weather conditions from eons ago with no way to test those predictions.

  57. 57
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: In the one case (weather) we can test and predict.

    Yes, to some degree. Weather is a chaotic system, so diverges from the models after a few days.

    Silver Asiatic: In the other case, there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past.

    That’s incorrect. There is a great deal of fossil evidence, and evidence from the nested hierarchy.

    That’s not directly relevant to evolutionary algorithms, though, which don’t model evolutionary history directly. They do show, however, that evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.

  58. 58
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Silver Asiatic: In the other case, there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past.

    Zach
    That’s incorrect. There is a great deal of fossil evidence, and evidence from the nested hierarchy.

    I guess you didn’t understand this sentence: “… there are no real observations of what actually happened.” You contradicted it – and therefore you’re wrong.

    As I said, in the other case (evolution), there is no direct observation of the ancient past. There are observations of things that might suggest some sort of evolution, but there is no way to test those in present day circumstances, unlike weather patterns.

    That’s not directly relevant to evolutionary algorithms, though, which don’t model evolutionary history directly.

    They don’t because they can’t.

    They do show, however, that evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.

    Which would be totally irrelevant if evolution did not happen the way it is claimed that it did.

  59. 59
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: I guess you didn’t understand this sentence: “… there are no real observations of what actually happened.”

    That’s not the statement to which we replied, but “there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past.” This latter statement is false. Organisms have left patterns that constitute evidence of evolution.

    Silver Asiatic: As I said, in the other case (evolution), there is no direct observation of the ancient past.

    No human ever watched a T. Rex roam the Earth, but roam the Earth they did.

    Silver Asiatic: Which would be totally irrelevant if evolution did not happen the way it is claimed that it did.

    Evolutionary algorithms are consistent with what is expected of the process from biological evolution, and contradicts claims that evolution isn’t capable of traversing complex fitness landscapes.

  60. 60
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    That’s not the statement to which we replied, but “there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past.”

    Ok, it’s good to know that you’re not willing or able to read the context. Apparently, you were not able to see the parallel and you claimed it was incorrect.

    This latter statement is false. Organisms have left patterns that constitute evidence of evolution.

    That’s what’s known as quote-mining. You ignored the statement that clarified what you objected to.

    No human ever watched a T. Rex roam the Earth, but roam the Earth they did.

    No human today saw the sun shining a million years ago. So apparently, we know that evolution happened as claimed. I wouldn’t call that a strong argument.

    Evolutionary algorithms are consistent with what is expected of the process from biological evolution,

    You already said that they don’t model evolutionary history directly. So those evolutionary algorithms don’t exist.

    and contradicts claims that evolution isn’t capable of traversing complex fitness landscapes.

    Again, you have no idea since you have no model for what happened. Unlike the weather, you can’t test your model historically. You can’t even include all of the variables (because you don’t know what they are or if they existed) necessary to model the impact of evolutionary developments.

  61. 61
    Querius says:

    Zachriel

    We have the nested hierarchy showing the overall pattern, and we have specific intermediate fossils.

    There are fossils of lots of things, but concluding that they’re nested or intermediate is entirely speculative without a shred of observed genetic evidence. Inconvenient morphological attributes are routinely ignored, belying those that are touted.

    You don’t have a pseudopod to stand on.

    Oh, and you **still** haven’t explained why you refer to yourself in the plural. Rational people wouldn’t do this without a reason.

    -Q

  62. 62
    Joe says:

    They do show, however, that evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.

    They do show, however, that intelligently designed evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.

    There is a great deal of fossil evidence, and evidence from the nested hierarchy.

    The fossil evidence doesn’t support unguided evolution and nested hierarchies are the anti-hero of evolutionism.

  63. 63
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Apparently, you were not able to see the parallel and you claimed it was incorrect.

    SA: there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past.

    False. There are patterns observed of “how organisms evolved in the ancient past”. These patterns include the fossil succession.

    SA: So the evolutionary algorthims are used as the observations since there are no real observations of what actually happened.

    This is largely false. Evolutionary algorithms are not primary evidence of biological evolution, the theory of which predates modern computers by a century.

    Silver Asiatic: No human today saw the sun shining a million years ago. So apparently, we know that evolution happened as claimed.

    Your claim was that were no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past. That was false.

    Silver Asiatic: You already said that they don’t model evolutionary history directly. So those evolutionary algorithms don’t exist.

    Evolutionary algorithms are a class of mathematical objects of which biological evolution is an instance. The study of evolutionary algorithms can provide information that applies to the entire class, such as that they are much faster than random guesses or random walks across a wide variety of landscapes of interest.

  64. 64
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: There are fossils of lots of things, but concluding that they’re nested or intermediate is entirely speculative without a shred of observed genetic evidence.

    Fossils are considered evidence of transitions because they fit the pattern entailed in common descent, which includes not only gross morphology, but microscopic features, and leads to specific empirical predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed. Nor is there a complete absence of molecular evidence of fossils, such as collagen in theropod lineages.

  65. 65
    Querius says:

    Zachriel,

    Don’t you see how circular that argument is?

    You’re presupposing your conclusions and, to no one’s surprise, find that your conclusions are amazingly compatible with your presuppositions!

    Nor is there a complete absence of molecular evidence of fossils, such as collagen in theropod lineages.

    Do elaborate—I’m fascinated! 🙂

    (And I couldn’t help noticing that you still have not answered the question whether your self references in the plural are attributable to the majestic plural or the presence of a tapeworm.)

    -Q

  66. 66
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of populations to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of natural biological evolution

    I’m sorry, but that’s just false.

    Zachriel: Evolutionary algorithms are consistent with what is expected of the process from biological evolution, and contradicts claims that evolution isn’t capable of traversing complex fitness landscapes.

    I’m sorry, but that’s just false.

  67. 67
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: Don’t you see how circular that argument is?

    Pointing to scientific evidence is not circular. The evidence is vast and spans many fields of study. We have the fossil succession, which provides the relative ordering of evolution. We have radiometrics, which provides absolute dating. We have the nested hierarchy, an entailment of branching descent. Embryology has led to discoveries in paleontology. We have microscopic studies, such as the cellular structure of fossil bones. New discoveries are made frequently. Successful expeditions are mounted to find intermediate fossil forms. Long term evolution experiments have been performed, both in nature and the lab. DNA has been recovered from various extinct organisms, such as Neanderthal, and the extraction of ancient dinosaurian peptides has been confirmed. See San Antonio et al., Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival, PLOS One, 2011.

    Mung: I’m sorry, but that’s just false.

    Handwaving. Evolutionary algorithms are constructed to mimic biological evolution. Simply saying “is not” doesn’t constitute an argument.

  68. 68
    Mung says:

    Zachriel,

    We know the difference between a mime and a model.

  69. 69
    Querius says:

    Zachriel claimed

    Pointing to scientific evidence is not circular. The evidence is vast and spans many fields of study.

    The evidence is not circular, however the speculative interpretation is indeed both vast, and the fairy tale woven around it along with the reasoning, is most certainly circular.

    For most scientists, this 19th century fairy tale is completely irrelevant to their work, and their being bludgeoned into accepting it is just to avoid the histronics and persecution of the Darwinist true believers.

    When you actually delve into the “facts” behind the grandiose pronouncements, the fairy tale falls apart.

    You want evidence? Fine. What do you do with this evidence?

    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    That’s right, you reject the evidence because it doesn’t fit in with the fairy tale! You only accept the evidence that can be distorted to fit the fairy tale.

    This is what many capable scientists have discovered, and why James Tour as a synthetic organic chemist who builds molecules and molecular machines for a living issued his challenge for someone to explain to him on a molecular level how macroevolution actually works.

    It doesn’t. And Darwin’s true believers have shackled scientific progress as a result.

    -Q

  70. 70
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: You want evidence? Fine.

    Heh. You consider evidence as a last resort.

    Querius: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

    Carbon-dating is not reliable for samples over about 40,000 years or so. Notably, the findings failed to convince other experts who found many problems with the methodology, including contrary results of the containing strata.

    So, your argument is that dinosaurs are not millions of years old. Is that correct?

  71. 71
    Querius says:

    As I predicted, under the bus the carbon dating gets tossed. So much for following the data where it leads.

    Carbon dating is not reliable for samples over 40,000 years old? So where did the excess C-14 come from? If the organic material was 65 million years old, which is impossible for organic material due to background radiation, the C-14 should then have nearly all decayed into C-12.

    What you don’t understand is WHY carbon dating is considered unreliable for extreme ages.

    -Q

  72. 72
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: If the organic material was 65 million years old, which is impossible for organic material due to background radiation, the C-14 should then have nearly all decayed into C-12.

    C-14 can enter a sample a number of ways, such as radionuclides from surrounding strata. There’s also possible contamination during the collection and testing process. This is one reason why crosschecks are important in all fields of science.

Leave a Reply