Chuan He: Evolution Created Epigenetics

_{Cornelius Hunter
May 4, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

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

Comments

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.Cornelius Hunter_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

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.bornagain77_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

@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.nightlight_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

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.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-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-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/
bornagain77_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

@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).nightlight_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

@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.nightlight_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

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.Box_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

@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.nightlight_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

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........Andre_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

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.Box_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

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.nightlight_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

In the materialist world nihil fit ex nihilo means nothing.Andre_{May 4, 2015
May
05
May
4
04
2015
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply