Darwinism Intelligent Design Natural selection News

Group selection is NOT the “scientific dust bunny” your prof told you?

Spread the love
Anelosimus spiders/Judy Gallagher

Remember when evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson was insulting pastors by writing them Dear Pastor letters (but he no longer believed in anything they did)?

Later, he started a huge row by turning his back on his big theory, group selection, insisting that Darwin’s natural selection could do it all (selfish gene style?) He had friends, too, once he repented of his sins against absolute Darwinism: “Group selection has become a scientific dust bunny, a hairy blob in which anything having to do with ‘groups’ clings to anything having to do with ‘selection,'” famed Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in a 2012 attack on group selection.”) So that settled it. Darwin’s heirs ruled.

Some now claim to have come up with evidence for group selection:

From ScienceDaily:

Along rivers in Tennessee and Georgia, scientists have been studying brownish-orange spiders, called Anelosimus studiosus, that make cobwebby nests “anywhere from the size of a golf ball to the size of a Volkswagen Beetle,” researcher Jonathan Pruitt says. The individual spiders are only the size of a pencil eraser, but they form organized groups that can catch prey ranging from fruit flies to small vertebrates. “We have found carcasses of rats and birds inside their colonies,” Pruitt says. Unlike most spiders, which are solitary, these social spiders work together in groups.

Now new research shows that they evolve together in groups, too.

Say “group selection” among some groups of evolutionary biologists and you won’t be invited back to the party. But Jonathan Pruitt, at the University of Pittsburgh, and Charles Goodnight, at the University of Vermont, have been studying generations of these Anelosimus spiders — and have gathered the first-ever experimental evidence that group selection can fundamentally shape collective traits in wild populations.

Their results are presented in the Oct. 1 online edition of the journal Nature.

“Biologists have never shown an adaptation in nature which is clearly attributable to group selection,” Goodnight said. “Our paper is that demonstration.”

What? “Say “group selection” among some groups of evolutionary biologists and you won’t be invited back to the party”?

Because those people care only about control, not about facts, as long as the rest of us fund their follies? Say “Darwin” and that figures.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

83 Replies to “Group selection is NOT the “scientific dust bunny” your prof told you?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Spider Trivia

    Butterfly Cities and Spider Optics – October 22, 2012
    Excerpt: Skyscrapers of the future may shine in brilliant butterfly colors. Optical biosensors may be made from spider webs. These are just a few of the engineering marvels coming from biomimetics—the imitation of nature.
    http://crev.info/2012/10/butterfly-cities/

    Tough, light and strong: Lessons from nature could lead to the creation of new materials – February 14, 2013
    Excerpt: “Natural systems are built from so few elements, yet they use ingenious ways to assemble all these different materials to maximize their properties,” ,,,
    For example, spider silk has both high tensile strength and extensibility. “It’s stronger than almost any material,” Meyers said. The silk is made of pleated sheets of nanocrystals connected by weak hydrogen bonds and embedded in protein strands. Under low stress, the protein strands uncoil and straighten, much like biopolymers. Under larger stress, the load gets transferred to the nanocrystals. If necessary, some of the hydrogen bonds slip, allowing the structure to stretch without breaking. Silk’s reliance on hydrogen bonds for strength suggests that researchers may need to pursue new avenues to engineer stronger materials, Meyers said. Incidentally, similar structures can be found in bone, where sacrificial hydrogen bonds between mineralized collagen fibrils impart excellent fracture resistance. More complex strong structures can be found in everything from wool to whelk eggs.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-t.....ation.html

    Engineers have calculated that a woven cord of spider’s silk as thick as a pencil could stop a jet in midair.
    From the book ‘Weird Nature’ By John Downer

    Spider Silk Is Stronger Than Steel
    Excerpt:
    * The silk thread spun by spiders, measuring just one-thousandth of a millimeter across, is five times stronger than steel of the same thickness.
    * It can stretch up to four times its own length.
    * It is also so light that enough thread to stretch clear around the planet would weigh only 320 grams.
    “On the human scale, a web resembling a fishing net could catch a passenger jet airplane.”

    Biomimicry- Spider Hair: The Perfect Water Repellant Surface – Feb 2010
    Excerpt: “Engineering researchers have crafted a flat surface that refuses to get wet,” began a press release from University of Florida. “Water droplets skitter across it like ball bearings tossed on ice.,,, Because the trick is done with physics instead of chemistry, the hydrophobic surface manufactured to spider spec does not have to slough off any dangerous chemicals. Sigmund is now working on similar surface tricks that can repel oil. If engineers can figure out economical ways to manufacture these surfaces with enough durability for a range of temperatures, industry will beat a path,,,,.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100224b

    Researchers discussing spider’s web can’t stop using the forbidden word – ‘design’ – February 2012
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....rd-design/

    Spiders Have Eight (Well-Designed) Eyes – October 30, 2012
    Excerpt: Look what researchers at the Optical Society of America are doing with spiders. Incredible as it sounds, they are taking spider silk and using it for fiber optics. Spider silk is already prized as an ideal material: it’s strong, flexible, and biodegradable. Now, a team has found it can also transmit and guide light almost as well as glass fibers.
    One team is using it as a light guide in photonic chips, while another is trying to imitate the proteins in silk from spiders and silkworms to be able to manufacture it. This second team has already made a silk-based “plastic” that can be used for everything from biodegradable cups to implantable devices that dissolve in the body.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65551.html

    A spider that builds elaborate, fake spiders and hangs them in its web has been discovered in the Peruvian Amazon.
    http://www.wired.com/2012/12/s.....ng-spider/

    Verse and Music

    Proverbs 30:28
    “The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings’ palaces” –

    Spider Spinning Web to Music in Fast Motion (spider timelapse)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4LE_3duK4Y

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    Group selection probably fits under the banner of epigenetics, IMO. It’s just programmed adaptation. No need for any Darwinian RM-NS silliness.

  3. 3
    Guillermoe says:

    Man, Darwin is obsolete. Stop criticizing Darwinism, we are in 2014, not in 1880.

    By the way, I don’t get it. You celebrate that another evolutive mechanism has been confirmed?

    Well, I am gald, indeed.

  4. 4
    wd400 says:

    Later, he started a huge row by turning his back on his big theory, group selection.

    Not for the first time, you have this precisely backwards. As your own link would’ve told you, had you read it.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe you state,,,

    ,,, “You celebrate that another evolutive mechanism has been confirmed?
    Well, I am gald, indeed.”

    With such a brash statement, it seems you might know a bit about evolution. Perhaps you can help us ‘understand evolution’ since wd400 has failed in that endeavor.
    When you say, ‘another evolutive mechanism has been confirmed’, does this mean that you know of evidence that has ‘confirmed’ evolution?,,, I, as well as many others in the ID community, have been looking for the evidence for many years that would confirm the grand Darwiniam claims for complexity arising from simplicity, and we have yet to find any confirming evidence whatsoever.,,,
    For example, can you point us to a single instance where a molecular machine has arisen by unguided material processes???
    Even though the simplest of cells is chock full of thousands of molecular machines, I know of not one such example where unguided material processes have produced even one ‘simple’ molecular machine from scratch!

    Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.-
    Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum
    “the most efficient machine in the universe.”

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    http://tl.cross.tv/61771

    Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskepti.....gure03.jpg

    A few quotes of note:

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996

    The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    Now Guillermoe, I don’t want a ‘just so’ story about how any particular molecular machine came to be in the remote past when no one was around to see it happen, but I want actual observational, i.e. ‘scientific’, evidence that unguided processes can accomplish what you, and other evolutionists, adamantly claim they can accomplish (namely, building molecular machines that, as far as engineering parameters are concerned, far outclass any machine man has ever built)

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

    Perhaps you, like wd400, think that I am just too dumb to understand that Darwinists don’t actually need an empirical demonstration of their claims?,,, If so, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, and who is also a top ten cited chemist in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work – James Tour, Phd.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s

    At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw

    Hopefully you can see my dilemma Guillermoe?!? On the one hand I have a rock solid empirical demonstration that ‘intellegence’ can and does build a molecular machines, but on the other hand, I have no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can build one.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Regional Premieres of Privileged Species with Michael Denton Continue on Friday, October 10, in Charlotte, NC – October 2, 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90181.html

  7. 7
    Guillermoe says:

    bornagain:

    “does this mean that you know of evidence that has ‘confirmed’ evolution?”

    Yes. Biological evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population produced by some sort of selective pressure across generations. There are several examples of this happenning: insects becoming resistant to pesticides, there is the case of some lizzards introduce in the island of Pod Mrcaru 40 year ago, and there is a study were researchers created a selective pressure on a population of fish that naturally walk on land and this pressure produced change in their characteristics after several generations.

    So, the first step to the theory of evolution is that populations of living organisms change. And they do change, indeed.

    That’s just a start. But, is there any other theory that could explain biodiversity that relays in a mechanism for which we have direct evidence?

    “For example, can you point us to a single instance where a molecular machine has arisen by unguided material processes???”

    It’s a tricky question. Can you tell me of any experiment searching for that?

    Because I can tell you of changes that have arisen unguided, but I don’t know if you would consider them molecular machines, and I can tell you of experiments that show evolution of molecular machines but in experiments that are guided. I don’t think there’s anybody trying to catch unguided changes in molecular machines because it’s a lottery. It’s like that guy that said that the proof abiogenesis is false is that new life never appeared in peanut butter. We never searched for new life in peanut butter, so it could have happenes and we missed it.

    “Even though the simplest of cells is chock full of thousands of molecular machines, I know of not one such example where unguided material processes have produced even one ‘simple’ molecular machine from scratch!”

    Well, two things. First, “I don’t know of..” is argument from ignorance. Second, te thing about evolution is that it’s GRADUAL. So, the first cell did not appear all of a sudden, probably.

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”

    It might have been true in 1996. It’s not true now.

    Now, it’s quite suspicious that you atribute this quote to Shapiro in 1996 and to Franklin in 2001.

    “‘scientific’, evidence that unguided processes can accomplish what you, and other evolutionists, adamantly claim they can accomplish (namely, building molecular machines that, as far as engineering parameters are concerned, far outclass any machine man has ever built)”

    Is changing existing molecular machines into more complex ones ok? I know examples of that. If you mean building machines out of nothing, like forming celular structures in an organic media, I have no example. However, do you have evidence of these structures being built by The Intelligent Designer? I know you don’t. You shouldn’t for evidence when you can’t provide it.

    “like wd400, think that I am just too dumb to understand that Darwinists don’t actually need an empirical demonstration of their claims?”

    Darwinism is obsolete. Anyway, we have empirical demonstration of the basic premise of evolution: populations of living organisms DO CHANGE in time.

    “Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

    What is a God?

    “On the one hand I have a rock solid empirical demonstration that ‘intellegence’ can and does build a molecular machines, but on the other hand, I have no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can build one.”

    It’s easy. When we build molecular machines we mimic nature. we do what we saw nature does. We have not evidence that nature does build mollecular machines (I am not sure about this) because we haven’t observed it yet. ut, there were many things that had not been observed about evolution and in time we saw them.

    So, the real argument against evolution is this: identify a mechanism that explains what you say evolution doesn’t explain adequately. You see, this is a blog about ID. I should not be explaining how evolution produced biodiversity. You should be explaining me how ID produce biodeversity.

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    Yeah, I know. That’s the story.

    Tell you what. Get some cultures of your favorite bacteria, subject them to various environmental stresses while being exposed to a significant amount of ionizing radiation. This should be adjusted to proportionally accelerate all of the components of Darwinistic evolution to let’s say that of humans. it would probably have to be a similar fraction of the LD50/30 for each.

    After the scaled generational and radiometric equivalent of many millions of years, maybe you’ll be able to amaze your friends and convert your skeptics with all sorts de novo features demonstrating evolution in action! I’m not talking about antibiotic resistance or digestive changes, but some real macro morphological stuff: colonial aggregations with specialization such as little flippers, antennae, light-sensitive spots, circulatory systems, crawling out on land, and so on.

    Let’s assume that bacteria double every 20 minutes. Humans about every 60 years, which is very roughly a ratio of 100 million to one. So, a ten year run, would be the equivalent of a billion years of human evolution. Well, reproduction is faster for smaller organisms–dogs are bred about every two years–so let’s say that this averages out to about 10-20% of the billion years or about 100-200 million years. This would start us at the end of the Jurassic and the beginning of the Cretaceous, and would give us a very rough idea of the magnitude of the evolutionary changes that we’d expect to see.

    This is not that farfetched. The University of California at Davis actually conducted such experiments many decades ago using mice. I guess they were more optimistic back then. You probably can anticipate what their results were.

    -Q

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe you claim,,,

    Biological evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population produced by some sort of selective pressure across generations.

    And exactly how is ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ experimental, i.e. ‘scientific’, proof that unguided evolution can changed one creature into another creature???, especially when the vast majority of changes to DNA are now known to be the result of cell mediated processes, not random accidents as is presupposed in unguided evolution’s theoretical core???

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Moreover, you simply have no evidence that ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ can change one creature into another creature,,,

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.html

    Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable “hopeful monsters” render these explanations untenable.
    Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Moreover, we now have evidence that ‘structural form’ is not reducible to the sequences on DNA nor is it reducible even to the sequences on proteins,,

    The Gene Myth, Part II – August 2010
    Excerpt: “It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins, (intrinsically disoredered proteins), have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions.
    ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.
    Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....rt-ii.html

    podcast – Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution – September 17, 2014
    “We are talking about 1/3 of the proteins in our body, (could be Intrinsically Disordered Proteins)” – Jonathan Wells
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....evolution/
    On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step.

    Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) – Talbot – November 2010
    Excerpt: The standard doctrine has it that functionally important sequences, precisely because they are important to the organism, will generally be conserved across considerable evolutionary distances. But the emerging point of view holds that architecture can matter as much as sequence. As bioinformatics researcher Elliott Margulies and his team at the National Human Genome Research Institute put it, “the molecular shape of DNA is under selection” — a shape that can be maintained in its decisive aspects despite changes in the underlying sequence. It’s not enough, they write, to analyze “the order of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s,” because “DNA is a molecule with a three-dimensional structure.”[14] Elementary as the point may seem, it’s leading to a considerable reallocation of investigative resources.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....e-delusion

    Tissue-specific spatial organization of genomes – 2004
    Excerpt: Using two-dimensional and three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization we have carried out a systematic analysis of the spatial positioning of a subset of mouse chromosomes in several tissues. We show that chromosomes exhibit tissue-specific organization. Chromosomes are distributed tissue-specifically with respect to their position relative to the center of the nucleus and also relative to each other. Subsets of chromosomes form distinct types of spatial clusters in different tissues and the relative distance between chromosome pairs varies among tissues. Consistent with the notion that nonrandom spatial proximity is functionally relevant in determining the outcome of chromosome translocation events, we find a correlation between tissue-specific spatial proximity and tissue-specific translocation prevalence.
    Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific and point to a role for tissue-specific spatial genome organization in the formation of recurrent chromosome arrangements among tissues.
    http://genomebiology.com/content/5/7/R44

    Thus since the structural form of DNA and proteins is not reducible to the sequences on DNA or proteins, then it simply is impossible that ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ can be claimed as scientific proof for the evolution of one creature into another creature much less is it proof that microbes can turn into man.
    Stephen Meyer comments on the failure of neo-Darwinism to explain ‘structural form’ here,,,

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)
    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    https://vimeo.com/91322260

    As to your examples, i.e. insects becoming resistant to pesticides, lizard cecal valves, and fish, who could already propel themselves across land, becoming stronger after being forced to ‘walk’ on land, all these examples are all examples of rapid adaptations within existing populations that point to sophisticated epigenetic modifications on organisms and do not support your blind watchmaker, i.e. Darwinian, thesis. Much less do your examples demonstrate that one creature can turn into another creature.

    Guillermoe, In regards to my request to you for a single example of Darwinian processes producing a molecular machine, you ask:

    Can you tell me of any experiment searching for that?

    Yes! I can point you to four decades worth of laboratory evolution experiments,,

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe you then concede that, although you really don’t have any evidence that unguided processes can produce anything I would consider a molecular machine, intelligence can produce as such,,

    I can tell you of changes that have arisen unguided, but I don’t know if you would consider them molecular machines, and I can tell you of experiments that show evolution of molecular machines but in experiments that are guided.

    Thanks for at least that much honesty, and conceding my overall point that unguided processes have never been observed creating molecular machines.

    Guillermoe, in regards to nobody knowing of a single instance of unguided processes producing a molecular machine, you claim

    “I don’t know of..” is argument from ignorance.

    No Guillermoe, it is not a argument from what we don’t know, but from what we do know. We ‘know’ of no instances of unguided processes producing a molecular machine!
    As to this quote,,,

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”

    ,,,you claim,,,

    It might have been true in 1996. It’s not true now.

    Actually, the claim is still true, and Dr. Behe has only become more resolute, as the years have passed and more evidence has come in, in his claim that unguided perocesses cannot produce molecular machines,,,

    Molecular Machines: – Michael J. Behe – 1997
    Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,,
    In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. here were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever.
    http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

    (Darwin’s Black Box) Purposeful Design at the Foundation of Life – Michael Behe, PhD – video 2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7pRD73PAaE
    Michael Behe’s presentation was on Sunday, July 6, 2014.

    More Irreducible Complexity Is Found in Flagellar Assembly – September 24, 2013
    Concluding Statement: Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It’s a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives! –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77051.html

    “The response I have received from repeating Behe’s claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
    David Ray Griffin – retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

    As to the supposed refutation of Dr. Behe’s claim that unguided processes cannot produce molecular machines, that refutation was found to be a fraudulent ‘literature bluff’,,,

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Guillermoe you then remark,,

    Now, it’s quite suspicious that you atribute this quote to Shapiro in 1996 and to Franklin in 2001.

    Do you think Franklin plagiarized Shapiro? That’s a serious charge!,,, By the way, the similarity of the quotes was noted years ago by leading ID proponent William Dembski in his many talks he gave on the subject. Neither Shapiro nor Franklin, as far as I know, has admitted to plagiarism, nor have either of them accused each other of plagiarism.
    Guillermoe, you then again concede that you have no example of unguided processes creating a molecular machine,

    If you mean building machines out of nothing, like forming celular structures in an organic media, I have no example.

    Thanks again for your honesty.
    You then try to defend the sheer poverty of evidence by claiming,,

    do you have evidence of these structures being built by The Intelligent Designer? I know you don’t. You shouldn’t (ask) for evidence when you can’t provide it.

    I guess you mean God almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, with ‘The Intelligent Designer’ remark in your statement, and although I could flood you with evidence from quantum mechanics for ‘beyond space and time’, non-locality in biological molecules, and even molecular machines, actually I don’t have to do any of that.
    You see Guillermoe, ID’s claim in biology is minimal in that ID claims ‘intelligence’ can produce effects that unguided processes cannot produce. And since you have already conceded my main point that ‘guided’ processes can, and have, produce(d) molecular machines and unguided processes have not, then, as far as empirical science is concerned, my claim is subtantiated and your claim is not.

    Guillermoe you then concede,,

    Darwinism is obsolete

    Glad you agree.

    Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin – April 22, 2014
    Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said,,,
    “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.”
    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/0....._of_darwin

    The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis – David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber – 2011
    Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,,
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....03g3t7002/

    Die, selfish gene, die – The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong – Dec. 2013
    Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene).
    Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong.
    – per Uncommon Descent

    Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Complex systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings – Mar 22, 2014
    Excerpt: the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“
    ,,, “As I myself had to experience [that] (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances?“
    http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/.....ng-beings/

    Of supplemental note:

    Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism – Stephen C. Meyer – April 25, 2014
    Excerpt: in Chapters 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt, I addressed six new (that is, post neo-Darwinian) theories of evolution — theories that proposed new mechanisms to either supplement or replace the reliance upon mutation and natural selection in neo-Darwinian theory.,,
    I show that, although several of these new evolutionary theories offer some intriguing advantages over the orthodox neo-Darwinian model, they too fail to offer adequate explanations for the origin of the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to account for new forms of animal life — such as those that arise in the Cambrian period.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84871.html

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem – video – The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization
    Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to ‘make up’ for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....Ow3u0_mK8t

  11. 11
    Guillermoe says:

    “I’m not talking about antibiotic resistance or digestive changes, but some real macro morphological stuff: colonial aggregations with specialization such as little flippers, antennae, light-sensitive spots, circulatory systems, crawling out on land, and so on.”

    Since it’s a random process that might take some time.

    Anyway, new macro morphological features have been observed (not in bacteria, though).

    And, on the other side, what’s the other explanation? Again, you argument is that if we don’t produce something with evolution, evolution is impossible? First, evolution is a real biological process.

    Can evolution produced the complexity in biodiversity we see? We assume yes. And we don’t have any other scientific explanation.

    “a ten year run, would be the equivalent of a billion years of human evolution”

    Yes, but bacteria are bacteria and humans are humans. Are you expecting bacteria to suffer human evolution? It took 1 billion years for multicellular organisms to appear on Earth? So, that’s probably how much you should wait beside you bacterial colony to get the results you want.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe, contrary to what you ‘philosophically’ want to believe to be true no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, we have no scientific evidence that bacteria have ever changed into other bacteria, much less do we have evidence that microbes can turn into man (or anything else)

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

    Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old – 11/11/13
    Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages.
    http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-p...../topstory1

    Collecting Census Data On Microbial Denizens of Hardened Rocks Dec. 9, 2013
    Excerpt: What they’re finding is that, even miles deep and halfway across the globe, many of these (microbial)communities are somehow quite similar.,,,
    “It’s easy to understand how birds or fish might be similar oceans apart,” Schrenk said. “But it challenges the imagination to think of nearly identical microbes 16,000 kilometers apart from each other in the cracks of hard rock at extreme depths, pressures and temperatures.”,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....124115.htm

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    There simply isn’t any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells ever formed anything other than ‘simple aggregates’:

    “We go from single cell protozoa. which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they’re still individual cells that aggregate together. They don’t seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don’t really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don’t have anything like that.”
    – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this following video
    Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    New Precambrian Fossils Are Not Cambrian Ancestors – October 2, 2014
    Excerpt: From the headlines you might think that with the discovery of some new Chinese embryo fossils, the enigma of the Cambrian explosion has been solved. The announcement from Virginia Tech trumpets, “New evidence of ancient multicellular life sets evolutionary timeline back 60 million years.” ,,,
    What’s new about these fossils? Nothing. Similar embryos were found in the 1990s by J. Y. Chen and Paul Chien in the same Doushantuo formation, and reported in the peer-reviewed literature (Xiao et al. cite that paper in their references). The story is recounted in both Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt and in the Illustra film Darwin’s Dilemma. The presence of embryos in the Precambrian didn’t solve the Cambrian explosion problem then, and it doesn’t now. In fact, they make the problem worse, because they show that the Precambrian strata were perfectly capable of preserving transitional forms, had they existed.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90171.html

  13. 13
    Guillermoe says:

    bornagin77:

    “And exactly how is ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ experimental, i.e. ‘scientific’, proof that unguided evolution can changed one creature into another creature???”

    It’s not proof; it’s an explanation: there could be so many different species because some species turn into new ones. Do you know any other explanation?

    “especially when the vast majority of changes to DNA are now known to be the result of cell mediated processes, not random accidents as is presupposed in unguided evolution’s theoretical core???”

    It’s still an unguided process. And Darwinism is obsolete.

    “Moreover, you simply have no evidence that ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ can change one creature into another creature”

    Yes and no. When something changes, it’s not the same anymore, so it’s ANOTHER thing. A moth is not the same as that moth resistant to pesticides.

    But, understanding that you meant dramatic change, I would say “no, I don’t have evidence that evolution can turn a species into a dramatically different one”.

    But I know no other mechanism capable of producing new species. Do you?

    “(A) Thus since the structural form of DNA and proteins is not reducible to the sequences on DNA or proteins, then (B) it simply is impossible that ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ can be claimed as scientific proof for the evolution of one creature into another creature much less is it proof that microbes can turn into man.”

    This is nonsense. (B) is not a consequence of (A).

    “all these examples are all examples of rapid adaptations”

    Yes, by means of biological evolution, that is a real process.

    “and do not support your blind watchmaker, i.e. Darwinian, thesis”

    Darwinism is obsolete. And I don’t have to support the lack of guidance. If you don’t prove guidance, I can reject it with Occam’s razor: what is claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

    “Yes! I can point you to four decades worth of laboratory evolution experiments”

    I know those experiments, but they are not “unguided”.

    “Guillermoe you then concede that, although you really don’t have any evidence that unguided processes can produce anything I would consider a molecular machine, intelligence can produce as such”

    No. I know examples of molecular machines obtained in semiguided experiments simulating evolution. I have examples of other features appearing in populations without any guidance.

    And if you claim “intelligence can produce molecular machines we see in nature”, I won’t accept your claim until you explain the process and/or describe the intelligent agent and provide evidence of those two things.

    “and conceding my overall point that unguided processes have never been observed creating molecular machines”

    Those experiments simulated evolution. Populations of microorganisms were exposed to conditions that are known to trigger mutations and can be observed in nature. Those experiments are not guided in the sense that the resulting new features were stablished a priori. The new characteristics obtained were random.

    So, I am not even close of saying what you say I say. So, with your own policy, thanks for showing that you are a liar or that you have a poor reading comprehension.

    “No Guillermoe, it is not a argument from what we don’t know, but from what we do know. We ‘know’ of no instances of unguided processes producing a molecular machine!”

    Are you stupid? “I don’t know of any martian alien” and “I know of no martian alien” MEAN THE SAME!!!!

    But you are right!! It’s not an argument from ignorance, it’s an argument from self knowing. It’s a different kind of phallacy.

    “Actually, the claim is still true”

    In the universe I live in (maybe in your parallel universe it’s different) there are published studies accounting for the evolution of many fundamental biochemical or cellular systems. So, YES,THERE ARE LOTS OF ACCOUNTS of this. And NO, Sahpiro’s assertion is not true.

    “As to the supposed refutation of Dr. Behe’s claim that unguided processes cannot produce molecular machines, that refutation was found to be a fraudulent ‘literature bluff’”

    Are you talking about Thornton’s study?

    “Do you think Franklin plagiarized Shapiro? That’s a serious charge!”

    No, I think someone’s an dumbass who quotes the same phrase twice and thinks they are two different quotes.

    “I guess you mean God almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, with ‘The Intelligent Designer’ remark in your statement”

    No, I meant whatever you claim is the intelligent designer. Do you have evidence of it producing molecular machines? Do you have evidence of it existing?

    “I could flood you with evidence from quantum mechanics for ‘beyond space and time’, non-locality in biological molecules, and even molecular machines, actually I don’t have to do any of that.”

    No, you couldn’t. You could flood me with things you wrongfully interpret as evidence and are not. Give it a try.

    “ID’s claim in biology is minimal in that ID claims ‘intelligence’ can produce effects that unguided processes cannot produce”

    But has no evidence for this claim. Again, Occam’s razor.

    “And since you have already conceded my main point that ‘guided’ processes can”

    I can’t concede that because you have not describe your “guided processes”, yet. I don’t know what they are so I don’t know what they can do. And I really think that you don’t know what they are, either, so infact, you can’t know what they are capable of doing.

  14. 14
    Guillermoe says:

    “we have no scientific evidence that bacteria have ever changed into other bacteria”

    Yes we have, because when a THING changes, it changes into OTHER THING.

    You can’t change into THE SAME. This is a very stupid point you are making..

    “There simply isn’t any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells ever formed anything other than ‘simple aggregates’”

    Ok, let’s see the evidence of the designer and the designing. Start explaining what they are like.

  15. 15
    wd400 says:

    Again, this whole block

    Later, he started a huge row by turning his back on his big theory, group selection, insisting that Darwin’s natural selection could do it all (selfish gene style?) He had friends, too, once he repented of his sins against absolute Darwinism: …

    is precisely the opposite of what is true. It’s kind of staggering to me that someone could cover this beat for so long and be so uninformed by it, but even more so that someone would take the moniker of “News” while apparently not caring about getting stuff right…

  16. 16
    Mapou says:

    wd400 @15, it’s neither staggering nor surprising at all that you would attack someone’s character without providing any kind of evidence. It’s expected of you. You need to change your moniker to “ad hominem Joe” or something.

    By the way, your opinion matters to the rest of us because of what again?

  17. 17
    wd400 says:

    Read the “turning his back” link, which says “Darwinists have been gunning for Wilson ever since, last year, he renounced the kin selection theory”

    Then confirm that kin selectoin is “selfish gene style” individual or gene-centred selection model.

    By the way, your opinion matters to the rest of us because of what again?

    Because I am right. If you’ve like UD to become even more of an echo chamber than it already is I guess you can try and get me banned?

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    wd400 @17, you have said nothing that proves anything. You are accusing O’Leary of lying. Let’s see some proof. Let’s see the argument. Don’t ask me to click on anything and do your job for you. I ain’t your slave, man.

  19. 19
    wd400 says:

    LOL,

    I’m not accusing anyone one of lying, just of being un-informed. This combination of comments made me laugh though.

    In the first I’m accused of making claims without evidence, in the second I provide the evidence as a link and am told ” Don’t ask me to click on anything and do your job for you”. How is one meant to support a claim if providing a link that backs it up is asking you to “do my work”?

  20. 20
    Mapou says:

    wd400, you can laugh all you want but pointing to a link is not an argument. Whatever is at the link is subject to interpretation. You must provide your argument with relevant quotes or facts. Otherwise you’re a liar.

  21. 21
    wd400 says:

    Read the link. It says exactly the opposite of what the this post says. If you can defend the accuracy of two contradictory statements then… well.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe @13 you state

    “And exactly how is ‘change in the frequency of alleles’ experimental, i.e. ‘scientific’, proof that unguided evolution can changed one creature into another creature???”
    It’s not proof; it’s an explanation: there could be so many different species because some species turn into new ones. Do you know any other explanation?

    Yes, ‘top down’ design of each kind of creature instead of ‘bottom up’ evolution.

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

    Dogs breeds, which Dawkins claims are proof of macro-evolution are actually an excellent case study of such ‘top down’ Design,,,

    Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of Dogs – January 2014
    Excerpt Discussion: We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 4–5, Table S10),,
    Our analysis suggests that none of the sampled wolf populations is more closely related to dogs than any of the others, and that dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other (Figures 5A, 5C).
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.1004016

    Caveman’s Best Friend, Evolution’s Newest Upset – October 2011
    Excerpt: Our view of domestication as a process has also begun to change, with recent research showing that, in dogs, alterations in only a small number of genes can have large effects in terms of size, shape and behavior.,,, It should be noted that dogs and wolves can interbreed,,,
    http://crev.info/content/20111.....est_friend

    Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – Mar 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record.
    http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/.....rd-lonnig/

    podcast – On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_14-08_00
    Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution?
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_07-08_00

    Guillermoe you then claim,,,

    “especially when the vast majority of changes to DNA are now known to be the result of cell mediated processes, not random accidents as is presupposed in unguided evolution’s theoretical core???”
    It’s still an unguided process. And Darwinism is obsolete.

    No it is not an unguided process, but is a directed ‘non-random’ process,,

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – 2014
    Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.
    On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.
    http://edge.org/response-detail/25264

    Evolutionists Caught Again—But They Still Believe – Dr. Cornelius Hunter – May 2012
    Excerpt: As a new paper now explains, under evolution we must believe that mutations rates have been “evolutionarily optimized.” That is, evolution is now so brilliant that it created the means to not only control, but to optimize the actual mutation rates.,,, (Here is how they put their findings)
    “Upon comparing 34 Escherichia coli genomes, we observe that the neutral mutation rate varies by more than an order of magnitude across 2,659 genes, with mutational hot and cold spots spanning several kilobases.,, Importantly, the variation is not random: we detect a lower rate in highly expressed genes and in those undergoing stronger purifying selection.,, Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations.,, Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved. ,, The findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution and the control of mutations.,,”
    Dr. Hunter Comments: “These findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution? Well sure, if by that they mean how absurd are evolution truth claims.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-they.html

    and I am glad you agree that Darwinism is obsolete. Two questions for you, why are you defending Darwinian processes as proof for evolution if you truly believe Darwinism to be obsolete? and which altenative theory are you now favoring. i.e. Shapiro’s ‘natural’ genetic engineering?? Kaufmann’s self orginization??? etc.. etc..?

    You concede you have no evidence of one species transmutating into another,,,

    “no, I don’t have evidence that evolution can turn a species into a dramatically different one”.

    Thanks at least for a little honesty, now if you can add a little consistentcy to your honesty!

    You then defend your poverty of evidence for speciation with this,,,

    But I know no other mechanism capable of producing new species. Do you?

    Yes, Intelligence can accomplish exactly what unguided material processes have never been observed doing. Namely producing large amounts of functional information. i.e. The probability is 100% that Intelligence can produce functional information! In fact, every time you write a single sentence on this blog you are providing direct empirical evidence that Intelligence can and does produce information far beyond the capacity of the entire universe over the entire age of the universe:

    Book Review – Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
    Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren’t chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.
    So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it’s a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume.....k_726.html

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe, as to the observation that ‘structural form’ is not reducible to sequences of DNA, and therefore sequences cannot be used as proof for Darwinian claims for one creature, i.e. body plan transmutation into another creature, i.e. body plan, you state

    This is nonsense. (B) is not a consequence of (A).

    It certainly does follow. As Dr. Meyer stated,,,

    ‘you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009) – video
    https://vimeo.com/91322260

    You then state:

    “all these examples are all examples of rapid adaptations”
    Yes, by means of biological evolution, that is a real process.

    You cannot claim the sophisticated biological adaptations of what is currently happening as the means by which the sophisticated biological adaptations came about,,

    An Evolutionist Just Admitted That the New Tennessee Law Does Not Introduce Creationism Into the Class Room – April 2012
    Excerpt: When confronted they equivocate on evolution and redefine the idea as mere change over time. All of the many incredible examples of adaptation we observe in nature (where a population adapts to a new environmental challenge via super sophisticated biological mechanisms which evolution cannot even begin to explain) are suddenly proofs of evolution. The beaks of bird become a bit longer in response to changing conditions, and therefore all of biology must have spontaneously arose. So evolution is not only a religious theory, it also is a shell game.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....t-new.html

    you then state:

    “and do not support your blind watchmaker, i.e. Darwinian, thesis”
    Darwinism is obsolete. And I don’t have to support the lack of guidance. If you don’t prove guidance, I can reject it with Occam’s razor: what is claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

    You concede that Darwinism can not do what is claimed of it in practically every high school classroom in America, but then you turn right around and defend the ‘random’ aspect of it.,,, I’ve already provided evidence that changes to DNA happen on a ‘non-random’ pattern to certain sections of the DNA, but here is a quote from Shapiro to re-emphasize the point,,

    James A. Shapiro PhD. Genetics on Random Mutation:
    “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....11144.html

    You then state:

    “Yes! I can point you to four decades worth of laboratory evolution experiments”
    I know those experiments, but they are not “unguided”.

    UHHH??? Unguided, which you already admitted, is worse than guided as to producing a molecular machine since you have no examples! Thus why do you think this objection is reasonable other than you had nothing else to say since what I said was true !?!

    You then state:

    “Guillermoe you then concede that, although you really don’t have any evidence that unguided processes can produce anything I would consider a molecular machine, intelligence can produce as such”
    No. I know examples of molecular machines obtained in semiguided experiments simulating evolution. I have examples of other features appearing in populations without any guidance.

    Are you a lawyer now??? You just reworded what you orginally stated to make it appear to be not as bad as when you first wrote it. Moreover, as I have shown with James Tour, I have direct empirical evidence of intelligence producing a molecular machine. Where is you proof that unguided processes can do the same? Do you want his phone number?

    Your next statement makes no sense whatsoever, I suggest you re-write it with more clarity so as to help my poor ‘reading comprehension’.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    The rest of your post also devolves into incoherent rambling and ad-hominem. I suggest you re-write that as well with more clarity, and less anger, so as to help my poor ‘reading comprehension

    Guillermoe @ 14 you state

    “we have no scientific evidence that bacteria have ever changed into other bacteria”
    Yes we have, because when a THING changes, it changes into OTHER THING.
    You can’t change into THE SAME. This is a very stupid point you are making..

    Take the issue up with Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Of ‘non-random’ interest:

    Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally) – Tanya Lewis, – 02 October 2014
    Excerpt: Evolution is often said to be “blind,” because there’s no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests. These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said.,,,
    “So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here,”
    http://m.livescience.com/48103.....2_32724136

  26. 26
    Guillermoe says:

    bornagain:

    “Yes, ‘top down’ design of each kind of creature instead of ‘bottom up’ evolution.”

    It might be. BUT…

    There is no description of what “‘top down’ design” is yet, and there is a description of what “‘bottom up’ evolution” is and how it works.

    So, between attributing something to an unknown process or to a known process, the second is more reasonable.

    AND, we have SEEN “bottom up evolution” work just a tiny bit. We have not seen “top down design” work in nature, yet.

    So, before we assume “top down design” in nature, AT LEAST EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS, HOW IT HAPPENS. (Then there would come the “gather evidence” part, “explain what it is” would be a great start).

    “Dogs breeds, which Dawkins claims are proof of macro-evolution are actually an excellent case study of such ‘top down’ Design,”

    NO. It’s an exmaple of Humans manipulating evolution. It’s not intelligent design FOR ONE SIMLY REASON: we don’t design what the outcome is going to be. We create variability and select what pleases us. THAT’S NOT DESIGN!!

    “No it is not an unguided process, but is a directed ‘non-random’ process”

    Exactly!! THAT’S EVOLUTION.. Have you heard of natural selection? If it was random, it would be “natural chance”. Selection is not random. Evolution is not entirely random. There’s a large amount of non randomness in evolution because of natural selection.

    And if I have to tell you this, you know very little about evolution. As well as if you confuse evolution with Darwinism, which pretty much seems to be the case.

    “why are you defending Darwinian processes as proof for evolution”

    First, the the theory of evolution has expanded since the 19th century (you know we are not there anymore, right?) and some aspects of Darwinism have been discarded and some other aspects have been kept in modern theories, like Modern evolutive synthesis, or Evo-devo, which is the most accepted evolutive explanation nowadays.

    So, darwinism is obsolete. some parts of it were wrong, someparts of it WERE RIGHT.

    Second, and it is the second time I have to state this: darwinian processes ARE NOT proof of evolution. They are EXPLANATIONS of evolution. Proof is gathered in nature. Like seeing populations change, i.e., evolve.

    “and which altenative theory are you now favoring. i.e. Shapiro’s ‘natural’ genetic engineering?? Kaufmann’s self orginization???”

    Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering would be just a mechanism within evolution, and I am not sure that it’s been fully accepted. He is just giving a fancy name to natural genetic mechanisms. I prefer Evo-devo.

    But this is an ID blog. Let’s talk about ID and how it explains life forms. Ain’t that better?

  27. 27
    Guillermoe says:

    bornagain:

    “You concede you have no evidence of one species transmutating into another”

    Aaah, ignorance, what a curse!!!

    That transmutation has happenned a LOT OF TIMES… Because WE DECIDE WHAT NAMES SPECIES RECEIVE. So, it is OUR CHOICE to give a population of living organisms a different name, turning it into a new species.

    That’s way “a species turning into another” is the dumbest argument. All that is required for a species to turn into another is that we choose to change it’s name.

    What you have to observe is that the population changes. We have seen that. What I acknowledge is that we have not seen dramatic changes, YET.

    NOW, I HAVE TO PUT EMPHASIS ON THIS: HAVE WE SEEN THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER DESIGN NEW LIFE AND PUT IT ON EARTH?

    You shot your own foot. We have not seen dramatic evolving but WE HAVE SEEN EVOLVING.

    We have witnessed NO DESIGNING AT ALL IN NATURE. Congratulations for this silly argument…

    “But I know no other mechanism capable of producing new species. Do you?
    Yes, Intelligence can accomplish exactly what unguided material processes have never been observed doing”

    Is intelligence A MECHANISM? You know what a mechanism is? Why don’t you check the definition and the come back again and answer..

    Again, do you know any other MECHANISM!!!!! that could produce new species apart from evolution and human engineering?

    “As Dr. Meyer stated: You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan”

    And I imagine this is true just because Meyer says so. If you clim it without evidence I reject it without evidence: it’s bullshit. Meyer talks bullshit (because he claims things he can’t prove).

    By the way, I don’t care what people say. What I care about is mechanisms and the evidence for them. So stop quoting assholes and start mentioning real mechanisms that are observable in nature.

    “You cannot claim the sophisticated biological adaptations of what is currently happening as the means by which the sophisticated biological adaptations came about”

    I don’t. I claim sophisticated biological adaptations are happenning and the mechanism producing them is biological evolution.

    “You concede that Darwinism can not do what is claimed of it in practically every high school classroom in America”

    No, you idiot. I DIDN’T CONCEDE THAT. I say darwinism is obsolete and the theory of evolution is nowadays MUCH MORE COMPLEX than that Darwin described. Sorry I called you idiot, but you can miss THAT MUCH the meaning of what I say, man..

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    bornagain77,

    Apparently, Guillermoe was so busy vituperating, he didn’t get the radiometric acceleration of Darwinistic evolution thing. He still thinks his argument can hide behind a billion years. 😉

    Oh well, I tried.

    -Q

  29. 29
    Box says:

    Guillermoe #26: So, before we assume “top down design” in nature, AT LEAST EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS, HOW IT HAPPENS.

    How about this general outline by Gpuccio, UD contributor:

    (…) some conscious intelligent purposeful agent, probably not physical, interacts with biological matter exactly in the way that our consciousness interacts with our body and brain: through a consciousness / matter interface, probably implemented at quantum level, so that no natural laws needs to be violated.

  30. 30
    Guillermoe says:

    “I’ve already provided evidence that changes to DNA happen on a ‘non-random’ pattern to certain sections of the DNA”

    I missed that evidence. Yet, did you prove that what causes that “non-randomness” is the intelligent cause?

    I don’t think so.

    “which you already admitted, is worse than guided as to producing a molecular machine since you have no examples!”

    Can you name a guided process that would produce molecular machines in nature and is not part of the natural functioning of living organisms.

    Because, you are right, I have no exxamples of unguided processes producing mollecular machines by accident (and that means I don’t know any, not there is not any), but I know unguided processes in nature ARE REAL. Give me ONE example of a guided process in nature that produces molecular machines and IS NOT PART of any living organism physiology

    “Thus why do you think this objection is reasonable other than you had nothing else to say since what I said was true”

    Because you are a moron ignoring that you cannot describe ONE SINLGE guided process performed by the intelligent cause. That’s why your claim is not worth considering. And again, that I have not evidence of something does not mean it can’t happen and you are ignoring that, too.

    “You just reworded what you orginally stated to make it appear to be not as bad as when you first wrote it”

    No, I reworded what I wrote because you have a severe tendency to missinterpret what I say.

    “I have direct empirical evidence of intelligence producing a molecular machine.”

    But you don’t need evidence of ANY inelligence producing molecular machines. You need evidence of the intelligent cause of life producing molecular machines. I am waiting for it.

    “Take the issue up with Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol”

    Ok, this is true just because Lnton says so, again. I would say that Linton is a liar who is ignoring published studies. I calim that we have observed bacteria turn into a different bacteria because I HAVE READ THIS STUDIES.

    “Of ‘non-random’ interest:”

    I told you evolution is not entirely random. Plus, selective pressure is not random, the environment does not select for ANY TRAIT. Selection is for or against specific traits. That is a unguided non-random process that is a fundamental part of evolution.

  31. 31
    Guillermoe says:

    Bornagain:

    I wolud like to thank you for taking the tiem of answering my arguments with your arguments and supporting them with quotes and references. Though we do not agree in our ideas, it’s a very adequate way of debating and you don’t find that everyday.

    To avoid making this longer, what I am really interested in es how we can explain the existence of ceratin featurs in nature with ID. That’s what ID claims it does, but I never read anything that’s not general assertions: “an intelligence could do that”.

    I want to know what mechanisms you have in mind when you consider th intelligence cause producing material features n the universe. And th evidence for that mechanisms.

    Perhaps we could stop ranting and stick to this.

  32. 32
    Guillermoe says:

    Box:

    Thank you.

    How does that “intelligent purposeful agent” interact with biological matter, exactly?

    Can you specify what this agent is like?

  33. 33
    Daniel King says:

    Hi Guillermoe.

    How does that “intelligent purposeful agent” interact with biological matter, exactly?

    I, too, have wondered about that. I’ve considered some possibilities:

    (1) The agent is material. In this case, the agent would interact with matter like all other material agents. However, ID theory doesn’t seem to specify whether the agent is material or immaterial. Strangely, supporters of ID seem to think that this is not an interesting question.

    (2) The agent is immaterial. In this case, the agent would not appear to be able to interact with matter. So it seems to me that this possibility is a non-starter.

    Without further clarification from those who support ID, the whole idea seems unformed and too vague to take seriously. But I’d be interested to learn if such clarification is forthcoming.

  34. 34
    Barry Arrington says:

    DK:

    Strangely, supporters of ID seem to think that this is not an interesting question.

    You’ve been told dozens if not hundreds of times that the mere fact of design says little about the designer. It is not that is not an interesting question. It is an irrelevant question.

    The real question is why you continue to pretend you don’t know this.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe at 26, you claim

    There is no description of what “‘top down’ design” is yet, and there is a description of what “‘bottom up’ evolution” is and how it works.

    Yes, despite your denial, there is a description of what “‘top down’ design is and how it works, I already gave it to you once, to repeat,,

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

    Moreover, not only do we have a description of top-down design, but ALL our empirical evidence backs this description, of loss of genetic information from original species, up and does not support the bottom up scenario of increasing information that you believe in:

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED – Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk

    From a Frog to a Prince – video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) – No Beneficial Mutations – Gitt – Spetner – Denton – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031

    “A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,’.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.’ The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man ” ‘ . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!” —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.]
    http://www.godrules.net/evolut.....vlch15.htm

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    You then claim

    AND, we have SEEN “bottom up evolution” work just a tiny bit.,,,

    No we haven’t! we have yet to see ‘bottom up’ Darwinian processes produce even one novel protein domain from scratch,,,, and that is as ‘tiny bit’ as you can get as to generating functional information:

    Stephen Meyer (& Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

    Your comment on Dog Breeds is incoherent. I suggest you go back and re-read the references and listen to the podcasts carefully and then respond in something other than a kneejerk fashion!

    ,,, As is your next comment on randomness incoherent. You talk about natural selection being ‘non-random’ (we’ll let that slide for now), but my references are on ‘non-random mutations not on natural selection. I suggest you re-read my references again for comprehension and then re-write your answer in a coherent fashion!

    and then to top it off, after those two major flubs you just made, you then accuse me of ‘not understanding evolution’,,, Golly gee whiz, I wonder where I’ve seen that evasive tactic before??,,, anyone?? anyone??? wd400???

    Your preferred new theories of the modern synthesis, Evo-Devo, and neutral theory are all severely flawed and do not hold up to scrutiny.

    You then go on to lecture me on ‘proof’:

    Second, and it is the second time I have to state this: darwinian processes ARE NOT proof of evolution. They are EXPLANATIONS of evolution. Proof is gathered in nature.

    Contrary to what you may believe, actually experimental proofs in science are derived by testing against a rigid mathematical basis for a theory, which is why Darwinism, whichever flavor of Darwinism you choose, will never be proved scientifically because Darwinism has no mathematical basis:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

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

    in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, has constantly showed us that Darwinian evolution, whatever your flavor you choose, is astronomically unlikely

    HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_e.....hist12.htm

    Darwin’s Doubt – Chapter 12 – Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math – Dr. Paul Giem – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=7

    The rest of your post is unsubstantiated claims and personal opinions that have nothing to do with rigorous science.

  36. 36
    Box says:

    Guillermoe,

    Let me sketch a different, more naturalistic scenario:
    Suppose that in a neighboring universe, natural law is indeed capable of teleological accomplishments like creating life – contrary to natural law here. Now suppose that some time in the past scientist from that neighboring universe visited our universe and studied our natural laws and matter. For their amusement they designed life based on our natural laws and matter in their mobile space lab. Next they front-loaded the cells with information and dispatched a probe to seed the earth with life.

    Is that working for you?

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe @ 27 you claim,,

    Because WE DECIDE WHAT NAMES SPECIES RECEIVE. So, it is OUR CHOICE to give a population of living organisms a different name, turning it into a new species.

    So according to your ‘scienctific’ reasoning, a species does not have to actually transform into a new species, we only have to call it by a different name for the new species to appear?

    Well that explains a lot of the confusion with the fossil record that Darwinists have caused!

    At the 14:00 minute mark of the following video you can see Guillermoe’s fraudulent method of speciation in action

    Living Fossils Interview with Dr. Carl Werner – video (14:00 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y6LmWznY4Ys#t=842

  38. 38
    Daniel King says:

    You’ve been told dozens if not hundreds of times that the mere fact of design says little about the designer. It is not that is not an interesting question. It is an irrelevant question.

    Irrelevant to what? If ID promotes itself as a scientific program, it should play by scientific rules. ID claims to explain the history of life on earth, does it not? If so, no question about its ability to explain that history should be out of bounds. N’est ce pas?

    The real question is why you continue to pretend you don’t know this.

    I’m not pretending anything. As I said:

    Strangely, supporters of ID seem to think that this is not an interesting question.

    Please explain why (now that you tell me that it is an interesting question) you consider it irrelevant to your mission.

  39. 39
    Mung says:

    Daniel King:

    If ID promotes itself as a scientific program, it should play by scientific rules.

    Scientific rules rule out designers, unless they are scientists, in which case we can safely pretend that they are not designers.

  40. 40
    Mung says:

    Daniel King:

    ID claims to explain the history of life on earth, does it not?

    ID is not a theory that claims to explain the history of life on earth.

    Can you cite any source for your claim that ID claims to explain the history of life on earth?

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe since the rest of your post at 27 is merely personal opinion as to your philosophical druthers, I will skip it and move on to post 31. In 31 you ask:

    what I am really interested in is how we can explain the existence of certain features in nature with ID. That’s what ID claims it does, but I never read anything that’s not general assertions: “an intelligence could do that”.
    I want to know what mechanisms you have in mind when you consider the intelligent cause producing material features in the universe. And the evidence for that mechanism.

    That is actually a very thoughtful question and deserves a thoughtful responce.
    To go beyond the minimal claim of ID, i.e. that Intelligence is required to produce functional information we find in life, we can deduce that a ‘beyond space and time’ cause is necessary to explain life.

    It is now found that beyond space and time, non-local, ‘quantum entanglement/information’, which is not reducible to a material basis, is in molecular biology on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule:

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules.
    http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quan.....t-systems/

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
    Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
    per daily galaxy

    DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011
    Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104014.htm

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
    Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.
    http://www.scimednet.org/quant.....d-protein/

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/
    etc..

    That quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html
    etc.. etc..

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D
    Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialistic basis.

    To go even further in the falsification of reductive materialism, it is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, such as they use in quantum computation, physicists have reduced material to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy via e=mc2).

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original,,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    Scientists Report Finding Reliable Way to Teleport Data By JOHN MARKOFF – MAY 29, 2014
    Excerpt: They report that they have achieved perfectly accurate teleportation of quantum information over short distances. They are now seeking to repeat their experiment over the distance of more than a kilometer. If they are able to repeatedly show that entanglement works at this distance, it will be a definitive demonstration of the entanglement phenomenon and quantum mechanical theory.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05......html?_r=2

    Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves – April 2011
    Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
    http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....-computing

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

    In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

    Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video
    https://vimeo.com/75163272

    Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible?
    As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, “Beam me up, Scotty” one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014
    Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal.
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....eportation

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus not only is information not reducible to a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality both energy and matter ultimately reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism (John1:1).

    Of related note, encoded ‘classical’ digital information, such as what William Dembski and Robert Marks demonstrated the conservation of,

    Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    http://www.evoinfo.org/publications.html

    ,,classical ‘digital’ information, such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA,

    Every Bit Digital: DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics – Casey Luskin
    Excerpt: “There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins.”
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....uskin2.php

    The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a ‘Simple’ Bacteria – Rabbi Moshe Averick – video
    https://vimeo.com/35730736

    ,,this classical ‘digital’ information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    ,,,And here is the evidence that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’, ;,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/29895068

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video
    https://vimeo.com/39982578

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Moriah Peters – You Carry Me – music
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H-zQjgurQ

  44. 44
    Daniel King says:

    Mung:

    ID is not a theory that claims to explain the history of life on earth.

    What is it a theory about, then? Does it claim to explain anything?

    Can you cite any source for your claim that ID claims to explain the history of life on earth?

    Try this:

    Uncommon Descent holds that…

    Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted.

  45. 45
    Mung says:

    Daniel King,

    Pathetic response, truly pathetic.

  46. 46
    Guillermoe says:

    DK:

    “You’ve been told dozens if not hundreds of times that the mere fact of design says little about the designer. It is not that is not an interesting question. It is an irrelevant question.”

    No, it’s not irrelevant.

    If the fact of design tells us little of the designer and it’s not interest knowing of the designer, what does ID tell us? And how do we apply that to specific cases in nature?

    “Life is designed ” is ALL ID has to say?

  47. 47
    Guillermoe says:

    bornagain:

    “So according to your ‘scienctific’ reasoning, a species does not have to actually transform into a new species, we only have to call it by a different name for the new species to appear?”

    No, according to my scientific reasoning, since specific names are conventions we humans use arbitrarily and vary a lot (you can check yourself that it’s very usal that a species has received several names in time) only a fool would rely on “species designation” to assess evolution instead of relying on actual change observed in the population.

    “that Intelligence is required to produce functional information we find in life, we can deduce that a ‘beyond space and time’ cause is necessary to explain life.”

    False. Is there no intelligence WITHIN space and time?

    Are you aware that you are mixing scientific knowledge with mystic mambo jambo?

    “‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints”

    What the hell that this mean?

    “how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place?”

    Evolution does not claim that particles are their own causation. On the contrary, evolution states that an entity comes from the modification of another. What you are denying is creation.

    STOP!!!!

    I read everything you posted (mostly). YOU NEVER MENTION A MECHANISM BY WHICH ID PRODUCES ANYTHING.

    Are you not smart enough to realize that your “explanation” of how ID produced life is saying “life is information; evolution didn’t do it”?

    That’s not an explanation of how ID works?

    I don’t even need to prove you that you are messing with quantum physics making absurd conclusions. I don’t even need to prove that you claim to refute evolution by proving false things evolution DOES NOT say.

    YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING HOW ID EXPLAINS CERTAIN FEATURES OF THE UNIVERSE!!

    Let’s make it more simple. Choose any biological feature you want and tell me HOW ID EXPLAINS THAT FEATURE. I can’t get easier than that.

  48. 48
    Guillermoe says:

    Bornagain:

    I forgot, that intelligence is necessary to produce information is based on the definition of information.

    For example: knowledge that you get about someone or something. Here intelligence is not required to “produce” the information, but to interpret it.

  49. 49
    Guillermoe says:

    I posted a comment for DK that it’s in fact for BA. Sorry.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe, actually I provided falsification for the reductive materialistic claim that information is ’emergent’ from a materialistic basis. You may not like it, I don’t care. I’ll follow the evidence and will let you twist in the wind if that is what you are determined to do..

    I also could care less for your semantics with ‘mechanism’ since you yourself, by your own intelligence, are empirically proving, every time you write a sentence, that Intelligence has the causal adequacy to produce information whenever that Intelligence, of its own volition, chooses to produce it.

    The blindness you exhibit could hardly be more complete or stunning

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Your DK post addresses nothing I said!

  52. 52
    the bystander says:

    Guillermoe @47
    Do you really believe that Darwin figured out everything when he had no idea of complexity of cell and hadn’t even fantasied about DNA ? He was putting out explanations like ‘gemmules’ to justify inheritance of traits.
    We live in Quantum Mechanics world. It is high time we jettison the Evolution theory which essentially says species are clay doughs which can be molded by competition and environmental factors and random mutations. Of course that doesn’t make ID the complete alternative to Evolution. It still needs to be worked over by dedicated ‘IDists’.

  53. 53
    Guillermoe says:

    Bornagain:

    “Guillermoe, actually I provided falsification for the reductive materialistic claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a materialistic basis”

    I know, but it’s pure nonsense.

    “that Intelligence has the causal adequacy to produce information whenever that Intelligence, of its own volition, chooses to produce it.”

    HOW DOES IT DO IT? THAT’S THE EXPLANATION FOR THAT INFORMATION..

    If you can’t explain it, just say so.

  54. 54
    Guillermoe says:

    bystander:

    “Do you really believe that Darwin figured out everything when he had no idea of complexity of cell and hadn’t even fantasied about DNA ?”

    Of course not. Don’t you really know that scienist have kept on researching on evolution and now the thoery of evolution is much more than what Darwin said?

  55. 55
    Box says:

    Guilermoe,

    Would you care to comment on my hypothesis for naturalistic Intelligent Design – post #36?

  56. 56
    Box says:

    Guillermoe #32: How does that “intelligent purposeful agent” interact with biological matter, exactly?

    How does he not? Quantum physics informs us that consciouness is fundamental to / creates matter. Dualism is out.

    Guillermoe #32:Can you specify what this agent is like?

    Not based on ID. The Designer may even be the result of Darwinian processes that have taken place in a neighboring universe; see post #36.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Guillermoe as to,,,

    “Guillermoe, actually I provided falsification for the reductive materialistic claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a materialistic basis”
    I know, but it’s pure nonsense.

    No, actually it is pure science. But I can see where a Darwinist would call pure science nonsense since his preferred theory is not even a proper science, with a rigid mathematical basis in the first place, but is actually a pseudo-science, i.e. is pure ‘nonsense’!

    Guillermoe, as to intelligence creating information you ask,,,

    HOW DOES IT DO IT?,,,

    A few points. First, we know that intelligence can create functional information. You yourself create information every time you write a sentence. Thus, the probability is 100% that intelligence can create information. That point is not even under debate.
    Moreover, material processes have never been observed to create functional information. That they ‘may’ possibly create information is the point under debate.

    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/

    To put it in your terminology, material processes do not have a causal ‘mechanism’ to create information.
    Moreover, contrary to what you seem to believe, chance and necessity are not ‘mechanisms’ in and of themselves. To put it more clearly, chance and necessity have never ’caused’ anything to happen in this universe.

    Which brings us to the second point. Random chance is a ‘placeholder for ignorance’ as to an actual ‘causal mechanism’. Talbott puts it like this,,

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    i.e. “random chance” is the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings.

    Thus I can just as well ask you what is the ‘mechanism’ of chance. i.e. How does chance ’cause’ anything to happen in the universe?

    Although the term “chance” can be defined as a mathematical probability, such as the chance involved in flipping a coin, when Darwinists use the term ‘random chance’, generally it’s substituting for a more precise word such as “cause,”,,, especially when the cause, i.e. ‘mechanism’, is not known.

    “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent,” notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”

    Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”

    Moreover, law or necessity, like ‘random chance’, also does not have causal adequacy within itself. i.e. Law is not a ‘mechanism’ that has ever ’caused’ anything but is merely a description of a regularity.

    “In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.”
    – C.S. Lewis
    The Laws of Nature (Have Never ‘Caused’ Anything) by C.S. Lewis – doodle video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

    “Joel Primack, a cosmologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, once posed an interesting question to the physicist Neil Turok: “What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws.” Turok was surprised by the question; he recognized its force. Something seems to compel physical objects to obey the laws of nature, and what makes this observation odd is just that neither compulsion nor obedience are physical ideas.,,,
    Physicists since Einstein have tried to see in the laws of nature a formal structure that would allow them to say to themselves, “Ah, that is why they are true,” and they have failed.”
    Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion pg. 132-133

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – John Lennox – 2012
    Excerpt: God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.,,, C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....how-80307/

    Thus Guillermoe, contrary to how you imagine reality to be structured, you yourself, in your appeal to chance and necessity as to being causally adequate within themselves, have appealed to vacuous explanations for ‘mechanism’. ,,, Your argument against the causal adequacy of intelligence, i.e. against the ‘mechanism’ of intelligence backfires against itself and reminds of Krauss’s argument against God from a few years ago.

    Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser – June 2012
    Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,,
    ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ng-nothing

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    To put it more simply Guillermoe, you, as a atheistic materialist, do not have a ‘mechanism’ to appeal to to explain how the universe originated, nor do you even have a ‘mechanism’ to explain why anything continues to exist in the universe, nor do you have a mechanism for explaining how anything, any particle in the universe, moves within the universe.
    A few notes along that line:

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

    Aquinas’ Third way – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V030hvnX5a4

    God Is the Best Explanation For Why Anything At All Exists – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjuqBxg_5mA

    Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As

    “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”
    Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....first.html

    The double slit experiment clearly illustrates that the ancient first mover argument is accurate.
    In the following video Anton Zeilinger, whose group is arguably the best group of experimentalists in quantum physics today, ‘tries’ to explain the double slit experiment to Morgan Freeman:

    Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

    Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video that meshes perfectly with the ‘first mover argument’::

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
    Anton Zeilinger

    If that was not enough to get his point across, at the 4:12 minute mark in this following video,,,

    Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/

    Professor Zeilinger states,,,

    “We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between.”
    Anton Zeilinger

    i.e. “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”
    – Michael Egnor

    Verse and Music:

    Acts 17:28
    For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

    The Allman Brothers Band – Soulshine – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3BYTS8uxM

  59. 59
    Daniel King says:

    Mung:

    Daniel King,

    Pathetic response, truly pathetic.

    Thank you for your usual content-free and insult-laden rebuttal.

    Now, can you answer my questions:

    What is it [ID] a theory about, then? (If it doesn’t claim to explain the history of life on earth.)

    Does it claim to explain anything?

  60. 60
    ppolish says:

    Daniel, the Spider Nests built by various groups of spiders exhibit Intelligent design. Nests are explained by Intelligent Design. It’s hard to me to find anything that is NOT explained by Intelligent Design.

  61. 61
    Mung says:

    DK, from the fact that you cannot figure out what ID is about or what ID attempts to explain it does not follow that “ID claims to explain the history of life on earth.”

    In fact, your continued feigned “ignorance” indicates that you’ve known all along that ID does not claim to explain the history of life on earth.

  62. 62
    ppolish says:

    Spider Nest, Beaver Lodge, Sapien Condo Complex. ID,ID, and ID.

    Daniel, can you name one thing that is NOT explained by ID? Impossible really.

  63. 63
    Joe says:

    DK:

    (1) The agent is material. In this case, the agent would interact with matter like all other material agents. However, ID theory doesn’t seem to specify whether the agent is material or immaterial. Strangely, supporters of ID seem to think that this is not an interesting question.

    Wrong again. The question is interesting but it has nothing to do with ID

  64. 64
    Daniel King says:

    DK, from the fact that you cannot figure out what ID is about or what ID attempts to explain it does not follow that “ID claims to explain the history of life on earth.”

    In fact, your continued feigned “ignorance” indicates that you’ve known all along that ID does not claim to explain the history of life on earth.

    Right. I’m “feigning” ignorance and it’s my fault that you can’t answer these questions:

    What is it [ID] a theory about, then? (If it doesn’t claim to explain the history of life on earth.)

    Does it claim to explain anything?

    If ID isn’t about the ORIGINS OF BIOLOGICAL SPECIES, what is it about?

  65. 65
    ppolish says:

    DK, you narrowed the gap from “ID does not explain anything” to “ID does not explain origin of bio species”.

    C’mon, can you name one example of origin of species that was not intelligently designed? Crickets maybe?

  66. 66
    ppolish says:

    DK, the antonym of “Intelligent Design” could be called “Senseless Aimlessness”.

    Can this explain anything? The Communal Spider Nest? Course not. Origin of species? Nope. Darwin himself suggested Creator “Breath”.

  67. 67
    Mung says:

    DK, don’t think for a moment that I take your questions seriously. Just so we understand each other.

    Your first question was so far off base as to be simply ludicrous. You’ve never even tried to defend it as having been a reasonable attempt to understand ID.

    Your latest round is no different. Try again.

  68. 68
    Daniel King says:

    DK, don’t think for a moment that I take your questions seriously.

    That’s a convenient excuse for not being able to answer them.

    You’ve never even tried to defend it as having been a reasonable attempt to understand ID.

    I’m not trying to defend anything. All along I’ve been asking you and your fellows to explain it.

    Still waiting…

  69. 69
    Mung says:

    Daniel King:

    I’m not trying to defend anything.

    Understood.

    Still waiting…

    Keep waiting.

  70. 70
    Joe says:

    ID has been explained many times- it is basically the detection and study of design in nature.

  71. 71
    Joe says:

    By design I mean of the type that requires an intelligent agency, including one that acts stupidly or maliciously.

  72. 72
    Guillermoe says:

    Box:

    “Would you care to comment on my hypothesis for naturalistic Intelligent Design – post #36?”

    Ok. What evidence do you have to suggest that life on Earth was placed here by scientist from other universe?

    Possible, it is possible. Plausible? Not, today.

    “Guillermoe #32: How does that “intelligent purposeful agent” interact with biological matter, exactly?

    How does he not?”

    That’s not an answer. “How do you drink your coffe?” “How wouldnt I?” See? It’s nor an answer.

    “Quantum physics informs us that consciouness is fundamental to / creates matter. ”

    No, chralatans misinterpreting quatum physics inform as that consciousness is fundamental to create matter.

    “Guillermoe #32:Can you specify what this agent is like?

    Not based on ID.”

    Alright!!! First answer from ID: “Life was designed by we don’t know what”.

    All you have to do. now, is you don’t know how, why, when or where, either. Then, try to explain why ID is really an explanation to anything.

  73. 73
    Guillermoe says:

    bornagain:

    “No, actually it is pure science.”

    Indeed? Use it to explain any feature of life.

    “First, we know that intelligence can create functional information.”

    We are not talking about any “functional information”. We are talking about living organisms.

    “material processes do not have a causal ‘mechanism’ to create information.”

    Yes, they do. The change in the length of the day is information for many species to know that cold of warm weather is coming. And it is produced by the axial tilt of the Earth and it’s rotation.

    “Moreover, contrary to what you seem to believe, chance and necessity are not ‘mechanisms’ in and of themselves”

    Stop putting words in my mouth. I don’t believe such things.

    “you, as a atheistic materialist, do not have a ‘mechanism’ to appeal to to explain how the universe originated”

    I don’t. But I recognize it. I am not inventing a “cause” and claiming I have evidence I don’t have and can “explain” things when I can’t.

    I’ve read your chitchat: YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING WITH ID.

    Can ID really explain anything? Show me an example. All you do is criticizing evolution for saying things it doesn’t say, denying things that have been proved true and claiming how adequate the ID explanation is but never stating what is is exactly and how we can really use it TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING, ANYTHING.

    Choose any biological feature and explain it with ID, please.

    By the way, quantum physics misinterpretations to explain bullshit are not something I will appreciate.

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    you state:

    “chralatans misinterpreting quatum physics”

    Does your list of ‘charlatans’ include Planck, Wigner, and Schrodinger?

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    Max Planck – the originator of quantum theory – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

  75. 75
    Guillermoe says:

    ppolish

    “Nests are explained by Intelligent Design.”

    And what is that explanation?

    “Nest are made by spiders”? That’s basic biology, not ID. “Spiders have some intelligence”. That’s not ID. That’s basic biology.

  76. 76
    Guillermoe says:

    Joe

    “ID has been explained many times- it is basically the detection and study of design in nature”

    Then it is just anatomy.

  77. 77
    bornagain77 says:

    “Indeed? Use it to explain any feature of life.”

    You can’t explain a single protein or DNA molecule with appealing to ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement!

    The rest of your post is also BS,,, good luck with all that!

  78. 78
    bornagain77 says:

    it is ‘just’ anatomy or it is ‘just’ biology are part and parcel to the ‘just so’ stories Darwinists are infamous for:

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
    Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
    Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
    Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s

  79. 79
    Guillermoe says:

    bornagain

    “Does your list of ‘charlatans’ include Planck, Wigner, and Schrodinger?”

    No, it includes the guys who misinterpret the works of Planck, Wigner, and Schrodinger. And also those who confound their opinions with real knowledge produced by their work.

    You quote Planck in 1931. Hawkings said God does not exist a few years ago. Science advances and recent knowledge is usually better. So? Simple: you have to distinguish between a researcher producing knowledge through his work and a researcher emiting an opinion.

    Also, you should note that researchers in the quantum field always warn that quantum physics do not have a straight forward interpretation. You know what that means. That when they say “consciousness is fundamental” they are not saying what YOU think they are saying.

    Anyway, you have not still explained any biological feature using ID. Why is it so hard?

  80. 80
    bornagain77 says:

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design – video
    https://vimeo.com/32148403

  81. 81
    Joe says:

    “ID has been explained many times- it is basically the detection and study of design in nature”

    G’moe:

    Then it is just anatomy.

    Cuz G’moe sez so.

    As for Hawking- he doesn’t have any way to model nor test his claims. That means they are NOT science.

  82. 82
    Joe says:

    G’moe:

    Spiders have some intelligence”. That’s not ID. That’s basic biology.

    Except biology cannot explain spiders nor their intelligence.

  83. 83
    bornagain77 says:

    “Hawkings said God does not exist a few years ago. Science advances and recent knowledge is usually better. So? Simple: you have to distinguish between a researcher producing knowledge through his work and a researcher emiting an opinion.”

    Interesting, Hawking’s most famous work, the extension of General Relativity back in the late 60’s, early 70’s, confirms Theistic premises,,,

    Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.”3
    Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
    Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.

    Whereas Hawkings subsequent work, ‘Hawking Radiation’, has yet to be verified,,,

    In September 2010, a signal that is closely related to black hole Hawking radiation (see analog gravity) was claimed to have been observed in a laboratory experiment involving optical light pulses. However, the results remain unverified and debatable
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

    Moreover, a ‘second quantum revolution’ is now being ushered in (quantum computation, etc…) by the insights of the man who held consciousness to the ‘ultimate universal reality’,,,

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’
    http://www.informationphilosop.....ts/wigner/

    Of supplemental note to the preceding Wigner ‘consciousness’ quote, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner’s insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a ‘second’ revolution in quantum mechanics,,,

    Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution – Anton Zeilinger – Sept. 2014
    Conclusion
    It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics,
    http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles....._01010.pdf

    Thus by your own criteria G, Theism wins again.

Leave a Reply