Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
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!

Comments
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.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
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'.the bystander
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Your DK post addresses nothing I said!bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
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 stunningbornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
I posted a comment for DK that it's in fact for BA. Sorry.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
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.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
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.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
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?Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Daniel King, Pathetic response, truly pathetic.Mung
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
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.
Daniel King
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
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/articles/salvo12/12luskin2.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/releases/2011/06/110601134300.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/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.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/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
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
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
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/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.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/focus/news/2171769/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/2014/05/30/science/scientists-report-finding-reliable-way-to-teleport-data.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/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-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.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.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/2014/julyaug/20-the-ups-and-downs-of-teleportation
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
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/quantum-entanglement-hot-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.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-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/releases/2011/03/110331104014.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/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-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.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-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/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.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-bell-test-loophole-photons.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/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
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?Mung
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
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.Mung
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
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.Daniel King
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
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
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
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?Box
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
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/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.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/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.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/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-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_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7
The rest of your post is unsubstantiated claims and personal opinions that have nothing to do with rigorous science.bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
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.Barry Arrington
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
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.Daniel King
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Box: Thank you. How does that "intelligent purposeful agent" interact with biological matter, exactly? Can you specify what this agent is like?Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
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.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
"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.Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
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.
Box
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
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..Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
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?Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
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-evolution-not-random.html?cid=514636_20141002_32724136bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
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.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
bornagain77
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply