If math is a reality, atheism is dead

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 2, 2022

Intelligent Design, Mathematics

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Mathematics}

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

Earlier this year, researchers discovered what they described as a previously unknown law of nature: a growth pattern which describes how pointed shapes form again and again in nature – from shark teeth and spider fangs to bird beaks and dinosaur horns.
“The diversity of animals, and even plants, that follow this rule is staggering,” evolutionary biologist Alistair Evans from Monash University in Australia said at the time they discovered the mathematical formula, dubbed the ‘power cascade’.
“We found it almost everywhere we looked across the kingdoms of life – in living animals, and those extinct for millions of years.”
Back in 2015, scientists were also delighted to find a classic formula for Pi – the ever-constant ratio between a circle’s circumference and its diameter – lurking in hydrogen atoms.
In a roundabout way, that discovery leads us back to the idea that mathematics provides a structural framework for the physical world. It’s an interesting idea to entertain – so long as your head doesn’t explode.
Claire Watson, “What if Math Is a Fundamental Part of Nature, Not Something Humans Came Up With?” at ScienceAlert (January 2, 2022)

No head explode. We live in a designed universe. Math proves it.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

@JVL *Criterion, not criterium. :) Still, I applaud your attempt at the correct placement of the singular, when the rest of the world uses criteria for both singular and plural.AnimatedDust_{January 6, 2022
January
01
Jan
6
06
2022
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

JVL:
They represent the same numerical value but they are NOT equivalent to each other in any other way. So, whether or not they are interchangeable depends on the context.
Let's say I ask you, what represents eight? And, you answer: 8, or VIII, or 16/2. Are these correct answers? Of course. Our minds "see" these as equivalent answers--we're agreed to this; but, physically, "materially," they are 'not' equivalent. Which leads to the next point:
Our mental processes are suffused with immaterial concepts some of which we have learned to agree upon.
Is the mind "immaterial," then? If so, from whence did it arise?
Some cultures have not agreed on the same concepts. For example: some cultures did not have a representation for the numerical value of eight. For those cultures those various symbolic representations of eight would in no way be interchangeable.
Are cultures "material," or "immaterial"? Why don't we, the English-speaking in the West, agree that "w" represents 'eight'? Has 'eight' changed, or have we simply, as a "mind-based" culture, simply changed the symbol we use? The 'symbol' is "material," whereas the concept is "immaterial." Hence, that some cultures don't have a 'symbol' for 'eight,' or that they use different 'symbols,' matters not. This is 8 in ASCII printable characters: 56 The realm of "immaterial concepts" is the mind, which is not reducible to the brain, as the concept 'eight' is not reducible to 8. Language exists because "minds" agree to the assignment we make of "ideas" (immaterial) to sounds and symbols. Again, whence comes the "immaterial" mind? There is no mathematics without the 'mind.' If, then, mathematics is 'discovered' within the "material" order, then from whence did it arise? Can the "material" give rise to the "immaterial"? Good question, eh? :)PaV_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

mutations are random with respect to fitness.
When a clown knows that is a clown? :))))Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Yes, mutations are mostly random but, as noted by James Shapiro, some domains experience higher levels of mutations AND it may be that environmental stresses can increase mutations rates.
What is wrong with you? Why are you such a quote-mining loser? Mutations are said be random in that they are accidents, errors and mistakes. "random with respect to fitness" is nonsense and refuted by Shapiro. His natural engineering goes against your premise. You lose.
You clearly do not understand statistical reasoning.
You clearly don't understand science.
Those were just some examples.
WRONG! You clearly didn't understand the paper.
No, it doesn’t only predict damage.
Right. It also predicts stasis. It definitely didn't predict the bacterial flagellum
Clearly the whole idea of evolutionary theory is that some mutations convey benefit and increase fitness.
Umm, natural selection is the survival of the fit enough. And fitness is contingent.
So, in fact, it predicts the development of new life forms that are ‘fitter’ than their predecessors.
Fitter can be anything along a continuum. Even loss of function is beneficial.
All the research in that area is based on the process being unguided.
That is your uneducated opinion, anyway. And it is meaningless.
The development of new vaccines assumes there will be unguided mutations.
Nope. Just mutations.
It’s an unguided process. The notion of efficacy is more an ID topic. Why aren’t you guys researching that?
Wrong again! It is up to you and yours to support your claims! And you can't! The efficacy of evolution by means of intelligent design are seen in genetic algorithms. They can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution!
They have but you just deny, deny, deny.
LIAR! It is very telling that no one can link to this alleged scientific theory of evolution! It's as if it doesn't exist! So, stop being such a pathological liar. You have a sickness that needs tending to.ET_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

ET: Shut up. Evolutionary biologists say that mutations are random, as in accidents, errors and mistakes. Yes, mutations are mostly random but, as noted by James Shapiro, some domains experience higher levels of mutations AND it may be that environmental stresses can increase mutations rates. So, in evolutionary terms, the concept is qualified: mutations are random with respect to fitness. Simple. Nonsense. Science requires claims be testable and have evidentiary support. You clearly do not understand statistical reasoning. And that is about it! Strange that you cannot see how that refutes your entire worldview. Those were just some examples. It doesn't refute the view that mutations are random with respect to fitness; we'd expect a lot of mutations to lead to negative outcomes, which they do. And I provided that. TWICE. And you choked on them. I'm asking you to go further and predict something that hasn't happened or been observed or discovered. Can you do that from the basis of mutations being guided? Yes or no? What a dolt! So one IC system can explain another? There isn’t any evidence that the TTSS evolved via unguided evolutionary processes. There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce a bacterial flagellum starting with a TTSS. Total failure. You are ignorant of biology. You are ignorant of science. And you lie. Uh huh. Take any comprehensive evolutionary textbook and show where I have lied. As you said, unguided evolution only predicts damage. And that is what we have been saying for decades. Nice own goal. No, it doesn't only predict damage. I just said that mutations being random with respect to fitness is consistent with a lot of still births and genetic diseases and such. Clearly the whole idea of evolutionary theory is that some mutations convey benefit and increase fitness. So, in fact, it predicts the development of new life forms that are 'fitter' than their predecessors. No one on this planet is researching blind and mindless processes ability to produce a bacterial flagellum. All the research in that area is based on the process being unguided. No one on this planet uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. The development of new vaccines assumes there will be unguided mutations. No one is doing any research into the efficacy of unguided evolution! It's an unguided process. The notion of efficacy is more an ID topic. Why aren't you guys researching that? They can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution! They have but you just deny, deny, deny. Even Dr Behe admits there is a theory of evolution. Even Dr Dembski admits there is a theory of evolution. And Dr Johnson admitted that ID didn't not have a unifying theory. Go figure eh?JVL_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

No one on this planet is researching blind and mindless processes ability to produce a bacterial flagellum.
True!
No one on this planet uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. It is useless. Worse than useless. No one is doing any research into the efficacy of unguided evolution! They can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution!
Not true. It's being done in genetics. But you're right. It has nothing to do with Evolution.
the genetic code emergence problem
Especially since the genetic code has nothing to do with Evolution.jerry_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

@JVL why you never touch the genetic code emergence problem ? Obviously you believe an unscientific hypothesis that information can appear by chance when never was proven such a thing. :) Your "hopes" are in vain.Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

No one on this planet is researching blind and mindless processes ability to produce a bacterial flagellum. No one on this planet uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. It is useless. Worse than useless. No one is doing any research into the efficacy of unguided evolution! They can't even formulate a scientific theory of evolution!ET_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

JVL:
It’s pretty simple: mutations are random with respect to fitness means they don’t predictably increase fitness.
Shut up. Evolutionary biologists say that mutations are random, as in accidents, errors and mistakes.
If you think mutations are guided then you should be able to predict when beneficial mutations happen.
Nice strawman.
It’s the default assumption.
Nonsense. Science requires claims be testable and have evidentiary support.
It explains why somewhere between a quarter and a third of all human conceptions are spontaneously/naturally aborted. It explains a lot of genetic and genetic linked diseases.
And that is about it! Strange that you cannot see how that refutes your entire worldview.
A hypothesis is an informed or sensible guess about some phenomenon or outcome most likely based on observation of past events or situations.
And I provided that. TWICE. And you choked on them.
As you well know some researchers have proposed that the bacterial flagellum evolved from a secretion system .
What a dolt! So one IC system can explain another? There isn't any evidence that the TTSS evolved via unguided evolutionary processes. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce a bacterial flagellum starting with a TTSS. Total failure. You are ignorant of biology. You are ignorant of science. And you lie. As you said, unguided evolution only predicts damage. And that is what we have been saying for decades. Nice own goal.ET_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

ET: Translation: JVL doesn’t understand what evolutionary biologists say. It's pretty simple: mutations are random with respect to fitness means they don't predictably increase fitness. Which also covers the cases where certain loci seem to be more likely to foster mutations. But whether or not those mutations are good or bad for fitness is impossible to predict. If you think mutations are guided then you should be able to predict when beneficial mutations happen. Look, the saying is that mutations are random, as in accidents, errors and mistakes. All chance occurrences. This has been explained to you and you are too stupid to understand it. Not my fault. I do understand but it is true that some regions are more likely to experience mutations AND periods of extreme stress may raise the mutation rate. So, mutations may not be completely random overall BUT whether or not they are beneficial for fitness is random. Wrong! We don’t know is the default. There needs to be evidence and a means to test it. Your ignorance is not an argument. It's the default assumption. When drug companies test new medications their null hypothesis is: this new stuff will be just as effective as the old stuff. Then they run some tests and see if they get results that are statistically significant. If the results are statistically significant then they may adopt the alternative hypothesis: this new drug is more (sometimes less) effective than the old stuff. The default assumption (the null hypothesis) may be wrong but it has to be shown to be wrong. That's how statistical reasoning works. Mutations are unguided is the default assumption. IF they are not unguided you should be able to find a statistically significant results that shows that to be the case. You are a cowardly hypocrite. YOU show that your hypothesis that mutations are unguided has predictive power. No one has to date. You would be the first. It explains why somewhere between a quarter and a third of all human conceptions are spontaneously/naturally aborted. It explains a lot of genetic and genetic linked diseases. Because they are random with respect to fitness you cannot predict exactly what you'll get but you know a lot of them will be bad. Which is true. And, in fact, we know what mutations cause some conditions, like Down's syndrome. IF someone suffers that particular mutation we can say with certainty that they will suffer from Down's syndrome. So, yeah, it's being done. However, if you think mutations are guided then you should see a different balance of good, bad and neutral mutations. Is that the case? Nice projection. You don’t even know what a hypothesis entails! A hypothesis is an informed or sensible guess about some phenomenon or outcome most likely based on observation of past events or situations. So you are proud to be a hypocrite. I told you what ID predicts. What no one has seen is what evolution by means of blind and mindless processes predicts. But can you predict things that haven't happened yet or haven't been discovered? IF mutations are guided then you should be able to project into the future and predict some things that are to come. Can you do that? You should be able to show that most of any genome has clear, unambiguous function. Can you do that? Look, JVL, you don’t understand science. You definitely cannot present any evidence that any bacterial flagellum evolved via unguided evolutionary processes. All you can do is deny and flail like an infant. As you well know some researchers have proposed that the bacterial flagellum evolved from a secretion system . . .I think. It's not something I think about every day. The point is that no one is just throwing their hands up in the air and giving up. They are attempting to find a plausible, step-by-step process that brought the bacterial flagellum about. What I don't see ID proponents doing is something similar. Or any research at all really. Why isn't anyone in the ID community looking at the ratio of good, bad and neutral mutation rates to see if there is an appearance of being guided? Why isn't anyone in the ID community looking at the human genome (or any genome) to see how much of the genome has identifiable functions? Why isn't anyone in the ID community looking for the undiscovered programming you always insist must be in the cell somewhere? Lots of questions. Mainstream biologists ARE looking at a lot of those issues but the ID community . . . not so much if at all. How is that working for you? Again, if you and your cohorts want to pontificate without doing any actual work it's fine with me. If you don't want to try and convince your detractors that your view is superior by showing its predictive power it's fine with me. If you guys don't actually want to see if you can find your 'extra programming' it's no skin off my nose. But if you want people to take you seriously maybe you should do some work. IC, CSI and coded information processing systems are all predictions of Intelligent Design. JVL’s denial and whining just prove he is proud to be an ignorant troll. Can you predict something that hasn't happened yet or been discovered or observed?JVL_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

IC, CSI and coded information processing systems are all predictions of Intelligent Design. JVL's denial and whining just prove he is proud to be an ignorant troll.ET_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Translation: you don’t understand what ‘with respect to fitness’ means.
Translation: JVL doesn't understand what evolutionary biologists say. Look, the saying is that mutations are random, as in accidents, errors and mistakes. All chance occurrences. This has been explained to you and you are too stupid to understand it. Not my fault.
Unguided is the default assumption at this point.
Wrong! We don't know is the default. There needs to be evidence and a means to test it. Your ignorance is not an argument.
Show that your hypothesis that mutations are guided has predictive power, i.e. predict something and then show it will come about, not just once but whenever the conditions are right.
You are a cowardly hypocrite. YOU show that your hypothesis that mutations are unguided has predictive power. No one has to date. You would be the first.
If you want to just sit on your backside and declare victory without doing any actual work that’s your prerogative.
Nice projection. You don't even know what a hypothesis entails! blockquote>But you’re not going to change any minds or move ID along until you can show its predictive power. So you are proud to be a hypocrite. I told you what ID predicts. What no one has seen is what evolution by means of blind and mindless processes predicts. Look, JVL, you don't understand science. You definitely cannot present any evidence that any bacterial flagellum evolved via unguided evolutionary processes. All you can do is deny and flail like an infant. How is that working for you?ET_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

ET: Nope. Designed or not clears the field, duh. Maybe so. That is wrong! You have been told that is wrong and yet you still persist like an infant. The current thinking has mutations being random, period. The part “with respect to fitness” is total nonsense. Translation: you don't understand what 'with respect to fitness' means. Dr. Spetner wrote 2 books about how to tell if mutations are directed. TWO BOOKS. And unguided is not the default. There still needs to be evidence for it and a way to test it. Fortunately, “Waiting for TWO Mutations” did that. And the paper all but proves it is impossible for blind and mindless processes to produce the diversity of life. Unguided is the default assumption at this point. YOU don't think it's true but that doesn't mean it's not what a vast, vast majority of biologists think. Default doesn't mean true, it means where you start the investigation. There's no point having an alternative hypothesis if you think the null hypothesis is not falsifiable. You think the unguided hypothesis is incorrect but you have yet to show that the guided hypothesis is correct by showing that it's possible to predict what kind of mutations arise and under what conditions. Yup, and IC, CSI and coded information processing systems fit those predictions. On the other hand all your position predicts are genetic diseases and deformities. Show that your hypothesis that mutations are guided has predictive power, i.e. predict something and then show it will come about, not just once but whenever the conditions are right. All this is moot as JVL is nothing but an ignorant troll. And obviously proud of it. Two ID hypotheses have been provided. JVL’s denial just proves he is a waste of skin and bandwidth If you want to just sit on your backside and declare victory without doing any actual work that's your prerogative. But you're not going to change any minds or move ID along until you can show its predictive power. For example: IF mutations are guided then what percentage of the human genome will be shown to have specific functions? What about other genomes? Or even: what percentage of mutations are beneficial, neutral and deleterious? You gotta do some work.JVL_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

JVL:
ID is not ‘right’ unless some other paradigm is shown to work; there could be other explanations other than ID and the current evolutionary view.
Nope. Designed or not clears the field, duh.
Since no of you seem to want to even try I’ll propose some possible testable hypotheses.
Again, your ignorance is not an argument. Clearly you don't know what a hypothesis entails.
The null hypothesis: mutations are random with respect to fitness (that being the currently accepted situation).
That is wrong! You have been told that is wrong and yet you still persist like an infant. The current thinking has mutations being random, period. The part "with respect to fitness" is total nonsense. Dr. Spetner wrote 2 books about how to tell if mutations are directed. TWO BOOKS. And unguided is not the default. There still needs to be evidence for it and a way to test it. Fortunately, "Waiting for TWO Mutations" did that. And the paper all but proves it is impossible for blind and mindless processes to produce the diversity of life.
The basic idea has to be that ID has predictive power, it will tell you ahead of time what you’ll get.
Yup, and IC, CSI and coded information processing systems fit those predictions. On the other hand all your position predicts are genetic diseases and deformities. All this is moot as JVL is nothing but an ignorant troll. And obviously proud of it. Two ID hypotheses have been provided. JVL's denial just proves he is a waste of skin and bandwidthET_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

JVL at 40: "When Einstein proposed a new law to supersede Newton’s law of gravity he didn’t say: I’m right unless you can show some other law works. Newton himself did not reason that way either." JVL, you speak of evolution as if evolution is a bonafide scientific theory, like Newton's theory, that has, supposedly, been established by experimental evidence. To be clear, Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, established as a bonafide scientific theory by experimental evidence, (and is therefore, supposedly, on par with Newton's theory).
“We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” - Smith, Wolfgang (1988)?Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
In fact, as Nobel laureate Robert B. Laughlin pointed out, "Evolution by natural selection,,, has lately come to function more as an antitheory," rather than as a true scientific theory.
"Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" - ?Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)?
To repeat, "Evolution by natural selection,,, has lately come to function more as an antitheory," Let that sink in JVL. JVL, In your statement equating Evolution to Newton's theory you also spoke of laws,,, i.e. "I’m right unless you can show some other law works.,,," Well JVL, it might interest you to know that one of the primary reasons that Darwinian Evolution fails to qualify as a bonafide scientific theory like, say, Newton's theory, and one of the primary reasons that Darwinian evolution will NEVER qualify as a scientific theory, is because there simply are no known laws in the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic scientific theory on. As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, 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
And as Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
There simply are no known physical laws within the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic scientific theory on.
Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science directly, or almost directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached. This is not a minor problem for Darwinists. As Eddington himself explained, " if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.” - Arthur Eddington, New Pathways in Science Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas – El Paso – May 2012 – article with video Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-law/
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known physical law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, Ewert, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science. For instance, and as was pointed out in post 36, there is even a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” (Perry Marshall; Origin of Life prize). Supplemental note:
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

PaV: Now our minds tell us that all of these are equivalent to one another; yet, “materially” they are not the same—the coding is different, the pixelation is different, their symbols are different. However, we know these to be interchangeable. They represent the same numerical value but they are NOT equivalent to each other in any other way. So, whether or not they are interchangeable depends on the context. Our mental processes are suffused with immaterial concepts some of which we have learned to agree upon. Some cultures have not agreed on the same concepts. For example: some cultures did not have a representation for the numerical value of eight. For those cultures those various symbolic representations of eight would in no way be interchangeable. I don't think your theological argument works.JVL_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

When Einstein proposed a new law to supersede Newton's law of gravity he didn't say: I'm right unless you can show some other law works. Newton himself did not reason that way either. ID is not 'right' unless some other paradigm is shown to work; there could be other explanations other than ID and the current evolutionary view. Since no of you seem to want to even try I'll propose some possible testable hypotheses. These are just some possibilities, if your version of ID is different they you can come up with others. The null hypothesis: mutations are random with respect to fitness (that being the currently accepted situation). The alternate hypothesis: mutations are guided. Now, how would you test that? I'll make a few suggestions but that doesn't mean you won't have others, maybe better. Put genetically identical life forms (clones) through the exact same environmental situations and see if they experience the same mutations. Or Take two separate but very similar lines of descendants and see if they both gain or lose the same kinds of functions over time. Or Check to see if there are predictable, repeatable situations where more beneficial mutations occur than deleterious ones. Or Some other testable criterium. The basic idea has to be that ID has predictive power, it will tell you ahead of time what you'll get. I know you're going to attack unguided evolutionary theory and say it doesn't have that kind of predictive power but, again, that doesn't make ID correct. If you think ID has predictive power then demonstrate it. Set up some tests to show it.JVL_{January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

In archaeology they ask, "does X show signs of work?" Work is a sign of intelligent agency volition. ID asks a similar question: "does X show signs of telic activity?". Telic activity is a sign of agency volition. But JVL doesn't comprehend hypotheses.ET_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

JVL:
ET‘s arguments are not testing his design hypothesis, i.e. he has to suggest a test/experiment whose outcome will be in favour or not of his hypothesis. Whatever his hypothesis actually is.
Why do you continue to think that your ignorance is an argument? Obviously, any experiment which demonstrated blind and mindless processes could produce a coded information processing systems would falsify my claims. To falsify means to show to be false. My claims include the premise that blind and mindless processes are not up to the task. And AGAIN, JVL has failed to present a hypothesis for blind and mindless processes. That way we can compare to see if he is the hypocrite I know him to be.ET_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

JVL: Which of the following is "eight": VIII, 8, ocho, huit, 16/2? Now our minds tell us that all of these are equivalent to one another; yet, "materially" they are not the same---the coding is different, the pixelation is different, their symbols are different. However, we know these to be interchangeable. This has just been demonstrated to be impossible "materially," ergo, it is only possible in an "immaterial" sense. If so, then our universe is suffused in an "immaterial" substance: intelligence. Since the "immaterial" cannot, by definition, arise from the "material," there then must be some cause, or source, of this "immaterial" reality suffusing our universe. The "place-holder" of this "interchangeability" is our human intelligence, which, of necessity, must be "immaterial." The source of this "immaterial intelligence," we call God. QED :)PaV_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

JVL, first let me note the blatant hypocrisy in you, a Darwinist, demanding a testable hypothesis. As Karl Popper himself noted, “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.”
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.” Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151.
And as Imre Lakatos himself noted,
“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. – Imre Lakatos
And as Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich noted, “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science”
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” – Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
Darwinian evolution simply has no rigid demarcation criteria that can be tested against. And as Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated in 2015, “it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble - President of International Union of Physiological Sciences https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
Moreover, even though Darwinists have not, and will not, specify exactly what experimental test could potentially falsify their theory, experimental science itself could care less and has falsified core Darwinian presuppositions, time and time again, in spite of the unwillingness of Darwinists to ever accept experimental falsifications of their theory. Dr. Hunter has compiled a list of some of the major false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. False predictions that are fundamental to evolutionary theory, i.e. go to the ‘core’ of the theory, and falsify it from the inside out as it were.
Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 22 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory.,,, *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
Lokewise, over the years of debating Darwinists, I myself have compiled my own list of falsifications of Darwin' theory that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory,
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
Moreover, unlike Darwin's theory for which there is no discernible demarcation criteria that Darwinists will ever accept as to 'potentially' falsify their theory, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect with empirical science and/or falsification Specifically, since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, (Dembski, Marks, Ewert, etc..), that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of, basically, a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
In fact there is currently a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
So there you go JVL, there is your testable hypothesis for 'teleology', “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” Or as LCD put it, "Let’s test how a genetic code appear from natural processes. You test it then come to tell us the result." Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Of supplemental note. Dr. Michael Egnor has an excellent article explaining the relationship between teleology and the immaterial mind.
Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
bornagain77_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Fastedious, first to Lenski's results,
Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. - Minnich - Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416
Saying that the adaptation was "an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event" is, for all intents and purposes, the same as saying it was an environmentally induced adaptation not a Darwinian adaptation. After Lenski's e-coli, you listed several instances of devolution. But again, your claim was not that Darwinian mechanisms were breaking things, but your claim was that "random variation and natural selection would have shifted the average toward the optimum." It is this whole idea of Darwinian mechanisms driving things towards 'optimization' that I find to be in conflict with the evidence. To repeat, “The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised.” and also “mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind.”
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician – Douglas Axe – 2011 Excerpt: In the Oxford job description [1], under the heading Extracts from the grant application to the St John’s Research Centre, subheading Objectives: “1. To construct a mathematical framework, with appropriate theorems, to represent fully the core argument in Darwin’s Origin of Species, namely that the purely mechanical processes of inheritance and reproduction can give rise through natural selection to the appearance of design.” Under the same heading, subheading Summary: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …” “The idea that organisms maximise their fitness as a result of natural selection is extremely important in many areas of biology. The explanatory apparatus of most whole organism, behavioural ecology, work would make no sense without it. However, the logical basis for the idea is in considerable doubt. The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised. … There has been essentially no formal consideration of the kind of optimisation that emerges so naturally from verbal arguments such as those of Darwin (1859) and Dawkins (1976).” “The concept of fitness optimization is routinely used by field biologists, and first-year biology undergraduates are frequently taught that natural selection leads to organisms that maximize their fitness. Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) promoted a conceptual integration of modern evolutionary theory in which genes are viewed as optimising agents, which is extremely influential and widespread today and encompasses inclusive fitness theory and evolutionarily stable strategies as well as general optimality ideas. However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. …” Generality is important, as a major aim [of the proposed work] is to find mathematical arguments that match Darwin’s verbal arguments in the Origin of Species, as well as Dawkins’s verbal arguments in the Selfish Gene and later works. … https://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310975799/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician
You finished your post by saying that "we maybe just have slightly different understandings of those words? A mere semantic difference?", and I would tend to agree with that. But please note how JVL. in post 15. jumped all over what you wrote to claim that "what you go on to elucidate is a pretty good description of how evolutionary processes work. And you’ve explained why convergent evolution makes sense. Well done!!" So Fastedious, here you sit at post 35 still disagreeing with me over what is most likely trivial misunderstandings, and yet you still have done nothing to correct JVL for his over the top distortion of what you actually meant and his claim that you were, basically, endorsing all of the claims for Darwinian evolution in your comment.bornagain77_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

JVL I don’t understand the problem: State a clear and testable hypothesis.
:) Let's test how a genetic code appear from natural processes. You test it then come to tell us the result.Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

I don't understand the problem: State a clear and testable hypothesis. State how you're going to test that hypothesis. ET's arguments are not testing his design hypothesis, i.e. he has to suggest a test/experiment whose outcome will be in favour or not of his hypothesis. Whatever his hypothesis actually is. Bornagain77 seems to think he can just attack 'materialism' and 'Darwinism' over and over and over again without actually making some attempt to show that the design hypothesis gives predictable outcomes. And he actually hasn't given anything like a design hypothesis. Lt Com Data . . . I have no idea.JVL_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Question: is there some way on UD to see what (if any) responses there are to a previous comment short of going back to the OP and scrolling down? I don't see anything like that in the "edit profile" area.Fasteddious_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

BA77: Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought the Lenski's citrate change was caused by the breaking or shut down of a gene that normally turned off the citrate metabolic path, thereby allowing it to work in that lab environment. That seems like a good example of Darwinism in action: a random change (it took how many thousand generations?) makes one e-coli more "fit" (reproduce faster) in that environment, so over time the change spreads through (natural selection) the population. Just because the change is reproducible in repeated experiments doesn't mean it is non-Darwinian. Other examples include malaria vs. sickle-cell anaemia and malarial resistance to anti-malaria drugs. Those too are repeatable, but the mutations involved are known and how they get fixed in the population genetics are also well understood (Behe did a lot of work in that area). Even some of the polar bear genetic changes are attributed to random hits (breaking genes) that apparently benefited brown bears living in cold conditions. Those are presumably not reversible. There must be numerous other cases - perhaps our pro-Darwin friends here could provide a few? They may mostly be cases of devolution, but that does not make them non-Darwinian. Blind cave fish is one obvious example. presumably that is not a pre-programmed adaptation, and presumably it is not reversible either? Does an isolated population of blind fish regain its sight when moved out of the cave but remaining isolated? Perhaps you merely consider the minor Darwinian processes I point to as "adaptations" just because different populations can produce the same result? If so, then we maybe just have slightly different understandings of those words? A mere semantic difference?Fasteddious_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

ET There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems
The only explanation is that JVL knows the process but just doesn't want to tell us or have a superstitious belief that one day ... :)Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Fasteddious, I am not 'fighting' you. You are imagining things in that regards. I am simply pointing out that you have no empirical evidence for the fairly broad claims that you have made for Darwinian evolution. Call it 'obsessive', call it whatever you like, but be that as it may, you still have presented no empirical evidence whatsoever that Darwinian processes are capable of what you are claiming for them. Shoot, even Lenski's much ballyhooed citrate adaptation was shown to be a repeatable, environmentally induced, adaptation by Scott Minnich and companybornagain77_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

"Well, apparently you cannot come up with a clear and unambiguous testable teleological hypothesis." Apparently words mean nothing to JVL since the challenge/criteria is for Darwinists to “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness (i.e. teleology)” That the words that biologist themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research, apparently, mean nothing to JVL is not really all that surprising since, as atheist professor Alex Rosenberg of Duke university himself explained, if atheistic naturalism were actually true then "no sentence has any meaning."
2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation of Alex Rosenberg’s 8 points to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist's) position actually is. Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ
To say that the implications of Atheistic Naturalism 'border on the insane' is no understatement.
Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts” Michael Egnor – July 20, 2016 Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/
bornagain77_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 19: I have no significant fight with you but you seem to be worked up about what I wrote. In less than half an hour you pasted together some excerpts that you believe refute what I suggested, seeming not to have understood all that I wrote. A few observations on your notes @19: - I myself doubted the pepper moth story ("whether true or otherwise"), based on past readings. - I myself pointed to Behe's "devolution" thesis which you refer to. - your entries of "may also play" and "may explain how" read rather like the Darwinists' just so stories, although theirs are in the past subjunctive (could have, might have, etc.) - Darwin did not posit any molecular or genetic details to his "mechanism" since he didn't know about any of that, so whether the change is programmed in, a large insertion, or epigenetic in nature does not refute a Darwinian mechanism of "change plus selection". - I make no reference to any "magic wand" mechanism. Rather I pointed to a simple, high-level mechanism that has been shown to change species in observable ways. To split hairs and call none of then "Darwinian" seems obsessive. Beware of arguing "magic wand" as any atheist could use the same insult against ID - and I'm sure some have done so. Are you claiming that mutation-plus-natural-selection has zero explanatory power anywhere?Fasteddious_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply