Intelligent Design Mathematics

If math is a reality, atheism is dead

Spread the love

This from ScienceAlert:

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

56 Replies to “If math is a reality, atheism is dead

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    This is the first I’ve heard of a new law being discovered. It is an exciting time.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Life isn’t using math, life is using intention and desire. The growth is aiming for a particular goal, with a sequence of steps needed to get there. You can call it an algorithm (a while loop), but it’s not an equation or formula.

  3. 3
    JVL says:

    Sadly the power cascade law is not elucidated in this article BUT some classic mathematics in nature examples are discussed including fractals, primes and Fibonacci numbers (which I find the most incredible).

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    BobRyan – it’s a law in the sense of a generalisation. I think using “law” in this context is rather silly.

    Polistra – in this context, the “law” is, quite literally, a formula.

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    Apparently this was initially reported back in March:

    https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-discover-unknown-law-of-nature-that-shapes-all-the-pointy-things-in-life

    Here’s the original research paper:

    https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-021-00990-w

    Here we show a new universal model based on a power law between the radius of the structure and its length, which generates a shape called a ‘power cone’. We describe the underlying ‘power cascade’ model that explains the extreme diversity of tooth shapes in vertebrates, including humans, mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, tyrannosaurs and giant megalodon sharks. This model can be used to predict the age of mammals with ever-growing teeth, including elephants and rodents. We view this as the third general model of tooth development, along with the patterning cascade model for cusp number and spacing, and the inhibitory cascade model that predicts relative tooth size. Beyond the dentition, this new model also describes the growth of claws, horns, antlers and beaks of vertebrates, as well as the fangs and shells of invertebrates, and thorns and prickles of plants.

    So, they did some kick-ass modelling! Excellent!

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    Bob O’H: in this context, the “law” is, quite literally, a formula.

    Yup but so is the Law of Gravity or Newton’s laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. It is the word used for mathematical formulas that model real-world events well.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Finding a ‘new universal model based on a power law between the radius of the structure and its length, which generates a shape called a ‘power cone’,,, a ‘power law’ that describes a diversity of pointy structures in widely varying organisms, (i.e. teeth, and “the growth of claws, horns, antlers and beaks of vertebrates, as well as the fangs and shells of invertebrates, and thorns and prickles of plants)”, is far more devastating to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists than they are aware, or that they are ever willing to honestly admit.

    Darwinists simply have no clue how any particular organisms achieves its basic ‘biological form’.

    In fact, when Darwinists first formulated the modern synthesis, they excluded biological form from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as being quote-unquote ‘irrelevant’, and thus, “At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved” for Darwinists.

    On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina (2020)
    Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,,
    At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3

    That biological form is forever beyond the scope of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists is made evident from both DNA and Proteins.

    With DNA, specifically with mutations to DNA, we find that,

    “Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly”, and, “None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,,”

    Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form – March 31, 2014
    Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,,
    (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes:
    A normal fruit fly;
    A defective fruit fly; or
    A dead fruit fly.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.html

    And as Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig points out, “even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements”,,, “the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated”…

    Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin December 29, 2010
    Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…
    (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).)
    https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o/

    And with Proteins we find “Levinthal’s paradox”. Specifically, “a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it (randomly) 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.,,,”

    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.,,,
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications
    Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012
    Excerpt: Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2012/10/a_revolutionary/

    Moreover, this failure of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists to be able to explain the basic biological form of organisms, (or to be able to explain any subset of form found within biological organisms, i.e. the ‘power law’), occurs at a very low level, much lower than DNA and Proteins themselves.

    Specifically, Godel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended into physics and it is now shown that, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour”,,, The researchers further commented that their findings “challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Thus it is now mathematically proven that it is impossible for Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, to ever give a coherent account of how any organism achieves its basic biological form, (much less to give a coherent account for how any ‘mathematical subset’, (i.e. the ‘power law’), occurred within biological forms.

    If Darwinian evolution were a ‘normal’ science instead of being, basically, a unfalsifiable religion for atheists, this should count as yet another devastating falsification of Darwin’s theory that puts it squarely in the trash heap of other failed scientific theories throughout the scientific era, (of which there are very many failed scientific theories throughout the scientific era that did not make the cut).

    Verse:

    Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note to the ‘power law’, there is also another mathematical principle found in life. i.e. a mysterious ‘higher dimensional’ (4-Dimensional) component to life:

    Post-Darwinist – Denyse O’Leary – Dec. 2010
    Excerpt: They quote West et al. (1999),
    What Darwin Got Wrong – pg 79
    “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.”
    They comment,
    “In the words of these authors, natural selection has exploited variations on this fractal theme to produce the incredible variety of biological form and function’, but there were severe geometric and physical constraints on metabolic processes.”
    “The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection. It’s inconceivable that so many different organisms, spanning different kingdoms and phyla, may have blindly ‘tried’ all sorts of power laws and that only those that have by chance ‘discovered’ the one-quarter power law reproduced and thrived.”
    Quotations from Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79.
    http://post-darwinist.blogspot.....html#links

    The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology – 2004
    Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale
    with body size as power laws of the form:
    Y = Yo M^b,
    where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent.
    A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling.
    https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00856.x

    Of Life’s Laws And Unity – May 11, 2016
    Excerpt: Life obeys certain allometric scaling laws that seem to reveal a sort of overarching design principle at work. We don’t know what this principle is, although it’s probably related to optimization: What’s the best shape for the least amount of energy consumption? A famous allometric law is known as Kleiber’s Law, where the metabolic rate of an animal grows as its mass to the 3/4 power. (The metabolic rate can be measured in terms of the rate at which an animal consumes oxygen, for example.) Although there are small variations (due to motion, disease, aging), the relation holds over a wide range of masses. (There are disputes for very small animals without a circulatory system.)
    Geoffrey West, Brian Enquist and James Brown proposed a model based on blood flow to explain this and a few other general allometric scaling laws with body weight observed in animals (for a review paper see this): Apart from Kleiber’s Law mentioned above, life span scales as 1/4 power (so take two square roots of the mass), and heart rate as -1/4 power. Put together, these two laws explain why all species have a similar amount of heartbeats, 1.5 billion, over their life spans.
    Pause for amazement.
    The laws are not absolutely precise but do indicate a common trend across an enormous variety of living creatures. On Monday night, I was on a panel on Complexity with Geoffrey West at the New York Academy of Sciences. At some point, I asked West whether alien life, if it exists, would follow the same sort of unifying allometric laws. With a twinkle in his eye, West replied, a big smile on his face: “Well, I can only speculate here, but it seems plausible that this sort of design principle for life does have universal characteristics.”
    It would be amazing if life as we don’t know it is, after all, life as we do know it.
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-and-unity

  9. 9
    tjguy says:

    The more we learn about the universe and how it works, the more faith it takes to remain/become an atheist.

    Lord Kelvin said it best when towards the end of his life he said this: “If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

    Little did he know how right he was!

  10. 10
    Fasteddious says:

    Actually, this may simply be a case of Darwinian evolution in action. The optimum shape for a tooth or claw is a trade-off between longer (for more ferocious bite/scratch) and sturdier (for sufficient strength/robustness). The chemistry of teeth and claw materials, coupled with the physics of biting and scratching, along with statistics of likely biting/scratching events in the life of the animal (range and number of events) will constrain the optimization of length: width. Random variation and natural selection would then settle on an optimum. Too many long teeth and they break off, reducing ability to hunt and kill prey. Claws too short and they are not sufficiently offensive or defensive. Once animals have teeth and claws, evolution would act to optimize the ratio for the best statistical performance over the life of the species in its population. This new “law” merely describes the result of the optimization; it is not a basis for determining what it should be.
    Of course, lest I am misunderstood, the evolutionary optimization only tweaks or adjusts; it does not account for the original existence of teeth and claws.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Fasteddious: Actually, this may simply be a case of Darwinian evolution in action. The optimum shape for a tooth or claw is a trade-off between longer (for more ferocious bite/scratch) and sturdier (for sufficient strength/robustness). The chemistry of teeth and claw materials, coupled with the physics of biting and scratching, along with statistics of likely biting/scratching events in the life of the animal (range and number of events) will constrain the optimization of length: width. Random variation and natural selection would then settle on an optimum. Too many long teeth and they break off, reducing ability to hunt and kill prey. Claws too short and they are not sufficiently offensive or defensive. Once animals have teeth and claws, evolution would act to optimize the ratio for the best statistical performance over the life of the species in its population. This new “law” merely describes the result of the optimization; it is not a basis for determining what it should be.

    Evolution explains having similar solutions to similar problems. What has happened here is that some clever biologists have figured out what basic function along with parameters, coefficients and transformations model that which can be observed.

    Well done! A classic case of observation, data collection and mathematical modelling.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Imagining that Darwinian evolution can explain some given ‘repeated’ shape, observed across a wide variety of organisms, is a far cry from empirically demonstrating that Darwinian evolution can account for that given shape.

    Without any empirical evidence to back you up, you might as well wave a magic wand every time you claim that Darwinian evolution explains a given shape.

    Reminds me of the many instances where Darwinists have invoked the magic words ‘convergent evolution’ to try to ‘explain away’ a repeated feature in life.

    Yet ‘convergent evolution’ actually falsifies Darwinian claims rather than confirming them.

    As Casey Luskin observed, “the main assumption underlying all phylogenetic trees is that biological similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor.”,,, “Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,,”

    Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin – February 9, 2015
    Excerpt: In Problem 6 of this series, we saw that the main assumption underlying all phylogenetic trees is that biological similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. The problem for evolutionary biologists faced with conflicting evolutionary trees is that biological similarity often appears in places not predicted by common descent. In other words, everyone recognizes that biological similarities often appear among species in cases where they cannot be explained as the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. This means the main assumption fails.
    We also saw at the end of Problem 6 that when biologists are unable to construct phylogenetic trees, they often make ad hoc appeals to other processes to explain away data that won’t fit a treelike pattern. One of these explanations is convergent evolution, where evolutionary biologists postulate that organisms acquire the same traits independently, in separate lineages, and not through inheritance from a common ancestor. Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature, but a few will suffice.,,,
    Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that biological similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And in the many cases where it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry.
    Tellingly, the one assumption rarely questioned is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. But perhaps the reason why different genes are telling different evolutionary stories is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_7_conve/

    And as Günter Bechly, a paleontologist, noted, “One of the most essential doctrines of Darwinian evolution, apart from universal common descent with modification, is the notion that complex similarities indicate homology and are ordered in a congruent nested pattern that facilitates the hierarchical classification of life.”,,, “,,,We can safely conclude: it is an epic myth, willingly perpetuated by evolutionary biologists, that the similarities between organisms mostly fall in a hierarchic pattern of nested groups and thus suggest common ancestry and indicate phylogenetic relationship. In reality this claim is contradicted by a flood of incongruences and reticulate patterns that shed doubt on fundamental paradigms of evolutionary biology like the notions of homology and common descent.”

    Extinct Four-Eyed Monitor Lizard Busts Myth of a Congruent Nested Hierarchy – Günter Bechly – April 23, 2018
    Excerpt: One of the most essential doctrines of Darwinian evolution, apart from universal common descent with modification, is the notion that complex similarities indicate homology and are ordered in a congruent nested pattern that facilitates the hierarchical classification of life. When this pattern is disrupted by incongruent evidence, such conflicting evidence is readily explained away as homoplasies with ad hoc explanations like underlying apomorphies (parallelisms), secondary reductions, evolutionary convergences, long branch attraction, and incomplete lineage sorting.
    When I studied in the 1980s at the University of Tübingen, where the founder of phylogenetic systematics, Professor Willi Hennig, was teaching a first generation of cladists, we still all thought that such homoplasies are the exceptions to the rule, usually restricted to simple or poorly known characters. Since then the situation has profoundly changed. Homoplasy is now recognized as a ubiquitous phenomenon (e.g., eyes evolved 45 times independently, and bioluminiscence 27 times; hundreds of more examples can be found at Cambridge University’s “Map of Life” website).,,,
    ,,, We can safely conclude: it is an epic myth, willingly perpetuated by evolutionary biologists, that the similarities between organisms mostly fall in a hierarchic pattern of nested groups and thus suggest common ancestry and indicate phylogenetic relationship. In reality this claim is contradicted by a flood of incongruences and reticulate patterns that shed doubt on fundamental paradigms of evolutionary biology like the notions of homology and common descent. This inconvenient conflicting evidence is explained away with a pile of ad hoc hypotheses, correlated with more and more contrived and implausible evolutionary scenarios.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/extinct-four-eyed-monitor-lizard-busts-myth-of-a-congruent-nested-hierarchy/

    And as Bernard d’Abrera bluntly put the situation for Darwinists, “For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,,”

    Bernard d’Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist – October 5, 2011
    Excerpt: renowned butterfly scholar and photographer Bernard d’Abrera considers the mystery of mimicry.,,,
    “For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,,”
    “Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51571.html

    As both Casey Luskin and Gunter Bechly pointed out, ‘convergent evolution’, far from being a (very) rare occurrence, (as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions), is now found to be a widespread, even a common, occurrence. Here are a few examples of just how widespread this unexpected ‘convergent evolution’ problem is for Darwinists.

    Claims about convergent evolution are absurd _ Feb. 2017
    1. C4 photosynthesis. According to ‘science’ it has evolved 60 times independently. Scientists have not succeeded in building an autonomous photosynthesis system. But evolution has done this for 60 times! Seems to be easy!
    2. Eye 35 times. Think about the complex mechanism and signaling pathways that are connected with brain. And according to ‘science’ humans and squids evolved same eyes using same genes. What a coincidence!
    3. Giving birth, 150 times. Piece of cake for evolution. Very convincing.
    4. Carnivorous plants. Nitrogen-deficient plants have in at least 7 distinct times become carnivorous.
    5. Hearing. 30 times. Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene. What a surprise! (Do they really think that one gene is sufficient for developing a sonar ability?)
    6. Bioluminescence is quite a mystery for science. According to darwinists it has independently evolved even 27 times!
    7. Magnetite for orientation, magnetically charged particles of magnetite for directional sensing have been found in unrelated species of salmon, rainbow trout, some butterflies and birds.
    8. Electric organ in some fishes. 6 times. Independently from each other. Sure.
    9. Parthenogenesis. Some lizards, insects, fishes and rodents are able to reproduce asexually, without males.
    Etc.. etc.. etc..
    http://sciencerefutesevolution.....n-are.html

    As Gunter Bechly stated, convergent evolution directly challenges the ‘hierarchical classification of life” which is the main, core, assumption that lies behind the Darwinian belief of universal common descent.

    And Winston Ewert’ used the breakdown in “the hierarchical classification of life” at the genetic level to provide a (very) powerful falsification of Darwin’s theory.

    The Dependency Graph of Life – Winston Ewert
    INTRODUCTION
    Darwin cited the hierarchical classification of life as evi- dence for his theory [1], and the classification has con- tinued to be cited as a central prediction of evolutionary theory [2]. However, modern research, especially in the area of molecular data, has complicated this picture. Prokaryotes do not fit a hierarchical scheme, leading Doolittle [3, p. 2226] to state: “Indeed, for prokaryotes, molecular data have falsified the [tree of life] hypothesis.” Even amongst more complex lifeforms, data exist which are not congruent with the hierarchical pattern [4–8]. Some push for embracing a view of evolution no longer constrained by the tree of life [9]. Those who do not consider the tree of life falsified nevertheless hold to a modified version of it. Mechanisms have been added to explain deviations from the hierarchy such as horizon- tal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, differential gene loss, gene resurrection, gene flow, and convergent evolution.,,,
    CONCLUSIONS
    Explaining the approximate nested hierarchy has been a long standing challenge to common design. No account of this pattern has achieved widespread acceptance amongst those holding to common design. We have proposed a novel explanation, the dependency graph. The predic- tions of the dependency graph hypothesis set out in this paper have been shown to be correct. The biological data was a better fit to a dependency graph than to a tree. The data produced by a simulated process of common descent was a better fit to a tree than to a dependency graph. The data produced by a compiler was both a better fit to a dependency graph than a tree, and a better fit to a tree than to the null model. The inferred biological dependency graphs contained were not simply the tree of life with a few additions, but instead contained many additional modules.
    https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3/BIO-C.2018.3

    In the following article, Cornelius Hunter explains, for the lay audience, just how devastating Winston Ewert’s falsification of Darwin’s theory actually is,

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Where It Counts
    Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
    Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
    Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.
    Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division.
    The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division.
    Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth?
    Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!
    By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent.
    10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
    This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

    Thus in conclusion, finding repeated patterns and/or shapes in life, i.e. ‘convergent evolution, actually falsifies core Darwinian presuppositions rather than confirming them.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to the good.

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    I think atheism will still be around long after we are all gone and I don’t see how this research makes the Christian God any more likely.

  14. 14
    Fasteddious says:

    Having similar structures and shapes to teeth and claws is hardly a case of “convergent evolution”. Rather it is simply the best approach to using the available materials for the intended purposes. While the original teeth and claws may have been designed as such, and may indeed have had the optimum shapes, variations would have caused adjustments and a spread of ratios throughout the population. Natural selection would then provide a slight pressure to weed out the extremes as “less fit” and thereby maintain the optimum as the statistical mean for the population. If the original designs had been different from the optimum shapes, then random variation and natural selection would have shifted the average toward the optimum. Various species using the same materials for the same purposes would have developed the same general solutions and then optimized them.
    All ID people are surely aware that the Darwinian process can do certain simple things to keep a population as fit as possible based on their original design.

  15. 15
    JVL says:

    Fasteddious: Having similar structures and shapes to teeth and claws is hardly a case of “convergent evolution”. Rather it is simply the best approach to using the available materials for the intended purposes.

    And 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!!

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Seversky: I think atheism will still be around long after we are all gone and I don’t see how this research makes the Christian God any more likely.

    This research has nothing to do with any gods or any theology.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Fasteddious, again, without any empirical evidence to back up your claim, you might as well wave a magic wand.

    Sure Darwinian evolution can ‘weed out’, but Darwinian evolution is far more constrained in its ability to ‘optimize’ than you are presupposing.

    As the following article noted, “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

    Of related note: Darwinists are simply stymied in their ability to explain the vast majority of phenotypic traits.

    The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard – 2011
    Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation..
    http://www.biosignaling.com/co.....X-9-30.pdf

    Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated – June 29, 2015
    Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect:
    “We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics.”
    And the craze is not harmless, he warns. …
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....unrelated/

    Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis.
    But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,
    One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out.
    Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

  18. 18
    Fasteddious says:

    BA77 @ 17: There is no need to pick a fight when none is offered.
    As for “evidence”, we are all aware of microevolutionary effects, which ID usually accepts: things like Darwin’s finch beaks adjusting and then readjusting, and peppered moth colour changes (whether true or otherwise), Cichlid fish colour differentiations, and then of course, the polar bear. I do not claim these represent new genetic information, nor that they are all fully optimized. I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I am flexible enough to recognize Darwinism when it seems clearly feasible. Of course no one can “prove” that Darwinism optimized tooth and claw designs, but some “just so stories” are surely more feasible than others? And to deny even the possibility of minimal Darwinian benefits seems irrational. Even Michael Behe recognizes that Darwinian evolution (AKA devolution) works for the benefit of various species.
    Having said all that, I am NOT claiming that the Darwinian mechanism explains all “convergent evolution” – far from it. Instead I am saying that Darwinism does a fair job of explaining some minor aspects of “evolution”; i.e. various cases of microevolution.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Fasteddious, you mentioned Darwin’s Finch beaks, peppered moths, Cichlid fish, and Polar bears, as evidence for Darwinian evolution.

    Yet even those popular textbook examples do not supply empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution.

    Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin’s Finches – 2014
    Excerpt: The prevailing theory for the molecular basis of evolution (Neo-Darwinism) involves genetic mutations that ultimately generate the heritable phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts. However, epigenetic (Non-Darwinian) transgenerational inheritance of phenotypic variation may also play an important role in evolutionary change.,,,
    Genome-wide alterations in genetic mutations using copy number variation (CNV) were compared with epigenetic alterations associated with differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations). Epimutations were more common than genetic CNV mutations among the five species; furthermore, the number of epimutations increased monotonically with phylogenetic distance. Interestingly, the number of genetic CNV mutations did not consistently increase with phylogenetic distance.,,,
    http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../1972.full

    Epigenetics may explain how Darwin’s finches respond to rapid environmental change – August 24, 2017
    Excerpt: By studying rural and urban populations of two species of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands, researchers were able to show that while there was very little genetic variation, there were substantial epigenetic differences that could be related to environmental differences resulting from urbanization.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170824093814.htm

    Peppered Moth: How Evolution’s Poster Child Became the Rebuttal – Cornelius Hunter – November 27, 2016
    Excerpt: research strongly suggests that the cause of the darkening, at the molecular level, is an enormous genetic insertion. In other words, rather than a nucleotide, in a gene, mutating to one of the other three nucleotides, as you learned in your high school biology class, instead what has been found is an insertion of a stretch of more than 20,000 nucleotides. That long inserted segment consists of a shorter segment (about 9,000 nucleotides) repeated about two and one-third times.
    Also, the insertion point is not in a DNA coding sequence, but in an intervening region (intron), which have been considered to be “junk DNA” in the past.
    This observed mutation (the insertion of a long sequence of DNA into an intron), is much more complicated than a single point mutation. First, there is no change in the gene’s protein product. The mutating of the protein sequence was the whole idea behind evolution: DNA mutations which lead to changes in a protein can lead to a phenotype change with fitness improvement, and there would be subject to natural selection.
    That is not what we are seeing in the much celebrated peppered moth example. The DNA mutation is much more complicated (~20,000 nucleotides inserted), and the fact it was inserted into an intron suggests that additional molecular and cellular mechanisms are required for the coloration change to occur.
    None of this fits evolutionary theory.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/peppered_moth_h/

    Studies on Cichlid Fish Demonstrate the Predictive Power of Engineering Models for Adaptation
    Brian Miller – October 14, 2021
    Excerpt: Researchers increasingly recognize that the most significant variation in cichlid fish results from internal adaptive mechanisms. As Parsons et al. stated:
    “…there is an emerging view that additive genetic variation accounts for a relatively small percentage of phenotypic variation and rather it’s the context in which traits develop that determines their final form” (Hendrikse et al. 2007, Jamniczky et al. 2010, Pfennig et al. 2010, Hallgrimsson et al. 2014).
    Conclusion: Future research will undoubtedly continue to demonstrate that cichlid variation did not primarily originate from random mutations but from systems engineered to drive targeted modifications.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/studies-on-cichlid-fish-demonstrate-the-predictive-power-of-engineering-models-for-adaptation/

    At the 39:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Michael Behe comments on a 2014 study showing how polar bears subspeciated from brown bears by a loss of genetic information, not from a gain of genetic information as was presupposed within Darwinian thought.

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Limit for Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

    So again, without any empirical evidence to back up your claim, you might as well wave a magic wand.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, I thought of you when I read this, “Cassell,, says that more progress would be possible if not for the fact that so many scientists are infected with what he terms teleophobia — an unwillingness to recognize evidence of teleology and purpose in biology.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/teleophobia-cassell-on-the-unreasonable-fear-of-intelligent-design/

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77:

    If you can present a clear and solid teleology hypothesis that can be tested with an unambiguous failure criteria let’s hear it. And that can’t be: prove something could have done it. You have to say what it is you think is teleological, you have to have an ability to test it on its own terms (in case there are other explanations that aren’t obvious), and you have to accept a fail if that’s what happens.

    I’m interested so what have you got?

    Please don’t muck about with a lot of copy-and-paste quotes and references; just tell us what your testable hypothesis is and how you propose to test it.

  22. 22
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    @JVL:
    :))) The evidence is hidden in plain sight:

    the survival of the fittest.

    I must recognize that is a genial dissimulation. It’s a kind of hypsnosis.
    Survivability is a goal/purpose/target that is assigned by a Designer.
    Do not exist survivability without “a plan” to be run in case of emergency.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    “If you can present a clear and solid teleology hypothesis that can be tested with an unambiguous failure criteria let’s hear it.”

    In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges 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)”

    The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

    As Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of the University of Oxford, states, “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.

    “the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence.
    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
    – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.
    http://www.thebestschools.org/.....interview/

    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 are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”

    Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020
    Abstract:
    Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/

    Thus in conclusion, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial ‘narrative gloss’ that can be somewhat easily stripped away from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-jonathan-bartlett-will-the-sokal-hoaxes-worsen-the-academic-echo-chamber/#comment-742456

    Matthew 12:37
    for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77:

    Well, apparently you cannot come up with a clear and unambiguous testable teleological hypothesis.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    The design hypothesis:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    Now compare that to the nothingness of materialism and evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    Here’s another hypothesis:

    1. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system.
    2. There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems
    3. There isn’t even a way to test the claim that nature can
    4. Christopher Hitchens says we can dismiss such claims.
    5. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition.
    6. Therefore using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s 4 rules of scientific reasoning, we infer the genetic code was intelligently designed.

    Now JVL may not like either of my examples, but it is a given that he can’t produce anything as good for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

  27. 27
    Fasteddious says:

    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?

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    “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/

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    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 company

  30. 30
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    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 … 🙂

  31. 31
    Fasteddious says:

    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?

  32. 32
    Fasteddious says:

    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.

  33. 33
    JVL says:

    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.

  34. 34
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    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.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    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/

  37. 37
    PaV says:

    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 🙂

  38. 38
    ET says:

    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.

  39. 39
    ET says:

    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.

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    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.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    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.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    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?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....econd-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.

  43. 43
    ET says:

    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 bandwidth

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    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.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    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?

  46. 46
    ET says:

    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.

  47. 47
    JVL says:

    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?

  48. 48
    ET says:

    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.

  49. 49
    ET says:

    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!

  50. 50
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    @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.

  51. 51
    jerry says:

    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.

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    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?

  53. 53
    ET says:

    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.

  54. 54
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    When a clown knows that is a clown? :))))

  55. 55
    PaV says:

    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? 🙂

  56. 56
    AnimatedDust says:

    @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.

Leave a Reply