Information Intelligent Design Physics The Design of Life

Information and the First Cause

Spread the love

Eric Hedin writes:

The famous American physicist John Wheeler did not shy away from seeking to understand the most fundamental aspects of our universe. Wheeler coined the aphorism “It from bit” to describe his conviction, born of the many discoveries in particle physics and cosmology in the twentieth century, that information (characterized by the computer storage term “bit”) preceded and produced everything else (“it”). He elaborated:

Otherwise put, every it—every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.

John Archibald Wheeler shortly before his death. www.themarginalian.org

It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin.1

Thus, in Wheeler’s conception, information precedes and transcends matter, energy, time, and space.

We also know, as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has emphasized, that in every case where we are able to trace information back to a source, we arrive at an intelligent agent—a poet or computer programmer or composer or architect.2 When we couple the “It from Bit” insight with this observation regarding our uniform experience with information creation, we are led toward a conclusion that strongly echoes a core claim of theistic religion such as we find in the Hebrew scriptures announcing that nature “pours forth speech” and is the result of a divine mind’s spoken words “in the beginning”3—or, as one of the New Testament authors put it, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and “all things were made through him.”4

Quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger, in reviewing Wheeler’s contributions to quantum phenomena, notes this same connection between the discoveries of modern physics and what he terms “old knowledge.” Zeilinger states:

In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Then the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: ‘In the beginning was the Word.’5

[1] John A. Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley, 1990).

[2] John Archibald Wheeler, A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1990). John Archibald Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links,” in Feynman and Computing, edited by Anthony J. G. Hey (Boca Raton, FL; Taylor and Francis Group LLC, 2002), 109.

[3] Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 394-395.

[4] Psalm 19, Genesis 1.

[5] John 1:1, 3a.

Excerpted from Canceled Science (ch. 12), by Eric Hedin.

70 Replies to “Information and the First Cause

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    If information is always about something else, how can it be a first cause since whatever the information is about must have preceded it?

  2. 2
    buffalo says:

    IDvolution What is IDvolution?
    IDvolution – God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

    This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
    Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc.. in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
    IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

    Arrows show information flow.

     

    IDvolution 

    ID=Intelligently Designed 
    volution – having a volute or rolled-up form.

  3. 3
    relatd says:

    Buffalo at 2,

    God not only created the kinds, He made them adaptable but within limits. The Fall, a literal event, affected all of Creation. This caused not only deleterious mutations but a change in the function of some viruses and in the relationships of creatures toward each other. The first man, Adam, saw this happen along with the first woman, Eve. This broken relationship with Creation continued, but later, the Redeemer arrived and paid the price for sin by His sacrifice. Yet the effects of The Fall are still felt today and each person carries Original Sin. I don’t think IDvolution, as a name, is a good one. I think Intelligent Design by itself suffices.

  4. 4
    Belfast says:

    “ If information is always about something else, how can it be a first cause since whatever the information is about must have preceded it?”
    Gosh, Seversky, you’ve cracked it! You’ve annihilated ‘first cause” arguments. The very question that Aristotle made popular! And with an unanswerable child-like question too.
    Let me be the first to shake your hand before CD and SG arrive to praise you.

  5. 5
    Viola Lee says:

    Realtd, when did the fall happen? In a young-earth context, like 6000 or so years ago, or in an old-earth context, tens of thousands of years ago when it is believed the first fully-human creatures appeared?

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Viola Lee @5,

    While Relatd might have an opinion, the Bible has no direct statement on your question.

    In 1650, Archbishop James Ussher famously computed the creation of the universe from the genealogy of Adam and his descendants from Genesis. However, there are significantly different interpretations of Genesis, which is a subject more appropriate for a theological website.

    A scientific perspective is based on measurements, observations, experiments, and inferences. Following the science depends on the data obtained and its interpretation, which has and will continue to change, sometimes dramatically.

    For example, consider polystrate fossils. A direct interpretation of fossilized polystrate trees would result in the inference that the trunks of such trees protruded from the earth for millions of years, which is not very likely considering contemporary observation.
    https://earthage.org/polystrate-fossils/

    Other issues include
    https://earthage.org/sea-sloths-and-out-of-order-fossils/

    Finally, I’d ask the question (on a different forum!), what is the length of one “day” as mentioned in Genesis? If the answer given me is 24 hours, I ask how long is one “hour,” and so on. The point is that without periodicity, there’s no way to measure time.

    Science, which is always being updated by new discoveries, should not be used to criticize or to be reconciled with what’s written in the Bible. I believe these should remain in separate domains.

    Furthermore, scientific theories (and so-called “facts”) should always be held loosely rather than becoming doctrinaire as seems to be common in academia.

    The OP mentions

    . . . or, as one of the New Testament authors put it, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and “all things were made through him.”

    “Word” in Greek is Logos, a thought, concept, or communication:
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos

    In other words, information. Currently, the concept of information is poorly understood from a scientific perspective. For example, you pick up two objects with different shapes. What’s the ratio of intrinsic information between them?

    While this verse in the Gospel of John is very sweet to me, indicating the source of our existence (and compatible with the current understanding of quantum mechanics), I will take my own medicine and not make any scientific claims based on this passage in the Bible.

    -Q

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky argues, “If information is always about something else, how can it be a first cause since whatever the information is about must have preceded it?”

    Well Seversky, obviously, the flaw is in your premise. i.e. “If information is always about something else,,,”

    Information is not “always” about something else’, information is “also” constitutive of what something is in the first place. i.e. Information, besides being about something, is also now shown to be what actualizes something and brings it into being in the first place,

    constitutive
    1. having the power to establish or give organized existence to something.

    actualize
    make real or concrete; give reality or substance to

    In short Seversky, you have falsely presupposed that information is “always” and “only” about something else. Yet, information is “also” constitutive of, and is what actualizes, what something is in the first place. In this case, information is constitutive of “every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself” (J. Wheeler).

    That information is “also” constitutive of, and is what actualizes, what something is is fairly easy to see with quantum teleportation experiments.

    As the following article on quantum teleportation states, “In principle, however, the ’copy’ (atom) can be indistinguishable from the original, (atom that was destroyed)”

    Beam me up – Philip Ball – 30 September 2004
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ’clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ’copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original, and the process can take place at the speed of light. So it’s as if the original atom vanishes at one place and reappears elsewhere, sent there at light speed. In other words, this is a form of teleportation.
    Rainer Blatt and colleagues at the University of Innsbruck, and David Wineland’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, have independently transferred the quantum state of one ion to another. The transfer isn’t yet perfect – the copy is only about three-quarters identical to the original – but it’s significantly better than what any ’copying’ process can achieve without quantum teleportation. And there will surely be better to come.
    https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/beam-me-up/3004500.article

    And as the following article states, “the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.”

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

    And as the following article states, “the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,”

    Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016
    Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world.
    Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,,
    This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,
    ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another.
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR

    So not only can, as Seversky pointed out, information be about something else, but information is also now shown, via quantum teleportation, to tell atoms and photons exactly what to be. In short, information is shown to be constitutive of what something is in the first place. Information is not “always” and “only” about something else as Seversky falsely presupposed in his argument that information can’t be the ‘first cause’.

    It is also interesting to note that, since “the original (particle) has to be destroyed” in quantum teleportation because “you can’t ’clone’ a quantum state”, then this teleportation of quantum information that tells a ‘new’ particle exactly what to be also lends fairly strong credence to the Christian’s contention that it is the soul, not the material body, that defines who we actually are as persons.

    As Asher Peres himself, when asked by a journalist if quantum teleportation could transport a person’s soul as well as their body, answered, “No, not the body, just the soul.”

    Teleportation is Here, But It’s Not What We Expected – 29 October 2019
    Excerpt: In 2005, the obituary of physicist Asher Peres in the magazine Physics Today told us that when a journalist asked him if quantum teleportation could transport a person’s soul as well as their body, the scientist replied: “No, not the body, just the soul.”,,,
    ,,, teleportation does exist, although in the real world it is quite different from the famous “Beam me up, Scotty!” associated with the Star Trek series.
    Teleportation in real science began to take shape in 1993 thanks to a theoretical study published by Peres and five other researchers in Physical Review Letters, which laid the foundation for quantum teleportation. ,,,
    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/teleportation-is-here-but-its-not-what-we-expected/

    Quote and Verse

    “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
    George MacDonald – Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood – 1892

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Supplemental note:

    Oct. 2022 – So since Darwinian Atheists, as a foundational presupposition of their materialistic philosophy, (and not from any compelling scientific evidence mind you), deny the existence of souls, (and since the materialist’s denial of souls, (and God), has led (via atheistic tyrants) to so much catastrophic disaster on human societies in the 20th century), then it is VERY important to ‘scientifically’ establish the existence of these ‘souls’ that are of incalculable worth, and that are created equal, before God.
    https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-must-we-do-when-the-foundations-are-being-destroyed/#comment-768496

    Also of supplemental note, Anton Zeilinger, is his recent 2022 Nobel prize lecture, stated, “That tells you something about the role of space and time (in quantum measurements). There’s no role at all.”,,,

    “There’s one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,
    – Anton Zeilinger
    – 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics – video (1:50:07 mark)
    https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607
    Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image
    John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real
    Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland
    – Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/5
    It’s ironic that you would make this observation, with which I agree:

    A scientific perspective is based on measurements, observations, experiments, and inferences. Following the science depends on the data obtained and its interpretation, which has and will continue to change, sometimes dramatically.

    Ironic insofar as you will rely upon this “perspective” to make the always problematic, plain language of Genesis “harmonize” with the reality of its complete inconsistency w/ deep time OoL and evolutionary biology. But the same courtesy is never extended to the ongoing development of evolutionary biology.
    What is even more ironic is that you try to push it off to a “more appropriate” forum which is the intellectual equivalent of sweeping it under the rug.
    As ridiculous as Ussher’s project to date creation was, at least he had the intellectual honesty to own it. From WJC’s “mytho-history” nonsense to Ken Hamm or Kent Hovind’s cartoonish, Ussher-esque portrayals of literal Genesis, this problem for Christianity is not going to go away. Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity, which, by all objective measures, is already on life-support……..

  9. 9
    AnimatedDust says:

    This lecture provides the proper perspective for considering Genesis in light of science. He provides the proper context for the length of days, etc.

    Long, but worth your time. Q and A afterward. Lennox nails it.

    CD, atheistic materialism is long dead and buried. The only reason it doesn’t feel that way to you is because you and atheistic members of the scientific community remain steadfastly committed to perpetuating the lie, at all costs.

    You will know the truth after you take your last breath.

    https://youtu.be/0FmO2XKMe6g

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    CD: “to make the always problematic, plain language of Genesis “harmonize” with the reality of its complete inconsistency w/ deep time,,,”

    Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is certainly not now, nor has it historically been, the ‘official’ position of the church, but YEC is a recent 20th century movement within protestant circles of Christianity.

    History of Creationism – March 23, 2013 – The Creationists – By Ray Lakeman
    Excerpt: Creation Science (YEC) is a new movement of the twentieth century. It arose as a movement composed of trained scientists and lay Christian supporters from a wide range of Christian churches, and it has grown despite almost universal opposition from both mainstream scientists and the mainstream leaders in churches.
    In the early years of the twentieth century the self-described geologist George McCready Price stood virtually alone in insisting on the recent appearance of life and on a global flood catastrophe that massively rearranged the earth’s crust. Price was well-received by creationists, but made few converts beyond his Seventh Day Adventist Church.
    In 1932 the Evolution Protest Movement was formed in London, and is now called the Creation Science Movement, the oldest creationist society on Earth.,,,
    https://reasonablefaithadelaide.org.au/history-of-creationism/

    St. Augustine himself stated, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine”

    Biblical Reasons To Doubt The Creation Days Were 24-hour Periods – January 28, 2015
    Excerpt: it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this (24 hour period) interpretation.
    Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7).
    J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.”
    Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”
    Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.”
    Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.”
    I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods,,,.
    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

    a few more notes,

    Old Earth Creation Science
    Word Study: Yom
    Conclusion
    With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda.
    Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God’s concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines.
    1 Television Show and Transcript, “Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time,” The John Ankerberg Show, 2005.
    http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

    Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth – Jonathan M. – 2011
    Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods?
    Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone:
    1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours).
    2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day.
    3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days.
    4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
    http://crossexamined.org/why-i.....old-earth/

  11. 11
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77
    With due respect, BA, I’ve seen this exegesis multiple times before and it is not persuasive….

  12. 12
    AnimatedDust says:

    CD, therein lies the problem. Nothing in you at the moment is willing to consider the possibility that you, not us nutty Christians, are the one who is wrong.

    Ultimately, what is true will be true, regardless of your resistance. And your choice will be actualized for eternity. Seems to me, an error of that magnitude would produce in any reasonable person, now staring The Truth in the face, as he simply grants your lifelong wish, the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  13. 13
    Barry Arrington says:

    Seversky,

    I checked your stats. You have posted 5, 286 comments. Since you use the site so much, you really should make a donation this year!!

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @8,

    Ironic insofar as you will rely upon this “perspective” to make the always problematic, plain language of Genesis “harmonize” with the reality of its complete inconsistency w/ deep time OoL and evolutionary biology.

    Apparently, you scanned rather that read my comment. No, I RESIST trying to harmonize the Bible with current scientific theories precisely because science is always changing.

    Please scan the above sentence again, focusing on the word RESIST.

    I do recognize general compatibility and some interesting coincidences. In fact, the Bible contains an essentially complete description of the scientific method written about 2,800 years ago. In ANE and many other ancient traditions, the sun and moon are gods/goddesses. In Genesis, they are described as “lamps.” Imagine that.

    But the same courtesy is never extended to the ongoing development of evolutionary biology.

    This is only true if “evolutionary biology” is a religion rather than a science. Apparently this is true in your case, but for people who study science dispassionately, when a theory is falsified by new discoveries, when a theory repeated fails to make correct predictions, and when a theory needs to constantly be propped up with MUSTA and MIGHTA statements, it’s time to consider new alternatives, which is exactly what the Royal Society called for a revision in 2016 in light of devastating genomic evidence, not to mention that Darwinism served as an apologetic for racism and colonialism.
    https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/

    What is even more ironic is that you try to push it off to a “more appropriate” forum which is the intellectual equivalent of sweeping it under the rug.

    Again, I recognize a distinction between the scientific process and religious belief, while you appear to have merged them.

    Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity, which, by all objective measures, is already on life-support……..

    Funny that you should say that because this means that you broadly deny

    1. https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
    Note: the authors immediately distance the subject from the Biblical narrative of the first Adam and Eve, but not on scientific grounds. In other words, if the Biblical narrative is historically true, then the observed genomic results would also indicate a common ancestral pair of all humanity.

    2. The existence of any evil in humanity. Good luck with that.

    -Q

  15. 15
    Fasteddious says:

    Regarding Sev’s initial silly comment: if I make a design for a new gadget, the plans (information) are “about” something that does not yet exist, but that I hope will exist in the future. Thus, not all information is about things that already exist.

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 10,

    The writings of various people, saints or not, do not appear to resolve this issue. Further, many have argued with the Church over the centuries over points like this so, for some, it is not a trivial matter. And some cling to the apparent vagueness to say the days in question could not have been 24 hour days. In the Catholic Church, and in the United States, Sunday was regarded a a day of rest. Most businesses were closed. People went to church. That was normal and average throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

    But back to the subject. It cannot be ignored that God acted in His Creation. The Bible records things God actually did. So, if a day was longer than 24 hours during Creation then that is one possibility. However, the Church has no official teaching about this. Regarding evolution, various publications paint the Church as “evolution friendly.” That is not factual. When Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 about evolution, he referred to theories of evolution, plural. It was further stated in the document Communion and Stewardship that any of the various versions of the theories of evolution that deny to God a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe are incompatible with the faith.

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @10,

    The concept of a “24-hour day” interpretation of the days of Genesis is problematic. We currently measure a “day” (by one of several scientific definitions) by the light-dark cycle of the earth’s revolutions with respect to the sun into 24 segments. However, the Genesis narrative asserts that the sun and moon were created in the THIRD day.

    In the past, many people mocked Genesis for this reason. However, SCIENCE now tells us that light appeared before the formation of stars, currently thought to be about 400 million years AFTER the big bang. 400 million years after the creation.

    BUT . . .

    Is it possible that science someday conclude that stars appeared before light? Yes, it’s entirely possible!

    And then some years or centuries later, is it possible that new discoveries will reverse the order again? Yes, of course it’s possible.

    Science cannot take any shortcuts, but must carefully use evidence create hypotheses that can be tested against the existing evidence, make predictions, and withstand new discoveries. A strong hypothesis can eventually rise to the level of a theory or a model. It’s never considered a fact.

    Except for the theory of evolution, of course. It’s taught as a fact without respect for continued discoveries of falsifying evidence. It’s enshrined on ideological prejudice alone.

    A special thanks goes to AnimatedDust @9 for the link to John Lennox’s brilliant lecture, “Seven Days That Divide the World,” which I’m watching now (it starts at 9:43).

    -Q

  18. 18
    relatd says:

    Fasteddious at 15,

    Seversky is hoping to avoid thinking about human creativity in a way that supports its origin. Where did man get the knowledge to melt metals? To fashion jewelry? To build pyramids? To build gasoline engines? Random atoms bouncing around in people’s heads?

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    Relatd @16,

    I’d add that a great question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

    Another good question is “Did the non-existent universe create itself?”

    And a third question is “How can probabilities exist outside of time?”

    -Q

  20. 20
    Querius says:

    This discussion reminds me of this version of the Kalam.

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

    1. Do you believe that the universe, including time, space, and mass-energy, had a beginning, or do you believe that it always existed?

    Most scientists believe the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would have had to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and the universe would now have the maximum amount of entropy (disorder) possible, which it doesn’t.

    2. Do you believe that the beginning of the universe had a cause, or was it uncaused?

    Scientists believe that everything that exists or that occurs has a cause, and that without causality, nothing in science can be known (a). To put it another way, a major component of science is the rigorous, methodical study of causes and effects.

    3. Do you believe that the cause of the universe was natural in accordance to the laws of physics, or was its cause something outside of nature?

    It’s difficult to argue that the cause of the universe was due to a natural agent within the universe, before the universe even came into existence. The non-existent universe would have had to cause itself (b).

    4. Do you believe that the agent of the cause of the universe, itself had a cause, or was it uncaused?

    If the agent that caused the universe had a cause, what was its cause, and what was the cause of that cause, and so on. Thus, to avoid an infinite regression, there must originally have been an uncaused agent. The agent that ultimately caused time, and space, and mass-energy to come into existence cannot be within or bound to time, or space, or mass-energy.

    5. What agent can bring the entire universe into existence, exists outside of nature, is not bound to the laws of physics, is timeless, and that has no cause for its own existence?

    This agent sounds a lot like what people think of as God. It should be clear that we can only learn anything about God indirectly by observing the design in nature, speculatively by applying reason, or directly through the self-revelation of God (c).

    NOTES
    (a) Some people think of radioactive decay events as not having a cause, but they do. The cause is an unstable nucleus. However, a decay event is a statistical probability; it is not a predictable event. Non-predictable events are frequently observed in nature. Also, physicists believe that nothing can be observed earlier than roughly 10^-43 seconds (Planck time) after the start of the universe. However, causality in some form must have transcended this period, or the universe would never have started to inflate (the “big bang”).

    (b) A mistake that many people make is that “empty” space is not the same as Nothing. The fabric of space itself is thought to have started expanding with the big bang, and is permeated with quantum foam as a result of the virtual matter that spontaneously forms and annihilates itself. The Casimir Effect is measurable evidence of the existence of virtual matter. Space also includes dark energy, dark matter, plasma, gravitational distortion, relativistic effects, and likely other things that we do not know about. Thus, the fabric of space is something that exists, and is not empty. In contrast, if there is Nothing, even time does not exist. There are no billions of years, no events, and there is no probability for anything to ever happen.

    (c) Is it reasonable and likely that God would interact with the universe? When do you think God would have begun to interact with the human race? How would you expect God to interact with you, and for what purpose? Most religions are based on claims of events, revelations, or enlightenment, resulting in beliefs, observances, texts, teachers, and traditions. They can’t all be true. If one of them was true, what things would you expect might be different from all the others?

    -Q

  21. 21
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/14
    I did notice on my first pass through your post at 6 that you were claiming to invoke some type of quasi-NOMA position, but you don’t quite succeed, so I didn’t comment on it. Since you’ve brought it up, it’s evident that you will pay lip service to the purported independent domains of science and religion, then immediately violate your own circumscription when it suits your agenda:

    While this verse in the Gospel of John is very sweet to me, indicating the source of our existence (and compatible with the current understanding of quantum mechanics), I will take my own medicine and not make any scientific claims based on this passage in the Bible.

    The parenthetical material demonstrates my point. It also pops up in comment 20. It’s not just a wink and a nod, you explicitly fess up to being aware that you are doing it.

    You are not the only ID supporter that does this, by any means. The practice is rife within the ID community and appears to only be getting worse. In fact, the religious commentary on this blog, at least from where I sit, seems to have increased substantially since Caspian became moderator.

    In the grand scheme of things, I don’t care if you guys do or don’t continue to stress your biblical motifs vis a vis science. I just want to make sure that, like Bishop Ussher, you own it…..

  22. 22
    jerry says:

    the religious commentary on this blog, at least from where I sit, seems to have increased substantially since Caspian became moderator.

    Are you pointing to 4-5 individuals?

    This site has about 10 people responsible for 90% of the comments/95% of the words written. Of this small number a few are extremely prolific.

    Are you basing your objections to an entire discipline on a few people? And aren’t you equally guilty as these commenters are? After all a large percentage of your comments involve religion.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    At 11, after pointing out the fact that “Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is certainly not now, nor has it historically been, the ‘official’ position of the church, but YEC is a recent 20th century movement within protestant circles of Christianity”, ChuckYD states, “With due respect, BA, I’ve seen this exegesis multiple times before and it is not persuasive….”

    Well since ChuckyD clings to a Darwinian worldview that entails that he has no free will, and that he is, therefore, merely a meat robot, one is forced to wonder how a meat robot could possibly find anything persuasive and change his mind about it. According to ChuckyD’s Darwinian worldview, ChuckyD simply is not in control of his thoughts.

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    Jerry Coyne –
    No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism).
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

    But anyways, that ‘little’ problem of ChuckyD not being in control of what he thinks or says aside, ChuckyD wants to hold Christians to a YEC interpretation of the Bible since he thinks Christians have some sort of ‘scientific’ problem with “deep time”.

    But it is actually ChuckyD that has a problem with ‘deep time’, not the Christian Theist.

    In fact, I could give ChuckyD the lifetimes of many universes and he still could not account for the origin of even a single functional protein molecule.

    Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

    Moreover, that ‘little’ problem with ‘deep-time’ aside, ChuckyD has another ‘little’ problem in that information itself is immaterial in its foundational essence and is therefore beyond his materialistic explanations that rely on the pre-existence of matter, energy, time, and space.

    As Caspian pointed out in the OP, “in Wheeler’s conception, information precedes and transcends matter, energy, time, and space.” and also “in every case where we are able to trace information back to a source, we arrive at an intelligent agent—a poet or computer programmer or composer or architect”.

    And indeed, as I pointed in post 7 via quantum teleportation, information is constitutive of what a particle is and is what actualizes a particle and brings it into being in the first place.

    So ChuckyD has the rather nasty problem of beyond space and time immaterial quantum information being the fundamental “stuff’ that compose the material particles that he is reliant on to try to explain the origin of the immaterial information we find in biology.

    To put it mildly, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, things are not going well for ChuckyD supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of Darwinian materialism.

    Things get much worse for ChuckyD when we go from physics and get to biology. It is now also found that this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum information, and/or quantum entanglement, (besides being constitutive of what a particle is), is also found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology,

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Physicists Finally Observe a Link Between Quantum Criticality And Entanglement – Jan. 2020
    Excerpt: “When we think about quantum entanglement, we think about small things,” says physicist Qimiao Si, from Rice University. “We don’t associate it with macroscopic objects.”
    “But at a quantum critical point, things are so collective that we have this chance to see the effects of entanglement,”,,,
    “If you don’t see anything that’s collective, that’s scaling, the critical point has to belong to some textbook type of description. But, if you see something singular, which in fact we did, then it is very direct and new evidence for the quantum entanglement nature of quantum criticality.”
    What all of this high-level physics means is a lot of potential: potential quantum advancements in computing, communications and more. Scientists have hypothesised about a link between quantum entanglement and quantum criticality before, but now it’s been observed.,,,
    https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-see-billions-and-billions-of-entangled-electrons-flowing-through-strange-metal

    The existence of quantum information, and/or quantum entanglement in ‘every important biomolecule’ is NOT a minor problem for the materialistic explanations of ChuckyD’s Darwinian worldview. Namely, because of quantum non-locality, “no story in space and time can describe” the quantum correlations we find in molecular biology.

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 28 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

    ChuckyD’s appeal to ‘deep time’ is simply a non-starter in so far as explaining these quantum correlations that are ubiquitous within molecular biology. I could give ChuckyD all the ‘deep time he wanted, a billion years, a trillion years, a quadrillion years, it simply doesn’t matter since “no story in space and time can describe them”.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Things get worse for ChuckyD. Besides our body being based on quantum principles, our mind is also found to be intertwined with quantum mechanics, and is, therefore, also irreducible to ChuckyD’s materialistic ‘toolbox’ of matter, energy, time, and space.

    “Duration”, and/or “persistence of self identity”, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

    Henri Bergson, (a prominent philosopher of the early 20th century), as the following article points out, championed the primacy of ‘lived time’ over and above Einstein’s ‘spacetime’, Which is to say that Bergson championed ‘subjective experience’ over and above ‘objective reality’ in providing the proper definition of time. As the following article states, the subjective experience of “duration”, was “a major part of his (Bergson’s) thesis on time”.

    Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015
    Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but.
    ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’
    It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow.
    As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact.
    ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’
    The night would only get worse.
    ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’
    Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity.
    Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time.
    So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities.
    Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place.
    ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’
    In a theoretical nutshell this, (disagreement between Einstein and Bergson), expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,,
    Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism.
    Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more.
    Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death.
    ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’
    Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionat.....me/6539568

    In more clearly defining what Henri Bergson actually meant by ‘duration’, and/or “persistence of self identity through time”, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a ‘tiny’ island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us.

    In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, (paraphrased) “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”

    Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video
    Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA

    In further defining the immaterial mind’s attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”

    The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008
    Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,,
    Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not.
    ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.
    ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond.
    ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS.
    http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now

    Several years after Einstein’s heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap.

    In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”

    “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
    – Rudolf Carnap

    According to Stanely Jaki, Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”

    “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
    – Albert Einstein

    Carnap and Einstein quotes are taken from the last few minutes of this video:
    Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now”
    https://vimeo.com/10588094

    Einstein’s ‘categorical. denial that ‘the experience of the now’ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics.

    For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was dome with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/re.....t-confirms

    Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion “that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”

    “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even go one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and, “Quantum correlations come first, space-time later.”

    Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past
    July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html

    Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016
    Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe.
    Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,,
    “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,,
    Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/

    And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the implications and provocatively states that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”

    You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018
    Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,,
    Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,,
    The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.
    What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.
    Elise Crullis assistant professor in history and philosophy of science at the City College of New York.,,,
    https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time

    Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), we find that “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    – per physorg

    Quantum contextuality
    Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. ,,,
    Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem.[1],,,
    1. S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality

    And as Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger (Oct. 2022) stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    And as Anton Zeilinger also pointed out in his recent 2022 Nobel lecture, when it comes to the various predictions of quantum mechanics that blatantly disregard space and time, “That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,

    “There’s one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,
    – Anton Zeilinger
    – 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics – video (1:50:07 mark)
    https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607
    Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image
    John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real
    Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland
    – Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.

    Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.

    In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”

    Thus in conclusion, ChuckyD can try to hide in ‘deep-time’ all he wants, but it simply does not matter. As far as the quantum correlations we find in molecular biology, and the quantum correlations we find with the ‘observer’, are concerned, “”no story in space and time can describe”.

    ChuckyD’s Darwinian materialism is simply a non-starter in providing an adequate explanation for quantum correlations in our body and with our minds. ,,, As far as real empirical science is concerned, these consistent findings from quantum mechanics are NOT a minor problem for ChuckyD’s worldview of Darwinian materialism.

    If ChuckyD were intellectually honest to the empirical evidence, he would, or at least should, drop his Darwinian worldview in a heartbeat

    Verse:

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

    Supplemental note:

    Sept. 2022 – Thus in conclusion Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm.
    https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-765987

  26. 26
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @21,

    Sorry, I don’t follow you at all.

    I don’t know what a NOMA is, much less a “quasi-NOMA position.”

    And yes, I freely admit that I don’t use the scientific method when playing music, taking my wife out on dates, sitting on the toilet, playing sports, eating a wonderful supper or many other activities that makes us human. I RESIST melding them together or rationalizing them. However, they are all COMPATIBLE within my human experience.
    Same with the Bible.

    My position is that I RESIST forcing current scientific beliefs into the Bible or vice versa. I notice that some of scientific beliefs currently appear compatible with the Biblical narrative, which is fine for now and enables me to resist the mockery of pseudo-scientific arrogance.

    And just as the complexity of the chiral-induced spin selectivity in how electrons pass through molecules is beyond most people, how much more complex and different is the underlying truth behind the activities and thoughts of God?

    It’s not just a wink and a nod, you explicitly fess up to being aware that you are doing it.

    So what? I’m open and aware that all that such examples that I provided demonstrate is a compatibility between what’s revealed in the Bible to what we’ve discovered using the scientific method despite the continuous assertions that science is somehow superior, obviating what the Bible addresses, which is pretty much everything that makes life worth living.

    In contrast, let me be EMPHATIC that my objections to Darwinism aren’t based on the Bible. Please re-scan the previous sentence.

    My objections to Darwinism are based on many observations and discoveries demonstrating that Darwinism is a crappy, outdated, frequently falsified, scientific theory generated to rationalize racism and colonialism from 150 years ago. It’s about as scientific as phrenology and the blatantly racist and genocidal eugenics movement against indigenous peoples started in 1883 by Charles Darwin’s cousin that was directly inspired by Darwinism. You need to own that.

    There’s NOTHING in my comments that you can quote, in which I claim that Archbishop Ussher’s view of Genesis is something “I own.”

    And you’ve evaded everything concrete that I posted shredding your hopeless position and demonstrating that your Darwinism is a religion to you, not science. Let’s see whether you can prove otherwise.

    -Q

  27. 27
    Querius says:

    P.S. And while you’re at it, check out this article from Nature:

    Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
    https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

    -Q

  28. 28
    jerry says:

    NOMA is Gould’s separation of church and state.

    Non-overlapping magisteria.

  29. 29
    chuckdarwin says:

    No, Jerry. NOMA is SJG’s concept to segregate science and religion. Given how freely Querius opines on evolution, I’m surprised at his unfamiliarity with the term.

  30. 30
    jerry says:

    No, Jerry. NOMA is SJG’s concept to segregate science and religion

    How stupid can one get?

    You missed my sarcasm about what NOMA meant. I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either. Nobody else here does.

  31. 31
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @29,

    No, Jerry. NOMA is SJG’s concept to segregate science and religion. Given how freely Querius opines on evolution, I’m surprised at his unfamiliarity with the term.

    Actually, I’m familiar with the concept, but not with the acronym. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    The independence model holds that science and religion explore separate domains that ask distinct questions. Stephen Jay Gould developed an influential independence model with his NOMA principle (“Non-Overlapping Magisteria”)

    But in thinking about this, I can agree more with the dialogue model:

    The dialogue model proposes a mutualistic relationship between religion and science.

    But in thinking about it, I’m aware of a number of examples of demonstrable overlap.

    – I’ve already mentioned the comparison of the current description of the scientific method with a nearly identical instantiated description in the Bible written about 2,600 years ago.

    – More directly, what do you do with this published report?
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234287/

    And you still haven’t responded to the information in my previous comments.

    -Q

  32. 32
    Belfast says:

    Jerry writes, “I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either. Nobody else here does.”
    That is not a prudent thing to write.
    Part of the evolutionary paradigm is that development, after life begins, is a long-drawn-out gradual process of minute changes and that the fossil record will show intermediate or transitional (part-way) forms before arriving at a stable form. Unquestionably, though, present data shows no prevalent pattern of gradual, minor, changes in the fossil record; instead, large gaps are observed.
    This disconcerting observation led to a dramatic contradiction of a significant part of the evolution paradigm, namely, gaps are now to be expected.
    The most important paper setting out that gaps are now to be expected, punctuated equilibria, is the hugely influential essay ‘Models in Paleobiology’ by Niles Eldridge and Steven J Gould.
    That paper oddly begins with an ‘Editorial Introduction’ which states, “throughout the paper runs a larger and more important lesson: a priori theorems often determine the results of “empirical” studies before the first shred of evidence is collected. This idea, that theory dictates what one sees, cannot be stated too strongly.”
    One way of interpreting the editorial introduction is that the editor warns that the two authors seek to do particularly what he warns against generally; in this specific case that they argue that they look at unavailability of evidence with an a priori belief of the paradigm of evolution.
    In the paper, Eldridge and Gould proposed that the missing gradual little steps in the fossil record showed what they called ‘punctuated equilibria’ a term to mean that that this organism evolved from that organism but the transition happened too quickly in each case for preservation of fossils.
    The authors put the case so:- “The extreme scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”
    Now, depending on source, the Burgess Shale covers a period of 5 million to 20 million years but taking the lowest figure, no transitionals are seen in the Burgess Shale because 5 million years is too short a time to show the intermediate fossils.
    Put differently, punctuated equilibria is a theory with a promise that missing evidence will be found one day. When found, it will explain why the fossil record is incomparably better at recording fossils of organisms than at recording fossils of intermediate forms of organisms.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    That ChuckyD would try to hold Christians to a YEC interpretation of the Bible, and that he would be upset that Christians would, none-the-less, find significant overlap between empirical science and Christianity, is laughable. ChuckyD’s own Darwinian worldview, since he has no real-time empirical evidence for even a single functional protein arising by unguided Darwinian processes,,,,

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    To the extent that Tawfik’s selection experiments were successful, it is because mutations were localized and contextualized. Mutation had a key but confined role. If evolution proceeded, the prevailing architecture of the active sites and protein shapes nonetheless remains intact. Changes were not to central structures, but to peripheral loops. A great deal of flexibility was discovered. Still, it is hard to see how any of this could build proteins—that is, in the sense of building their fundamental shapes, or scaffolds; and build proteins in terms of explaining the key catalytic strategies of each active site. Even in the impressive demonstration of a transition through nine orders of magnitude, in which a full exchange of a promiscuous activity for the primary activity was seen, the overall geometry of the protein was unchanged, and, although substrates had changed, the fundamental active site strategy stayed the same. ,,,
    “Modern neo-Darwinism and neutral evolutionary treatments,” remark Leonard Bogarad and Michael Deem, “fail to explain satisfactorily the generation of the diversity of life found on our planet.” It is not that they did not evolve, they say, but that “… most theoretical treatments of evolution consider only the limited point-mutation events that form the basis of these theories.” Their sober conclusion is that “point mutation alone is incapable of evolving systems with substantially new protein folds.”60,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    ChuckyD’s own Darwinian worldview, since he has no real-time empirical evidence, happens to be crucially, even vitally, dependent on faulty theological presuppositions. (Which should not be surprising since all of modern science is itself vitally dependent on essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions; see Stephen Meyer, “Return of the God Hypothesis”)

    From when Darwin first wrote “Origin”,,,

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo/

    To today, evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going.

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Without faulty theological presuppositions, Darwinian arguments simply collapse in on themselves,

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    As Dr. Cornelius Hunter noted, instead of a empirical science that is subject to testing, Darwinian is, in reality, best thought of as a “theological research program.”

    Evolution as a Theological Research Program – by Cornelius Hunter – August 2021
    Abstract
    Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution interacted with non-empirical factors including a range of theological concerns. The influence of these theological concerns is typically modeled as secondary to that of empirical evidence. In both Darwin’s thought and later development of the theory of evolution, theological concerns have been viewed as serving in a range of possible roles. However, the theological concerns have consistently been viewed as, ultimately, subservient to empirical science. In the end, science has the final say regarding the content and evaluation of the theory. Here, this paper demonstrates the failure of this model. Theological concerns do have primacy over the science. They motivate the development of evolutionary theory, and they control the interpretation of the empirical evidence and justification of the theory. It is more accurate to view evolution as a theological research program.
    Introduction Excerpt:
    ,,, theological claims are common in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), where they are essential to his science. The religion is not a tangential message, and one need not read between the lines to see it. In the Origin, it would not be an exaggeration to say the religion drives the science. Darwin’s religion is not merely present, it is prominent and has primacy over the science. The religion is foundational.
    The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm

    In fact, as Dr. Hunter noted elsewhere, the only thing that is not forfeitable in Darwin’s theory is atheistic naturalism itself, other than that, and as far as empirical evidence is concerned, anything goes.

    There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution” – Cornelius Hunter – November 10, 2022
    Excerpt: What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right?
    Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation.
    Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature.
    So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one.
    Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on.
    But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now.
    There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false.
    – Dr. Cornelius Hunter – PhD. Biophysics
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/

    Darwin’s theory, at least how Darwinists treat their theory, is simply not falsifiable by empirical observation. Here are few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply ignore as if they do not matter,

    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 be 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, (i.e. 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 are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – link to defense of each claim
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/

    Thus ChuckyD complaint that Christians ignore empirical evidence that falsifies a YEC interpretation of the Bible is laughable and is the height of hypocrisy. ChuckyD’s own Darwinian worldview has been repeatedly falsified many times over by numerous lines of evidence. All to no avail, since, in reality, as Dr. Cornelius Hunter pointed out, Darwinian evolution is, first and foremost, a ‘theological research program’ that is vitally dependent on false theological presuppositions, and the only thing that is not forfeitable in Darwinian evolution, the only thing that is truly mandated in the theory, is atheistic naturalism itself. Other than that, and as far as empirical science is concerned, anything goes.

    In short, Darwin evolution is certainly NOT a empirical science that is subject to empirical falsification, but is, in reality, nothing but the religion of atheistic naturalism masquerading as a empirical science.

    Verse:

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

  34. 34
    jerry says:

    That is not a prudent thing to write

    But, no one here understands punctuated equilibrium.

    It is a mechanism not an outcome. I have explained it a couple of times here and no one has picked up on it. It was pointed to by Alan MacNeil several years ago who believed in it.

    Hint: a few years after his death a journal of evolutionary biology devoted an entire issue to Gould. The opening article of this issue describes the mechanism of punctuated equilibrium in detail.

    Aside: I have said several times that this mechanism cannot explain Evolution. And there is a straightforward research approach that would solve the issue forever. It would also destroy Darwinian processes as a mechanism for Evolution. But no one is interested.

    The most important question is why.

    Everyone here focuses on Darwinian processes which are real and accepted by ID but cannot explain Evolution. Best examples are his finches.

    Punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to overcome the obvious shortcomings of Darwinian processes to explain Evolution. But it too is lacking in explanatory power.

        Let’s go Finches!

  35. 35
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77
    One of the nice things about the transition from vinyl records to CDs and MP3s is that we didn’t have to listen to broken records any longer. I think it’s time for you to update your technology and spare us all your collection of broken records…….

  36. 36
    jerry says:

    the transition from vinyl records

    Vinyl is back.

    It gives better sound.

    Question: Is ChuckDarwin a broken vinyl?

  37. 37
    chuckdarwin says:

    Vinyl is back for like the next ten minutes. A fad is a fad–just like ID…..

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD repeats, like a broken record no less, the same refuted Darwinian lies over and over again, and then complains when someone bothers to repeatedly show that his endlessly repeated lies are bunk, and indeed that those endlessly repeated lies can actually be used against his Darwinian worldview with much greater effectiveness than they can be used against Christianity. In this case, Darwinists constantly making false religious claims in order make up for the fact that they have no real-time empirical evidence to support their atheistic worldview.

    ChuckyD may not like the sound of my music, but refuting endlessly repeated Darwinian lies with the truth is sweet music to my ears.

    Oh What a Glorious Night-Sidewalk Prophets
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aGLV5CfoTU

    Aaron Shust – O Come O Come Emmanuel –
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdrRueJjqo0

    Ode To Joy – 4 Guys, 3 min, 2 cellos, 1 piano – ThePianoGuys – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17GLE-16_3g

    Jackie Evancho – The First Noel
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FEC9BJNU

    John Tesh • We Three Kings • Christmas in Positano, Italy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJbfLcD9O9s

    Joy Williams – 2000 Decembers ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W8K3OhxVSw

    Pentatonix – Angels We Have Heard On High – A Capella
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAMzAIH12yc

    Third Day – Manger Throne
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CbWXf1Gw-w

    Verse:

    Psalm 150: 1-6
    Hallelujah!a
    Praise God in His sanctuary.
    Praise Him in His mighty heavens.
    Praise Him for His mighty acts;
    praise Him for His excellent greatness.
    Praise Him with the sound of the horn;
    praise Him with the harp and lyre.
    Praise Him with tambourine and dancing;
    praise Him with strings and flute.
    Praise Him with clashing cymbals;
    praise Him with resounding cymbals.
    Let everything that has breath praise the LORD!
    Hallelujah!

  39. 39
    Blastus says:

    Dissenting voices provide a needful foil.

    On rare occasions I find myself agreeing with a statement made by someone who does not share my worldview. Chuck Darwin writes @8:

    “Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity …”.

    With that statement I agree wholeheartedly.

    And I must confess to being a “young earth creationist”. I agree with plant geneticist John Sanford at the 4:20+- mark of this video of his interview by James Tour:

    https://youtu.be/i-y_dmi_oF4

    Yet, if I understand the purpose of this Uncommon Descent website, it is not for us to debate the accuracy of or any interpretation of the Bible (there are many other websites which serve that purpose), but instead to focus on the scientific evidence and reasoning for and against intelligent design, as well as the reasoning for and against the viewpoint that everything we see around us has a materialist explanation.

    I am thankful for the opportunity to check on this site and see recent scientific findings and interpretations announced and debated.

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Vinyl is back.

    It gives better sound.

    It gives a different sound than a pure digital recording and playback. But, I should think, a good equaliser could reproduce the ‘warmer’ tones of vinyl. Me, I’m tired of playing albums until they’re white and having to buy them again.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    Jerry: But, no one here understands punctuated equilibrium. It is a mechanism not an outcome.

    Actually, it’s neither:

    In evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory that proposes that once a species appears in the fossil record, the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history. This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

    Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted with phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolution generally occurs uniformly by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).

    Punctuated equilibrium is an explanation for what is sometimes seen in the fossil record: long periods of stability ‘punctuated’ by briefer periods of change. But, as Dr Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the real difference between PuncEq and classical gradualism is the speed at which change occurs.

  42. 42
    Sir Giles says:

    WRT vinyl vs digital, there are a few things that trigger memories. Things like music and smells. They are so powerful that when we hear a digital version of a song that triggers a powerful memory, we get an emotional reaction when it doesn’t have the same crackles and pops that our vinyl did.

  43. 43
    jerry says:

    So far, no one can explain punctuated equilibrium.

    Proves my point. It is based on a mechanism. I gave a hint as to how to find out what this mechanism is all about.

    Obviously no one here knows nor do the writers of the articles that are cited.

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Punctuated Equilibrium is a bed time story that Stephen Jay Gould told himself, and other Darwinists, so as to make the big bad wolf of a fossil record quit huffing and puffing, and threatening to blow their Darwinian house of cards down

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really Says – video (2021)
    https://youtu.be/V15sjy7gtVM?t=1009

    Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs
    The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    https://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html

  45. 45
    Querius says:

    Belfast @32,

    Thank you for your articulate, cogent observations! Here are some comments:

    Part of the evolutionary paradigm is that development, after life begins, is a long-drawn-out gradual process of minute changes and that the fossil record will show intermediate or transitional (part-way) forms before arriving at a stable form. Unquestionably, though, present data shows no prevalent pattern of gradual, minor, changes in the fossil record; instead, large gaps are observed.

    Exactly! If Darwinian evolution were true, then both the fossil record and extant species would display innumerable features in progress and features in decline. Instead, they are significantly and unexpectedly absent.

    The most important paper setting out that gaps are now to be expected, punctuated equilibria, is the hugely influential essay ‘Models in Paleobiology’ by Niles Eldridge and Steven J Gould. That paper oddly begins with an ‘Editorial Introduction’ which states, “throughout the paper runs a larger and more important lesson: a priori theorems often determine the results of “empirical” studies before the first shred of evidence is collected. This idea, that theory dictates what one sees, cannot be stated too strongly.”

    Indeed! In psychology, this phenomenon is termed “situational/inattentional/change blindness” and “selective attention.” Numerous and sometimes hilarious experimental confirmations have been performed (the first one is iconic–you have to pay REALLY CLOSE attention):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrrVozZR2c

    In the paper, Eldridge and Gould proposed that the missing gradual little steps in the fossil record showed what they called ‘punctuated equilibria’ a term to mean that that this organism evolved from that organism but the transition happened too quickly in each case for preservation of fossils.

    For ideological reasons alone, this interpretation was immediately embraced in Marxist circles. Such ideologically based uncritical acceptance is ubiquitous and all too human!

    The authors put the case so:- “The extreme scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”

    For this reason alone, punctuated equilibrium could be properly termed “closet creationism.”

    Thank you again!

    -Q

  46. 46
    Querius says:

    Blastus @39,

    Dissenting voices provide a needful foil.

    Agreed. It provides an opportunity to expose some of the more egregious fallacies of Darwinian evolution and various misunderstandings and disingenuous accusations against ID.

    Chuckdarwin wrote: “Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity …”.

    Notice that Chuckdarwin mocks a literal Adam and Eve, but uncritically accepts literal mitochondrial versions of the concept of a common ancestor for all humanity! When this was pointed out to him, he fled, hiding behind a flurry of fatuous comments.

    And I must confess to being a “young earth creationist”. I agree with plant geneticist John Sanford at the 4:20+- mark of this video of his interview by James Tour:
    https://youtu.be/i-y_dmi_oF4

    As a person of Biblical faith, I accept the Genesis narrative completely, which does not pretend to be a scientific account, but provides an important set of perspectives. It also functions as a polemic against ridiculous mythological accounts of wars between gods and goddesses involving dismemberment and repurposed body parts.

    As a scientifically oriented person, I recognize that my acceptance of Genesis does not obviate my interest and curiosity of HOW things work, uncovering the spectacular love and design brilliance in the creative power of YHWH!

    By analogy, students of ancient history will read that Alexander the Great conquered the known world of his time. However, they don’t imagine that he accomplished this feat all by himself and all at once! They ask questions about HOW this military genius was able to accomplish this with a relatively small force and many details around his accomplishments, including the aftermath.

    Thank you so much for providing the link above! I’m watching it now.

    Yet, if I understand the purpose of this Uncommon Descent website, it is not for us to debate the accuracy of or any interpretation of the Bible (there are many other websites which serve that purpose), but instead to focus on the scientific evidence and reasoning for and against intelligent design, as well as the reasoning for and against the viewpoint that everything we see around us has a materialist explanation.

    Exactly!

    I am thankful for the opportunity to check on this site and see recent scientific findings and interpretations announced and debated.

    Same here. Thanks again!

    -Q

  47. 47
    Querius says:

    JVL @41,

    But, as Dr Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the real difference between PuncEq and classical gradualism is the speed at which change occurs.

    No, not the “real” difference. The “real difference” also includes a putative though inadequate mechanism for gradualism and the non-existent Magical MUSTA ™ mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.

    -Q

  48. 48
    relatd says:

    Blastus at 39,

    Then you miss the entire pint of UD. Once design was established as a property of all living things, Darwinism is no longer true. It is no longer an accurate description of reality. You also miss the point of the science. Scientific research does not stay in the lab. It is applied. So, if a scientist tells you that you are designed, what do you do with this information? Nothing? The average person takes the next step: Average people identify the designer. It is God. Now, this is extremely dangerous. It can and will lead to public school textbooks that mention design. This puts atheism at risk. Once more people understand ID, atheists can only deny God, not design.

    To put it another way, ID as science, cannot name the designer. Average people can. The Catholic Church can. That is why you see religion combined with science.

  49. 49
    jerry says:

    Still no one understands punctuated equilibrium.

    Punctuated equilibrium predicts breaks in the fossil records. So what is seen there supports punctuated equilibrium. Allen MacNeil who used to comment here frequently said Darwinian processes were debunked. He believed in punctuated equilibrium.

    So those trying to associate punctuated equilibrium with Darwinian Evolution are barking up the wrong tree.

    Again, I am not promoting punctuated equilibrium, just an understanding of what it is. It is similar to Darwinian Evolution in some ways but extremely different in other ways. For example, both predict long time periods for significant change to happen, but Darwinian processes are genetics and punctuated equilibrium is not.

    The same research approach will debunk both theories.

    the non-existent Magical MUSTA ™ mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.

    Punctuated equilibrium has a very real mechanism, one that ID accepts because it’s observable in nature. It just doesn’t produce what is claimed.

  50. 50
    Querius says:

    Jerry @49,

    Punctuated equilibrium has a very real mechanism, one that ID accepts because it’s observable in nature. It just doesn’t produce what is claimed.

    Really? So what’s the mechanism that produces punctuated equilibrium, supposedly presenting fully evolved features in a short-enough time frame to elude fossil evidence?

    Let me again assert that punctuated equilibrium is actually closet creationism. After all, the observed results are identical.

    -Q

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    Jerry: So far, no one can explain punctuated equilibrium.

    I did give you the definition of punctuated equilibrium. There is no ‘mechanism’ beyond inheritable variation and different types of selection to explain.

    For example, both predict long time periods for significant change to happen, but Darwinian processes are genetics and punctuated equilibrium is not.

    That is completely false. They both depend on heritable variation which is genetics.

    Have you actually read stuff that Gould wrote about punctuated equilibrium? It’s all well and good for you to choose to interpret things a certain way but if you’re going to discuss an idea promulgated by someone else then you must first look to their definitions and explanations as opposed to your own.

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    Querius: No, not the “real” difference. The “real difference” also includes a putative though inadequate mechanism for gradualism and the non-existent Magical MUSTA ™ mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.

    Clearly that is not what Gould and Eldridge were thinking when they proposed punctuated equilibrium. I’m not sure why you think the basic mechanism has to change.

  53. 53
    JVL says:

    Relatd: To put it another way, ID as science, cannot name the designer.

    Why? Maybe not the particular individual but the type of being. Just like archaeology can look at the pyramids of Giza, consider all the evidence, and conclude that human beings that lived around 2500 BC were responsible for constructing those edifices surely ID can make similar proclamations after looking at the available data.

  54. 54
    JVL says:

    Querius: As a person of Biblical faith, I accept the Genesis narrative completely, which does not pretend to be a scientific account, but provides an important set of perspectives. It also functions as a polemic against ridiculous mythological accounts of wars between gods and goddesses involving dismemberment and repurposed body parts.

    You seem to be taking a nuanced approach, which makes sense. What insights into the actual events surrounding the beginning of life on Earth do you think the Biblical creation story provides? How can the Biblical narrative inform and enlighten us regarding what actually happened? How should the Biblical tale be compared with the scientific data that has heretofore been discerned?

  55. 55
    Belfast says:

    “I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either.”
    In the editorial introduction, the editor warned that Eldridge and Gould had offered no evidence for their hypothesis. Essentially, with no evidence themselves they affected to explain why there is no evidence.
    Darwin in ‘Evolution of Species’, explicitly stated he had no evidence but was confident the fossil record would vindicate his theory.
    It didn’t. So the authors completely removed this aspect of the theory so that, that instead of long slow changes, the changes happened too quickly to be recorded in the fossils.
    That any theory will undergo variation is scarcely unheard of, but it is passing rare that the broadest plank in the middle of the platform, the slow-tiny-changes-over-millennia plank, can be removed yet evolutionists will maintain that the platform remains to carry its load.
    Worse, evolutionists maintain that the plank is still there, it’s just that we can’t see it!

  56. 56
    jerry says:

    So what’s the mechanism that produces punctuated equilibrium

    There are two main ones.

    One produces new information in the genome. MacNeil called the mechanism, engines of variation. Nothing really new here except where the variation takes place. There are about 50 of these sources of variation and they affect all parts of the genome. Slowly over time, part of the non-coding part of the genome changes until at some time an area becomes coding and interacts with other coding areas to produce something new. Could take millions of years.

    People tend to focus on changes to the coding parts of the genome and then it is Darwinian change or genetics. Changes here will be subject to the viability of the organism because they will already be coding.

    Then the second mechanism takes place and is called exaptation. Punctuated equilibrium is about changes to the non-coding areas and not subject to the restrictions of genetics.

    The theory is that after a long time the changes will produce something new and will be exapted and then subject to natural selection. If successful, it will often appear as a sudden change to species.

    A special edition of the journal Paleobiology was issued in 2006 in honor of Gould. The first article was

    Disparity, adaptation, exaptation, bookkeeping, and contingency at the genome level

    Jürgen Brosius
    Journal: Paleobiology / Volume 31 / Issue S2 / 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2016, pp. 1-16
    Print publication: 2005

    Abstract

    The application of molecular genetics, in particular comparative genomics, to the field of evolutionary biology is paving the way to an enhanced “New Synthesis.” Apart from their power to establish and refine phylogenies, understanding such genomic processes as the dynamics of change in genomes, even in hypothetical RNA-based genomes and the in vitro evolution of RNA molecules, helps to clarify evolutionary principles that are otherwise hidden among the nested hierarchies of evolutionary units. To this end, I outline the course of hereditary material and examine several issues including disparity, causation, or bookkeeping of genes, adaptation, and exaptation, as well as evolutionary contingency at the genomic level–issues at the heart of some of Stephen Jay Gould’s intellectual battlegrounds. Interestingly, where relevant, the genomic perspective is consistent with Gould’s agenda. Extensive documentation makes it particularly clear that exaptation plays a role in evolutionary processes that is at least as significant as–and perhaps more significant than–that played by adaptation.

    This is the theory behind punctuated equilibrium.

    Again, I doubt it has produced anything of consequence but the theory if true explains the sudden appearances in the fossil record. It like Darwinian Evolution is easily tested with the right research programs. Both Darwinian Evolution and punctuated equilibrium would leave forensic trails if true in the various genomes of related species.

  57. 57
    Querius says:

    Belfast @55,
    Thank you for the additional background. It reinforces my view that punctuated equilibrium was originally proposed as a Magical MUSTA ™ and was equivalent to closet creationism.

    Jerry @56,
    Thank you as well for the additional background on the recognition of the above, and what I’d consider an honest attempt to hypothesize genetic mechanisms that might take millions of years before suddenly manifesting in the phenome. It occurs to me that should such a mechanism be discovered, it could also account for novel epigenetic options.

    The possible use of portions of what was previously assumed to be useless “junk” DNA as a genetic scratchpad is possible . . . at least those parts that are not already involved in the immune system and other recently discovered non-coding DNA functions.

    Still missing are:

    1. A viable, observed mechanism that produces non-random directed variation. Random chance is unlikely to produce, for example, echolocation ex nihilo.

    2. A viable, observed mechanism that evaluates when, perhaps after millions of years, that a novel feature is ready to be expressed. Or perhaps, such genetic changes emerge automatically at very infrequent intervals as genetic analogues of “hopeful monsters.”

    3. Observed punctuated features in progress that are nearly ready to be expressed.

    Although horizontal gene transfer might be a better alternative, all of these seem worthy subjects of further investigation in my humble opinion.

    As to leaving genetic trails, that was the hypothesis of Susumu Ohno in his 1972 “So much ‘Junk DNA’ in Our Genome” paper. Maybe, such trails will be discovered in the future after all.

    -Q

  58. 58
    es58 says:

    Jerry wrote: The theory is that after a long time the changes will produce something new and will be exapted and then subject to natural selection

    Sounds like making thousands of software changes without any testing, then trying it all at once? If so, would be like pure luck, which seems less rigorous than darwinism version.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    Reductive Materialism, and with it Genetic Reductionism, i.e. the belief that the ‘blueprint’ of an organism’s ‘biological form’ somehow resides in the genetic instructions of DNA, and that random changes to DNA can then therefore, somehow, in a ‘bottom-up’ fashion, account for the observed sudden appearances of brand new body plans in the fossil record, i.e. punctuated equilibrium, is now known to be a false belief.

    As Stephen Meyer put the insurmountable problem for Darwinists, “you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan.”

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not ensure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    – Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video – 5:55 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/hs4y4XLGQ-Y?t=354

    There simply is no ‘blueprint’ for ‘biological form’ in DNA as is presupposed in the genetic reductionism model of Darwinian evolution. As Antony Jose stated, “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life, It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times.”

    “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life,”
    DNA may not be life’s instruction book—just a jumbled list of ingredients – Kimbra Cutlip, University of Maryland – APRIL 22, 2020
    Excerpt: The common view of heredity is that all information passed down from one generation to the next is stored in an organism’s DNA. But Antony Jose, associate professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, disagrees.
    In two new papers, Jose argues that DNA is just the ingredient list, not the set of instructions used to build and maintain a living organism.,,,
    ,,, “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life,” Jose said. “It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times.”
    ,,, In addition, scientists are unable to determine the complex shape of an organ such as an eye, or that a creature will have eyes at all, by reading the creature’s DNA. These fundamental aspects of anatomy are dictated by something outside of the DNA.
    https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingredients.html

    And as Jonathan Wells succinctly put the irresolvable dilemma for Darwinists, “I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”

    Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
    Excerpt: humans have a “few thousand” different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,,
    The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It’s called genomic mosaicism.
    In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,,
    ,,,(then) “genomic equivalence” — the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA — became the accepted view.
    I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common.
    I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93851.html

    Likewise, researchers, from Princeton University no less, express their amazement that, “It is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment.”

    Criticality in morphogenesis – September 17, 2013
    Excerpt: In many regards, a brief time-lapse video can teach more about embryonic development than any amount of reading. It is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment. While it had been hoped that concepts borrowed from statistical mechanics or the ideas of self-organized criticality could help to create some kind of physics-based theory of development, much of what has been done lies only at the level of metaphor. In a paper just released to ArXiv, William Bialek and his colleagues from Princeton University, have taken their search for the signature of criticality in a more specific direction. They looked at a particular set of transcription factors in Drosophila embryos which control spatiotemporal development. By analyzing fluctuations in the expression levels of these so-called gap genes, they found evidence for critical (fine) tuning in this particular network.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-09-c.....nesis.html

    In short, it is ‘biological form’ that dictates how the parts get used, it is not the ‘bottom-up’ parts that dictate what form the organism will take as is falsely presupposed within Darwinian theory.

    Perhaps the clearest experimental demonstration that DNA cannot possibly be the ‘blueprint’ of an organism’s ‘biological form’ is the following.

    As Stephen Talbott noted, “Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern.”

    What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011
    Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]”,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....nisms-mean

    In short, and in conclusion, the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution is at a complete loss to explain biological form in the first place, much less does Darwinism have any coherent explanation for how a ‘transformation of biological forms’ may take place.

    As Brian Miller noted, “life (is) “transcomputational” — beyond the realm of any theoretical means of computation”, and. “the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself” and “life is fundamentally different from simple physics and chemistry. It embodies the Aristotelian category of final causation, which is closely related to the idea of purpose. The conclusions of these scholars challenge materialistic philosophy at its core.”

    Intelligent Design and the Advancement of Science – Brian Miller – December 11, 2017
    Excerpt: DNA was expected to be the primary source of causality behind the operation and development of life. Such beliefs have previously raised concerns from leading scientists and mathematicians. For instance, physicist Walter Elsasser argued that the unfathomable complexity of the chemical and physically processes in life was “transcomputational” — beyond the realm of any theoretical means of computation. Moreover, the development of the embryo is not solely directed by DNA. Instead, it requires new “biotonic” principles. As a result, life cannot be reduced to chemistry and physics. An unbridgeable gap separates life from non-life.
    Similarly, mathematician René Thom argued that the 3D patterns of tissues in an organism’s development from egg to birth and their continuous transformation cannot be understood in terms of isolating the individual proteins generated by DNA and other molecules produced in cells. The problem is that the individual “parts” composing tissues and organs only take on the right form and function in the environment of those tissues and organs. More recent work by Denis Noble further has elucidated how every level of the biological hierarchy affects every other level, from DNA to tissues to the entire organism. Based partly on these insights, Thom concluded in his book Structural Stability and Morphogenesis that the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself” (p. 119). Likewise, Robert Rosen argued that life can only be understood as a mathematical abstraction consisting of functional relationships, irreducible to mechanistic processes. He observed that life is fundamentally different from simple physics and chemistry. It embodies the Aristotelian category of final causation, which is closely related to the idea of purpose. The conclusions of these scholars challenge materialistic philosophy at its core.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/intelligent-design-and-the-advancement-of-science/

    Verse:

    Psalm 139:16
    Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

  60. 60
    jerry says:

    Sounds like making thousands of software changes without any testing, then trying it all at once

    Except that the proponents claim they have discovered new coding sequences that arose this way.

    I have tried to get an evaluation of these claims by ID biologists but they went on deaf ears. My personal reaction to the claims for success is that they are too little to make any difference. Especially since DNA is probably not the place to find major changes in body plans.

    It should be evaluated but the odd thing is how little people in ID are aware of the claims. It’s exaptation not adaptation that is claimed as the major source for Evolution. Both are supported by ID but both are seemingly inadequate for anything major.

  61. 61
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @59

    Looking to the ideas of Talbott, Rosen, or Noble in support of the irreducibility of biology to physics is just too funny.

    I can pretty much guarantee that if you were to ask Stephen Talbott, Denis Noble, or J. Scott Turner what they think explains the irreducibility of biology to physics, they would all say something about emergence.

    And every time I mention their idea in support of an organism-centered biology that’s irreducible to physics, I get mocked and belittled here.

    If you were consistent, you would mock and belittle Talbott, Turner, or Noble if they were to show up here at all. You would attack them if they showed up here, so please stop pretending that you are on their side.

  62. 62
    jerry says:

    I get mocked and belittled here.

    As you should for proposing nonsense.

    The others you cite don’t bring this silliness here. Now, if one had repeatable examples, that would be different.

  63. 63
    Origenes says:

    PM1 @61

    I can pretty much guarantee that if you were to ask Stephen Talbott, Denis Noble, or J. Scott Turner what they think explains the irreducibility of biology to physics, they would all say something about emergence.

    And I know for a fact that Stephen Talbott is a Christian, who has no need for ’emergentism’ and who regards the irreducibility of biology to physics as a powerful argument against materialism.

  64. 64
    Seversky says:

    Origenes/63

    And I know for a fact that Stephen Talbott is a Christian, who has no need for ’emergentism’ and who regards the irreducibility of biology to physics as a powerful argument against materialism.

    Talbott is welcome to his opinion but our current inability to reduce biology to physics may be more a measure of our ignorance than a fundamental truth.

    What we observe is that living organisms are instantiations of the same matter and energy as the rest of the observable universe. As with consciousness, we have no credible examples of incorporeal living beings.

  65. 65
    Origenes says:

    Seversky @64

    Talbott is welcome to his opinion but our current inability to reduce biology to physics may be more a measure of our ignorance than a fundamental truth.

    On the contrary, to think that materialism can explain consciousness, freedom, rationality, and biology is a display of ignorance and shallow thinking. So, we are indeed dealing with a fundamental truth here.

    What we observe is that living organisms are instantiations of the same matter and energy as the rest of the observable universe.

    Aren’t you part of the ‘observable universe’? Can you observe your thoughts, your feelings, your intentions, the “I”? If so, tell me, do you observe ‘matter & energy’ anywhere when you observe your inner self?

  66. 66
    jerry says:

    we have no credible examples of incorporeal living beings.

    What would the world be like if we did have evidence of such beings?

    If there was an incorporeal existing being behind it all, would that being reveal themself? We also have no credible evidence that no such being exists or couldn’t exist. If such a being exists, it would explain a lot of things.

  67. 67
    Origenes says:

    “Brainless But Not Mindless”, article by T.M.Verny, ‘Psychology Today’.

    … they performed numerous scans of his head. What they discovered was a huge fluid-filled chamber occupying most of the space in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue. …. . Dr. Lionel Feuillet of Hôpital de la Timone in Marseille was quoted as saying, “The images were most unusual … the brain was virtually absent.” The patient was a married father of two children and worked as a civil servant apparently leading a normal life, despite having a cranium filled with spinal fluid and very little brain tissue.

    . . . . .

    …. science writer Roger Lewin reviewed a series of 600 cases by pediatrician John Lorber in England of people with hydrocephalus—an excess of cerebrospinal fluid, commonly known as water on the brain. In 60 of those cases, the fluid took up 95% of their cranium (skull), and yet, half of those had above-average IQs. Among them was a student with an IQ of 126 who received a first-class honors degree in mathematics and was deemed socially normal….

  68. 68
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @63

    And I know for a fact that Stephen Talbott is a Christian, who has no need for ’emergentism’ and who regards the irreducibility of biology to physics as a powerful argument against materialism.

    This suggests that his Christianity is either incompatible with emergentism or renders it unnecessary. I’m not sure why one would think either of those.

    As I see it, there aren’t too many options on the menu, philosophically speaking:

    1. scientific pluralism: we should reject the very idea that there’s a single metaphysical theory that unifies the sciences — instead, just accept that physics, chemistry, biology, etc are different sciences and they can’t be unified in a single comprehensive worldview.

    2. reductionist scientific monism: we can unify the sciences by reducing all the sciences to physics. Here we need some argument about why physics is privileged, and if it’s all of physics or just some of it. (I consider reductionism to be utterly unworkable, and I think I’ve been pretty clear about why.)

    3. non-reductionist monism: there is a single metaphysics that unifies the sciences, but it needs to account for the irreducibility of biology to physics (and arguably other kinds of irreducibility as well).

    3a. divine interventionism: the reason why biology is irreducible to physics is because biology requires a special kind of divine interference that physics does not require.

    3b. emergentism: the reason why biology is irreducible to physics is because nature exhibits dialectical transformations within itself that allow for the emergence of ontologically novel degrees of complexity and organization.

    As I see it, 3b is compatible with theism. That was Teilhard de Chardin’s view, as I understand it — it was certainly the position of Hans Jonas, and it’s mine as well.

  69. 69
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @62

    As you should for proposing nonsense.

    The others you cite don’t bring this silliness here. Now, if one had repeatable examples, that would be different.

    Fair enough, I do appreciate consistency.

    I’d appreciate it even more if you pushed back against bornagain77 whenever he mentions anti-reductionist organism-centered theoretical biologists (Talbott, Rosen, Turner, Noble) and also against Evolution News and Views for promoting them.

  70. 70
    Querius says:

    Just posted . . .

    Dr. Tour BURSTS Oil Bubble Chemistry and More – Cronin, Part 03
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3A8_ezYlZY

    Wow, this is amazing!

    -Q

Leave a Reply