Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Information and the First Cause

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Comments
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! -QQuerius
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
@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.PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
@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.PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
"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....
Origenes
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
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.jerry
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
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?Origenes
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
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.Seversky
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
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.Origenes
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
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.jerry
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
@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.PyrrhoManiac1
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
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.jerry
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
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/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.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-criticality-morphogenesis.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/publications/what-do-organisms-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.
bornagain77
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
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.es58
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Belfast @55, Thank you for the additional background. It reinforces my view that punctuated equilibrium was originally proposed as a Magical MUSTA (tm) 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. -QQuerius
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
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.jerry
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
"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!Belfast
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
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?JVL
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
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.JVL
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
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.JVL
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
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.JVL
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
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.jerry
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
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.relatd
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
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 (tm) mechanism for punctuated equilibrium. -QQuerius
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
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! -QQuerius
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
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! -QQuerius
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
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
bornagain77
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
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.jerry
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
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.Sir Giles
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
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.JVL
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply