Intelligent Design

Integrated complexity, instantiated to achieve a specific  function is  always caused and implemented by an  intelligent mind

Spread the love

Integrated complexity, instantiated to achieve a specific  function is  always caused and implemented by an  intelligent mind

Complexity, in special when implemented to achieve a specific purpose, has always only been observed to be the product of a mind. The more complex, the more evidence of design. In ID, complexity is more defined, when we talk about specified, and irreducible complexity. We see it in every living cell, combined. DNA hosts specified complexity, or in words, that can be better comprehended,  instructional assembly information.  EVERY protein, which is the product of the information stored in DNA, is irreducibly complex. In order to perform its basic function, it must have a minimal size. Unless it has it, no deal, no function.  On top of that, proteins are synthesized by the ribosome, depending on the specified complexity of the information stored in DNA.  So on top of irreducible complexity, there is an interdependence of specified, and irreducible complexity combined.

Specified complexity of information stored in DNA, dictates and directs the making of irreducible complex proteins, which all are made to perform a specific function in the cell. On top of that irreducible complexity, there are higher and higher layers of specified, and irreducible complexity. Signaling is essential in every cell, even in single cells, and protists, and was necessary for the first life form to emerge, no matter, what it was. Signals are carriers of information, that are also specified and complex. There has to be always a variegated number of signaling networks in operation, or no life. And there has to be a minimal number of proteins, for life to exist, or no deal. So, proteins are individually irreducible complex, and the cell and its proteome are irreducibly complex because a minimal number of proteins is required for life to exist.

Living cells are prime examples of irreducible and specified complexity, instantiated to perform a specific function. In order for there to be life, a minimal number of parts has to be there, fully implemented, and operational. All at once.

Graham Cairns-Smith:
We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms within which much of the machinery now found in all forms of life on Earth was already essentially fixed and, as part of that, hooked on today’s so-called ‘molecules of life’. This machinery is enormously sophisticated, depending for its operation on many collaborating parts. The multiple collaboration provides an explanation for why the present system is so frozen now and has been for so long.  So we are left wondering how the whole DNA/RNA/protein control system, on which evolution now so utterly depends, could itself have evolved. We can see that at the time of the common ancestor, this system must already have been fixed in its essentials, probably through a critical interdependence of subsystems. (Roughly speaking in a domain in which everything has come to depend on everything else nothing can be easily changed, and our central biochemistry is very much like that.

Albert-László Barabási:
Various types of interaction webs, or networks, (including protein-protein interaction, metabolic, signaling and transcription-regulatory networks) emerge from the sum of these interactions. None of these networks are independent, instead, they form a ‘network of networks that is responsible for the behavior of the cell. the architectural features of molecular interaction networks within a cell are shared to a large degree by other complex systems, such as the Internet, computer chips, and society.

Wilhelm Huck chemist , professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity

59 Replies to “Integrated complexity, instantiated to achieve a specific  function is  always caused and implemented by an  intelligent mind

  1. 1
    Origenes says:

    I became acquainted with the ID arguments about 10 years ago, and I am still in awe of their power. As far as I know, no one has been able to make a serious argument against them.

    Graham Cairns-Smith:
    We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms within which much of the machinery now found in all forms of life on Earth was already essentially fixed and, as part of that, hooked on today’s so-called ‘molecules of life’.

    No, we are no descendants of some ancient organisms or a group of organisms. Ditch evolution entirely, enough with the nonsense, something else is going on.

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    Ditch evolution entirely, enough with the nonsense, something else is going on.

    So the biology student asks the professor, “since we no longer believe in evolution, how do we get such a diversity of life?” The professor answers, “something else.” The student replies, “awesome.”
    Remember, it will be on the final. Class dismissed….

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    Origines

    I became acquainted with the ID arguments about 10 years ago, and I am still in awe of their power. As far as I know, no one has been able to make a serious argument against them.

    serious argument against ID ? :))))

    In last 10 years it got only worse for Darwinists … way worse …

    But let me speak about creationism.

    People like Seversky, Chuck and Co. sometimes forget, that creationism HAS NOT BEEN debunked yet – because it has not been demonstrated, that life can emerge spontaneously … Actually, it has not been demonstrated, that even the simplest building blogs of life can emerge spontaneously …

    What has been demonstrated, is, that it is extremely problematic to run even the simplest OoL-experiments without cheating …

    So I don’t understand, why creationists are the stupid ones …

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Otangelo, there are many ways to make the same basic point, which is a massively supported fact. Functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I for short], per observation and the fine tuning, islands of function pattern implicit in coordination of correct, matched, properly oriented, arranged and coupled parts, is only observed to come from intelligently directed configuration. On literally trillions of cases, including objecting comments made up of coherent text in English, etc. Same for the computers, phones, pens or pencils used to draft those objections. Same for the glasses worn by objectors and the clothes they wear, furniture, vehicles, houses etc they use, or the refineries that make the gas in their car tanks. Nor do we exhaust the possibility of such intelligent directors. The needle in haystack search challenge is readily seen from Orgel’s description length [an expression of Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity] or Wicken’s wiring diagram. Yes, FSCO/I was identified by OoL researchers in the 70’s, before a modern ID research programme emerged, and was a contributory factor, so much for a slanderous conspiracy theory courts have fallen for. Objectors have no answer to such facts but are full of hyperskeptical dismissiveness. This is because the world of life is full of such FSCO/I and the physics of the cosmos shows similar features. KF

  5. 5
    Origenes says:

    Chuckdarwin @

    Class dismissed….

    I suggest that biologists limit themselves to explaining how complex systems work. That will keep them busy for a while.

  6. 6
    Origenes says:

    Kairosfocus@

    Objectors have no answer to such facts ….

    Can you provide an overview of the best arguments against ID?

    Functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I for short], per observation and the fine tuning, islands of function pattern implicit in coordination of correct, matched, properly oriented, arranged and coupled parts, is only observed to come from intelligently directed configuration. On literally trillions of cases, including objecting comments made up of coherent text in English, etc. Same for the computers, phones, pens or pencils used to draft those objections.

    Has anyone been able to formulate a counter-argument that has kept you up at night?

  7. 7
    Origenes says:

    Martin_r @

    Actually, it has not been demonstrated, that even the simplest building blocks of life can emerge spontaneously …

    James Tour says that there is no known pathway to the building blocks of the building blocks of life.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    As to this claim, “We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms within which much of the machinery now found in all forms of life on Earth was already essentially fixed and, as part of that, hooked on today’s so-called ‘molecules of life’,,,”

    Well, actually, that claim that the machinery in life was ‘essentially fixed’ is now shown to be a false claim,

    Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 25, 2015
    Excerpt: In a previous report, we showed that a vast chasm exists between archaea and eukarya in regard to basic molecular machines involved in DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation. The differences in information processing mechanisms and systems are even greater between bacteria and eukarya, which we elaborate upon in this report. Based on differences in lineage-specific essential gene sets and in the vital molecular machines between bacteria and eukarya, we continue to demonstrate that the same unbridgeable evolutionary chasms exist—further invalidating the myth of eukaryogenesis.
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya/

    Sara Walker and Her Crew Publish the Most Interesting Biology Paper of 2022 (So Far, Anyway)
    Paul Nelson – April 5, 2022
    Excerpt: The lesson that Gagler et al. 2022 draw from this discovery? The pattern is NOT due to material descent from a single common ancestor, LUCA. Indeed, under the heading, “Universality in Scaling of Enzyme Function Is Not Explained by Universally Shared Components,” they explain that material descent from LUCA would entail shared “microscale features,” meaning “specific molecules and reactions used by all life,” or “shared component chemistry across systems.” ,,,
    But what Gagler et al. 2022 found was a macroscale pattern, “which does not directly correlate with a high degree of microscale universality,” and “cannot be explained directly by the universality of the underlying component functions.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/sara-walker-and-her-crew-publish-the-most-interesting-biology-paper-of-2022-so-far-anyway-2/

    As well, the fossil record itself is very antagonistic to the Darwinian claim of universal common decent,

    2022 – The entire fossil record, when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal, and with a heavy Darwinian bias as it is with human fossils, is VERY antagonistic to the entire Darwinian narrative.
    From the Cambrian explosion onward, the entire fossil record simply refuses to conform to Darwinian expectations.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141

    Moreover, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that it is even possible to gradually change the basic ‘biological form’ of an organism into a brand new ‘biological form’.

    As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, “Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.”

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

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

    In fact, Darwinists don’t even have a working scientific theory as to how biological form may be generated. As the following article noted, “Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,,
    At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.”

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

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    In spite of the fact that they have no evidence that it is, by mutating DNA, even possible to change the basic ‘biological form’ of a organism into a brand new ‘biological form’, (nor do they even have a working scientific theory as to how ‘biological form’ may be generated in the first place), Darwinists still presuppose that, “We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms,,,”

    To try to support that claim, many times Darwinists will claim that genetic comparisons of DNA sequences between different organisms prove this claim. Yet, as is usual with many Darwinian claims, this claim is found to be false. As Richard Bugs stated, “Dawkins’ statements are simply wrong. Gloriously and utterly wrong.”

    “The lay-person reading this, or watching the (Richard Dawkins) video above, is given the clear impression that every gene or pseudogene in every living organism gives essentially the same phylogenetic tree, when analysed with its homologs from other species. This is simply not true.
    If this were true, then phylogeny building in the genomic era would be a walk in the park. But, as many of my readers will know from personal experience, it is not.
    If this were true, terms like horizontal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, introgression, and molecular convergence would be rare curiosities in the genomic literature. But they are common (click on the links in the previous sentence to see searched for these terms on Google Scholar).
    If this were true, commonly-used phylogenetic software like ASTRAL, ASTRID and BUCKy, designed to deal with gene tree incongruence, would be seldom used. But they are used often.
    I hardly need to labour my point to the present audience. Dawkins’ statements are simply wrong. Gloriously and utterly wrong.”
    – Richard Buggs, “Obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution” at Nature: Ecology & Evolution – 2021

    In fact, “In 1965 one of the most important scientists of the last century, Linus Pauling, and biologist Emil Zuckerkandl,,, suggested a way that macroevolution could be tested and proved: If the comparison of anatomical and DNA sequences led to the same family tree of organisms, this would be strong evidence for macroevolution.7 According to them, only evolution would explain the convergence of these two independent chains of evidence. By implication, the opposite finding would count against macroevolution.“
    So what were the results? Over the past twenty-eight years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points. They do not converge.”

    Jonathan Witt: Why Is Common Descent A Better Explanation For The History Of Life Than Common Design?
    Excerpt: “In 1965 one of the most important scientists of the last century, Linus Pauling, and biologist Emil Zuckerkandl, considered by some as the father of molecular biology, suggested a way that macroevolution could be tested and proved: If the comparison of anatomical and DNA sequences led to the same family tree of organisms, this would be strong evidence for macroevolution.7 According to them, only evolution would explain the convergence of these two independent chains of evidence. By implication, the opposite finding would count against macroevolution.“
    So what were the results? Over the past twenty-eight years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points. They do not converge. Just as troubling for the idea of macroevolution, family trees based on different molecules yield conflicting and contradictory family trees. As a 2012 paper published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society reported, “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species” (emphasis in original).8
    Another paper, published the following year in the journal Nature, highlighted the extent of the problem.9 The authors compared 1,070 genes in twenty different yeasts and got 1,070 different trees.10
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-witt-why-is-common-descent-a-better-explanation-for-the-history-of-life-than-common-design/

    And this falsification of Darwinian expectations, (i.e. expectations for how the genetic evidence should line up in a tree like pattern), as Winston Ewert has now shown, has been a ‘hard falsification’ of Darwinian expectations.

    As Cornelius Hunter explained, the intelligent design model falsified the Darwinist’s common descent model by 10,064, 40,967 and 515,450 bits respectfully, and this is where 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence for a model.

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph (intelligent design) model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.,,,
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

    Moreover, although the genetic evidence is, to put it mildly, ‘uncooperative’ with Darwinian expectations, it gets worse for Darwinists.

    It turns out that the ‘operating systems’ that control gene expression are ‘species specific’.

    As the following paper states, “most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    In fact, due to alternative splicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,”

    Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016
    In Brief
    Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
    Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).
    http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/.....M_2016.pdf

    This finding of “perhaps a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification”
    is simply completely devastating to the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists and represents yet another ‘hard falsification’ of Darwinian expectations, and, on the other hand, this finding of ‘species specific’ operating systems are very comforting to the Christian’s contention that God created all the diversity of life on earth, as well as creating man, ‘according to their kind’.

    As Stephen Meyer himself noted, “the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,”

    An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer
    TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve?
    SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,
    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/.....-conflict/

    Thus in conclusion, the Darwinian belief in universal common descent is contradicted by the empirical evidence itself, and is contradicted by the empirical evidence on many different levels.

    Verse:

    Genesis 1:25-26
    God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
    Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    Origenes, after about fifteen years, I have found no cogent objections, in the context of inference to the best explanation. If there were a truly solid argument on observation that FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits can be and is routinely produced by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, I would have long since accepted that. What I have consistently seen is an entrenched orthodoxy and a question begging lockout. Years ago cases such as pendulum to clock were put up but all failed, and the evolutionary algorithms load in active, designer supplied information inadequate to find fine tuned islands of function rather than hill climb within such islands. The recent push of emergentism still fails to escape the poof magic something from nothing problem, it is a disguised concession on the substance designed to shore up a failed orthodoxy. KF

  11. 11
    Origenes says:

    Kairosfocus @10

    … after about fifteen years, I have found no cogent objections, in the context of inference to the best explanation.

    One advantage of a naturalistic ‘explanation’ seems to be that, as opposed to intelligence, matter is a tangible understandable thing—setting aside the profound enigmas of quantum mechanics, and the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, for a moment. We do not understand how intelligence interacts with the world. We do not even understand how we produce our posts on this forum …
    Then again, the existence of intelligence is a brute fact for all of us, and several arguments convincingly show that intelligence cannot be reduced to blind particles in the void.

    If there were a truly solid argument that FSCO/I can be and is routinely produced by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, I would have long since accepted that.

    Mechanical necessity, a totally determined universe that produces life, would not even be an argument against ID, because such a universe would be front-loaded with information. As an aside, the concept is self-defeating. Such a universe would imply that all our thoughts are also determined by something beyond our control, which would mean that we are not rational.

    It is clear to most, including naturalists, that matter is not aimed at producing life (or rationality). Therefore the most trodden pathway is ‘blind chance’. Here the ID arguments operate very convincingly. For instance, Dembski absolutely destroys Dawkins.

    What I have consistently seen is an entrenched orthodoxy and a question begging lockout. The recent push of emergentism still fails to escape the poof magic something from nothing problem, it is a disguised concession on the substance designed to shore up a failed orthodoxy.

    I agree. Perhaps the idea that consciousness emerges out of FSCO/I makes intuitive sense to some, but no one seriously considers that FSCO/I itself, let’s say a watch, somehow emerges ‘naturalistically’ without the input of work by an intelligence.

  12. 12
    Origenes says:

    Ontangelo @

    EVERY protein, which is the product of the information stored in DNA, is irreducibly complex. In order to perform its basic function, it must have a minimal size. Unless it has it, no deal, no function.

    Is it the case that for every protein goes that “the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”? My question is based on Behe’s definition of ‘irreducibly complex’:

    By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. [Behe, ‘Darwin’s Black Box’]

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    Origenes @5

    I suggest that biologists limit themselves to explaining how complex systems work.

    This is a very bad idea … a biologist — natural science graduate — is not qualified for this …. Remember all those bad design claims and/or vestigial organs claims ?

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Origenes, that depends on our understanding of explanation. Once agency is accepted as our first fact, and we recognise that we have freedom [within broad limits], then agent action is a reasonable explanation for our posts and many other things. We choose to write using our knowledge. How mind and matter interface is likely quantum influence and I have pointed to the Smith, two tier controller cybernetic loop as a first point. KF

    PS, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity opens up dynamic-stochastic models.

  15. 15
    chuckdarwin says:

    Martin_r/3
    It’s hard to debunk something undefined. What exactly do you mean by “creationism?” Young earth? Old earth? Special vs. general creation? Instantaneous vs. gradual? Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist?
    The same with terms like “complexity.” It is a completely relative term. To a lay person, the inside of a Swiss movement watch looks incomprehensibly complex, to a watch maker it is simple. But given time and study, the lay person can learn what the parts are and how they work, rather than throwing their arms up and whining “irreducible complexity.”
    In the early 20th century we didn’t even know DNA existed. In 1953, the chemical composition and structure of DNA was described (by biologists, not engineers). Fifty years later, in 2003 the entire human genome had been mapped (by biologists, not engineers), an astonishing accomplishment. No resort to creationism or “intelligent design” was necessary, just basic research. What Kuhn called “normal science.”
    Neither “creationism” nor “intelligent design” has contributed one whit to the basic sciences……….

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, you could easily confirm that since Orgel, description length in a compact description language has been a useful metric of complexity, reducible to bits. That is, we point to Kolmogorov-Chaitin. KF

  17. 17
    EugeneS says:

    For note:

    The popular evolutionary arguments are systematically laid out and debunked in this book:

    R. Marks, W.Dembski, W.Ewert: Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Evolutionary-Informatics-Robert-Marks/dp/9813142146

    What is particularly useful is that it is written by engineers, not by biologists or mathematicians. It is engineers whose job it is to create complex things, often from scratch, and make them work in practice. It is worth listening to what the authors have to say about the insurmountable challenges unguided evolution is facing in the real world.

  18. 18
    Origenes says:

    CD @15

    In the early 20th century we didn’t even know DNA existed. In 1953, the chemical composition and structure of DNA was described (by biologists, not engineers). Fifty years later, in 2003 the entire human genome had been mapped (by biologists, not engineers), an astonishing accomplishment. No resort to creationism or “intelligent design” was necessary, just basic research. What Kuhn called “normal science.”

    Also, no resort to naturalism was necessary. Indeed, excellent “normal” scientific work; just discover what is there and try to understand how it works. Again, I suggest not engaging in nonsensical naturalistic speculations about origins.

  19. 19
    Origenes says:

    EugeneS @17

    What is particularly useful is that it is written by engineers, not by biologists or mathematicians. It is engineers whose job it is to create complex things, often from scratch, and make them work in practice. It is worth listening to what the authors have to say about the insurmountable challenges unguided evolution is facing in the real world.

    Nice quote from “Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics”, R. Marks, W.Dembski, W.Ewert :

    Rather than placing a theory or ideology on the throne like a Queen as scientists and philosophers often do, engineers make the Queen come down from the throne and scrub the floor. And if she doesn’t work, she is fired.

  20. 20
    martin_r says:

    CD

    It’s hard to debunk something undefined.

    it is not hard …

    The main concept is pretty simple.
    Creationism is from Creation.
    Creation of life.

    You guys have to demonstrate, that life was not CREATED.

    So simple it is.

    So far you failed big way.

    Of course, you never will debunk creation, because your OoL-guys use GOLD ALCHEMISTS methods to re-create the most sophisticated technology on this planet :)))))))))))))))

  21. 21
    martin_r says:

    CD,

    Fifty years later, in 2003 the entire human genome had been mapped (by biologists, not engineers), an astonishing accomplishment.

    Look at this picture …

    https://www.pmi.org/kasimage/a9072463-a134-4fa4-9255-a06bf93b128f/1.jpg

    Do you see all those big boxes, LCD screens, cables, pipes, etc etc ?

    These are called DNA sequencers …

    Are you saying, that the sequencers were designed by biologists ?

  22. 22
    chuckdarwin says:

    According to wiki, the inventor of the first DNA sequencer was Lloyd M. Smith, a biochemist…..

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    “the chemical composition and structure of DNA was described (by biologists, not engineers).”

    So biologists, not engineers, designed and built the X-ray camera that allowed biologists to see what DNA actually looked like?

    X-ray crystallography is a scientific field concerned with revealing the structure of matter at the atomic level.
    The essential method involves exposing a crystallised sample of a molecule to x-rays, usually with an instrument called an x-ray camera.
    The resulting photograph shows the pattern of diffracted x-rays as they passed through the crystal, from which scientists can then visually map its molecular structure using mathematics (now done using a computer).
    https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/chemistry/x-ray-crystallography-revealing-our-molecular-world

    As the late Philip Sell noted, “From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,”

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    – Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    Moreover, just looking at DNA gives the overwhelming impression that DNA is designed. And certainly does not invoke the response of “Golly gee whiz, DNA must have evolved by mindless processes.”

    Cross section of DNA compared to Rose window
    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/426082814728642758/

    Just ask Francis Crick.

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case.”
    – Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)

  24. 24
    martin_r says:

    CD,

    To a lay person, the inside of a Swiss movement watch looks incomprehensibly complex, to a watch maker it is simple

    I don’t understand, why any watchmaker on this planet would say, that Swiss watches are simple (not complex) ….

    PS: I love how you people who never made anything talk about complexity. That complexity is not a problem :)))) “so what if something is very complex” … “it means nothing” and so on …. :)))))

    It is funny to hear such claims from people who never made anything …

  25. 25
    Seversky says:

    Martin_r/13

    This is a very bad idea … a biologist — natural science graduate — is not qualified for this …. Remember all those bad design claims and/or vestigial organs claims ?

    There are still plenty of examples of what would be poor design or engineering in living organisms if they had been designed but which are to be expected from a haphazard and Heath Robinson process like evolution.

    As for vestigial structures, try the Wikipedia article on Vestigiality as a starting-point.

  26. 26
    martin_r says:

    CD@ 22

    According to wiki, the inventor of the first DNA sequencer was Lloyd M. Smith, a biochemist…..

    An Inventor or a designer ?

  27. 27
    martin_r says:

    Seversky @25

    with you, it is really a time waste. You will never learn your lesson …

  28. 28
    Otangelo says:

    # 12 Origenes

    there is a threshold for a minimum size of a protein. If you go lower, no function. But its not only the size. For example, in the peptidyl transferase Center of the ribosome, there is a special ribosomal RNA, the A2451. It is crucial and has to be in the right place. Remove it, and the ribosome cannot perform bond formation.

    Interactions between active site residues and the 2?-OH are pivotal in orienting substrates in the active site for optimal catalysis. A second 2?-OH group was identified to be crucial for peptide bond formation, namely that of A2451. The 2?- OH of A2451 was shown to be of potential functional importance.
    https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1661-translation-through-ribosomes-amazing-nano-machines#2578

    That is just one monomer amongst almost 3000 rRNAs that make up the RTC, which is just one among at least 50 functional parts of a minimal ribosome. The ribosome is life essential. So its origin is an origin of life problem.

  29. 29
    Seversky says:

    Martin_r/20

    it is not hard …

    The main concept is pretty simple.
    Creationism is from Creation.
    Creation of life.

    If it’s so simple then you should be able to tell us exactly how it was done and who did it

    After all, engineers like to have everything precisely specified and measured out to the nth degree, don’t they? Wouldn’t want any nasty surprises popping up further down the line, would we?

    So explain exactly how this Creation was done. Because if you can’t then “creation” is no better than “emergence”, it’s just a placeholder for something where you have no idea how it happened at all.

    You guys have to demonstrate, that life was not CREATED.

    Nope. Burden of proof. You say it was created, show us your evidence.

    Of course, you never will debunk creation, because your OoL-guys use GOLD ALCHEMISTS methods to re-create the most sophisticated technology on this planet :)))))))))))))))

    There’s nothing to debunk. You guys say it was all created but you have no idea how so it was just “poofed” into existence?

  30. 30
    martin_r says:

    There’s nothing to debunk. You guys say it was all created but you have no idea how so it was just “poofed” into existence?

    You keep repeating the same irrelevant questions over and over …

    HOW DOES IT MATTER WHETHER WE KNOW HOW EXACTLY IT WAS CREATED ?

    If I would know, I would be a billionaire and get 10 Nobel prices.

    It is like asking you how an Iphone was created :)))))))
    You wouldn’t know where to start in order to create an Iphone :)))))))
    Basically, you don’t understand what an Iphone is :))))))

    But when you ask, I as an engineer, I am 100% sure, that life wasn’t created by heating/cooling/shaking flasks with chemicals :)))))))))))))

  31. 31
    martin_r says:

    Seversky

    Nope. Burden of proof. You say it was created, show us your evidence.

    You guys teach these nonsensical things in schools around the world.
    YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE that the life was not created ….

  32. 32
    martin_r says:

    Otangelo,

    I apologize again, today for my conversation with Seversky.
    It must be frustrating to see something like that below your post.
    It is a shame… I know…

    PS: I was wondering, are you using some deepfake technology in your videos ? Is it some software, or what is it ?

  33. 33
    Origenes says:

    Seversky @

    You guys say it was all created but you have no idea how so it was just “poofed” into existence?

    Why not give us some pointers? Please tell us how you *poof* integrated complexity (instantiated in your postings to achieve a specific function) into existence. Tell us how you create your wonderful thoughts.

  34. 34
    Origenes says:

    Ontangelo @28

    there is a threshold for a minimum size of a protein. If you go lower, no function.

    As I understand it, the fold of a protein, a three-dimensional structure, has a specific function. Are you saying that those parts of the structure of the protein that are seemingly unrelated to the fold are also essential to the fold function? That if you remove or change those parts of the protein that are (seemingly) unrelated to the fold structure its main function seizes?

  35. 35
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @10

    The recent push of emergentism still fails to escape the poof magic something from nothing problem, it is a disguised concession on the substance designed to shore up a failed orthodoxy.

    I wonder: would it be fair to say that in your view, emergentism violates the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit (‘from nothing, nothing can come’)?

    If one thinks of emergence as a spontaneous tendency for simple systems to become more complex all on their own, would it might seem as if the system is adding more information to itself — and that information is coming ‘from nowhere’?

    And as a result, it now looks as if this spontaneous ’emergence’ of more complex systems (which can also described as a movement away from entropy) involves the coming into being of information that wasn’t there before — thus violating the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit.

    Is this why you use the words “poof” and “magic” to describe emergentism?

  36. 36
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77
    The lengths that you feel compelled to go to always have the last word border on the ridiculous. My point, as usual, is much less grandiose than you suggest. Martin_r has said over and over that only engineers are competent and capable of addressing “design” and evolution—that scientists are incapable of such activities. Or he childishly wants to parse “inventor” vs. “designer”.Beyond the fact that his observation is patently absurd, sometimes he needs to be schooled on the facts. But then.you now and again also need schooling. Rosalind Franklin used a fine-focus X-ray tube and a micro-camera that she modified. Franklin was an X-ray crystallographer and chemist.
    Contrary to your claim, scientists design and build their own lab equipment, or jerry-rig equipment all the time. For example, the MRI was invented by Raymond Damadian, a physician.. it was refined by Peter Mansfield, a physicist, and Paul Lauterbur, a chemist, for which they got a Nobel Prize. Marie Curie designed and built a bunch of her own equipment. Many times scientists collaborate with engineers to design and build scientific tools and equipment.
    But this should be obvious, even to you and Martin_r……..

  37. 37
    Querius says:

    Martin_r @30, 34,

    It is like asking you how an Iphone was created. You wouldn’t know where to start in order to create an Iphone. Basically, you don’t understand what an Iphone is. But when you ask, I as an engineer, I am 100% sure, that life wasn’t created by heating/cooling/shaking flasks with chemicals.

    Or “differential erosion and incremental horizontal deposition.” Your apt analogy only fails in the number of orders of magnitude that it falls short of reality!

    The truth of the matter is that Darwinists use their “gods-of-the-gaps” argument–their twin gods being named MUSTA and MGHTA.

    The video above is indeed a “deep fake” which uses robotic text to speech technology and repetitive head, mouth, and eye movements. Instead, a simple photo and printed quote along with commentary and perhaps a bulleted summary would be better and shorter in my opinion.

    -Q

  38. 38
    Origenes says:

    PM1@

    If one thinks of emergence as a spontaneous tendency for simple systems to become more complex all on their own, would it might seem as if the system is adding more information to itself — and that information is coming ‘from nowhere’?

    Sadly, some people fail to distinguish between the order created by natural processes, such as water freezing to form a snowflake, and complex functional specified organization/information. The former results from natural laws directing the arrangement of molecules. However, for a medium to contain information/specified complexity, it must have the freedom to take on numerous possible arrangements of parts.
    So, if the book “Hamlet” writes itself—“adding more information to itself”—, without the input of an intelligent designer in the form of a writer, then, indeed, that would mean that information is *poof*“coming from nowhere.”
    My claim is that no sane person buys into such nonsense.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD, you don’t seem to realize just how insane the Darwinian denial of design is. Regardless of whomever designs the experiments, the fact that they are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED in the first place refutes the claim that Intelligent Design has no place in science.

    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    All of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Scientific instrument – examples
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_instrument#Examples_of_scientific_instruments

    Verse:

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

    Shoot, you can’t even explain the existence of the computer sitting right in front of your face without invoking ‘top-down’ intelligent design,

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view:
    Definition 1: Causal Effect
    If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y.
    Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,,
    Definition 2: Existence
    If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter).
    This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,,
    Excerpt: page 5: A:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.,,,
    The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf

    Shoot, within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, where minds are held to be merely a consequence of physics, you can’t even explain the existence of a single sentence you are writing on this blog,

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism
    Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural? Who knows?,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    ,,, some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    To give an example of just how insane the denial of Intelligent Design in science is, “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.
    I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense.”

    Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will – July 27, 2014
    Excerpt: And free will?:
    Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will?
    Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.
    I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....free-will/

    So again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Supplemental notes:

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.theistic.net/papers.....cience.pdf
    Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with special interest in philosophical theology and the foundations of both science and ethics.

    No False Gods Before Me: A Review of Rodney Stark’s Work by Terry Scambray (December 2018)
    Excerpt: The distinguished philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, astonished a Harvard audience in 1925 when he said that science is a “derivative of medieval theology [since it arose] from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher.”
    Whitehead’s thesis was but another bolt from out of the blue because the notion that medieval philosophy, scholasticism, led to the development of science was astonishing!
    Though it should not have been, since scholasticism was complex, diverse, penetrating and devoted to reasoning from the two books that undergird Christianity: the book of God, Scripture, and the book of nature, Creation. As Stark writes, “Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable—the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious, Christian scholars.”,,,
    So Christianity, then and now, never was antithetical to science. And this is because European Christians believed in a rational God whose imprint could be discovered in nature; thus, they confidently looked for and found natural laws. As Johannes Kepler, the venerable 17th century cosmologist, wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world” is to discover this harmony imposed by God in the language of mathematics.
    Stark concludes, “That the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again. For, as Albert Einstein remarked, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” which Einstein called a “miracle.” And this “miracle” confirms the fact that creation is guided by purpose and reason.
    https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189497&sec_id=189497

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

  40. 40
    relatd says:

    CD at 36,

    You have run out of arguments. I study the history of technology. I have a background in electronics. Unguided evolution has failed. Only by building databases based on actual observations of living things are scientists getting somewhere. Sequencing the human genome has led to a collection of a large number of DNA sequences. The following article makes two unprovable claims: That evolution continued to upgrade organisms over eons and that “decision making” was involved as if evolution has intelligence and foresight. It does not.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25465/

    To make money off this data, synthetic biology is looking to modify existing organisms to make useful/profitable biological products.

    https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Synthetic-Biology

    That’s where everything is heading. Darwin is no longer important, just processing the data, and identifying the functions of coding and non-coding regions of the human genome. And making money for industry.

    Tell me. Humans and apes allegedly had a common ancestor. When did this happen? When did an ape give birth to something that would go on to become “modern humans”? Scientists now know this never happened. That apes and humans are two separate species. Yet this idea of a common ancestor persists. Why is that?

  41. 41
    Origenes says:

    Bornagain77 @

    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature.

    Excellent point. Science itself is the product of intelligent design. However, honesty compels the soul to confess that ChuckyD has a point: there is indeed one branch of science that is completely devoid of intelligence, namely “evolutionary biology.”

  42. 42
    whistler says:

    *poof*
    Miracle(s) are compulsory for all worldviews. :)))

  43. 43
    relatd says:

    Whistler at 42,

    I wouldn’t phrase it quite that way. There are only two ideas in play here: Evolution and Intelligent Design. ID clearly fits the facts better and orients human beings to the fact that intelligence was required for everything that was ever made, animate and inanimate.

    ‘ • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    ‘• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    “Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    PM1, we both know non-being has no causal powers. The point is, complex, functionally specific organisation is information rich, and that needs to come from a credible causal source. The poof magic is about trying to pull such from a non existent hat. There is precisely one well warranted source for such, intelligently directed configuration. The needle in haystack search challenge to get to shorelines of fine tuned functional organisation of high complexity speaks for itself, utterly dominating incremental hill climbing within such zones. KF

  45. 45
    martin_r says:

    CD

    Contrary to your claim, scientists design and build their own lab equipment,

    Sure, using pre-designed components and tools. Pre-designed by engineers. And if they require a more advanced lab tools (e.g DNA sequencers for ENCODE project), they call real engineers.

    PS: I never said, that a biologist can not become an engineer for a moment … but it just confirms what I said previously — YOU NEED ENGINEERS … but I won’t argue about such a obvious thing … this debate is ridiculous …

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    PM1, are you aware that in statistical thermodynamics, entropy is little more than the dominance by sheer statistical weight of predominant clusters of microstates in systems not constrained from moving there? In a sense it is applied probability and statistics; giving it powerful generality. Going to Clausius etc, we further see that injection of unconstrained energy only serves to open up more possible states, strengthening the statistical trend. So, systems open to inflow of energy and/or mass unless constrained, are prone to be more pushed to such clusters. And more. KF

  47. 47

    I’m reading “Your Designed Body” By systems engineer Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksmann MD. A remarkable book.
    https://www.amazon.com/Your-Designed-Body-Steve-Laufmann/dp/1637120206/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1ZHIUCQVXODFW&keywords=your+designed+body+by+steve+laufmann+and+howard+glicksman&qid=1673783454&sprefix=your+designed+body%2Caps%2C177&sr=8-1
    This book destroys Darwinian Evolution, but only if it is read. It’s all the evidence needed to come to the conclusion that evolution is false and Intelligent Design & Enginering is true without question.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Martin_r, you may appreciate this. Dr Hunter starts off his talk on the impossibility of unguided Darwinian processes explaining the origin of sexual reproduction by highlighting the massive amount of “coordinated engineering” that must go into designing an airplane.

    The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction – Cornelius Hunter – 2022
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoC5nxivawE

  49. 49
    Otangelo says:

    # 34

    Origenes

    rather than moving goal post, what about answering my question? How do you deal with the fact that proteins or riboproteins require a minimum size in order to be able to perform their function? And the fact, that one single specified ribonucleotide does have to be placed at very specific place in the chain in order for the entire translation machine to work?

    The small-subunit rRNA has ?1500 nt, of which we identify 140 that are absolutely invariant among the 1961 species in our alignment.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35115361/

    In the ribosomes of prokaryotes such as bacteria, the SSU contains a single small rRNA molecule (~1500 nucleotides) while the LSU contains one single small rRNA and a single large rRNA molecule (~3000 nucleotides). These are combined with ~50 ribosomal proteins to form ribosomal subunits.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosomal_RNA

    Leaving aside the over 50 proteins required, besides the ribonucleotides, we have 4500 ribonucleotides required. What are the odds, for the shuffling of the prebiotic earth to find a chain, where the A2451 is set in the right place, in order to be able to perform amino acid bond formation, and catenation?

    It is in the realm of the absolutely impossible. This alone is a death knell for abiogenesis.

  50. 50
    Origenes says:

    Ontangelo @ 49

    … rather than moving goal post, what about answering my question?

    To be clear, my question was about your claim that “EVERY protein, which is the product of the information stored in DNA, is irreducibly complex.” My concern was whether the term ‘irreducibly complex’, as defined by Behe (see #12), applies to each and every protein.

    How do you deal with the fact that proteins or riboproteins require a minimum size in order to be able to perform their function?

    Interesting question. Your argument is that, given that there is a minimum size for everything, everything that has a function is irreducibly complex. You are probably right. This generality was not part of my understanding of the term ‘irreducibly complex.’ Thx.

    And the fact, that one single specified ribonucleotide does have to be placed at very specific place in the chain in order for the entire translation machine to work?

    Amazing stuff. You have probably a good reason to bring this up, but I fail to understand how this relates to your claim that every protein is irreducibly complex.

  51. 51
    martin_r says:

    Otangelo,

    could you please send me a mainstream paper references for the following, I would like to have a closer look at it… sounds interesting

    #1
    “And the fact, that one single specified ribonucleotide does have to be placed at very specific place in the chain in order for the entire translation machine to work?”

    #2
    How do you deal with the fact that proteins or riboproteins require a minimum size in order to be able to perform their function?

    by the way, have you heard of miniproteins ?

    “New universe of miniproteins is upending cell biology and genetics”
    https://www.science.org/content/article/new-universe-miniproteins-upending-cell-biology-and-genetics

  52. 52
    martin_r says:

    BA @48
    thanks for the link, I will watch it tonight before I go sleep.
    I visit “Darwin’s god”-blog regularly, unfortunately, Dr. Hunter updates his blog not very often.

    PS:

    origin of sexual reproduction by highlighting the massive amount of “coordinated engineering”

    sure … to even suggest that sexual reproduction evolved is beyond absurd … and then the various switches, how it switched back to asexual, but then, in time, back to sexual and so on :))))))))

  53. 53
    Otangelo says:

    #51 Martin

    I googled: A2451. This paper was the first that came up:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074552108001257
    A2451 is one of the five universally conserved active-site rRNA residues that comprise the catalytic core of the PTC

    at my library you find more information. Just search for 2451 with the browser search engine:
    https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1661-translation-through-ribosomes-amazing-nano-machines#2578

    Origenes:
    What would convince you that ID is a real thing? Or, that it tops naturalistic explanations to explain our existence?

  54. 54
    EugeneS says:

    Martin_r #27

    I lost hope a long time ago.

  55. 55
    EugeneS says:

    Severski

    ==If it’s so simple then you should be able to tell us exactly how it was done and who did it==

    On the how:

    By implementing specific symbolic constraints to establish a semantically closed system with bio-polymeric memory; where the memory contains a description of the system to replicate, together with a description of the interpreter of that description. The implementation is based on an adapter like codon-anticodon recognition mechanism, and an interpretation/copying dual processing of bio-polymeric memory.

    == who did it? ==

    An intelligent designer with the capacities of foresight and planning, and the ability to execute the plan.

    The data available does not reveal details like the designer’s passport number or the place of birth.

    Will you acknowledge that this or something like this has been said on this blog many times before? I am not holding my breath.

  56. 56
    EugeneS says:

    ==sure … to even suggest that sexual reproduction evolved is beyond absurd … ==

    The problem is that the imagination of a convinced Darwinist is so well trained that ‘absurd’ can easily become ‘plausible’ and then ‘certain’.

  57. 57
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    #55

    Exactly. Exactly.

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    Dr Selensky, nail has met hammer, wham! KF

  59. 59
    Querius says:

    Martin_r @51,

    Thank you for the link to the interesting paper on miniproteins. I noticed this excerpt recognizes what turned out to be a long-held false assumption of “junk DNA.”

    “Small proteins also promise to revise the current understanding of the genome. Many appear to be encoded in stretches of DNA—and RNA—that were not thought to help build proteins of any sort.”

    Thus, once again, the assumption of something unknown in stretches of DNA and RNA as random junk slowed scientific progress and discovery. An ID approach would have found its utility faster.

    -Q

Leave a Reply