Information Intelligent Design

Karsten Pultz: Why random processes cannot produce information: A new approach to the argument

Spread the love

Our Danish friend, Karsten Pultz (left), author of Exit Evolution, tackles the big question;


This is the important question ID raises against the neo-Darwinian claim that life came about by random processes. Here I offer some thoughts about the connection between information in the form of digital codes and the products they code for. I thus hope to support the argument for ID and for what seems to me the inescapable fact of teleology in nature.

If a random number generator were set to produce eight digit numbers, and it coincidentally spat out 87958007, which happens to be my phone number, would it then have produced information? Or if a prebiotic soup randomly produced a functional protein, or a string of DNA that coded for a protein (ignoring the low probability of such occurrences), would the soup have produced information?

I would argue no.

The specific sequences that carry information, phone numbers, for example, can only be defined as information in relation to the whole system of which they are a part. There needs to be a translation system with defined rules that sorts out which sequences contains information and which do not.

To claim that information in DNA could arise by random chance is therefore nonsense. A functional sequence could not be regarded as information until we have a complete set of rules which defines that certain sequences are functional and all others are nonfunctional gobbledygook.

It is not reasonable to consider it likely that information can arise by chance without the translation that defines it as information?

A random process producing information is an oxymoron

No matter how many phone numbers that happen to be in service that a random number generator spits out, they wouldn’t be phone numbers because the generator has not chosen them from a defined set of rules. In the same way, proteins randomly produced in a prebiotic soup would not be proteins at all because they would not have been produced in relation to the translation system which defines them as proteins. Equally important, they would not have been produced in relation to the specific task they would serve in an organism.

Order Exit Evolution online. 198 kr.

Phone numbers are only phone numbers because we, the intelligent designers, have made the rules that decide what is required in order for a sequence of digits to function as an actual phone number.
Talking about information detached from the translation system which defines it as information doesn’t make sense.

We don’t get information without the act of choice, a feature that is related only to intelligent agency. A random process producing information is therefore an oxymoronic (or just moronic) concept. The translation system that defines what sequences are functional is obviously intelligently designed because it involves the conscious selection of parameters.

The information-product connection

Not only is the problem that there aren’t enough probabilistic resources to produce the DNA code by random processes but the DNA code would in fact not be information without the translation system. The code, together with the translation system, would still be worthless if it weren’t strictly tied to the last part of the overall system, namely the product, the organism.

In the end, it is the final product that defines that the information which forms the basis of the product can be considered information in the first place.

Code-translation-product

In a modern car factory we have the three part production system which consists of computer code, the machinery (robots) that translate the code into specific movements, and finally the end product, the car. It is obvious that the intelligent designers did not start with the two first items, the code and the translation. It was the final product which initially was in the mind of the intelligent designers. The code and the translation tools were developed in coordination to realize the idea of a car, the idea of which initially was in the mind of the intelligent designer.

Hence I will argue that information is only information if it is related to the end product. The idea (logos) comes first, then secondly the coding and the translation tools are put together simultaneously in order to realize the idea.

I think it is reasonable to argue that information is necessarily tied to a product, an idea (logos) or message, and that the product always is in the mind of the intelligent designer as the first thing. Information can therefore not be the product of a mindless process.

Human-engineered factory production is characterized by initially having a desired object in mind. After the inception of the idea, robots are built that can produce the object, and lastly the coding that is going to operate the machinery is done. The important thing here is that the idea of the end product comes first; the translation (the machinery) and the coding comes after inception of the idea.

A code—which is what we call information—is nothing in itself because it is slave to the idea. I would argue that the same counts for living things, that the DNA code was set up to realize and idea, an organism the intelligent designer already had in mind.

Identifying that something is wrong

It is the end product that defines whether a code sequence carries (“correct”) information or not. If cars leave the production line with only three wheels or with just one headlight, we become aware that something is wrong with the underlying information. So that is how we can evaluate if something can be regarded as information, simply by looking at the end product.

The materialist cannot escape the fact of teleology in nature, because even he or she will recognize illness and defect as something that is “wrong” with an organism, thereby acknowledging the overall idea and purpose of an organism.

When it comes to information the process always starts with an idea in a mind. The information that’s needed to realize the idea is defined by the idea, not the other way around. This makes it unlikely that information could arise by mindless natural processes, because we need a mind with an idea before we come to the part we call information.

Because human engineers, the only intelligent designers we are familiar with, operate in the described way, with the idea as the primary and the translation and coding as secondary, we have an empirical basis for arguing that life is the product of an idea in the mind of an intelligent designer.

The idea is primary

In human engineering you start with the end-product in mind, for instance a car. Then you set up the machinery that can produce the wanted item, and lastly you program the machinery. In written language you also start with the end-product, namely the message you want to convey, and then you do the “programming”, the sequencing of letters which follows the in advance chosen rules. It is not possible to look at information separated from the translation and the end product. The three parts, code-translation-product, are inherently connected, the idea, product or message in the mind of the intelligent designer being the first to arise.

So even if the chances of a protein arising in a prebiotic soup were not out of reach, it would still not be a protein because a protein is defined by its function in the end-product, the organism. A DNA sequence can only be defined as information if you already have the organism in view. Therefore it makes sense that in the beginning was the idea, the logos.

Conclusion

I think my argument shows that idealism is true and materialism is false, that random processes do not produce information, and that a mind with an idea is the primary means by which everything comes into existence. One can use it to argue for ID and for teleology in nature. I would also not hesitate to use it as argument in a theological debate.

See also: Karsten Pultz: The perils of talking about ID He wonders, should he give up?

50 Replies to “Karsten Pultz: Why random processes cannot produce information: A new approach to the argument

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Exit Evolution – I’m sad to see, no English language edition yet …

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Code-sender-medium-receiver-translation-confirmation-feedback

    “Choice” is definitely an aspect.
    It is mistaken to think of “information” merely as the code. It’s an informational system or circuit.

  3. 3
    EDTA says:

    Pultz is defining a particular context (that of a logos and then a mechanism to realize the logos, which then needs the information), and then saying that his particular type of information is the kind we should concern ourselves with. Let’s call it p-info (“p” for Pultz). Then he’s saying that p-info does not come about spontaneously, in the absence of a logos.

    The first criticism we might find of this idea, is that information certainly exists in other forms. And then it will be argued that those other forms can indeed come about via randomness. But the person arguing for that is probably thinking of a different type of information.

    The next challenge for this p-info idea is to find a way to argue that it cannot come about via randomness–not even via some subtle bootstrapping means. One approach would be to argue that the Von Neuman universal constructor mechanism is the simplest possible, and that to realize one with atoms takes more probabilistic resources than our universe can muster. Therefore, p-info isn’t bootstrappable. But we already knew this.

    So is this idea truly new, or is it just a reshaping of ideas we’re already familiar with?

  4. 4
    PeterA says:

    EDTA,

    It seems to be just a reshaping of ideas we’re already familiar with. Another way to explain or illustrate it.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    The specific sequences that carry information, phone numbers, for example, can only be defined as information in relation to the whole system of which they are a part.

    This is very similar to the argument that was put forth by Wiker & Witt in their book “A Meaningful World”. Specifically, “The whole is required to give meaning to the part.”

    A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature – Book Review
    Excerpt: They focus instead on what “Methinks it is like a weasel” really means. In isolation, in fact, it means almost nothing. Who said it? Why? What does the “it” refer to? What does it reveal about the characters? How does it advance the plot? In the context of the entire play, and of Elizabethan culture, this brief line takes on significance of surprising depth. The whole is required to give meaning to the part.
    http://www.thinkingchristian.n.....821202417/

    In short, reductive materialism can never provide an explanation for overall ‘context’:

    con·text
    noun
    the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

    Pastor Joe Boot puts the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such,

    “If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no prexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
    Pastor Joe Boot – quote taken from 13:20 minute mark of the following video:
    Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo

    This irresolvable dilemma of ‘context’ for reductive materialists also plays out in mathematics. Specifically, Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics can be succinctly stated as such, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.”
    Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    Kurt Gödel also stated this,

    “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.”
    Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996.

    Moreover, Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is not just some abstract mathematical and/or philosophical proof, but Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to physics.
    Specifically, as the following article states, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,”

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

    In biology, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and this irresolvable dilemma that ‘context’ presents to reductive materialists, plays out in that reductive materialists have no clue why the billions of trillions of protein molecules of any particular organism may cohere as a single unified whole “precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
    Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    Of course the Christian Theist has a ready answer to the question of “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?” That answer is, of course, that It is the soul that must be providing the singular overall context to the billions of trillions of protein molecules in an organism and gives us a coherent explanation as to exactly “why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death.”

    Moreover, the Christian Theist does not have to rely only on the ‘necessity of context’ in order to argue for the reality of the soul, but the Christian Theist can now also, due to advances in quantum biology and quantum information theory, appeal directly to empirical evidence to support his foundational belief in a soul.

    Specifically, quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is not found to be ubiquitous within life. As the title of the following paper states, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”

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

    As well, at 24:00 minute mark of the following video Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

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

    What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, ““Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Moreover, as the following study found, the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, (which is exactly the type of quantum coherence that we have with protein and DNA molecules), the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles.

    Physicists find extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states – Lisa Zyga – March 4, 2016
    Excerpt: Many quantum technologies rely on quantum states that violate local realism, which means that they either violate locality (such as when entangled particles influence each other from far away) or realism (the assumption that quantum states have well-defined properties, independent of measurement), or possibly both. Violation of local realism is one of the many counterintuitive, yet experimentally supported, characteristics of the quantum world.
    Determining whether or not multiparticle quantum states violate local realism can be challenging. Now in a new paper, physicists have shown that a large family of multiparticle quantum states called hypergraph states violates local realism in many ways. The results suggest that these states may serve as useful resources for quantum technologies, such as quantum computers and detecting gravitational waves.,,,
    The physicists also showed that the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles. In addition, even if a quantum hypergraph state loses one of its particles, it continues to violate local realism. This robustness to particle loss is in stark contrast to other types of quantum states, which no longer violate local realism if they lose a particle. This property is particularly appealing for applications, since it might allow for more noise in experiments.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-p.....alism.html

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement of the cell or of an entire organism in general. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

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

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    To go a bit further, classical information is shown to be a subset of quantum information by the following method. Specifically, in the following 2011 paper, researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
    The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Again to repeat that last sentence,“Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    That statement about entropy being a property of an observer who describes the system, for anyone involved in the ID vs. Darwinism debate, ought to send chills down their scientific spine.

    These experiments completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, (presuppositions about information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water, and tie the creation of information in an organism directly to the knowledge of the ‘observer’ in quantum theory.

    In other words, contrary to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, information, particularly this ‘thermodynamic positional information’, is now experimentally shown, via quantum information theory, to be its own distinct physical entity that, although it can interact with matter and energy, is its own independent, ‘non-local’ beyond space and time, entity that is separate from matter and energy. On top of all that, this ‘thermodynamic positional information’ is found, via quantum information theory, to be “a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    In other words, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to God as the Intelligence behind life, (via the non-locality of quantum information and/or the non-locality of quantum entanglement ), has, for all intents and purposes, finally achieved experimental confirmation.

    One final note. The implication for us personally of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication is, of course, the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

    Verse:

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

    supplemental notes:

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video (how consciousness, quantum information theory, and molecular biology correlate – 27 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1634

    August 2019 – Experimentally tying God into the origin of life via quantum information theory
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-you-can-reproduce-how-life-got-started-10-million-is-yours/#comment-681958

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

  7. 7
    jstanley01 says:

    It’s interesting — significant, I’d say — that one of the definitions of the Greek “logos” is “story,” which is not really a definition of the English “word” outside of idiomatically (e.g. “What’s the good word?” and “Is there word yet?”). Like the debut of Big Bang cosmology caused thinkers pause at Genesis 1:1, surely the realization of Information Technology will be — has been and is — giving thinkers pause at John 1:1.

    Despite it’s defects, strictly speaking as a translation, imagining the in-depth and inescapable rhetorical and linguistic impact inherent in translating “logos” as “story” there, we might get the impact more fully that the word’s use would have on a native speaker of Koine Greek:

    “In the beginning was the story, and the story was with God, and the story was God.”

    No story = no beginning, no cosmos, no life, no man, no God.

  8. 8
    OLV says:

    complex functional information

    Data Integration in Poplar: ‘Omics Layers and Integration Strategies

    This research has generated several large ‘omics datasets.

    This review will summarize various ‘omics data layers

    network and signal processing techniques for the integration and analysis of these data types will be discussed

    network and signal processing approaches to representing, analyzing, and integrating multiple ‘omics data layers

    Different ‘omics layers each provide information on a different aspect of a complex biological system

     large-scale ‘omics data types, multi-omics studies, as well as network-based analysis/integration techniques and wavelet-based multi-scale analysis and comparisons

    Integrated analysis of various ‘omics data layers will expand the system-wide knowledge

  9. 9
    OLV says:

    ID showoff? 🙂

    Wavelet-Based Genomic Signal Processing for Centromere Identification and Hypothesis Generation

    Various ‘omics data types have been generated for Populus trichocarpa, each providing a layer of information which can be represented as a density signal across a chromosome.  We make use of genome sequence data, variants data across a population as well as methylation data across 10 different tissues, combined with wavelet-based signal processing to perform a comprehensive analysis of the signature of the centromere in these different data signals, and successfully identify putative centromeric regions in P. trichocarpa from these signals. Furthermore, using SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) correlations across a natural population of P. trichocarpa, we find evidence for the co-evolution of the centromeric histone CENH3 with the sequence of the newly identified centromeric regions, and identify a new CENH3 candidate in P. trichocarpa.

    Integrating data from multiple different sources is a task which is becoming more prevalent with the increased availability of systems biology data from high-throughput ‘omics technologies and phenotyping strategies (Gomez-Cabrero et al., 2014). Developing statistical and mathematical approaches to integrate this data in order to provide an increased understanding of the biological system is thus an important endeavor.

    Chromosomal features including SNPs, genes, genome gaps and DNA methylation plotted as density signals across a chromosome result in signals that vary along the length of the chromosome

    Identification of approximate centromere locations from gene density, SNP density and methylation wavelet landscapes requires knowledge of what patterns to look for.

    Though centromeric/pericentromeric regions as a whole are highly methylated, it has been found in Maize that the active centromere consists of repeats associated with CENH3 (the modified histone found in the active centromere) and is usually less methylated when compared to the pericentromeric regions

    The wavelet-based centromere identification through the use of multiple lines of evidence allows us to be more certain of centromeric regions, and also allows more specific locations to be identified than can be done by simply looking at repeat density, which map to broad regions of the genome. Layering multiple data types allows for the identification of putative centromere positions based on multiple lines of evidence, and thus, allows one to be more certain of their location.

    The histone CENH3 epigenetically defines centromere position, and replaces normal histone H3 in the nucleosomes at the centromere

    This study illustrates how through integrating multiple sources of data, one can arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the system one is investigating. 

  10. 10
    OLV says:

    ID exuberance ? 🙂

    DNA sequence encodes the position of DNA supercoils

    The three-dimensional organization of DNA is increasingly understood to play a decisive role in vital cellular processes. Many studies focus on the role of DNA-packaging proteins, crowding, and confinement in arranging chromatin, but structural information might also be directly encoded in bare DNA itself.

    the DNA sequence directly encodes the structure of supercoiled DNA by pinning plectonemes at specific sequences.

    sequence-dependent intrinsic curvature is the key determinant of pinning strength

    Analysis of several prokaryotic genomes indicates that plectonemes localize directly upstream of promoters

    Our findings reveal a hidden code in the genome that helps to spatially organize the chromosomal DNA.

    Control of DNA supercoiling is of vital importance to cells. Torsional strain imposed by DNA-processing enzymes induces supercoiling of DNA, which triggers large structural rearrangements through the formation of plectonemes

    Recent biochemical studies suggest that supercoiling plays an important role in the regulation of gene expression in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes

    In order to tailor the degree of supercoiling around specific genes, chromatin is organized into independent topological domains with varying degrees of torsional strain

    Domains that contain highly transcribed genes are generally underwound whereas inactive genes are overwound

    Furthermore, transcription of a gene transiently alters the local supercoiling, while, in turn, torsional strain influences the rate of transcription

    For many years, the effect of DNA supercoiling on various cellular processes has mainly been understood as a torsional stress that enzymes should overcome or exploit for their function. More recently, supercoiling has been acknowledged as a key component of the spatial architecture of the genome

    Here, bound proteins are typically viewed as the primary determinant of sequence-specific tertiary structures while intrinsic mechanical features of the DNA are often ignored. However, the DNA sequence influences its local mechanical properties such as bending stiffness, curvature, and duplex stability, which in turn alter the energetics of plectoneme formation at specific sequences

    Our findings reveal how a previously unrecognized ‘hidden code’ of intrinsic curvature governs the localization of local DNA supercoils, and hence the organization of the three-dimensional structure of the genome.

    A full statistical mechanical modeling of the plectonemic structures distributed across the DNA molecule should further improve the predictive power and accuracy, but will require significant computational resources and time.

    Significant intrinsic curvatures are encoded in genomic DNA, as evident in our scans of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes, which indicates its biological relevance.

    In addition to this direct interaction of RNA polymerase and curved DNA, our results suggest an indirect effect, as the same curved DNA can easily pin a plectoneme that can further regulate the transcription initiation and elongation by structural re-arrangement of the promotor and coding regions.

    promoter sequences have evolved local regions with highly curved DNA that promote the localization of DNA plectonemes at these sites.

    There may be multiple reasons for this.

    For one, it may help to expose these DNA regions to the outer edge of the dense nucleoid, making them accessible to RNAP, transcription factors, and topoisomerases.

    Plectonemes may also play a role in the bursting dynamics of gene expression, since each RNAP alters the supercoiling density within a topological domain as it transcribes, adding or removing nearby plectonemes

    In addition, by bringing distant regions of DNA close together, plectonemes may influence specific promoter-enhancer interactions to regulate gene expression

    Finally, plectoneme tips may help RNA polymerase to initiate transcription, since the formation of an open complex also requires bending of the DNA, a mechanism that was proposed as a universal method of regulating gene expression across all organisms

    Our analysis of eukaryotic genomes showed a greater diversity of behavior. The spacing of the peaks suggests that plectonemes may play a role in positioning nucleosomes, consistent with proposals that nucleosome positioning may rely on sequence-dependent signals near promoters

    The plectoneme signal encoded by intrinsic curvature could therefore indirectly position the promoter plectoneme tip by helping to organize these nearby nucleosomes.

    The above findings demonstrate that DNA contains a previously hidden ‘code’ that determines the local intrinsic curvature and consequently governs the locations of plectonemes. These plectonemes can organize DNA within topological domains, providing fine-scale control of the three-dimensional structure of the genome

    it will be interesting to explore how changes in this plectoneme code affect levels of gene expression and other vital cellular processes.

  11. 11
    OLV says:

    Selfish ID? 🙂

    The CDK Pef1 and Protein Phosphatase 4 oppose each other for regulating cohesin binding to fission yeast chromosomes

    Cohesin has essential roles in chromosome structure, segregation and repair. Cohesin binding to chromosomes is catalyzed by the cohesin loader, Mis4 in fission yeast. How cells fine tune cohesin deposition is largely unknown. Here we provide evidence that Mis4 activity is regulated by phosphorylation of its cohesin substrate. A genetic screen for negative regulators of Mis4 yielded a CDK called Pef1, whose closest human homologue is CDK5. Inhibition of Pef1 kinase activity rescued cohesin loader deficiencies. In an otherwise wild-type background, Pef1 ablation stimulated cohesin binding to its regular sites along chromosomes while ablating Protein Phosphatase 4 had the opposite effect. Pef1 and PP4 control the phosphorylation state of the cohesin kleisin Rad21. The CDK phosphorylates Rad21 on Threonine 262. Pef1 ablation, non phosphorylatable Rad21-T262 or mutations within a Rad21 binding domain of Mis4 alleviated the effect of PP4 deficiency. Such a CDK/PP4 based regulation of cohesin loader activity could provide an efficient mechanism for translating cellular cues into a fast and accurate cohesin response.

    Cohesin is involved in a wide range of cellular functions at all stages of the cell cycle,
    implying a tight control by the cell machinery. The data presented here provide evidence that the CDK Pef1 and PP4 are part of this regulatory network.

    Understanding how Pef1 regulates cohesin binding to DNA will require further knowledge of the biochemical activities of both cohesin and its loader.

     

     

  12. 12
    martin_r says:

    a phone number :))))
    HOLD ON ! IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE !!!!

    i am sure that biologists wish it would be that simple…. BUT IT IS NOT !!!

    in biology, the problem is much deeper….

    in biology, a single ‘phone number’ represents several layers of information…

    in biology – the cell is reading ‘the phone number’ backward and forward and always reaches the ‘right person’

    and it is getting worse ….

    this ‘phone number’ is spliced in various ways …

    this way, a single ‘phone number’ can be used to reach several ‘persons’

    multiple layers of information in a single phone number by random ? :))))

    it seems, that biologists – natural science graduates – believes in miracles … over and over again….

    Someone should use this phone number and call the doctor …

  13. 13
  14. 14
    OLV says:

    Why is math useful in describing complex biological systems?

    Classification-Based Inference of Dynamical Models of Gene Regulatory Networks

    Cell-fate decisions during development are controlled by densely interconnected gene regulatory networks (GRNs) consisting of many genes. Inferring and predictively modeling these GRNs is crucial for understanding development and other physiological processes.

    Gene circuits, coupled differential equations that represent gene product synthesis with a switch-like function, provide a biologically realistic framework for modeling the time evolution of gene expression. However, their use has been limited to smaller networks due to the computational expense of inferring model parameters from gene expression data using global non-linear optimization.

    Development is controlled by gene regulatory networks (GRNs) that integrate extrinsic signals and intrinsic cell state to make decisions about cell fate

    In summary, we have exploited features of the mathematical structure of gene circuits to break a difficult optimization problem into a series of two, much simpler, optimization problems. We have demonstrated that FIGR is effective on synthetic as well as experimental data from a biologically realistic GRN. We have validated the inferred gap gene model by comparing its parameters against models inferred with SA as well as comparing its output against experimental data. The improvement in computational efficiency and scalability should allow the inference of much larger GRNs than was possible previously.

  15. 15
    PavelU says:

    The Danish ID proponent cited in this OP should change his mind after reading this recent paper that explains how the gene regulatory networks evolved:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53251-w

  16. 16
    Latemarch says:

    Pav said:

    The Danish ID proponent cited in this OP should change his mind after reading this recent paper that explains how the gene regulatory networks evolved:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53251-w

    Don’t bother. It’s just another Pav citation bluff.

  17. 17
    OLV says:

    PavelU,

    Not so fast, buddy.

    You may want to read this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_cycle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

    At best they can model some adaptive changes in a given GRN, but that won’t help to explain any putative “macro-evolutionary” differences. Biological systems are much more complex than physical oscillators or man-made circuits.

    Try again.

  18. 18
    aarceng says:

    Millions of monkeys randomly typing would eventually produce the text of Hamlet. BUT, the monkeys wouldn’t recognise it as anything significant and would just carry on typing.
    It requires a separate intelligent observer to recognise that the significant event has occurred and act on it.

  19. 19
    pw says:

    Aarceng,
    Good point.
    To think or not to think, that’s the question. 🙂

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    PavelU claims that,

    this recent paper that explains how the gene regulatory networks evolved:

    Yet the paper that PavelU cites does nothing of the sort. The paper is a ‘just-so story’ with no empirical support. It uses computer modelling to “show that fitness landscapes can be modified by the intrinsic properties of dynamical network self-organization, via a simple, biologically plausible mechanism that is compatible with conventional descriptions of evolution by natural selection.”.

    They simply have no empirical evidence that their computer model is feasible. As they themselves admit in their discussion section of their paper, “Attractor scaffolding offers a potential mechanism for genetic assimilation; by the gradual evolution of limit cycle dynamics towards point attractor dynamics. Thus, it might support a range of epigenetic phenomena, such as the Baldwin effect(s)

    As should be needless to say, “offers a potential mechanism” and “it might support” is a FAR cry from actually empirically demonstrating how gene regulatory networks might have supposedly evolved.

    Moreover, for Darwinian computer programmers to claim Intelligent Design is not needed is ludicrous since, number one, computer algorithms don’t write themselves but are instead the “outcome of thousands of human decisions.”

    – Greg Coppola to Tucker: “algorithms don’t “write themselves”
    Excerpt: “Basically, any software launch reflects to outcome of thousands of human decisions. If you made different human decisions you would get a different result. And so, if you see a resulting end product that seems to encode a bias of one sort or another, there must have been that bias in the process that produced the end result.”
    – Google Insider, Greg Coppola, Talks Political Bias at Google On Tucker Carlson
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu5-VQuFU_g

    In short, the computer programs themselves are obviously the product of intelligent design.

    Secondly, as Robert Marks, William Dembski, and company, have demonstrated, “There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.”,, and “Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a (computer) model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.” since they sneak information into the model which “can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    Thirdly and most importantly, all the empirical evidence we have to date, (actual empirical evidence and not misleading computer models that were intelligently designed by Darwinian computer programmers), all empirical evidence we have to date says that it is impossible for gene regulatory networks to gradually evolve. Specifically, “”There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.”

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question – Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
    Eric Davidson – developmental biologist
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 2 (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8Mhn2EKvQ

    Developmental gene regulatory networks—an insurmountable impediment to evolution – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins and Jerry Bergman – August 2018
    Excerpt: As Davidson has documented, a dGRN that regulates body-plan development “is very impervious to change” and usually leads to “catastrophic loss of the body part or loss of viability altogether”.12 This observable consequence virtually always occurs if even one dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Because most of these changes are always “catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected … there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species can develop in only one way.”12
    In his book, Intelligent Design proponent Stephen Meyer noted that “Davidson’s work highlights a profound contradiction between the neo-Darwinian account of how new animal body plans are built and one of the most basic principles of engineering—the principle of constraints.”26
    As a result, “the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole”.26 Because this system of gene regulation controls animal-body-plan development in such an exquisitely integrated fashion, any significant alterations in its gene regulatory networks inevitably damage or destroy the developing animal. This now-proven fact creates critical problems for the evolution of new animal body plans and the new dGRNs necessary to produce them, preventing gradual evolution via mutation and selection from a pre-existing body plan and set of dGRNs.
    Developmental biologists openly recognize these clear problems for the standard evolutionary synthesis. The problem as elaborated by Davidson, noted that neo-Darwinian evolution erroneously assumes that all microevolutionary processes equate to macroevolutionary mechanisms, thus producing the false conclusion that the “evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan”.12 Typical evolutionary research programs involve studying genetic variation within a species or genus involving inter-fertile natural populations or populations from controlled crosses. From a developmental systems biology perspective, the genes or regulatory features involved in such variability lie at the peripheral nodes and do not explain novel body plans associated with macroevolution. Davidson notes that the standard evolutionary synthesis “erroneously assumes that change in protein-coding sequence is the basic cause of change in [the] developmental program; and it [also] erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body-plan morphology occurs by a continuous process”.12 Davidson also aptly notes that “these assumptions are basically counterfactual” because the “neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history”.12 Neo-Darwinism in any form does not provide a mechanistic means of changing the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan. Alternating the peripheral differentiation process associated with observable variability is an entirely different scenario from building a new form of animal life by changing the fundamental structure of a resilient dGRN.,,,
    Summary
    At the very core of the validity of models for macroevolution is how organisms develop. Any form of Darwinian evolution requires that new developmental adaptations arise via random mutations that somehow provide a novel advantageous selectable trait. Decades of developmental genetics research in a wide variety of organisms has documented in detail the fact that once an embryo begins to develop along a certain trajectory, mutations in top and mid-level transcription factor genes in the hierarchy model of regulation described by Davidson cause fatal catastrophe in the program. This mutation-intolerant obstacle poses a complete barrier for the modern Darwinian synthesis, the neutral model, and saltational evolution.
    Another important aspect of the developmental genetics paradigm is the paradox of conserved protein sequence among top-level transcription factors combined with their intolerance of mutation. It is quite a quandary for the evolutionist—extreme conservation of sequence would seem to support common descent yet lack of mutability negates the fundamental requirement of evolutionary change. An Intelligent Design model, however, would predict that common code serving a general common purpose would be found among unrelated engineered systems that were the work of the same Creator—exactly as we find in man-made systems.
    https://creation.com/developmental-gene-regulatory-networks

    Thus in conclusion, PavelU once again, far from explaining how gene regulatory networks supposedly evolved, has, in actuality, referenced a paper that demonstrates the necessity of intelligent design in that computer programmers had to intelligently design a computer model that ‘cheated’ by sneaking active information into the simulation.

    In short, PavelU, by offering a biased computer simulation as proof for Darwinian evolution, is basically admitting that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) are an irresolved dilemma for Darwinian explanations, An irresolved dilemma for which they have no real time empirical evidence, (lest they would not have needed the intelligently design the ‘biased’ computer simulation in the first place in order to try to ‘explain away’ the dilemma of GRNs).

  21. 21
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    Karsten Pultz ?

    So creationists are now learning science from music composers?

    (facepalm)

  22. 22
    PavelU says:

    Here’s a very recent paper that shows how fish evolved to crawling animals on land:

    https://phys.org/news/2019-12-fish-fins-evolved-transition.html

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/12/24/1915983117

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Pater K:

    So creationists are now learning science from music composers?

    No, people are learning that your position is not science because it doesn’t even meet the basic requirement of testability.

  24. 24
    OLV says:

    Body plan evolution not as simple as once believed

    The left side is a rendering of a Drosophila yakuba male fly while the right side is a Drosophila santomea male. Drosophila santomea has lost most of its body coloration during the .5 million years since the two species diverged, including bands of pigmentation that adorn each abdominal segment and the full pigmentation of posterior segments. Credit: Eden Wellesley McQueen

    The role of Hox genes in changing the layout of different body parts during evolution has been challenged by a study led by researchers out of the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Biological Sciences.

    Hox genes are vital to developing differences in repeated body parts such as vertebrae, limbs, or digits in most animal species, including human beings. Ever since their discovery, scientists have thought that modifications to Hox genes could be the primary way that the animal body plan has been altered during evolution.

    The paper, “Changes throughout a genetic network masks the contribution of Hox gene evolution,” discusses experiments that pinpoint evolutionary changes in a Hox gene, but found that several other genes had evolved alongside it to generate a difference in pigmentation along the fruit fly body plan. The paper was published in Current Biology June 27.

    The experiment identified evolutionary modifications in Hox gene Abd-B that caused a drastic loss of expression on the body of the Dropsophila santomea (D. santomea) fruit fly. The same gene is necessary for the fruit fly’s sister species, Dropsophila yakuba (D. yakuba,) to express body pigmentation, so changes to that gene were expected to cause a loss of pigmentation across the species.

    However, when researchers restored the D yakuba Abd-b gene to D. santomea, it did not restore or increase the amount of pigmentation shown. Researchers said that outcome is the result of four other genes within the D. santomea pigmentation network, three of which evolved in ways that prevent it from responding to Hox gene Abd-B.

    “Hox genes are clearly very important regulators of animal development, setting up animal body plans and showing signs of change in all sorts of creatures whose body plans differ. This work shows just how complex the process of evolving those differences can be. It takes all sorts of genes working together to generate these phenotypes,” said Mark Rebeiz, an associate professor of evolutionary development who was a lead author on the paper.

     

    Notice that a whole complex choreography is needed just for minor changes. Same biological system, but with few differences. Perhaps comparable to the case of the different models (LE, XSE, XLE) of a given car (Toyota Rav4, Honda CR-V)? Not sure.

     

  25. 25
    Ed George says:

    LM

    Don’t bother. It’s just another Pav citation bluff.

    When PavelU provides references, it is a literature bluff. When BA77 provides a reference, it is supporting his assertions.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George, it is a literature bluff for the simple reason that it has no empirical evidence supporting its claims. As I outlined in post 20, it was a computer simulation that had no reference to the real world.

    Whereas my citations that refuted his claim did reference real world observations. For instance:

    “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
    Eric Davidson – developmental biologist

    In other words, my refutation of his paper was not a literature bluff, as his paper was, since I referenced real world empirical evidence to refute his computer simulation..

    Perhaps, (since you can not tell the difference between when you are being hoodwinked by evidence free Darwinian propaganda and what the empirical evidence itself is actually telling you), that goes a long way towards explaining why you are so gullible as to accept evidence free Darwinian propaganda in the first place? (Your inherent animosity towards God explaining why you would be prone to that gullibility towards Darwinism most likely also plays a major role as well)

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Ed:

    When PavelU provides references, it is a literature bluff.

    Because the references never support his assertion. We always say why it’s a literature bluff.

    When BA77 provides a reference, it is supporting his assertions.

    Because they do. And he makes the case as to why/ how they do.

    Ed George admits he cannot follow a discussion.

  28. 28
    Seversky says:

    Pater Kimbridge @ 21

    Karsten Pultz ?

    So creationists are now learning science from music composers?

    (facepalm)

    Of course. And lawyers, neurosurgeons, journalists, domestic appliance repairmen, engineers (lots of engineers). Why not?

  29. 29
    martin_r says:

    Sev@28

    and how are biologists – natural science graduates – qualified to talk about a good/ bad design ?

    Biologists -they never made anything…

  30. 30
    martin_r says:

    PavelU is a very confused guy… however, it is not his fault…

    biologists – natural science graduates – misinterpret everything …what’s worse, they making up stories, and calling it ‘science’…. we see it all the time…

    i doubt that biologists will ever understand what they are looking at….

  31. 31

    .

    Of course. And lawyers, neurosurgeons, journalists, domestic appliance repairmen, engineers (lots of engineers).

    Seversky, you can stand directly in front of famous predictions, experimental results, and well-recorded history — all in unambiguous support of design in biology — and you cannot even speak the words.

    You are left to nothing but your rhetoric, Sev, rhetoric over documented empirical evidence.

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, pray, tell me, who are experts on communication systems? Then, explain to me how a serious argument on well founded observations and analysis loses probative force due to who says it? In the OP, there is something highly significant: meaningfulness of a highly contingent result is tied to a system of symbols, often with linguistic character. In the case of music, there is a famous remark by a theologian (though it was likely to be a commonplace instructional example on the law of identity and close corollaries in the schools of 2,000 years ago):

    1 Cor 14: 7 Yet even lifeless things, whether flute or harp, when producing a sound, if they do not produce distinct [musical] tones, how will anyone [listening] know what is piped or played? 8 And if the [war] bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So it is with you, if you speak words [in an unknown tongue] that are not intelligible and clear, how will anyone understand what you are saying? You will be talking into the air [wasting your breath]! 10 There are, I suppose, a great many kinds of languages in the world [unknown to us], and none is lacking in meaning . . . [AMP, cf here on ]

    A musical example, cited by a theologian. Does sneering at the man now undermine the merits of the point? Patently, not. And just so, when we see complex, coded, 4-state digital information in the heart of the living cell, functioning in literally vital processes such as protein synthesis, we are well within epistemic rights to infer to the only credible, empirically warranted source of complex, meaningful, functional, coded linguistic information, i.e. intelligently directed configuration. KF

  33. 33
    pw says:

    interesting discussion

  34. 34
    es58 says:

    Kf@32 said:
    Then, explain to me how a serious argument on well founded observations and analysis loses probative force due to who says it?

    This is where the intersectionality and Id politics and. Pc folks got their approach to who is permitted to say what.

  35. 35
    Latemarch says:

    Pav@22

    Here’s a very recent paper that shows how fish evolved to crawling animals on land:

    https://phys.org/news/2019-12-fish-fins-evolved-transition.html

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/12/24/1915983117

    And that’s relevant to the OP just how?

    From Stephencmeyer.org

    It’s called citation (or literature) bluffing, and the tactic goes something like this:

    First, make a controversial claim in favor of evolution.

    Then list a bunch of impressive-sounding technical papers that appear to support that claim.

    Do not quote from or describe the contents of the papers. That wouldn’t be a bluff, because it would require actually dealing with the evidence. Instead, just enumerate the references in laundry-list fashion, as if they all supported the point.

    Count on no one taking the time to dig up the obscure references and fact-check the claims. (Subscription-required journal access often makes it nearly impossible for readers to fact-check anyway.) Otherwise, readers would discover the papers are either irrelevant to the claim being made or contradict one another and don’t support a coherent argument.

    If the bluff works, those who place unjustified faith in the infallibility of the peer-review process will be impressed, gloating that the juggernaut of science has rolled over the skeptics. Meanwhile, the mass of people who aren’t familiar with the technical literature—or don’t have access to it—will be intimidated from further comment.

  36. 36
    martin_r says:

    PavelU @22

    to be honest, i don’t know how fish-out-water-article is related to this debate, however, by now we all know that you are a very confused guy, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Anyway, Pavel, fish-out-of-water …. get this:

    “Fish have evolved the ability to live on land many times, challenging the perception that this extreme lifestyle shift was likely to have been a rare occurrence in ancient times, new UNSW Australia research shows.”

    “”A fish out of water might seem an extraordinary thing, but in fact it is quite a common phenomenon,” says study first author and UNSW evolutionary ecologist Dr Terry Ord. ”

    HA-HA-HA …

    fish-out-of-water is a common phenomenon ?????

    if this story is true, it sounds to me more like an intelligent design feature :)))))

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622102129.htm

  37. 37
    jawa says:

    Latemarch @35 & Martin_r @36,

    I like your pertinent comments on the issue PavelU brought up above. Thanks.

    It takes more than fin-to-leg transformation in order to survive on land. Shouldn’t the breathing machinery be adjusted too?

    Note this reply to a similar post by PavelU in the “fossils” thread:

    In the mid 2000s several fossils were discovered in northern Canada of a strange fish-like creature dubbed Tiktaalik. The fossils were dated to hundreds of millions of years ago, to a time when there were thought to be fish but no vertebrate land animals, or “tetrapods.” On close examination the fossils were seen to have structures — in particular, bones that resembled wrists — that were thought to make them good candidates for transitional forms between fish and tetrapods. For several years Tiktaalik was hailed as the missing link between fish and land vertebrates. But its moment of fame was cut short in early 2010 with the discovery of fossil footprints in Poland of true tetrapods which were at least ten million years older than Tiktaalik. At a stroke, the Canadian fossil could no longer be a transitional form, since it appeared later in the fossil record than its supposed descendants.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/11/johnsons-darwin-on-trial-as-fresh-and-relevant-as-ever/

    The claim in the PBS video (timecode 6:02-6:06) that ancestors of early tetrapods like Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega probably had a swim bladder is complete rubbish.

    But it gets worse. PBS makes up a completely idiotic scenario where the swim bladder allegedly became bigger in some lobe-finned fish, developed more blood vessels, and then in time transformed the air bladder from a hydrostatic organ into a respiratory organ. This was then split into a paired lung in bichirs and lungfish. Again, this whole scenario is complete nonsense. It is emphatically not proposed by any evolutionary biologist!

    Lungs simply could not have evolved from the swim bladder. Why? Because lungs predate the origin of the swim bladder, while the latter only appears as a parallel development in a subgroup of bony fish that has the lungs secondarily reduced. Alternatively the lungs and swim bladder might have both evolved from the primitive lungs of a common ancestor of lobe-finned and ray-finned fish (Tatsumi et al. 2016), which would be the exact reverse of the PBS fantasy scenario.

    So, could PBS be excused on the grounds that this is all brand-new research they simply did not yet know about? Not really. I learned all of the above at Tübingen University nearly 25 years ago. We were told even then by our fantastic teacher Dr. Gerhard Mickoleit about the “urban legend” that lungs evolved from the swim bladder. (See his book Phylogenetische Systematik der Wirbeltiere, 2004: pp. 82 and 88, Pfeil Verlag.)

    At their Patreon fundraising site, PBS Eons advertises itself as being “devoted to making sure our content is of the highest possible quality, and that takes a lot of time and resources.” From a self-proclaimed high-class educational program, such crude errors are intolerable.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/08/pbs-eons-teaches-nonsense-about-evolution/

    Here’s the link to the other thread:
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/science-newss-top-fossils-in-2019-show-a-diminishing-darwin/#comment-690615

  38. 38
    martin_r says:

    and PavelU …

    if you like fish, also get this:

    “Air bladders or lungs in different groups of fishes evolved multiple times” (independently)

    Pavel, you don’t have to be a genius to see, that all these features (lungs and air bladders) where designed, created, and not evolved (repeatedly) by some random mutations, unless you believe in miracles … :)))

    full article:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15547792

    P.S.

    Pavel, did you know that the icon of evolution – the appendix, also evolved multiple times independently in various species ? Scientists say, that it happened at least 30 times independently (go and google it)

  39. 39
    jawa says:

    Martin_r:

    You brought up excellent points.

    FYI- I copied your comment @36 to the “fossils” thread. Maybe your comment @38 would help in that other thread too? Thanks.

  40. 40
    martin_r says:

    JAWA @39

    thanks.

    If you look for more miracles, go and visit my new blog on repeated (convergent) evolution:

    http://www.stuffhappens.info

  41. 41
    jawa says:

    Martin_r:

    Thanks for the link to your new blog:
    http://www.stuffhappens.info

    Will look into it. I see you’ve done some interesting research. 🙂

    BTW, you may want to follow up at the “fossils” thread too.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    “A major problem for evolution is that the first mudskipper in the fossil record is morphologically a modern mudskipper.
    Long assumed to be a transitional animal between a swimming fish and a tetrapod (four footed) animal, a recent study by Kutschera and Elliott (2013, p. 1) concluded that, although some walking fishes such as mudskippers “shed light on the gradual evolutionary transition of ancient fishes to early tetrapods … they are not the ancestors of tetrapods, because extant organisms cannot be progenitors of other living beings.”

    Mudskippers. The Strangest Creature ever to Defy Evolution
    December 14, 2016
    Excerpt: No fossil evidence exists for their putative evolution from some pre-mudskipper organism. Scientists are not even able to satisfactorily classify modern mudskippers into a family, leaving their evolution to pure speculation. They were once included in the Oxudercinae subfamily, within the family Gobiidae (gobies), but recent molecular studies do not support this classification. Darwinists are now stymied about their phylogeny, and can only speculate concerning from what and how they could have evolved. A major problem for evolution is that the first mudskipper in the fossil record is morphologically a modern mudskipper.
    Long assumed to be a transitional animal between a swimming fish and a tetrapod (four footed) animal, a recent study by Kutschera and Elliott (2013, p. 1) concluded that, although some walking fishes such as mudskippers “shed light on the gradual evolutionary transition of ancient fishes to early tetrapods … they are not the ancestors of tetrapods, because extant organisms cannot be progenitors of other living beings.” As Polgar, et al. note, more study is required to detail the evolution of the mudskipper (2014, p. 179).
    Many experts have hypothesized that fish fins evolved into terrestrial limbs, a theory that also does not fit the facts (Clack, 2012, p. 136). For example, the earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl (having five fingers and toes) as are modern tetrapods, and the fossil evidence does not support the fin to limb evolution (Clack, 2012, pp. 136-137).
    Summary
    In short, the mudskipper is not a fish that evolved legs or an amphibian that evolved to look like a fish, but a graceful well designed swimmer in water that gets along so well out of water that they spend most of their life on land and thrive in large areas of the world. We have no evidence of fish-fin to tetrapod limb evolution, and the mudskipper does not help to explain the major missing links that can bridge the two structures. Like the duck-billed platypus, the mudskipper contains a unique mosaic of features found on many different animals. And this situation is bad news for evolutionists.
    http://www.create.ab.ca/mudski.....evolution/

    And to have the following finding, just makes the claim from Darwinists all the more comical

    Repeated evolution: A fish living on land is NOT an extraordinary thing but a common phenomenon
    PUBLISHED 6TH JANUARY 2020

    Fish have evolved the ability to live on land many times, challenging the perception that this extreme lifestyle shift was likely to have been a rare occurrence in ancient times. New research shows 33 different families of fish have at least one species that demonstrates some terrestrial activity and, in many cases, these behaviors are likely to have evolved independently in the different families.

    A fish out of water might seem an extraordinary thing, but in fact it is quite a common phenomenon,” says study first author and UNSW evolutionary ecologist Dr Terry Ord

    full article is here:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622102129.htm
    https://stuffhappens.info/repeated-evolution-a-fish-out-of-water-is-not-an-extraordinary-thing-but-a-common-phenomenon/

    Convergent evolution is simply a hard and devastating failure for Darwinists:

    The Real Problem With Convergence – Cornelius Hunter – May 25, 2017
    Excerpt: 21st century evolutionists are still befuddled by convergence, which is rampant in biology, and how it could occur. This certainly is a problem for the theory.,,,
    a fundamental evidence and prediction of evolution is falsified.
    The species do not fall into the expected evolutionary pattern.
    The failure of fundamental predictions — and this is a hard failure — is fatal for scientific theories. It leaves evolution not as a scientific theory but as an ad hoc exercise in storytelling.
    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/05/the-real-problem-with-convergence/

    The “Shared Error” Argument – Cornelius Hunter – April 17, 2017
    Excerpt: the evolutionist’s contention that common descent is needed to explain those shared mutations in different species contradicts the most basic biology. Simply put, similarities across species which cannot be explained by common descent, are rampant in biology. The olfactory system is no exception. Its several fundamental components, if evolution is true, must have evolved several times independently. The level of independent origin which evolutionists must admit to (variously referred to as convergent evolution, parallel evolution, recurrent evolution, cascades of convergence, and so forth depending on the pattern) is staggering and dwarfs the levels of similarities in the olfactory receptor genes. To cast those relatively few similarities as mandates for common descent, while ignoring the volumes of similarities that violate common descent constitutes the mother of all confirmation biases.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....prove.html

    Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin February 9, 2015
    Excerpt: Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,,
    Biochemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution.126 Each case shows an example where biological similarity — even at the genetic level — is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91161.html

  43. 43
    martin_r says:

    Jawa@41

    yes, i was collecting repeated-evolution-articles for many years… it is crazy what these guys (biologists) claim…. i really doubt that these people are mentally intact (and they calling us stupid ?)

    e.g. have a look at this, this guy even understands the issue:

    “Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent
    evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye”

    “These results illustrate exactly
    why arthropod compound eye evolution has remained controversial,
    because one of two seemingly very unlikely evolutionary
    histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities
    evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups or
    compound eyes have been lost in a seemingly inordinate number
    of arthropod lineages

    http://www.pnas.org/content/pn.....6.full.pdf

    And, of course, 99% lay atheists have no idea about repeated evolution issues … and i can assure you, i have debated lots of them ..

    in time, i will publish everything what i found, i am glad you like my comments…

  44. 44
    jawa says:

    Martin_r,

    Wow! That’s an excellent work you’ve done. Definitely you should publish it, but in the meantime, you may want to associate your posting name Martin_r with the link to your interesting blog? Just a suggestion. Thanks.

    BTW, are you in Europe or across the big pond? Just curious. 🙂

  45. 45
    jawa says:

    BA77 @42:

    Excellent commentary in reply to PavelU’s comment.
    I think your comment should be posted in the “fossils” thread too. Just a thought. Thanks.

  46. 46
    martin_r says:

    Jawa @44

    it is Europe (i apologize for my English grammar, it is not my first language)
    Yes, i also like your suggestion – linking my nickname to my blog, it is done.

  47. 47
    jawa says:

    Martin_r,

    I don’t have any problem with your grammar. It seems fine to me. Do you recognize the language in this video? 🙂
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-keep-sending-music-to-extraterrestrials/#comment-690623

    BTW, your name in your latest comment does not show any link yet. At least not for me.
    For example, Bornagain77 is associated with a link to his blog.

  48. 48
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Martin_r

    And, of course, 99% lay atheists have no idea about repeated evolution issues … and i can assure you, i have debated lots of them ..

    I have done it also and found the same.
    They have no answer to the problem. They change the topic or just respond with silence. I think many have never even heard of it. When they discover the problem, they know it is absurd and absolutely incredible. But what can they say?
    Years ago when I first heard about convergent evolution I burst out laughing.
    They seriously expect people to believe that. And evolutionists do believe it, without daring to question.
    A 5 year old child can see how ridiculous that story is. In fact, a 5 year old could make up a more convincing one.

  49. 49
    jawa says:

    Martin_r
    Your name now contains a link to your blog. Well done! Thanks.

  50. 50
    Axel says:

    ‘Exit Evolution’. Love the title!

    ‘Exit Left Evolution’, might have added an ironic hint of the vapid histrionics of its devotees, strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage. I hope one day the money-bags, the principals of the multinationals, who fund much of scientific research, are called to account for imposing a patently phony and exhaustively-discredited, ‘Brave Old World’ paradigm on modern science, holding it back, for goodness knows how long.

Leave a Reply