Michael Behe, author of Darwin Devolves, offers some hints:
So here’s the simple test to tell if scientists are exaggerating wildly. Let’s call it: “The Principle of Comparative Difficulty” (PCD): if an easier task is too difficult to accomplish, then a harder one certainly is too. …
Yet, as physicist David Snoke and I have shown, Darwin’s mechanism of random mutation and natural selection strains to explain even the very simplest molecular example of cooperation (called a “disulfide bond”). Michael Behe, “Here’s How to Tell if Scientists are Exaggerating” at The Stream
Yet we are told that Darwinism explains all the complex machinery.
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
Complex machinery? “Interspecies communication” strategy between gut bacteria and mammalian hosts’ genes described
Researchers: Cells Have A Repair Crew That Fixes Local Leaks
Researchers: How The Immune System “Thinks”
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Researcher: Mathematics Sheds Light On “Unfathomably Complex” Cellular Thinking
How do cells in the body know where they are supposed to be?
Researchers A Kill Cancer Code Is Embedded in Every Cell
How Do Cells Interpret The “Dizzying” Communications Pathways In Multicellular Life Forms?
and
Cell atlases reveal extreme complexity at biology’s frontiers
Nuclear physics can explain radioactive decay which is, according to Wikipedia, “the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy (in terms of mass in its rest frame) by emitting radiation, such as an alpha particle, beta particle with neutrino or only a neutrino in the case of electron capture, or a gamma ray or electron in the case of internal conversion.” What it can’t do is predict which specific nucleii will decay in a given period and in which order. Does that mean nuclear physics is a bust?
Radioactive decay works according to its design. It is all part of the “set it and forget it” universe.
On the other hand, Seversky, it is utterly predictable that when a scientist wants to sound deep and spiritual, they bring up QM.
QM makes definite probabilistic predictions that have been experimentally verified to high precision. Some of those predictions have been counter-intuitive (Bell inequalities) but clearly verified (A. Aspect). Please educate me about those specific Darwinian predictions that have been experimentally verified, I seem to have missed them somehow.
Seversky mentions radioactive decay. Math Guy mentions QM.
Of related interest to radioactive decay and QM, one of my favorite lines of evidence strongly indicating that consciousness, specifically the Mind of God, must precede material reality is the Quantum Zeno effect. The ‘Quantum Zeno Effect’ is, to put it simply, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
In other words, through the mere act of observation, we can prevent a radioactive particle from decaying as long as we observe it, far past its half life for when it should have decayed. Theoretically, we can prevent the decay of a highly unstable particle forever by merely continuously observing it.
Here is an experiment based on the Quantum Zeno Effect that suppressed quantum tunneling merely by observing the particle(s).
And here is an experiment that prevented the decay of unstable atoms by “interaction-free measurements”. That is to say, they were able to prevent the decay of unstable atoms. purely through observation, without directly physically interacting with a single unstable atom.
The reason why I am very impressed with the Quantum Zeno effect as to establishing consciousness and free will’s primacy in quantum mechanics is, for one thing, that Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:
For another thing, it is interesting to note just how foundational entropy is in its explanatory power for actions within the space-time of the universe:
In fact, entropy is the primary reason why our physical, temporal, bodies grow old and die,,,
And yet, to repeat, “The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”
This is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should my choice whether to observe a unstable particle or not put a freeze on the entropic decay of that particle unless consciousness and free will was and is more foundational to reality than the 1 in 10^10^123 entropy is?
Quote and Verses:
Robert Sheldon @ 3
Not just scientists, as our own BA77 demonstrates.