Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity

Michael Behe on the “purposeful arrangement of parts”

Spread the love

Although Michael Behe, is associated with the concept of irreducible complexity, he now says he prefers to explain ID as “purposeful arrangement of parts”:

A correspondent asked about “specified complexity” and the intelligent design of the eye. I explained why I much prefer the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts” as a criterion for design — versus irreducible complexity, specified complexity, specified small probability, information, complex specified information, or other phrases.

The critical difference between ID and Darwinian evolution (and all other proposals for unintelligent evolutionary processes) is the involvement of a mind in ID. The philosopher Lydia McGrew once wrote that the basic question of ID boils down to the question of “other minds.” One of Alvin Plantinga’s claims to fame is that he argued fifty years ago in God and Other Minds that (I paraphrase) the perception of the existence of God is the same sort of problem as the perception of the existence of other minds.

Michael Behe, “Recognizing Design by a “Purposeful Arrangement of Parts”” at Evolution News and Science Today (June 10, 2021)

“Purposeful arrangement of parts” is actually much easier for the average person to understand.

Biochemist Michael Behe is the author of Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution/ (1996), The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves.

28 Replies to “Michael Behe on the “purposeful arrangement of parts”

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    Finally !!!

    Designed things = purposeful arrangement of parts

    I am a mechanical engineer, and this is the definition i finally like. Now even guys like Seversky, JVL & Co. can understand…

    Actually, i was using very similar definition in my debates with Darwinists (“Thousands of parts working together for a purpose”)

    In my debates, Darwinian clowns very often argued with the following: “look at a snow flake, also appears to be designed (and no designer was needed)”….

    Seversky, JVL & Co, … of course, a visual appearance can give you some clues as well, but this is not what is meant by intelligently designed things … Now, you Darwinists have to find examples of things (not made of cells) where thousands of parts working together for a purpose and were not designed)… (we ID people consider cells/biology designed, that is why you have to find another example)

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    I like this term. IC always seems sort of sideways from the real meaning of the concept.

    ‘Necessary simultaneity’ is closer to the concept but also too multisyllabic.

  3. 3
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    How about the Fine Tuning of physics?
    (An an example, take the gravitational constant. If it were different by even the tiniest smidgeon, we wouldn’t be here,)

    Fine tuning is powerful evidence for Intelligent Design, and it appears to be purposeful.
    But I don’t see what parts are being purposely arranged.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    /

    Designed things = purposeful arrangement of parts

    It sounds like a tautology.

    Yes, design involves the purposeful arrangement of parts. We know that because that is what we do. The question is, can we reasonably infer the handiwork of a non-human designer from the apparent but partial similarity to human design of what we would otherwise think of as naturally-occurring phenomena? If we weigh both the similarities and the differences is it a strong or weak inference?

    Salem Hypothesis

    The Salem Hypothesis is the observation of an apparent correlation between the engineering trade and creationist beliefs (possibly due to crank magnetism, this can also include climate-change denial and other crackpot beliefs).

    The hypothesis suggests that people who claim science expertise, whilst advocating creationism, tend to be formally trained as engineers (with the possible exception of chemical engineers).

    This hypothesis does not address whether engineers tend to be creationists (the converse); however, it has been speculated that engineering predisposes people to a creation-science view.

    There is some evidence that this characterization of respected members of the esteemed engineering profession can actually be extrapolated out to fundamentalism and quackery of all kinds.

  5. 5
    Sandy says:

    Seversky

    Martin_r
    Designed things = purposeful arrangement of parts

    It sounds like a tautology.

    We have examples of mind(of human) that produce a thing after he /she thought to a purpose.
    Give us examples when we can observe randomness produce a purposeful thing. :))

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    Yes, design involves the purposeful arrangement of parts. We know that because that is what we do. The question is, can we reasonably infer the handiwork of a non-human designer from the apparent but partial similarity to human design of what we would otherwise think of as naturally-occurring phenomena?

    Can anyone point to a naturally occurring instance of design, that is the inadvertent arrangement of parts that has an external purpose?

    If, not then the assumption of a non-human existing sometime in the past becomes a likely explanation. Richard Dawkins agrees.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    I was hoping that this article would make headline on UD.

    As Michael Behe explains in his article, all other definitons for Intelligent Design all boil down to the simple concept of the “purposeful arrangement of parts”

    I explained why I much prefer the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts” as a criterion for design — versus irreducible complexity, specified complexity, specified small probability, information, complex specified information, or other phrases.,,,
    Zeroes and Ones
    Other phrases that people use to indicate intelligent design all boil down to purposeful arrangements of parts. For example, Stephen Meyer likes to point out that we know intelligent agents produce information, so when we come across coded information in a computer program we can conclude it was produced by an intelligent agent. True enough. Yet how do we know there is information in a string of zeroes and ones — in a computer program? Only if we find that they are arranged for a purpose; that is, if the computer program has a function, if it can do something purposeful. In the same way, irreducibly complex systems resist Darwinian explanation, but how do we know they are designed? Because we see they can do something, that they have a purpose, they are a purposeful arrangement of parts. (As an aside, IC systems have two relevant properties — their discontinuous nature resists Darwinism and their manifest purposiveness strongly points to design.)
    Finally, in the case of the eye, rather than “specified complexity,” I think it is much, much easier to parse design for a lay audience (or a professional one) as a purposeful arrangement of parts. Audiences will immediately recognize the purpose in the arrangement of the eye’s components. In my view, the phrase specified complexity only obscures the same meaning as found in purposeful arrangement. The “specified” in the phrase specified complexity is pretty much the same as “purposeful,” and “complexity” the same as “arrangement.” Yet the phrase “purposeful arrangement” is at once less mathy, less forbidding, more accessible, and clearer.
    – Michael Behe
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/recognizing-design-by-a-purposeful-arrangement-of-parts/

    The reason I very much like this article is because, in quantum information theory, ‘classical’ sequential information, (such as what is encoded on a computer program and DNA, and which lies at the basis of Dembski’s definition of Complex Specified Information (CSI),), is held to be a subset of quantum ‘positional’ information. i.e. a subset of the “purposeful arrangement of parts’.

    Someone might object that a ‘classical’ computer only contains ‘classical’ sequential information, and does not contain any quantum ‘positional’ information. But as Charles Bennett, (who laid the foundation for quantum teleportation and reversible computation), pointed out in the following video, “A classical communications channel is a quantum communication channel with an eavesdropper (maybe only the environment)… A classical computer is a quantum computer handicapped by having eavesdroppers on all its wires.”

    Information is Quantum – Charles Bennett – video
    39:30 minute mark: “Entanglement is ubiquitous: Almost every interaction between two systems creates entanglement between them… Most systems in nature… interact so strongly with the environment as to become entangled with it almost immediately.”… 44:00 minute mark: “A classical communications channel is a quantum communication channel with an eavesdropper (maybe only the environment)… A classical computer is a quantum computer handicapped by having eavesdroppers on all its wires.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-cunningham-offers-information-is-quantum/

    As well, on the following site entitled “Quantum Information Science”, a site where Charles Bennett himself is on the steering committee,

    Quantum Information Science
    Steering Committee
    C. H. Bennett IBM
    D. P. DiVincenzo IBM
    N. Gershenfeld MIT
    H. M. Gibbs University of Arizona
    H. J. Kimble Caltech
    J. Preskill Caltech
    U. V. Vazirani UC/Berkeley
    D. J. Wineland NIST
    C. Yao Princeton University
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm

    On that site, they have this illustration showing classical information to be a subset of quantum information

    Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif

    To clearly get their point across, below that illustration they have this caption,

    Figure 1: The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.

    As well, classical information is shown to be a subset of quantum, (i.e. positional, i.e. the ‘purposeful arrangement of parts’), information by the following method.

    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 if “an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer” was not already provocative enough as far as the debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design is concerned, the following study demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.

    Specifically, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,,
    In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,,
    Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    This is a very interesting finding since Darwinists use to try to claim, (right here on UD and elsewhere, and although they had, and still have, no evidence that unguided material processes can ever create immaterial information), that the information in life was not physically real but that it was ‘just a metaphor’, and that they could get along just as well without even using the term ‘information’.

    In their view, that argued life was just ‘complicated chemistry’. And that life was not really dependent on the presence of information, as ID proponents were arguing.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Hubert P. Yockey himself, (who worked under Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project), had to defend against the Darwinian claim that the term ‘information’, as it is applied to life, is just a synonym, metaphor, or analogy.

    Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005
    Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
    http://www.cambridge.org/catal.....038;ss=exc

    So this ‘beautiful’ experimental demonstration from Japanese scientists showing that immaterial information, (information that was gained from knowledge of a particle’s position), had a “thermodynamic content’ was not a minor development as far as the debate between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution is concerned.

    In short, the experiment demonstrated that information, although it is immaterial in its fundamental nature, and directly contrary to the materialistic claims of Darwinists, is still very much a physically real entity that has a very real ‘thermodynamic content’, i.e. it has a very real physical effect on material particles!

    Moreover, that immaterial information is shown to have a very real ‘thermodynamic content’ now gives us an adequate explanation so as explain how life can possibly be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment.

    The information content that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be around 10 to the 12 bits,,,

    Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~a.....ecular.htm

    ,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
    – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy

    ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
    Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

    Thus since Bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.

    Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells
    Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small – about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
    https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html

    And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells within the average human body,

    Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body – 2016
    Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533

    Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of all the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of ‘positional’ information, (i.e. the ‘purposeful arrangement of parts’), that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method.

    In the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, who specializes in embryology, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that during embryological development ‘positional information’ must somehow be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into their multiple different states during embryological development.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

    And as the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    To continue on establishing the physical reality of immaterial information,,,, around 2016, the Maxwell demon thought experiment was extended to build a refrigerator, i.e. to build “a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge.”

    New Scientist astounds: Information is physical – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-physical/

    And as the following 2016 article stated, “Running a brain-twisting thought experiment for real shows that information is a physical thing”,,

    Matter, energy… knowledge: – May 11, 2016
    Running a brain-twisting thought experiment for real shows that information is a physical thing – so can we now harness the most elusive entity in the cosmos?
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030730-200-demon-no-more-physics-most-elusive-entity-gives-up-its-secret/

    Moreover, the following 2017 article, (commenting on the fact that “a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year”) stated that: 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 is simply completely devastating to the materialistic claims of Darwinists who try to claim that immaterial information is not physically real but that the immaterial information in life is just a ‘metaphor’.

    Moreover in 2018, “Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics.”

    Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency – Lisa Zyga – January 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine’s efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,,
    https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html

    And just recently, as of May of this year, and as the following article states, (via knowledge of a particle’s position), researchers built a Information engine that achieves “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells, and speeds comparable to fast-swimming bacteria,”

    World’s fastest information-fuelled engine designed by SFU researchers – May 11, 2021
    Excerpt: Simon Fraser University researchers have designed a remarkably fast engine that taps into a new kind of fuel — information.
    The development of this engine, which converts the random jiggling of a microscopic particle into stored energy, is outlined in research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and could lead to significant advances in the speed and cost of computers and bio-nanotechnologies.
    SFU physics professor and senior author John Bechhoefer says researchers’ understanding of how to rapidly and efficiently convert information into “work” may inform the design and creation of real-world information engines.
    “We wanted to find out how fast an information engine can go and how much energy it can extract, so we made one,” says Bechhoefer, whose experimental group collaborated with theorists led by SFU physics professor David Sivak.
    Engines of this type were first proposed over 150 years ago, (via Maxwell), but actually making them has only recently become possible.
    “By systematically studying this engine, and choosing the right system characteristics, we have pushed its capabilities over ten times farther than other similar implementations, thus making it the current best-in-class,” says Sivak.
    The information engine designed by SFU researchers consists of a microscopic particle immersed in water and attached to a spring which, itself, is fixed to a movable stage. Researchers then observe the particle bouncing up and down due to thermal motion.
    “When we see an upward bounce, we move the stage up in response,” explains lead author and PhD student Tushar Saha. “When we see a downward bounce, we wait. This ends up lifting the entire system using only information about the particle’s position.”
    Repeating this procedure, they raise the particle “a great height, and thus store a significant amount of gravitational energy,” without having to directly pull on the particle.
    Saha further explains that, “in the lab, we implement this engine with an instrument known as an optical trap, which uses a laser to create a force on the particle that mimics that of the spring and stage.”
    Joseph Lucero, a Master of Science student adds, “in our theoretical analysis, we find an interesting trade-off between the particle mass and the average time for the particle to bounce up. While heavier particles can store more gravitational energy, they generally also take longer to move up.”??
    “Guided by this insight, we picked the particle mass and other engine properties to maximize how fast the engine extracts energy, outperforming previous designs and achieving power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells, and speeds comparable to fast-swimming bacteria,” says postdoctoral fellow Jannik Ehrich.
    https://www.sfu.ca/university-communications/issues-experts/2021/05/world-s-fastest-information-fuelled-engine-designed-by-sfu-resea.html

    HUH? “achieving power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells, and speeds comparable to fast-swimming bacteria,”,”???

    That finding should literally make a Darwinist’s head spin.

    As ENV understated the implications of the preceding finding, “the best minds in science and engineering are trying to approach the capabilities of bacteria. That might suggest some thoughts about the origin of the target they are trying to reach.”

    Consider: the best minds in science and engineering are trying to approach the capabilities of bacteria. That might suggest some thoughts about the origin of the target they are trying to reach.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/life-fights-entropy-with-intelligent-design/

    LOL “might suggest some thoughts about the origin of the target they are trying to reach.” 🙂

    That they would compare their achievement to the power of a bacterial flagellum in particular is also interesting since Dr. Michael Behe originally based his entire concept of ‘irreducible complexity’, in large measure, using the bacterial flagellum itself as a primary example for ‘irreducible complexity’.

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.-
    – Dr Behe in 1997

    Here is another article that further solidifies the claim that the bacterial flagellum itself is based upon quantum principles and is not based upon ‘classical’ principles as would be presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution.

    INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR?Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito – 2007
    Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state.
    http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are a few more notes along that line that further solidifies the claim that molecular machines are based on quantum information principles, not on classical principles as would be presupposed within the framework of Darwinian materialism.

    in the following article subtitled ‘how bio-molecular machines can generate nontrivial quantum states’, the authors state that entanglement can be maintained even in the presence of very intense noise,

    Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: how bio-molecular machines can generate nontrivial quantum states
    Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Jianming Cai1, Sandu Popescu and Hans J Briegel
    Published 29 May 2012
    Excerpt: Very recently (Cai et al 2010 Phys. Rev. E 82 021921), a simple mechanism was presented by which a molecule subjected to forced oscillations, out of thermal equilibrium, can maintain quantum entanglement between two of its quantum degrees of freedom. Crucially, entanglement can be maintained even in the presence of very intense noise, so intense that no entanglement is possible when the forced oscillations cease. This mechanism may allow for the presence of nontrivial quantum entanglement in biological systems. Here we significantly enlarge the study of this model. In particular, we show that the persistent generation of dynamic entanglement is not restricted to the bosonic heat bath model, but can also be observed in other decoherence models, e.g. the spin gas model, and in non-Markovian scenarios. We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/arti.....53043/meta

    And in the following article, the authors even go on to state that ‘this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems’,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems,,,
    Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.
    http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quan.....t-systems/

    In fact, besides molecular machines, quantum principles are now found to be at play “in a wide range of important biomolecules”

    In the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “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,”,,,

    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

    To drive this point home, this follow up 2018 article stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”

    Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018
    Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,,
    Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,,
    WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....l-proteins
    Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015);
    Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)

    Even DNA itself does not belong to the world of classical mechanics but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics.

    In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark 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

    To point out the obvious, the fact that “practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it” fits hand in glove with Bennett and company’s prior claim that “Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information”

    Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    That quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement, contrary to what was believed to be possible in molecular biology just a few short years ago, is now found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology is of no small importance.

    What is so devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement, (and/or quantum information), 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” clearly stated the situation with quantum non-locality, “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

    It is also important to realize that quantum information is physically conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), 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, of course, being 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) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    So again, these recent experimental findings that prove that quantum information is ubiquitous within molecular biology are of no small importance.

    In short, Christian Theists can now appeal directly to empirical evidence to support their belief in the physical reality of an immaterial soul that is capable of living past the death of our material, temporal, bodies.

    Verse:

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

  12. 12
    William J Murray says:

    Again, BA77 brings the house down with his evidence and argument.

    My only minor quibble is probably a semantic one, where you say this establishes the “physical reality” of “immaterial information.” Perhaps you’re saying the same thing as this: “it is undeniable via experimentation that immaterial information affects physical phenomena in quantifiable, repeatable (thermodynamic) ways?”

  13. 13
    Sandy says:

    I guess the information is entirely immaterial(and an alien to this universe) but to work in this world it needs an material foundation(a software needs a cd ,thumb drive ,hdd otherwise it couldn’t run …in this world . )

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, purposeful, functional arrangement or configuration, detectable when it is at a level of complexity that blind chance and mechanical necessity are utterly unlikely to account for same. Where, attempted reduction to accidental analogy fails. A is A, itself i/l/o core characteristics. Relevant cases of known design show said characteristics, which help to characterise them. When other things we did not happen to see being formed exhibit the same pattern of characteristics that warrants inference that they too are designed. And note, blind chance and mechanical necessity do not per observation create languages, symbol systems, string data codes of high complexity expressing algorithms, as well as associated execution machinery. That is what is being brushed aside fallaciously. KF

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    seversky @4

    Salem hypothesis… yes, i heard of it…
    “This hypothesis does not address whether engineers tend to be creationists (the converse); however, it has been speculated that engineering predisposes people to a creation-science view.”

    let me repeat that one:
    “it has been speculated that engineering predisposes people to a creation-science view”

    sure…. BECAUSE WE ENGINEERS KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE THINGS WORKING… and then, there are the other guys – biologists (natural science graduates) with their crazy absurd theory, biologists – WHO NEVER MADE ANYTHING … biologists, with their crazy absurd claims and belief-based ‘evidence’ – give it enough time, and fully autonomous, self-navigating flying systems will self-design, with no help from engineers, no knowledge of math or physics is needed …and this is being taught in 21st century schools!!!!
    So lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets teach biology … Biologists should teach engineers how to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system …can’t wait…

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    Don’t forget, the self-replicating part!

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    i posted the following before, but let me repeat it…

    most people (including scientists) don’t realize it, but in biology, there are multiple layers of design (Purposeful Arrangement Of Parts)

    lets take for example, a hummingbird ..

    Layer #1:
    the design of the humming itself – the shape of the body, the shape / geometry of the wings, bird’s weight, the frequency of wing flapping etc … in other words, lots of sophisticated design features need to be met so the hummingbird flies as it flies including the hovering-ability.

    Layer #2:
    the design of hummingbird’s fully automated self-assembly process (biologists call it – a development). All assembly-steps need to have the right order, there are no workers who assembly a hummingbird piece by piece, also, there are no parts / materials suppliers, everything is made/developed IN A FULLY AUTOMATED process. This is an engineering SCI-FI !!!!

    Layer #3:
    The chemical-design of the materials the hummingbird’s body is made of. All high-tech materials, perfectly designed and adjusted to fulfill its function. What is remarkable, all these sophisticated materials, some of it very lightweight and strong, are developed at species’s body temperature, no fire of thousands of degrees is needed. 21st century material-engineers can only wonder…

    Layer #4:
    the design of automated maintenance / repair processes. When you look at any species, almost everything gets repaired. Broken bones, eye’s cornea, the skin,, even DNA molecule gets repaired… I am sure that a biologist could provide a very long list of what else gets repaired.

    (i am sure that there are many other layers of species’ design … feel free to add to mine…)

    Anyway, all above requires thousands of purposefully arranged parts …

  18. 18
    Sandy says:

    Martin_r
    “it has been speculated that engineering predisposes people to a creation-science view”
    BECAUSE WE ENGINEERS KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE THINGS WORKING… and then, there are the other guys – biologists (natural science graduates) with their crazy absurd theory, biologists – WHO NEVER MADE ANYTHING …

    :)) One of the most difficult thing to do is to formulate a simple truth. You made it. Congratulation!

    So lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets teach biology … Biologists should teach engineers how to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system …can’t wait…

    You have to give them a few billion of years. Time and patience are required. Hahahaha!

  19. 19
    martin_r says:

    and, i almost forgot:

    layer#5
    The design of various defense systems, e.g. immune system.

    The latest research – the following was published few days ago:

    “Another language found in Life: Immune signaling”

    ““Cells have evolved an immune response code, or language,” said senior author Alexander Hoffmann, the Thomas M. Asher Professor of Microbiology and director of the Institute for Quantitative and Computational Biosciences at UCLA. “We have identified some words in that language, and we know these words are important because of what happens when they are misused. Now we need to understand the meaning of the words, and we are making rapid progress. It’s as exciting as when archaeologists discovered the Rosetta stone and could begin to read Egyptian hieroglyphs.””

    “Immune cells in the body constantly assess their environment and coordinate their defense functions by using words — or signaling codons, in scientific parlance — to tell the cell’s nucleus which genes to turn on in response to invaders like pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Each signaling codon consists of several successive actions of a DNA binding protein that, when combined, elicit the proper gene activation, in much the same way that successive electrical signals through a telephone wire combine to produce the words of a conversation.”

    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/another-language-found-in-life-immune-signaling/

    so how much design-evidence do Darwinists need to finally accept that life was designed? How many cell’s communication languages need to be found? The cell is a product of unguided process… really ? This is a 21st century scientific consensus? Are all Darwinian scientists escaped from a mental hospital? Or what is going on? The Darwinian evo theory looks more and more like a huge conspiracy …

    On the one hand Darwinian scientists do a great job to discover all these sophisticated things inside the cell, on the other hand, they look like clowns pretending and accepting this is a result of unguided error-trial process …

    PS: another cell’s language (sugars) is here, from a mainstream paper:

    “Move over, DNA. Life’s other code is more subtle and far more powerful”

    “Sugary handshakes aren’t just involved in baby-making. It turns out that every type of cell in our bodies has a unique sugar coating. And whenever anything interacts with a cell, it must recognise that sugar code and use the appropriate secret handshake. It happens when bacteria and viruses infect us, when a growing brain cell feels its way past its neighbours, and when our stem cells receive the marching orders that will define what type of tissue they will develop into.

    let me repeat the following:

    “And whenever anything interacts with a cell, it must recognise that sugar code and use the appropriate secret handshake. ”

    In other words, “that anything” needs to know a secret password … (Darwinists believe in miracles)

    full article:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-300-move-over-dna-lifes-other-code-is-more-subtle-and-far-more-powerful/#ixzz6yOzq5y9Z

  20. 20
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    “Designed things = purposeful arrangement of parts”

    Yes, this is definitely a tautology.

    And a deliberate attempt by Behe to make it seem that we are observing Purpose or Intent.

    It’s as sneaky as “specified complexity”

    Purpose can only be inferred, not observed. It would be more correct to call it a “Functional arrangement of parts”. Function can be observed, and function can exist without purpose or intent. To substantiate an inference of purpose from an observation of function, you need either provenance, or a direct conversation with the designer.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Again, Pater, all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that what Behe calls a purposeful arrangement of parts actually arose via blind and mindless processes. That is without purpose. After all that was Darwin’s entire point. And yet that point remains unresolved.

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”-Dr. Behe in DBB

    He goes on to say:

    ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

    So have at it. The closer people look the better ID looks

  22. 22
    martin_r says:

    Pater @20 …. you must be a biologist – natural science graduate ….

  23. 23
    Sandy says:

    Function can be observed, and function can exist without purpose or intent.

    Like your comment that has been written by … itself when your cat walked on keyboard hunting a butterfly without purpose or intent .Right? Right!

  24. 24
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @Sandy

    No…. more like how gravity functions to bring hydrogen together to make stars where none existed before. And lava flow functions to build islands where none existed before. And hydrogen and oxygen burning functions to make water that didn’t exist before. And running water functions to carve rock and form the caves that your ancestors used as dwellings.

    Maybe you need to read more than one book, Sandy.

  25. 25
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @Martin_r #22

    Nope. Engineer. Which is why I find it best to listen to the consensus of biologists when it comes to our origin.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    Pater Kimbridge:

    Which is why I find it best to listen to the consensus of biologists when it comes to our origin.

    They don’t have any idea. Nothing testable, anyway. They don’t even know what determines biological form.

  27. 27
    Sandy says:

    Pater Kimbridge
    @Sandy

    No…. more like how gravity functions to bring hydrogen together to make stars where none existed before. And lava flow functions to build islands where none existed before. And hydrogen and oxygen burning functions to make water that didn’t exist before. And running water functions to carve rock and form the caves that your ancestors used as dwellings.

    Maybe you need to read more than one book, Sandy.

    :))) I don’t think you are engineer because you equate “lava flow” with cell complexity.

  28. 28
    hnorman42 says:

    Regarding whether Behe’s “purposeful arrangement of parts” is tautologous – I don’t think so. It’s a head scratcher though. I looked at the phrase and it looked like a tautology. But then when I thought of the flagellum what did I see in my mind’s eye? “A purposeful arrangement of parts”. What can I say?

    Generally speaking, a real tautology looks ridiculous when it’s recognized. If something looks tautologous but still seems meaningful there’s usually a subtle or implied equivocation in operation somewhere. And not all equivocations are deliberate.

    The word “design” implies purpose in the sense of volition. But it references an agent. In “purposeful arrangement of parts” “purposeful” refers not to the agent but to the parts. They coordinate to serve a purpose. One legitimate definition of purpose is “something’s reason for being.” I think we’ve largely moved to the term “function” not because “purpose” is wrong but because it is ambiguous.

    However, “functional arrangement of parts” has its own problems. That just sounds like something that works.

Leave a Reply