Michael Denton Flashback — Grasping the Reality of Life

_{Gil Dodgen

November 7, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Like Michael Behe, I read a book by another Michael. Behe and I had the same reaction: Why haven’t we heard any of this stuff before? The answer is that questioning Darwinian orthodoxy essentially represents committing suicide in academia — an institution that promotes tolerance, diversity, free thought, and skepticism as the highest virtues — but which punishes any deviation from Darwinian dogma with draconian suppression, no matter how logical or evidential the challenges might be.

Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, challenged that dogma, with no theological or philosophical precommitment as far as I can tell. I would encourage everyone with intellectual curiosity to read that book.

The following I find to be one of his most revealing observations concerning the reality of life:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter, so each atom in it would be the size of a tennis ball, and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines… We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction… However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours…

Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell’s manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated…

[Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331.]

Comments

And even still, after knowing that a semiotic information system must be accounted for (because that is the way we find it), there is no accounting for it. It's much easier to tell the tale than to worry about the details. Upright BiPed

' And again, missing from any such history is natural selection. For such a history to make sense there must be some indication of why each individual, incremental genetic change was selected or “drifted” into place. Those details are universally absent. At best they are inserted after-the-fact, and applied to more significant phenotypic variations, not to underlying genetic increments.' ScottAndrews2; Are you saying that "the faster cat gets the prey, and lives to screw another day" doesn't describe 'molecular evolutionary contributions to macrophenotypical reality in any kind of realistic fashion? THIS IS SHEAR BLASHEMY. DR REC WHERE ARE YOU TO DEFEND THE TRUTH? THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS...... YOU LYING FOOL. bpragmatic

It's actually been several hundred years since animal breeders figured out the process works. It's been over 15 decades since science understood the wider ramifications to all life, and almost 7 decades since the specific mechanisms were discovered. GinoB

Do you admit that once we get imperfect self replicators subject to differential selection and carrying forward heritable traits, we have a mechanism for increasing information? GinoB

GinoB,
The overall information in the entire gene pool thereby *accumulates and increases* in small increments, generation by generation, over time. Been about 15 decades since science worked that out.
Impressive, since it's only been 11 decades since the connection between chromosomes and heredity was discovered. ScottAndrews2

GB, without the semiotic information system that supports heredity there is no random genetic variation. There is no drift or HGT or gene pool. Perhaps the high relevance of this fact did not occur to you. Upright BiPed

Even if we were to grant you this theoretical narrative, that still would not explain the origin of biological information. bbigej

ScottAndrews2
And what is this universal principle you speak of?
It's called addition. As in 1+1+1+1+1=5.
Why have astronauts visited the moon and not Mars? By your principle, they only need to do what they have already done, just many times over.
The reasons we haven't visited Mars yet are purely logistical; food, water, fuel to keep people alive for several years. There's no macig barrier that makes it impossible to go. Humans have sent numerous autonomous spacecraft there, even driven a rover on its surface.
It quickly becomes apparent that a ladder is poor illustration. One step does not always lead to more steps.
I'd be most appreciative if you could please tell me the barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate over time into macro-evolutionary change. GinoB

Upright BiPed
Cabal, the ladder in biology is the existence of semiosis (heritable information recorded in a system of symbols). If you’ll provide a rational explanation of your ladder, then I am all ears.
Because of random genetic variations (genetic mutations, genetic drift, HGT) every generation has slightly different *potentially* heritable information in its gene pool than its ancestors did. The different information that provides an advantage gets selected and *is* inherited, passed to subsequent generations. The overall information in the entire gene pool thereby *accumulates and increases* in small increments, generation by generation, over time. Been about 15 decades since science worked that out. GinoB

I'm actually at a conference currently. I'll probably have some time to reply waiting in the airport on the way home. By the way, Eocene, this is the second or third time you've mentioned something personal about me-where else I post, other hobbies of mine. Twice you've brought up gaming, which make me think you googled my naem, and found this user: http://www.xfire.com/profile/drrec/ I'll just point out that not every "drrec" online is me. I don't game. I live in the US. I think it is a bit creepy you are apparently sleuthing around the internet and trying to dig up dirt, or expose my identity. It makes me really hesitant to post here, given your and other's general incivility. DrREC

Cabal, the ladder in biology is the existence of semiosis (heritable information recorded in a system of symbols). If you'll provide a rational explanation of your ladder, then I am all ears. Upright BiPed

Cabal, You're begging the question.
I can walk 100 meters straight up if I use a ladder. One step at a time is what does the trick. Is it too hard to understand the universal principle that small steps can take you a long way?
In this case no one knows if there is a one hundred meter ladder or if the ladder is even a possibility. Describing any biological configuration as something that can be reached by climbing a series of accessible steps is begging the question. And what is this universal principle you speak of? Why have astronauts visited the moon and not Mars? By your principle, they only need to do what they have already done, just many times over. It quickly becomes apparent that a ladder is poor illustration. One step does not always lead to more steps. ScottAndrews2

“IOW YOU need evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce fsci over the UPB.” I find arguments like that quite off target. Let me make an analogy: I can walk 100 meters straight up if I use a ladder. One step at a time is what does the trick. Is it too hard to understand the universal principle that small steps can take you a long way? Cabal

bpragmatic: "I wonder why Dr. REc doesn’t respond to your comments at post at 21211." ==== It's probably attending to more important world shaking matters like conquering made up imagined empires over at "Civilization Fanatics" playroom. Eocene

bpragmatic,
Are you suggesting that there are various kinds of biologically significant chemical and/or molecular and/or genetic etc component relationships and interactions etc within the system that would be subject to a myriad of different “selection” (and also anti-selection}pressures that would have to be identified, quantified at various “levels” in order to give RM and NS any kind of real legitimacy?
I don't think he's suggesting that, I think he's outright asserting it. Clive Hayden

ScottAndrews2 Regarding your comment from above: "And again, missing from any such history is natural selection. For such a history to make sense there must be some indication of why each individual, incremental genetic change was selected or “drifted” into place. Those details are universally absent." Are you suggesting that there are various kinds of biologically significant chemical and/or molecular and/or genetic etc component relationships and interactions etc within the system that would be subject to a myriad of different "selection" (and also anti-selection}pressures that would have to be identified, quantified at various "levels" in order to give RM and NS any kind of real legitimacy? Why this is an outrage! Please clarify what you mean. I wonder why Dr. REc doesn't respond to your comments at post at 21211. bpragmatic

Dr Rec, It's hardly a "restatement of the same inference" except in the trivial sense that they both lead to an inference to agency involvement. Surely you're not suggesting that one valid inference leading to another must be expected to imply something else in order to be valid. That doesn't even make sense. No, this is unmistakably just more of the same avoidance routine you've employed to deal with the content of my post. What I gave you was a list of the observable physical entailments that are required for any recorded information to exist. By observing those same physical entailments in the processing of recorded genomic information, those entailments have been satisfied, and therefore a central prediction of ID has been positively identified. The information in DNA presents a semioptic state. Calling that a restatement of FSCI isn't going to cut it. Upright BiPed

Dr REC, The OoL is KEY because if life was designed then it is a safe bet that evolution is a design process-> organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design. OTOH if living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes, then by Newton's First Rule, design is a non-starter. Joseph

DrREC:
Evolution would predict small increases in fsci below the universal probability bound-which seems to include enzymes and protein domains, from KF’s reference.
Which evolution "predicts" this and why: 1- front-loaded evolution 2- intelligent design evolution 3- blind watchmaker evolution And which proteins and enzymes have been observed to form via blind, undirected chemical processes outside of a living organism? As for spontaneous and fsci- all we know is that it takes intelligence- ie agency- to produce it- that is take mere complexity/ shannon information and make fsci out of it. We don't know if it was instant, took minutes, hours, days, years- whatever. The point is your position can't account for it, period. Joseph

DrREC,
Gradual increases in fsci, speciation, etc. are observed. The past can be inferred from observation of sequences, and reconstruction of ancestral proteins.
I'm afraid you're begging the question. Whether a change of 500 bits of fsci can be achieved through incremental changes is one of the central questions. It has yet to be admitted into evidence. If the past can be traced, as you say, then where is the step-by-step reconstruction of any macroevolutionary change? Wouldn't that bring this to an and really quick? And again, missing from any such history is natural selection. For such a history to make sense there must be some indication of why each individual, incremental genetic change was selected or "drifted" into place. Those details are universally absent. At best they are inserted after-the-fact, and applied to more significant phenotypic variations, not to underlying genetic increments. The difficulty for mutation and selection, drift, etc., to combine even a few variations the way an intelligent mind effortlessly imagines and assembles a whole comprised of pieces does not instantly invalidate your extrapolation. But it does rule out taking it for granted and casts it in a very poor light. Substantial new evidence would be required to make it even plausible. Again, inference and extrapolation. They have in common the challenge of supposing what no one has ever observed. But the extrapolation is thoroughly undermined by the available evidence. I wouldn't say rule it out, but it's not ready for enshrinement or even prime time. It's hard to believe they even teach kids this stuff. ScottAndrews2

"If every ID post, and “teach the controversy” politician led with “ID is not a critique of evolution. It is a guess about abiogenesis based on inference to human design, despite the non-observation of biological design by any calculable metric.”" Of course many ID proponents and theorists are critical of evolution as a whole, but ID theory itself only pertains to specific features found in nature (such as CSI, IC, Universal fine-tuning, etc). In principle, it is not opposed to common descent. See the definition of intelligent design (per ID.org): "the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Note the qualifier, "certain features." Furthermore, ID isn't a "guess about abiogenesis", it is a legitimate scientific inference based on observed causes and effects found in nature, the same type of inference made by other historical scientists in other disciplines. It doesn't matter if we've never "observed biological design" (but does Venter's work count?). Design is, at the very least, a live possibility pertaining to the origin of life. Moreover, the concept of CSI transcends biology, and features found within the cell manifest the same type of properties found in objects known to be designed. This is why intelligent design is the *best* explanation for the origin of complex, specified information. bbigej

"Stephen Meyer’s thesis pertains only to the origin of life." If every ID post, and "teach the controversy" politician led with "ID is not a critique of evolution. It is a guess about abiogenesis based on inference to human design, despite the non-observation of biological design by any calculable metric." I'd be happy, and stop posting here. DrREC

"IOW YOU need evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce fsci over the UPB." Why? Evolution would predict small increases in fsci below the universal probability bound-which seems to include enzymes and protein domains, from KF's reference. This despite no one actually calculating fits for a protein of decent size, only estimating from know sequences or mutational experiments that fall far short of exploring all of sequence space. "Also ID does not require spontaneous increase in fsci over the UPB" Isn't that how KF et al. infers design? DrREC

Umm that wasn't a definition of the theory- that is what you were supposed to provide evidence for. IOW YOU need evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce fsci over the UPB. Also ID does not require spontaneous increase in fsci over the UPB. Joseph

2.1.1.1.3 Upright BiPedNovember 8, 2011 at 10:27 am "Dr Rec, I gave you the logic behind the call – the fact that it is symbolically-recorded information itself. I gave you the physically-observable entailments of such information." That is just another restatement of the same inference. DrREC

Contrastive. Your theory has no rational basis in observation, so you try to make it sound like evolution has the same problem. Sadly this is false. Gradual increases in fsci, speciation, etc. are observed. The past can be inferred from observation of sequences, and reconstruction of ancestral proteins. So what is more logical-that the process we observe now operated in the past, or the invention of a whole new process that has no empirical observation. A question I'd have to ask myself if I was an ID supporter-If species are continuing to change, why aren't we observing design (increases in fsci >500 bits at once)? DrREC

"Strange, I didn’t provide any definition of the tehory of evolution in that post." Sorry, I think you were attempting a comeback so fast you didn't read what you wrote: "Give me a single observation of the theory of evolution(biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising)" What is contained inside parenthetical is usually are qualifying or defining what preceded. At any rate, evolution would not require a spontaneous increase in fsci over the universal probability bound. ID would. DrREC

Dr Rec, I gave you the logic behind the call - the fact that it is symbolically-recorded information itself. I gave you the physically-observable entailments of such information. Your theory doesn't even have a mechanism to get the ball in play. You simply blew it off and said it was irrelevant. Apparently in your search for the truth of reality, there is empirical evidence that you simply don't like, don't want to deal with, and will not engage in. Upright BiPed

DrREC,
Now by what logic do we determine a process for which there is “no such observation ever?” explains the past, instead of the process (evolution) which we currently observe?
The statement "no observation ever" applies equally to intelligent design and the process of evolution. No greater increase in information can be attributed to natural selection than can be attributed to instances of artificial selection. That leaves us with the question, which is a more satisfactory, realistic explanation? We have an inference and an extrapolation. Both require that we reason beyond what we can observe. The inference draws on an overabundance of observation and evidence. What is missing is evidence of significant design in the specific form of biological life. I have no problem conceding that. It is worth noting that historically, intelligent design has not been limited to one or a few mediums. In fact, at present, it reaches out to design the very thing in question, living things. The extrapolation draws on observations specific to biology, but doesn't have much else going for it. There's scarcely even a hypothesis as to how it could or did produce variations beyond a limited range. To date, the difference between the output of known design and known evolution are about exactly what one would expect. One makes innovative leaps and moves toward planned objectives while the other changes colors, shapes, and sizes, and often as not changes them back. Forget about direct observation. There is none. There is an inference and an extrapolation. Neither gives a very detailed picture, but our existence dictates that at least one is almost certainly correct. I feel that one makes a much stronger case. I'll admit that I have reason for bias. I don't seek to change everyone's mind. But in view of the above reasoning there is no basis for dogmatically elevating evolution over design. I'm more interested in relaxing that dogmatism than in winning the argument. ScottAndrews2

DrREC:
So again, what is the observation in the present of the production of “vast amounts of complex, specified information” at once that would allow us to infer ID operated in the past?
What is the observation in the present of macroevolution taking place using along neo-Darwinian mechanisms that would allow us to infer that neo-Darwinian mechanisms operated in the past, and so, bringing about macroevolution? PaV

1- ID is not anti-evolution 2- The processes we currently observe appear to lead only to a wobbling stability Joseph

DrREC:
JoeG, that is some definition for the theory of evolution!!!
Strange, I didn't provide any definition of the tehory of evolution in that post. DrEC:
As for experiments, I’m testing the increase in fsci as repeat proteins duplicate the repeat and diversify under experimental stress.
Yet you are starting with that which needs explaining in the first place. Joseph

"So again, what is the observation in the present of the production of “vast amounts of complex, specified information” at once that would allow us to infer ID operated in the past?" Not quite sure I understand your question. Though I'll take a stab: ID is unique in it's ability to produce vast amounts of CSI, so it's presence in living systems allows us to deduce its' presence in the distant past. "JoeG, that is some definition for the theory of evolution!!! I think you’re confusing ID with it. Evolution allows more modest increases in fsci, accumulating over time. The ID inference is based on an increase in fSCI so massive, only design could explain it." Stephen Meyer's thesis pertains only to the origin of life. bbigej

Cool. Now by what logic do we determine a process for which there is "no such observation ever?" explains the past, instead of the process (evolution) which we currently observe? DrREC

DrREC,
So again, what is the observation in the present of the production of “vast amounts of complex, specified information” at once that would allow us to infer ID operated in the past?
Are you waiting for someone to say, with reference to biology, that there is no such observation ever? Okay, I am saying exactly that. ScottAndrews2

"Give me a single observation of the theory of evolution(biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising)" JoeG, that is some definition for the theory of evolution!!! I think you're confusing ID with it. Evolution allows more modest increases in fsci, accumulating over time. The ID inference is based on an increase in fSCI so massive, only design could explain it. KF's big calculation link shows references that estimate fits based on number of sequences. Protein domains and enzymes fall under the universal probability bound. As for experiments, I'm testing the increase in fsci as repeat proteins duplicate the repeat and diversify under experimental stress. Reproductive barriers are expected to emerge. DrREC

I ask for a single observation of intelligent design (biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising at once, and the lecture I get in return contains: " intelligent design comes out on top, as it is the only known and causally adequate cause currently in operation (inferring the past from the present) which has been observed to produce vast amounts of complex, specified information." So again, what is the observation in the present of the production of "vast amounts of complex, specified information" at once that would allow us to infer ID operated in the past? DrREC

Jello, character assassination is a fairly common tactic used by neo-Darwinists, and atheists in general, instead of honestly dealing with the evidence at hand;
Argument Ad Hominem ? (William Lane Craig) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg
Is that all you really want jello?, to sling mud at all Christians because of the actions of radical fringe Christians? Does not the truth matter to you at all? Or is it just important for you to deny Christianity no matter what lie or insult you have to use? ,,, Certainly seems like the latter to me! bornagain77

Further notes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jRfgtOLeM&feature=related Jello

The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth he is giving in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind
Moreover Theism provides a fruitful heuristic in which to make successful predictions for major discoveries in science, whereas materialism/atheism has been completely devoid of heuristic value for major discoveries;
Theism compared to Materialism/Atheism within the scientific method: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNWZ3ejQyZGc5&hl=en_US
Moreover there is a direct correlation of 'science' and Christianity:
Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html
The following video is far more direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930
bornagain77

Jello:
Look Who's Irrational Now Excerpt: "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
Further notes: Materialism simply dissolves into complete absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing that our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012
Moreover science, which Atheists/Materialists continually try to claim sole possession of (as if materialism can even ground logic in the first place), was birthed out of the very Judeo-Christian worldview that they view as completely irrational:
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Moreover, Atheists/Materialists simply cannot justify how science is even possible:,,, This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 RC Sproul Interviews Stephen Meyer - (Epistemology) Presuppositional Apologetics (and Scientific Argument for Intelligent Design from presently acting cause known to produce effect in question) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM5J2zTBIzI
bornagain77

DrREC:
Give me a single observation of intelligent design (biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising at once) and a functional hypothesis on how to experimentally test intelligent design that isn’t trivial, stupid or already done, and I’ll bring it up with my colleagues at our next happy hour.
Tell you what- YOU provide the same for YOUR position so we know what you will accept That is YOU: Give me a single observation of the theory of evolution(biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising) and a functional hypothesis on how to experimentally test the theory of evolution that isn’t trivial, stupid or already done, and I’ll bring it up with my colleagues at our next happy hour. Or put a sock in it... Joseph

Further music and verse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz6VPZFLTss&feature=related Jello

DrREC, perhaps you will complain that this is functional information Craig Venter encoded, in his synthetic genome, is 'trivial or stupid', since it did not actually build a novel protein or anything 'functionally useful' to the microbe, but that is the whole point. The fact that the integrated functional information of life vastly exceeds what 'intelligent' concerted effort can contribute to it, argues all the more forcefully FOR a Theistic view for the origination of the integrated functional information we find in life, and all the more forcefully AGAINST any unintelligent, 'natural', explanation for that high integrated functional information. notes:
Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093 A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385 How Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010 Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html "a very rough but conservative result is that if all the sequences that define a particular (protein) structure or fold-set where gathered into an area 1 square meter in area, the next island would be tens of millions of light years away." Kirk Durston Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf
Further notes:
Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies: The essence of life? – STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign. http://www.tony5m17h.net/SHJTQprotein.pdf Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
Music and verse:
4-Him - Can't Get Past The Evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiRQxEOWdDw Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77

BA77: "Imagine the legal arguments. I wonder what would happen if the court found in the Joyce estate’s favor. Would Venter have to pay for every time his microbes multiplied? Millions of little acts of copyright infringement?" ==== It sounds like the 'Monsanto' effect! Eocene

of note:
Copyright law meets synthetic life meets James Joyce Excerpt: Venter recounted how, after the news of the synthetic microbe hit, he got a cease-and-desist letter from the Joyce estate. Apparently, the estate claimed he should have asked permission before copying the language. Venter claimed fair use. Man, do I wish this would go to court! Imagine the legal arguments. I wonder what would happen if the court found in the Joyce estate’s favor. Would Venter have to pay for every time his microbes multiplied? Millions of little acts of copyright infringement? [Update: Looks like it wasn't actually a cease-and-desist letter the Joyce estate sent--more an expression of disappointment.] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/03/15/copyright-law-meets-synthetic-life-meets-james-joyce/
bornagain77

DrREC states:
Apparently we’re not so good at that. (at atheists suppressing views contrary to their own)
Please, Don't be so modest:
Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk
And if we look at countries where state sponsored Atheism was the norm, you guys take 'draconian suppression' to unimaginable cruel, and hideous, levels. The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:
“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, is probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/
DrREC, as to your comment here:
Give me a single observation of intelligent design (biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising at once) and a functional hypothesis on how to experimentally test intelligent design that isn’t trivial, stupid or already done, and I’ll bring it up with my colleagues at our next happy hour.
At the 4:20 minute mark of the following video Dr. Durston determines that Craig Venter's watermarks exceed the universal probability bound for functional information arising 'naturally' in life:
Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236/
bornagain77

DocRec: “but which punishes any deviation from Darwinian dogma with draconian suppression, no matter how logical or evidential the challenges might be.” Apparently we’re not so good at that. Take Behe- tenured. Margulis. So on… Tell me, how quickly did Dr. Dembski have to apologize when his views were found to be diverging with orthodoxy: “Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.” ==== Ultimately all this proves is that your Church is almost identical to their Church. Both have their own versions of fundies, orthodoxies, conservatives, moderates and liberals within thought and belief systems. So what's the diff ??? Neither has any higher moral ground over the other when it comes to some sort of Unity. ---- DocRec: "But Gil, I’ve offered this in the past with no reply:" ==== Yes, your passion for game playing "has been well established."(your favourite catch phraze) Again - NEITHER SIDE - is capable of providing evidence for the introduction of biological information. If they could there would be some repeatable experiment by which anyone on the planet should and could be able to build a biological lifeform without the plagerizing game. They can't show how an intelligence can do it and you can't show anyone how dirt and voltage do it. Again what's the difference between you and them ??? At least they have inference. You don't even get that. ---- DocRec: "I’ve never gotten a reply to this offer." ==== Unlike you, most don't have the time to play 'who's got the bigger bile sack for brains' adulescent combat forum games. ---- DocRec: "Give me a single observation of intelligent design and I’ll bring it up with my colleagues at our next happy hour." ==== Colleagues ??? You don't mean those anti-science - pro-secularist ideologue wannabes over at "After the Bar Closes" ??? Eocene

"Apparently we’re not so good at that. Take Behe- tenured. Margulis. So on…" So you can name two who weren't Expelled. Congratulations. "Tell me, how quickly did Dr. Dembski have to apologize when his views were found to be diverging with orthodoxy..." I don't see how this is relevant at all. Yes, Christians have diverging views on certain issues. But I would hardly call the YEC position orthodox at this point ( and I'm a YEC). "I’ve never gotten a reply to this offer." Here's one. Historical scientists commonly use indirect methods of testing ideas, primarily by comparing the explanatory power among competing hypotheses. This is what Darwin did in the Origin of Species. When assessing the explanatory power of chance, necessity and intelligent design for explaining the biological information found within the first life, intelligent design comes out on top, as it is the only known and causally adequate cause currently in operation (inferring the past from the present) which has been observed to produce vast amounts of complex, specified information. (Yes, someone has read their copy of Signature in the Cell!) bbigej

"but which punishes any deviation from Darwinian dogma with draconian suppression, no matter how logical or evidential the challenges might be." Apparently we're not so good at that. Take Behe- tenured. Margulis. So on... Tell me, how quickly did Dr. Dembski have to apologize when his views were found to be diverging with orthodoxy: "Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said." http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&page=2 Strange projection here. But Gil, I've offered this in the past with no reply: Give me a single observation of intelligent design (biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising at once) and a functional hypothesis on how to experimentally test intelligent design that isn't trivial, stupid or already done, and I'll bring it up with my colleagues at our next happy hour. I've never gotten a reply to this offer. DrREC

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply