Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

Michael Egnor is asked: If IQ is inherited, is the intellect simply material?

Spread the love

A traditional philosophical approach to the mind helps us answer this question, says Michael Egnor, in response to a reader’s question:

Rational powers—abstract reason and free will—are not caused by the body or brain—they interact with matter but are not themselves generated by matter. They are immaterial powers of the human soul.

However, and this is the important point, the intellect and will are dependent on the sensitive and vegetative powers for their normal function. If you can’t breathe, you can’t think abstractly very well. If you heart doesn’t beat, your free will is quite impaired. If you can’t see, you can’t learn abstract ideas from books. If you can’t hear, you can’t learn abstract concepts by listening to someone. If you have a bad memory, you can’t learn abstract concepts very well because you can’t remember the perceptions and images necessary to evoke abstract thought…

So IQ depends on many things — on your vision and hearing, your imagination, memory and emotions, as well as on your intellect and will.

Michael Egnor, “If IQ is inherited, is the intellect simply material?” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: The intellect and will depend on but are not created by bodily functions, senses, and memory. They are, however, affected by deficits in these areas.

You may also wish to read:

Are we humans getting smarter or have we peaked? The really surprising thing, science writer David Robson notes, is that it may not matter as much as we think. There is no clear evidence that key thinking skills improve with measured intelligence.

Why intelligent women marry less intelligent men Are they trying to avoid competition at home as well as at work? Or is there a statistical reason we are overlooking? Psychological theories abound but the true explanation is a statistical one: Regression to the mean. It also applies to many other choices in life. (Gary Smith)

and

Why a budding neuroscientist is skeptical of brain scans. After reading her perceptive essay about the problems in fMRI imaging in neuroscience, I’m sad that a gifted student has doubts about a career in the field. Neuroscience badly needs skeptics to show how unreliable technology, biased handling of data, and materialism’s conceptual mess frustrate science. (Michael Egnor)

16 Replies to “Michael Egnor is asked: If IQ is inherited, is the intellect simply material?

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    So heredity of IQ is also hotly debated amongst twin the studies

    Also remember that when they reference heritability they are actually talking about how much of a change of IQ is due to genes and not environment

    This is very important to understand because they’re talking about a variation and not an actual cause

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Michael Egnor Is Asked: If IQ Is Inherited, Is The Intellect Simply Material?

    First, he should have been asked if he has any evidence of intellect not associated with a physical brain.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states,

    First, he (Dr. Egnor) should have been asked if he has any evidence of intellect not associated with a physical brain.

    And Seversky, should not you first prove that unguided Darwinian processes are remotely capable of producing the brain before you claim that consciousness and/or the intellect is solely the product of the brain?

    Seversky, you can’t even explain where a single neuron of the brain came from, much less where the entire brain came from.

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Seversky, it seems rather obvious that if your theory can’t even account for the origin of a single neuron of the material brain, then any hope you may have for ever coherently explaining the origin of the immaterial intellect, (by those same unguided Darwinian processes), is severely misplaced, even severely misguided.

    Human Brains Have Always Been Unique – June 22, 2017
    Excerpt: ‘To truly understand how the brain maintains our human intellect, we would need to know about the state of all 86 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, as well as the varying strengths with which they are connected, and the state of more than 1,000 proteins that exist at each connection point.’
    – Mark Maslin
    per crevinfo

    Moreover Seversky, (and as has been pointed out to you several times before, and as you have simply ignored since it directly conflicts with your atheistic worldview), Dr. Egnor has MORE evidence for the immaterial intellect existing apart from the physical brain than you have evidence for unguided Darwinian processes creating anything.

    As Dr. Egnor stated in the following article, “Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,”

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    – per evolution news

    I thought you were all about being ‘scientific’ Seversky? But then why are you refusing to follow the scientific evidence where it leads?

    To scientifically prove that the material brain can’t possibly be the cause of the immaterial intellect, brain plasticity studies by Jeffrey Schwartz and others have now shown that the immaterial mind can cause structural changes to the physical brain,

    Jeffrey Schwartz: You Are More than Your Brain – Science Uprising Extra Content
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFIOSQNuXuY&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=9

    On top of that, and completely contrary to the claim that the intellect is determined by genetics, it is also now found that the immaterial mind can reach all the way down to the genetic level and have pronounced ‘epigenetic’ influence on gene expression.

    Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,,
    the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
    http://www.tunedbody.com/scien.....ges-genes/

    Thus, although environmental influences and genetic influences do affect the intellect, as the preceding experiments makes clear, it simply impossible for the brain and/or genes to be the cause of the immaterial intellect.

    To further drive the point home that we have an immaterial mind, i.e. an immaterial ‘intellect’, that is not reducible to the material brain, many Near Death Experiencers report that they could actually think much clearer when their immaterial mind was ‘freed’ from the constraints of their material brain.

    As the following experiencer stated, “I felt extremely aware, totally present, sharp, and focused. In hindsight, it’s like being half asleep when I was alive, and totally awake after I was pronounced dead,”

    Mental Clarity During Near-Death Experiences Suggests Mind Exists Apart From Brain: Study
    BY TARA MACISAAC August 6, 2016
    Excerpt: “I felt extremely aware, totally present, sharp, and focused. In hindsight, it’s like being half asleep when I was alive, and totally awake after I was pronounced dead,” said one experiencer, as noted in Batthyany’s study.
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/increased-mental-clarity-in-near-death-experiences-suggests-mind-exists-separately-from-brain-study_2133232.html

    In fact, Dr. Jeffrey Long lists “Crystal-Clear Consciousness” as his first line of evidence, out of nine lines of evidence, that support the reality of near-death experiences

    The Nine Lines of Evidence
    1. Crystal-Clear Consciousness
    The level of consciousness and alertness during near-death experiences (NDEs) is usually even greater than that experienced in everyday life even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. This high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically inexplicable. Additionally, the elements in NDEs generally follow the same consistent and logical order in all age groups and around the world, which refutes the possibility that NDEs have any relation to dreams or hallucinations.
    2. Realistic Out-of-Body Experiences
    3. Heightened Senses
    4. Consciousness During Anesthesia
    5. Perfect Playback
    6. Family Reunions
    7. Children’s Experiences
    8. Worldwide Consistency
    9. Aftereffects
    https://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Long/Long-_2012–1-2.pdf

    Of related interest to this subject is what is known as ‘terminal lucidity’.

    . As the following article noted, “consciousness may be enhanced, not destroyed, when constraints normally supplied by the brain are sufficiently loosened.”

    Even more interesting than these physical revivals, however, are revivals in mental functioning. Myers (1892b) had referred to the “sudden revivals of memory or faculty in dying persons” (p. 316), and there are scattered reports of people apparently recovering from dementia shortly before death. The eminent physician Benjamin Rush, author of the first American treatise on mental illness (1812), observed that “most of mad people discover a greater or less degree of reason in the last days or hours of their lives” (p. 257). Similarly, in his classic study of hallucinations, Brierre de Boismont (1859) noted that “at the approach of death we observe that… the intellect, which may have been obscured or extinguished during many years, is again restored in all its integrity” (p. 236). Flournoy (1903, p. 48) mentioned that French psychiatrists had recently published cases of mentally ill persons who showed sudden improvement in their condition shortly before death.
    In more recent years, Osis (1961) reported two cases, “one of severe schizophrenia and one of senility, [in which] the patients regained normal mentality shortly before death” (p. 24). Osis and Haraldsson (1977/1997) reported a case of a meningitis patient who had been “severely disoriented almost to the end,” but who “cleared up, answered questions, smiled, was slightly elated and just a few minutes before death, came to herself” (p. 133). Turetskaia and Romanenko (1975) reported three cases involving remission of symptoms in dying schizophrenic patients. Grosso (2004, pp. 42–43) described three dementia cases that had been reported to him, one by a colleague and two by a nurse. In all three cases, the patient had not recognized family members for several years, but shortly before death they all were said to have become more coherent or alert and to have recognized family members. Such cases are few in number and not adequately documented, but the persistence of such reports suggests that they may represent a real phenomenon that could potentially be substantiated by further investigations. If so, they would seriously undermine the assumption that, in such diseases as Alzheimer’s, the mind itself is destroyed in lockstep with the brain (e.g., Edwards, 1997, pp. 295–296). Like many of the experiences discussed in this chapter, such cases would suggest that in some conditions, consciousness may be enhanced, not destroyed, when constraints normally supplied by the brain are sufficiently loosened.
    – Irreducible Mind, Edward F. Kelly

    And as the following article notes, according to conventional brain science, “Terminal lucidity’ is simply not suppose to happen, yet it does happen

    When Alzheimer’s Victims Suddenly ‘Perk Up’ Just Before Death — What’s Going On? – 09/29/2014
    Conventional brain science has no explanation. It has long assumed that as the brain goes, so goes the mind; for the brain is what gives rise to the mind. The return of mental clarity and memory in a brain ravaged by Alzheimer’s is not supposed to happen. Yet it does in some cases.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-miracle-of-terminal-l_b_5863492

    In fact, because of the ‘terminal lucidity’ of his very own mother, the following Darwinian atheist had to quote-unquote “quarantine” that personal experience from his supposedly rational, and atheistic, belief in Darwinian materialism.

    One Last Goodbye: The Strange Case of Terminal Lucidity
    I’m as sworn to radical rationalism as the next neo-Darwinian materialist. That said, over the years I’ve had to “quarantine,” for lack of a better word, a few anomalous personal experiences that have stubbornly defied my own logical understanding of them.
    Excerpt: The night before she died at the age of 54 (after a long battle with ovarian cancer), I was sleeping in my mother’s bedroom alongside her. The truth was that I’d already grieved her loss a few days earlier, from the moment she lapsed into what the Hospice nurses had assured us was an irretrievable coma. So at this point, waiting for her body to expire as a physical machine wasn’t as difficult as the loss of “her” beforehand, which is when I’d completely broken down.
    It had all happened so quickly and, I suppose being young and in denial about how imminent her death really was, I hadn’t actually gotten around to telling her how very grateful I was to have had her as my mom and how much I loved her. But then, around 3am, I awoke to find her reaching her hand out to me, and she seemed very much aware. She was too weak to talk but her eyes communicated all. We spent about five minutes holding hands: me sobbing, kissing her cheeks, telling her everything I’d meant to say before but hadn’t. Soon she closed her eyes again, this time for good. She died the next day.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/one-last-goodbye-the-strange-case-of-terminal-lucidity/

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Again, I challenge seversky to visit and stay a few nights at the most haunted places in the USA. Refusal to do so means seversky only argues from extreme ignorance.

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    Why do we start with the assumption that the soul or consciousness is NOT in the genes? We all have a soul, so the obvious conclusion is that souls are carried in the genome along with math and speech and reading and writing and music. The quality of souls seems to vary, just like the other tastes and talents. “Old soul” may be a specific and quantitative saying.

  6. 6

    Pollistra, that is just plain nazism. The idea that personal character, the soul, is heritable, and can be identified as fact of biology. It is the actual mainstay of nazism, what it is all about.

    In identifying someone’s personal character you have to be subjective. You may be kind, charitable, mean, in judgement on someone’s personal character. That is all logically valid. For the exactsame reason that it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful, or ugly.

    It is a logic error, a category error to state as fact what the personal character of someone is. It is the exactsame thing as stating as fact that a painting is beautiful.

    1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
    2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

    Personal character belongs in category 1, becauses choices are made out of personal character. Emotions, the soul, the spirit, feelings, God, they all belong in category 1, because they are all on the side of what makes a choice.

    Everything in category 1 can only be identified with a chosen opinion. You feel what it is, and then you express your feelings, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on the issue.

    All subjective statements, have this same underlying logic, that a subjective statements is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that makes a choice.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/3

    And Seversky, should not you first prove that unguided Darwinian processes are remotely capable of producing the brain before you claim that consciousness and/or the intellect is solely the product of the brain?

    The topic is not the origins of the physical brain but whether conscious intellect has been observed to exist apart from it.

    Moreover Seversky, (and as has been pointed out to you several times before, and as you have simply ignored since it directly conflicts with your atheistic worldview), Dr. Egnor has MORE evidence for the immaterial intellect existing apart from the physical brain than you have evidence for unguided Darwinian processes creating anything.

    Egnor’s standard for evidence of disembodied intellect sets a low bar for acceptance. The evidence for evolution is stronger and far more compelling than a collection of NDE’s.

    On top of that, and completely contrary to the claim that the intellect is determined by genetics, it is also now found that the immaterial mind can reach all the way down to the genetic level and have pronounced ‘epigenetic’ influence on gene expression.

    You have no explanation of how an immaterial mind could have any effect on the physical brain but if the mind is conceived of as a manifestation of the electrochemical activity of the physical brain the it is easier to consider that physical activity having physical effects on other parts of the physical brain.

    Consider, for example, that our visual field is an important part of our conscious awareness. Yet we know how physical photons of light physically impacting photosensitive chemicals in the physical retina stimulate electrical signals that are transmitted along the physical optic nerve to the physical visual cortex in the physical brain which are combined there to create the world we see. Damage the visual cortex or block electrical signals passing along the optic nerve and we are blind. If there is an immaterial mind not dependent in the least on the physical brain why should that be so? Indeed, why should our physical bodies maintain such a hugely complex and metabolically expensive organ at all if it does not create our consciousness?

  8. 8
    JVL says:

    ET: Again, I challenge seversky to visit and stay a few nights at the most haunted places in the USA. Refusal to do so means seversky only argues from extreme ignorance.

    Ooo, sounds like fun! I’ll do it . . . if you’re payin’.

  9. 9
    JVL says:

    Polistra: We all have a soul, so the obvious conclusion is that souls are carried in the genome along with math and speech and reading and writing and music.

    What carries your soul after you die then?

  10. 10
    ET says:

    The topic is not the origins of the physical brain but whether conscious intellect has been observed to exist apart from it.

    It has. Your ignorance is still not an argument.

    The evidence for evolution is stronger and far more compelling than a collection of NDE’s.

    That is your opinion based on ignorance, anyway. The evidence for evolution is only a change in allele frequency over time.

    You have no explanation of how an immaterial mind could have any effect on the physical brain …

    It’s called integration.

    Indeed, why should our physical bodies maintain such a hugely complex and metabolically expensive organ at all if it does not create our consciousness?

    You missed the integration part. Why do you think that your ignorance and childish arguments mean something?

  11. 11
    ET says:

    No JVL, you have to pay for your own education.

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    ET: No JVL, you have to pay for your own education.

    Gosh, that could be expensive. Which places are the most haunted in the US then?

  13. 13

    You’re all a bunch of fact obsessed materialists, including the intelligent design people. What a total disgrace.

    You’re not creationists. You cannot believe in God while regarding God or the soul, as some kind of exotic material artefact.

    In order for the logic of subjectivity to function, words like “beautiful”, “good”, “loving” etc. , the agency of a choice must be entirely subjective. That means it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

    “Agency” basically means, decider. What does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does. There are alternative futures A and B availalbe, alternative A is the present, then “agency” is what did this job of making the choice turn out A.

    You obviously cannot make the logic of subjectivity function, with the agency of a choice being objective / factual. You cannot ground subjectivity in that which is objective. That is totally obvious, you’re all so stupid.

    You should have learned the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact, in school.

    The proper wording is not “immaterial”, it is “spiritual”. And the word spritiual denotes that it is inherently subjective, and the word material denotes that it is inherently objective.

    1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
    2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky in response to the fact that Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate to explain the origin of even a single neuron, states

    The topic is not the origins of the physical brain but whether conscious intellect has been observed to exist apart from it.

    I guess Seversky has no option but to try to dodge the huge elephant in the living room question for Darwinists, of “where exactly did the brain come from?”, since the brain, in over the top fashion, gives us abundant evidence that it was Intelligently Designed.

    “The brain is not a supercomputer in which the neurons are transistors; rather it is as if each individual neuron is itself a computer, and the brain a vast community of microscopic computers. But even this model is probably too simplistic since the neuron processes data flexibly and on disparate levels, and is therefore far superior to any digital system. If I am right, the human brain may be a trillion times more capable than we imagine, and “artificial intelligence” a grandiose misnomer.”
    Brian Ford research biologist – 2009 – The Secret Power of a Single Cell

    The Human Brain Is ‘Beyond Belief’ by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – 2017
    Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,,
    Perfect Optimization
    The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,,
    Vast Computational Power
    Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,,
    Phenomenal Processing Speed
    the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,,
    The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,,
    Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity
    Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,,
    Optimal Energy Efficiency
    Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,,
    Multidimensional Processing
    It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13
    He also said:
    We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,,
    Biophoton Brain Communication
    Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,,
    https://www.icr.org/article/10186

    Sev then states,

    Egnor’s standard for evidence of disembodied intellect sets a low bar for acceptance. The evidence for evolution is stronger and far more compelling than a collection of NDE’s.

    That is pure BS. You have ZERO evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even a single protein. Whereas, we have millions of testimonies of life changing experiences of people who have died for a short while and told us what happened to them on ‘the other side’ of death.

    Protein evolution
    Excerpt: evolution predicts that proteins evolved when life first appeared, or not long after. But despite enormous research efforts the science clearly shows that such protein evolution is astronomically unlikely.
    One reason the evolution of proteins is so difficult is that most proteins are extremely specific designs in an otherwise rugged fitness landscape. This means it is difficult for natural selection to guide mutations toward the needed proteins. In fact, four different studies, done by different groups and using different methods, all report that roughly 10^70 evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein before natural selection could take over to refine the protein design. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. (Reidhaar-Olson) And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. (Yockey) Another study found that from 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required (Axe) and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. (Hayashi) In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making for an easier search. Furthermore these estimates are optimistic because the experiments searched only for single-function proteins whereas real proteins perform many functions.
    This conservative estimate of 10^70 attempts required to evolve a simple protein is astronomically larger than the number of attempts that are feasible. And explanations of how evolution could achieve a large number of searches, or somehow obviate this requirement, require the preexistence of proteins and so are circular. For example, one paper estimated that evolution could have made 10^43 such attempts. But the study assumed the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had.
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/protein-evolution

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: one of the most favorable and liberal estimates is by Jack Szostak: 1 in 10^11. 42 He ascertained this figure by looking to see how random sequences—about eighty amino acids in length, long enough to fold—could cling to the biologically crucial molecule adenosine triphosphate, or ATP.
    At first glance, this is an improvement over Salisbury’s calculations by 489 powers of ten. But while an issue has been addressed, the problem has only been deferred. ,,,
    ,,, nucleotide synthesis, requires several steps. If five enzyme functions were needed (ten are needed in modern adenine synthesis), 43 then the probability would be 1 in (10^11)5, or 1 in 10^55. If all the operations needed for a small autonomous biology were ten functions—this is before evolution can even start to help—the probability is 1 in (10^11)10, or 1 in 10^110. This is more than the number of seconds since the Big Bang, more protons than there are in the universe. In considering a similar figure derived in a different context, Tawfik concedes that if true, this would make “the emergence of sequences with function a highly improbable event, despite considerable redundancy (many sequences giving the same structure and function).”44 In other words, these odds are impossible.,,,
    Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    The emerging picture, once luminous, has settled to gray. It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture (of proteins). It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery.
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    Seversky, despite what you may desperately want to believe to the contrary, that scientific evidence is simply crushing evidence against your Darwinian worldview being feasible, much less your worldview being true!

    Seversky then claims,

    You have no explanation of how an immaterial mind could have any effect on the physical brain but if the mind is conceived of as a manifestation of the electrochemical activity of the physical brain the it is easier to consider that physical activity having physical effects on other parts of the physical brain.

    And you have no materialistic explanation of the non-locality of quantum entanglement! Whereas I, as a Christian, do. Go figure!

    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

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

    Moreover, the denial of free will of the immaterial mind, i.e. agent causality, is simply insane.

    To deny free will is to deny what we each have direct first hand experience of.

    In fact, since methodological naturalism rules agent causality, (i.e. free will and the immaterial mind), out of ‘scientific’ bounds, then demonstrating a miracle becomes as easy as falling off a log.

    Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college no less, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm via his free will,,

    The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....qlE#t=746s

    Of related note, Every time Seversky writes a post, he himself is demonstrating the reality of his own immaterial mind to bring about real effects in the material world

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: “Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

    Seversky then states,

    Damage the visual cortex or block electrical signals passing along the optic nerve and we are blind. If there is an immaterial mind not dependent in the least on the physical brain why should that be so?

    And yet many people who were blind from birth have reported that, during their Near Death Experiences, they could see for the first time in their lives.

    Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
    http://www.newdualism.org/nde-.....-147-1.pdf

    So Seversky, to turn your own question against you, if the immaterial mind were solely the product of the material brain, why should that be so?

    Thus in conclusion Seversky, you have ZERO evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even a single neuron of the brain.

    And even if you did, you would still have no evidence that it is remotely feasible for material objects to ever become conscious, (i.e. the hard problem of consciousness).

    And to top it all off, even your evidence from own blindness has turned around and betrayed you in that blind people who have NDEs overwhelming report that they could see during their NDE while they were apart from their physical bodies.

    As should be needles to say, and to put it mildly, this is not good for you and your Darwinian worldview Seversky.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    There should be plenty of haunted places in the UK and throughout Europe. Google is your friend

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    ET: There should be plenty of haunted places in the UK and throughout Europe. Google is your friend

    I suppose. So, if I stay at one of them overnight will you believe what I report?

Leave a Reply