Atheism Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity Science

Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists

Spread the love

Conversation in Clubhouse ( a conversation app ) with an atheist:

Please answer with yes or no.

Are computers always designed?

Yes

Is hardware, and software, always designed?

Yes

Are machines always designed?

Yes

Are factories always designed?

Yes

Are transistors always designed?

Yes

Are energy turbines always designed?

Yes

Are codes always designed?

Yes

Good. All this, we see analogously, but also literally in the cell.

Neurons are literally computers

DNA is the hardware, and the sequence of DNA nucleotides is the software

Proteins are molecular machines

Cells are chemical factories

Neurons are transistors

ATP synthase is an energy turbine.

The genetic code is a real code

Is it logical to infer that therefore, these things were also designed?

Atheist answer: No. The first mentioned things, we know humans design them. The secondly mentioned things in nature, we don’t know how they came to be.

It’s sometimes so frustrating to have a conversation with atheists…. Others deny and claim the things mentioned in nature are not analogous to human made artifacts.

Once you back up the claim:

The Cell is a super computer
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2712-the-cell-is-a-super-computer

1. A transistor can be considered an artificial Neuron. Every living cell within us is a hybrid analog–digital supercomputer. The brain is like 100 billion computers working together.
2. Biological cells are programmed to be experts at taking inputs, running them through a complicated series of logic gates through circuit-like operations and producing the desired programmed output.
3. The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.  

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design

Paul Davies: the Fifth Miracle page 62: Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.

Molecular machines in biology
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1289-molecular-machines-in-biology

1. Machines are always designed.
2. Proteins are machines.
3. Therefore, proteins were designed.

The factory maker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument

1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.  
2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.
3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms – the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Inside the neuron
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2292-neurons-remarkable-evidence-of-design#7201

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT 9 The Physics Of Consciousness Andrew Thomas:
The similarity between transistors and neurons is elucidated when we consider how most transistors are used nowadays. The vast majority of transistors are micro-miniaturised onto a semiconductor substrate to form an integrated circuit (“silicon chip”). The latest fabrication techniques allow extraordinary densities of up to 25 million transistors on a square millimetre of silicon. This actually results in an individual transistor size which is rather smaller than a neuron, but it is clear that the principle of packing microscopic transistors onto an integrated circuit resembles the packing of microscopic neurons in a brain.

The irreducibly complex ATP Synthase nanomachine, amazing evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1439-the-irreducibly-complex-atp-synthase-nanomachine-amazing-evidence-of-design

1. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP. Once charged, ATP can be “plugged into” a wide variety of molecular machines to perform a wide variety of functions). It consists of two very different subunits that have to be externally and stably tethered together, just the right distance apart. The two major subunits (F0 & F1) are connected together by an external tether, and just the right distance apart. This tether doesn’t have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it ATP synthase would not be able to perform its function. One of the subunits has to be embedded in the cell membrane so that an energy gradient can be formed ( The proton energy gradient is like the water in a dam, feeding a water turbine to generate energy). The second subunit has to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away.
2. This is an irreducibly complex system, where a minimal number of at least five functional parts of ATP synthase must work together in an interlocked way, in a joint venture to bear function. The challenge is particularly onerous because these components are highly complex in all of life and are interdependent to provide energy for life. Individually, the subunits have no function whatsoever ( Not even in different setups). Besides ATP synthase, the membrane is essential to pump protons across the membrane. This setup cannot be the product of evolution, because it had to be fully operational and functional to start life ( The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution). No life form without ATP synthase is known.
3. We know by experience that complex machines made of various interlocked subparts with specific functions are always created by intelligent minds.  Therefore, ATP synthase is definitely evidence of a powerful intelligent creator, who knew how to create power-generating turbines.

The genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2363-the-genetic-code-insurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin

1. Creating a translation dictionary, for example of English to Chinese, requires always a translator, that understands both languages. 
2. The meaning of words of one language that are assigned to words of another language that mean the same requires the agreement of meaning in order to establish translation.
3. That is analogous to what we see in biology, where the ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids. 
4. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

John Frederick William Herschel: A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, page 149, 1830
If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.Flagellum, Behe’s prime example of irreducible complexity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1528-the-flagellum-behe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity

The irreducible complexity of the flagellum
1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids
2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts. 
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum 
4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer. 

They will still deny it…..

121 Replies to “Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    Their interpretation is more rational then ours and our (insert some form of mockery) God/creator (insert more mockery about us)

    I think I summed it up

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Atheism is mainly based on a distaste/dislike for a certain group of people.

    It’s not logical as we all know. When you read how people defend atheism as their choice, their reasons are ludicrous.

    Hence, it has to be irrational.

    That does not mean they are irrational in everything though some are. Many are extremely rational about anything that does not have implications for their choice of atheism.

  3. 3
    Belfast says:

    The commonest atheist position is that it is not known how the universe and life came to be by natural means, but not concede the universe and life may have come by means beyond natural.
    The sincerest position may be to admit doubt on both alternatives, but in such a case in is wrong to describe oneself as an atheist, or to wrong religious belief. It is equally wrong to disparage such doubt as doubt pursued may end in satisfied conviction.

  4. 4
    Alan Fox says:

    Goodness me. 🙂 I’ve seen plenty of incoherent waffle from dear Otangelo on several sites over the years, usually as an initially tolerated then dismissed oddball. Never thought UD would offer him an OP. Did nobody think to proofread it first?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Alan Fox, besides ad hominem attacks being a common logical fallacy that is employed by atheists, don’t you find it the least bit ironic that you would attack someone else as being an “oddball” in particular? I mean really, not that I have a lock on being ‘normal’ myself, but you certainly are not exactly what I would consider to be a shining example of normalcy either. 🙂

    Logical Fallacies
    1. Ad Hominem
    An ad hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic. This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits of the person who holds it.
    https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#ad-hominem

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    The fundamental flaw of the arguments presented in the OP is a reliance on confirmationally biased interpretations of analogical arguments which, even at their best, only provide weak support for the case being made. The attacks on atheism are essentially a distraction from the weakness of the case for ID/Creationism, because they are irrelevant.

    Not all scientists are atheists and you will find hypotheses and theories being defended or attacked by researchers regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. In fact, I suspect most professional scientists are well aware of the danger of allowing religious beliefs to influence science. If you allow that a test of the credibility of a hypothesis or theory is whether or not it conforms to religious doctrine, you open the way to religious Lysenkoism.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Speaking as an agnostic/atheist, I have no problem with conceding that the Universe may have come about through non-natural means depending on how you define “natural”.

    In kf’s favorite Lewontin quote he highlights the phrase that we cannot allow a “divine foot in the door”. In my view that is a misleading metaphor and a better one is of earning “a seat at the table”. ID/creationism is not excluded unfairly by some cabal of atheist scientists but because its proponents have not made a compelling case for its admission. If there were a campaign to suppress ID/creationism then how is it that its proponents are able to publish all the books, magazine/newspaper articles, blog posts, podcasts and videos that they do?

  8. 8
    Red Reader says:

    Atheism is insanity.

    The problem isn’t that the atheist doesn’t know the cell is designed.
    The problem is that the atheist makes a conscious choice to deny what he plainly sees, what he knows to be true.

    Atheists, just like rational people, intuitively recognize design when they see it, whether it is a computer or a cell.
    The atheist knows that design implies intelligence.
    But, the atheist has also learned that the incredible complexity of the cell is not created by man.
    The cause and effect circuits in the brain of every atheist automatically conclude that the intelligence which created the cell is vastly greater than the intelligence of any man.
    And right there, the pride and arrogance of the atheist CHOOSES to believe the cell happened accidentally “through some intermediary”.

    People choose what they want to believe.
    The choice to believe the cell “just arose” out of happenstance is not based on evidence but on pride.
    The atheist prides himself on his own intelligence; he is smarter than anyone, he thinks, except perhaps some other atheists.
    The atheist doesn’t WANT to believe there is an Intelligent Creator for he would have to admit his own intelligence is no more that a flicker compared to that of the Creator of all Space/Time.
    There is zero science in the atheist’s belief; there is much imagining of how the cell might have happened, volumes of conjecture, but no science, no a+b=c.
    So called experiments are so controlled by the intelligent designers of the experiments untill their results are the conclusions they want.
    The theory is a fairy tale of circular reasoning.
    The atheist sees the design, but chooses to believe the stories that the cell is really nothing more than a series of random rolls of dice over millions of years.

    There is a disconnect between what the atheists sees and knows to be true and what he chooses to believe.
    This disconnect is the root of insanity.
    Atheism is a “symptom” of this insanity.

    There are thousands of such symptoms.
    For example, the bank robber who believes society has wronged him.
    He chooses to believe the lie he tells himself; this makes it easier for him to keep robbing banks.

  9. 9
    Belfast says:

    @Seversky@7” Speaking as an agnostic/atheist, I have no problem with conceding that the Universe may have come about through non-natural means ”
    That’s mighty big and tolerant of Seversky – so far.
    Then he weasels out, “ depending on how you define “natural””
    That’s the shabby, ‘2+2=5 – for certain values of 2” definitions ploy.
    And paragraph 1 of 6 looks like a cut-and-paste after a run-through a checker for egregious grammatical errors.

  10. 10
    AaronS1978 says:

    Alan Fox
    October 9, 2022 at 3:20 pm
    “Goodness me. ? I’ve seen plenty of incoherent waffle from dear Otangelo on several sites over the years, usually as an initially tolerated then dismissed oddball. Never thought UD would offer him an OP. Did nobody think to proofread it first?“

    Like clockwork 😀

  11. 11
    Alan Fox says:

    …don’t you find it the least bit ironic that you would attack someone else as being an “oddball” in particular? I mean really, not that I have a lock on being ‘normal’ myself, but you certainly are not exactly what I would consider to be a shining example of normalcy either

    I’m criticizing the OP. Pointing out Otangelo is well-known across the internet for stream-of-consciousness screeds is just a fact.

    The OP is just one long equivocation with the meaning of words. Prime example: machine.

  12. 12
    BobRyan says:

    Perception matters. The perception of atheists is that of a chaotic universe where everything, including the laws of physics, came about randomly. They have no natural answer for a single law coming into existence, other than what they already perceive from their beliefs.

  13. 13
    Alan Fox says:

    1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum.

    Wrong! There is no “the flagellum”. There are two major known versions of flagella: that possessed by some Archaea and that possessed by some bacteria. They have separate evolutionary origins. The bacterial flagellum “whip” grows by protein units being despatched through the hollow centre which then self-assemble at the tip, whereas the Archaean flagellum grows from the base. Two unrelated ways of achieving the same result. But the designs both nest within their respective domains. There’s a simple* explanation for that.

    Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids

    Anyone prepared to defend that bit of word salad?

    2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts.

    It’s as if Nick Matzke had never been born!

    3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum

    Do I need to dig up links to papers? Start here, note references

    4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.

    The Sherlock Holmes fallacy again. Don’t ID proponents ever tire of repeating this old chestnut?

    *Maybe I’m equivocating with “simple” here. 😉

  14. 14
    chuckdarwin says:

    AF is right. UD’s quality control dept. let this one slip through……

  15. 15
    relatd says:

    BR at 12,

    “Perception matters. The perception of atheists is that of a chaotic universe where everything, including the laws of physics, came about randomly. They have no natural answer for a single law coming into existence, other than what they already perceive from their beliefs.”

    Everything is a matter of perception and degree. For atheists to admit to design anywhere in the “natural” world would amount to crossing over to the other side. Of abandoning their “it all came about by chance” belief system. And it is just that, a belief system. The attraction to random disorder becoming the universe, galaxies and living things has a hold on them.

    So, here, they can only flail about. Or, God willing, admit to the truth.

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Neurons are literally computers

    Hardly.

    Neurons are transistors

    Um . . . those are two very different things that operate on very different levels.

    You can’t just assert stuff like this without going into your metaphor. Like when someone says: electricity is like water: amps are like volume, volts are like pressure, etc.

    Neurons are literally computers. That’s pretty silly.

  17. 17
    JVL says:

    So, here, they can only flail about. Or, God willing, admit to the truth.

    Look, the point is a matter of evidence and which explanation has the fewest assumptions.

    Think about the ancient astronaut hypothesis popularised by Erich von Daniken in the 1970s. He looked at some ancient constructions and art works and thought they could be interpreted as proof that our planet was visited by extra-terrestrial intelligent beings centuries ago. He claimed the constructions were too complicated and immense and precise to be within the capabilities of humans around at the time and he thought the artwork looked like rocket ships and such. Trouble was he never really talked to historians and archaeologists who would have been able to tell him why they thought all those things were man-made.

    Anyway, given the two schools of thought: man-made vs ancient astronauts one has fewer assumptions and better data. We know there were humans around, we know some of what they were capable of, they even left written records sometimes along with living quarters, tools, refuse tips, etc, etc, etc, etc NONE OF WHICH show any artefacts not made by materials available on Earth. Not one. Von Daniken proposes that unknown beings (which we have no other evidence for) travelled across vast distances of space (via processes we have no evidence for) for some reason helped humans build some really large structures (for what reason?) and then buggered off leaving no other evidence they had ever been here.

    Now, from a scientific point of view, which of those notions sounds more plausible? More likely to be true?

    The extraordinary claim that alien astronauts visited Earth requires more than just some interpretations of buildings and murals which already have more prosaic explanations which are supported by data and evidence. And the ancient astronauts hypothesis requires some mighty big assumptions (that they exist, that they have mastered interstellar space travel, that they had a reason for helping to build the pyramids, etc, etc, etc).

    So, we choose to reject the ancient astronauts hypothesis because it just doesn’t really fly. It’s science fiction, and not very good science fiction at that.

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Red Reader: People choose what they want to believe.

    Could the same be said about you?

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    BobRyan: They have no natural answer for a single law coming into existence, other than what they already perceive from their beliefs.

    May I just point out that your explanation (God did it) isn’t very illuminating. It doesn’t actually explain how that happen; it just assumes some . . . being who can violate the laws of physics at will designed and spelled out all those laws for some reason. And created a big, really big empty universe with cosmic rays and super novas and lots of other ways to kill the intelligent life they supposedly created.

    I get that in your heart-of-hearts you have a personal experience of a loving caring God. I understand (I think) how compelling and persuasive that feeling must be. But not everyone has had that experience. And, scientifically, there’s not much to go on.

    I don’t hate God or hate the church or hate Christians or am brainwashed to support some materialist view (I don’t get paid, I’m not in a position of power, etc) and I also have not had any kind of experience that suggests to me that a God-like being exists. So I tend to look for other explanations, ones which are based on things I have experienced or that have good documentation for (the laws of physics and chemistry). And, so far, I have had no need for the God hypothesis. Someday, I might change my mind if there’s is sufficient data and evidence because all scientific knowledge is provisional. The more we learn the more often we have to adapt our views. As we should.

  20. 20
    relatd says:

    JVL at 17,

    Which has the best evidence? Living things are actually designed or they just look like they were?

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Which has the best evidence? Living things are actually designed or they just look like they were?

    To the surprise of no one I would say they just look like they were. But you knew I was going to say that so I’m not sure why you asked.

    Is my demonisation to follow then?

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    JVL at 21,

    Seriously?

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Seriously?

    Surely you knew how I’d respond. I don’t understand what you’re trying to do. If you’re going to express righteous indignation then I think you should get on with it.

  24. 24
    relatd says:

    JVL at 23,

    Sigh… Sometimes I have to do a new survey.

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Sigh… Sometimes I have to do a new survey.

    I don’t expect you to change your mind, do you expect me to change mine?

  26. 26
    Elshamah says:

    Alan Fox.

    your argument that there are two types of flagellum does not change the fact that the bacterial flagellum requires 36 proteins, most, if not all, essential for proper function.

    The Flagellum – prime example of irreducible complexity

    https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1528-the-flagellum-behe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity#6351

  27. 27
    relatd says:

    JVL at 25,

    Don’t you know?

    He’s making a list
    And checking it twice
    Gonna find out who worships Richard Dawkins
    Or not

  28. 28
    JVL says:

    Relatd: He’s making a list
    And checking it twice
    Gonna find out who worships Richard Dawkins
    Or not

    I don’t. Is that good or bad?

  29. 29
    relatd says:

    JVL at 28,

    You’re acting like you’ve just been called to the Principal’s office.

  30. 30
    Alan Fox says:

    [A Fox’s] argument…

    Not an argument: a fact. There are two unrelated families of flagella. See here for info on the bacterial family

    …that there are two types of flagellum does not change the fact that the bacterial flagellum requires 36 proteins, most, if not all, essential for proper function.

    As I said, there is no “the flagellum”. You are trying to ignore a large chunk of biology. I’ll let you ponder why “the bacterial flagellum” is in fact a nested heirarchy of several related versions, not all sharing all protein subunits.

  31. 31
    JVL says:

    Relatd: You’re acting like you’ve just been called to the Principal’s office.

    When you want to have an actual, substantial conversation let me know. Until then I’ll stay in the naughty corner.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    A few notes,

    Flagellar Diversity Challenges Darwinian Evolution, Not Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – July 22, 2015
    Excerpt: flagella are distributed in a polyphyletic manner that doesn’t fit what we’d expect from common ancestry,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/mt-import/tim_flag_phyl_500.jpg
    Reprinted from Figure 2, Trends in Microbiology, Vol 17, LAS Snyder, NJ Loman, K. Fuetterer, and MJ Pallen, “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?,” pp. 1-5, Copyright 2009, with permission from Elsevier.

    What you see in the figure above are various major groups of bacteria, represented by triangles (or in some cases written text). They are arranged here according to a standard phylogeny of bacteria. The purple groups have flagella throughout the clade, and the groups with question marks have only a minority of species with flagella within that clade. The white triangles show groups not thought to have flagella.

    What’s the problem? The groups with flagella are scattered all about the tree and do not form a single monophyletic group. In other words, the diversity of flagella cannot be easily explained by common ancestry. Writing in Trends in Microbiology, the authors of the figure reprinted above explain the problem:

    When we attempted to map the known distribution of flagellar genes on to a recently published ‘tree of life’, instead of a single monophyletic grouping of flagella-bearing phyla, we found multiple apparent points of origin for flagellar systems on the phylogenetic tree (Figure 2). This highlights a fundamental problem with any simple model of flagellar divergence: although there is some agreement as to the existence of bacterial phyla, there is no consensus on the order of their divergence.
    The problem here is that flagella do not fit into the nice, neat nested hierarchy that you’d expect from common ancestry. Quite the opposite — their diversity conflicts with what you would expect from a Darwinian origin of the flagellum. Indeed, the caption for the figure above from the paper states, “Arrows indicate apparent points of origins for flagellar lineages.” Common descent predicts there should be just one arrow, but as you can see on the diagram there are five arrows, because there are no fewer than five clades — widely separated on the tree — that have flagella. This is not what common descent predicts. Common design, on the other hand would predict that complex features like flagella might be re-used in a manner that doesn’t match a nested hierarchy, which is exactly what we see here. Ironically, the nature of bacterial flagellar diversity — far from being a problem for intelligent design — is actually a significant problem for Darwinian evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....97831.html

    Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors – 2011
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3160247/
    Figure 3 – Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....figure/f3/

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Matzke Is Back On The Flagellum Horse – November 11, 2019
    Excerpt: I won’t go into a lengthy discussion of this latest article. Suffice it to say that in the 13 years since the ’06 review article, apparently there still are no peer reviewed research studies that provide the Darwinian model of how a bacterial flagellum came to be. There’s really nothing to review in this article because there just isn’t anything new here. Its more a bunch of assertions without evidence.
    ,,, The real take away here, of course, is that 23 years after Behe’s book was published, it is still the case that there simply are no peer reviewed research studies that provide an evolutionary model to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. If there was, then all Matke et.al. would have to do is reference all those studies. Yet that remains the one thing missing in all of the articles and comments.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/matzke-is-back-on-the-flagellum-horse/

    A short history of Matzke’s (shameless) literature bluffing tactics – Nov. 2015
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-589458

  33. 33
    Elshamah says:

    Alan Fox,
    nested hiearchy? What are you even talking about.
    The eukaryotic flagellum is an entirely different beast.

    The remarkable intraflagellar transport for Flagellum assembly

    https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2642-the-remarkable-intraflagellar-transport-for-flagellum-assembly

    The trafficking of bacterial type rhodopsins into the Chlamydomonas eyespot and flagella is IFT mediated 1

    500 proteins required for the Flagellum assembly through intracellular highways !

    The Type three secretion system T3SS has over 25 proteins, the flagellum has over 60 proteins. The assembly of the flagellum, however, is a huge commitment for the cell, as this requires the correct production and assembly of more than 500 proteins !! Intraflagellar transport ( IFT ) is a highly orchestrated and dedicated means of protein transport in the cilia/flagella. Both in time (right moment of the cell cycle) and in space (in a defined compartment). Since the flagellum does not possess any ribosomes, all the components needed for its construction must first be synthesized in the cytoplasm and then imported into the flagellum before reaching the distal tip either by transport or by diffusion. In 1993, an active transport of ‘rafts’ was discovered within the flagellum of Chlamydomonas and termed intraflagellar transport (IFT) IFT plays a key role in the construction of the flagellum as its inactivation blocks flagellum formation in all species studied so far.

  34. 34
    AnimatedDust says:

    AF @30: Flagellar argument is BS because there are two families. etc. Ok, what is the Darwinian process for how they came to be? Show your work.

    Good grief, you people. Suppress the truth much? 🙁

  35. 35
    Alan Fox says:

    Otangelo, why are you posting as Elshamah? Is it because you are legion?

  36. 36
    Alan Fox says:

    Ok, what is the Darwinian process for how they came to be? Show your work.

    I’ll show you a sample of someone else’s first.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.457346v3.full

    I found the paper fascinating. Hope you do, too.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    AF presents a paper that found even more regulatory complexity in flagella assembly than was first realized. Not one peep is given in the paper as to how that regulatory complexity originated, and yet AF fraudulently presented the paper as if it might shed some light on the origin of flagella.

    SUMMARY
    A single region of the Pseudomonas putida genome, designated the flagellar cluster, includes 59 genes potentially involved in the biogenesis and function of the flagellar system. Here we combine bioinformatics and in vivo gene expression analyses to clarify the transcriptional organization and regulation of the flagellar genes in the cluster. We have identified eleven flagellar operons and characterized twenty-two primary and internal promoter regions. Our results indicate that synthesis of the flagellar apparatus and core chemotaxis machinery is regulated by a three-tier cascade in which fleQ is a Class I gene, standing at the top of the transcriptional hierarchy. FleQ- and ?54-dependent Class II genes encode most components of the flagellar structure, part of the chemotaxis machinery and multiple regulatory elements, including the flagellar ? factor FliA. FliA activation of Class III genes enables synthesis of the filament, one stator complex and completion of the chemotaxis apparatus. Accessory regulatory proteins and an intricate operon architecture add complexity to the regulation by providing feedback and feed-forward loops to the main circuit. Because of the high conservation of the gene arrangement and promoter motifs, we believe that the regulatory circuit presented here may also apply to other environmental pseudomonads.
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.457346v3.full

    A few more notes:

    Two Flagella Are Better than One – September 3, 2014
    Excerpt: The assembly instructions,, are even more irreducibly complex than the motor itself. Parts are arriving on time and moving into place in a programmed sequence, with feedback to the nucleus affecting how many parts are to be manufactured. Dr. Jonathan Wells added, “What we see is irreducible complexity all the way down.” Twelve years of closer looks at these astonishing machines have only amplified those conclusions.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89611.html

    The Bacterial Flagellum: A Paradigm for Design – Jonathan M. – Sept. 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, so striking is the appearance of intelligent design that researchers have modeled the assembly process (of the bacterial flagellum) in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations (McAuley et al.). Not only does the flagellum manifestly exhibit engineering principles, but the engineering involved is far superior to humanity’s best achievements. The flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity in spades. In all of our experience of cause-and-effect, we know that phenomena of this kind are uniformly associated with only one type of cause – one category of explanation – and that is intelligent mind. Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/1067.....-Flagellum

    The Surprising Relevance of Engineering in Biology – Brain Miller
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9i2vFEa6rE

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note:

    New BIO-Complexity Paper Details Complexity of Function and Assembly of Bacterial Flagellum
    Casey Luskin – September 10, 2021
    Excerpt: Now Schulz has published a second peer-reviewed scientific paper in BIO-Complexity, “An Engineering Perspective on the Bacterial Flagellum: Part 2 — Analytic View,”,,,
    (Quote from paper)
    “[T]he evolutionary biological community has yet to hypothesize a likely, detailed, step-by-step scenario to explain how the flagellum and its control system could have been blindly engineered naturalistically. Yet even that would still fall short of real evidence that such a thing actually happened, given real-world constraints.”,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/new-bio-complexity-paper-details-complexity-of-function-and-assembly-of-bacterial-flagellum/

    Bacterial Flagellum Demonstrates the Explanatory and Predictive Power of Engineering Models
    Brian Miller – January 3, 2022
    Excerpt: He (Schultz) presented his research (on flagella) at the Conference on Engineering in Living Systems, and his insights stunned and mesmerized even biologists with intimate knowledge of the related technical literature. As his top-down/bottom-up approach is applied to other systems, investigators will increasingly recognize that the only viable framework for understanding life starts from the assumption of design.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/bacterial-flagellum-demonstrates-the-explanatory-and-predictive-power-of-engineering-models/

    Amazing Flagellum : Michael Behe and the Revolution of Intelligent Design
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNR48hUd-Hw&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3L98qRoQ6CqpCQbsdEgqQ-&index=4

  39. 39
    martin_r says:

    Alan Fox, JVL, Seversky and co.

    give it a break … it is so desperate what you are presenting here …

    Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING. PERIOD.

    I understand, it is not easy to accept that, to admit that you guys were wrong for decades, i know it hurts …. But this is what happens when you listen to biologists, archeologists, paleontologists and other natural science graduates, instead of engineers … in other words, you should listen to EXPERTS.

    Human engineering:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g

    God’s engineering:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgQ0cyNJZV4

  40. 40
    Alan Fox says:

    Alan Fox, JVL, Seversky and co.

    give it a break … it is so desperate what you are presenting here …

    This is why the “Intelligent Design” movement needs ideas of its own. Cargo cult style presentations by fringe pseudonymous amateurs impress nobody.

  41. 41
    martin_r says:

    Alan Fox

    …. impress nobody.

    i am just telling you, that you guys are ridiculous. What is worse, you don’t even realize how ridiculous you are.

    And let me repeat it once more time:

    Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING. PERIOD.

  42. 42
    Alan Fox says:

    Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING.

    No it isn’t. Engineers are fine people. Just a bit OCD, sometimes.

  43. 43
    martin_r says:

    Alan Fox

    Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING.

    No it isn’t.

    I won’t fight with you … you are ridiculous …. like all Darwinists, you don’t know what you are talking about … just think about why after 150 years, you guys struggle to reproduce even the simplest biology, let alone something like that cheetah i submitted the video for :))))))))) Let alone an fully autonomous self-navigating flying system in the size of a fruit fly :))))))))))

    You guys are soooo ridiculous :))))))))))

  44. 44
    Alan Fox says:

    Well, I note what you say, Martin_r.

  45. 45
    AnimatedDust says:

    AF @36: Your paper makes my case. Thank you for that.

    We live in a cause and effect driven universe. Cause and effect with respect to human engineering does not cease when we extrapolate to living systems.

    That you explicitly choose to do so is the fulcrum of your intentional denial and suppression of the truth. Romans 1: 19-20 anyone?

  46. 46
    Alan Fox says:

    Your paper makes my case.

    You’re welcome. I hope you actually read some of it.

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Alan Fox seems to have lost track.

    At 36 Alan Fox told Animated Dust that he was going to (finally) show us a step by step Darwinian process by which a flagellum came about.

    AD: “Ok, what is the Darwinian process for how they came to be? Show your work.

    AF: “I’ll show you a sample of someone else’s first.”

    Yet, as I pointed out to AF at 37, ‘someone else’s’ sample that AF provided had not one peep about how a flagellum might have possibly come about. In fact, the research paper which AF cited, since it elucidated even more regulatory complexity on top of what was already known, actually adds even more support to the claim that flagella must be intelligently designed and cannot possibly be the result of unguided Darwinian processes.

    But be that as it may, I was waiting for AF to finally give us his personal step by step description about how unguided Darwinian processes produced flagella. This would be VERY interesting for AF to do since no one, not even Matzke, has been able to do so thus far,

    “,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
    – Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. ?*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Matzke Is Back On The Flagellum Horse – November 11, 2019
    Excerpt: I won’t go into a lengthy discussion of this latest article. Suffice it to say that in the 13 years since the ’06 review article, apparently there still are no peer reviewed research studies that provide the Darwinian model of how a bacterial flagellum came to be. There’s really nothing to review in this article because there just isn’t anything new here. Its more a bunch of assertions without evidence.
    ,,, The real take away here, of course, is that 23 years after Behe’s book was published, it is still the case that there simply are no peer reviewed research studies that provide an evolutionary model to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. If there was, then all Matke et.al. would have to do is reference all those studies. Yet that remains the one thing missing in all of the articles and comments.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/matzke-is-back-on-the-flagellum-horse/

    But alas, AF has apparently slipped back into fallacious Ad Hominem type attacks and has forgotten to give us his personal step by step description about how unguided Darwinian processes produced flagella.

    Oh well, maybe one day we will get the detailed ‘just-so stories’ of how flagella came about..

    But anyways, one particularly telling Ad Hominem type attack from AF was when AF labelled Otangelo Grasso’s featured OP, which lamented the difficulty faced by anyone who is trying to reason with Darwinian atheists, as a ‘Cargo cult style presentations’.

    The reason that that particular Ad Hominem attack from AF jumped out at me is because if anything ever qualified for the term “Cargo cult science’ then Darwinian evolution is certainly it.

    Cargo cult science
    Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.[1] The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.[1]
    Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. They focus on obtaining the material wealth (the “cargo”) of the advanced culture by imitating the actions they believe cause the appearance of cargo: by building landing strips, mock aircraft, mock radios, and the like.[2] Similarly, although cargo cult sciences employ the trappings of the scientific method, they fail—like an airplane with no motor—to deliver anything of value.[3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

    And indeed, Darwinian evolution, although it is surrounded by a plethora of imaginary just-so stories with no empirical support,,,

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    “… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”
    — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism – The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

    ,,, And indeed, Darwinian evolution, although it is surrounded by a plethora of imaginary just-so stories with no empirical support, has failed, “like an airplane with no motor—to deliver anything of value.” In other words, Darwinian evolution itself is very much a “Cargo cult science”

    As Jerry Coyne himself honestly conceded, “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.”

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    – Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).

    Darwinian evolution, unlike other theories in science, simply has not led to any important breakthroughs and/or discoveries in science.

    As the late Philip Skell noted, “Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic, (guiding principle), in experimental biology.”

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    – Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    As the following quotes also make clear, the ‘narrative gloss’ of Darwinian ‘just-so stories’ simply are not needed in the science of biology and/or molecular biology,

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    – Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
    – Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    In fact, besides failing to provide a ‘fruitful heuristic’ in experimental biology, Darwinian ‘predictions’, such as with vestigial organs, junk DNA and eugenics, have been a major hinderance, if not an outright disaster, for biological research in general.

    Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions – Casey Luskin – November 10, 2015 (Part 4)
    Excerpt: Just Kidding — We Anticipated Function!
    When ENCODE’s findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place new ones alongside the old.,,,
    Thus, while it’s true that, (through the years leading up to ENCODE), some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00771.html

    Oct. 2021 – Here is a short history of how the fallacious Junk DNA argument came about from Darwinian thinking.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heres-a-lay-friendly-explanation-of-the-critical-role-junk-dna-plays-in-mammalian-development/#comment-738837

    Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches – July 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the “vestigial organs” argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim’s original list, and each of those is questionable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62281.html

    The Origins of Eugenics
    Learn about Francis Galton and the beginnings of eugenics, or “race science,” and consider the relationship between science and society. – August 4, 2015
    Excerpt: Francis Galton, an English mathematician and Charles Darwin’s cousin, offered an attractive solution to those who believed that these groups posed a threat.
    Galton decided that natural selection does not work in human societies the way it does in nature, because people interfere with the process. As a result, the fittest do not always survive. So he set out to consciously “improve the race.” He coined the word eugenics to describe efforts at “race betterment.”
    https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/origins-eugenics

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, in so far as Darwinian principles have been applied to society at large, Darwinian ideas have had unimaginable horrid consequences for mankind.

    Quotes: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced in their political philosophy by Darwinian ideology.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

    So thus, in regards to “Cargo cult science” failing, “like an airplane with no motor—to deliver anything of value“, we find that Darwinian evolution itself is actually much worse than a harmless, and humorous, cargo cult science. Not only does Darwinian evolution fail to “deliver anything of value”, but it also, in so far as Darwinian ideas are taken seriously, has been an unmitigated disaster for man.

    Of related note: Francis Bacon himself, the father of the scientific method, in his book “Novum Organum”, stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically he stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”

    Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019
    Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately?
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/

    And 160 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinism, we can now accurately surmise that both, scientifically and politically speaking, Darwinism has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.

    Matthew 7:18-20
    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

  49. 49
    AnimatedDust says:

    I did, and BA, as usual, pointed out why you refuse to get it.

  50. 50
    Alan Fox says:

    At 36 Alan Fox told Animated Dust that he was going to (finally) show us a step by step Darwinian process by which a flagellum came about.

    Wrong. I said I would show someone else’s work. Which I did. There’s a wealth of material available to those interested in scientific research into biological systems. No need for me to reinvent the wheel and no need for anyone to look at the science if they feel threatened.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    AF: “I’ll show you a sample of someone else’s first.”

    “First” directly implies that you would be forthcoming with your own step by step account.

    Words have meaning AF. But alas, and as a Darwinist, words are not your friend AF,

    Moreover, (although the ‘narrative gloss’ of unguided Darwinian evolution’ can be, somewhat easily, removed from the peer-reviewed literature without negatively effecting the actual scientific research of the papers), it is interesting to note what type of language cannot be removed from these peer-reviewed papers without negatively effecting the actual scientific research of the papers.

    Specifically, teleological language cannot be sacrificed from these research papers without negatively effecting the actual scientific research of the papers.,,
    i.e. the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing, and/or describing, their actual biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-jonathan-bartlett-will-the-sokal-hoaxes-worsen-the-academic-echo-chamber/#comment-742456

    teleological – adjective
    exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleological

  52. 52
    Alan Fox says:

    “First” directly implies that you would be forthcoming with your own step by step account.

    Not specifically. It suggests, if A is progress, B can follow.

    Anyway, I might just explain that I have too much time on my hands currently as I’m down with COVID at the moment. So while I have plenty of time to comment, I don’t have the energy or inclination to invest effort in supplying research info on flagellar systems to folks who are ideologically opposed to the scientific method. On the other hand, scientific endeavour carries on very well without my support.

  53. 53
    AnimatedDust says:

    Nice bluff. You don’t have it because there isn’t any. It will be just more like what you submitted earlier, which shows exactly the opposite of your claims.

    Regardless, sorry to hear you have COVID and hope you recover quickly.

  54. 54
    JVL says:

    Alan Fox: folks who are ideologically opposed to the scientific method.

    Do you suppose that’s why they have trouble coming up with an ID hypothesis that can be tested with an objective, repeatable, observer independent test with clear standards of ‘success’?

  55. 55
    Seversky says:

    Paul Nelson believed,

    Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.

  56. 56
    Alan Fox says:

    Regardless, sorry to hear you have COVID and hope you recover quickly.

    Thanks. I’m quadruple vaccinated so it’s been a bit of a shock. Been laid up for a week now and still have flu-like fever. Ah well, there’s many worse off.

  57. 57
  58. 58
    Alan Fox says:

    Do you suppose that’s why they have trouble coming up with an ID hypothesis that can be tested with an objective, repeatable, observer independent test with clear standards of ‘success’?

    Trouble? Oh yes, I think so. But then, the task is impossible, in my view. How can you test a hypothesis if you can’t allow yourself a method? Come on guys! How does the designer do stuff? What’s the mechanism.

  59. 59
    JVL says:

    Relatd:

    Do you have an objective, repeatable, observer independent hypothesis and test for ID?

    Or are you bailing out like Jerry and claiming ID cannot be tested like physics and chemistry because . . . well, I’ll leave you to figure that out.

  60. 60
    Alan Fox says:

    @ Seversky, Paul Nelson popped in to The Skeptical Zone a while ago and I asked if such was still the case. Don’t recall any denial. I’ll see if I can track down the exchange.

    Here:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-211662

  61. 61
    JVL says:

    Alan Fox: How can you test a hypothesis if you can’t allow yourself a method?

    Jerry (comment 13 at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-seat-at-the-table/) says ID cannot be subject to the normal hypothesis testing kind of science like physics and chemistry because . . . well, I’ll let you read his comment. I think it means ID accepts miracles as science.

  62. 62
    relatd says:

    JVL at 61,

    Life from dead chemicals also relies on a miracle.

  63. 63
    Alan Fox says:

    I think it means ID accepts miracles as science.

    I’m there now.

  64. 64
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Life from dead chemicals also relies on a miracle.

    How do you know if you don’t know how it might have happened?

  65. 65
  66. 66
    relatd says:

    JVL at 64,

    You, and scientists, don’t know how it happened. And can you get spontaneous generation of life from anything?

  67. 67
    JVL says:

    Relatd: You, and scientists, don’t know how it happened.

    No one said they did know. They have guesses, they have ideas, they’re trying to check some of those out. They’re doing science.

    And can you get spontaneous generation of life from anything?

    Probably not from old episodes of Friends. Why do you ask such pointless and vague questions? Are you really even trying to understand the current state of understanding?

  68. 68
    relatd says:

    JVL at 67,

    They’re doing “science”? Really? No, they’re not.

    You know what your problem is? The dividing line between living things are actually designed and believing they are not. But you cannot entertain, even for a microsecond, the idea that living things are actually designed.

  69. 69
    JVL says:

    Relatd: But you cannot entertain, even for a microsecond, the idea that living things are actually designed.

    I can entertain that notion but I expect you to provide shed loads of data and evidence and research and experiences which support that. And I have an alternate hypothesis which entails fewer assumptions.

    So, I take the simpler, more supported explanation.

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    Just uploaded:

    Systems Biology and Intelligent Design – Emily Reeves – video lecture (Oct. 2022)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PD0iXgu_S8

    A few related notes:

    How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design – July 2014
    Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems:
    *”Negative feedback for stable operation.”
    *”Frequency filtering” for extracting a signal from a noisy system.
    *Control and signaling to induce a response.
    *”Information storage” where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes:
    “This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. ”
    *”Timing and synchronization,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order.
    *”Addressing,” where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target.
    *”Hierarchies of function,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order.
    *”Redundancy,” as organisms contain backup systems or “fail-safes” if primary essential systems fail.
    *”Adaptation,” where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, “These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way,” and “Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.”,,,
    Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that “just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little ‘junk.'” He explains, “Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible,” and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....87871.html

    Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design – David Snoke – 2014
    Abstract: Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology.,,
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2014.3

    I might add, via George Ellis, that the ‘bottom up’ approach taken by Darwinian materialists, i.e. by reductive materialists, (as opposed to the ‘top-down’ approach that is now taken by systems biologists), is simply the completely wrong approach to take in order to try to understand biological systems,

    How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? – September 29, 2013
    Excerpt: To get an handle on how top-down causation works, Ellis focuses on what’s in front of all us so much of the time: the computer. Computers are structured systems. They are built as a hierarchy of layers, extending from the wires in the transistors all the way up to the fully assembled machine, gleaming metal case and all.
    Because of this layering, what happens at the uppermost levels — like you hitting the escape key — flows downward. This action determines the behavior of the lowest levels — like the flow of electrons through the wires — in ways that simply could not be predicted by just knowing the laws of electrons. As Ellis puts it:
    “Structured systems such as a computer constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behavior.”
    Ellis likes to emphasize how the hierarchy of structure — from fully assembled machine through logic gates, down to transistors — changes everything for the lowly electrons. In particular, it “breaks the symmetry” of their possible behavior since their movements in the computer hardware are very different from what would occur if they were just floating around in a plasma blob in space.
    But the hardware, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle. This is where things get interesting. As Ellis explains:
    “Hardware is only causally effective because of the software which animates it: by itself hardware can do nothing. Both hardware and software are hierarchically structured with the higher level logic driving the lower level events.”
    In other words, it’s software at the top level of structure that determines how the electrons at the bottom level flow. Hitting escape while running Word moves the electrons in the wires in different ways than hitting escape does when running Photoshop. This is causation flowing from top to bottom.
    For Ellis, anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it:
    “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities. The physics allows this; it does not control what takes place. Computers exemplify the emergence of new kinds of causation out of the underlying physics, not implied by physics but rather by the logic of higher-level possibilities. … A combination of bottom-up causation and contextual affects (top-down influences) enables their complex functioning.”
    The consequences of this perspective for our view of the mind are straightforward and radical:
    “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-bottom-up

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view:
    Definition 1: Causal Effect
    If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y.
    Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,,
    Definition 2: Existence
    If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter).
    This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,,
    ,,,However there are many topics that one cannot understand by assuming this one-way flow of causation. The flourishing subject of social neuroscience makes clear how social influences act down on individual brain structure[2]; studies in physiology demonstrate that downward causation is necessary in understanding the heart, where this form of causation can be represented as the influences of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the lower level processes[3]; epigenetic studies demonstrate that biological development is crucially shaped by the environment[4]
    What about physics? In this essay I will make the case that top-down causation is also prevalent in physics, even though this is not often recognised as such. This does not occur by violating physical laws; on the contrary, it occurs through the laws of physics, by setting constraints on lower level interactions.
    Excerpt: page 5: A:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.
    Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play.,,,
    Life and the brain: living systems are highly structured modular hierarchical systems, and there are many similarities to the digital computer case, even though they are not digital computers. The lower level interactions are constrained by network connections, thereby creating possibilities of truly complex behaviour. Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf

  71. 71
    relatd says:

    Molecular switches control various cell functions. Some are not just on and off. Some include sensors to insure that the right amount of a fluid, for example, enters a cell. When molecular switches malfunction, it could lead to disease.

    Computational Biology is analyzing the data and getting results.

    https://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/computational-biology/focus-areas

  72. 72
    Origenes says:

    Anyone who accepts intelligent design as a valid competing explanation for life, will, given its towering functional complexity, come to the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation by far. IOW given two equally valid competing explanations for life, and given its many intricacies, ID is winning by a mile.
    The only way to avoid accepting ID as the best explanation, is making the case that intelligence is not allowed.

  73. 73
    Sir Giles says:

    Dr. Moran is referencing this thread over on his blog.
    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/10/on-reasoning-with-creationists.html?m=1

  74. 74
    OldArmy94 says:

    RC Sproul said it best: Atheists believe in God, and they hate Him.

  75. 75
    Alan Fox says:

    Anyone who accepts intelligent design as a valid competing explanation for life, will, given its towering functional complexity, come to the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation by far.

    Well, that’s completely circular. 🙂

  76. 76
    bornagain77 says:

    Sir Giles, you do realize that, as far as empirical science is concerned, that Larry Moran and Dan Gruar have both discredited anything they have to say about biology when they refused to accept the results of the massive ENCODE study, and subsequent studies, that found, and continue to find, widespread functionality across the entire genome??

    Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results? – Casey Luskin July 13, 2015
    Excerpt: no publication shook this (ID vs Darwin) debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest–or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the “vast majority” of the human genome shows biochemical function: “These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.”3
    Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, “it’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent.”4 Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that “almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.”5 A headline in Science declared, “ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA.”6,,,
    Evolutionists Strike Back
    Darwin defenders weren’t going to take ENCODE’s data sitting down.,,,
    How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm–and by personally attacking, (i.e. ad hominem), those who challenge their position.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....97561.html

    Toppling Another Evolutionary Icon, ENCODE Suggests Endogenous Retroviruses Are Functional – Casey Luskin – September 7, 2015
    Excerpt: ENCODE didn’t merely study the genome to determine which DNA elements are biochemically active and making RNA. It also studied patterns of biochemical activity, uncovering highly non-random patterns of RNA production–patterns which indicate that these vast quantities of RNA transcripts aren’t junk…. ENCODE’s results suggest that a cell’s type and functional role in an organism are critically influenced by complex and carefully orchestrated patterns of expression of RNAs inside that cell. As Stamatoyannopoulos observes, ENCODE found that “the majority of regulatory DNA regions are highly cell type-selective,” and “the genomic landscape rapidly becomes crowded with regulatory DNA as the number of cell types” studied increases. Thus, as two pro-ENCODE biochemists explain, “Assertions that the observed transcription represents random noise . . . is more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....99111.html

    Dan Graur, Darwin’s Reactionary – June 21, 2017
    Excerpt: In 2013, biologist Dan Graur criticized the “evolution-free gospel of ENCODE” and accused its researchers of “playing fast and loose with the term ‘function,’ by divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context.”81 In a lecture at the University of Houston, Graur argued that “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.” In other words: “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.” But for Graur, evolution can’t be wrong. His solution to the problem? “Kill ENCODE.”82,,,
    Lots of evolutionists think that way but only the rare Darwinian atheist materialist is willing to state the matter as nakedly as this. No wonder Dr. Graur is among a list of individuals thanked by Dr. Wells in his Acknowledgments for “making embarrassingly candid or unwittingly humorous statements.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/dan-graur-darwins-reactionary/

    Discovery Of Useful “Junk DNA” “Has Outstripped The Discovery Of Protein-Coding Genes By A Factor Of Five… – March 30, 2021
    Excerpt: With the HGP draft in hand, the discovery of non-protein-coding elements exploded. So far, that growth has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five, and shows no signs of slowing. Likewise, the number of publications about such elements also grew in the period covered by our data set. For example, there are thousands of papers on non-coding RNAs, which regulate gene expression.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/discovery-of-useful-junk-dna-has-outstripped-the-discovery-of-protein-coding-genes-by-a-factor-of-five/

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  77. 77
    Alan Fox says:

    RC Sproul said it best: Atheists believe in God, and they hate Him.

    Who is R C Sproul and how did he establish that “atheists” (by definition, people who do not believe in any god) “believe in God, and they hate him”?

    ETA must be that all atheists are Cretans.

  78. 78
    bornagain77 says:

    Atheists are shown to have an innate belief in God, an innate belief that they suppress, and are also shown to be irrationally angry towards God

    When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
    Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
    A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....gry-at-god

    Children are born believers in God, academic claims – 24 Nov 2008
    Excerpt: “Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....laims.html

    Humans ‘predisposed’ to believe in gods and the afterlife – July 14, 2011
    – University of Oxford
    Excerpt: A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
    The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,,,
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Studies have now established that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists themselves have to mentally work suppressing their “knee jerk” design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    Verse:

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  79. 79
    martin_r says:

    Sir Giles @73

    I have quickly checked the link you sent …
    Never heard of Dr. Moran …

    Dr. Moran: I’ve been trying to reason with creationists for more than 30 years, beginning with debates on talk.origins back in the early 1990s. Sometimes we make a little progress but most of the time it’s very frustrating.

    Who is this clown ?

  80. 80
    Seversky says:

    Origenes/72

    Anyone who accepts intelligent design as a valid competing explanation for life, will, given its towering functional complexity, come to the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation by far. IOW given two equally valid competing explanations for life, and given its many intricacies, ID is winning by a mile.

    While the evidence from biology supporting the theory of evolution is incomplete, it far outweighs the evidence for the existence of a Designer/Creator, let alone how it accomplished its designs.

  81. 81
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/78

    Atheists are shown to have an innate belief in God, an innate belief that they suppress, and are also shown to be irrationally angry towards God

    Are you saying that all non-Christian children are born with an innate belief in the Christian God?

    I can say that I, as an atheist, feel no anger towards the Christian God, although I can’t say the same about some prominent self-proclaimed Christians here.

    And what would be irrational would be to be angry at a being you don’t believe exists. That would be like being angry at Emperor Palpatine or Sauron. Are you angry at them?

  82. 82
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 80,

    More evidence. I rest my case. You, like some here, live behind a barrier. On one side: Living things are actually designed. On your side: Living things are not designed. You can cross over to the design side. Literally nothing is stopping you.

  83. 83
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 81,

    Yet you do not fail to bring up God/Creator on a regular basis and judge Him or judge those that believe in Him.

  84. 84
    Seversky says:

    Martin_r/79

    I have quickly checked the link you sent …
    Never heard of Dr. Moran …

    […]

    Who is this clown ?

    This “clown” is a biochemist and

    Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.

    which makes him a rather more competent authority in biology than an engineer, wouldn’t you say?

  85. 85
    jerry says:

    which makes him a rather more competent authority in biology than an engineer, wouldn’t you say?

    But yet can not produce any evidence for what he espouses.

    Are we into my biologist vs your biologist? When Larry Moran produces any evidence, people will take him seriously. If what he produces is just genetics, then ID agrees usually 100%.

    But genetics is not Evolution. That is the mistake Darwin made and nearly every evolutionary biologist since then. Genetics leads to lack of variation, not to increased complexity that is necessary in Evolution. And there is no evidence that new body plans arise in the genome.

           Where is the evidence?

    Aside: notice the appeal to authority by Seversky. Tries to undermine a valid comment anyway one can. That is the game being played nearly 100% of the time by anti ID people everywhere. Find some trivial point to object to. Irony – on this particular point, this means that any comment Seversky makes is to be discredited immediately because he is not trained in the discipline.

    The interesting thing is why they do this instead of defending their position with evidence.

    The answer is that they have no evidence and they know it. So they play games using one fallacy after the other. But why do they do it?

  86. 86
    martin_r says:

    Seversky @84

    perhaps you haven’t noticed, but i have always considered biologists and all other -logists (natural science graduates) as completely incompetent people in all design/creation/evolution debates.

    Talking to a biologist who denies design in nature – this is very frustrating …

  87. 87
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev: “Are you saying that all non-Christian children are born with an innate belief in the Christian God?”

    Did the study I listed say that? No, of course not. The study I listed clearly said a generic “Supreme Being”. That you would even ask such a stupid question is just one more example of you being extremely biased against Christianity in particular.

    Sev: “I can say that I, as an atheist, feel no anger towards the Christian God, although I can’t say the same about some prominent self-proclaimed Christians here.”

    HUH? Are you kidding? Right here on UD you have displayed your severe hostility towards Judeo-Christian Theism time and time again. Since you have no real time evidence to support your Darwinian atheism, railing against Judeo-Christian Theism is literally your bread and butter argument for your atheism.,,, Are we just suppose to forget all those times you have displayed your extreme hatred against Judeo-Christian Theism? Sorry Seversky, it just doesn’t work that way.

    Sev: “And what would be irrational would be to be angry at a being you don’t believe exists. That would be like being angry at Emperor Palpatine or Sauron. Are you angry at them?”

    Well Seversky, besides the words that you yourself have written betraying you, I did list a study that puts the lie to your claim that atheists are not hostile towards God.,,, Go figure. Just one more example, in a long line of examples, of you ignoring any and all evidence that contradicts your worldview.

    When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
    Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
    A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....gry-at-god

  88. 88
    Alan Fox says:

    I can say that I, as an atheist, feel no anger towards the Christian God, although I can’t say the same about some prominent self-proclaimed Christians here.

    Myself, I just find the certainty, the misplaced confidence, of some of the chest-beating Christian regulars here a bit off-putting.

  89. 89
    AnimatedDust says:

    The exact same thing can be said of you Alan

  90. 90
    Alan Fox says:

    Larry Moran and Dan Gruar have both discredited anything they have to say about biology when they refused to accept the results of the massive ENCODE study, and subsequent studies, that found, and continue to find, widespread functionality across the entire genome??

    And they were right. The ENCODE study was badly misrepresented. The fact remains that over half the human genome serves no positive purpose for humans.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140926-at-least-75-per-cent-of-our-dna-really-is-useless-junk-after-all/

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-complex-truth-about-junk-dna-20210901/

  91. 91
    Alan Fox says:

    The exact same thing can be said of you Alan

    Really? Have you read something by me in UD comments pushing an atheist agenda?

  92. 92
    JVL says:

    Jerry: But yet can not produce any evidence for what he espouses.

    And you know that because? You’ve read all his blog posts over the last decade or more?

    Oh, wait, I forget. You’re not interested in having a conversation or discussion. Stupid me; I wasted my time responding to you when you don’t care. I’ve got to remember that.

  93. 93
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 85,

    “The answer is that they have no evidence and they know it. So they play games using one fallacy after the other. But why do they do it?”

    Why? If you work for the Ministry of Propaganda and your instructions are “to defend evolution in any way you can,” what do you do?

  94. 94
    JVL says:

    Relatd: If you work for the Ministry of Propaganda and your instructions are “to defend evolution in any way you can,” what do you do?

    Paranoia runs deep, into your life it will creep. Plus it means you don’t actually have to discuss or even know anything about the science. Convenient.

  95. 95
    relatd says:

    JVL at 94,

    For many years, on sites other than this one, defenders of evolution threw tons of data my way because I didn’t “understand” evolution. None of it was compelling then and it’s not compelling now. I mean if people say, “You really should look at this,” I’ll look. I study a lot of science and technology and you know what? Evolution is sinking like the Titanic.

  96. 96
    JVL says:

    Relatd: None of it was compelling then and it’s not compelling now.

    Maybe a) you didn’t understand it or b) you have compelling reasons for disbelieving it.

    Regardless, many highly educated people who have spent years studying the pertinent science and evidence and data and research do find it compelling. It’s not a popularity contest but you just saying:it’s not compelling compared to the lengthy explanations of why it’s compelling from the scientists . . . well . . . your opinion isn’t very compelling.

  97. 97
    relatd says:

    JVL at 96,

    Really? Based on what? I’ve seen the so-called evidence. It’s junk. Evolution is nothing more than a storytelling device. And trust me, I understand storytelling. I know exactly how it works. Examples:

    Evolution is fast except when it isn’t.
    Evolution makes a lot of changes except when it doesn’t.

    With that type of storytelling in hand, I could write a story about ancient peoples going to the Moon on the backs of large dogs. Those dogs went extinct and now we have to use rockets.

  98. 98
    bornagain77 says:

    AF: “The fact remains that over half the human genome serves no positive purpose for humans.”

    Really?

    All that ‘junk DNA’, “over half”, must place a fairly large energetic burden on the cell? Especially since “Transcriptomics studies show the pervasive transcription of virtually the entire human genome”

    “Transcriptomics studies show the pervasive transcription of virtually the entire human genome”(Clark et al. 2011; Hangauer et al. 2013).
    https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/12/11/2183/5906514

    And yet, despite transcribing all that supposedly useless junk DNA into useless transcriptions, the human cell somehow manages to be amazingly energetically efficient.

    Cell-inspired electronics – February 25, 2010
    Excerpt: “A single cell in the human body is approximately 10,000 times more energy-efficient than any nanoscale digital transistor, the fundamental building block of electronic chips. In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.”
    http://phys.org/news/2010-02-c.....onics.html

    Something definitely is not adding up in terms of the amazing energetic/thermodynamic efficiency found in the human cell and the Darwinian claim that massive amounts of junk DNA exist in the human genome.

    As they use to say on Sesame Street, “can you guess what does not belong in this picture?”

  99. 99
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Really? Based on what? I’ve seen the so-called evidence. It’s junk.

    Well, lots and lots and lots and lots of highly educated people disagree with you. And they can explain why they think the evidence is compelling. And that explanation does not require the supposition of some alien being or intelligence that we have no hard and fast physical evidence of.

    Evolution is fast except when it isn’t.
    Evolution makes a lot of changes except when it doesn’t.

    For someone who claims to have looked at the evidence you are strangely ignorant of the explanations for such things. I’m beginning to think you haven’t actually looked at the evidence. OR you didn’t understand it. OR you chose to ignore or disbelieve it.

    Look, you are bringing up the same old tropes that have been addressed over and over and over again on this blog and otherwise. You can chose to disagree with the arguments but you can’t say they don’t exist.

    Why don’t you try and address the actual arguments and reasonings made (which are easy to find) instead of just saying it’s all junk. Try and exhibit some actual scientific reasoning. You know, like real scientists do. WHY, exactly do you think it’s junk. Discuss research, point out places you think mistakes were made, discuss particular places or points where you think misinterpretations were made. Can you do that sort of thing? Most important: address the actual work that has been done.

    Here’s a starting point: pick a paper or book and spell out particular places where you think the author(s) made a mistake and give reasons and evidence why you think they are mistakes. Can you do that?

  100. 100
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Really?

    Yes really.

    Look, instead of just copy-and-pasting lots of things other people said why don’t you pick an actual bit of research and show where you think the researchers made a mistake or misinterpreted their results. Can you do that? Do you want me to pick a paper for you to consider?

    Can you actually demonstrate an understanding of the science involved and critique it based on its actual merits? Yes or no?

    Why not try this paper: Kinetic Analysis Suggests Evolution of Ribosome Specificity in Modern Elongation Factor-Tus from “Generalist” Ancestors

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/702f/df512beb219f7fcd739656eefef4da8d683d.pdf

  101. 101
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, so measuring the thermodynamic efficiency of a human cell is not ‘scientific’ enough for you to tell you how much useless ‘dead weight’ the cell is forced to carry?

    And you accuse me of not ‘understanding the science’? 🙂

  102. 102
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, so measuring the thermodynamic efficiency of a human cell is not ‘scientific’ enough for you to tell you how much useless ‘garbage’ the cell is forced to carry?

    The story (not a scientific paper) says: “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.”

    And what does that have to do with “how much (useless) ‘garbage’ the cell is forced to carry”? Please be specific.

    AND I didn’t say you didn’t copy-and-paste scientific stuff; I’m just saying I don’t think you actually understand what it is you are copy-and-pasting. Here’s a reason why:

    From the other paper you linked to: (which you mis-labelled, I’m going on the actual link) Stochastic Gain and Loss of Novel Transcribed Open Reading Frames in the Human Lineage

    Analyses of the human genome and annotated protein-coding genes suggest that several dozen human-proteins arose de novo and indicate that de novo proteins are added to the genome at a slow and stable rate (Knowles and McLysaght 2009; Wu et al. 2011; Guerzoni and McLysaght 2016).

    And

    Evidence from ribosome-profiling experiments indicates that many taxon-restricted sequences bind to ribosomes and are translated into proteins which evolve neutrally (Wilson and Masel 2011; Schmitz et al. 2018; Ruiz-Orera et al. 2018). Thus, eukaryotic genomes are likely home to a shifting population of novel transcripts containing ORFs with members regularly being gained and lost.

    Which makes it look like you never even read the introduction to the paper you linked to.

    But wait, there’s more!!

    It seems likely that novel ORFs may remain in the human genome for millions of years before being selected for specific functions. Indeed, data in great apes show the existence of hundreds of novel multi-exon transcripts evolving neutrally, indicating that young de novo may evolve gene-like properties prior to acquiring biological functions (Ruiz-Orera et al. 2015). In our data, which included single exon transcribed ORFs, pairwise ? values show that the majority of primate-restricted ORFs are evolving neutrally.

    From the last paragraph:

    Our results support previous findings which indicate that each species is host to a myriad of novel transcribed sequences. Fine-scale analyses, using closely related taxa, have allowed for the study of the evolution of protein properties in insects (Heames et al. 2020) and fish (Schmitz et al. 2020) but, until now, not mammals. Our use of recently diverged primate taxa allows us to trace the fine-scale evolution of expressed ORFs over recent time scales in a mammalian order. We find that novel ORFs are frequently formed and transcribed from intergenic and intronic regions. Properties of these transcribed ORFs, such as ISD, aggregation propensity, and proximity to annotated genes; do not change with increasing level suggesting that their chance of survival over time and long term retention are largely stochastic rather than driven by selection.

    Too funny. Thank you for providing documentation that runs counter to your claims.

    Clearly, not only do you not understand the science but you don’t even read the stuff you link to. How sad is that?

  103. 103
    bornagain77 says:

    So apparently JVL does not think that ‘over half’ of the genome being useless garbage will effect the thermodynamic efficiency of the cell.

    So that about does it for me. I have much better things to do today than chase a unreasonable, and unscientific, troll’s tail around in a circle.

    Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon – Charles H. Bennett – September 2003
    Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,,
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....980300039X

    Logically and Physically Reversible Natural Computing: A Tutorial – 2013
    Excerpt: This year marks the 40th anniversary of Charles Bennett’s seminal paper on reversible computing. Bennett’s contribution is remembered as one of the first to demonstrate how any deterministic computation can be simulated by a logically reversible Turing machine. Perhaps less remembered is that the same paper suggests the use of nucleic acids to realise physical reversibility. In context, Bennett’s foresight predates Leonard Adleman’s famous experiments to solve instances of the Hamiltonian path problem using strands of DNA — a landmark date for the field of natural computing — by more than twenty years.
    http://link.springer.com/chapt.....38986-3_20

    Logical Reversibility of Computation* – C. H. Bennett – 1973
    Excerpt from last paragraph: The biosynthesis and biodegradation of messenger RNA may be viewed as convenient examples of logically reversible and irreversible computation, respectively. Messenger RNA. a linear polymeric informational macromolecule like DNA, carries the genetic information from one or more genes of a DNA molecule. and serves to direct the synthesis of the proteins encoded by those genes. Messenger RNA is synthesized by the enzyme RNA polymerase in the presence of a double-stranded DNA molecule and a supply of RNA monomers (the four nucleotide pyrophosphates ATP, GTP, CTP, and UTP) [7]. The enzyme attaches to a specific site on the DNA molecule and moves along, sequentially incorporating the RNA monomers into a single-stranded RNA molecule whose nucleotide sequence exactly matches that of the DNA. The pyrophosphate groups are released into the surrounding solution as free pyrophosphate molecules. The enzyme may thus be compared to a simple tape-copying Turing machine that manufactures its output tape rather than merely writing on it. Tape copying is a logically reversible operation. and RNA polymerase is both thermodynamically and logically reversible.,,,
    http://www.cs.princeton.edu/co.....ett73.html

    The astonishing efficiency of life – November 17, 2017 by Jenna Marshall
    Excerpt: All life on earth performs computations – and all computations require energy. From single-celled amoeba to multicellular organisms like humans, one of the most basic biological computations common across life is translation: processing information from a genome and writing that into proteins.
    Translation, it turns out, is highly efficient.
    In a new paper published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI researchers explore the thermodynamic efficiency of translation.,,,
    To discover just how efficient translation is, the researchers started with Landauer’s Bound. This is a principle of thermodynamics establishing the minimum amount of energy that any physical process needs to perform a computation.
    “What we found is that biological translation is roughly 20 times less efficient than the absolute lower physical bound,” says lead author Christopher Kempes, an SFI Omidyar Fellow. “And that’s about 100,000 times more efficient than a computer.”
    https://phys.org/news/2017-11-astonishing-efficiency-life.html

    The thermodynamic efficiency of computations made in cells across the range of life. – 2017 Dec.
    Excerpt: Here we show that the computational efficiency of translation, defined as free energy expended per amino acid operation, outperforms the best supercomputers by several orders of magnitude, and is only about an order of magnitude worse than the Landauer bound.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133443/

  104. 104
    martin_r says:

    BA @101

    Talking about “dead weight’ (junk DNA).

    Junk DNA perfectly illustrates how absurd Darwinism is.

    If 95% of our DNA would be functional, Darwinists would say – what is so surprising ? Of course all of our DNA is functional and only a small percentage is junk … it can’t be otherwise … because natural selection removes anything what is not useful/functional …

    If 95% of our DNA would be non-functional, then, Darwinists would say – look, this is an ultimate proof that evolution is true, how else could you explain that 95 % of it is a junk ? Clearly, it is an artifact of millions of years of evolution … an ultimate proof ….

    It is like in some mental hospital ….

  105. 105
    JVL says:

    I just want to make clear the big OOPS that Bornagain77 made.

    Here’s the quote he reproduced:

    “Transcriptomics studies show the pervasive transcription of virtually the entire human genome”(Clark et al. 2011; Hangauer et al. 2013).
    https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/12/11/2183/5906514

    But, if you follow the link provided you get:

    Stochastic Gain and Loss of Novel Transcribed Open Reading Frames in the Human Lineage
    Daniel Dowling, Jonathan F Schmitz, Erich Bornberg-Bauer
    Genome Biology and Evolution, Volume 12, Issue 11, November 2020, Pages 2183–2195,

    https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/12/11/2183/5906514

    Which contains the quotes I posted above.

    Clearly Bornagain77 is just copy-and-pasting stuff he hasn’t read or understood. I wonder how many of his copy-and-pasted links and quotes are inaccurate and, in fact, contrary to his assertions? Does anyone care to check?

  106. 106
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: So apparently JVL does not think that ‘over half’ of the genome being useless garbage will effect the thermodynamic efficiency of the cell.

    The fact that reactions are performed efficiently has nothing to do with whether or not those reactions are necessary!! You really are showing your ignorance.

    I think I will check some of you other links to see if they too contradict what you say they say.

    o that about does it for me. I have much better things to do today than chase a unreasonable, and unscientific, troll’s tail around in a circle.

    Oh dear, you got caught being ignorant of something you claimed said one thing when it said the exact opposite!! So now you’re running away. Figures.

  107. 107
    JVL says:

    Here’s another one of Bornagain77‘s pasted ‘quotes’ and link:

    Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon – Charles H. Bennett – September 2003
    Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,,
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…..980300039X

    If you follow the link you get to: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135521980300039X

    Which is actually just a brief summary of the paper and that summary DOES NOT contain the quote he cites. Which means, again, that Bornagain77 did not actually follow the link and read the material linked to. He just lifted the quote and link from someone else.

    AND that’s aside from the fact that it’s hard to figure out what the paper and the quote have to do with the point Bornagain77 is trying to make.

  108. 108
    relatd says:

    Nonsense. At the Mayo Clinic and elsewhere, guess what? The ASSUMPTION made by brainwashed Biologists had to be discarded to make actual progress in identifying the sources of human disease. How are they doing that? By looking at Junk DNA. By studying it. Not throwing it out as ‘leftovers from our long [alleged] period of Evolution.’ By studying it as opposed to ‘it doesn’t code for proteins so it’s useless.’ Those so-called non-coding regions are yielding vital information about human disease, The “natural” approach discarded them – without looking.

    Source: https://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/computational-biology/focus-areas

    A few excerpts: “Because most genetic variants occur in noncoding regions of the genome, their effects remain poorly understood.”

    “Modern technologies in genomics allow for high-throughput variant discovery, measuring expression of all genes and determining epigenomic alterations across the entire human genome.”

    “Expression and epigenome maps based on single-cell analyses enable the deciphering of functions of noncoding regions in a cell-specific way, which is the foundation for revealing how variants contribute to disease pathogenesis, cancer development and progression.”

  109. 109
    JVL says:

    Here’s another one of Bornagain77‘s copy-and-paste snippets:

    Logical Reversibility of Computation* – C. H. Bennett – 1973
    Excerpt from last paragraph: The biosynthesis and biodegradation of messenger RNA may be viewed as convenient examples of logically reversible and irreversible computation, respectively. Messenger RNA. a linear polymeric informational macromolecule like DNA, carries the genetic information from one or more genes of a DNA molecule. and serves to direct the synthesis of the proteins encoded by those genes. Messenger RNA is synthesized by the enzyme RNA polymerase in the presence of a double-stranded DNA molecule and a supply of RNA monomers (the four nucleotide pyrophosphates ATP, GTP, CTP, and UTP) [7]. The enzyme attaches to a specific site on the DNA molecule and moves along, sequentially incorporating the RNA monomers into a single-stranded RNA molecule whose nucleotide sequence exactly matches that of the DNA. The pyrophosphate groups are released into the surrounding solution as free pyrophosphate molecules. The enzyme may thus be compared to a simple tape-copying Turing machine that manufactures its output tape rather than merely writing on it. Tape copying is a logically reversible operation. and RNA polymerase is both thermodynamically and logically reversible.,,,
    http://www.cs.princeton.edu/co…..ett73.html

    Follow the link, look at the last paragraph . . . a lot of which has been left off. Here’s the whole last paragraph (emphasis added by me):

    The biosynthesis and biodegradation of messenger RNA may be viewed as convenient examples of logically reversible and irreversible computation. respectively. Messenger RNA. a linear polymeric informational macromolecule like DNA, carries the genetic information from one or more genes of a DNA molecule. and serves to direct the synthesis of the proteins encoded by those genes. Messenger RNA is synthesized by the enzyme RNA polymerase in the presence of a double-stranded DNA molecule and a supply of RNA monomers (the four nucleotide pyrophosphates ATP, GTP, CTP, and UTP) [7]. The enzyme attaches to a specific site on the DNA molecule and moves along, sequentially incorporating the RNA monomers into a single-stranded RNA molecule whose nucleotide sequence exactly matches that of the DNA. The pyrophosphate groups are released into the surrounding solution as free pyrophosphate molecules. The enzyme may thus be compared to a simple tape-copying Turing machine that manufactures its output tape rather than merely writing on it. Tape copying is a logically reversible operation. and RNA polymerase is both thermodynamically and logically reversible. In the cellular environment the reaction is driven in the intended forward direction of RNA synthesis by other reactions. which maintain a low concentration of free pyrophosphate, relative to the concentrations of nucleotide pyrophosphates [8]. A high pyrophosphate concentration would drive the reaction backward. and the enzyme would carry out a sequence-specific degradation of the RNA. comparing each nucleotide with the corresponding DNA nucleotide before splitting it off. This process, which may be termed logically reversible erasure of RNA, does not normally occur in biological systems – instead, RNA is degraded by other enzymes. such as polynucleotide phosphorylase [9], in a logically irreversible manner (i.e.. without checking its sequence against DNA). Polynucleotide phosphorylase catalyzes the reaction of RNA with free phosphate (maintained at high concentration) to form nucleotide phosphate monomers. Like the polymerase reaction. this reaction is thermodynamically reversible: however, because of its logical irreversibility, a fourfold greater phosphate concentration is needed to drive it forward than would be required for a logically reversible phosphorolytic degradation. The extra driving force is necessary to suppress the undesired synthesis of nonsense RNA by random polymerization. In biological systems. apparently, the speed and flexibility of irreversible erasure outweigh its extra cost in free energy kT ln 4 per nucleotide in this case). Indeed, throughout the genetic apparatus, energy is dissipated at a rate of roughly 5 to 50 kT per step. while this is ten orders of magnitude lower than in an electronic computer. it is considerably higher than what would theoretically be possible if biochemical systems did not need to run at speeds close to the kinetic maximum-presumably to escape the harmful effects of radiation, uncatalyzed reactions, and competition from other organisms.

    Does that change the impression given? I’ll leave it to you to decide. But, again, did Bornagain77 actually read the work cited or just copy-and-paste something?

  110. 110
    JVL says:

    Relatd: How are they doing that? By looking at Junk DNA. By studying it. Not throwing it out as ‘leftovers from our long [alleged] period of Evolution.’ By studying it as opposed to ‘it doesn’t code for proteins so it’s useless.’

    Oh dear, that’s quite a rant. Shall we look at a bit more of what the paper actually says?

    Cutting-edge analytical approaches are combined with large-scale clinical and genomic data to discover genes related to disease and clinical outcomes. The division’s studies cover a broad range of common and rare diseases including cancer, neuropsychiatric diseases, cardiovascular disease and others using a variety of study designs to better understand how genetic variants influence disease within and across populations. Through biomedical discovery, these studies help predict who has an increased risk of disease. These studies also facilitate treatment development, leading to better diagnosis and treatment of patients.

    The division actively pursues studies aimed at deciphering the contribution of common and rare genetic variants, measured using genotyping and sequencing technologies. To facilitate such studies, division researchers develop novel statistical methods for genetic data analysis, including methods to study pleiotropic genetic effects, polygenic risk prediction, gene-environment interaction analysis, sex chromosome analysis and data integration including mediation analyses to link inherited variation with intermediate risk factors leading to disease.

    So, in fact, there was no ‘brainwashing’ to overcome. It’s pure statistics.

    Modern technologies in genomics allow for high-throughput variant discovery, measuring expression of all genes and determining epigenomic alterations across the entire human genome. Studies are conducted to map gene expression and the associated epigenomic influence across multiple diseases, cancers and tissues at the single-cell level. Recent advances have enabled application of technologies such as assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing (ATAC-seq) and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to single cells. Expression and epigenome maps based on single-cell analyses enable the deciphering of functions of noncoding regions in a cell-specific way, which is the foundation for revealing how variants contribute to disease pathogenesis, cancer development and progression.

    Again, they looked at the whole genome. They weren’t brainwashed or forced to reconsider.

    These are just good scientists doing good science. As one would expect.

    And, if you think about it for even five seconds, you realise that diseases are probably more likely to arise in areas of the genome that have fewer selection pressures than the essential coding regions ’cause changes there can kill the organism before some diseases arise.

  111. 111
  112. 112
    JVL says:

    Relatd: https://www.discovery.org/b/the-myth-of-junk-dna/

    Oh wow, two paragraphs of summary and then lots of positive reviews. There’s real science eh?

    I tell you what: why don’t you predict how much of the human genome is ‘junk’, i.e. what percentage could be completely eliminated without any loss of viability. Go on, have a guess . . . I’ll give you at least a 5% buffer.

  113. 113
    Seversky says:

    Maybe define what is meant by “junk” in the first place?

  114. 114
    bornagain77 says:

    Martin,

    If 95% of our DNA would be functional, Darwinists would say – what is so surprising ? Of course all of our DNA is functional and only a small percentage is junk … it can’t be otherwise … because natural selection removes anything what is not useful/functional …

    If 95% of our DNA would be non-functional, then, Darwinists would say – look, this is an ultimate proof that evolution is true, how else could you explain that 95 % of it is a junk ? Clearly, it is an artifact of millions of years of evolution … an ultimate proof ….

    To wit,

    Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions
    Casey Luskin – November 10, 2015
    Excerpt: As recently as 2009, Dawkins adopted the incredible position that “the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.”10
    In September 2012, however, Dawkins changed his tune dramatically. Just one week after ENCODE’s results were published, in a debate against Britain’s chief rabbi, Dawkins declared that ENCODE’s results are precisely what “Darwinism” (in Dawkins’s own words) predicts:
    “There are some creationists who are jumping on [ENCODE] because they think it’s awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary, of course, it is exactly what a Darwinist would hope for — to find usefulness in the living world.”11
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/post-encode_pos/

    Such ‘turn on a dime waffling’ beautifully illustrates the unfalsifiable, “Heads I win, tails you lose’, pseudoscientific mentality of Darwinian atheists.

    Or as Matti Leisola put it, “It (Darwinism) produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces (loads of) junk”

    “Evolution is slow and gradual except when it is fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures are made big and others small, some gloriously beautiful and some boringly gray. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges. It produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield, except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism and it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses…It explains everything without explaining anything well.”
    — Matti Leisola, bioengineer (former Dean of Chemistry and Material Sciences at Helsinki University of Technology)

    Or as Dr. Cornelius Hunter put it, “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news.”,,,

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    There is simply no empirical finding that Darwinists will ever accept as a falsification of their ‘theory’.

    1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Indeed, as Denis Noble pointed out, there simply is no falsification criteria to be found within Darwinism,

    Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015
    Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
    – Denis Noble – President of International Union of Physiological Sciences
    https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659

    And as such, and as Popper himself pointed out, since Darwinism is unfalsifiable by empirical observation then that means that “it does not speak about reality.”

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    Whereas, on the other hand, ID is easily falsifiable. There is even a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can falsify ID by showing unguided material processes producing a code,

    An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html
    The challenge
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  115. 115
    relatd says:

    Will that stop any of the Darwinists here? Of course not. Their orders are clear: Promote Darwinism forever. Just ignore any challenge, any facts, that might interfere with the promotion or turn any criticism into an additional story about evolution, if possible. Post as if no detractors ever wrote anything at all. This may convince a few that Darwinism has some merit. Any evidence that indicates it does not never stops the repetition, every day, forever…

    What a tangled web… of nonsense.

  116. 116
    Sir Giles says:

    Relatd: Nonsense. At the Mayo Clinic and elsewhere, guess what? The ASSUMPTION made by brainwashed Biologists had to be discarded to make actual progress in identifying the sources of human disease. How are they doing that? By looking at Junk DNA. By studying it. Not throwing it out as ‘leftovers from our long [alleged] period of Evolution.’ By studying it as opposed to ‘it doesn’t code for proteins so it’s useless.’ Those so-called non-coding regions are yielding vital information about human disease, The “natural” approach discarded them – without looking.

    So, your argument is that the function of 90+% of human DNA is to cause disease. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for intelligent design. Unless, of course, the purpose of the design is suffering.

  117. 117
    relatd says:

    SG at 116,

    I never wrote that. Among the non-coding regions of DNA, there are some that are linked to disease while others are linked to function in the coding regions. That is all being sorted out. Your strange assumption ignores people who live into their 80s or 90s with little or no sign of serious illness.

    World life expectancy is increasing. Partly due to early diagnosis and treatment.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy

  118. 118
    Sir Giles says:

    Relatd: I never wrote that.

    Except that those are your exact words from 108. Verbatim.

  119. 119
    bornagain77 says:

    It is interesting to note exactly why Dan Graur, (and Larry Moran), have argued that “if Encode is right, evolution is wrong,”

    Next Phase of ENCODE Finds MORE Functional Information in Genome “Junk” – August 4, 2020
    Excerpt: The first publications from the ENCODE project (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) made a big splash at Evolution News in 2013, and around the world, because it undermined the “junk DNA” myth and simultaneously fulfilled an ID prediction: that non-coding parts of the genome would prove functional. Junk-DNA proponents like Dan Graur were upset at the time, admitting as Jonathan Wells reported, “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.”
    Well, ModENCODE (ENCODE for model organisms) found “unprecedented complexity” in the fruit fly genome in 2014, then “ENCODE 2” followed up with more discoveries of function. Now, ENCODE 3 has just finished submitting its reports, with record numbers of DNA annotations listed, and ENCODE 4 is gearing up. Nothing like a little overkill to drive the point home: “… then evolution is wrong.” Look at how much constructive science is being done with the assumption that DNA elements are there for a purpose.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/08/next-phase-of-encode-finds-more-functional-information-in-genome-junk/

    The main reason why Dan Graur, (and Larry Moran), have been forced to argue that the genome must contain a large percentage of useless junk DNA is not because of any compelling scientific evidence, (indeed, as the reference I cited makes clear, they steadfastly ignore the onslaught of scientific evidence to the contrary), but is because it is forced upon them by the mathematics of population genetics, particularly by the ‘genetic load’ argument.

    Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate – Larry Moran
    1. Genetic Load
    Every newborn human baby has about 100 mutations not found in either parent. If most of our genome contained functional sequence information, then this would be an intolerable genetic load. Only a small percentage of our genome can contain important sequence information suggesting strongly that most of our genome is junk.
    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/five-things-you-should-know-if-you-want.html

    And here is Kimura’s genetic load argument for neutral theory,

    Molecular evolution and neutral theory – Summary
    Excerpt: Kimura argued that the high rate of evolution, and the high degree of variability of proteins, would, if caused by natural selection, impose a high genetic load. Neutral drift, (where evolution is decoupled from Natural Selection), however, can drive high rates of evolution, and maintain high levels of variability, without imposing a genetic load.
    per Blackwell publishing

    As Dr. Robert Carter explains, “Based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane5 and others, who showed that natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura6 developed the idea of “neutral evolution” (i.e. Kimura’s genetic load argument for the neutral theory), If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 were correct, then the majority of DNA must be non-functional.”,,,
    “Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done.”

    The slow, painful death of junk DNA – Robert W. Carter – 2009
    Background
    Based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane5 and others, who showed that natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura6 developed the idea of “neutral evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 were correct, then the majority of DNA must be non-functional. It should be free to mutate over time without needing to be shaped by natural selection. In this way, natural selection could act on the important bits and neutral evolution could act randomly on the rest. Since natural selection will not act on neutral traits, which do not affect survival or reproduction, neutral evolution can proceed through random drift without any inherent “cost of selection”.8 The term “junk DNA” originated with Ohno,9 who based his idea squarely on the idea of neutral evolution. To Ohno and other scientists of his time, the vast spaces (introns)between protein-coding genes were (exons) just useless DNA whose only function was to separate genes along a chromosome. Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma. Without it, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties.
    Junk DNA necessary for evolution
    Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works
    mathematically.
    https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_12-13.pdf

    In fact, in the following article Moran claims that, because of Genetic Load/Neutral Theory, upwards to 90% of our genome must be junk.

    Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur – Larry Moran – July 14, 2017
    Excerpt: I’ve discussed genetic load several times on this blog (e.g. Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA) but a recent paper by Dan Graur provides a good opportunity to explain it once more. The basic idea of Genetic Load is that a population can only tolerate a finite number of deleterious mutations before going extinct. The theory is sound but many of the variables are not known with precision.,,,
    Let’s look at the first line in this table. The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That’s the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome.
    But that limit is quite unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle).
    Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it’s clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that’s mostly junk DNA.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....-with.html

    Dr. Moran’s belief that 90% of the human genome must be junk just strikes me as being a patently absurd claim right off the bat,,,, but anyways to continue on, I hold Moran’s calculation to be fundamentally flawed in regards to empirical evidence that we now have in hand.

    Specifically, I hold Moran’s 10% estimate for deleterious mutations, that he used in his calculation in the preceding paper, to be far too conservative, and thus the percentage of junk DNA, according to Moran’s own calculation, should actually be much higher than the 90% estimate for Junk DNA that he derived.

    As John Sanford explained in his book “Genetic Entropy” and as he elucidated in the following paper, the unselectable ‘near neutral’ mutations, which Dr Moran erroneously classified as being perfectly neutral in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as ‘slightly deleterious mutations’.
    Slightly deleterious mutations which will “accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction.”

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 –
    Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford
    In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,,
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0010

    Kimura’s Distribution –
    http://dl0.creation.com/articl.....-white.jpg

    Correct Distribution –
    http://dl0.creation.com/articl.....-white.jpg

    also see:

    Mathematician and Geneticist Team Up to Correct Fisher’s Theorem – Dec. 22, 2017
    Supplemental Information – Fisher’s informal corollary (really just a thought experiment), was convoluted. The essence of Fisher’s corollary was that the effect of both good and bad mutations should be more or less equal – so their net effect should be more-or less neutral. However, the actual evidence available to Fisher at that time already indicated that mutations were overwhelmingly deleterious. Fisher acknowledged that most observed mutations were clearly deleterious – but he imagined that this special class of highly deleterious mutations would easily be selected away, and so could be ignored. He reasoned that this might leave behind a different class of invisible mutations that all had a very low-impact on fitness – which would have a nearly equal chance of being either good or bad. This line of reasoning was entirely speculative and is contrary to what we now know. Ironically, such “nearly-neutral” mutations are now known to also be nearly-invisible to natural selection – precluding their role in any possible fitness increase. Moreover, mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious – even the low impact mutations. This means that the net effect of such “nearly-neutral” mutations, which are all invisible to selection, must be negative, and must contribute significantly to genetic decline. Furthermore, it is now known that the mutations that contribute most to genetic decline are the deleterious mutations that are intermediate in effect – not easily selected away, yet impactful enough to cause serious decline.
    https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/

    In short, when realistic rates of ‘slightly deleterious’ mutations are taken into consideration then we should have 100% junk DNA instead of “just” the 90% junk DNA that Moran erroneously claimed in his calculation.

  120. 120
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, as if that was not already bad enough for Darwinists, In the following article Larry Moran, (who denies even being a “Darwinist” anymore since he no longer believes Natural Selection to be the driving force behind evolution), quotes Austin Hughes who states, ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’

    Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017
    Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....heory.html

    Thus, with Natural selection being tossed by the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and by empirical evidence I might add), as the supposed explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from population genetics as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing that the ‘wonderful design’ that we see pervasively throughout life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.

    To call such a move on the part of Darwinists, (or whatever Moran calls himself), disingenuous would be a severe understatement.

    Even Richard Dawkins himself finds the claim that chance alone, all by its lonesome, can explain the ‘well designed’ things we see in biology to be ‘absolutely inconceivable’.

    Specifically, in the following video Dawkins states that it “cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance.’

    4:30 minute mark: “It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,,
    So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.”
    Richard Dawkins – From a Frog to a Prince – video
    https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267

    For crying out loud, the entire purpose behind ‘Natural Selection’ in the first place was to supposedly “explain away” the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’ we see in life without any reference to a real Designer, i.e. without any reference to God.

    And as Ernst Mayr himself explained, “Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.”

    “The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.”
    – Ernst Mayr – “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” in Scientific American, July, 2000
    https://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Mayr_Dawin_css.html

    And as Francisco J. Ayala put it, natural selection supposedly accounted for “Design without designer”,
    i.e. “The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained,, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.,,,”

    Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer – Francisco J. Ayala – May 15, 2007
    Excerpt: With Darwin’s discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.,,,
    Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted out by natural selection.
    https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567

    And as Richard Dawkins himself staled in “The Blind Watchmaker”, “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    – Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    Thus contrary to what Darwinists, (or whatever Moran calls himself), may believe, with the tossing of Natural Selection to the wayside as the explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life, the explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ we see in life does not automatically become, ‘Well, golly gee whiz, chance, all by its lonesome, must have done it all by itself”, as Darwinists are apparently intent on believing with Neutral theory, but instead the explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life reverts back to what it originally was in the first place before Darwin came along with Natural Selection.

    As Richard Sternberg explains, “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    Moreover, (since Darwinists have now basically appealed to ‘chance’, all by its lonesome, to supposedly explain the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life, minus any major role for natural selection), it is also worth pointing out that ‘chance’ is not an actual cause of anything but is only a place holder for ignorance.

    Charles Darwin himself admitted as much.

    “I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.”
    Charles Darwin – Origin – Chapter V

    As What Is Chance? – Nicholas Nurston
    Excerpt: “The vague word ‘chance’ is used as a substitute for a more precise word such as ’cause’. “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent,” notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”
    Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’” Others who reasoned in this fashion, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod, for one, used this chance equals cause line of reasoning. “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, (is) at the root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,”…
    https://books.google.com/books?id=bQ5OAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT25&lpg=PT25

    The word ‘chance’, as it is used by Darwinists, is not an appeal to any known mathematical probability, or to any known cause in physics, but is, in reality, simply a placeholder for ignorance.

    As Wolfgang Pauli himself explained, “(Darwinists) become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf

    The following article by Stephen Talbott is very good at illustrating just how synonymous the words ‘chance’ and ‘miracle’ actually are in the Darwinists appeal to ‘chance’ as a cause.

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    Thus in conclusion, with the casting aside of natural selection as being a major player in evolution, and with their claim, via Neutral theory, “that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance”, Darwinists, (or whatever Moran calls himself), are basically reduced to arguing for miracles minus any miracle maker.

    In short, Darwinists are trying to pull a miraculous ‘design’ rabbit out of a hat without any rabbit or even a ‘miracle making’ hat to do so.

    John 3:2
    The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

  121. 121
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 120,

    Here is the formula:

    Raise a magic curtain. That way, no one can see what goes on behind it. Wait millions of years. Then a rabbit appears.

Leave a Reply