Question for readers: In a world where horizontal gene transfer is an important force, what becomes of Dawkins’s Selfish Gene?

Bob (and weave) O'Hara states that,,

additive genetic variance is not an easy concept to understand: it doesn’t mean (for example) that mutations have to be additive. Epistasis will also include an additive component: the additive effect of an allele is the average effect of changing that allele (i.e. averaged over the different genetic backgrounds it could appear in).

And then after Bob figures he has tossed enough word salad around, he adds this ad hominem dressing to his word salad for good measure.

I don’t feel inclined to change my views if I’m being lectured by someone who clearly doesn’t understand the topic.

Contrary to the self smugness that Bob flatters himself with, the 'concept' of 'additive genetic variance' is, comparatively speaking, an amazingly easy concept to grasp. "You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand it"

"You might think that a theory so profound would be laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton’s Mechanics or Einstein's Relativity. But such is not the case. Darwinism is the most accessible “scientific” theory ever proposed. It needs no math, no mastery of biology, no depth of understanding on any level. The dullest person can understand the basic story line: “Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong.” You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this. And the real beauty of it is that when you first glimpse this revelation with its “aha!” moment, you feel like an Einstein yourself. You feel superior, far superior, to those religious nuts who still believe in God. Without having paid any dues whatsoever, you breathe the same rarified air as the smartest people who have ever lived." – Laszlo Bencze

Although Bob has deluded himself into believing that he has proof for Darwinian evolution in the mathematical fantasy land of population genetics that he lives in, (which I remind Bob, and unbiased readers, the existence of mathematics itself falsifies the reductive materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution.)

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

And although Bob, as a Darwinian materialist, has no right to the immaterial realm of mathematics in the first place, none-the-less Fisher's mathematical theorem, which Bob is reliant on for his claims, and as referenced several times now, has been falsified by John Sanford and company when taking into account realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations.

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x

Bob, as usual for a Darwinist, refuses to accept this falsification of his theory. (Nor will he accept any other falsification of his theory) Thus, I went back to the empirical evidence itself. Since, in empirical science, the empirical evidence itself has final say, PERIOD! As Richard Feynman stated,

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Yet Bob also refused to listen to what the empirical evidence was saying for “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations being "less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.” I even threw in the empirical fact that the entire genome is now known to be, directly contrary to the Darwinian presupposition of 'selfish genes', a holisitc web of mutual interdependence. A holistic web in which extensive multiple overlapping coding in the genome (and protein interactions for that matter) is the overriding rule instead of the exception. Bob, living in his mathematical fantasy land, apparently claims to be wiser than the empirical evidence itself is and simply refuses to ever accept any empirical evidence that might falsify his theory. Simply put, Bob has severely deluded himself with his mathematical musings. Musings that have little, if any, connection to the real world. To give Bob a little lesson in how science actually operates in the real world, Karl Popper stated that “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.”

“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 Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

And as Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated, “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.”

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 https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659

Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution 'cannot be refuted by any possible observations' and is thus “outside empirical science.”

“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352

Moreover, it is not that Darwinism has not already been falsified time and time again. It is that Darwinists themselves simple refuse to ever accept any falsification of their theory. Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

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’. 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 grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 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. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 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(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). 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. 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.” 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.” 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’. 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! 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!. 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. 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! 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 use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

Verse:

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

Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:

“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. In other words, the Darwinian Emperor, contrary to what the supposedly 'smart' people on the street may say, is completely naked, The Darwinian Emperor doesn't even have any underwear on to cover his nakedness! Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Moreover, following the restriction of methodological naturalism on science, that is to say, following the presumption that only natural, material, and/or physical causes are allowed to be given in order to explain any given effect in science, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. Again, It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of methodological naturalism has turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. One final note, Bob, in his put down of me, apparently, in his own mind, fancies himself to be a pretty smart fellow. Yet, the reality of the situation, as everyone can see by now, is far different than what Bob fancies. Anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution, by definition, can't be all that smart. It is simply a completely insane worldview. bornagain77

ba77 - additive genetic variance is not an easy concept to understand: it doesn't mean (for example) that mutations have to be additive. Epistasis will also include an additive component: the additive effect of an allele is the average effect of changing that allele (i.e. averaged over the different genetic backgrounds it could appear in). As you might guess, I don't feel inclined to change my views if I'm being lectured by someone who clearly doesn't understand the topic. Bob O'H

Bob O'Hara is Professor in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He jokes that,

"My career has been dedicated to discovering whether I am a biologist or a statistician - I intend to retire once I come to a definite answer." https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/bob.ohara

Thus, obviously Bob should have a fairly descent idea about what the mathematics behind Darwinian evolution actually entail. And in post 171 (Professor) Bob O'Hara's claims that,

"Fisher showed that the response to (directional) selection is determined by the additive genetic variance."

Yet, besides the fact that, (as was shown in post 174), "When the realistic rate of detrimental mutations are taken into account, then it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”, besides that little inconvenient 'correction' to Fisher's theorem that falsifies it, it is also now empirically shown, via Lenski's "Long Term Evolution Experiment" (LTEE), that Fisher's belief that beneficial mutations will be "additive" was also another false presupposition on Fisher's part (and thus, is also currently a false presupposition on Bob's part). Specifically, “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations shows that beneficial mutations are not "additive". As the following study found, "the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually."

Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-mutations-benefits.html

As Casey Luskin explained, The title of a summary piece in Science tells the whole story: “In Evolution, the Sum Is Less than Its Parts.”

New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011 Excerpt: The title of a summary piece in Science tells the whole story: “In Evolution, the Sum Is Less than Its Parts.” It notes that these studies encountered “antagonistic epistasis,” where negative effects arise from epistatic interactions: "Both studies found a predominance of antagonistic epistasis, which impeded the rate of ongoing adaptation relative to a null model of independent mutational effects." In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn’t run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html

That these findings falsify Darwinian expectations that beneficial mutations should be additive, these findings also reveal that Darwinists don't even have a coherent explanation why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations should even exist. On the other hand, Intelligent Design advocates readily understand why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations are as they are. As was mentioned previously in this thread, instead of the genome being dominated by 'genes for' something, as is presupposed in Darwinian thought,

Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated - June 29, 2015 Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect: "We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics." And the craze is not harmless, he warns. … https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/gene-previously-linked-to-obesity-is-unrelated/

,,, instead of the genome being dominated by 'genes for' something, as is presupposed in Darwinian thought, the 'genes' in a genome are instead now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation, wherein, "such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert."

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/

This 'holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation' places severe constraints on Darwinian evolution. As Dr. Sanford explained in his book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome", if we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 mutually interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, we would instead be encountering something much more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of the book ‘Genetic Entropy’ by Dr. Sanford.

S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S

That five-word palindrome translates as,

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

This ancient palindrome, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, if we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new (beneficial) meaning for a single reading read any one way, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center letter). Moreover, mutating any subsequent letter in the palindrome will obviously induce “antagonistic epistasis” towards the first mutated letter, wherein any benefit that the first mutated letter may have conferred will be compromised by any subsequent change, with the benefit being compromised even further as even more letters are changed in the palindrome. As John Sanford and company explained in the following paper, "As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero."

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

And the genome is indeed found to be severely poly-functional

38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589.

For one particularly crystal clear example of the staggering level of poly-functionality now being found in genomes, "there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins!"

Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8

Thus in conclusion, “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations falsifies Fisher's belief that beneficial mutations should be additive, and also reveals that Darwinists, (with their reductive materialistic framework), don't even have a coherent explanation why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations should even exist, Whereas on the other hand, Intelligent Design advocates readily do understand why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations are as they are. Moreover, the staggering levels of overlapping poly-functional complexity now being found in genomes, renders the Darwinian belief in 'additive beneficial mutations' to be a patently absurd belief. And, on the other hand, renders the belief that the genome was Intelligently Designed to be glaringly obvious. If Bob O'Hara has an ounce of integrity in his responsibility as a professor, he should take all this falsifying evidence into account and adjust his teaching accordingly. Simply put, Darwinian evolution is empirically and mathematically shown to be false and Bob should, as a responsible educator, accept what the science is actually saying no matter how he may personally feel about it.

Psalm 26:11 But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity. Redeem me, and be gracious unto me. O come, O come, Emmanuel - (Piano/Cello) - The Piano Guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO7ySn-Swwc

bornagain77

. Has the battle on this thread run its course? Okay. Ed, just so you know -- as a matter of physical necessity, Darwinian "fitness" is specified by a system if symbols in a multi-referent code. The critical state of fitness (think von Neumann's "threshold of complexity") is called "semantic closure". It is a state that not only has very specific physical requirements, but also organizational requirements. It requires the simultaneous coordination of multiple microstates in order to occur, and is the vital condition that enables the system to persist over time. Without it, I would not be here to point it out to you, and you would not be here to ignore it and deny its nature. Upright BiPed

Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013 Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,: "We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,, As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,, http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/ Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy - Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013 Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.]. African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare! http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

Thus in conclusion, Bob (and weave) lives in a mathematical fantasy land that bears no resemblance to reality. In fact, Bob refuses to acknowledge any empirical evidence that might falsify his mathematical fantasies. bornagain77

Bob claims,

Fisher showed that the response to (directional) selection is determined by the additive genetic variance.

Yet, as was already shown in this thread, and Bob refuses to accept, Fisher has been falsified. When the realistic rate of detrimental mutations are taken into account, then it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/

As to the realistic rate of deleterious to beneficial mutations,

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 – video (Behe – Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014 http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-cant-survive-if-they-never-arrive/ Gloves Off -- Responding to David Levin on the Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis - Lee M. Spetner - Sept. 2016 Excerpt: I wrote in this book (as well in an earlier book) that there is no example of a random mutation that adds heritable information to the genome, and that statement still stands. The statement is important because evolution is about building up information (Spetner 1964, 1968, 1970). Some have offered what they think are counterexamples of my statement, but they are often not of random mutations at all, or they otherwise fail to be valid counterexamples. Levin finds the statement astonishing, and it may well astonish someone who believes evolutionary theory represents reality. But it happens to be true, and I am not surprised that it astonishes him because it deals a deathblow to evolutionary theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/gloves_off_--_r103168.html The Human Gene Mutation Database The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease. Deleterious Mutation total (as of Feb. 17 , 2018) – 220270 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

bornagain77

Bob @ 167- I just purchased that "whole book" you linked to. ET

Bob O'H- All you have done is to reinforce what Berlinski wrote- ie statistical regression.

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.- Berlinski

What you cannot do is show the model you linked to has any basis in reality. The fact remains that in a world of evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes that you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, let alone metazoans. And given that type of process all you have to "model" is contingent serendipity. ET

ba77 @ 169 -

But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,”

And the relevance of this to animal models is... Oh yes, it provides a strong justification for using them, because the precise genetic architecture doesn't have to be know for them to work. We can sidestep these problems because the animal model provides us a way to estimate the additive genetic variance, and Fisher showed that the response to (directional) selection is determined by the additive genetic variance. Bob O'H

E. G. then falsely claims

As has been shown, their are numerous physical quantities, such as fitness, that are dimensionless and, therefore, not traceable to the SI.

That is a false claim. One, Fitness is NOT listed as a dimensionless constant on the wiki page that Bob linked to.

Of course it isn't listed, it's not a constant. Bob O'H

Bob's claim to ET,

you (ET) asked if the methods used in animal breeding had been used in wild populations. I linked to a wiki about precisely that. How does that not help?

The page that Bob linked to,

Welcome to WAMWiki the wild animal models wiki https://www.wildanimalmodels.org/tiki-index.php

Note the disclaimer at the bottom of Bob's page

Disclaimer We hope the information here is useful. We are doing our best but certainly don't guarantee there are no errors at all. Code provided is intended to serve as a starting point for fitting animal models. It should not be seen as a one stop solution to cover all scenarios.

LOL :) "It should not be seen as a one stop solution to cover all scenarios" ,,,.translation, Bob is a used car salesman that is trying to sell a junker, :) You just can't make this stuff up. Atheistic arguments are literally a comedy of errors! :) But seriously, there are a very few examples that Bob can point to, but those examples are rare exceptions and are not the rule. As the paper I listed at post 56 stated, "Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,"

Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

The irresolvable dilemma this presents to population genetics is as such:

The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard - 2011 Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf

Thus, despite Bob's claims to the contrary, population genetics is at a severe impasse. Bottom line, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

bornagain77

Ed. G. lifts a quote out of context in one post and then ignores the subsequent argument in another post that I actually made against atheistic materialism. To repeat the actual argument against YOUR atheistic materialism,

you misunderstand my argument. My argument is that atheistic materialism, YOUR PHILOSOPHY, demands that EVERYTHING be reducible to purely material explanation. Fitness, a central concept in Darwinian evolution, is a immaterial mathematical construct that is NOT reducible to purely material explanation, hence my asking you guys what physical and/or material si units fitness is measured in. You, misunderstanding my argument, want me to also give the material/physical si units to measure the abstract mathematical and engineering concepts of CSI and IC with. Yet Intelligent Design does not insanely claim that everything is reducible to purely material explanation. That is YOUR claim. It is not hypocrisy in the least for me to ask you to prove that a central concept in Darwinian thinking, i.e. fitness, is in fact reducible to purely materialistic explanation when in fact that is EXACTLY what your materialistic philosophy claims can be done. The fact that you cannot do it, and yet demand of me that I reduce the abstract concepts of CSI and IC to material explanations, (when I in fact am the one claiming that abstract concepts cannot be reduced to purely material explanations) just proves the point that you do even understand what your very own philosophy actually entails. Like I said, “Graduate kindergarten, in regards to understanding what your own philosophy entails, then get back to me.”

E. G. then falsely claims

As has been shown, their are numerous physical quantities, such as fitness, that are dimensionless and, therefore, not traceable to the SI.

That is a false claim. One, Fitness is NOT listed as a dimensionless constant on the wiki page that Bob linked to.

dimensionless constants, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dimensionless_quantities

Moreover, from the numerous links I provided, show that the precise mathematical definition of Fitness is not even agreed upon. Thus, besides failing to have any precise way to physically measure it (which should be possible if atheistic materialism were actually true), 'fitness' also fails as a rigid abstract mathematical construct too. Moreover, as was pointed out to Bob, it is insane for a reductive materialist to appeal to dimensionless constants to try to support atheistic materialism,

Bob, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that HIS materialistic philosophy necessarily entails that the immaterial realm of mathematics does not really exists, links to, of all things, dimensionless quantities in mathematics. For example pi, and the square root of negative 1, are listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity#Pure_numbers You simply cannot make this stuff up. So tell us Bob, explain to us exactly, in materialistic terms mind you, How fast does pi go? Is pi closer to Virginian or Utah? Does pi have a negative or positive charge? etc.. etc.. For crying out loud Bob, it is hard (even impossible) for me to believe that you are this dense. Pi, like the rest of the dimensionless constants on the site you listed, is a completely immaterial concept that belongs squarely in the Platonic realm of mathematics, not in YOUR material realm of Darwinian materialism: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-for-readers-in-a-world-where-horizontal-gene-transfer-is-an-important-force-what-becomes-of-dawkinss-selfish-gene/#comment-689039

It ain't rocket science. Only willfully ignorant atheistic trolls could be so dense as to not see the fatal flaw in atheistic materialism. bornagain77

ET @ 155 - you asked if the methods used in animal breeding had been used in wild populations. I linked to a wiki about precisely that. How does that not help? The second link is to a model because that's what you were asking about. You should also look at the references to see examples of using the animal model on real populations. @156 - there's a whole book on it (it's a bit old but still it's there). And there's the paper I linked to (plus the references therein). Bob O'H

Acartia Eddie, infant:

And my point is that if this is the case for fitness, it also applies to CSI and IC (and the explanatory filter).

That is called the cowardly to quoque fallacy, Acartia. There isn't any rigorous mathematics behind biological fitness. You lose, twice. ET

BA77

My criticism still applies, you cannot define fitness in a mathematically concise way so as to be useful If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of ‘fitness’ with reference to SI units.

And my point is that if this is the case for fitness, it also applies to CSI and IC (and the explanatory filter). As has been shown, their are numerous physical quantities, such as fitness, that are dimensionless and, therefore, not traceable to the SI. You can either acknowledge that such dimensionless quantities have merit or acknowledge that ID measures are without merit. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Ed George

a little more context for you:

And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science. Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].” Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience. The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness In fact there is currently up to a 5 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 5 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

Like I said context is everything. Moreover, I, (once my argument was more fully developed), made it explicitly clear to you what my actual argument against YOUR PHILOSOPHY of atheistic materialism actually is. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-for-readers-in-a-world-where-horizontal-gene-transfer-is-an-important-force-what-becomes-of-dawkinss-selfish-gene/#comment-689051 That you ignore that fully developed argument, that I went to pains to make especially clear for you, shows that you are intellectually dishonest in forthrightly addressing the, IMHO, irresolvable weaknesses in your own philosophy. It shows, in actuality, a pathetic lack of integrity on your part! bornagain77

Wow, more infantile tu quoque. Why do evos think their infantile responses are meaningful discourse? ET

And I note that you left off the rest of my post at 51 where I develop the argument more fully: Context is everything My criticism still applies, you cannot define fitness in a mathematically concise way so as to be useful If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of ‘fitness’ with reference to SI units. I won’t be holding my breath: Darwinian evolution simply has no realistic mathematical model to test against:

“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ And the primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution to test against is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon: Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.” The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf So again Bob (and weave) O’Hara, If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of fitness with reference to SI units. On top of all that, (as it that was not bad enough), Darwinian evolution and the world of mathematics are completely incompatible with each other. The main reason why Darwinian Evolution and Mathematics are completely incompatible with each other is that Darwinian evolution is based on a Naturalistic and/or Materialistic worldview in which it is held that “only matter is real, that the world is just physical and that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,” And where Darwinian evolution is based on a materialistic view of reality which denies that anything beyond nature exists, on the other hand, Mathematics exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time realm, a realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world. Platonic mathematical world – image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/i.....ysical.gif Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/ Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html In fact since mathematics itself is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation then that necessary entails that the mind of man must also be fundamentally immaterial. i.e. Our ability with Mathematics is proof in and of itself that man must possess a eternal soul: “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”

bornagain77

Sev

Do any of these references discuss measuring fitness in SI units? If not, they can’t be scientific according to you.

BA77

Seversky, thanks for demonstrating for all to see that you have no clue what the argument actually is that I actually made against YOUR PHILOSOPHY of atheistic materialism.

Sorry, but you are demonstrating the fine art of goalpost shifting. Let me remind you of your original argument.

My criticism still applies, you cannot define fitness in a mathematically concise way so as to be useful If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of ‘fitness’ with reference to SI units.

There is nothing here about an argument made against the philosophy of materialistic atheism. That is just where you took the argument when you were incapable of identifying the SI units that ID mathematical constructs were traceable to. Ed George

^^^^^ Seversky, thanks for demonstrating for all to see that you have no clue what the argument actually is that I actually made against YOUR PHILOSOPHY of atheistic materialism. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-for-readers-in-a-world-where-horizontal-gene-transfer-is-an-important-force-what-becomes-of-dawkinss-selfish-gene/#comment-689051 bornagain77

Bornagain77 @ 157

An Open Letter to Teachers teaching Natural Selection – 2012-03-07 Excerpt: Let’s look at the concept of “fitness” first. Fitness plays a central role in the concept of natural selection. There are at least two ways that scientists and philosophers view fitness. The propensity view of fitness argues that fitness is a probabilistic propensity while a statistical view sees fitness as a subjective probability. The propensity view sees fitness as a causal factor while the statistical view “deprives fitness of any causal or explanatory power”. https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fitness/#FitSubPro It is an ongoing discussion and here are a few articles discussing the role of fitness in evolutionary biology. Two ways of thinking about natural selection http://web.missouri.edu/~ariew.....itness.pdf Selection and Causation (argues against a causal view) http://joelvelasco.net/teachin.....sation.pdf Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment? http://members.logical.net/~ma.....ulment.pdf Fitness (Stanford Encyclopaedia) http://www.science.uva.nl/~seo.....#FitSubPro Matthen and Ariew’s Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death have been Greatly Exaggerated (argues for a causal propensity view) http://www.duke.edu/~alexrose/MAcomment.pdf What fitness can’t be (argues against a causal view) http://web.missouri.edu/~ariew.....s_aint.pdf https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/An-Open-Letter-to-Teachers-teaching-Natural-Selection-20120307

Do any of these references discuss measuring fitness in SI units? If not, they can't be scientific according to you. Seversky

Thank you, sir. Awesome! ET

ET:

An Open Letter to Teachers teaching Natural Selection - 2012-03-07 Excerpt: Let’s look at the concept of “fitness” first. Fitness plays a central role in the concept of natural selection. There are at least two ways that scientists and philosophers view fitness. The propensity view of fitness argues that fitness is a probabilistic propensity while a statistical view sees fitness as a subjective probability. The propensity view sees fitness as a causal factor while the statistical view "deprives fitness of any causal or explanatory power". https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fitness/#FitSubPro It is an ongoing discussion and here are a few articles discussing the role of fitness in evolutionary biology. Two ways of thinking about natural selection http://web.missouri.edu/~ariewa/Two_Ways_of_fitness.pdf Selection and Causation (argues against a causal view) http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/matthen%20and%20ariew%2009%20-%20selection%20and%20causation.pdf Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment? http://members.logical.net/~marshall/AbramsAnnulment.pdf Fitness (Stanford Encyclopaedia) http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/fitness/#FitSubPro Matthen and Ariew’s Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death have been Greatly Exaggerated (argues for a causal propensity view) http://www.duke.edu/~alexrose/MAcomment.pdf What fitness can't be (argues against a causal view) http://web.missouri.edu/~ariewa/what_fitness_aint.pdf https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/An-Open-Letter-to-Teachers-teaching-Natural-Selection-20120307

To wit:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all. - Berlinski

bornagain77

Are there any peer-reviewed papers on how to measure biological fitness? ET

The first link doesn't help you, Bob. The second pertains to a model- yet it is said that all models are wrong, but some are useful. They used their model on a gryphon. Yeah, that is very telling... ET

ET - the Dennett link works for me. For the other two, my apologies. The first is to this, and the second to this. Bob O'H

Bob, your links don't work, just like evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Watch the program- PBS "Evolution", Bob. ET

Yo-Yo Ma, Alison Krauss - The Wexford Carol (Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxDZjg_Igoc

ET per post 44:

Fitness itself, although it figures centrally in the equations of population genetics, has no universally agreed upon measure so as to tell us exactly how fitness is to be numerically quantified into a rigorous, i.e. mathematically useful, measure: Where is the purposelessness of evolution? – 23 March 2012, Excerpt: The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness. The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue). John O. Reiss notes also make the following interesting remark: “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.” Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is in the first place. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place.,,, https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Where-is-the-purposelessness-of-evolution-20120322 Moreover, the more precise one tries to be with defining fitness, the more ‘fitness’ evaporates into thin air as a supposed useful tool for Darwinists to use as in a rigorous mathematical manner: Is Darwinism Collapsing? Fitness Is Unmeasurable – Sept. 2017 Excerpt: Key concepts like fitness and survival of the fittest are coming under attack, say evolutionists who suggest the theory needs “critical improvements.”,, “Variability in Fitness Effects Can Preclude Selection of the Fittest.” The very title suggests that core concepts underlying neo-Darwinism (fitness and selection) are in trouble.,,, “Evolutionary biologists often predict the outcome of natural selection on an allele by measuring its effects on lifetime survival and reproduction of individual carriers. However, alleles affecting traits like sex, evolvability, and cooperation can cause fitness effects that depend heavily on differences in the environmental, social, and genetic context of individuals carrying the allele. This variability makes it difficult to summarize the evolutionary fate of an allele solely on the basis of its effects on any one individual. Attempts to average over this variability can sometimes salvage the concept of fitness. In other cases, evolutionary outcomes can be predicted only by considering the entire genealogy of an allele, thus limiting the utility of individual fitness altogether.” ,,, you see a “see-saw between advantage and disadvantage” as individuals (vertical axis) vary over time (horizontal axis). Look at the blue line labeled “mean fitness”. The average fitness of the population goes up, down, up, down. The orange line “Fitness variance” is a constant: i.e., there is no net fitness gain. Darwin would have a fit over “fitness” that goes nowhere! https://crev.info/2017/09/darwinism-collapsing-fitness-unmeasurable/ In fact, when the realistic rate of detrimental mutations are taken into account, then it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase” The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease.

bornagain77

ET - start here, and in particular this paper. Can you be more specific about Dennett? The only thing I can find is this, where he says something a bit different:

Q: What do you think is the most widely misunderstood aspect of natural selection? A: I think the mistake that many people make about natural selection is thinking that since it's inexorable without exception, that it leaves no room for randomness, for chaos to come in and upset the directions that it's taken so far. In fact, the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. It feeds on accident and contingency, and exploits that in ways that couldn't be predicted. It's still an inexorable process. It's still always gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms there are and the environment in which they're being selected. But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process.

Is this what you were referring to? (editted to remove typos) Bob O'H

Bob, there is no way we are going to take your word for it. Pease provide the valid references. With artificial selection we know which are going to be allowed to breed, duh. That is the whole purpose. Berlinski understands the theory better than you do, Bob. I dare you to challenge him. That would be very entertaining. As for Dennett, look up "PBS Evolution and search there. Or read his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". If you think Dennett is wrong then demonstrate it. It should be easy. ET

ET - yes, exactly the same methods (animal models) are used. if you want to have any credibility to your denials, you'll have to show what the differences in the methods are. I know most of the people who developed the use of these methods in natural populations, so I can speak with at least some authority. If Dennett said that then he's wrong. Do you have the citation for that comment? Berlinski does not, I think, understand the theory. The regression coefficients are measures of selection: the causal theory reduces down to regressions, but the epistemic status of these coefficients isn't just as correlations. Bob O'H

The selfish gene is a work of fiction written by someone out of touch with reality. Just sayin' ET

Bob O'H:

exactly the same methods are used to study wild populations.

Doubtful. And clearly not all genes are selfish. Look Daniel Dennett said there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. The NCSE backed PBS show "Evolution" echoed those words. David Berlinski exposed the nonsense of your methodology:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.

You lose, Bob. YOU are moot. ET

ET @ 144 - exactly the same methods are used to study wild populations. So the answer is "yes", and your comment @ 145 is moot. (and your question about which genes will be selfish has a trivial answer of "all of them", as would be apparent if you had read The Selfish Gene) Bob O'H

Bob O'H:

In biology “fitness” has a standard meaning, that is well understood.

Apparently it isn't well understood. If it was then scientists would be able to make predictions based on it and yet they cannot. ET

Bob O'H:

Yes, that has been done. Animal breeders, in particular, have spent a lot of time and money on precisely that problem (for obvious reasons). Mathematically they use the Breeder’s equation, which builds their methods on Fisher’s maths.

Oh my. Try again, Bob. The discussion pertains to natural selection and not artificial selection. And yes, there is a HUGE difference. Has anyone figured out how to tell which individuals in a population will out reproduce the others and by how much? You know, Bob’s expectation hypothesis? Or which genes in a population will be “selfish”? Obviously the answer is No. Thanks Bob ET

Merry Christmas Bob, May God melt your Scrooge heart.

It might melt faster if you showed some genuine Christmas spirit and refrained from the insults. Bob O'H

Ed George claims that

both CSI and IC are attempts to explain observations* of material things.

Not exactly. They are attempts to explain the observation* of immaterial functional information/engineering in material things, i.e. in genes, DNA, proteins, and molecular machines, etc.. So your sentence would best be written as "both CSI and IC are attempts to explain observations* of immaterial functional information/engineering in material things." *Of note: Conscious Observation itself is not reducible to materialistic explanation, (Donald Hoffman's work in population genetics, and the Falsification of Realism in quantum mechanics) You then claim,

The flagellum is material.

Not exactly. Not even close really. Besides the immaterial engineering from an immaterial mind that is readily apparent in the flagellum for all to see,,

Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum “the most efficient machine in the universe." Amazing Flagellum - Scott Minnich & Stephen Meyer – 2016 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNR48hUd-Hw

Besides that, the flagellum is also now found to belong to the world of quantum mechanics, not to the 'classical' world of reductive materialism

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

Non-local quantum effects simply are not within the classical reductive materialistic framework of neo-Darwinism to explain. i.e. "quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

For example, as Jonathan McLatchie explains, "we don’t even fully understand the mechanism of rotation (for the flagellum)!"

"we don’t even fully understand the mechanism of rotation (for the flagellum)!" Jonathan McLatchie, has studied the flagellum extensively, and in college was assigned to do his research dissertation project on the importance of RNA-Protein interactions in Caulobacter flagellar gene regulation, under the supervision of Dr. Phil Aldridge, who is an internationally known expert on bacterial flagella

You then claim,

A gene is material.

Again, not exactly. Not even close really. As was pointed out in post 56,,

per James Shapiro, “The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term “gene.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-for-readers-in-a-world-where-horizontal-gene-transfer-is-an-important-force-what-becomes-of-dawkinss-selfish-gene/#comment-688933

You then claim

DNA is material.

Again, not exactly. Not even close really. DNA itself does not belong to the world of classical mechanics but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

"What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state." Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

You then claim

"Fitness is also an attempt to explain observations of material things."

Get back to me when you find purely material things in biology that can be be explained within your 'classical' reductive materialistic framework. Everything you listed thus far fails to qualify as a purely material thing. They are all material things that are infused, from top to bottom, with immaterial quantum information. The irresolvable dichotomy that quantum biology presents for reductive materialists, (the irresolvable dichotomy between the material realm and the immaterial realm), is present throughout all of molecular biology. As the following article entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” explains “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

And as this follow up article also explained, "There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,"

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

Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement of the cell. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

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

The implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

Verse:

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

Since earlier in this thread Bob (and weave) O'Hara scoffed at me for daring to quote scripture as if it was beneath his dignity to even have to read a bible verse, I will now, besides quoting scripture, give Bob some Christmas music to listen to. :)

Christmas Food Court Flash Mob, Hallelujah Chorus - Must See! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE

Merry Christmas Bob, May God melt your Scrooge heart. bornagain77

ET @ 129 - Yes, that has been done. Animal breeders, in particular, have spent a lot of time and money on precisely that problem (for obvious reasons). Mathematically they use the Breeder's equation, which builds their methods on Fisher's maths. Bob O'H

ba77 @ 119 - We're discussing biological fitness, and you've given the common language definition "an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.". We measure reproduction as the number of offspring, so we have to count them (we even use counting for over-lapping generations when we include survival: if it survives we also count the individual). In biology "fitness" has a standard meaning, that is well understood. Even Behe understands it (which is why he repeatedly mentions fitness in his QRB paper without defining it). If you're confused by this, that's OK: people can be confused by new terminology - it took me a long time to work out what "non-linear" meant in the social sciences and humanities. I'm rather surprised that you didn't understand what the term means, but hopefully now you do, and perhaps we can move on to more fruitful discussions (e.g. why the Selfish Gene isn't actually helpful for understanding HGT). Bob O'H

See, another prediction fulfilled. Eddie is so clueless and desperate it doesn't grasp the fact that there is no evidence that materialistic processes produced any genes from scratch. There isn't any evidence that materialistic processes produced any bacterial flagellum. And the same goes for DNA. Eddie the infant tu quoque fallacy strikes again! Maybe someday someone will figure out why evos think their cowardice and ignorance are arguments ET

BA77, both CSI and IC are attempts to explain observations of material things. The flagellum is material. A gene is material. DNA is material. Fitness is also an attempt to explain observations of material things. If traceability to the SI is required to validate fitness then the same must apply to CSI and IC. Ed George

LoL! Explaining it will only make it worse. Watch and see... ;) ET

Ed G, you misunderstand my argument. My argument is that atheistic materialism, YOUR PHILOSOPHY, demands that EVERYTHING be reducible to purely material explanation. Fitness, a central concept in Darwinian evolution, is a immaterial mathematical construct that is NOT reducible to purely material explanation, hence my asking you guys what physical and/or material si units fitness is measured in. You, misunderstanding my argument, want me to also give the material/physical si units to measure the abstract mathematical and engineering concepts of CSI and IC with. Yet Intelligent Design does not insanely claim that everything is reducible to purely material explanation. That is YOUR claim. It is not hypocrisy in the least for me to ask you to prove that a central concept in Darwinian thinking, i.e. fitness, is in fact reducible to purely materialistic explanation when in fact that is EXACTLY what your materialistic philosophy claims can be done. The fact that you cannot do it, and yet demand of me that I reduce the abstract concepts of CSI and IC to material explanations, (when I in fact am the one claiming that abstract concepts cannot be reduced to purely material explanations) just proves the point that you do even understand what your very own philosophy actually entails. Like I said, "Graduate kindergarten, in regards to understanding what your own philosophy entails, then get back to me." bornagain77

The only mistake bornagain77 is making is responding to infants who use infantile tactics, like the tu quoque fallacy. :D ET

Acartia Eddie is proud to be an infant. Your parents would be so ashamed. ET

BA77

Tell you what Ed. G., you tell me how mathematics can possibly be grounded within your atheistic materialism in the first place, and I will gladly show you the empirical evidence that has now demonstrated that immaterial information has a ‘thermodynamic content’.

Translation: I made a mistake demanding the SI units that fitness is traceable to. I forgot that CSI and IC are not traceable to the SI either. Ed George

Infants are good at invoking the tu quoque fallacy. They don't seem to know any better. It's a lack of education that does it. ET

Upright BiPed @ 81, 94 Thanks for your explanations. EDTA

Tell you what Ed. G., you tell me how mathematics can possibly be grounded within your atheistic materialism in the first place, and I will gladly show you the empirical evidence that has now demonstrated that immaterial information has a 'thermodynamic content'. I certainly won't hold my breath for you upholding your end of the bargain, so I guess I will show you the empirical evidence anyway:

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

bornagain77

Oh my. Acartia Eddie doesn't just double-down on its tu quoque fallacy. Acartia Eddie loses and keeps playing the losing hand. How pathetic does one have to be to carry on with a fallacy? Has anyone figured out how to tell which individuals in a population will out reproduce the others and by how much? You know, Bob's expectation hypothesis? Or which genes in a population will be "selfish"? ET

BA77@127, so, you are completely avoiding a ver simple question. The same simple question you asked Bob O’H is the same one that you continue to refuse to answer. What SI unit dies CSI and IC use? Ed George

Ed George, like Bob, you apparently don't even realize what your own philosophy, i.e. atheistic materialism, actually entails. Graduate kindergarten, in regards to understanding what your own philosophy entails, then get back to me. bornagain77

BA77, I can’t fail no notice that you still cannot identify the SI units that are used to estimate CSI or IC. Is that because they are not traceable to the SI, and therefore not meaningful measures? Ed George

Bob links a site of dimensionless constants, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dimensionless_quantities You simply can't make this stuff up. Atheistic materialism, Reductive Materialism, and/or Darwinian materialism, however you want to describe the philosophy that undergirds Darwinian evolution, is what is denying the existence of the immaterial realm of mathematics (as well as denying the reality of all other immaterial realities).

ma·te·ri·al·ism noun 2. PHILOSOPHY the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

And yet Bob, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that HIS materialistic philosophy necessarily entails that the immaterial realm of mathematics does not really exists, links to, of all things, dimensionless quantities in mathematics. For example pi, and the square root of negative 1, are listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity#Pure_numbers You simply cannot make this stuff up. So tell us Bob, explain to us exactly, in materialistic terms mind you, How fast does pi go? Is pi closer to Virginian or Utah? Does pi have a negative or positive charge? etc.. etc.. For crying out loud Bob, it is hard (even impossible) for me to believe that you are this dense. Pi, like the rest of the dimensionless constants on the site you listed, is a completely immaterial concept that belongs squarely in the Platonic realm of mathematics, not in YOUR material realm of Darwinian materialism:

Platonic mathematical world - image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/ What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

Perhaps Bob will next list Near Death Experiences as proof for his atheistic materialism??? :) It would make about as much sense as him listing pi as supposed proof for his atheistic materialism. bornagain77

Wow. Coming from a quote-mining, willfully ignorant troll, your attempt to insult me is amusing. And there is no way I will disrespect slugs by lumping the likes of you in with them. Have a good day... ET

ET

Acartia Eddie- your cowardly tu quoque stands as evidence of your immoral and vile character.

You really are a reprehensible little slug. Does anyone who supports ID support your approach to defending it? Barry? KF? BA77? JaD? UB? Do any of you want to stand up for ET’s behavior? Crickets? Reapers Plague

Acartia Eddie:

The validity and robustness of a mathematical expression (model) is obviously not contingent on it being traceable to the SI

Your side doesn't have any mathematics to support it. It's lack of validity is based on its untestable claims. ET

Acartia Eddie- your cowardly tu quoque stands as evidence of your immoral and vile character. ET

Bob O’H@ 109, thank you for the link to dimensionless quantities. The validity and robustness of a mathematical expression (model) is obviously not contingent on it being traceable to the SI. That is like saying that value of the dollar is contingent on the amount of gold in Fort Knox. Ed George

Bob (and weave) O'Hara demonstrates why his nickname is well deserved. i.e. we find that ‘fitness’, (as fitness is defined in common language), is not directly correlated with ‘the number of offspring’ in the following paper,,, Note the caveat Bob? I even cited the common language definition so as to avoid any possible confusion on your part:

fit·ness noun the condition of being physically fit and healthy. “disease and lack of fitness are closely related” the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task. “he had a year in which to establish his fitness for the office” BIOLOGY an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. “if sharp teeth increase fitness, then genes causing teeth to be sharp will increase in frequency”

And yet Bob still does not get it?

the way in which Darwinists define ‘fitness’ as being directly correlated to the number of offspring that an organism may have, whilst neglecting to take into consideration the fact that the organism is, in the vast majority of instances, ‘breaking stuff’ to gain that reproductive advantage is to do a disservice to the primary definition of ‘fitness’ as it is used in common language, and is, in fact, to deceive people into believing actual fitness of an organism has increased just because it produced more offspring.

I just don't buy it. Bob is obviously not retarded. It must be willful ignorance on his part. bornagain77

Bob O'H:

Really, you should try reading papers before you cite them.

LoL! That is what you and yours needs to do, Bob. It seems that all you evos do is a title search because you have never presented a paper that supports blind watchmaker evolution ET

bs77 -

So., I will repeat. (Leaving aside the fact that ‘counting’ is an abstract property of the immaterial mind.),, we find that ‘fitness’, (as fitness is defined in common language), is not directly correlated with ‘the number of offspring’ in the following paper

Where in the paper does he say that? I've just checked it and can't find it. He doesn't define fitness, even though he uses the terms many times. The word "offspring" doesn't appear, still less ‘the number of offspring’. Really, you should try reading papers before you cite them. Bob O'H

Bob (and weave) comedic struggle with understanding continues,,,

I’m genuinely struggling to see how you could not understand that fitness is related to the number of offspring.

So., I will repeat. (Leaving aside the fact that 'counting' is an abstract property of the immaterial mind.),, we find that 'fitness', (as fitness is defined in common language), is not directly correlated with 'the number of offspring' in the following paper

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

One of the most interesting findings to come out of Dr. Behe's survey of the primary literature is that it was found, (directly contrary to Darwinian 'survival if the fittest' mentality), that "Loss of function mutations that give an adaptive advantage are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations"

Biological Information - Loss-of-Function Mutations (Michael Behe) by Paul Giem 2015 - video (Behe - Loss of function mutations that give an adaptive advantage are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

Dr. Behe recently wrote a book, i.e. 'Darwin Devolves', extending the thesis of the preceding paper with many more examples from the primary literature, showing that "The First Rule" is a pervasive rule in biology

Michael Behe: Darwin Devolves – 2019 video - Eric Metaxas interviews biochemist Michael Behe on "the new science about DNA that challenges evolution" as told in Behe's book, DARWIN DEVOLVES. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNe-syuDJBg

So let me (once again) point out the glaringly obvious, (since what is glaringly obvious is often completely lost on atheistic materialists), breaking stuff to gain a reproductive advantage is, in reality, NOT making the organism any more physically fit and stronger than it originally was. In other words, to define fitness as 'just' the number of offspring that a organism may have, whilst overlooking the fact that the organism is actually devolving, (i.e. becoming less 'fit' on the molecular level), to gain a reproductive advantage is to blatantly overlook the primary definition of 'fitness' as it is used in common language,

fit·ness noun the condition of being physically fit and healthy. "disease and lack of fitness are closely related" the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task. "he had a year in which to establish his fitness for the office" BIOLOGY an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. "if sharp teeth increase fitness, then genes causing teeth to be sharp will increase in frequency"

Thus Darwinists are in actuality playing a game of smoke and mirrors with the word fitness in order to hoodwink people into believing that they have evidence that Darwinian processes can create functional complexity and/or functional information. Antibiotic resistance is a shining example of the way Darwinists have misled students for years in regards to the way they use the word 'fitness' to imply proof for Darwinism that simply is not there,,,

Helping an Internet Debater Defend Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - May 3, 2014 Excerpt: antibiotic resistance entails very small-scale degrees of biological change.,,, antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to "revert" to their prior forms after the antibacterial drug is removed. This is due to a "fitness cost," which suggests that mutations that allow antibiotic resistance are breaking down the normal, efficient operations of a bacterial cell, and are less "advantageous. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/helping_an_inte085171.html Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU "Michael Behe: Mega-Plate Antibiotic Resistance Video - Evidence for Evolution?" - podcast – Behe explains how antibiotic resistance demonstrates loss, not gain, of information. Sept. 2016 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2016/09/michael-behe-mega-plate-antibiotic-resistance-video-evidence-for-evolution/ List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: Table 1 excerpt: Actinonin - Loss of enzyme activity Ampicillin - SOS response halting cell division Azithromycin - Loss of a regulatory protein Chloramphenicol - Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein Ciprofloxacin - Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein Erythromycin - Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein Fluoroquinolones - Loss of affinity to gyrase Imioenem - Reduced formation of a porin Kanamycin - Reduced formation of a transport protein Nalidixic Acid - Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein Rifampin - Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase Streptomycin - Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity Tetracycline - Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein Zittermicin A - Loss of proton motive force http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

In short, despite decades of Darwinian claims to the contrary, nothing new is being created with antibiotic resistant bacteria, (i.e. the bacteria are not becoming 'more fit' (as is commonly understood to be 'more fit'), but are in fact, in the vast majority of instances, devolving to gain a reproductive advantage.) In fact, antibiotic resistance is 'hard-wired' into bacteria and could be 'billions of years old'

(Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012 Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183#

Also of note, many times bacteria will 'borrow' antibiotic resistant genes:

Antibiotic resistance genes are essentially everywhere - May 8, 2014 Excerpt: The largest metagenomic search for antibiotic resistance genes in the DNA sequences of microbial communities from around the globe has found that bacteria carrying those vexing genes turn up everywhere in nature that scientists look for them,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140508121347.htm

of course, nothing new is being created when bacteria must borrow a preexistent gene to gain antibiotic resistance. So in conclusion, the way in which Darwinists define 'fitness' as being directly correlated to the number of offspring that an organism may have, whilst neglecting to take into consideration the fact that the organism is, in the vast majority of instances, 'breaking stuff' to gain that reproductive advantage is to do a disservice to the primary definition of 'fitness' as it is used in common language, and is, in fact, to deceive people into believing actual fitness of an organism has increased just because it produced more offspring. The shame of it all is that this far from the only instance of Darwinists using misleading and fraudulent evidence in order to try to make their case. For several examples of the fraudulent way in which Darwinists present evidence, see Jonathan Wells "Icons of Evolution" and his subsequent book "Zombie Science". bornagain77

Bob- it is also called genetic drift, just as I posted.

That’s why fitness is defined as the expected number of offspring (expected here means, roughly, the average).

It is defined as an organisms' ability to survive and reproduce. ET

Bob (and weave) O'Hara,

Having offspring is surely a physical property. Being dead is surely a physical property.

If being alive and 'having offspring', (as well as dying), "is surely a physical property", (as you must hold within your atheistic materialism), then you should have no problem showing us exactly how life can arise from purely material/physical processes. :) And so it goes. You just can't make this stuff up. bornagain77

ET - well, other than it's called demographic stochasticity, you're right. That's why fitness is defined as the expected number of offspring (expected here means, roughly, the average). Bob O'H

Acartia Eddie- Your cowardly tu quoque has been exposed. Run along, little-minded boy. ET

BA77, you have commented at 72, 79, 86, 88, 101, 102, 104 and 105. To save me the effort of reading through 5,877 words, in any of that did you answer the question about what SI units CSI and IC are traceable to? Ed George

Bob O'H:

I’m genuinely struggling to see how you could not understand that fitness is related to the number of offspring.

And yet that number can be influenced by nothing but mere chance. It's called genetic drift. I would love to see Bob, or any other evo, apply population genetics to show that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Or the alleged evolution of vision systems. ET

ba77 @ 69 (ooh-err missus) -

Too funny, two atheistic materialists agreeing with me that fitness cannot be physically measured in si units. Thanks for conceding my point. To remind, YOU GUYS are the ones who are Darwinian materialists, not me! To a Darwinian materialist if something does not have physical properties that can be measured then it simply does not exist.

Having offspring is surely a physical property. Being dead is surely a physical property. We can observe both of these, and they provide the observations to estimate fitness. Your insistence on SI units is just bizarre - physics has a lot of constants that can't be written in Si units. Are you similarly going to condemn fluid dynamics because Reynolds numbers have no dimension? Or are you going to argue that chemistry needs God because pH exists?

Aside from the fact that ‘counting’ itself is an abstract property of the immaterial mind, Bob apparently thinks that fitness is directly related to how many offspring a organism may have

I'm genuinely struggling to see how you could not understand that fitness is related to the number of offspring. Have you actually tried to learn any basic population genetics? Bob O'H

For our willfully ignorant evos:

Tu quoque (/tju??kwo?kwi, tu??kwo?kwe?/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Acartia Eddie invoked it. Reaper piled on it. And Bob is their cheerleader. It's a beautiful day ET

Earth to Bob O'H- your entire position is a fallacy. Maybe, someday, you will have some empirical evidence to support it but obviously today is not that day ET

Reaper chooses willful ignorance. Why am I not surprised? ET

Bob (and weave) O'Hara. I am more than satisfied that I have made my point clear for the unbiased reader,,,, the point that it is indeed the atheistic materialists themselves that are forced to live their lives in flaming hypocrisy. Whereas, on the other hand, I can live my life quite consistently and happily, with no contradiction, as a Christian Theist where, for instance, I can hold that I really do exist as a real person and not as a fictitious neuronal illusion: To repeat for the fourth time now for the willfully ignorant trolls on UD

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

bornagain77

a few more supplemental notes to make atheistic materialists scratch their heads:

"I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language." Werner Heisenberg - Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (1967), as translated in Natural Law and the Structure of Matter (1981), p. 34 "The conception of objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior" - Werner Heinsenberg - The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics - pg. 100 Why Science Does Not Disprove God - April 27, 2014 Excerpt: "To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden "wisdom," or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature." Amir D. Aczel - mathematician http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ 39:00 minute mark: “Mass turns out not to be an intrinsic property of matter either” – Bruce Gordon: – The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon https://youtu.be/wk-UO81HmO4?t=2344 Physicists add 'quantum Cheshire Cats' to list of quantum paradoxes - November 25, 2013 Excerpt: Given all the weird things that can occur in quantum mechanics—from entanglement to superposition to teleportation—not much seems surprising in the quantum world. Nevertheless, a new finding that an object's physical properties can be disembodied from the object itself is not something we're used to seeing on an everyday basis. In a new paper, physicists have theoretically shown that this phenomenon, which they call a quantum Cheshire Cat, is an inherent feature of quantum mechanics,,, The physicists begin their paper with an excerpt from Lewis Carroll's 1865 novel Alice in Wonderland: 'All right', said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. 'Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin', thought Alice, 'but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!' Just as the grin is a property of a cat, polarization is a property of a photon. In their paper, the physicists explain how, "in the curious way of quantum mechanics, photon polarization may exist where there is no photon at all." ,,,when the photon's location and polarization are measured simultaneously, the results are identical to those of the original experiment: the photon is in the left arm while the polarization is in the right arm. http://phys.org/news/2013-11-physicists-quantum-cheshire-cats-paradoxes.html Will increasingly sophisticated computer simulations “end” theoretical physics as we know it? - August 29, 2018 Excerpt: For example, we have a perfectly fine theory that describes the elementary particles called quarks and gluons, but no one can calculate how they come together to make a proton. The equations just can’t be solved by any known methods. https://uncommondescent.com/physics/will-increasingly-sophisticated-computer-simulations-end-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it/#comment-663934

bornagain77

I can assure you R.P. that the hypocrisy resides squarely within the claims of atheistic materialists and how they themselves are forced to live their lives.

I'm wondering, RP & ET, is this a tu quoque fallacy. Answers in a comment of no less than 1000 words, with at least 3 irrelevant quotes, and a Bible verse to finish. Extra marks will be gained for random insults of the other side. Bob O'H

Not so surprisingly, this abstract realm of mathematics, when applied to Darwinian claims, has not been kind to Darwinian claims in the least, i.e. "mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work."

Active Information in Metabiology - Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II - 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4

Moreover, to make this dilemma of ‘abstract immaterial concepts’ even more devastating to the Darwinian materialists, it turns out that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by the Greek materialists, but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even matter or energy at all, (as Darwinian materialists presuppose) but is immaterial information itself

“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.” Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” (48:35 minute mark) “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark) Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984

Thus, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn to be are ‘real’, (on a materialistic definition of what is suppose to be ‘real’), but the foundation of reality itself turns out to be “abstract” immaterial information. As Anton Zeilinger pointed out in the above video link, this finding of information being the basis of reality fits very well into Christian presuppositions:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This finding also puts the die-hard atheistic materialist in quite the dilemma because as Bernardo Kastrup further explains, to make sense of this conundrum of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,, Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,, As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Or to put it much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.” – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

Of supplemental note: The Darwinian materialist, in his rejection of God, simply has no anchor for reality to grab onto: As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself, indeed to the failure of all rationality itself.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

R. P. claims that I'm a hypocrite,

An appeal to hypocrisy becomes valid when the hypocrisy is obvious, blatant and true. In this case BA77 argued that evolution is falsified because the units used to estimate fitness are not SI units. Yet the foundation of ID is CSI and IC, both (supposedly) robust mathematical constructs. Yet, nobody can say what SI units support the math.

I can assure you R.P. that the hypocrisy resides squarely within the claims of atheistic materialists and how they themselves are forced to live their lives. R.P. suggested to ET "I strongly suggest that you read up on the definition of hypocrisy." Okie Dokie,,, let’s do that,,,

hy·poc·ri·sy noun the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Let’s define naturalism and/or materialism while we are at it. Darwinian evolution is based on a Naturalistic and/or Materialistic worldview in which it is held that “only matter is real, that the world is just physical and that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,”

What is the difference between naturalism and materialism? Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,, Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view. Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition - materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism

Yet, Darwinian materialists themselves, (as is currently illustrated in this thread in their appeal to the immaterial concept of fitness and in their appeal to the immaterial world of mathematics), HYPOCRITICALLY do not live their lives as if "only matter is real, that the world is just physical and that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,” In fact, it is impossible for atheistic materialists to live their lives as if Darwinian materialism were actually true. In others words, (pay attention Reapers Plague) it is impossible for atheistic Darwinian materialists to live their lives in a non-hypocritical fashion.

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3

In the following article Nancy Pearcey lists several prominent atheists in academia who honestly admit it is impossible for them to live their lives as if atheistic materialism is actually true. In other words, they honestly admitted that they are forced to live their lives as hypocrites.

Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html

Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

Thus if Reapers Plague were truly concerned that people live their lives in a non-hypocritical fashion, then he should immediately drop his atheistic materialism and become a Theist, even become a Christian Theist, so as to avoid being forced to live his life in a hypocritical fashion. Call me a cynic, yet something tells me that Reapers Plague would much rather live his life in flaming hypocrisy than ever admit that God is real. Of further note, besides 'fitness' itself being an abstract immaterial concept of the immaterial mind, the term 'species' itself, (which is another central concept in Darwinian thinking), is also an abstract property and/or definition of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. i.e. How much does the immaterial concept of species weigh? How long is the immaterial concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the immaterial concept go? Is the immaterial concept of species positively or negatively charged? What are the si units for the abstract immaterial concept of species??? etc.. etc.. The term species, just like all other abstract properties of the immaterial mind, simply can find no grounding within materialism. The fact that the term species is an abstract definition that is created by the immaterial mind creates an irredeemable problem for Darwinists. You don’t have to take my word for it. A Darwinist admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”

What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: What is a species? The most famous definition of a species comes from the 20th century German-born biologist Ernst Mayr, who emphasised the importance of interbreeding. The idea (roughly) is that two organisms are of the same species if they can breed with one another to produce fertile offspring. That is why a donkey and a horse aren’t the same species: they can breed and produce offspring, but not fertile offspring.,,, But it wasn’t long before the problems with Mayr’s approach became apparent. The definition makes use of the notion of interbreeding. This is all very well with horses and polar bears, but smaller organisms like bacteria do not interbreed at all. They reproduce entirely asexually, by simply splitting in two. So this definition of species can’t really apply to bacteria.,,, In the 1960s, another German biologist, Willi Hennig, suggested thinking about species in terms of their ancestry. In simple terms, he suggested that we should find an organism, and then group it together with its children, and its children’s children, and its children’s children’s children. Eventually, you will have the original organism (the ancestor) and all of its descendents. These groups are called clades. Hennig’s insight was to suggest that this is how we should be thinking about species. But this approach faces its own problems. How far back should you go before you pick the ancestor in question? If you go back in history far enough, you’ll find that pretty much every animal on the planet shares an ancestor. But surely we don’t want to say that every single animal in the world, from the humble sea slug, to top-of-the-range apes like human beings, are all one big single species? Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, One of the great discoveries of evolutionary biology is that the human species is not special or privileged in the grand scheme of things, and that humans have the same origins as all the other animals. This approach just takes the next step. It says that there is no such thing as “the human species” at all. https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

This inability for Darwinists to define what the concept of species truly is within the materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution gives us a glimpse into a irredeemable, and catastrophic, defect within the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic framework. Darwinists ultimately seek to ‘scientifically’ explain everything in materialistic terms. i.e. Reductive materialism. And yet, if something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., length, mass, energy, momentum, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, i.e., spiritual. (Numbers, mathematics, geometric objects, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, fitness, person, information, etc.. etc.. etc.. all fall into this category of being an abstract properties of the immaterial mind.) It is amazing how many things fall into that ‘abstract’ category of being immaterial objects even though most of us, including atheistic scientists themselves, (“scientists” also happens to be an abstract term itself), resolutely swear that they must exist physically. This inability of Darwinists to ground abstract immaterial concepts within their reductive materialistic worldview leads to the catastrophic failure of Darwinian evolution as a scientific worldview. The primary place that Darwinian evolution winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure as a 'supposedly' scientific worldview is that mathematics itself, (which is the very backbone of all science, engineering and technology), is an abstract immaterial concept that simply can find no foundation within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution. To repeat, for the third time now,

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

Simply put, Mathematics itself, as well as logic itself, (directly contrary to the presuppositions of atheistic materialism), exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time, realm. A platonic immaterial mathematical realm of abstract concepts which simply is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.

Platonic mathematical world compared to physical world – image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

Thus, Mathematics itself, (the very backbone of science itself), and directly contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the physical world exists, are absolutely dependent on this transcendent world of mathematics to be real in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. bornagain77

ET

Reaper, you are just a clueless troll. There wasn’t any hypocrisy.

Then I strongly suggest that you read up on the definition of hypocrisy. Nuf said. Reapers Plague

Reaper, you are just a clueless troll. There wasn't any hypocrisy. There is just evo ignorance and desperation. And the fact that you are a quote-mining loser, just proves my point. Thank you ET

ET

A tu quoque fallacy is cowardice.

A tu quoque fallacy is only a fallacy if the hypocrisy isn’t real, blatant and obvious. Otherwise, it is just hypocrisy. I guess you don’t know the SI units that are used to calculate CSI or IC. Reapers Plague

A tu quoque fallacy is cowardice. I can understand why you would try to support it. Rigorous mathematical constructs do not require SI units. Your ignorance, while amusing, is still not an argument. ET

ET

Reaper- Ed is a fool for invoking the “tu quoque fallacy”. All Ed, or any other evo, had to do is present the rigorous mathematical framework for biological fitness that shows it is a creative process. A process capable of creating the diversity of life in which the “selfish gene” resides. You FAILed.

An appeal to hypocrisy becomes valid when the hypocrisy is obvious, blatant and true. In this case BA77 argued that evolution is falsified because the units used to estimate fitness are not SI units. Yet the foundation of ID is CSI and IC, both (supposedly) robust mathematical constructs. Yet, nobody can say what SI units support the math. Reapers Plague

How did a disembodied mind accomplish that feat? If you can't say then you got nuthin'- nah-nah :cool: ET

. EDTA,

When it comes to ID, we are constantly pressed for the “how” and “why” and “the exact mechanism” for something.

Correct. Of course, explaining the “how” and “why” of a (presumably free) agent can be quite a challenge, but not necessarily in all cases. As far as ID and the origin of life, we believe we can derive from decades and generations of science and logic what is fundamental to the issue, and what must be accomplished in order to start the self-replicating cell system. We further find recorded in the scientific literature that those fundamentals are indeed clearly observed in the living cell. And the “exact mechanism” itself stands out directly from the observations – semiosis – the use of symbolic relationships to specify something among alternatives. I wrote a couple of paragraphs on this in another thread:

The physical evidence (unambiguously) indicates that the designer used a set of physical constraints to establish a complimentary set of genuine quiescent symbols. As symbols, they would operate in a system of discontinuous association between themselves and their referents. The designer organized those symbols in a linear, high-capacity (multi-referent) code, and used the relationships contained within that code as the means to specify a semantically-closed autonomous entity. In order to achieve semantic closure, the designer organized the medium in a way that simultaneously described the interpretive constraints, as well any necessary components of a particular dissipative process. This process would cause the symbols to be read and their referents to be actualized. It would also necessarily include the capacity to produce a copy of the description itself and pass that copy to subsequent generations of the entity (along with the initial means to process it). We have great confidence in this because there is no other way to specify objects among alternatives in a lawful physical universe. In other words, there are no semantic qualities attached to any atomic element (or any compounds thereof), and thus, a semiotic organization is not only the most parsimonious solution to that physical reality, it is the only solution to that physical reality. Our confidence is bolstered further by our certainty that this is not merely ad-hoc reasoning on our part; that indeed, this system was clearly predicted as the fundamental necessary condition of an autonomous self-replicator, and further, that this prediction was confirmed by various well-documented experiments in the history of molecular biology. This view is then strengthened and extended even further by the fact that this system, since its discovery in the 1950s and 60s, has been the subject of significant research, and that the key physical conditions of the system (those indicating a symbol system and language structure) have been carefully documented in the scientific literature. Indeed, the multiple observations that verify the linguistic nature of the gene are not even controversial.

Upright BiPed

Reaper- Ed is a fool for invoking the "tu quoque fallacy". All Ed, or any other evo, had to do is present the rigorous mathematical framework for biological fitness that shows it is a creative process. A process capable of creating the diversity of life in which the "selfish gene" resides. You FAILed. Why is that? ET

And Acartia Ed George Bogart- Please look up the tu quoque fallacy. It's a cowardly way to "argue", Eddie. ET

BA77, I’m afraid that Ed is making you look like a fool, all because you refuse to admit that you may have been wrong about the importance of linking fitness and SI units. Reapers Plague

Ed Bogart:

The detection of design through measuring CSI and IC is every bit as “material” an endeavour as measures of fitness.

Except for the fact that information is not material and ID is not bound by the material.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that traceability to the SI is not critical to assess the validity of a theory.

Making testable claims is critical to assess the validity of a scientific theory. Only ID passes that critical assessment. So- What is fitness measured in? It is said that there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Never mind the fact that Daniel Dennett doesn't quite grasp the fact that natural selection is a processes of elimination. What he says falls in with natural selection being nothing more than contingent serendipity. Void of rigorous mathematical framework that shows it is a creative process. ET

BA77@88, does this mean that you can’t tell us the SI units that are used to calculate CSI and IC? Ed George

Ed George, as an atheistic materialist, you are not even allowed immaterial mathematics in the first place. Again, your worldview is insane, you have lost your mind.

An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html

bornagain77

BA77@86, so EC and CSI are not traceable to any SI units. I’m glad to hear that EC and CSI are no more mathematically valid than fitness. Ed George

ED G. it is your Darwinian theory that admits no exceptions to materialism. You can't embrace materialism and then appeal to immaterial concepts to try to prove it feasible. It ain't rocket science Einstein! bornagain77

BA77

Exactly! Darwinian materialism is a cruel task master, if it is not physical it is not real. Period! Yet the central concept of Darwinian evolution itself, i.e. ‘fitness’, is immaterial. It is just another example, in a long line of examples. of Darwinists helping themselves to immaterial concepts that can only be properly grounded in a Theistic worldview.

Are you serious? The detection of design through measuring CSI and IC is every bit as “material” an endeavour as measures of fitness. As such, it is just as bound by traceability to the SI as you claim fitness is. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that traceability to the SI is not critical to assess the validity of a theory. Ed George

ET,

Please explain why biological fitness needs to be/ should be measured in SI units. Is it because materialistic “math” is limited to those?

Exactly! Darwinian materialism is a cruel task master, if it is not physical it is not real. Period! Yet the central concept of Darwinian evolution itself, i.e. 'fitness', as should be obvious by now, is immaterial,,,, it simply has no physical /material units that it can be precisely measured with, It is just another example, in a long, long, line of examples, of Darwinists helping themselves to immaterial concepts that can only be properly grounded in a Theistic worldview. bornagain77

BA77

December 2, 2019 at 6:53 pm Ed G., it is not ID that has a problem with immaterial concepts, nor with a immaterial mind. It is atheistic materialism that denies that an immaterial reality exists.

It is amusing how quickly you shift subjects when your own arguments are used against you. So, to repeat, what SI units are used to calculate CSI and IR? Or are you willing to admit that traceability to the SI is not critical for the validity of a theory? Ed George

bornagain77- Please explain why biological fitness needs to be/ should be measured in SI units. Is it because materialistic "math" is limited to those? There is an evolutionary unit called the Darwin, but I don't know if it applies to genetic change. I don't see why it couldn't. ET

. EDTA @ 52

The logic leading to ID is fine without the same volume of published papers as evolution.

A couple of thoughts: 1) ID is not in competition with the idea that variation and selection occurs in nature, so this whole comparison has a heavy dose of irrelevant rhetoric to begin with. 2) There are large swaths of “mainstream” scientific literature that support ID, which even further dissolves this rhetorical comparison. As an example, in 1961 Crick and Brenner demonstrated that a linear multi-referent code existed in DNA. If materialist defenders think that ID proponents are not allowed to count that among the knowledge that supports ID, then they clearly have another thing coming. In 1958, Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik isolated the interpretive constraints in the gene system that Crick predicted in 1955 (with Peirce, Turing, and von Neumann intellectually in-tow). None of those things are off the ID table, and never will be. In 1961, Marshall Nirenberg set out to crack the gene code and was required to demonstrate the relationships within the code in order to know them. This is because they could not be derived otherwise (i.e. from the dynamics of the system). None of these historical points of knowledge are off the ID table. In 1948, Jon Von Neumann actually predicted the fundamental conditions of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator, which were then verified by experiment. That prediction included a multi-referent symbol system as the core condition of the system. Physicist Howard Pattee spent years writing about the physical properties of the gene system, concluding from its dynamic organization (decades ago) that it was the only other example of a general-purpose language structure known to exist. Frankly, it would be silly to expect ID proponents to ignore these things already in the record. Upright BiPed

Eddie Bogart, quote-miner:

I don’t mean to be difficult,...

You are being willfully ignorant. Why does evolution by means of blind and mindless processes get a pass? ET

Ed G., it is not ID that has a problem with immaterial concepts, nor with a immaterial mind. It is atheistic materialism that denies that an immaterial reality exists. In short, it is not an insult but simply a statement of fact that Darwinian materialists have lost their minds. Take it how you like, but that is simply the way it is. Don't be offended at me. Be rightly offended at the worldview that forces you, and other Darwinists, into such an insane position! To repeat,

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

bornagain77

ET

I know that CSI and IC are measured as information, in bits. It’s logarithmic, so it’s well beyond your capabilities.

What SI unit is the bit? I don’t mean to be difficult, but if BA77 is going to insist on SI traceability for fitness, why do the CSI and IC get a free pass? Either SI traceability is required for a valid theory or it’s not. Ed George

Ed Bogart, quote-mining loser:

So, you don’t know what SI units are used to measure CSI or IR either?

I know that CSI and IC are measured as information, in bits. It's logarithmic, so it's well beyond your capabilities. What is fitness measured in?

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.

That pretty much says what we have is of little use. ET

ET

And ID has said exactly how to measure CSI and IC. Your ignorance speaks volumes.

So, you don’t know what SI units are used to measure CSI or IR either? Is it the second? The meter? The kilogram? The ampere? The candela? The mole? The kelvin? There are only seven. Surely two of the key measures of ID are traceable to the SI. It seems rather hypocritical to expect fitness to be traceable to the SI but not for ID’s poster boys for empirical measures. Ed George

Ed George- Please grow up and learn that ID is not anti-evolution. That way you don't continually come off as a willfully ignorant, equivocating coward. The slam-dunk against evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is it makes untestable claims and as such is outside of science. And ID has said exactly how to measure CSI and IC. Your ignorance speaks volumes. ET

BA77

In short, you, as an atheistic materialist, have lost your mind.

You ask for the SI units that are used to measure fitness, as if it is a slam dunk against evolution, and then go all insult when someone asks you the same thing about two of ID’s key “measures”. As KF would say, “that speaks volumes”. Ed George

Reaper:

As opposed to the detection of intelligent design in biology?

ID has the PRE-specified criteria something must meet before we say it is designed. But yes, like ALL of science, ID relies on OBSERVATIONs taken after the fact that something happened. Did you have a point besides exposing your ignorance? ET

LOL, you just can't make this stuff up.

Maybe I am missing something but what SI units are used to measure irreducible complexity? Or Complex specified information?

You, as a Darwinian materialist, are 'missing' an immaterial mind in which immaterial concepts, such as mathematics itself (and/or the abstract concept of 'fitness'), can be held. In short, you, as an atheistic materialist, have lost your mind. bornagain77

ET

Biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.

As opposed to the detection of intelligent design in biology? Thank you for making me laugh. It is great for relieving stress. Reapers Plague

BA77

Too funny, two atheistic materialists agreeing with me that fitness cannot be physically measured in si units.

Maybe I am missing something but what SI units are used to measure irreducible complexity? Or Complex specified information? Ed George

Too funny, two atheistic materialists agreeing with me that fitness cannot be physically measured in si units. Thanks for conceding my point. To remind, YOU GUYS are the ones who are Darwinian materialists, not me! To a Darwinian materialist if something does not have physical properties that can be measured then it simply does not exist.

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

Ergo. and sans your concession that fitness cannot be directly physically measured, fitness is not 'reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories', to wit per Darwinian materialism, fitness must be abstract, i.e. fitness does not really physically exist. Per Bob at 61:

There is no SI unit of a count.

Aside from the fact that ‘counting’ itself is an abstract property of the immaterial mind, Bob apparently thinks that fitness is directly related to how many offspring a organism may have Yet, as far as empirical science is concerned, (the stuff that Bob resolutely ignores), Behe wrote a paper entitled "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution" (and a subsequent book entitled "Darwin Devolves"), in which he shows, via empirical evidence, that the vast majority of mutations that increase the supposed ‘fitness’ of an organism “degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.” He dubs it, “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.”

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Let me just point out the glaringly obvious, (since what is glaringly obvious is often completely lost on atheistic materialists), breaking stuff to gain a reproductive advantage is, in reality, NOT making the organism more physically fit and stronger in any meaningful sense than it originally was. In fact, such a situation directly contradicts the way ‘fitness’ is often presented to high school students. i.e. fitness is presented as a improvement to an organism to high school students, not as a loss of function. Per Seversky at 65:

There is no SI unit for fitness since it is not regarded as such a constant.

And thank you Seversky for agreeing with my post at 51 where I point out that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science precisely because there are no laws or constants in the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a scientific theory upon. To repeat: As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

Thus, both Bob and Seversky have, in actuality, (apparently unbeknownst to themselves), conceded the major points that I was trying to make against their supposedly 'scientific' theory. i.e. Namely that Darwinism is a pseudoscience with no real basis in science. Thanks for playing guys. :) You two are good sports for allowing the unbiased readers to see just how vacuous your position actually is. bornagain77

Biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment. And as such:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.

ET

Bob O'H @ 66

I thought the SI unit for creation was The Day, although there is still some debate about the exact size of the unit.

Another question is whether the Standard Divine Day existed before God created it. He could have taken an eternity to create the universe and then just pretended He knocked it off in six days and rested on the seventh because even the Almighty gets tired. How would we ever know? Seversky

There is no SI unit for fitness since it is not regarded as such a constant. There is also no SI unit for divine creation even though Christians seem to regard it as the most basic constant.

I thought the SI unit for creation was The Day, although there is still some debate about the exact size of the unit. Bob O'H

Bornagain77@ 60

BS Bob. everything I’ve touched upon supports the fact that you cannot define fitness in a rigorous mathematical manner. i.e. in si units. I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can see through your BS.

To make it simple for you SI units are base measurement units of seven physical constants such as volume, mass or time:

The revised SI rests on a foundation of seven values, known as the constants. (SI is the acronym for the International System of Units, which is informally known as the metric system.) The values of the constants are the same everywhere in the universe. In the revised SI, these constants completely define the seven base SI units, from the second to the candela.

There is no SI unit for fitness since it is not regarded as such a constant. There is also no SI unit for divine creation even though Christians seem to regard it as the most basic constant.

Translation, the real world is not kind to your mathematical fantasies in the least, Yet you. like all atheistic Darwinists, blatantly ignore the real world when it falsifies your preferred worldview.

And you, like so many Christian creationists, blatantly ignore the real world when it falsifies your preferred religious worldview. For example, I refer you to the measured age of the universe which vastly exceeds that which can be inferred from Scripture or the lack of empirical evidence for a global flood or the existence of the son of your God manifest in physical form as Jesus.

Newsflash Bob, the real world of empirical science could care less how you, as an atheist, would prefer the world to be.

I assume that the real world could not care less how I as an atheist or you as a Christian would prefer it to be. It is what it is. Yet you have spent a lot of time, based on your questionable interpretation of quantum phenomena, arguing that the nature of physical reality is observer-dependent, which would seem to contradict what you wrote above. Seversky

ba77 - in which of my papers have I "ignor[ed] empirical observation when [I] don’t like what it says", and in what way have I done that? You're essentially accusing me of misconduct, so I would expect you to have clear examples of this. I'm guessing that you don't have any actual examples, and you're just making wild accusations. So go on, prove me wrong by giving explicit examples from my papers. Bob O'H

Bob claims,

Especially to someone who, unlike you, actually inhabits the world of empirical science.

LOL, You wouldn't know empirical, i.e. real world, science if it bit you in the rear end. If I still worked at the chemical factory that I worked at in Texas, I would fire anyone who treated science as you do. (i.e. ignoring empirical observation when you don't like what it says), You would be a extreme danger to yourself and everyone else who worked at that chemical factory (not to mention the surrounding neighborhood). Furthermore, I would do my damnedest to see to it that you never saw the inside of another chemical factory in the Gulf coast area. And no one in the field would even bat an eye when I told them the reason for you being black-balled! bornagain77

Bob- you do not inhabit the world of empirical science. When it comes to science you know about as much as a new born baby ET

ba77 - There is no SI unit of a count. Even physicists aren't that stupid that the see the need to define it in terms of physical constants.

Newsflash Bob, the real world of empirical science could care less how you, as an atheist, would prefer the world to be.

Um, you've just been emphasising that Price was a Christian (as, of course, was Fisher), so this is a very strange comment to make. Especially to someone who, unlike you, actually inhabits the world of empirical science. Bob O'H

BS Bob. everything I've touched upon supports the fact that you cannot define fitness in a rigorous mathematical manner. i.e. in si units. I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can see through your BS. As ET pointed out, "Seeing that you ignore that which refutes your BS, there is no point in continuing" Translation, the real world is not kind to your mathematical fantasies in the least, Yet you. like all atheistic Darwinists, blatantly ignore the real world when it falsifies your preferred worldview. Newsflash Bob, the real world of empirical science could care less how you, as an atheist, would prefer the world to be. bornagain77

LoL! @ Bob O'H- Seeing that you ignore that which refutes your BS, there is no point in continuing ET

ba77 - yes, I do know what SI units are. But you, apparently, don't know how fitness is defined, and are apparently unable to even do basic research, such as following link when they are given to you. Instead, you change the subject to "what is a gene". I'm guessing that if I explained why that isn't a problem in this context (short version: we use quantitative genetic theory) you would just find some other topic to try to divert us on to. Unless you want to actually discuss HGT and the selfish gene, there seems little point in continuing. Bob O'H

LoL! @ Bob O'H- Reproductive success is the alleged measure of fitness. And as Berlinski wrote:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.

All you can do is ignore that as if your ignorance is an argument ET

To go a bit deeper on the unscientific nature of Darwinian speculations,,,, per atheist Bob O'Hara's "Christian" hero George Price :) we find that,

"Price's equation describes the change in a gene's frequency from one generation to the next. Specifically, it relates that change to the covariance between an individual's possession of the gene and the number of children he or she has. If having the gene leads to having more offspring, the frequency of the gene will increase in the next generation." http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/0007/altruist.html

Small problem, as with all things Darwinian, the real world is not kind to Darwinian assumptions in the least, For instance, per James Shapiro, "The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene."

Why the 'Gene' Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking - James Shapiro - 11/30/2012 Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: "genes are the basic units of all living things.",,, This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian "Modern Synthesis" emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene." In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled "Complexity of the Gene Concept." Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term. The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become "systems all the way down." There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other "DNA elements" (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,, Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/why-the-gene-concept-hold_b_2207245.html Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated - June 29, 2015 Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect: "We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics." And the craze is not harmless, he warns. … https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/gene-previously-linked-to-obesity-is-unrelated/ “Biology today is at a crossroads. The molecular paradigm, which so successfully guided the discipline throughout most of the 20th century, is no longer a reliable guide. Its vision of biology now realized, the molecular paradigm has run its course.”,,, “The cells we know are not just loosely coupled arrangements of quasi-independent modules. They are highly, intricately, and precisely integrated networks of entities and interactions. … To think that a new cell design can be created more or less haphazardly from chunks of other modern cell designs is just another fallacy born of a mechanistic, reductionist view of the organism.” Carl Woese – A New Biology for a New Century – Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews – 2004

Moreover, "we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,"

With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

The reason for this impasse is because, "If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions... Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. "

The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard - 2011 Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf

And this insurmountable problem has only gotten much, much, worse for Darwinists:

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? - JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait - June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

Thus Bob's claim that he, via the equations of his Christian hero George Price :) , has mathematical proof that Darwinian evolution is true, is, in fact, (and as is usual for 'Bob and weave'), all bluff and bluster on Bob's part. i.e. Genes, in so far as they can even be said to exist at all, are NOT the independent units of heredity as was presupposed in the Price equation, rather 'genes', (again in so far as they can even be said to exist at all), instead exist in a holistic web of mutual interdependence so as to contribute to all the various phenotypic traits of any particular organism. And this holistic web of mutual interdependence is, as was pointed our previously, mathematically useless "to make quantitatively testable predictions". If Darwinian evolution were a normal science, this finding of a 'holistic web of mutual interdependence' for 'genes', instead of being individual units of heredity as Darwinists had presupposed, should count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwinian evolution, But alas, Darwinian evolution, at least how Darwinists personally treat their theory, is NOT a testable, potentially falsifiable, science in any meaningful sense but is instead a pseudoscience, even a religion for atheists. Of related note, the failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself. In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."

Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." - per physorg

In short, the 'form' that any organism may take, and all the phenotypic characteristics therein, are forever beyond the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution:

Darwinism (Materialism) vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

bornagain77

Per Bob at 53, Really? REALLY??? You do know what SI units are do you not? Here, let me google that for you, si units list physics https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRjZTeAD-3D6it0iVOT341LNuXndw%3A1575285304388&ei=OPLkXYikF4eWsQW0pa6gCw&q=si+units+list+physics&oq=si+units+chart&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0i71l8.0.0..19550...0.1..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.CAfhlNPQwLw

“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables." Jerry A. Coyne (Author of Why Evolution Is True)

bornagain77

At 49 Bob (and weave) states,

if you’re going to effectively criticise my comments @ 10, it might help if you actually criticised my comments, rather than go off at a tangent. Perhaps start with the Price equation, rather than Fisher.

From which it necessarily follows that Bob must deeply trust George Price's mathematical acumen to be insightful and correct. And since Bob apparently trusts Price's mathematical acumen to be insightful and correct, then Bob should convert to Christianity since George Price's ability with mathematics played a crucial role in his 'sudden' conversion to Christianity. Specifically, in 1970 Price, a militant atheist, 'suddenly' converted to Christianity due to, "a series of coincidences that had befallen him. After calculating the odds of their occurrence and finding them to be "astronomically low," he was convinced that there had been supernatural manipulation."

DEATH OF AN ALTRUIST WAS THE MAN WHO FOUND THE SELFLESS GENE TOO GOOD FOR THIS WORLD? BY JAMES SCHWARTZ - 2000 Excerpt: In the midst of an extraordinary burst of scientific creativity in the summer of 1970, Price abruptly converted from militant atheist to fundamentalist Christian.,,,, EARLY IN THE summer of 1970, at the age of forty-seven, (George) Price underwent a sudden religious conversion. "On June 7th I gave in and admitted that God existed," he explained to friends. He viewed his conversion as a logical necessity, the result of a series of coincidences that had befallen him. After calculating the odds of their occurrence and finding them to be "astronomically low," he was convinced that there had been supernatural manipulation." http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/0007/altruist.html

:) ,,,, Who says that God does not have a sense of humor? :) bornagain77

ba77 - really? The definition of fitness is part of evolution 101. Try doing some basic research like, for example, reading wikipedia. Bob O'H

EG @ 43, >From that logic ID as a cause of life and evolution doesn’t count as a known phenomenon. Unless, of course, you can point us to some papers that describe our understanding of how the designer has interacted with the physical universe to create life and to change it over time. HGT was a phenomenon. But it adds unearned prestige to something to trace it back further than when people had any idea what was going on. That standard should apply more in a purely materialistic framework—evo bio wanting to hold to higher standards and all that. We could say that we think HGT was first observed in an experiment in 1928, but not understood. The logic leading to ID is fine without the same volume of published papers as evolution. There are many reasons for this, all reviewed here frequently. And things are necessarily different for a theory that extends into the metaphysical. EDTA

Bob (and weave) O'Hara, My criticism still applies, you cannot define fitness in a mathematically concise way so as to be useful If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of 'fitness' with reference to SI units. I won't be holding my breath: Darwinian evolution simply has no realistic mathematical model to test against:

“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

And the primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution to test against is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon:

Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

So again Bob (and weave) O'Hara, If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of fitness with reference to SI units. On top of all that, (as it that was not bad enough), Darwinian evolution and the world of mathematics are completely incompatible with each other. The main reason why Darwinian Evolution and Mathematics are completely incompatible with each other is that Darwinian evolution is based on a Naturalistic and/or Materialistic worldview in which it is held that “only matter is real, that the world is just physical and that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,” And where Darwinian evolution is based on a materialistic view of reality which denies that anything beyond nature exists, on the other hand, Mathematics exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time realm, a realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.

Platonic mathematical world - image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

In fact since mathematics itself is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation then that necessary entails that the mind of man must also be fundamentally immaterial. i.e. Our ability with Mathematics is proof in and of itself that man must possess a eternal soul:

"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." - Alfred Russel Wallace

bornagain77

Bob @ 10:

If anything I would have thought it would strengthen the utility of the concept, because in the face of HGT the best way to look at evolution is at the genic level – to work out if a trait will increase in abundance, you have to be able to follow the inheritance of the genes, and calculate their contributions to fitness in each species they end up in.

If the best way to look at evolution is at the genetic level then universal common descent is out the window. There isn't any genetic evidence that says the physiological and anatomical transformations required can be had via genetic changes. So in with the selfish gene and out with the rest of Darwin's lame idea. ET

bs77 @ 44, 45 - if you're going to effectively criticise my comments @ 10, it might help if you actually criticised my comments, rather than go off at a tangent. Perhaps start with the Price equation, rather than Fisher. Bob O'H

. Ed, don't you have to suffer a bit of cognitive dissonance in order to make demands about evidence and reason from ID proponents on the one hand, and then on the other hand completely (and quite publically) refuse to engage in evidence and reason? Surely it is one thing for ID proponents to merely complain that critics won't engage the discussion, but you have gone much further than that -- you have very clearly (almost enthusiastically) demonstrated for all to see that evidence and reason (especially particular predictions, experimental results, and the documented history of biology itself) are things you simply will not even speak of. Doesn't your fear and refusal put your demands into a rather obvious perspective? Isn't it true that evidence and reason do not matter where you are concerned? Upright BiPed

This is a little off-topic but it is very telling that the anti-ID people will never come here to engage in a debate on which side has the science. Joshua Swamidass nor any of his minions will never ante up. They will just sit behind a wall of moderation and exchange lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations. When I was allowed to post on PS I said that there wasn't any scientific theory of evolution. All that happened was I was attacked and then banned. No one ever linked to the alleged scientific theory of evolution. ET

Acartia Ed:

From that logic ID as a cause of life and evolution doesn’t count as a known phenomenon.

That doesn't follow. Evolution is supposed to be the mechanistic "theory" and it has failed in that regard.

Unless, of course, you can point us to some papers that describe our understanding of how the designer has interacted with the physical universe to create life and to change it over time.

That has nothing to do with ID, loser. Why is it that every time evos are shown to be ignorant cowards they always try to turn it around? ET

In what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines all reliable observations about reality also undermines its own claim to ever being a true worldview about reality.

Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html

Something tells me that Bob and weave just doesn't care that his worldview is shown to be irredeemably false and that he will continue spewing his Darwinian falsehoods no matter what the evidence says to the contrary and the he will never honestly admit when his Darwinian worldview is 'not even wrong'. Oh well, as they say, Bob is a 'true believer'. Anyways,, presupposing unfettered HGT totally undermines any attempt Darwinists may have made in regards to fitting the data to a treelike pattern:

Common Ancestry: Wikipedia vs. the Data - Casey Luskin - October 5, 2012 Excerpt: In fact, the largest category of genes here is eukaryotic (cells with a nucleus) genes that have no homolog among prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus) -- they don't even have any possible candidate ancestors to explain where these genes came from, much less a consistent pattern of similarity pointing to one particular ancestor. All this is the opposite of "a direct correlation with common descent.",,, ,,, if two phylogenetic trees aren't congruent, the problem isn't that common descent is wrong, but rather the conflict is simply evidence of HGT.,,, Syvanen, (in "Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer," Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 46:339-356 (2012), invokes widespread HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer), but he's uncommonly honest about the data and its implications, offering the radical suggestion that "life might indeed have multiple origins.",,, let's now look within eukaryotes.,,, The biochemical organization of the innate immune systems of plants and animals is strikingly similar -- but this is a direct non-correlation with common descent. Thus, evolutionary scientists are forced to call them "unexpectedly similar," postulating that the similarities were "independently derived." This data is not explained by Darwinian evolution and common descent. It is explained by common design. Somehow, something tells me not to expect any corrections over at Wikipedia. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/common_ancestry_1065001.html

Moreover, regardless of Darwinists shamelessly invoking HGT whenever, and whereever, they are in a fix to try to 'explain away' discordant genetic data, their primary prediction of a treelike pattern in the genetic data has, none-the-less, now been falsified,,,

Response to a Critic: But What About Undirected Graphs? - Andrew Jones - July 24, 2018 Excerpt: The thing is, Ewert specifically chose Metazoan species because “horizontal gene transfer is held to be rare amongst this clade.” Likewise, in Metazoa, hybridization is generally restricted to the lower taxonomic groupings such as species and genera — the twigs and leaves of the tree of life. In a realistic evolutionary model for Metazoa, we can expect to get lots of “reticulation” at lower twigs and branches, but the main trunk and branches ought to have a pretty clear tree-like form. In other words, a realistic undirected graph of Metazoa should look mostly like a regular tree. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/response-to-a-critic-but-what-about-undirected-graphs/ New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data. Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model. Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree. Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process. Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model. Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

Of supplemental note, Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) between organisms, like mutations in general, is found to be a 'non-random' process (which, needless to say, contradicts evolutionary presuppositions):

Life is physics - Nigel Goldenfeld and Carl Woese - November 2010 Excerpt: There is also compelling evidence that not only may mutations be non-random but horizontal gene transfer too need not be random. Enterococcus faecalis, a gut dwelling bacterium, can be resistant to certain antibiotics if it contains the plasmid (an extrachromosmal loop of DNA) pCF10. This plasmid can be horizontally transferred from a donor with the plasmid to a recipient initially without it, through the process of conjugation (bacterial sex). The remarkable feature of this organism, however, is that the transfer is controlled by and initiated by signals sent from the recipient. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.4125v1.pdf

Also of note to the disingenuous manner in which Darwinists invoke HGT, "no mechanism of HGT for any of the hundreds of alleged “foreign genes” they found was either discovered or even suggested"

Another Horizontal Gene Transfer Fairy Tale by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - April 6, 2015 Excerpt: First, the researchers found unique genes in a variety of fruit flies, worms, primates, and humans that had no clear evolutionary ancestry. In other words, each of these genes is specific to a certain type of creature. Scientists have previously termed these "orphan genes"—a unique type of gene that provides a clear anti-evolutionary enigma I have discussed in previous reports.3,4 Some claim these novel orphan sequences evolved suddenly out of non-coding DNA while others, such as the authors of this new report, claim they were derived from HGT. The major problem with claiming that these alleged HGT genes are imported or "foreign" (i.e., transferred into the genome from some other creature), is that many of them encode important enzymatic proteins and are key parts of the interconnected gene networks and complex biochemical pathways that are essential to the very life of the organism. The researchers stated, "The majority of these genes are concerned with metabolism." Clearly, the genes are not foreign at all, but designed to function as key parts of essential biologically complex systems. Second, the approach to supposedly identifying many of the foreign genes in animals as microbial in origin was not even based on actual complete gene sequence, but depended upon isolated regions of similarity in the proteins they encode. In mammals, genes are quite complex, and on average only about 10% of the entire gene sequence actually codes for protein, the rest contains a large diversity of regulatory sequences that determine how the gene is to function and its various types of products. In contrast, microbial genes are typically much less complex and lack these intricate and intervening regulatory regions found in animal genes. If the researchers had actually compared the genomic DNA, very little similarity would have been discovered—in other words, they didn't do their homework correctly. In fact, they admitted their claim that the gene was foreign—or where it originated from—was purely hypothetical, when they stated that "absolute certainty in the assignment of most HGT is unachievable." Third, no mechanism of HGT for any of the hundreds of alleged "foreign genes" they found was either discovered or even suggested. This is due to the fact that the only cases where such gene transfer occurs in nature typically involves a clear host-parasite relationship. Not only that, but the cells of the germline (those that produce sperm and egg) must be specifically targeted or the introgressed genes (those that were incorporated from one species into the genome of another) will not be inherited. Unfortunately, evolutionary biologists constantly resort to fictional stories cloaked in technical terminology to escape the straightforward conclusion that the genomes of different creatures were purposefully crafted. Because of their unwavering commitment to evolution, all ideas about these cleverly designed and network-integrated gene sequences being engineered by a Creator are not considered—at least not openly. http://www.icr.org/article/another-horizontal-gene-transfer-fairy

bornagain77

Bob (and weave) O'Hara pretends that the selfish gene concept is OK with HGT. Specifically at post 10,

If anything I would have thought it would strengthen the utility of the concept, because in the face of HGT the best way to look at evolution is at the genic level – to work out if a trait will increase in abundance, you have to be able to follow the inheritance of the genes, and calculate their contributions to fitness in each species they end up in. A selfish gene approach seems to be the best for this..

Bob is correct in a general sense as far as Darwinian presuppositions are concerned. Yet, the first irrsesolvable problem for Bob, and his atheistic Darwinian cohorts, is that nobody really knows how to define fitness in a mathematically rigorous manner Fitness itself, although it figures centrally in the equations of population genetics, has no universally agreed upon measure so as to tell us exactly how fitness is to be numerically quantified into a rigorous, i.e. mathematically useful, measure:

Where is the purposelessness of evolution? - 23 March 2012, Excerpt: The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness. The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue). John O. Reiss notes also make the following interesting remark: “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.” Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is in the first place. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place.,,, https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Where-is-the-purposelessness-of-evolution-20120322

Moreover, the more precise one tries to be with defining fitness, the more ‘fitness’ evaporates into thin air as a supposed useful tool for Darwinists to use as in a rigorous mathematical manner:

Is Darwinism Collapsing? Fitness Is Unmeasurable - Sept. 2017 Excerpt: Key concepts like fitness and survival of the fittest are coming under attack, say evolutionists who suggest the theory needs “critical improvements.”,, “Variability in Fitness Effects Can Preclude Selection of the Fittest.” The very title suggests that core concepts underlying neo-Darwinism (fitness and selection) are in trouble.,,, "Evolutionary biologists often predict the outcome of natural selection on an allele by measuring its effects on lifetime survival and reproduction of individual carriers. However, alleles affecting traits like sex, evolvability, and cooperation can cause fitness effects that depend heavily on differences in the environmental, social, and genetic context of individuals carrying the allele. This variability makes it difficult to summarize the evolutionary fate of an allele solely on the basis of its effects on any one individual. Attempts to average over this variability can sometimes salvage the concept of fitness. In other cases, evolutionary outcomes can be predicted only by considering the entire genealogy of an allele, thus limiting the utility of individual fitness altogether." ,,, you see a “see-saw between advantage and disadvantage” as individuals (vertical axis) vary over time (horizontal axis). Look at the blue line labeled “mean fitness”. The average fitness of the population goes up, down, up, down. The orange line “Fitness variance” is a constant: i.e., there is no net fitness gain. Darwin would have a fit over “fitness” that goes nowhere! https://crev.info/2017/09/darwinism-collapsing-fitness-unmeasurable/

In fact, when the realistic rate of detrimental mutations are taken into account, then it mathematically falsifies "Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase"

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford - February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/

Moreover, if 'fitness' really were the way in which all life on earth originated, then nobody would ever see "reality as it is"

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

bornagain77

EDTA

Yes, but again, if the interaction wasn’t understood in any depth at all, then it doesn’t count as a known phenomenon. So that also makes my point.

From that logic ID as a cause of life and evolution doesn’t count as a known phenomenon. Unless, of course, you can point us to some papers that describe our understanding of how the designer has interacted with the physical universe to create life and to change it over time. Ed George

rhampton7- Your quote-mining reflects poorly onto you. Design detection is ongoing and there are more important questions to answer. That said, your position is supposed to be all about the how an yet you and yours know NOTHING about that. And no one is working on it. Clearly you are a hypocrite ET

You know what, Mimus, I think News might not be the only one who hasn't read the Selfish Gene. Bob O'H

The Darwinists on this thread are trying to pretend that HGT is no big problem for Dawkins’s Selfish Gene and/or neo-Darwinism. Which is par for the course for them. No experimental finding is ever allowed to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution. In other words, Darwinian evolution, at least how Darwinists treat their theory, is a unfalsifiable pseudoscience, even a religion, rather than being a testable science.

,, In the following video, Dr Denis Noble states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. - Denis Noble - Rocking the foundations of biology - video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184 Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. It’s Official: Lamarckism has Now Joined the Narrative - Cornelius Hunter - July 3, 2015 Excerpt: The problem, then and now, is that the inheritance of acquired characteristics demolishes evolutionary thinking. That is why evolutionists, (initially including Darwin himself), have resisted and opposed Lamarckism so strenuously. But like it or not, that is the scientific evidence. So evolutionary theory will become even more ridiculous, if that were possible, as evolutionist spin tall tales of how the inheritance of acquired characteristics is, after all, simply another wonder of evolution. The abuse of science will continue. Rather than dealing with the evidence evolutionists will engage in yet more fairy tales. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/07/its-official-lamarckism-has-now-joined.html “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” - Denis Noble – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences

Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place:

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

Further notes:

Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene). Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/epigenetics-dawkins-selfish-gene-discredited-by-still-more-scientists-you-should-have-heard-of/ "It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns” James Shapiro - Evolution: A View From The 21st Century - (Page 82) How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

as well:

At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark): "Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

bornagain77

As has been pointed out before Darwin is great at explaining the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest. HGT does not explain the arrival of the fittest either. The genes come fully formed. tjguy

News, have you read the Selfish Gene? Hard to imagine how you could read it and end up thinking HGT was a challenge to it. Mimus

>I was at college in the 70s, and we were taught back then that the phenotype was the result of the interaction between DNA and the environment. Sounds like epigenetics to me. Yes, but again, if the interaction wasn't understood in any depth at all, then it doesn't count as a known phenomenon. So that also makes my point. EDTA

Ok, so ID scientists have “proven” design, and IDists (I take that to mean non scientists) are promoting ID. But you also said, “It is a FACT that we don’t even ask about the who or the how until AFTER we have determined that design exists.” So now that you have determined design exists, ID scientists are supposed to be asking who is/are the designer/s and how the design was implemented. rhampton7

Acartia Ed:

I was at college in the 70s, and we were taught back then that the phenotype was the result of the interaction between DNA and the environment.

And to date no one has ever supported that hypothesis. No one knows what determines phenotype. Evos need it to be as Acartia Ed said, but with the advent of whole genome sequencing it hasn't panned out. There isn't any plan for form in the DNA. There are only the coding for amino acid sequences- the recipe for proteins. This ignorance is evident when one reads books like "Your Inner Fish", "Endless Forms..." and "Making of the Fittest". Evolutionary developmental biologists have not been able to answer the question of what determines form. And that fact was the impetus for Michael Denton's "Nature's Destiny" and Giuseppe Sermonti's "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?". ET

EDTA

I see where what we know as HGT today was involved in an experiment in 1928 (Griffith), but the mechanism was not known at the time, nor was it called HGT.

But to be fair, we didn’t know about DNA until the 50s. So the transfer of genes drone one organism to another predates our understanding of DNA. This hardly sounds like something that wasn’t talked about until the day before yesterday.

This comes up in other areas as well (pretty much everything epigenetic), where our interlocutors claim that something has been known much longer than we give it credit.

I was at college in the 70s, and we were taught back then that the phenotype was the result of the interaction between DNA and the environment. Sounds like epigenetics to me. Ed George

rhampton7:

Has ID theory proven design?

As much as science is into "proof", yes. But we haven't done that for everything. It's an ongoing process.

If so, are ID scientists now working to discover the designer?

Scientists tend to be specialists and there are more important questions to answer. Right now IDists are working on getting the world to wake up to the charade the evolution lobby has been getting away with for decades. ET

Has ID theory proven design? If so, are ID scientists now working to discover the designer? rhampton7

EG @ 2, >If by the day before yesterday you mean over 90 years ago. I see where what we know as HGT today was involved in an experiment in 1928 (Griffith), but the mechanism was not known at the time, nor was it called HGT. Therefore, it does not seem valid to say that we have known about HGT since that time. This comes up in other areas as well (pretty much everything epigenetic), where our interlocutors claim that something has been known much longer than we give it credit. When it comes to ID, we are constantly pressed for the "how" and "why" and "the exact mechanism" for something. But for HGT etc., the how, why and exact mechanism was not known in 1928. Therefore, if we are going to be consistent, we should not count HGT as being known until it was also understood. Otherwise, some folks here will be guilty of a double standard. EDTA

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark... :cool: ET

.

What I refuse to respond to is the nonsense from people like ET

I don't have a dog in that hunt, but after several rounds of trying myself, it appears you also don't respond to well-known predictions, famous experimental results, or the documented history of biology either. Upright BiPed

Acartia Ed- You refuse to respond to reality. You refuse to respond with reality. I will continue to expose you as the willfully ignorant and insipid troll that you are. And let's face it. You can't respond to my exposing you, with anything of substance. But the way that you do respond to my posts just proves my point about you. So I thank you for that. ;) ET

AronS1978

This is just food for thought, But I find it interesting that both sides accuse each other of exactly the same thing. I’m completely including myself in this. I’m totally guilty of that

As are we all. What I refuse to respond to is the nonsense from people like ET. He’s got some serious wiring problems. Ed George

Worth noting ID does not except lack of function in something and will continue to study and figure out reasons for why something exists Often the charges made that ID does not do this and settles on God did it, which is not true And as I said above the same charge could be said of evolution settling for an explanation that doesn’t truly fit what it is and has to constantly be corrected This is just food for thought, But I find it interesting that both sides accuse each other of exactly the same thing. I’m completely including myself in this. I’m totally guilty of that AaronS1978

It is a FACT that we don't even ask about the who or the how until AFTER we have determined that design exists. It is also a fact that the science of ID is in making that determination and then studying the design in question. So when Acartia Ed says the following:

But that is also why I keep saying that for ID to be taken seriously, they have to address the designer and the mechanisms it used.

It is proof that Acartia Ed isn't worth responding to with anything but ridicule. ET

Acartia Ed:

As a vestigial organ that originally enabled the digestion of cellulose, the function of the appendix has changed.

Question-begging

Frankly, I don’t understand why the site moderators continue to allow ET to post comments.

Because I have more to add than you and your ilk, Acartia Ed. All you can do is lie, bluff and equivocate.

If anyone who is truly on the fence on the ID vs evolution issue, ET’s behavior will almost certainly drive them away from the ID argument.

Why? Because I prove that you are a lying, bluffing an equivocating punk? My behavior is in direct response to Acartia Ed's vile and immoral lies, bluffs and equivocations. Anyone truly on the fence will see Acartia Ed for exactly that. ET

No problem, Thank you, I appreciate that, I’m often the Recipient of bad behavior on the opposite end of the spectrum I have a weird knack for running into people that are particularly rude to me, And it’s not like I’m not guilty of bad behavior to so I do try to make an active effort not to act out I do appreciate you doing the same to me AaronS1978

AronS1978

With that being stated though, It still was generally excepted because of evolutionary explanation that the appendix was an artifact of evolution

And this is still generally accepted as such. As a vestigial organ that originally enabled the digestion of cellulose, the function of the appendix has changed. Again, thank you for being able to discuss this without it becoming personal. Frankly, I don’t understand why the site moderators continue to allow ET to post comments. If anyone who is truly on the fence on the ID vs evolution issue, ET’s behavior will almost certainly drive them away from the ID argument. But, it’s not my site. Ed George

With respect, this simply is not true. There are hundreds of papers published during and before that time about possible importance of the appendix. This paper published in 1968 talks about correlations between appendectomies and cancer rates. https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=function+of+human+appendix&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D-6Z8aiAtCjAJ I actually wasn’t aware of this, thank you With that being stated though, It still was generally excepted because of evolutionary explanation that the appendix was an artifact of evolution And you have no disagreement for me on plate tectonics AaronS1978

Acartia Ed:

But that is also why I keep saying that for ID to be taken seriously, they have to address the designer and the mechanisms it used.

So for ID to be taken seriously it has to do something it was never intended to do? Really? Why is it that in every design-centric venue we ALWAYS use science to FIRST determine if design exists or not? Why is it we NEVER even ask about the designer(s) or the processes used until AFTER that FIRST step is completed? It's as if Acartia Ed is oblivious to how we conduct investigations. And it remains that Darwin proposed was a mechanistic scenario. Yet no one has been able to find a mechanism capable of producing biological diversity. How is it that all forms of Darwinism just get a pass? Why is it they never present anything that supports the claims of their position?

Yet it never stopped research into the appendix, most of the research conducted by people who accepted evolution as the best explanation.

More equivocation and question-begging. But even that is moot as Acartia Ed missed the point. ET

AronS1978

This I cannot agree with. It becomes a God of gaps which was is a charge placed against anybody that believes in God, because god explains anything and leads to scientific dead ends

Fair response. I agree that the God of the gaps argument against ID is more a rhetorical trap than a real argument. And I don’t believe I have used it. But that is also why I keep saying that for ID to be taken seriously, they have to address the designer and the mechanisms it used. Ignoring this just plays into the oppositions hands.

This is a glaring hole in evolutionary thinking, which lead us to the idea that the appendix was an evolutionary artifact and that there was no reason to study it any further and it had no biological function inside of human, it became a God of gaps

Yet it never stopped research into the appendix, most of the research conducted by people who accepted evolution as the best explanation. By the way, “vestigial” does not mean “without function”. Small point, but an important one.

Scientists at the time had stopped at that answer and excepted. Because evolution easily explained it’s existence

With respect, this simply is not true. There are hundreds of papers published during and before that time about possible importance of the appendix. This paper published in 1968 talks about correlations between appendectomies and cancer rates. https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=function+of+human+appendix&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D-6Z8aiAtCjAJ This being said, I admit that a generally accepted theory makes it difficult for a better theory (or an improving on the ordinal) to be accepted. But this isn’t unique to evolution. The same applied to plate tectonics. Ed George

However, if you found that there was no natural source of heritable variation, or found that selective reproduction couldn’t fix a trait within a population, then Darwin’s theory would be on very shaky ground. Just because everything we observe fits into a theory is a measure of the strength of the theory, not its weakness. This I cannot agree with. It becomes a God of gaps which is a charge placed against anybody that believes in God, because god explains anything and leads to scientific dead ends And I wouldn’t say everything we see or observed fits into the theory more so that anything we find we fit it into the theory It is not a scientific theory at that point but a method of explanation which unfortunately brings it to philosophy and turns it into a blanket solution for anything For example the appendix was an evolutionary artifact and it was easily explained, well easily explained away This is a glaring hole in evolutionary thinking, which lead us to the idea that the appendix was an evolutionary artifact and that there was no reason to study it any further and it had no biological function inside of human, it became a God of gaps 2007 the appendix was found to have a function in 2014 it was proven and it actually is considered medical malpractice to remove the appendix now for no reason whatsoever It’s a safe haven or safe house for beneficial bacteria When I went to school back in the 80s and 90s It was very much taught that it was an evolutionary artifact and had no particular function Scientists at the time had stopped at that answer and excepted. Because evolution easily explained it’s existence Until more recently when somebody I decided to ask why we all still had it and started poking around it out of sheer curiosity that we found it much different answer I’m only bringing this up as one clear example of this there are many clear examples of this You can try to roll it into the idea that science is always changing And I’m glad it did because it corrected a prediction done by a theory that can predict and explain everything My point being is that a theory that’s capable of explaining anything, which ends up explaining nothing at all and that is its weakness, It ends up being philosophy And circular. Now, I’m not claiming that it hasn’t explained certain things, like cancer, It’s a giant blanket explanation it’s going to get some things right It exists, so it had to survived, so why did it survive, and there’s the benefit that explains its survival, we have explained it with evolution To Levi the charge of God of gaps against God and not do the same for evolution is incorrect, an “explain it all” theory leads to similar dead ends AaronS1978

As predicted, Acartia Ed continues with its question-begging and equivocation. You have to be a certain type of immoral and vile person to be like Acartia Ed. What do we call people without a conscience? ET

AronS1978

The equation is very simple find the reason why something exists and link it to survival and you have succeeded in placing it neatly into Darwinian evolution, there is literally nothing that I know of that cannot be explained by the theory, including God, God a completely supernatural being can be explained using the logic of Darwinian evolution

I don’t think it is as simple as that. HGT fits into Darwin’s theory because his theory required a source of heritable variation otherwise we would all end up having identical DNA as variation is eliminated (which is what selection does). HGT fits the bill as a source of this variability, but it is not the only source. However, if you found that there was no natural source of heritable variation, or found that selective reproduction couldn’t fix a trait within a population, then Darwin’s theory would be on very shaky ground. Just because everything we observe fits into a theory is a measure of the strength of the theory, not its weakness. Ed George

. Ed, frankly I think your question is a bit silly, and additionally, you are wrong about the topic of the OP - it was about the history of the concept of the selfish gene in the public sale of materialism, and how that concept is impacted by HGT, not about how HGT "fits within Darwinian evolutionary theory". Hence, my question to you. When you wrote that Darwinian evolution requires just "three fundamental things", and that "1) a means of heredity of expressed traits" topped the list, were you not attempting to convey something fundamental about Darwinian evolution? If so, isn't a question about what you claim as fundamental to Darwinian evolution on the table? Or are you simply asking for a pass on the things you say? Upright BiPed

Bob O'H:

to work out if a trait will increase in abundance, you have to be able to follow the inheritance of the genes, and calculate their contributions to fitness in each species they end up in.

As Berlinski wrote:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.

Also it is absurd to think that being human is just a sum of traits. From The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild ET

LoL! @ Acartia Ed! In true form Acartia Ed avoids upright biped's point and moves straight back to question begging.

Darwin required a source of heritable variation within a population.

Darwin required the source of heritable variation be of pure chance- an accident, error or mistake. That Acartia Ed refuses to understand that proves it is intent on question begging and equivocation.

HGT increases heritable variation within a population.

Not by chance. But then again Acartia Ed remains in willful ignorance of the actual claims being made. ET

There is honestly no way to refute Darwinian evolution of coarse horizontal transfer of DNA or horizontal gene transfer fits neatly into Darwinian evolution as everything else does The equation is very simple find the reason why something exists and link it to survival and you have succeeded in placing it neatly into Darwinian evolution, there is literally nothing that I know of that cannot be explained by the theory, including God, God a completely supernatural being can be explained using the logic of Darwinian evolution You can use Darwinian evolution to explain the progression of vehicles and even have a fossil record for vehicles that fits neatly into the logic to back it. you can use Darwinian evolution to explain the universe, you can use Darwinian evolution to explain anything there’s nothing it can’t explain it’s too simple and to malleable logic to disprove And I’m not being sarcastic you really can’t explain everything with this logic The only way you can totally disapprove Darwinian evolution is if there is a stamp located on the object that said it was definitely created and not evolved even then if there was a survival reason for it, with enough time you can explain that to That is why I do not respect the theory, even though I do agree with portions of modern synthesis I do not respect the theory that is not disprovable in any particular way Many things discovered today did not fit with Darwin’s original theory but it is amazing how it was able to encompass all of it I know of no theory that shares that type of flexibility, it’s been wrong many times in its predictions, especially evo psych, but with the magic of reexplaining things, it always bounces back. As long as you can put things in terms of survival and why it survived then Darwin was right again It’s its own god of gaps, but because it’s backed by science it’s ok. This is an issue AaronS1978

UB, it seems like you are avoiding my question. Let me repeat: “ Are you suggesting that HGT does not increase genetic and, therefore, phenotypic variation within a population?” Keep in mind that this OP is about HGT and whether it does not fit within Darwinian evolution theory. Darwin required a source of heritable variation within a population. HGT increases heritable variation within a population. Ed George

So what becomes of five-star Darwinian concepts like Richard Dawkins’s “selfish gene” that is supposed to uphold neo-Darwinism—which is about ancestor-descendant relationships?

If anything I would have thought it would strengthen the utility of the concept, because in the face of HGT the best way to look at evolution is at the genic level - to work out if a trait will increase in abundance, you have to be able to follow the inheritance of the genes, and calculate their contributions to fitness in each species they end up in. A selfish gene approach seems to be the best for this.. Bob O'H

If Acartia Ed had the brain-power to properly understand and assess the evidence, he wouldn't have his career of equivocation, obfuscation and misrepresenting reality ET

. That sounds a lot like you just taking the expression of heritable traits for granted, like an unexamined assumption. Upright BiPed

UB

But what is required for DNA to be a heritable expressed trait?

Enlighten me. Ed George

. DNA is just a molecule, and like any other class of molecule, it has its particular characteristics. But what is required for DNA to be a heritable expressed trait? I'd even be willing to bet there have been fellas and gals who have figured that out and written it down. Upright BiPed

UB

Interesting. And what is required for that to take place – the heredity part and the expressed traits part?

DNA. But Darwin didn’t know that. Are you suggesting that HGT does not increase genetic and, therefore, phenotypic variation within a population? Ed George

.

Darwinian evolution requires three fundamental things: 1) a means of heredity of expressed traits;

Interesting. And what is required for that to take place - the heredity part and the expressed traits part? It really sounds important. Upright BiPed

Ed Acartia doesn't know what Darwinian evolution entails. How quaint. Bogart George clearly doesn't understand that ID is NOT anti-evolution. And blind watchmaker evolution did not predict HGT. Darwinian evolution requires the change to be purely a chance occurrence. If the change is directed/ guided then it ain't Darwinian. ET

But horizontal gene transfer—hardly taken seriously the day before yesterday...

If by the day before yesterday you mean over 90 years ago. Darwinian evolution requires three fundamental things: 1) a means of heredity of expressed traits; 2) differential reproduction based on the interaction of expressed traits and the environment; and 3) an ongoing source of variation for selection to act on. It’s obviously a lot more complicated than that but it seems to me that HGT falls quite neatly into the third category. Ed George

The recent finding that bacteria actively fish for genes would put the purpose on the other end of the string. Overall, I'd guess that all imaginable combinations of purpose, and some we can't possibly imagine, are used by Nature. polistra