Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington
March 6, 2013

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

“I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison? ”

David Berlinski

Comments

Follow-up to my (67) -- I hadn't realized that Gould used Windelband's distinction between idiographic sciences and nomothetic sciences to describe different approaches to paleontology! That's fascinating! Nomothetic and idiographicKantian Naturalist_{April 2, 2013
April
04
Apr
2
02
2013
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

In re: Timaeus @ 65: That's very interesting! I'm dimly aware of these debates amongst evolutionary biologists and philosophers of biology, but haven't really followed through with any of it. I'll look into this! Thank you!Kantian Naturalist_{April 2, 2013
April
04
Apr
2
02
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

EA: Spot on:
And the evidence clearly shows that there are not self-organizing processes in nature that can account for life. This is particularly evident when we look at an information-rich medium like DNA. As to self-organization of something like DNA, it is critical to keep in mind that the ability of a medium to store information is inversely proportional to the self-ordering tendency of the medium. By definition, therefore, you simply cannot have a self-ordering molecule like DNA that also stores large amounts of information.
Well said. KFkairosfocus_{March 23, 2013
March
03
Mar
23
23
2013
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

Kantian: You wrote in 13: "What evolution critics have trouble appreciating, I believe, is that as far as evolutionary biologists are concerned, once speciation has been explained, everything has been explained. There’s nothing left. And this is because — and I think this is really important — as far as evolutionary biology is concerned, only species are real." I think you are making too great a generalization about what "evolutionary biologists" believe. For example, Donald Prothero has pointed out that there exists a major debate among evolutionary biologists: "More is at stake here than the reality of species, however. If species sorting is real [which, as Prothero explains in the article, is debated among evolutionary biologists], then the processes operating on the level of species (macroevolutionary processes) are not necessarily the same as those operating on the level of individuals and populations (microevolutionary processes). In other words, macroevolution may not just be microevolution scaled up." See: http://www.donaldprothero.com/files/47440356.pdf I am not saying that Prothero is taking a side on this question; he is merely pointing out the existence of a debate. In other words, "evolutionary biology" is not a monolith; some evolutionary biologists think that only one thing (your #1) needs to be explained (I presume this would include Coyne and Orr and Mayr); others suggest that maybe two things (your #1 and #2) need to be explained. Now Prothero is not religious and is not an ID supporter. So I think it's important that he admits to this kind of debate within the evolutionary biology field.Timaeus_{March 22, 2013
March
03
Mar
22
22
2013
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

I am referring, of course, to the latest findings relating to the Holy Shroud of Turin.Axel_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Given Christ's both human and divine nature, perhaps his creation of a new, properly divine universe, on the occasion of that event horizon at his resurrection, his rebirth, as it were, would have been axiomatic. 'I go to prepare a place for you,' (his Mystical Body, created/prepared by his thoughts).Axel_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

' “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” - Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’ Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes the quantum wave collapse of material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit' Surely, Philip, they confirm my postulation a while back that, in a real sense, we each of us exist in a world, proper to ourselves, 'a world of our own', which, collectively, God, at the mechanical level, seamlessly coordinates into the single world of our everyday life. In a bizarre sense, might it not even be said that, at the quantum level, our world is we, as individuals, and we, our world - of which Christ is the light. To iterate the dictum of Kabbalist sage (not verbatim): 'When a man dies, a whole world dies with him.' If so, surely, the same can be said, 'mutatis mutandis' concerning our birth.Axel_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

KN @52:
. . . the right question to ask, in my estimation, is, “are there self-organizing processes in nature?” For if there aren’t, or if there are, but they can’t account for life, then design theory looks like the only game in town. But, if there are self-organizing processes that could (probably) account for life, then there’s a genuine tertium quid between the Epicurean conjunct of chance and necessity and the Platonic insistence on design-from-above.
Well said. You have put your finger on the key issue. And the evidence clearly shows that there are not self-organizing processes in nature that can account for life. This is particularly evident when we look at an information-rich medium like DNA. As to self-organization of something like DNA, it is critical to keep in mind that the ability of a medium to store information is inversely proportional to the self-ordering tendency of the medium. By definition, therefore, you simply cannot have a self-ordering molecule like DNA that also stores large amounts of information. The only game left, as you say, is design. Unless, of course, we want to appeal to blind chance . . .Eric Anderson_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

What Mung says!Box_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

I can think of many many things which are organized or which have structure but are not alive. So what does "self-organization" have to offer as a possible to solution to the mystery of life, if anything? Is the sun alive? How about black holes? The Solar System? The Earth? The Earth-Moon system? Did they "self-organize"?Mung_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

I resist the idea that life is just organized stuff or stuff formed into a particular structure. Bring back vitalism!Mung_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Re: Kantian Naturalist(52)
KN: But it would be an error, it seems to me, to say that the organization or structure is an immaterial something by virtue of not being a material something. It is, of course, quite real — not a projection or illusion — but just because the concept of structure or organization has no home in fundamental physics, is not to say that we must posit some supernatural or trans-natural realm or whatever.
I’m not arguing that the organization or structure is immaterial. I’m saying that 'whatever is doing the organizing' must be immaterial. If the organization / structure cannot be causally explained by its parts, if the organization is top-down, what choice do we have?
KN: But, if there are self-organizing processes that could (probably) account for life, then there’s a genuine tertium quid between the Epicurean conjunct of chance and necessity and the Platonic insistence on design-from-above.
About self-organization as a naturalistic concept I would like to ask: Why would any of the parts be interested in the whole – which does not exist? Why doesn’t everything just fall apart? And BTW the whole does not exist – which is what naturalism is about. I don’t like the term self-organizing. In naturalism there is no ‘self’; so self-organizing is just about parts that fit in a pattern in which we project a whole. Kant anyone? Moreover, let’s suppose there is this mysterious self-organization without a self. What do we have? There is nobody home. An empty suit. No self! Just uninterested atoms in a meaningless pattern. There is no life in self organization as there is no thinking in John Searle's ‘Chinese room’.Box_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

KN @ 38: “I don’t know what “matter” means.” Gives a whole new meaning to the question “what’s the matter?” ;-)Barry Arrington_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

If it's not open to the occasional Piltdown mis-step, then its not true science. Ask the lapsed jackeens, Carrol and Coyne.Axel_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

You couldn't make it up, Philip, could you! Genomicus has just proffered you the fabled Promissory Note. And you know, they don't take 'No' for an answer. 'You really do have to push your religion into every discussion, don’t you? Although the molecular cause of death is not completely understood, we are steadily converging on an answer.' Tee hee. ROFL!Axel_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Surely KN, re your regret that biogenesis is not susceptible to mathematical analysis, surely, such a desideratum or expectation is a category error, the adduced law relating to it, being simply a matter of an unvaryingly regular pattern. I realise that mathematics doesn't have a Piltdown Man, much to the chagrin, nae doot, of our evomalutionist friends, but I'm not sure any mathematics beyond the mathematics involved in counting repetitions, needs to be involved. Or am I mistaken?Axel_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

In re: Box @ 49:
But your deep and important question *how do parts become integrated wholes?* need to be answered. And when the parts are excluded from the answer, we are forced to except the reality of a ‘form’ that is not a part and that does account for the integration of the parts. And indeed, if DNA, proteins or any other part of the cell are excluded from the answer, than this phenomenon is non-material.
There's a slide from "form" to "phenomenon" which troubles me here. In resisting the allure of reductionism, the right notion to focus on (it seems to me) is that of organization or structure. That is, it's the organization of the molecular components, and not just the properties of the components themselves, that's important for getting clearly into view the integrated hierarchy of functions that is a living organism. But it would be an error, it seems to me, to say that the organization or structure is an immaterial something by virtue of not being a material something. It is, of course, quite real -- not a projection or illusion -- but just because the concept of structure or organization has no home in fundamental physics, is not to say that we must posit some supernatural or trans-natural realm or whatever. By now, of course, you will have anticipated my next move: the right question to ask, in my estimation, is, "are there self-organizing processes in nature?" For if there aren't, or if there are, but they can't account for life, then design theory looks like the only game in town. But, if there are self-organizing processes that could (probably) account for life, then there's a genuine tertium quid between the Epicurean conjunct of chance and necessity and the Platonic insistence on design-from-above.Kantian Naturalist_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

JG: My point was that we can show through concrete cases that intelligent design is not such that being human is either necessary or sufficient. So, as long as a candidate designer is POSSIBLE in a situation, we must be willing to allow the inductively arrived at signs that point to design as causal means, to speak for itself and hold probative value. Or else, we are begging huge questions, Lewontin-style. (And, are our blind watchmaker thesis friends willing to argue that such a designer is IMPOSSIBLE at origin of cosmos and of life or body plans? On just what grounds? If they cannot, then what they are doing is little better than huge begging of questions.) KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 (47), that was very helpful, thank you.Box_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

KN: I do see what you’re getting at here, but it strikes me, to be quite honest, as deeply confused. (Or perhaps the confusion is mine — we’ll see.)
Let’s see :)
KN: The line of thought here seems to be as follows: “organisms are integrated wholes, but there must be something which makes them an integrated whole.” That’s ok, as far as it goes.
Yes, there must be something – distinct from the parts – which makes the parts into an integrated whole. Ok so far we seem to agree.
KN: But now for the slip — “and that something must be some thing, and since that thing can’t be itself material, it must be non-material (mind, information, spirit, soul, whatever)”.
‘Thing’ does not have the right connotation, since it is distinct from the parts. What I intended to point to was exactly NOT a part. My vocabulary is very limited unfortunately. A better word may be 'form', 'whole' or 'phenomenon'?
KN: But if we really take seriously Talbott’s overtly Romantic attitude towards life (allusions to Goethe and Coleridge abound in his writings), then I think we should be a bit wary of this line of thought. This line of thought amounts to saying, “since organisms are wholes, and not just collections of parts, there must be some special kind of part — the non-material or spiritual part — which makes the physical parts into the whole”. But that looks to be like an implicit rejection of Talbott’s claim, because it is to look for some kind of part to explain the whole — a very special, because non-physical, kind of part. Whereas on Talbott’s view, as I understand it, there is no need to posit the existence of special kinds of parts in order to explain how ordinary parts (the physical ones) become integrated wholes.
You associate the word ‘thing’ with ‘part’ and you are right that this is exactly what Talbott rejects as a solution. The whole cannot be explained by the parts. Excuse me for my poor choice of words.
KN: Of course, the question here, “how do parts become integrated wholes?” is a deep and important question, and I’d be very interested to see how he would deal with the origin of life. But I think that he would not want to say that the origin of life can be solved by positing some additional kind of part that, when added to the physical parts, turns those parts into a whole.
But your deep and important question *how do parts become integrated wholes?* need to be answered. And when the parts are excluded from the answer, we are forced to except the reality of a ‘form’ that is not a part and that does account for the integration of the parts. And indeed, if DNA, proteins or any other part of the cell are excluded from the answer, than this phenomenon is non-material.Box_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

In re: Box @ 39
By ‘parts’ I mean: ‘whatever they are’. I mean the parts which are being organized by the ‘thing’ – on the level of the whole. I wish to bypass discussions about quantum physics and I’m perfectly fine with your proposed definition “whatever it is that contemporary physicists posit at the smallest scale of description”. What I’m saying is that parts – whatever they are – cannot account for top-down organization, so we must except a reality (on the level of the whole, with true causal power) beyond the parts.
I do see what you're getting at here, but it strikes me, to be quite honest, as deeply confused. (Or perhaps the confusion is mine -- we'll see.) The line of thought here seems to be as follows: "organisms are integrated wholes, but there must be something which makes them an integrated whole." That's ok, as far as it goes. But now for the slip -- "and that something must be some thing, and since that thing can't be itself material, it must be non-material (mind, information, spirit, soul, whatever)". But if we really take seriously Talbott's overtly Romantic attitude towards life (allusions to Goethe and Coleridge abound in his writings), then I think we should be a bit wary of this line of thought. This line of thought amounts to saying, "since organisms are wholes, and not just collections of parts, there must be some special kind of part -- the non-material or spiritual part -- which makes the physical parts into the whole". But that looks to be like an implicit rejection of Talbott's claim, because it is to look for some kind of part to explain the whole -- a very special, because non-physical, kind of part. Whereas on Talbott's view, as I understand it, there is no need to posit the existence of special kinds of parts in order to explain how ordinary parts (the physical ones) become integrated wholes. Of course, the question here, "how do parts become integrated wholes?" is a deep and important question, and I'd be very interested to see how he would deal with the origin of life. But I think that he would not want to say that the origin of life can be solved by positing some additional kind of part that, when added to the physical parts, turns those parts into a whole.Kantian Naturalist_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Box as to 43:
What is information? What is beyond spacetime?
What is beyond spacetime? simply means for something to be 'transcendent' of any space-time matter-energy constraints. As to what is information:
Information? What Is It Really? Professor Andy McIntosh - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4739025/
As Professor McIntosh points out in the preceding video, information is a very elusive entity to nail down, for though we can write it down, encode it, and transfer the information from one material medium to another completely different material medium, the information never changes its meaning even though the material mediums, on which the information is stored, are completely different upon the information’s transfer.,,, It is also interesting to note that a Compact Disc crammed with information on it weighs exactly the same as a CD with no information on it whatsoever.,, i.e. Information, from our everyday experience, gives every indication of being completely transcendent of any material basis. i.e. Information gives every indication of being ‘real’ and yet it also gives every indication of being transcendent of any space-time matter-energy constraints even though it may be stored on various material mediums. Moreover, although our everyday experience gives us a very enigmatic picture of ‘information’, breakthroughs in quantum mechanics have given us a more complete picture of ‘information’ and its top place in the overall hierarchical structure of reality;
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found by science to be as follows:
1. material particles (mass) normally reduces to energy (e=mc^2) 2. energy and mass both reduce to information (quantum teleportation) 3. information reduces to consciousness (geometric centrality of conscious observation in universe dictates that consciousness must precede quantum wave collapse to its single bit state) The 'Top Down' Theistic Structure Of The Universe and Of The Human Body https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NhA4hiQnYiyCTiqG5GelcSJjy69e1DT3OHpqlx6rACs/edit
It is also important to note that even though the dispute between Darwinists and IDist has been over ‘classical information' in DNA and Proteins and the inability of purely material processes to account for the generation of it, 'classical information' is now shown to be a subset of 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum information by the following method: This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical, (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis), since he believed it always required energy to erase it;
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
Hope that helps a little bit Boxbornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 37 I think that the critics would argue *any* intelligence (including beavers) we know from experience. That's why I brought up mysterious dark matter..it's nothing we known from experience. And it's been posited based on an observed phenomena that we know from experience has only one *kind* of cause. Matter being a *kind* of *physical stuff*. Which is a step further than ID. All ID needs to do is infer intelligent activity. The *kind* of cause for the observed phenomena is intelligence.JGuy_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Genomicus per 42:
You really do have to push your religion into every discussion, don’t you? Although the molecular cause of death is not completely understood, we are steadily converging on an answer.
Funny you should accuse me of pushing 'your religion' into every discussion and then in the very next breath you push your religion, a materialism/randomness of the gaps, into the discussion:
Randomness of the Gaps “In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding. Otherwise, we can hardly avoid suspecting that the importance of randomness in the minds of the faithful is due to its being the only presumed scrap of a weapon in a compulsive struggle to deny all the obvious meaning of our lives.” Stephen L. Talbott: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - John Lennox - 2012 Excerpt: Krauss does not seem to realize that his concept of God is one that no intelligent monotheist would accept. His "God" is the soft-target "God of the gaps" of the "I can't understand it, therefore God did it" variety. As a result, Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, regards God as an explanation in competition with scientific explanation. That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a "God of the gaps", he is God of the whole show. http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/#comment-448343 Phillip Johnson addresses the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zK5sqd1SKXo#t=2329s Theism Compared To Materialism: “For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” Phillip Johnson - The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/002-the-unraveling-of-scientific-materialism-26 There are two definitions of Science in our Culture - Phillip E. Johnson - audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zK5sqd1SKXo#t=1596s "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet
as to materialism someday explaining the death of our physical bodies, I would hold that it already does in the second law of thermodynamics:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. This following video brings the point personally home to us about the effects of genetic entropy: Ageing Process - 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y
Moreover Genomicus, before you boast that science (as you have it defined to materialism) will someday figure out the 'molecular cause of death', should you not first try to understand what life is in the first place?? or perhaps have a demonstration of 'life' itself arising 'randomly' from a material basis??
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University) Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number: DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
So much for that piece of evidence for you,,,,, if I can be so presumptuous, I'll give you a clue where 'life' can be found Genomicus:
John 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
bornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Stop it! That's another keyboard you owe me! “I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS IS ACCURATE TO THIRTEEN OR SO DECIMAL PLACES; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison? ” .... pass.Axel_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

@Bornagian77
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
The Ultimate Top-Down Organizer! I do not believe we are all parts of one super-organism though. Bornagain77, about quantum entanglement: do I understand it correctly that when 2 (or more) ‘particles’ are entangled the exchange of information between the particles happens outside spacetime? And if so, the questions are: - What is information? - What is beyond spacetime?Box_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

BA77:
Box as to:
Talbott: “The question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
That ‘top-down hierarchical organization’ that keeps from ‘falling completely apart’ would be,, Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
You really do have to push your religion into every discussion, don't you? Although the molecular cause of death is not completely understood, we are steadily converging on an answer.Genomicus_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

The parts cannot account for top-down organization:
Stephen L. Talbott: “If I were to tell you that scientists have sequenced the genomes of two entirely distinct organisms — say, a flying creature such as a bird or bat, and a crawling one such as an earthworm or lizard — and had found the two genomes to be identical, you’d be sure I was joking. Such differently structured forms and behaviors could not possibly result from the same genetic instructions!” “Like a phoenix rising from its pyre. In reality, there are flying and crawling creatures with the same genomic sequence. A monarch butterfly and its larva, for example. Nor is this an isolated case. A swimming, “water-breathing” tadpole and a leaping, air-breathing frog are creatures with the same DNA. Then there is the starfish: its bilaterally symmetric larva swims freely by means of cilia, after which it settles onto the ocean floor and metamorphoses into the familiar form of the adult. This adult, bearing the same DNA as the larva, exhibits an altogether different, radially symmetric (star-like) body plan. Millions of species consist of such improbably distinct creatures, organized in completely different ways at different stages of their life, yet carrying around the same genetic inheritance. Isn’t it a truth inviting the most profound meditation by every biologist?”
Box_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Box as to:
Talbott: “The question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
That 'top-down hierarchical organization' that keeps from 'falling completely apart' would be,,
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Notes to that effect:
Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, “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,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
As to where this 'conserved' quantum information goes upon the death of our material bodies:
Coast to Coast - Vicki's Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y Quote from preceding video: 'I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And 'it' was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.' - Vicky Noratuk Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence/Conservation of Quantum Information)- Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578 Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
bornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist: I don’t understand this question. For one thing, I don’t know what “matter” means.
You are right of course. Let me rephrase my question:
Are we forced – by the necessary truth of hierarchical organization – to except a reality beyond parts?
By 'parts' I mean: 'whatever they are'. I mean the parts which are being organized by the 'thing' - on the level of the whole. I wish to bypass discussions about quantum physics and I'm perfectly fine with your proposed definition “whatever it is that contemporary physicists posit at the smallest scale of description”. What I'm saying is that parts - whatever they are - cannot account for top-down organization, so we must except a reality (on the level of the whole, with true causal power) beyond the parts.Box_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply