Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

March 6, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

In re: Box @ 35
Why do you think hierarchical organization is a necessary truth?
I don't see how it is possible for something to count as an organism if it does not display a top-down integrated hierarchy of functions. So while it is not a necessary truth that there be organisms -- organisms are 'contingent,' as the logicians say -- it is necessary that if something is an organism, then it has (or is) a top-down integrated hierarchy of functions.
Are we forced – by the necessary truth of hierarchical organization – to except a reality with causal power beyond matter?
I don't understand this question. For one thing, I don't know what "matter" means. For example, if "matter" means "whatever it is that contemporary physicists posit at the smallest scale of description", that's wildly different from, say, the mechanistic materialism of the 17th through 19th centuries -- little billiard-balls bouncing around the cosmic billiard-table. If that Epicurean, billiard-ball model of "matter" were firmly established, then it would rather easy to say, "the limits of the causal capacities of matter are here, here and here, and for these, these, and these reasons, organisms exceed the causal capacities of matter, so there must be something else -- God, Mind, elan vital, whatever". But the 20th-century revolutions in physics have overturned that old model of "matter". And so I think we should be extremely cautious about any theory that turns on, "but can matter do this??" -- because we really do not know what the limits are on the causal powers of physical entities -- for that matter, we don't really know what "physical" means. (Cf. Hempel's dilemma for a nice illustration of the problem.)Kantian Naturalist_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

JG: Are beavers humans? Cf here, at UD. In addition, so long as non-human designers are POSSIBLE -- as in not IMPOSSIBLE -- then, once we isolate signs of design, there is no valid reason to lock this down to humans as designers. That is yet another side-track talking point, as the very existence of SETI indicates. KFkairosfocus_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

I do not wish a hack attack or the like on anyone. KFkairosfocus_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist (5): For while I do think it is true that living things have a top-down, hierarchical organization — indeed, I think it is a necessary truth! — (…)
- Why do you think hierarchical organization is a necessary truth? - What are the implications of this truth? What is this thing that organizes its own parts, until the moment of death? 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?” Are we forced – by the necessary truth of hierarchical organization - to except a reality with causal power beyond matter?Box_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

The Septic Zone has been hacked. Life is good...Joe_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Moreover, contrary to the Darwinian claim the Darwinism is as well established as gravity it is interesting to note that in the building of better random number generators for computer programs, a better source of entropy is required to be found:
Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator Excerpt: From an information theoretic point of view, the amount of randomness, the entropy that can be generated is equal to the entropy provided by the system. But sometimes, in practical situations, more random numbers are needed than there is entropy available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator
And Indeed we find:
Thermodynamics – 3.1 Entropy Excerpt: Entropy – A measure of the amount of randomness or disorder in a system. http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/chem30_05/1_energy/energy3_1.htm
And the maximum source of randomness in the universe is found to be where gravity is greatest,,,
Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” What Would Happen If You Fell into a Black Hole? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLMiJQXsmkc Scientists gear up to take a picture of a black hole - January 2012 Excerpt: "Swirling around the black hole like water circling the drain in a bathtub, the matter compresses and the resulting friction turns it into plasma heated to a billion degrees or more, causing it to 'glow' – and radiate energy that we can detect here on Earth." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-scientists-gear-picture-black-hole.html
,,, there is also a very strong case to be made that the cosmological constant in General Relativity, the extremely finely tuned 1 in 10^120 expansion of space-time, drives, or is deeply connected to, entropy as measured by diffusion:
Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
Thus, though neo-Darwinian atheists may claim that evolution is as well established as Gravity, the plain fact of the matter is that General Relativity itself, which is by far our best description of Gravity, testifies very strongly against the entire concept of ‘random’ Darwinian processes building functional complexity.
“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – Eminent Chemist “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…” Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 – Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article
bornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
However, the real boost to evolutionary biology came with cheaper and faster DNA sequencing.
In what way was that a boost to "evolutionary biology"?
Species definitions matter less than what DNA can confirm about reproductive isolation.
Only the Creationists predicted reproductive isolation. And what can DNA confirm? Don't ya just love how Alan just says stuff without supporting it...Joe_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

In fact Dr. Fox it is surprising that you would refer to genetic sequences at all for Darwinists are infamous for, as Popper put it, 'explaining everything and thus actually explaining nothing' with genetic sequences. This lack of rigor is beautifully illustrated with the recent finding of widespread of ORFan genes and the 'spin' Darwinists put on this crushing evidence against their theory:
Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
As well as micro-RNA's
Nature Article Finds MicroRNAs are "Tearing Apart Traditional Ideas about the Animal Family Tree" Casey Luskin June 29, 2012 Excerpt: When Peterson started his work on the placental [mammal] phylogeny, he had originally intended to validate the traditional mammal tree, not chop it down. As he was experimenting with his growing microRNA library, he applied it to mammals because their tree was so well established that they seemed an ideal test. Alas, the data didn't cooperate. If the traditional tree was correct, then an unprecedented number of microRNA genes would have to have been lost, and Peterson considers that highly unlikely. "The microRNAs are totally unambiguous," he says, "but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.",,, Maybe the reason that different genes yield different evolutionary trees is because there isn't a single unified tree of life to be found. In other words, perhaps universal common ancestry is simply wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/nature_article061471.html micro-RNA's and the Non-Falsifiable Phylogenetic Trees of Darwinists - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-i4pY6_MU
Further notes:
How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution032141.html 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 The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics: Protein Evolution Case Study - Cornelius Hunter - January 2011 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/hierarchy-of-evolutionary-apologetics.html Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html
bornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

As well Mr. Fox, you appeal to "what DNA can confirm about reproductive isolation" as empirical confirmation that the grand claims of neo-Darwinism are true, yet no one disputes reproductive isolation:
"The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html
What is disputed is whether reproductive isolation is the result 'top down' genetic entropy processes or 'bottom up' neo-Darwinian processes. And the empirical evidence consistently indicate that reproductive isolation is brought about by 'top down' genetic entropy processes:
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Reappraising speciation in fossil gastropods - February 5, 2013 - David Tyler Excerpt: The morphologies (investigated during a geological interval of c. 1.6 Ma) can be described as examples of micro-evolutionary change. The Melanopsis gastropods are all members of the same genus. Whilst morphologies change, there are no evolutionary novelties. Indeed, there is no evidence here for anything more than multiple phenotypes emerging from the same genotype. The situation fits well with the concept of phenotypic plasticity,,, http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/02/05/reappraising_speciation_in_fossil_gastro Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-losing-ground-badly.html EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking ,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00
bornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 24 Thanks. You know, here is something that I don't get. Most of the arguments I've heard from those opposed to inferring intelligent design seem to come back to we only know or have observed human intelligence to design. But let me side step for a second and first explain a concept, as I understand it. Science seems to explain phenomena in nature by observing it and forming hypothesis etc... This is pretty much all its about, as I understand it. For example, the motion of the planets. Ok, Newton pretty much solved that single handed. And so then gravity was associated with mass of an object. Mass is due to the amount of matter. So, where there's matter, there's gravity. Yay!... observed and tested. So, from that, scientists can infer things like nearby planets or stars to other planets or stars based on some cyclical pattern of movement. That is, they see some phenomena they know, gravitational effect, and infer nearby matter. Ok, fine. Makes sense! Now.. pay close attention.. Scientists observe some effect about the universe. They see some effect! And it looks to them like there must be this familiar effect of gravity present. But....they can't see the matter... So, they posit a mysterious form of matter, called "dark matter". A kind of matter that we have never experienced. This get's passed as science all the time. Now. Contrast to ID. The phenomena we observe is functional design. The only observed cause has been intelligence...but critics stop and say we have only seen human intelligence. Ah ha! Well, we have only seen normal matter create the effect of gravity! Doh! I wonder if all those same critics are blasting the scientists that promote dark matter as intensively. Interestingly enough, scientists that posit dark matter actually even go a step further than ID scientists. That is, ID scientists don't take the extra step further to try to identify or characterize the intelligence, but merely to identify it's intelligent activity. Anyway, just noting that observation.JGuy_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, the point that Dr. Berlinski brought out in the quote in the OP is that neo-Darwinism is not a scientific theory in any sense of the word since it has no mathematical basis from which to judge its accuracy or to make 'daring' predictions. In the "Accounting for Variations" video I listed Dr. Berlinski put it, "One is left completely adrift".,,, And as Dr. VJ Torley asked in his recent article exposing the 'in thin air' scientific foundation that Darwinism rests upon:
Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
The lack of a mathematical foundation, which Dr. Torley beautifully illustrated, was particularly surprising for me, because I had been assured here on UD by a evolutionary professor at a leading university (whom Dr. Torley referenced in his article), years ago, that Darwinism was 'mathematical' through and through. And yes one can get away with saying that Darwinism is 'mathematical' through and through, but what one cannot get away with saying is that Darwinism has a rigid mathematical basis from which one can make extensive predictions with. Well, after being subtly misled for years by that professor's distortion/omission of the facts, I finally, in my slow pace of things, started to piece together the fact that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical foundation at all as do all other well established scientific theories,,
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.
In fact, contrary to what the employers at Oxford would like to believe, the truth is that there is not some magical mystery equation out there waiting to be discovered to finally give Darwinism the foundation that it needs to be considered truly scientific. The fact is that Darwinists have refused to listen to what the equations of population genetics are thus far telling them. i.e. Darwinists refuse to accept the falsification of their theory from mathematics:
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf
This is simply unheard of in science. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics subject themselves constantly to potential falsification, as well as refinement for accuracy, to see if their mathematical descriptions of reality accurately predict what is observed for reality.
"On the other hand, 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?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) "No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci
In my unsolicited personal opinion, the main reason Darwinism cannot be formulated into any coherent mathematical model to give accurate, 'daring', predictions is because of its reliance on the 'random variable postulate' at the base of its formulation:
“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64. “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.
Moreover, as Alvin Plantiga has shown in his Evolutionary argument against naturalism, (i.e. a refinement of "The argument from reason" from CS Lewis), this 'random variable postulate' ends up driving neo-Darwinism into epistemological failure,,,
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if you're short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/
,,, the 'unrestrained randomness' at the base of Darwinism, if neo-Darwinism were actually true, results in the epistemological failure of science itself! But this really should not come as a surprise to anyone for how can a theory which denies the reality of mind in the first place be said to guarantee that our perceptions and reasoning of mind are trustworthy?
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”. J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
Supplemental notes: In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (determinism) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,, Here is another piece of evidence that solidly demarcates the randomness of the material particles of the universe from the randomness that would be necessarily inherent within 'conscious' creatures created by God with free will:
Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/tonights-feature-presentation-epigenetics-the-next-evolutionary-cliff/#comment-445840
Since material particles are held to 'randomly' decay, why in blue blazes is conscious observation putting a freeze on 'random' entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than 'random' entropic decay is? This point is really driven home when we realize that the initial entropy of the universe was 1 in 10^10^123, which is, by far, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the universe.
"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." Charles Darwin to Doedes, N. D. - Letter - 2 Apr 1873
Music and verse:
Phillips, Craig & Dean - Great I Am - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSoz6L1vqm8 Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
bornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Well put at 13, KN. However, the real boost to evolutionary biology came with cheaper and faster DNA sequencing. Species definitions matter less than what DNA can confirm about reproductive isolation.Alan Fox_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

and: Accounting for Variations - Dr. David Berlinski: - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE "No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vincibornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

A few related notes from Dr. Berlinski: Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski - 2009 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 quote from preceding video: “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!” Dr. David Berlinski The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas - El Pasobornagain77_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

JG: Someone has been making a big thing out of it. The asserted distinciton is problematic. That many people believe in design in and even of the world is a different thing from the "real" design inference point: that it is at least possible to investigate scientifically whether there are reliable, observable signs in the world that point to intelligent design (as opposed to blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) as best causal explanation. There has been an attempt to load up the capital letter ID with the specific meaning that includes a hidden agenda Creationist theism, and there has been some attempt to demand that design theory must achieve several attainments before it is acceptable. Like, whodunit type stuff. But, let's keep on track. KFkairosfocus_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

OT: Haven't kept up I guess....but can someone answer this: What is the difference people are referring to in the general topic when they refer to intelligent design versus Intelligent Design? (i.e. one being big or capitalized ID)?JGuy_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

KN & Cheshire: First, what is a species? THAT, too, is up for significant debate. Indeed, I think that even young earth creationists will accept that the "kind" is much broader than what is usually meant by species, with the family being a rough level. I have often cited Red Deer varieties, which per discovery of free inter-fertility in New Zealand (on planting populations) seems to include North American Elk. I also recall how some years ago, the Rainbow Trout/Steelhead, was reclassified as in effect a variety of Pacific Salmon. Next, in order to create the very first cell based life's body plan, some serious, tightly integrated functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information has to be explained and explained without recourse to the favourite out of chance variation and differential reproductive success of sub populations. For, the mechanism of reproduction or replication is itself part of what has to be explained. Of course, the usual side track here is: that is beyond the scope of evolutionary theory. Rather conveniently, is my retort -- let us duck explaining the root of the tree of life we are appealing to. This case,such diversions notwithstanding, brings to focus the fact that the only observed, inductively well warranted causal explanation of FSCO/I, is design. And so as of right, design is -- artificial exclusionary tactics notwithstanding -- on the table from the very root of the tree of life. Once that is seen, we are off and running on a sounder footing for addressing the origin of complex, tightly integrated genetic and epigenetic information and organisation, the rise of new protein types, cell types and body plans. And nope, something that may explain how a small and isolated sub population may vary and become wholly or partly reproductively isolated, does not explain the matter adequately. That is a matter of gross extrapolation on a premise that in effect any amount of relevant info and organisation can be explained incrementally as being functional improvements that fix in sub pops all the way. That is no more reasonable than assuming that while retaining function incrementally, we can convert "See Spot run" into say this post. And for such an extraordinary claim, we need clearly adequate empirical evidence. That evidence is: _________________, and that evidence excludes an alternative such as design of the first and key successive body plans because __________________ . As a capital example of the problem to be explained on specific cases that highlights the difference, consider the origin of a whale from some suitable quadruped. Work through the list of incremental changes and come back on how the whole will be viable, with empirical observational warrant. Similarly, the origin of complete metamorphosis in animals such as butterflies (which I raised a few days back), needs similar well grounded explanation. Those two alone, suffice to show why the incrementalist extrapolation to and from speciation is not to be taken as an of course. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

BA 77: Why not repost 8 above over in the pot stirring thread? KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

KN @12:
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. Higher taxa — genera, families, classes, phyla, etc. — those are treated in a purely nominalistic fashion, as mere labels for describing similarities and differences amongst species. So once speciation has been accounted for, there’s nothing left to account for.
And this is precisely the problem. This is precisely the intellectual trap so many evolutionary biologists have fallen into. It is obviously clear to anyone who stops to think about it objectively for a few moments that the kinds of microevolutionary processes that are observed do not necessarily lead to all larger scale changes. The only reason some folks are unable to grasp this very simple point is because they are blind to it -- either due do poor training, an a priori philosophical commitment, or simply not having thought about it carefully. You are correct about this much: For the committed evolutionist, everything is viewed as just another manifestation of a single process of evolution that has been going on since the beginning of time. This is one of the main reasons the word "evolution" is so incredibly slippery and is used to mean wildly-different things. In the evolutionary mindset it is all one and the same. Once we escape from that intellectual blunder, however, it becomes clear that it is not all one and the same.Eric Anderson_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

If there are no laws of life, then biological explanations are just different in character than physical laws, and so it’s a mistake to so much as hold them against physical theories, let alone think that biological theories suffer by the comparison.
That would just reinforce Barry's point (and David's as well) here. Then it would be the case that, no, Darwin's theory is not as solid as 'any in science' because the nature of the field doesn't allow it to be so.nullasalus_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

KN @7:
But one can point that out without rejecting the idea that natural selection plays an important role in producing macroevolutionary patterns, such as speciation.
By "natural selection plays an important role" I presume you mean that certain physical processes (mutations, for example, coupled with the various vagaries and hazards of the natural environment) lead to a particular result. And if that result happens to be a stochastically higher rate of reproduction we attach a label to the result and call it "natural selection."Eric Anderson_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

The operative word for the day is SCIENCE. Science is not just ordinary investigation. Its a high standard of investigation. Therfore YEC and ID should focus intellectual scrutiny upon whether evolutionary biology is a theory or just a hypothesis lacking evidence! Not attack evolutionists evidence but is the 'evidence" from scientific biological investigation. If evolution is not true it couldn't be well supported! If it claims to be science then upon the science it either fails or us critics fail to see the science. Science ain't just another word for being careful. Its a methodology with rules of conduct. Evolutionists name your top four biological scientific evidences for evolution Darwin style. I have a hypthesis they can't do it!Robert Byers_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

KN, I'd disagree, and i'd do so based on discussions I myself have had. I have a friend who is a marine biologist, and we got into a discussion about this not long ago. At first, she was absolutely stunned that I would question evolution... after awhile, when I explained to her that I didn't question evolution in terms of "a currently expressed trait becoming more/less frequent based on environmental pressures" but that I did have issues with evolution in terms of "explaining life itself and all diversity of life", her response was basically "Oh, wait, then we agree". So this thing we had been debating for 10 minutes was a misunderstanding because we were using different perspectives of the word. So I think it creates a great deal of confusion just based on my own observation. And that's the problem - evolution is used to explain so many things up and down the scale that it becomes extremely confusing because people rarely stop to define their terms. No one questions, say, the classic textbook example of black moths becoming more frequent than white moths because their environment makes it harder for predators to detect them. But when evolution is questioned, sometimes it's supporters think that such generally accepted and observed events are what are being questioned, which is not the case. It's not the core concept being debate ... it's the extrapolation of the concept and whether it's being used to explain things outside of it's explanatory limit. It's not my intention here to argue whether evolution explains speciation (not sure that was really your intention either)... I simply wanted to point out the confusion I frequently observe with the term evolution itself.cheshire_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

KN:
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.
Baraminology is OK with speciation. Linneas, in his search for the Created Kind, placed it at the level of Genus. Meaning all of today's species evolved from those Created Kinds.Joe_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Well there isn't any mathematics, no equations, for evolutionism, but Darwin did say:
“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.”
And such things have been demonstrated. Darwin's theory has broken down.Joe_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

I disagree, Cheshire. I think the question of evolution can be quite neatly nailed down into two basic topics: (1) are microevolutionary processes sufficient to explain speciation? (2) is there anything over and above speciation that needs to be explained? In watching critics of evolution (whom are not always sympathetic towards design theory, though they often are) talk about "new body plans" and "new cell types", it strikes me that they think that answer to (2) is not only "yes," but obviously "yes" -- so obviously that they accuse their opponents of prevarication. 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. Higher taxa -- genera, families, classes, phyla, etc. -- those are treated in a purely nominalistic fashion, as mere labels for describing similarities and differences amongst species. So once speciation has been accounted for, there's nothing left to account for. I am leaving aside the question of abiogenesis, since it's not treated as a topic within evolutionary biology. (Perhaps one could think that the very first life-forms on Earth must have been intelligently designed, but that everything else in the history of life on earth since then proceeded on a strictly naturalistic basis. That idea has furnished the premise of many science-fiction novels and shows, though I don't know if anyone has defended it as a serious proposition.)Kantian Naturalist_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

This is the problem you always run into in these debates... poorly defined terms. If by "evolution" we mean "change over time", then yes, I'd say evolution is exceptionally well established as much as anything else in science that is frequently observed. But if by "evolution" we mean "a process that by itself created life and all that we see around us via random mutation and natural selection", then no, that's not established at all. It's always amusing to me to read or watch debates around evolution, and it seems as if each opponent is talking about two completely different concepts. That's the problem with the word "evolution"... it means a lot of different things. I've actually never met anyone who opposes evolution across the board. The debate is not and has never been about whether evolution occurs... the debate is about how far one can take the concept in terms of explanatory power. And that ranges from explaining things such as "the frequency of expression of an existing trait within a population" to "the creation of life itself and all it's diversity". Two very, very different things.cheshire_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

In Wheeler's delayed choice thought experiment, proved in the lab by several groups,(The Universe We Created), most recently by a group in Vienna (1) using entanglement, quantum mechanics allows us to change the past by our actions (observation) in the present. In Wheeler's view, the universe exists in a quantum state of possibilities until we "create" it by observing it. So if we can create the past through our observations in the present, does that mean that we created our own universe retroactively? Does that mean that ID is right, but that we are our own designers? Does it mean that as our intelligence grows, we'll be able to retroactively design a better universe? Design a better homo sapiens? 1. Xiao-song Ma, Stefan Zotter, Johannes Kofler, Rupert Ursin, Thomas Jennewein, ?aslav Brukner, Anton Zeilinger. Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping. Nature Physics, 2012; DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS2294billmaz_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Berlinski always makes my day. He should be required reading in schools.Mapou_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Maybe not a "law", but... “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/ Certainly more robust and empirically supported than the whole macroevolution thing we keep hearing about..lifepsy_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply